Directed by:
Martin ScorseseScreenplay:
Terence WinterCinematography:
Rodrigo PrietoComposer:
Theodore ShapiroCast:
Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau, Jean Dujardin, Joanna Lumley (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
Revered filmmaker; Martin Scorsese directs the story of New York stockbroker Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio). From the American dream to corporate greed, Belfort goes from penny stocks and righteousness to IPOs and a life of corruption in the late 80s. Excess success and affluence in his early twenties as founder of the brokerage firm Stratton Oakmont warranted Belfort the title – "The Wolf of Wall Street." Money. Power. Women. Drugs. Temptations were for the taking and the threat of authority was irrelevant. For Jordan and his wolf pack, modesty was quickly deemed overrated and more was never enough. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (39)
Reviews (20)
Such a sophisticated ode to money, sex, drugs, and immense debauchery that I almost forgot that, in reality, such people seem overdue for a good slap in the face. Yet even if I had spent the entire three hours merely studying the movements of the wolf king Leonardo DiCaprio in fascination, it would still have been worth it. Sharp monologues, the casting of prostitutes, or cerebral palsy may be the high points, but all throughout DiCaprio delivers a performance at the edge of human capabilities, which might appear casual and relaxed, but must have required a level of effort greater than ever before. Still, it is a shame that Scorsese expands the scope to an unnecessarily broad extent. Even my love for overdramatic stories that don't know when to stop being told could not prevent me from being even slightly bored by the last hour running a bit freely. Martin Scorsese and Leo yet again know how to do it and take unbelievable delight in their talent. And yet they miss absolute center, whether they make a buck or not, by a field.
()
What surprised me, and not in a very good way, is that Scorece’s position towards the protagonist is neutral, as if he was saying that ripping people off, doing drugs and shagging whores is kind of fine. That's a pretty big problem for me, as a die-hard idealist. So far, none of Scorsese's films have lacked some kind of catharsis at the end, unfortunately I didn't get it here. I acknowledge the fantastic filmmaking, which on more than one occasion managed to elicit a relieved laugh from me, but otherwise I'd always prefer the stupid postmen who can only afford penny stocks over cunts like Jordan Belfort and his wolf pack. This farce is actually very far from a complex fresco telling something about something.
()
The most fundamental American film since The Social Network. The film is not amoral, what’s amoral is its protagonist and modern society as a whole. He’s an asshole who ended up in prison (for a ridiculously short time), without friends and in debt due to his criminal behaviour and yet he has a relatively normal life, and there are still business people who take him as a role model and eagerly listen to his motivational lectures. Though Scorsese doesn’t portray the main character from an acceptable moral position (after all, Belfort himself is the narrator), after three hours of footage, a sensible viewer can make their own judgement, and thanks to this confrontation, a lively comedy becomes a very caustic satire. Excellent and brisk fun with pretty dark reverberations. Get over it.
()
I guess I don't like movies where Leo is very rich and indulgent. The fact is that except for a few jokes in the style of The Hangover, it all seemed to me like an opulent cocaine carnival, hiding quite a relevant (and fortunately very subdued) parable about the pernicious appeal of selling pens and a glaring paradox of sweaty balls in the subway, circumscribed elegantly in the last minutes. I appreciate that Scorsese accepts the player's perspective (and not the critique of the system) and does not push the viewer to disgust - Belfort is, of course, a repulsively attractive mediator of the world of speculation. However, the metaphors of the brokerage community as a prehistoric tribe / sect are unnecessarily obvious (although the extravaganza is nice to look at). Also remarkable is the obvious "immorality" of the film, which actually calmly claims that a similar lifestyle is cool in a way - and Scorsese is, of course, right. If he wasn't, the Wolf would have nothing to eat. The best thing about the film in this regard is about 5 minutes, which the brokerage shaman McConaughey hums to a hypnotic rhythm. I have nothing to criticize it for at its core - it plays back the worn out notes confidently and without mistakes, it just didn't speak to me at all with its frenetic cadence. It’s the similar problem of "numbness of sarcasm" that I had with Gavras' more engaged film Capital. At least The Wolf of Wall Street brazenly says, with a smirk, what we all know about the speculative nature of capitalism, admittedly unreliably and without unnecessary rhetorical phrases. And it doesn't burden you with unnecessarily complicated details at all. Why would it, when another reduction is waiting around the corner? But the film still takes 3 hours, in which I did not find enough stimuli. Of course, except for the cocaine, prostitutes, and those damn deceleration pills...
()
A three-hour long joyride full of sex and cocaine, cool and base at the same time, trying to hide behind the proverb “sow the wind, reap the whirlwind”. I enjoyed myself immensely and I’ll definitely watch this again, but I don’t consider one dramatic scene (with the daughter in the car) to be enough for a three-hour film. The Wolf of Wall Street has perfect catchphrases and is never boring, but it made me realize that this type of Scorsese movie (starting with Casino) is great to watch but won’t leave you with lasting impression. Shutter Island, dark and mystical, perfectly escalated, with a surprising, sophisticatedly ambiguous ending, is much closer to my heart, and I consider it Scorcese’s masterpiece.
()
Ads