Subtlety Doesn't Live Here Anymore - "The Wolf of Wall Street"

Martin Scorsese has never been known for his visual restraint.  But his in-your-face bombast is usually forgiven because of the complexities and nuances of original characters and fine storytelling present in his best work.  Which is to say his older films.  Unfortunately, I was very disappointed by the over-the-top excess and repetitive one-dimensional nature of "The Wolf of Wall Street" - both the movie and the Wolf himself, played by Leonardo DiCaprio.

While I expected something brash, I didn't expect to be bored and ultimately ripped-off.  I'm still not exactly sure what was the point of all the sex, drugs and cheating.  And really:  three hours?  Not necessary, people.

I appreciate that Scorsese is not holding our hands and directly telling us that bad behavior is wrong, but why would he need to?  Everyone knows that already.  And I also recognize that DiCaprio's crooked stockbroker Jordan Belfort is an unreliable narrator, but so is every narrator and such is the nature of storytelling.  What I don't appreciate is the lack of insight into these depraved actions.  Jordan Belfort tells his side, but doesn't anyone else get a say?  We the audience deserve to know more about why these people do what they do, and that omission left me sorely disappointed. 

Part of the problem, of course, is that Scorsese has taken us down this road before with more illuminating detail.  The comparisons are inevitable, yet he's asking for it.  Men behaving badly. . .in the '80s. . . cocaine and money. . .all shown in some of his classics.  But at times I felt "Wolf" was directly channeling his own work - and this felt self-referential and unoriginal.  DiCaprio even LOOKS like Ray Liotta in "Goodfellas."  But "The Wolf of Wall Street" is not in the same league.  It's not even Oliver Stone's "Wall Street."  I was thinking of Gordon Gekko, but not because of greed.  I remember what made him tick was when he asks Bud Fox to "Tell me something I don't know."  And that's what I kept wanting during this movie.

"Wolf of Wall Street" is the same note again and again and AGAIN.  It's not original or shocking, which it might have been if this movie were released in 1986.  What is shocking is the lack of morality.  This has caused considerable controversy since it's release, as the consequences of all the bad behavior are never shown.  So what is the audience to think?

It's been over five years since the most recent stock market crash, where countless Wall Street execs, several bank CEOs, and one Bernie Madoff made the public well aware that the financial industry is full of crooks.  Americans know this already.  This movie shows us the perpetrators, but not the victims or the consequences.  So again, I ask what's the point?  How can the audience be expected to laugh at such behavior when there were so many victims?  Money and jobs lost, lives ruined - and what does Jordan Belfort say:  "Money makes you a better person."  Really?  Do the filmmakers actually believe that?  They sure don't show anything to refute it.  Apparently, they too were duped by Jordan Belfort.

In terms of filmmaking the movie features more cinematic clichés:  the wiseguy voiceover, the tired rock soundtrack we've all heard before, and worst of all a scenery-chewing Leonardo DiCaprio that grows tiresome after the first hour, and painful by the third.  If Scorsese really wanted audiences to dislike Jordan Belfort, he should have cast ANYONE but the most popular, handsome actor in the world. 

Martin Scorsese is one of my all time favorite directors, but I can't just give him a pass and call him a master because of the movies he made between 1973-1990.  Is he still, at age 71, the best in the world?  Or is he, like so many other wealthy, praised geniuses who never hear the word no:  cut off from reality and adrift in his own neverland?