You will be redirected back to your article in seconds
Back to IndieWire

The Wolf Of Wall Street

The Wolf Of Wall Street

Every Martin Scorsese film brings with it great
expectations, and rightly so. His collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio has been
fruitful, for the most part, but this may the actor’s best work yet. To
whatever degree The Wolf of Wall Street
succeeds, it is largely because DiCaprio is so believable as Jordan Belfort,
the young lion who made stock trading a sport in the 1980s and ‘90s and
rewarded himself (and those around him) with a non-stop bacchanal.

The pitfall of making a film about excessive behavior is
that the film itself may become excessive. Scorsese and screenwriter Terence
Winter (creator of Boardwalk Empire) make
a point of not judging the characters or their animalistic conduct; they leave
that to us. The result is a film that soars to new heights of depravity, graphically
enacted in one orgy scene after another. It’s pretty gamy stuff; this could
never be mistaken for a female empowerment tale. There is also more cocaine
usage than in Brian De Palma’s Scarface—and
that’s saying something.

But without a moral center, Wolf seems to revel in this cornucopia of bad behavior. (DiCaprio’s
first wife might have fulfilled that function, but she’s dismissed early on—a
character who could have been better developed.) Some of it is so over-the-top
that it’s sputteringly hilarious, as when DiCaprio’s right-hand man (Jonah
Hill), in a coked-up stupor, picks a fight with a comrade that can only lead to
disaster, or when DiCaprio, high on Quaaludes, attempts to drive himself home from
a Long Island country club that’s just a mile from his house. It’s the funniest
hallucination ever put on film.

The risk is the same as that of vintage gangster movies and
even the 1983 remake of Scarface: we
find ourselves fascinated with, and even rooting for, characters who are scummy
through and through. By having DiCaprio address the camera as he tells his
story, Scorsese makes us complicit. Scorsese has never been one to shy away
from the underbelly of society, and he treats this extreme rise-and-fall saga
as a three-hour thrill ride. He never blinks at the gross sexual shenanigans or
drug usage and he doesn’t expect us to, either.   

And that’s my problem: far too often, I was repelled and
wanted to look away. There is much to admire in the masterful filmmaking and
superior performances on display, but it’s a tough film to digest for three
hours straight. Perhaps if viewed on a small screen at home the impact would be
muted, but seen larger than life in a theater, it’s pretty intense.   

I love DiCaprio’s work here, and Jonah Hill hits a new high
in his still-burgeoning career. There is no way one can dismiss a film of such
high quality…but that doesn’t mean it’s an enjoyable ride. 

This Article is related to: Reviews and tagged , , , , , ,



Hi Leonard,

I have followed your film reviews for many years. I don't always agree with you but I admire your thoroughness. I don't like this review. You've basically explained that this is a film of "high quality" and that the performances were solid, and that the scene with driving the sports car home is "the funniest hallucination ever put on film."

By your comments and my experience with your many editions of film review compilations, I see this translating as three and a half stars in your book. Why give it a bad review, then, on Rotten Tomatoes? You could have said, "A great film but hard to recommend."

Anyway, I am concerned with your motivations for how you handled this film. I will leave it at that.


Too shallow for a satire and much too boring (endless redundant scenes!) for a drama – Seems like this movie got out of hand like Belfort's life – and I don't think this was intended! A big disappointment only diCaprio's performance holding this together halfway.


you should set up your reviews on your website like roger ebert site. it very easy to see all movies and how many star is given. your site does not show that!


SEEME you hit the nail on the head with tWoWS. This movie was fantastic… Fun and MUCH deeper than these OLD, tired, easily-disgusted, choirboy critics make it out to be.


Decades STALE, second hand, done-to-death Scorsese.

WHO needs another turn in Oliver Stone's overflowing litter box?


Movie reminds me a lot of DePalma's Scarface – with its social comment on the excesses of American lifestyle at the top, especially by those who come to wealth rapidly, but also with Scarface's concomitant faults, such as the mind-numbing mise-en-scene depicting those excesses.


tWoWS was good, actually. Underrated (like Shutter Island was). The film in my opinion is quite critical of JB's (and all the film's 'wolves' connected to Wall Street) irresponsible behavior and, in depicting such awful judgment/behavior, I felt as though Marty (MS) has held a mirror up to the faces of Americans: this is what we have [become]. He's saying, "no wonder there's unbridled chaos on Wall Street, just look at the behavior of these people. They are not being policed. We have become people who barely care about anything but getting ahead financially." And, come on, MS' direction of the WoWS actors, camera work, editing, and set design is some of his best–definitely worth the price of admission. I don't really like Leo but he was excellent–I've never seen him work so hard. And there wasn't nearly as much sex as people make it out to be and it was shown rather quickly for the most part. Masterful filmmaking. My only problem was w/the yacht-storm scene–JB's sooooooo rich, just get on a damn plane/helicopter. The drugs, I guess. Nevertheless, it was a dumb scene. Otherwise, its a solid movie that didn't seem like it was three hours long at all. MS has been so damn good for so long (people are kind of spoiled) that if it isn't a super masterpiece (which they never reward him for anyway) people are up in arms. Critically challenged MS films are still far better than 95% of the films out there. And for people to actually assert that Gangs of New York was better than tWoWS—they are doing more drugs than Jordan ever did. Now, Gangs…sucked, big time. I remember people hating Casino, literally. Now everyone loves it. Wolf will have the same result of post-appreciation. And why do critics expect the film to contain wholly women? Some of the female characters were scum just like the men. Equal opportunity screw ups. See this movie—while not expecting apologies for victims (who should have freakin' known better than to be so gullible to cold-calling salespeople anyway). Give MS a break.

New Haven Yank

Does Maltin still stand by his horrrendously misinformed opinion of "Taxi Driver?" He obviously still hasn't gotten beyond that. Another old world critic who never did get Scorsese, period.

His credibility on films made after 1972 is a bit too precious for me. Back to the classics of old Hollywood Leonard.

steve barr

Martin Scorsese – the greatest directorial masturbator of the last thirty years . He has said his film wasn't made for fourteen year olds . I don't agree . If your fourteen nudity . profanity and drugs makes a movie great no matter what the movie is trying to say.


"rooting for characters who are scummy through and through"…Does that sound like the zeitgeist in America right now? I have yet to see a review that mentions the elephant in the room, namely, the growing discontent of Americans towards the people depicted in this film.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *