892. HEAT (1995)

Running Time: 171 minutes
Directed By: Michael Mann
Written By: Michael Mann
Main Cast: Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore
Click here to view the trailer

PACINO, DE NIRO, AWESOME!

So this was coming up real soon anyway and since I just got through watching six straight Robert De Niro flicks, I figured I'd might as well make it a lucky seven and watch "Heat" too.

So if you're not familiar with "Heat", it's probably the best straight crime movie (and I'm talking cops and robbers, shoot 'em up style stuff here) to come down the pike in the last, oh, say twenty - thirty years. Actually, that's a bold statement and I'm surely forgetting something, but let's just go with it for now. You've got Vincent Hanna (Pacino), the good guy cop, who is working on failed marriage number three - a detective who sacrifices sleep and family to catch the bad guys and lock them away. Then there's the other side of the spectrum and Neil McCauley (De Niro), a brutal criminal and an ace professional who lives by the philosophy of "never having anything in your life that you're not prepared to walk out on in thirty seconds flat if you spot the heat around the corner". The film starts with an armored truck heist, but McCauley and crew, including Chris (Kilmer) and Cherrito (Sizemore). That gets the cops' attention and the cat & mouse game is on. The film is paced quite nicely for a three hour affair, so that we're given equal portions of important scenes, so that we're not forced to sludge through chunks of boring and meaningless material. Neil ends up meeting a girl, one whom he eventually develops strong feelings for and one that he may not be willing to walk out on in thirty seconds. Meanwhile, Vincent's marriage is crumbling, but his admiration for Neil keeps him on the streets.

It's a crime flick, ladies & gentlemen - need I say more. There's cops, there's bad guys and they play like cowboys and Indians in the street and that's really all you need know. Plus it's got Pacino and De Niro; that should be more than enough to skyrocket this classic to the top of your Netflix queue, especially if you haven't seen it. Let's talk about Pacino and De Niro for a second and who comes off as the better actor. Well it may be the recent intake of "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull" and other fantastic De Niro films, but I tended to lean more toward the De Niro performance here. Granted, I used to be Camp Pacino all the way, but, like I've said a thousand times before, THE BOOK will do wacky things to your cinematic taste buds and sometimes flip you to the exact opposite opinion. De Niro's Neil is a lot more reserved, cool, held back than Pacino's sometimes over the top Det. Hanna. De Niro knows when to turn up the volume and when to get a little more rambunctious and I liked that self control on his part.

As far as the story, like I said in the plot synopsis, the film never leaves you waiting for the next piece of the puzzle. It paces itself like a marathon runner, so that the viewer always gets a little something to tide them over until the next big rush of excitement. You've got the opening armored car heist then we get some story, then at about the halfway mark you get the bank robbery and the death of some key characters up to that point and then you get the rest of the story. It's beautifully paced and as someone who as seen a lot of long movies that haven't been well paced, I appreciated that.

Look it's just a great movie. It's a mainstream hit that actually delivers quality results. I still remember the first time I saw it. It never gets too complicated, like some police/detective/criminal movies do. We're given simple facts to deal with and left with only the responsibility of having a good time at the movies. Also, if you're any sort of movie fan, then the pairing of De Niro and Pacino will be a fascinating one. I think I'm correct in thinking that this is the first film they did together and to watch them go, within the confines of the same film, is like watching Picasso and Rembrandt do a painting together.

RATING: 8/10  Very good, but De Niro impressed more with his earlier Scorsese offerings. Still though, if you've never seen this go and see it like right now.

MOVIES WATCHED: 734
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 267

September 25, 2013  1:10pm

Read More

FRIGHTFEST 2013?

So I'm pretty much out of horror movies from THE BOOK, but am tinkering with the idea of continuing the FRIGHTFEST here on the blog. It's something I've done since 2010 and always enjoy a few good horror flicks around the month of October, usually a few weeks in range of Halloween.

Anyway, this year, I may just pick a random group of between 5 - 7 horror movies and give them full, formal reviews here on the blog. First off, what would you guys think of me giving full reviews to non-BOOK films?

