The Wolf of Wall Street (Steelbook)

Not my kind of movie I lose a little bit too close to that last time or it doesn't impress me I don't think it should be glorified and I'm saying what that big of a fan of Leonardo he's done a few good things but definitely don't watch this with kids around

The product arrived as advertised and met all my expectations in terms of quality. It performed just as described, and I had no issues using it. I would definitely purchase it again if I found myself in the same situation.

My rating is more of a 4.5The Wolf of Wall Street is a 2013 American biographical crime black comedy film directed by Martin Scorsese and written by Terence Winter, based on the 2007 memoir of the same name by Jordan Belfort. It recounts Belfort's perspective on his career as a stockbroker in New York City and how his firm, Stratton Oakmont, engaged in rampant corruption and fraud on Wall Street, which ultimately led to his downfall.Before deciding to watch this film and maybe important to ask yourself: what is my idea of entertainment, and what am I expecting when I watch a biographical film? The Inception and release of this film takes on a new challenge in that it attempts to make the life of people that are out of touch with reality more relatable to your average audience member. Not only this, but it also carries the weight of making the art of stock broking particularly interesting (at the very least, entertaining enough to be watched for 3 hours!) when there is a mysterious aura surrounding this profession to begin with.‘Wolf of Wall Street’ levels itself by catering to those that are competent and inept in regards to the ‘wall street way’ through particular choices made in the narrating department and contextually appropriate vernacular. Belfort speaks very much in the first person point-of-view that regularly breaks the fourth wall (in addition to using jargon) when discussing the specifics about his trade, but doesn’t veer off into territory that would otherwise be cumbersome (and, not to mention, potentially wordy). In contrast to this, characters use language that is expected and commonplace (which, just a heads up, is rather vulgar) and humanizes situations and conversations that otherwise would be boring and more-or-less lackluster. Offensive? Possibly. Entertaining? Couldn’t be more so.The “accuracy” of this movie has always been up for speculation, but viewers should know that the author of the novel this film is based off of (Belfort) didn’t just approve of the way he was portrayed here: He was on set giving his feedback as filming was underway. It is because of this (And, through the use of publicly accessible sources) that even the most outlanding parts - like, when Belfort crashes his helicopter while intoxicated - have some amount of documentation substantiating these events regardless of how far fetched they might be. There is some speculation regarding the narration of certain events (even in the book), but we must remember that Belfort is ultimately a stock broker at heart: can we really expect him to sell his story to unsuspecting audience members without bolstering a few details here and there? I digress. . . . .On the surface the plot and entertainment value is rather clear cut; it’s a recount of one man’s experience during the most objectively successful period of his life. It is, however, i useful to read between the lines and accept this as a reflection on themes and nuances that drive human behavior in the first place. Firsty, there’s a rather pungent irony surrounding the amount of control Belfort has on his life, and it is almost as if to say that that power and greed is only a stone’s throw away from indifference and frigidity. Perhaps even more importantly, this film goes to show: You can put a suit on your insecurity, but you sure as heck can’t make it walk.This film and its coinciding novel have been critically acclaimed as suggestions of how people shouldn’t behave (“A Don’t Do Story”) when investing in the same type of work as Belfort, but I have to humbly disagree with this notion. At the end of the day his personality is rather flat, and little is done to meaningfully explore the complexity of his character even if only for a brief moment. There are rarely any scenes in which Belfort deeply ruminates about the potential costs of his actions, and by the end of the film he really hasn’t changed much from the character he is introduced as being at the beginning. I may never get the answer to this question, but I still can’t help but ask: In the end, was any of it worth it after all?Highly entertaining and unbelievably messy:I would recommend!

So funny. I liked this movie so much that I saw it twice in theaters. Very long, and it starts to drag a bit towards the end, but this movie is one helluva ride through the ups and downs of what everyone would like to achieve at some point in their lives. Not sure if Leo DiCaprio or Jonah Hill won any awards for this film, but if they didn't, they should have. My partner hates this movie because of the amount of nudity in it, but I absolutely love it.

I watched this atrociously powerful movie in two nights, after my wife quit after five minutes, unable to hear the f.. word sprinkled into the dialogue two out of five times. I am used to Scorsese since the times of "Taxi Driver" for paranoia, and "GoodFellas" for bloody messes and foul language. He most often delivers repulsive characters, bordering on insanity, who climb or attempt to climb the ladder of success, by means foul or fair (mostly foul), leaving in their wake a stream of crimes, and a string of victims in their destructive paths. Almost all of them are climbers, in fantasy or action. They posses a drive that catapults them to "fame," but finally they are done-in by their self-inflicted wounds. Jordan Belfort is one of them, but in terms of performance, Leonardo DiCaprio is ultimately the man who delivers for Scorsese. "No-holds-barred" performance--he does everything: cheats, forms a company with drug addicts, has sex worth of ten men (not that his cohorts are far behind), spends illogically, has the quick wit to avoid traps, but not the will or intelligence to quit when he ahead, as Rob Reiner, his dad, tells him. He divorces an average first wife, marries a smashing-looking ex-model, but lets his excesses and misguided self-confidence be the traps through which a clever fed finally throws the nets of justice around him. He ends up with a 36-months sentence, escapes the country, and goes to New Zealand, starting from scratch. No moral to it, says Scorsese in the "Extras" (a running commentary would be embarrassing); and let the viewer draw his own conclusion, DiCaprio intones, evidently pleased with his fifth collaboration with the famous director. In the movie he likens himself to Ahab (in the f.... Moby Dick), mentions "Greek tragedy," when things go badly--while Scorsese mentions that he intended to make "An American 'Caligula,'" the notoriously repulsive "epic" by Tinto Bras in 1979, in which cruelty and sex and Bob Guccione's Penthouse pets participate. The comparisons end here, however. Scorsese's movie a tough, relentless expose of American greed and ambition with ill-gotten gains, and his work, keeping the analogies, can be compared to the pioneering "Huck Finn" of Mark Twain, and the the King and Duke, the immortal con-men that sent the standards for fleecing the naïve. Moral lesson? Take it or leaving it.