814. GOODFELLAS (1990)

Running Time: 145 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: Nicholas Pileggi and Martin Scorsese, from the novel Wise Guys by Nicholas Pileggi
Main Cast: Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Lorraine Bracco, Paul Sorvino
Click here to view the trailer

SCORSESE WEEK: THE CONCLUSION

FINALLY, I get the opportunity to finish "Goodfellas" and conclude the "Scorsese Week" that wound up turning into two weeks, nearly three. This is the movie that, even though I owned it on DVD and just last week, ordered it through Amazon on Blu-Ray, I still had to pay $2 to see. Stay tuned...

So the film is, kind of, a lot like "Casino", in that it uses a butt ton of narration and pop music to tell it's story, except Scorsese makes things flow a lot smoother here. The main narration is via the main character, Henry Hill (Liotta), who, for as long as he can remember, has always wanted to be a gangster. Tracing Hill's life back to his days as a teenager, working at a cab stand in Brooklyn, for the Cicero crime family. Henry mainly answered to Tuddy, the brother of "made" man and Cicero don, Paul (Sorvino). The film also introduces us to James "Jimmy the Gent" Conway (De Niro) and Tommy (Pesci), two old-time Mafia men, both with violent streaks. Since Henry breaks into the crime business at such a young age, he grows up being a right hand man to the Cicero clan. The film is HEAVILY narrated by Henry, who at the age of twenty-two met and later married Karen (Bracco). The two were a good match, but the mob life eventually soured Henry on married life and ultimately, like most mobsters, he took a girlfriend, whom he set up with a cushy little apartment. Hill ends up doing a little prison time, but prison life for wise guys, as portrayed in the film, isn't like regular prison life and as long as they greased enough palms, they coasted by on an easy road. Later, Henry is warned about dope dealing, by Paulie, but doesn't heed his boss' advice and gets wrapped up in the drug racket.

So, yeah, I'm not sure why, but I thought this was worlds better than "Casino". If you think about it, "Casino" is almost, kind of like a remake of "Goodfellas". Both films heavily feature narration, both films feature an almost non-stop, pop soundtrack, both films are based on works by Nicholas Pileggi, both films are about "wise guys", both films are based on real people and I'm sure there's a lot of other similarities. I now wonder why Scorsese would make such a similar film, only five years later, especially considering he was probably never going to top "Goodfellas". Maybe he was just trying to recreate the success of the 1990 picture, but he failed miserable and I hope he knows that. I've honestly never noticed the similarities before, but that's the perk of review writing, you tend to over think everything.

This film was just FAR more interesting. The Ace Rothstein character of "Casino" did absolutely nothing to capture my interest, whereas I actually found myself, many times, wondering what it  must've been like to be Henry Hill, to live in that era, doing what he did, leading the life he lead. Oh and while we're talking Hill, let's not forget about Liotta, who has never really impressed me before, but this time really stood out to me. That one scene where he beats up the guy that tried to rape Karen - watch his face after he smashes the guy's face in and he's walking back across the street. He just looks like a killer. His facials are so brilliant, they're scary. Here's a guy - Liotta - who found himself shoulder to shoulder with one of the all-time greats (De Niro) and decided that he just had to bring his A game and that's just what he did. Kudos to Liotta! Bracco wasn't bad either, but tell me she doesn't look like Debra Winger's twin! I half kept waiting for the scene where we found out she had cancer and Shirley MacLaine showed up to give Henry guff about cheating on her.

So, in conclusion, this is just a great movie and I defy you not to be totally caught up by the mob lifestyle, either finding it deplorable or fascinating - and not a good kind of fascinating, but that kind of fascinating where you can't believe people actually lived this high roller, gun toting, drug sniffing lifestyle. It features fantastic performances all around, a score that won't make you wish it would just stop (who doesn't love "Layla" and that montage of dead body discoveries?) and effective narration from Liotta and Bracco, that makes you glad the narration is present, so that you constantly be getting little tidbits of information and background.

RATING: 9/10  I just didn't get that '10' feel, which is necessary when giving a '10', but it's a damn fine film and one that would come with my highest of recommendations.

RANKING SCORSESE

Usually I say a few words about the director, but I think you get that I'm a huge Scorsese nerd and I'll just let the reviews speak for themselves. Anyway, here's a quick list of the Scorsese films, listed best to worst, as per my personal opinion.

