Movie review: 'The Wolf of Wall Street'

At long last, I finally found the time to hit the theater to see Martin Scorsese's latest film, The Wolf of Wall Street. It did not disappoint. Wolf is, in many ways, classic Scorsese: Stylish, unique, quirky, beautifully shot and masterfully acted. And for those of you wondering, yes, Wolf is completely over the top. It's completely bananas. And if you are a Scorsese fan, you're likely going to enjoy this ride immensely.

Is The Wolf of Wall Street one of my favorite Martin Scorsese movies? No, but let's keep in mind that this man has made some of the greatest films of all time. Saying it isn't in my top five really means very little, when you're talking about the likes of Raging Bull, Taxi Driver (my personal favorite Scorsese film), GoodFellas, The Departed and Gangs of New York.

Let me tell you what I liked, and then I'll address some of the many criticisms of the film from my perspective. I didn't just like, I loved Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in The Wolf of Wall Street. Leo deserves an Oscar nomination for this one, absolutely. Should he win? I wouldn't object, but I don't think he will. Regardless, Leo is one of a kind. I felt like I was watching him in The Great Gatsby again - a modern-era Gatsby, to be sure, but he managed to suck me right in by portraying a completely loathsome character with such charm and wit I forgot, at least for a few moments, how much I hated Jay Gatsby and Jordan Belfort. Mad props to DiCaprio for his two outstanding performances in 2013. The Wolf of Wall Street would not be 1/2 the movie it is without Leonardo DiCaprio. The Scorsese/DiCaprio collaboration is once again immensely successful.

I'm fully aware of the criticisms being batted around about The Wolf of Wall Street. Specifically, many are angry that the film glorifies the life (and lifestyle) of Jordan Belfort. I'll say this: I hated the character, even as I marveled at Leo DiCaprio's portrayal of him. I absolutely loathed the treatment of the women in the film, even though it was totally in keeping with the tales in Belfort's memoirs. It completely skeeved me out, and a few hours into the film, I found it distracting at times. But this is a satire film. It is what it is - and not everyone's going to love it. If this sort of thing offends you, to the point where you can't really focus on anything else about a film, I strongly suggest that you skip Wolf of Wall Street. It will only infuriate you, and it's not worth that.

I also take issue with the fact that Jordan Belfort, supposedly reformed sleazebag, could possibly make anything from selling the rights to this film. He still owes his victims tens of millions of dollars, after all. Here's an update: The government is looking very hard into the matter, so I'm hopeful that Belfort won't ultimately see a dime. Fingers crossed.

How accurate is The Wolf of Wall Street? I'm sure Jordan Belfort would say it's extremely accurate, but I was curious about what others connected to the investigation and prosecution of the case thought. If you'd like a really interesting perspective on this, I strongly suggest you read this New York Times piece by former federal prosecutor Joel M. Cohen. He was involved in prosecuting Belfort back in the day, and his take on things is interesting. I do agree with him on one thing: I hate that this film doesn't at least delve a little deeper into the plight of Belfort's many victims.

So, after all the brouhaha about the length of Wolf, so much so that editing threatened to delay the film's release by several months, is The Wolf of Wall Street, which clocks in at about three hours, still too long? I'd say no. Sure, a few scenes dragged a bit, but that happens in the best of films. Would I be willing to sit through a director's cut - an even longer version? Probably, but just out of curiosity. I think Wolf as it is now is just fine.

If you're wondering, yes, it is not out of the question that at some point, we might all get to see the four-hour Wolf of Wall Street movie, according to Scorsese. He does add in a recent interview, "I don't think there's any major scene that I dropped." There you go: That's the official word from the master himself, who adds that the major difference between the three and four hour versions is primarily related to the pacing of the film. I think the pacing, as it is now, is fine - but for Scorsese fans who want to delve deeper, you might just get your wish.

One last warning: If you're easily offended by harsh language and graphic (and yeah, grossly creative) drug use, just skip this movie. I honestly think it's one of the most over-the-top films in that respect that I've ever seen. It didn't bother me, but I am certain that Wolf will have some squirming in their seats within the first few minutes of the film.

Photos courtesy of Screenrant and Zap2It.com