The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

[TravisNelson76]

Hey, it's Earl's brother!  Hey, it's Jenna Elfman!  Hey, it's Coach Taylor!  Hey, it's The Mother!  Hey, it's Zombie Shane!  Hey, it's that lady who was in... Pan Am?  

Point being: lots of TV folk in the new Scorsese.  Weirdest TV cameo, though?  That extended "Urkel and Carl in a hot air balloon" scene from Family Matters.  What was up with that?  Does Scorsese just have a really strange set of 90's references?  Was it a commentary on... something-or-other?  WHY FAMILY MATTERS???

[Cranberry]

I started watching this movie at 2:30am not realizing it was three hours long! I enjoyed it, though. I'm not always big on narration, but I liked how Jordan talked to (and in some cases insulted the intelligence of) the audience, and I liked the scenes where we got to hear people's thoughts. I think my favorite scene was the one involving effect-delayed quaaludes and the poor Lamborghini.

No clue why the Family Matters!

[nymusix]

I really strongly disliked this movie, and that's coming from someone whose favorite director, historically, is Martin Scorsese. Wayyyy too long, didn't really *get* it, a lot of problems with it.. Dunno. 

[David T. Cole]

Also... NO WOLVES.

[EricJ]

I happened to have just watched this yesterday, and felt really mixed about it.

Sometimes it felt like Goodfellas-lite, but there was something "sitcommy" about it that rubbed me the wrong way. And why do I find the protagonist so much more reprehensible in this movie, when he was far less violent, and did fewer truly heinous things?

[nymusix]

Sometimes it felt like Goodfellas-lite, but there was something "sitcommy" about it that rubbed me the wrong way. And why do I find the protagonist so much more reprehensible in this movie, when he was far less violent, and did fewer truly heinous things?

This is something I've thought about at some length, and I don't have a convincing answer yet, but:

My current theory is that it's all about context. It's true that objectively, Henry Hill is probably more despicable than Jordan Belfort. But Jordan Belfort is probably the most despicable character in Wolf of Wall Street (maybe Jonah Hill surpasses him, but it's close)... Henry Hill does bad things, yes, but in the context of the things that De Niro (Jimmy Conway) and Pesci (Tommy DeVito) do, as well as the other characters? He's one of the more reserved characters in the movie!

Also, worth mentioning that a simple comparison of the respective drug scenes from both movies yields something indicative: The drug scene in Goodfellas isn't exactly subtle, but it's not nearly as on the nose as the quaaludes scenes in Wolf of Wall Street. 

[Eucrid]

I think Henry Hill feels like he's already in the world of Goodfellas when it starts. Where as Belfort works his way into an industry and then gets even scummier than that rather scummy industry already is.

[Tara Ariano]

I have had multiple dreams in which I meet people involved in the movie and complain to them about everything I didn't like about it.

[EricJ]

And Henry Hill is, I think ultimately compelled to tell his story by Catholic guilt. He's remorseful about ratting out his friends, if nothing else.

Jordan Belfort just wants to tell you how awesome he is. And he has no respect for his audience - he keeps deciding you really don't want to hear the details, or that you wouldn't understand them.

Now, I don't think Scorsese has the same contempt for his audience, I think he was going for something specific, but couldn't see the forest for the (giant, cocaine-covered) trees. I suspect that there's a different, much better, 110 minute movie that could be made out of this one by the right editor.

[Edna Crandall]

I suspect that there's a different, much better, 110 minute movie that could be made out of this one by the right editor.

Finally saw this today, and agreed.  Granted, I saw it in the context of watching Philomena, then Dallas Buyers Club, then Wolf of Wall Street (with 12 Years a Slave still to follow) but it felt really over long.  Only movie of the whole 10 hour day where I surreptitiously checked how much movie was left, and it was only half way at that point!  I'm not a huge Scorsese fan, his movies usually leave me pretty cold, and this kind of represented all the things I don't like about them.  Overly long and self-indulgent is how I summed it up.  

I will say that DiCaprio nailed the physical comedy bits, and McConaughey was excellent (and that weird chest thumping thing is one of his "relaxation techniques." I heard him telling Terry Gross about it while promoting Mud on Fresh Air, so that cracked me up.)

[spaceytraci1208]

I will say that DiCaprio nailed the physical comedy bits

 

Absolutely! Between struggling to get into his car on quaaludes, and cocaine being his proverbial "spinach" had me rolling in the theater. Leo should definitely do more physical comedy.

[izzybaz]

While my hubby really liked this movie, I was much more ambivalent.  I felt like the actors did a great job.  Very good performances from pretty much everyone involved.  But I just have trouble connecting to movies when I can't find anyone to LIKE.  I told my sister that it was a movie about a d-bag (pardon my grossness), and his d-bag friends and their d-bag lives and how awesome they think they all are.  I was disgusted that Jordan Belfort seems to think that he is some kind of hero.

[jellysalmon]

I really didn't care for this movie so I'm glad to read some people had similar thoughts on it. I wonder what percentage of 18-45 year old males liked it. Based on the conversations I've had with people the number would be somewhere around 80%. Also, some of them threw the most annoying thing someone can do when discussing movies. Claim "you just didn't get it."

[Milburn Stone]

Absolutely! Between struggling to get into his car on quaaludes, and cocaine being his proverbial "spinach" had me rolling in the theater. Leo should definitely do more physical comedy.

