Oliver Stone did it better 25 years ago.

Rating: 4/10 (28 December 2013)

Add "Wolf of Wall Street" to my list of LEAST favorite films of 2013. A shame, too, because it held such potential - but honestly, this is the first Scorsese film I've ever seen that actually bored me. Not only boring, but also filled with dull, 2-dimensional characters that I cared little or nothing about. I couldn't get out of the theater fast enough - even though I stayed through all three butt-numbing hours of meaningless, cliché-driven hyperbole.
And - can we finally give Leonardo DiCaprio an extended leave of absence from Hollywood? After 180 minutes of his over-the-top, scream-filled over-acting in this effort, I think I've had enough for quite a while. Jonah Hill's paper-thin two-dimensional character was rather disappointing too. But I'm not sure who to blame here - the script was probably as much at fault. That said, two cameos almost made up for the rest of the performances - Matthew McCaugnahey's eccentric broker (who was gone after the first 20 minutes, unfortunately) and Rob Reiner as DiCaprio's quirky father.
Sure, it had the usual stylistic flair of a Scorsese film, but it was almost like a film school student's homage to a Scorsese film. Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights was a better Scorsese film than Wolf of Wall Street.
Bottom line, save your money and rent (or re-watch) Wall Street - Oliver Stone's timeless classic still stands as the benchmark for the subject, even after 25 years.
I may have to go see another film soon as "mental floss" to get this one out of my head...