El lobo de Wall Street

Yes, Scorsese has always entertained us so well with abberant types, from mobsters to street criminals to boiler room stock brokers, all dealing death or financial destruction 24/7. But, do any of them bear even a faint resemblance to what really happened, and did those people actually behave that way? Regarding this film, I worked on Wall Street during that time, and even though we had heard of Jordan Belfort's firm, it was totally discounted as a boiler room and had no Street cred at all, just a terrible rep as sleazebag junk. It was no more than a side story to the real Wall Street, as those boiler room types were the lowest level of that era's greed-is-good WS slicksters.

But, the movie.....could any human superman take the amount of drugs and unprotected sex shown in this story and even function, let alone at a high continuous level and not have a fatal heart attack? None that I have known or seen, and I have seen a lot. But, Dicaprio as Belfort was a marvelous choice for this outsized role, and he played it to the hilt as never before, with Jonah Hill as his sidekick comic relief, and Matthew Macconaughey a great choice for Belfort's oddball, probably whacked out(off?)mentor, and Bob DeNiro in a short mobster spot.

It was such fast action that the 3 hours went by quickly, with not a dull moment in it. I enjoyed the fantasy ride that Disney could not have done better, but I could never get past the fact that it was 99% dramatized fiction, done to sell tickets(greed is good!) but not to enlighten us at all about the real Wall Street of that era.

This film arrived in the UK with awards and Oscar nominations all around it, adding an expectation which it really didn't need adding since even without any of that it is ultimately a Scorsese film with a big name cast. It also arrives with some other stuff because the film has been criticized for near glamorization of the excesses that Belfort was able to experience with his ill-gotten funds and, to be honest, it is an impression that isn't helped when you consider that this film was put forward to the Golden Globes in the Musical/Comedy section. Now I am sure that was a political move by the studio, but it does say something about the film because indeed for most of it we have stuff so unbelievable and so excessive that it is hard not to laugh at it. It is hard not to enjoy it.

And this is a problem, because the first 2 hours and a bit of this film is really engaging and enchanting in how much of a rush it gives you, how enticing it is and just how much vibrant energy it all has. The viewer is swept along and I guess to a point this is the film doing its job well because not only are we being told a story but we are first hand seeing how easy it is to get caught up in the grab for success, for money, for status. In this regard the film works really well because throughout the film I really was glad to be part of it and wanted it for myself; I don't think the film goes out of its way to glamorize this excess and this life, but for sure it doesn't do much to balance it – and this really is my problem with the film.

The structure, subjects and delivery of this film is so inherently similar to Goodfellas that it is hard not to mention it. If you remember the opening of Goodfellas you'll remember that it opens with a memorably violent scene where an near-dead man in the back of a car is stabbed by Hill and his colleagues in a scene that is oppressive and violent but yet ends with the narration telling us "as far back as I can remember I wanted to be a gangster" and snaps to credits under a big track from Tony Bennett. This scene is important because it works as a microcosm of the whole film – the appeal but also the cost, all in one place. Wolf of Wall Street never has any of that and it hurts it. I suspect the message of the film is that our financial systems are screwed and that ultimately the rich will never be in the same world as the average person, because this is what I took from the rather sobering final scenes. However if this is the point it is trying to make then it really hurts itself with the rest of the film seeming to say "so why not get on board". I know this is not the case but the lack of a "point" or an agenda it the film means that it naturally fills it with its own, which is a weird feeling.

But then again – I guess it is a comedy. So the infamous Quaalude scene is not horrific but rather hilarious, the scenes of excess and of criminality are not equally appealing and repulsive – they are almost totally appealing, we hardly get the other side or get to see a victim here, and a few seconds on the subway with the FBI agent really does nothing but yet again make the suggestion that "it's all broken so why not at least get rich yourself". Getting away from this, it is a well made film. Scorsese makes this award season's second film to owe a massive debt to Goodfellas (American Hustle being the other) and he directs the film with energy; music is used well as one would expect and the editing makes the film pop. DiCaprio is great in the lead – OK he doesn't find the heart of the character, but the film doesn't ask him to. Instead he is charismatic and energetic, drawing the viewer in and giving the film its energy. The supporting cast is deep with names and familiar faces and it is a statement about how well the film holds the viewer, because it isn't distracting no matter how many famous faces or supporting character from TV appear (although I did notice that this and American Hustle had lots of faces from HBO's Boardwalk Empire). Jonah Hill is over the top in a way that works, although I am surprised to see him getting an Oscar nomination for it in such a crowded year.