1) Taxi Driver
2) Raging Bull
3) Goodfellas
4) The King of Comedy
5) The Departed
6) Mean Streets
7) Casino

I'd like to do some non-BOOK reviews of some of his other works, so keep an eye on the recap section either at the end of this month or next.

MOVIES WATCHED: 733
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 268

September 22, 2013  6:51pm

Read More

891. CASINO (1995)

Running Time: 179 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: Nicholas Pileggi, from his book
Main Cast: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone, Don Rickles, James Woods
Click here to view the trailer

SCORSESE WEEK: CHAPTER FIVE

I had to, temporarily, skip over "Goodfellas" when I put it into my DVD player two nights ago and it didn't want to play for me. Therefore, I had to jump straight to "Casino" and continue rolling the ball that is "Scorsese Week".

At this point, it is the 90s and Martin Scorsese isn't what he used to be. He made his two best films in the latter half of the 70s and perhaps he blew his wad, because he never quite got back there. Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself, let's talk details first. De Niro is, once again, the star of the show, this time playing Sam "Ace" Rothstein, an expert handicapper turned casino operator, circa the 1970s. The film begins with Ace turning the key in the ignition of his Cadillac, only to have it explode From there, we're into flashback mode and LOTS of narration via De Niro's character and Pesci's Nicky Santoro, Ace's childhood friend and the man who is put in charge of watching his back. A lot of information is thrown at the viewer, but the only thing we really need to know is that it's a gangster movie set in Las Vegas, instead of Scorsese's usual New York. After a while, Ace meets and falls in love with Ginger (Stone), a high class call girl with a penchant for snorting coke, being spoiled and collecting jewels & money from grateful men. Ace finally convinces Ginger to marry him and of course, it all goes downhill, as she still holds a flame for the pimp she can't quit and the dope she can't stop sucking through a $100 bill. There's a whole lot more details, but honestly, you got what you need...

Do you know what "Casino" reminds me of? A counterfeit $100 bill. A counterfeit $100 looks green, has Franklin on it and seems to be legit, but under closer observation it really isn't worth anything. Just like the phony money, "Casino" has the Scorsese name on it, looks like a Scorsese picture and seems like a good one on the surface, but when you start thinking like a critic, you realize that it really isn't what it's cracked up to be. So yeah, I was disappointed with "Casino", to say the least and we might as well start off with the bad, before I forget what I disliked.

For starters, this film has got to be like 60% narration. My God, the voices just never stop spewing out dialogue and it's not even eloquent, narration worthy dialogue. Let's just say you're lucky if you actually get to see the actors act, as opposed to just hearing them talk over the film, telling us what they should be showing us. You have one of the greatest actors of all-time on set and instead of utilizing his chops, you have him reading cue cards into a microphone, with plans to play his voice over 50% of the picture? Give me a break! Speaking of De Niro, we start to see a decline in his talents here, as he sort of slips into auto pilot at this point and becomes type cast as a tough guy, playing this same role in many pictures. When you watch De Niro in the previously reviewed films and the De Niro that would come in the 90s, you get the sense that you're watching an actor who's lost his chops. I'm just not a modern day De Niro fan.

You know what else I really hated about this movie? The same things I hated about "Boogie Nights". The fact that this film is all up in your "grill", with nearly constant, blaring music and did I hear Scorsese ripping off the score to "Contempt" in there? Blasphemy! Whatever happened to just natural sounds. Perhaps I'd rather hear the rhythmic sound of a car engine instead of Fleetwood Mac and whatever happened to a little silence can go a long way. To me, this film comes off as Scorsese trying really hard to recapture something. I don't know what, but that's how it seems. There's no denying he was still a fantastic filmmaker at this point and that he DID have a good idea here. This could've been a great, great film, but it's too noisy, too in your face, too desperate to win you over, gives you way too much information to process, is too flashy, too long and is not subtle enough. Also, it's a little too violent. Hey, I'm all for a violent picture, but you have to have reasoning behind your violence and not just violence for the sake of violence (same as nudity). Here, you have blood splattering for the sake of adding a little color and it's too much.

