Wolf of Wall Street: Why critics hate it

Something that has surprised me all these years is the fact that Martin Scorsese never gets the love he deserves. Whether it was Taxi Driver(1976) being considered a boring film when released in India or Shutter Island (2010)being written off as subpar. I haven’t a clue if the director has been sleeping around with the wives of critics and film ‘historians’, but considering his illustrious our decade long career, I would say he’s earned breakfast as well.
Wolf of Wall Street has been given 76% rating on Rottentomatoes, a site which I need to constantly disagree with yet still religiously refer to for movie watching. After watching the movie, I once again disagreed with the website.
Wolf of Wall Street is a stylish and intelligent satire of addictions and excess. It is superbly scripted(I almost felt I was in a Tarantino film), edited real fast and slick(like the lives of the people in the film), well paced(3 hours long? Really?), expertly shot(Go watch it!), brilliantly acted(Seriously, go watch it!) and lavishly praised via thesaurus(You still haven’t watched it?).
 Three things that stood out for me would be the Dialogues, the Direction and Jonah Hill. There are more scenes than one where the dialogues between actors seem ad libbed with the actors delivering lines so naturally, you’d believe then and there that those people actually exist and they did have that conversation. The Direction was really energetic and creative, with little gems like inner monologues and visual cues from cartoons blending well in with the gut wrenching drama. These are not elements taken from the book off which the movie is based on. This is just Martin Scorsese showing he’s way better than his contemporaries.
Then there’s Jonah Hill, the second in command douchebag to Leonardo DiCaprio’s character. DiCaprio might get snubbed for an Oscar this year as well, but if they ignore Jonah Hill, I will burn down the house of every one of those elitist pseudo intellectual bastards in Hollywood who’re going to pick yet another over long tedious Elizabethan drama, directed by Unknown British Director as the Best movie of the year.

But what’s with those critics who’re railing against this awesome movie? Here is a small FAQ to address their “concerns”. [Spoiler alert!]

Why is this movie promoting greed and avarice?
It’s called a black comedy for a reason. Would you rather have the message of the movie served on a platter? There is a scene where Leo Dicaprio’s character turns towards the screen and says “Is any of this legal? Of course not”. That is about as self referential as an intelligent movie gets. If you expected “THIS IS BAD” to flash across the screen at all times, then I suggest you go watch a Michael Bay movie.

Why is this movie promoting drugs and sex?
I’ve always wondered what people who made more money than they can spend in their life times did with all that money. In this movie, I got the answer. Drugs and whores, sometime in combination! This is happening in real life as you complain. Why aren’t you criticizing people in real life for affecting people in real life?

Who does Martin Scorsese think he is? Making us sympathetic towards rich whore mongers who ruined many lives?
He’s Martin Scorsese. He will still be Martin Scorsese long after the worms are cleaning up your corpse and telling each other “I haven’t a clue who this dead person is”. Jokes aside, Scorsese is one of, if not, THE greatest directors of all time. I doubt he needs to answer to anyone. But still, rather than make a movie where we can take a higher moral ground and judge wrong doers, he expertly makes us sympathetic towards the characters, as though telling us that had we been in their situation, we’d have done the same.
Also, Goodfellas. Your argument is invalid.

Why is the movie so long?
There are movies that are much shorter but felt way longer. It’s called entertainment, aka, having a good time. You should try that once in a while.

Why are there so many gratuitous sex scenes?
IT IS A MOVIE ABOUT EXCESS AND…GOD DAMMIT! No more doggie treats for you. Shoo!

Why are the characters so boring?
The movies which usually get the Oscar nod, run at the pace of paint drying. If you enjoy those sort of movies, this film isn’t for you. Nor are kittens or birthday parties.

I couldn’t connect with the protagonist. Why isn’t there a prologue showing his innocence before his climb to power like Citizen Kane?
The prologue consists of a younger naïve Leo(who will no longer pass of as a 20 year old) loving every bit of the work he’s about to undertake and a monologue by Matthew McConaughey(the guy gets better with age somehow) on selling stocks and masturbation. Your problem is what, exactly?

Why is the film so technical with the details of the scam?
Actually, the voice over narration helps us keep pace with the film, but half way through, even Leo’s character turns towards the screen and tells us that it doesn’t matter and that everyone was rich. It was as though the movie knew we’d be on information over load beyond that point and only the consequences matter since. Give it some though, there’s no MBA in Finance required for this film.

What if the audience becomes enthralled in the hedonistic lifestyles?
I understand that the American audience is stupid enough to only remember the money and not the divorces and fall from grace at every level possible. That is a combination of selective memory and bad parenting. This movie is the truest version of the book and tale and not a sanitized version.

Why do I not like this movie as much as I should’ve?
I’m not sure. Maybe irreversible brain damage.