...... starring Leonardo DiCaprio; my wife and I enjoyed it. In fact, I really dug it a whole lot. My wife treated me with our going to this flick, since I agreed to seeing "Saving Mr. Banks" with her. A fair trade. I liked 'em both. The Link When I first saw the preview of this latest DiCaprio/Scorsese flick, after being generally nonplussed and even disappointed by the DiCaprio/Baz Luhmann version of "The Great Gatsby," I made the offhand comment that I thought "The Wolf of Wall Street" might prove to show me a "greater" Gatsby. And it turned out to do exactly that: Because, it certainly was a longer movie (3 hours) with much better parties and more music and there were cool cars, better looking and sexier women, more F bombs, more exciting excitement, great T & A (featuring frontal, backal, sidal and overhead and under leg nudity), much more fornication and oral copulation, more drugs, better orgies, great orgasms, more crime and stronger punishment and, indeed, I liked "The Wolf of Wall Street" much better than any movie version yet of F. Scott Fitzgerald's roaring twenties story. That's "greater," isn't it? Robert Redford and Leonardo DiCaprio as Gatsby simply never partied hard enough and the twenties didn't roar loudly enough, as they showed it, for decadent, perverse, voyeuristic me. But "The Wolf..." certainly did. "The Wolf.." really roared. So, I'll appreciatively give it that, even if the time period depicted wasn't the same. As for the Wall Street part, Michael Douglas' Gordon Gekko was a smooth scaled, cold blooded lizard who fed on carefully selected investing insects or business recycling worms and who probably always protected himself with a condom when having sex with a new partner. DiCaprio's Jordan Belfort led a ravenous wolf pack that devoured warm, red meat and who screwed randomly chosen, unsuspecting, ********-fed, clueless clients without regard and would likely risk having strange sex bareback. However, I thought this Scorsese flick was almost an hour too long and often repetitive. Nevertheless, I liked it. But, with a tighter screenplay and some length reducing film editing, I would have liked it more. I was always very interested and was never, ever, bored; but Scorsese, his screenwriter and the film editor simply gave me too much of the same thing, too many times, for too long. IMHO, Oliver Stone has often done this, and some of his work could be classified by me as movie making masturbation. I hope Martin Scorsese doesn't do it so much any more. This had to already be the extended Director's Cut. I really, really, really enjoy Scorsese's excellent, gritty films, but a little less of his very complete cinematic vision could be all I'd need to be satisfied. "Goodfellas," "Casino," "Cape Fear" and "The Aviator" were just about perfect silver screen storytelling for me, while other films like "Shutter Island," "Hugo," "The Departed" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" told their very convincing, but very convoluted, cinematic tales for a little too long, IMO. That's just my personal observation and different strokes are fine and expected for different folks. I've always enjoyed Scorsese's consumant style of movie making, even when I find it overly time consuming. I simply think "The Wolf..." howled and roared (sometimes redundantly) for a little too long. But, I've already mentioned that. I certainly got more than my money's worth at my senior ticket price. And maybe it was only my aged bladder that needed relief. What did you think?