Wolf of Wall Street has had a lot of praise and this will continue as the Oscars approach and are awarded. Personally I enjoyed the film as a funny true story delivered with energy and excess but in many ways it is not Goodfellas and the most important of these is that the film lacks a moral core to itself, to its characters and to its message. I don't mind the "it's all screwed so who cares" message that it ultimately seems to give, but I didn't feel comfortable with how wide a smile it had on its face while it was delivering it.

The last few Scorsese pics left me a little disappointed. I had begun to think Marty had become a 'gun for hire' and that his brilliance may have been spent (his earlier works were some of the best movies ever made). I attended a screening of The Wolf of Wall Street this evening, and was expecting to be unimpressed. I am happy to say I was completely blown away. This pic is Marty at his best. I laughed, I cringed, I related (with fond memories as well as a bit of guilt) and I TOTALLY believed every unbelievable moment. A good book, a great screenplay and a delightful cast were formed and molded into what I believe should get Scorsese a best director Oscar, and likely a Best Picture Award for the movie. Leo DiCaprio has grown into a versatile actor and his creation of this super hero dirtbag's roller coaster ride in this crazy (true) story is really honest and delightfully entertaining. Jonah Hill pulled out all the stops too and this is definitely his best work. Thank you Mr. Scorsese for delivering the goods so brilliantly!

Brilliantly acted, superbly written and as one would expect from a picture by Martin Scorsese, it is a masterclass of directorial craft.

Showy when it needs to be, but also quiet and contemplative. "The Wolf of Wall Street" is the equivalent of something like "Good Fellas" or even more so "Casino" but set in the world of finance. The suits might be more expensive but the people who wear them are just as sick and violent as their street-mob counterparts. Sardonic in humor and unflinching in showing the depravity of its characters, it marks somewhat of a different approach to the world of stock-trading than Oliver Stone's "Wall Street".

Where Stone seems more in line with Bertold Brecht who considered theater (or in this case film) a moral institution, does Scorsese take the position of the omnipresent observer of the dark side of the American and in many cases the human dream.

Leonard DiCaprio gives another stellar performance of great intensity and even greater tragedy while this tale of corruption, greed and self-righteousness unfolds.

It's a vast panorama that shows how during the last twenty-five to thirty years gullibility as well as our innate greed make all of us accomplices in this never-ending pyramid scheme far away from any reality.

One could almost hear Scorsese's clerical background come to the fore again, according to which nobody is without sin, and therefore we are all susceptible to corruption.

It is our decision on which side we choose to live that makes the difference. For every individual but also society as a whole.

There is a reason this is called Wolf of Wall Street and not Lion of Wall Street. This is not supposed to be a story about some good guy or misunderstood guy doing things that are a little off. And therefor it was important to make this a comedy. When I watched it, I didn't think it would qualify as comedy. Thought of it more of a drama with some comedic moments thrown in.

The way it starts should indicate if this is something you want to watch. Never forget, as someone else also stated, this is supposed to be entertainment and does not take itself seriously. If you are not on that level with the movie, you will call it names. And that is OK, because obviously the movie is out there and it will not be everyones taste. That's why you have to decide early on, if you actually want to watch it or not.

If you don't feel like it, don't watch it. Save yourself some time and watch something else that interests you instead. If it hits a nerve with you though, you will revel in it. Especially in the performance Leonardo Di Caprio is giving. There is a scene involving him driving "carefully", that has to be seen to be believed ...