In conclusion, it's not that I hated "Casino", it's just that I was disappointed in it. I'm a big Scorsese fan (as you've probably been able to surmise) but this wasn't up to his standards. If you look at Scorsese in the 90s, it seems the more he downplayed it, the better it was. Films like "Bringing Out the Dead", "Cape Fear" and even his contribution to "New York Stories" are all fine examples of why Scorsese still had IT in the final decade of the 20th century and they all rely on the subtleties. "Casino" relies on being hyperactive and BARELY succeeds...and I do mean BARELY.

RATING: 6/10  Just right around the average marker, but I love Martin too much to call anything he does a '5' or lower. I'm working on it though. Also, I'm totally fine with this being taken out of THE BOOK, in the new edition, and I definitely get why they did it.

MOVIES WATCHED: 732
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 269

Read More

704. The King of Comedy (1983)

Running Time: 109 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: Paul D. Zimmermann
Main Cast: Robert De Niro, Jerry Lewis, Diahnne Abbott, Sandra Bernhard, Shelley Hack
Click here to view the trailer

SCORSESE WEEK: CHAPTER FOUR

Okay, so the fourth anniversary of the blog has officially concluded and it's back to business as usual and the continuation of "Scorsese Week". I do, one last time, want to thank everyone who stopped by and wished me & the blog a happy birthday. Thank you. Today, we take a look at one of the first Scorsese pictures I fell in love with - "The King of Comedy".

Once again, the star of the film is Robert De Niro as Rupert Pupkin (perhaps my all-time favorite fictional name), a man who treats celebrities like Gods, wants to be a celebrity himself and who lives in his mother's basement. If in Rupert's mind all celebrities are to be worshiped, then the be all, end all is Jerry Langford (Lewis), host of a late-night show (ie. The Tonight Show) and someone who doesn't really want to be bothered by his fans. One evening, when Rupert assists Jerry into his car, Jerry repays Rupert by allowing him to ride along with him to his apartment. In the car, Rupert suggests that he is about to break into show business and wonders if Jerry would be interested in listening to a tape. Jerry agrees (only to get rid of Rupert) and the following day, Rupert records a tape and takes it to Jerry's offices. The tape is listened to and rejected by Cathy (Hack), Jerry's assistant and, as you can imagine, this doesn't sit well with Rupert. You see, Rupert is a little unbalanced, to say the least. This becomes no more evident than when Rupert, along with his obsessed cohort Masha (Bernhard) kidnap Jerry and tie him up, forcing him to make a call to his producer and schedule a spot for Rupert on that night's show. When Rupert makes his appearance, delivers his comedy act and it airs, Jerry will be released, but not a second sooner.

SPOILER ALERT!

You know I really had no idea I was this in love with Robert De Niro, but here I am about to gush all over him for a fourth time. You see, this is the advantage of doing a blog, because you get to sit down and sort out all your thoughts, write them out, discuss them with others and it really pounds into your head what you like and who you like. Until this week, I sincerely never really considered myself a De Niro fan, but in the four Scorsese films I've watched thus far, I've seen four completely different Robert De Niro's and to me, that's talent. I mean it too, there was no trace of Travis in Rupert, no trace of Jake in Johnny Boy, no trace of Johnny Boy in Travis, etc, etc. These were four stellar, different performances and Rupert Pupkin is the funnest one of them all. I mean, this is a character who is just a treat to watch. Maybe it's just me, but I get a crack (a huge one) out of watching De Niro holler at his mother, telling her to please be quiet so he can record his comedy tape. It gets me every time.

What is this film about? Perhaps it's another exploration of how we build people up who have no right being built up. But it's more than that, it's also about a man who can't differentiate between reality and fantasy, who gets lost in his own head and who has SERIOUS delusions of grandeur. The idea of people worshiping celebrities, fainting at their feet, has always been a fascination of mine. I just don't get it, I guess. We see Rupert's inability to separate fact and fiction when Martin seamlessly alters back and forth between fantasy and reality, with no clue that we're going from one to the other. It's also a big clue that the ending may not be fact, but rather existing only in Rupert's head. In fact, I think it's essential that we think that, because if the ending is real, then that defeats the whole purpose of the film, which to me is that Rupert isn't funny, won't be successful and is just someone who thinks he's hilarious. Surely if Rupert was talented, Cathy and whomever listened to his tape, would've told him so, but they didn't and just sort of wanted to be rid of him. Even Rupert's act isn't funny in the slightest and I think for the ending to be reality, then the act would have to be really good and something that would've genuinely made the audience laugh. To me, it was the act of an amateur and a never will be. So in my world, either Jerry makes it back to the studio before Rupert's act airs or Rupert's act does air, it flops and he goes to jail, end of story.

