Occasionally interesting chronicle of Wall Street scam artist's life ends up as a poor man's 'Good Fellas'

Rating: 5/10 (21 April 2014)

I like to think of 'The Wolf of Wall Street' as a poor man's 'Good Fellas'. They're both based on a true story about a character who is a moral failure and they both rely quite a bit on a narrator as well as improvised dialogue. 'Good Fellas' was primarily successful due to the strong, believable performances of Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci; both those actors were of Italian descent and they were playing characters that also were supposed to be Italian. But here Leonardo DiCaprio is supposed to play Jordan Belfort, a Jewish guy from Queens. I watched clips of the real Belfort and I just felt DiCaprio doesn't come close to capturing the essence of the 'Wolf of Wall Street' (maybe I associate DiCaprio with too many other characters in films that he's been in before or maybe he simply is unable to move beyond his own persona). One other problem is that the stakes in 'Good Fellas' were much higher: there was that enormous Lufthansa heist and people being whacked all over the place; but here it's just a matter of investors being conned (who you never get to see on screen) and an anti-hero who's prone to a life of extraordinary excess.
Still, Belfort's antics are mildly interesting, especially in the first half hour, where in a series of flashbacks, we see how he lost his stock broker job on his very first day on Wall Street due to the stock market crash of 1987. Matthew McConaughey is highly entertaining as Belfort's sleazy supervisor who imparts his 'greed is good' philosophy to the fledging shyster, while they dine together in a high-end restaurant. Probably the highlight of the first half hour is when Belfort employs a new phone script at the low class 'boiler room' where he's recently been hired—Belfort proves to be much polished than his fellow employees, who rely more on intimidation than finesse. Way less successful is Jonah Hill's character, Donnie Azoff (Danny Porush in real life). There's really nothing distinctive about Azoff (unlike a Joe Pesci in 'Good Fellas) except for the fact that he's married to his first cousin; Hill basically has no memorable scenes (unless you consider the ridiculous fight between Donnie and one of Belfort's drug couriers later in the film).
Once Belfort is locked and loaded as CEO of the newly minted (and seemingly respectable) 'Oakmont Stratton', Scorsese's strategy is to highlight most of Belfort's reported true-life escapades. We're asked to laugh at the morally corrupt Belfort as Scorsese blasts us with Belfort's outrages piled on one after another. Not all of it essential to the plot. Take for example the scene where his wife's gay butler throws a party for his friends and some of Belfort's cash in the apartment ends up missing. The whole point of the scene is to show how ruthless and greedy Belfort is, with the butler ending up being held by his legs over a balcony. It's an interesting scene but again, not essential; cutting it could have contributed to the necessary shortening of the entire film, to a much more manageable two hour fest, as opposed to three.
Another problem is Scorsese's penchant for stretching things out beyond any modicum of good direction (as well as plain good aesthetics). I'm thinking of the scene where Belfort is wasted after downing the Lemmon- 714 Quaaludes; after taking too many, Belfort finds himself at a country club where he's no longer able to work, so he has to crawl to his car. Yes it's supposed to be funny but the long 'crawl' just goes on for too long and dilutes whatever humor Scorsese is attempting to extract from the situation. Another drawn out scene which loses its comic effect is the yacht being tossed in the storm. After about a minute we get the idea but Scorsese doubles down on the slapstick, with Belfort and crew being tossed around ad infinitum.
The dialogue here is very inconsistent. One very good scene is the cat and mouse conversation Belfort has with the FBI agent on his yacht. But often, Scorsese insists that his actors improvise, sacrificing verisimilitude (one example that sounded improvised to me, was the early Belfort-Donnie exchange where they discuss Donnie's incestuous relationship with his wife).
While many people will find it hard to believe, most of the scenes in the movie actually happened (if we are to believe Belfort's book--same name as the film). One scene that didn't happen were the dwarfs being tossed around at the office party (at the beginning of the film). A critical scene that did not happen in real life is when Belfort slips the note to Donnie that he's wearing a wire. I understand that Belfort did this with another one of his employees but not Donnie. I think it was a mistake for Scorsese to take liberties here since the implication is Belfort is not such a bad guy after all, since he's not willing to betray his best friend (but in reality, he did).
Ultimately, 'The Wolf of Wall Street' would have been a much better if it was shorter. Not all of Belforts' machinations are that interesting; after a while the greed simply becomes grating. Scorsese wants us to laugh at some of the outrageous things Belfort does and occasionally we end up amused. But 'Wolf' is also a cautionary tale about not following a good path in life. Scorcese and DiCaprio are critical of the 'old' Belfort but seem to have forgiven the 'new' (note that the real-life Belfort gets a cameo at film's end). Is Belfort really a new man? Prosecutors have recently alleged that Belfort only paid a fraction of the restitution he owes, detailed in the original plea agreement. Perhaps it's time for a new accounting. That's one important point I would have liked to have seen highlighted at end of 'The Wolf of Wall Street'.