11 Reasons Why Oliver Stone’s ‘Wall Street’ Is More Entertaining Than Scorsese’s ‘Wolf of Wall Street’

  1. Gordon Gekko is an incredibly likable egomaniac. Jordan Belfort is just an egomaniac.
  2. Wall Street is a fictional story that feels vital and real. The Wolf of Wall Street is a factual story that feels passe and hyperbolic.
  3. With a running time of 126 minutes, Wall Street feels incredibly tight. With a running time of 180 minutes, The Wolf of Wall Street feels unnecessarily laborious.
  4. Gordon Gekko’s “Greed is Good” speech will always feel iconic. Jordan Belfort’s “Land of Opportunity” speech will always feel sardonic.
  5. Most of the characters in Wall Street are pursuing their own sense of class. Most of the characters in The Wolf of Wall Street are pursuing their own sense of flash.
  6. Whereas Bud Fox and his father seem well worth rooting forThe Wolf of Wall Street offers no major characters worth rooting for.
  7. The Wolf of Wall Street is guilty of employing a variety of bush-league winks, including a brief cameo by the real Jordan Belfort (portraying someone else), an equally brief cameo by Fran Lebowitz (portraying someone else), and a pair of passing references to Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox.
  8. Whereas Oliver Stone’s original screenplay actually elevated the performance of Charlie Sheen, Terence Winter’s bloated adaptation equally diminishes a stellar turn by Leonardo DiCaprio.
  9. You never get the sense that Jordan Belfort is going anywhere but down, and – what’s infinitely worse – you never really seem to care.
  10. Wall Street ends like a movie that delivers on its promises. The Wolf of Wall Street ends like a movie that ran out of financing.
  11. Wall Street feels like the ambitious work of a young director on the way up. The Wolf of Wall Street feels like the overwrought work of an aging archetype facing decline.

(The Wolf of Wall Street is currently playing in theaters nationwide.)