Not bad, not great.Ā
I saw it as Scorsese trying to be Paul Thomas Anderson, and not really succeeding at it. Ā
Leo's character seemed like a combination of Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday put into one person and in a Wall St. setting.Ā
But it just didn't work for me. way too over the top in Wolf, and i actually gained very little deeper knowledge of the characters as the movie progressed.Ā
In There Will Be Blood we see the decay of Daniel Plainview over time. We see Eli at his best and worst. In Wolf we see Leo's character taste Wall St success and further desire to imitate this "success", Ā and enforce this view on his followers. In the end all we see him become is more excessive. Not really a decay. Did he "become a drug addict?" i would say that he became a drug addict the minute Matthew Mconaughey's character told him to use drugs. Everything about Leo's Ā character is stated in that first act, we really do not learn anything more about him.Ā
Another PTA trait that Scorsese misses in this, is that the characters, in PTA films, are not always better off at the end (and usually worse off). In Wolf the only character with caring about, Leo's character, is undobtably better off at the end. Ā he sheds most of his vices, serves little prison time, and gets a new job where he can essentially brainwash other people and get paid heavily for it.Ā
In TWBB Daniel ends up living in this lonely mansion he built, destroys his relationships, even killing Eli. Left to live, and die, alone.Ā
Just my thoughts. Wolf of Wall Street was not that good. Wasn't bad, Leo did a great job. Had some laughs.Ā