Watch: New Trailer For Martin Scorsese's 'Wolf Of Wall Street,' Movie Runs 2 Hours 45 Minutes Long

News
by Kevin Jagernauth
October 29, 2013 7:38 PM
20 Comments
  • |

It looks like we can stop debating about whether or not this movie is coming, and start anticipating. After some talk that it wouldn't be ready in time, "The Wolf Of Wall Street" is definitely coming by the end of the year. And with Paramount now sorting all of that out, they can start making sure they pack theaters this December. But something tells us they won't have any trouble.

A new brand, pretty entertaining trailer has dropped, giving a whole new look at what Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio are cooking up—and it looks like "Boiler Room" and "Wall Street" on cocaine. It's all based on the true story of Jordan Belfort, a wheeling, dealing and very crooked New York stockbroker who rose to the top fuelled by sex, drugs and alcohol, and fell just as hard. And by his side, in what looks another surprising turn from Jonah Hill, was Donnie Azoff, who matched his pal's penchant for debauchery.

But here's the question: Can "The Wolf Of Wall Street" sustain this tone for what is a reported running time of 2 hours and 45 minutes? That's roughly 20 or so minutes longer than "Goodfellas," one of the most re-watchable movies of all time (ask anyone, if you catch it midstream on cable, you wind up watching the whole damn thing). It'll be tough, but we trust that Scorsese has the touch.

"The Wolf Of Wall Street" opens on Christmas Day. 


You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

20 Comments

  • watch streaming | December 26, 2013 12:25 PMReply

    this Real watch 100% [link to fake crappy site that doesn't have a real DL link anyhow, redacted]

  • You losers | October 30, 2013 11:49 AMReply

    Right, because Scorsese long movies aren't any good.

    CASINO 178m, AVIATOR 170m, GANGS OF NY 167m, LAST TEMPTATION 164m, NYNY 163m, DEPARTED 151m, GOODFELLAS 148m.

  • betterthanyou | October 30, 2013 2:18 PM

    Riiight...because Aviator and Gangs were sooooo good. Out of all those, Goodfellas is the only one that is top tier.

  • James | October 30, 2013 7:22 AMReply

    Bring it on. Looks fun!

  • Greg Mitchell | October 30, 2013 2:43 AMReply

    I read the book; 2 hrs 45 minutes is way too many minutes for this plotline. Watch for the word "bloated" in every review. (ah Mr. Barr below me coined that thought i see...)

  • crestview | October 30, 2013 2:19 PM

    Lol, are you kidding. I'm pretty sure Kane is going to send out a memo to all of his media outlets that the word "bloated" not be used. Bring on the oscar noms!

  • sidneyfalco | October 30, 2013 11:42 AM

    You are right about the film - 2hr45min is waaaayyyy toooo long for this story. Oliver Stone told the same story in under two...now about S.O.B. -- are you high!!!??? Blake Edwards' S.O.B. is his last masterpiece (way better than the overrated Victor/Victoria). After Andrews shows her "boobies" the film kicks into high gear with the wonderful team of Preston, Holden and Weber racing to a finish and creating some of the funniest screen comedy ever. I just showed S.O.B. to a group of people a couple weeks ago who had never seen it. They were holding their sides in laughter during that last stretch. Pure Comedy Perfection!!

  • Greg Mitchell | October 30, 2013 2:50 AM

    (now if Julie Andrews had been cast in a supporting role as was initially rumored, I'd sit through it to see Julie get to work with a great director; Yes, RIP Blake Edwards, but if anyone ever needed an editor in his last decades of work, it was Edwards; e.g., S.O.B. -- after Julie shows her boobies, the film is over, but yet it goes on and on and on and on and on)

  • steve barr | October 30, 2013 1:57 AMReply

    It looks boring and bloated . Scorsese and his usual directorial masturbation .Goodfellas go to Wall Street . I' rather see James Gray's The Immigrint .

  • hank | October 30, 2013 2:55 AM

    I hope your excuse for that is that you only have one hand.

  • Glass | October 29, 2013 11:50 PMReply

    So that was more entertaining than most of the movies I've seen this year. The cancer line had me dying.

  • hank | October 29, 2013 10:53 PMReply

    whatever, I came.

  • VM | October 29, 2013 8:19 PMReply

    Films like this need a 2 hour + runtime. Tickets are too expensive for me to sit in a theater for an hour and thirty minutes film that feels rushed now a days.

  • gents | October 29, 2013 8:09 PMReply

    CASINO has 178 Minutes. The fastest 178 Minutes in film history.

    gents

  • jj | October 30, 2013 4:10 AM

    I know. I remember watching Heat and Casino in theater when I was maybe 15 and I was never bored. The running time doesn't matter if the film is good.

    I haven't ever heard anyone complain about editing or pacing in Scorsese -movies.

  • Adam Scott Thompson | October 29, 2013 10:49 PM

    The more I watch it, the shorter it feels. Like now when Ace fades out, I get mad like "It's over?!"

  • cirkusfolk | October 29, 2013 8:02 PMReply

    They couldn't just accept the three hour cut could they? So sick of studios interfering with directors visions like what Weinstein did to Django, a film that even at 165 minutes, you could tell had been heavily trimmed.

  • clammyhands | October 30, 2013 2:27 PM

    I hate when people think that editing is a magic cure-all for a movie. In Django's case, the problem was that Tarantino obviously wanted to take Django into meta-narrative territory. To cut it out would not have been trimming the fat, but would have changed his whole vision for the film. Sometimes you just have to accept that some films are flawed in that sense, but to change it would do more harm than good.

  • Bizarro_Peach | October 30, 2013 10:17 AM

    Django needed trimming. It had the LOTR problem of multiple endings, the last 20 minutes were completely extraneous. This looks enjoyable but I could see it being overlong. Time will tell.

  • d | October 29, 2013 9:57 PM

    It was most likely in his contract that it be under 3 hours.

Email Updates