This makes me super excited to see it. So good.

Any examples on how this is like a Kubrick film?

I'm so with you, Paul. It's great. And ghastly.

Scorsese is the only director I've known to get a watchable movie out of Leonardo DiCaprio.

I actually did feel kind of bad for Leo's character in the end, and I don't think that makes me a terrible person. I don't even think his character was an outright terrible human being -- he just thought he could get away with it. Fear of getting caught keeps most people from doing a lot of bad stuff, but that doesn't make them any better or worse than someone like his character. If most people were wily enough to even think they could get away with it, they'd do the same thing.

While I overall liked the movie, there were some scenes that were cringe-worthy for me since I knew Scorsese was behind the camera. Things like the Lemmon sequence crawling and Hill's prosthetic piece just seemed silly and lazily done. At times I felt like I was watching an actual 90s movie instead of a movie about the 90s. But maybe that's the entire genius of it. I need to re-watch it.

Thank you -- after I left the movie, I couldn't figure out how anyone could claim that it "glorified" anything Belfort did. Sure he had lots of expensive stuff and he told the camera that having expensive stuff made all the fraud worth it, but the movie went out of its way to depict Belfort as a rampaging douche who contributed nothing to society except to wreck everything he touched. I couldn't imagine who would watch it and say, "I want to be that guy -- the one drooling on the hooker in front of his staff before he goes home to slap his wife."

@10, that's what Michael Lewis thought when writing "Liar's Poker", and what Oliver Stone thought when making "Wall Street". Lewis was stunned at how may folks would approach him at lectures and book signings begging him for the scoop on how to get hired at a bond trading desk. Stone was stunned at how many fans of "Wall Street" dreamed of being Gordon Gecko.