The film also examines the expectations we put upon celebrities, that they have to be nice, polite and always sign our autographs, even if they're clutching their chest and claiming a heart attack. The lady who praises Jerry on the street and then seconds later wishes cancer on him always cracks me up, but also fascinates me. I feel sorry for celebs at times, how they're almost forced to live as prisoners, just because they wanted to pursue something that they were good at. How they can't even buy a gallon of milk without getting bombarded for a signature, a picture or a hug - something they probably once dreamed of, now just a hassle. The film explores a lot of fascinating ideas, holds great acting from both De Niro and Lewis, but also manages to be a laugh out loud riot. Scorsese proves with this and "After Hours" that not only can he make classics, but also classic comedies. That's versatility.

RATING: 8.5/10  I can't go '9', even though I kind of want to, because this just isn't AS GOOD as "Raging Bull". However, it's damn close.

MOVIES WATCHED: 729
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 272

September 14, 2013  6:50pm

Read More

564. Mean Streets (1973)

Running Time: 110 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: Martin Scorsese, Mardik Martin
Main Cast: Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro, David Proval, Amy Robinson, Richard Romanus
Click here to view the trailer

SCORSESE WEEK: CHAPTER THREE

Just a quick programming note before we proceed with the "Mean Streets" review: I've just finished recording The Big Kahuna Burger podcast, where myself and Thomas, the host, talked in-depth about the new edition of THE BOOK. I'll let everyone know when the episode will be available for download and I hope you'll all go and hunt The Big Kahuna Burger podcast down on iTunes and give it a listen. I'll be joining them again soon for an episode entitled "Scorsese: Overrated or Not?". Now then, "Mean Streets"...

This was Scorsese's big, breakout picture, following "Who's That Knocking at My Door" and "Boxcar Bertha". The movie stars Harvey Keitel as Charlie Capp, a small-time, Italian-American who hopes to one day be a major player in the criminal underbelly of Little Italy. Charlie is normally surrounded by his partners in crime: the irresponsible Johnny Boy (De Niro), loan shark Michael (Romanus) and bar owner Tony (Proval). When the film begins, it is sort of told in vignette style, as Scorsese sets up the characters and their motives, showing us that they're wannabe big shots, who are in reality small timers. This is made clear when Michael and Tony take a couple of school age kids for $40 intended to be in exchange for fireworks. Let's just say they aren't mad when they realize the kids stiffed them and only paid $20. Charlie is also dating Johnny Boy's cousin, Teresa (Robinson), which Johnny Boy is oblivious to. Throughout the picture, there is a running story line with Johnny Boy owing money to Michael and Charlie playing the mediator.

So I've taken care of the two big boys ("Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull") and now we're going to cover the other, four Scorsese films from THE BOOK. We kick it off with "Mean Streets" which is very obviously a personal piece from Martin Scorsese, as it's very obvious that Scorsese is inviting us into his own backyard, for a birds eye view of life growing up on the "mean streets", as viewed by the director. I've just watched "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" two films that earn their praise when it comes to calling them classics, so going to "Mean Streets" next is of course going to make it harder on this movie to get into my good graces. I will say, however, that despite a barely there plot and amateur camerawork, the film isn't all that bad and works decently. It's not blow away great or anything, but maybe that's just me talking, with the fumes of TD and RB still filling my nostrils. It is a, as I said, a very personal project and therefore, perhaps, not entirely for us, but more for Scorsese filling his own needs, making the picture that he wanted and not the one that was necessarily going to appeal to the masses. It just so happened that it did appeal to many and therefore, labeled a "must see" by THE BOOK.

I've got to say that going from leading man De Niro to leading man Keitel was a bit of a jump though. De Niro earns his acclaim in "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" and I just, for some reason, have a hard time buying Keitel as a leading man. He's good and all, I'd just rather be watching De Niro hammer zingers over the centerfield wall. If you're watching "Mean Streets" on its own merits, then it's a fine picture, a really good one even. But I'm pretty sure that watching the two Scorsese knockouts first, have made me think twice about giving "Mean Streets" the same high marks. It's just not as good a film, not as interesting a premise, doesn't feature as good of performances and is more of a personal piece, rather than a public piece.