Secondly, I am open to suggestions of which horror movies to actually watch. I already have a few ideas and I can't guarantee I'll take your suggestions, but I'm definitely all ears and if you plead your case good enough, I'm easily persuadable. My only criteria is that it has to be stuff I've never seen. Why? Just because I'd rather use the opportunity to see some things I haven't seen, as opposed to seeing horror movies I've already seen.

Some ideas so far:

Romero's Day of the Dead
Snyder's Dawn of the Dead
The original "The Omen"

What say you?

September 23, 2013  5:45pm

Read More

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

905. SHINE (1996)

Running Time: 105 minutes
Directed By: Scott Hicks
Written By: Scott Hicks, Jan Sardi
Main Cast: Geoffrey Rush, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Googie Withers, Lynn Redgrave, Noah Taylor
Click here to view the trailer

GEOFFREY RUSH...END OF STORY

I promise, this will be the last of me straying from "Scorsese Week", as I intend to have my next two, watched films be "Goodfellas" and "Casino", which will be the end for Martin. For now though, let's take a look at the movie that rightfully won Geoffrey Rush the Best Actor Oscar in 1996.

The film is a biopic, for the unaware, and tells the story of David Helfgott, Australian pianist (Rush, at his adult stage). From the time David is a little boy, he is gifted with the talent of being able to play classical piano. His father (Mueller-Stahl), is his teacher and expects a certain discipline from his only son. His father tries, at times to be a friend, but usually comes off as extraordinarily strict, wanting nothing but success for his boy. His father thinks he is doing what's best for the boy, being a stern figure, but emotionally, his attitude is taking it's toll on David. As David grows, he only gets better and eventually there are offers for David to study elsewhere in the world, including the United States. His father, not wanting to lose him, forbids him to ever take any incoming offers. Ultimately, an offer from England arrives and David is determined to accept. With a little urging from friend Katharine (Withers), David confronts his father with the news. His father reacts by beating him and telling him that if he does leave, he will no longer have a father - David leaves. In England, David's talent is only further heightened, as he is taught by the finest of professors. Eventually he tackles a very challenging piece (Rachmaninoff) and upon his acing it, has a mental breakdown and is admitted into a hospital, where he becomes a resident for many years. Later, as an adult, David is released and tries to re-enter society, under the passing care of several people, including a friend of his wife to be.

SPOILER ALERT!

Okay, so let me take you through the experience I had with "Shine". First of all, it took me two sittings to watch it because I started it Sunday night, but then got a little too tired to continue giving it my full attention, so I retired with about an hour to go and finished it last night. So anyway, I'm watching along and it's not dragging or anything, but it's not standing out as anything particularly "must see" either. It begins to occur to me that I'm starting to dislike biopics, because they just never choose any stories other than hard luck ones. Perhaps that's why I've always had a bit of a soft spot for the Howard Stern biopic "Private Parts", because it's just a story about a guy and it's not about him carrying a cruise liner up a mountain, barefoot through broken glass, while choking on an root beer barrel. I bet you that 95% of the biopics out there are hard luck stories and they all seem to follow the same pattern, even though they're all supposed to be different, unique stories about one person's life. Hey, don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm not sympathetic to the hard luck stories in biopics, but lets just say they don't always make for good films and perhaps I'd rather be watching a documentary about the struggling person's life, or archival footage from YouTube or something. So anyway, this isn't playing out as anything different and I'm watching the clock and wondering when this Geoffrey Rush performance that I've heard so much about is going to begin. To the unaware, Heflgott's story is told through the use of three different actors portraying him and Rush is the adult version. So we have to sit through Helfgott as a child and as a teenager, before FINALLY getting to Rush, at nearly the one hour mark!

But then, Geoffrey Rush steals the show! Now, don't get me wrong, it probably wasn't enough to totally win me over or anything, but what a freaking performance and this guy truly earned his little gold statue and that's coming from a guy who loved Billy Bob Thornton as Karl Childers (also nominated that year). Look at it this way, I was quite unimpressed with this movie, yet Rush nearly got me to cry on TWO different occasions in the film: 1) When he has to say goodbye to Gillian and 2) when he himself cries, at the end, after his concert. I mean, when people talk about outstanding performances, this is what they're talking about. I'll stop gushing about it, because I can't say enough good things about it and there's no use trying. On a final note, I fount the beginning of the film to be quite odd. Why start with David knocking on the restaurant door? What was so significant about that moment in Helfgott's life that we had to start there and then meet back up there, later in the film? The only thing I can think of is because it was where he met the woman that would later introduce him to his wife, but even David's marriage is downplayed quite a bit, in the grand picture.