IMO, what happened before my eyes was an actor who is not adept at physical comedy trying really hard to prove, straining every ounce in his body, that he is adept at physical comedy. Which doesn't add up to laughter. Comedy requires effort, but should look effortless.

On the other hand, the funniest scene in the film to me--which I thought DiCaprio brought off well enough--was the conversation between him and the FBI guy on the yacht, when Belfort so obviously believed he was getting the upper hand and so obviously wasn't.

Edited to add: By the way, referencing the original post, where was Jenna Elfman in this? I didn't see her, and the IMDB doesn't list her, which inclines me to believe she wasn't there.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[Shannon L.]

 

I told my sister that it was a movie about a d-bag (pardon my grossness), and his d-bag friends and their d-bag lives and how awesome they think they all are.  I was disgusted that Jordan Belfort seems to think that he is some kind of hero.

While I did like the movie--I thought it was put together quite well from the acting to the directing, all of the visual art aspects, etc--I was also disgusted.  I read later that Martin Scorsese wanted us to be appalled for the reasons you just mentioned.  He was a total d-bag and they all think they are really awesome.  Personally, though, I've said to people that Scorsese went about a half hour beyond appalling. 

[Milburn Stone]

I've said to people that Scorsese went about a half hour beyond appalling. 

 

"A half-hour beyond appalling" is a great way to measure time! I'm going to use it.

[shirazplease]

I was offended on so many levels and I loved every second of it.  I miss Quaaludes so f'ng much.

[AimingforYoko]

 

I miss Quaaludes so f'ng much.

Something, something, Bill Cosby, etc.

[DrSpaceman73]

I just watched this movie, very late to the game. 

I think it very obviously tried to be Goodfellas for wall street, and it failed

But I still found the movie enjoyable.  I agree it was long, probably too long, but at the very least it accomplishes being a window into the world it explored, which is wall street greed of the 80s. 

It was certainly gratuitous and grotesque at parts, but I think that was necessary to reinforce the arrogance and callousness of those who ran the company. 

Its probably most similar to Boiler Room, actually, rather than Goodfellas.  But a better version of it.  If you view it from that perspective rather than try and compare it to Goodfellas, which is what it seems to try to mimic in style, form and, unfortunteately, length, then it comes off much better.  In other words, just lower your expectations a bit

I thought watching them on Quaaludes was hilarious. 

As for the interesting question of why we find Belfort so much more despicable than Henry Hill, I think there a few reasons.  as mention, Belfort was at the type, the guy in charge, he CREATED the whole system and company, whereas Henry Hill was a lower level pawn in the organized crime scene.  Second, most of us have no connection to organized crime or the mafia, its something we are isolated from and will probably never come in contact with.  Its a view of an organization we can avoid by not associating with those we know are involved.  WE don't have to deal with them personally.  With Jordan Belfort, this happened on Wall Street.  Any of us, or our relatives, could have been victims or involved in those stocks.  He hurt many more people directly than Henry Hill and those affected are much more relatable to us than those hurt by Henry Hill.  What he did was take advantage and commit crimes in a mainstream American institution that is supposed to be tightly regulated and kept safe for average Americans and investors. 

[Sandman]

On 4/4/2014 at 2:38 PM, Milburn Stone said:

IMO, what happened before my eyes was an actor who is not adept at physical comedy trying really hard to prove, straining every ounce in his body, that he is adept at physical comedy. Which doesn't add up to laughter. Comedy requires effort, but should look effortless.

This sums up most of how I feel about this movie. I was pretty sure I must be alone in my conviction that it's actually ... ::whispers:: not that good. The strenuous effort Dicaprio was clearly investing in it was part of the problem, for me. I'm not sure the black comedy tone really worked either. The movie plays as if the audience is in on the joke -- but Belfort is a real, if clearly not particularly self-aware, person, whose apparently bottomless greed and unappeasable self-regard were genuinely harmful.

My unpopular opinion is that Scorsese is an overrated, uneven filmmaker -- some of his work I find unwatchably bad (yes, you, Gangs of New York -- I'm looking at you.)

"A half-hour beyond appalling" is exactly correct.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Sandman

[WritinMan]

I watched this a second time recently. Loved it the first viewing. Loved it the second. Scorsese's best since Goodfellas. And, honestly, I consider it a masterpiece.

And, by the way, I think Gangs of New York is laugh-out-loud bad.

[heatherchandler]

On 11/3/2017 at 6:14 PM, WritinMan said:

I watched this a second time recently. Loved it the first viewing. Loved it the second. Scorsese's best since Goodfellas. And, honestly, I consider it a masterpiece.

And, by the way, I think Gangs of New York is laugh-out-loud bad.

Love this movie too, and absolutely hated Gangs of New York.  It was so boring it took me several tries to get through it.

[EtheltoTillie]

14 hours ago, heatherchandler said:

Love this movie too, and absolutely hated Gangs of New York.  It was so boring it took me several tries to get through it.

I see your comment bumped this up. I recently rewatched an really liked it all over again.  It really does imitate the Goodfellas tropes, but I’m here for it. I also love Goodfellas.  

[BlueSkies]

Was all right.  I like Scorsese.  Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and The King of Comedy are some of my favorite films.

But I found Travis Bickle, Rupert Pumpkin, and even Jake LaMotta had stuff about them that made me like them.  The Wolf of Wall Street fellow was just a scumbag.  

[BetterButter]