RATING: 6.5/10  Sorry for the quick words ladies & gents, but I'm beat to a pulp tonight and ready to submit to the warm embraces of my bed. This is good though and as long as you watch it with a fresh eye, you might really enjoy it. I could see it growing on me.

MOVIES WATCHED: 728
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 273

September 14, 2013  12:57am

Read More

668. Raging Bull (1980)

Running Time: 129 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: Paul Schrader, Mardik Martin, from book by Jake La Motta, Joseph Carter, Peter Savage
Main Cast: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Cathy Moriarty, Nicholas Colasanto, Theresa Saldana
Click here to view the trailer

SCORSESE WEEK: CHAPTER TWO

A few things to talk about before I get into the movie:

1) As I said in the "Taxi Driver" review, this Friday night I'll be joining the boys on The Big Kahuna Burger Podcast to talk film, specifically Martin Scorsese. I really hope you will all go and give them a little support, not just for my episode, but for all the great episodes they've done. Any and all information on The Big Kahuna Burger Podcast can be found by clicking here.

2) The newest edition of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book has arrived at my house, in review copy form and I must say I was SHOCKED at some of the inclusions and exclusions. I'll be on the blog hopefully someday this weekend to talk, in depth, about the ins and outs and what I think of the newest, TOTALLY REVISED edition.

3) Yesterday the blog celebrated it's fourth birthday and again, hopefully someday this weekend I'll be on the blog for a special four year anniversary post, where I'll do a whole lot of thanking and general reflections and probably also use the time to hype the podcast appearance and talk about how it all went.

So there's lots going on this week. Add to that the FINAL director tribute week, as we pay homage to the great Martin Scorsese, by watching some of the biggest titles from THE BOOK. "Raging Bull" may be the biggest of the Scorsese lot.

Martin Scorsese's seventh picture, "Raging Bull" tells the story of Jake La Motta (De Niro), top middleweight boxing contender and Italian-American living in The Bronx, under the management of his brother Joey (Pesci). That's really the meat & potatoes of what the film is ABOUT, however, the film delves into La Motta's personal setbacks, including his uncontrollable jealousy toward his trophy wife Vickie (Moriarty) and his ongoing battle with keeping in physical shape for the ring. The film details all of his biggest fights, some in montage form, including classic fights with Sugar Ray Robinson and Middleweight Champion Marcel Cerdan. As his career winds down, La Motta finds his anger issues spiraling out of control, with no self acknowledgement of a problem. In the end of his career, La Motta buys a night club (called "Jake La Motta's") where he TRIES to be as entertaining with a microphone as he was with a pair of gloves. Key scenes include La Motta urging his brother Joey to hit him repeatedly in the face, La Motta sobbing into the shoulder of his brother's suit jacket after being forced to throw a fight and the night Sugar Ray Robinson left La Motta's blood dripping from the ring ropes.

While it isn't quite as thought provoking or even as good as "Taxi Driver", I really think that this is the movie that put Scorsese on the map, thanks to the cinematography, the score and the subject matter. When you put "Raging Bull" side by side with "Taxi Driver", this is the one that looks a lot more professional and when watched, shows off memorable scene after memorable scene and just feels like something that should be lauded & praised. Whereas "Taxi Driver" looks a little more gritty and a little more underground; something that was made on a more personal level, "Raging Bull" looks like something that was made for the intention of turning heads and winning awards. Whether or not that was the intention or not, I do not know, but that's how it looks.

I really don't have a lot of in-depth insight to add to this one. Like I said, it just isn't as thought provoking as "Taxi Driver" and while I LOVE me some "Raging Bull", the characters here just aren't AS interesting as the Bickle character. In fact, the characters here are kind of shallow and really show no depth at all. There's no great awakening in the La Motta character; he's just a homophobic, jealous thug who only knows how to do one thing: fight.