RATING: 6/10  And all six of those notches are for Geoffrey Rush. What a freaking performance. Must see? Yes, but without Rush, it's must avoid.

MOVIES WATCHED: 731
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 270

September 17, 2013  7:33pm

Read More

901. The Usual Suspects (1995)

Running Time: 106 minutes
Directed By: Bryan Singer
Written By: Christopher McQuarrie
Main Cast: Gabriel Byrne, Kevin Spacey, Stephen Baldwin, Kevin Pollak, Benicio del Toro
Click here to view the trailer

I AM KEYSER SOZE! (NOT REALLY)

Taking a little break from the "Scorsese Week" festivities, to jump into reverse chronology mode again, picking up with the movie that made Bryan Singer a household name - "The Usual Suspects".

Let's see here...I suppose you people want a plot synopsis or something. Allright then. The film gets going when a truck full of guns is knocked off and five of the "usual suspects" are rounded up and hauled in for questioning. Among the five men, you've got Todd Hockney (Pollak), Michael McManus (Baldwin), his partner Fenster (del Toro), a cripple Verbal Kint (Spacey) and bad cop gone clean Dean Keaton (Byrne). As the five men sit in a prison cell, awaiting their release, they get to talking and one thing leads to another and the five men form a crew, with their first mission set in stone: get back at the police. They do this by stirring up trouble for the precinct, by uncovering "New York's Finest Taxi Service" - a crooked cop operation where members of the police escort high profile criminals around the city, in exchange for a payoff. They go on to commit another crime, before being put in touch with a lawyer named Kobayashi, a man who works directly for mystery man Keyser Soze  - a modern myth in the criminal underworld. The five know that if they cross Keyser Soze and that if he does exist, they won't live to tell about it. It all leads to a big blow up at the pier, involving some dope smugglers, a lot of cash, a lot of criminals, Keyser Soze and the usual suspects.

SPOILER ALERT!

You know, this is probably the fifth or sixth time I've actually seen "The Usual Suspects" and despite liking it well enough, I don't think I ever need or want to see it again. It's just not one of those movies that lends itself to repeated viewings, for me anyway and no, it's not because of the twist ending. It's just something that I'll admit is very good, but something that I'm almost sick of seeing at this point, if that makes any sense. I mean, what can I say that hasn't been said about this movie. It seems that everybody likes it, everybody's seen it and whether they've seen it or not, I think everybody knows that Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze. The cat's out of the bag and it's one of those endings that isn't a secret anymore (kind of like how EVERYONE knows that Bruce Willis is dead in "The Sixth Sense").

Plot holes? Well, I can't spot any off hand, but I'm almost sure there's a few in there. But, guess what? It doesn't matter if there's plot holes, because the ending suggests that EVERYTHING we've just watched has been pretty much invented by Spacey's Kint. I mean, I'm right here, right? The entire movie is just a story as told by Verbal Kint a..k.a. Keyser Soze? That's kind of cool, but in a way it's also kind of irritating to realize that there is no ultimate solution and that there really isn't a puzzle, because it was just a story. Sure, I guess you could argue that every movie is just a story, but you know what I mean.

Here I am bashing "The Usual Suspects", saying I never want to see it again and saying that it's pointless, when I'm fully prepared to give it good points in the rating below. The film isn't bad, I promise and when you forget about the puzzle aspect of it, it's actually a pretty decent little crime caper movie. In fact, maybe that's it - maybe the part that really bugs me about the movie is that they ruined a perfectly good crime picture, with a dirty, corrupt atmosphere by surrounding it in all this mystery and Keyser Soze crap. Hmm something to think about. A good movie though, that I'm sure most will take to. Oh, who am I kidding; most already have taken to it.

RATING: 7/10  Like I said, not bad, but I have to say that this was my final viewing and I've formed a definitive opinion here.

MOVIES WATCHED: 730
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 271

September 15, 2013  3:38pm

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