However a question came to mind while watching this: Would De Niro have been as successful without Scorsese and vice versa? Look guys, there's a reason some people call De Niro the greatest actor to ever grace the big screen and it's performances like this and "Taxi Driver" that prove those people right. With these two films, you get a chance to see two, completely different De Niro's and see what a versatile actor the man is. In "Taxi Driver" he creates a developed character, with inner torment and in "Raging Bull" he pours his heart out, no to mention the physical changes that must've been rough on him. Now then, take "Raging Bull", "Taxi Driver" and the rest of the Scorsese pictures out of De Niro's filmography and do we still have an actor that people worship? Maybe, but there's also a big "maybe not" on it too. Does Scorsese get the director acclaim that he's gotten without De Niro bringing the acting chops to the table for him? I think this one is a much easier to fathom "what if", because Scorsese IS talented, but I think he makes his name with other pictures and not TD and RB.

RATING: 9/10  Like I said, just not AS good as "Taxi Driver", but still a damn fine movie and one that really looks, sounds and feels like something special. If you've never seen it, then congratulations, your life still has meaning.....to see this picture! Not that it didn't have meaning anyway....

MOVIES WATCHED: 727
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 274

September 12, 2013  11:35pm

Read More

611. Taxi Driver (1976)

Running Time: 113 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: Paul Schrader
Main Cast: Robert De Niro, Jodie Foster, Albert Brooks, Cybill Shepherd, Harvey Keitel
Click here to view the trailer

SCORSESE WEEK: CHAPTER ONE

Okay, so I should probably explain why I've suddenly decided to do "Scorsese Week" with absolutely no hype or premeditation. This coming Friday night I will be joining the guys of the Big Kahuna Burger podcast to spew some of my cinematic knowledge and the topic will be Martin Scorsese. Yesterday, I received the list of the films the guys want to focus on and "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" were among the selected films. I figured I'd better catch up on both pictures and figured while I was at it, I might as well just make a week of it. For the record, this will more than likely be the final director tribute week, as there just aren't anymore very notable directors left from THE BOOK.

Anyway..."Taxi Driver"...

Travis Bickle: Listen, you fuckers, you screwheads. Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the cunts, the dogs, the filth, the shit. Here is a man who stood up.

Travis Bickle: Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

I'd like to think that by now, all of my fellow film buffs know the plot to "Taxi Driver", but I'll happily detail it for the kids. Robert De Niro IS Travis Bickle, a taxi driver (imagine that), working the streets of New York City and disgusted with society, with the things he sees working the graveyard shift as an insomniac cabbie. Early on. Travis occupies his mind with Betsy (Shepherd), a beautiful blonde who works at the campaign headquarters of a presidential hopeful. He is able to woo her for a while, before fouling up and taking her to a dirty movie as their second date. She dumps him and thoughts begin to flood his psyche. He purchases an arsenal of guns and spends a lot of time at the shooting range and building elaborate, spring-loaded holsters. His plans are to kill the presidential hopeful that Betsy works for, Charles Palantine. However, before he goes through with that plan, he takes on another personal project: The project of getting twelve-year-old Iris (Foster) off the streets. Now a prostitute, Travis questions the girls motives and knows she must want more for herself. Her pimp Matthew (Keitel), however, won't let her go. 

SPOILER ALERT!

Well, yeah, that's about it. It's not a movie that really gives a whole lot to detail, but rather gives a whole lot to think about when the lights come up and you start filing out of the theater. The first time I saw "Taxi Driver", I didn't care much for it. It was definitely one of those films that, for me, took repeated viewings before I was finally able to peel back the layers and it's become one of those movies where every time I watch it, I get new ideas and pick up on new things. I've come to realize that the film isn't just about a nutty hack who cruises the streets. That it's probably the creation of one of the most interesting characters in all of film - Travis Bickle, of course. Not only is "Taxi Driver" a fantastic piece of character development, but also a superbly written (by Paul Schrader) inner conflict, probably the best inner conflict ever committed to celluloid. Here's my breakdown of the events in the film, in handy bullet point form: 

*In the beginning Travis is kind of a pest. He's that guy that tries to talk to you while waiting in the checkout line, that you just try your hardest to avoid. You look the other way, because you know any minute this guy's going to start up about conspiracy theories or how to clean up the streets. If you're a woman and you're attractive, he might try to flirt with you, because Travis has a lot of pent up, sexual tension. We see this displayed when he tries to chat up the checkout girl at the concession counter, at the adult movie theater. At this point, Travis has ideas, but they're not much different than the ideas that cross through everyone's head. We all spout our opinions from time to time, "Man, these streets are full of nothing but hoodlums and dopers" or "Man, they really need to clean up this area, it's just awful". However, at this point, the ideas/opinions are only that...ideas and opinions. They mean something to him, but not enough for him to actually take charge...yet. It's also relevant at this stage in the film to notice the difference between Travis during his inner monologue and when he's interacting with others and speaking out loud. It's a different person. Travis can't seem to materialize the guy he wants to be, maybe doesn't quite know how to express himself the way he'd like.

*Then he meets Betsy and for the first time, he IS able to become that man that he only becomes when he's alone, in his own head. He's a smooth talker and he wins her over. She tells him she's never met anyone like him and of course she hasn't, because at this point, this Travis has never existed. For a while, he's totally normal. No more popping pills, no more rants about the trashy streets. But it doesn't last long at all. Travis fouls up and Betsy is gone. Travis loved her and we know this because of his demeanor when she shows interest. And when Betsy takes her would be love away from Travis and halts his love for her, Travis loses it. This is where those ideas and opinions begin to become a little bit more, something he might like to act on. So he purchases an arsenal of guns and a knife or two and starts to work out, get in shape, get ready to wage war on society. 

*The third stage in Travis' development is when he goes crazy, which I've pretty much already covered with the buying of the arsenal. You also see him shaving his head into a mohawk and plotting to kill the presidential candidate. This mental state is almost averted when he meets Iris and develops care for her. He doesn't love her, as he loved Betsy, but he definitely wants to help her. He sees a glimmer of innocence drowning in a sea of wretchedness. It is during this point in the film too that Travis is also walking a fine line between becoming what he loathes the most (a dredge of society) and wanting to destroy it. In the end, Travis abandons his plans to kill the presidential candidate, when he's almost caught and decides, instead, to save Iris. 

*The final stage of Travis' development, we only see for a few minutes. It's the end of the movie, when we find he hasn't been arrested, but rather, lauded as a hero. He was successful in rescuing Iris and returning her to her family in Pennsylvania. We see Travis one last time, when Betsy gets into his cab and though peering at her in the mirror a few times, he's able to resist and manages to drop her off without trying to rekindle that glimmer of what they had. You have to understand that while Travis and Betsy only had two dates, to him it was probably the most meaningful relationship with a woman this character has ever had. Travis drives off, leaving Betsy. Now we know he's okay, that he was able to successfully extinguish the demons that existed in his head. However, a quick glance into the rearview mirror and a change in the music cue, lets us know that the psyche of Travis may not be completely cured. A happy ending? I say no one knows for sure. 

RATING: 10/10  So there it is, broken down in handy bullet points, for your reading pleasure. I just love this film. It has special meaning to me now and I know that every time I watch it, hereafter, I'll only continue to appreciate it more and continue to uncover new ideas. 

MOVIES WATCHED: 726
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 275 

September 9, 2013  7:15pm

Read More

989. The Departed (2006)

Running Time: 151 minutes
Directed By: Martin Scorsese
Written By: William Monahan, Siu Fai Mak, Felix Chong
Main Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen
Click here to view the trailer

ON MY JOURNEY I MET A MAN NAMED MARTIN

This is kind of a special review, because it's the first time on the blog that I'm going to get the chance to talk about Martin Scorsese - a favorite director of mine, one that I discovered slowly, on my own, without any real coaxing by anyone else. It's also the first time I'll be discussing the work of Leonardo DiCaprio, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors.

To detail the full plot of "The Departed", would take far too long because there are too many tiny intricacies that discussing every character, their motivation and specific role would be ridiculous. However, just covering the basics may be too short, so I'll try my best to find a happy medium. The film is set in Boston and revolves around big-time mob boss Frank Costello (Nicholson). Frank is a made man and at his age, he still reigns supreme over the criminal underworld of the Irish-American communities of Boston. At a young age, Colin Sullivan (Damon) is hand-picked by Frank to be one of his number one men, with the mindset being; treat him well at an early age and he'll always be on your side. Fast forward a lot of years and Colin is all grown up and being planted into the police force, via Frank, to be his man on the inside. Colin goes through the years of training that it takes to become a police officer and is almost immediately promoted to a plain clothes Sergeant. Meanwhile, William Corrigan Jr. (DiCaprio) is legitimately one of the good guys and is also going through police training. Coming from a sketchy, ghetto frequented background and a family with a pride-less history, William hopes to shake away the bad examples set by the family that came before him. Once a member of the State Police, William is approached with the opportunity to go undercover, into Frank's organization. His superiors figure that with his tumultuous past, Frank won't think twice when William approaches him about becoming a member of the criminal underworld. Now, we've got two rats: one good rat mixing with bad company and one bad rat mixing with the boys in blue. It all heats up very fast and provides the audience with one intense movie going experience.

SPOILER ALERT!

I feel like I was born to nitpick, so let's go with that first and then segue into the good stuff. My biggest complaint, and I really hate admitting this, is that, at times, the film is a LITTLE too confusing. It's not the fact that you've got to keep everyone's roles in order: Matt Damon is a bad guy pretending to be a good one, Leonardo DiCaprio is a good guy pretending to be a bad one, etc, etc. It's more when they start talking about micro processors, deals between Frank and the Chinese and all this mumbo jumbo. In a perfect world, Frank's specific activities would've been kept as simple as possible, because the real meat of the film lies with the two moles. The other thing that confused me a little bit...just a little bit, was the ending. Matt Damon's character opens his apartment door to find Mark Wahlberg standing with a gun pointed on him. Dignam (Wahlberg) is dressed in shady attire, complete with shoe covers on his feet. What's that all about?? Is it supposed to be implied that Madolyn gave the envelope to Dignam, which contained the truth about Colin, and therefore Dignam went, on official police business, and murdered Colin? Why wouldn't he just arrest him? Or are we meant to assume that Dignam was also working for Frank and because Colin killed Frank, Dignam was there to kill Colin? The rat at the very end of the picture would signal that the latter is very possibly true - the fact that rats exist everywhere. My other nitpick is SOME of the acting. Here's the rundown on the acting in this movie:

DiCaprio - shines, stands head and shoulders above all of the other talent. I truly think that when I'm older (much older) Leonardo DiCaprio will be the actor that me and my elderly peers talk about, much like people today talk of Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.

Nicholson - good, but showing some wear & tear. This SHOULD HAVE been Nicholson's swan song, as he passed the great actor torch onto brighter stars, namely Leo. It pretty much was, but he did "The Bucket List" and one other movie since, so technically...not a swan song.

Damon - Good and almost great, but not quite. I think if he hadn't been opposite DiCaprio, his star may have shined a little brighter. 

Wahlberg - Well I always give credit for trying and Wahlberg certainly tried to shine next to the big boys, but proved he's destined and probably much more suited for Michael Bay films.

Sheen - Proved to be just as good a veteran actor as Nicholson. I was impressed that this old dog still had a couple of good tricks up his sleeve.

Baldwin - I love Baldwin when he's a supporting player. If he's the star, he usually fails, but he does great when the pressure's off and he was fine here.

Farminga - I think she's a pretty decent actress. I think she's been given some big opportunities, early in her career (this and "Up in the Air") and has done well with that. I think she'd benefit by doing some smaller roles and honing her craft.

So that's the acting scorecard and you really can't sneeze at much of that, as it all ranges from good to great, with Leo outshining the lot of them. Of course, the story is the real star of the show, as you've got a truly original idea (other than the fact that this IS a remake of a Hong Kong film, thus deeming it quite unoriginal...but I mean the original, original idea), that people are going to obviously get into. At the very same time mob decides to put a mole in the police force, the police force decide to put a mole in the mob and the intensity and suspense of it all is, sometimes, to much to bear. "The Departed" comes complete with those "sit on the edge of your seat" moments, not to mention those moments where you just cannot help but try and communicate with the fictitious characters, through your T.V. If you're watching this movie and not yelling "Get out of there!" or "Oh my God, he's gonna' catch him!!", then you're not getting into the full experience that this motion picture has to offer. Martin wants you to have fun and he knows how to make an audience have fun, all the while making a high quality movie. That's what I love about Scorsese, because first and foremost, he's a fan and knows what we want to see.

RATING: 8/10  So a pretty good score, but I've seen Martin do better and we'll get the chance to review some of those better outings, down the line. By the way, "The Departed" really SHOULD be Scorsese's swan song to the gangster genre, as I think he's said everything he needs to say, with the use of blood and excessive violence.

MOVIES WATCHED: 669
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 332

April 27, 2013  10:15pm

Read More