Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:43 am
by RogueScribner
I voted for Taxi Driver. I also dig Raging Bull and Goodfellas. But I also quite enjoy his other forays into filmmaking, like The Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York, and The Aviator. I can't believe this man hasn't won an Oscar.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:43 am
by Leckomaniac
You are not alone in that one is quite the travesty.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:18 am
by magicmonkey
Scorcese. Hmmm. He is a funny little man. As for my favourite of his its got to be Taxi Driver. Pure and simple progressive genius, as relevent today as when it was made.

Paul Schrader, who wrote the script whilst he was living in the back of car, has such a voice, with resonance and a gritty realism.

Bernard Hermans score captures the mundane rhythms and surging flows of Bickles life perfectly.

Michael Chapmans cinematography is just beautiful. I saw this film on the big screen, and boy does it make a difference to the experience of watching. This film lives and breathes, such depth of focus, surely Alan Moore got his eye for background action in the Watchman from this film. If you want to see how good this guy is, just watch his stuff from the opeining of Lost Boys during the people are strange song, this guy captures real life.

The performances are all great. Now, where does Scorcese fit into all this? He's a mad little kinetic man. I love this film.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:28 am
by RogueScribner
Scorsese is one of the few classic filmmakers who get off on the art of film. He loves making movies and it shows.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:20 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
RogueScribner wrote:I voted for Taxi Driver. I also dig Raging Bull and Goodfellas. But I also quite enjoy his other forays into filmmaking, like The Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York, and The Aviator. I can't believe this man hasn't won an Oscar.

Marty's in good company. Neither Chaplin, Welles, Renoir, Garbo, Monty Clift, Hitchcock, Keaton and others got Oscars for their work. How can one possibly take seriously an organization that's given Costner a best directing award for the vomit-inducing 'Dances With Wolves' yet never gave one to Hitchcock or Welles or Renoir?

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:43 pm
by The Vicar
Bringing Out the Dead?


I can't rank Taxi Driver or Raging Bull, one over the other. They're a tie, in my book.
That Marty got no Oscar for either?
Utter bull.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:45 pm
by HollywoodBabylon
Don't forget 'Kundun'. a wonderful movie.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:54 pm
by El Scorcho
Personally, I think Scorcese's best is Good Burger. The performance he got out of Keenan Thompson is one for the record books...

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:59 pm
by The Ginger Man
I actually met Scorcese once. It was in France and only for a very brief moment. But in real life, the man looks like a real-life, flesh-and-blood muppet.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:04 pm
by Seppuku
The Ginger Man wrote:I actually met Scorcese once. It was in France and only for a very brief moment. But in real life, the man looks like a real-life, flesh-and-blood muppet.


Which one?

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:21 pm
by The Ginger Man
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
The Ginger Man wrote:I actually met Scorcese once. It was in France and only for a very brief moment. But in real life, the man looks like a real-life, flesh-and-blood muppet.


Which one?

You tell me.


It doesn't help that the guy is 5'4". Also, his eyebrows are like 100% bushier in person. They stick out like an inch from his forehead.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:26 pm
by Seppuku
Well you need something to concentrate on as he goes into one of those famous hyper-speed rants of his. There are some strange looking people in France though (and some of the most gorgeous people- men and women- in the world), so I guess if he ever wants to find a place to retire and buy a huge villa (Dino-style) he could do worse.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:30 pm
by The Ginger Man
Well, I actually met him at the Cannes film fest, the year he previewed Gangs of New York. The pic I posted is actually from the fest. So he looked just like that.

But yes, I would so retire on the blue coast. Cannes is beautiful and just a 45 minute train ride from Italy.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:45 pm
by LeFlambeur
Although Taxi Driver is probably his greatest film, I like Mean Streets the best. Here we see him at is freshest, closest to his themes. In Mean Streets he still has the energy of a young genius first discovering his craft, while approaching the technical skill of a master. He's right on that line.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:02 pm
by Alex DeLarge
Geez this was tough, in the end I had to go with Taxi Driver. But Raging Bull is also amazing, and I really really love Goodfellas, Casino, The King of Comedy, and Cape Fear. I still have to see Mean Streets and The Last Temptation of Christ and a few other but those are harder to find.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:15 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
It pains me so much to choose. I mean, htis man destroys conventional film. Cape Fear has got to be the best remake ever. The Color of money is the most genius sequel ever (have a poster of PAul "The Hustler" Newman in my living room). He makes autobiographies so friggin spectacular that you forget that it was real. I went for Taxi Driver, for obvious reasons.

yeah, I was thinking Cape Fear, it sounded like Cape Fear in my head, but I typed Deliverance.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:09 am
by minstrel
The Last Waltz. It isn't on the list. I voted "Other" because of that.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:35 am
by Cabiria
Retardo_Montalban wrote:Deliverance has got to be the best remake ever.

This confused me. Is he remaking Deliverance? I hadn't heard that.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:20 am
by John-Locke
The Ginger Man wrote:
seppukudkurosawa wrote:
The Ginger Man wrote:I actually met Scorcese once. It was in France and only for a very brief moment. But in real life, the man looks like a real-life, flesh-and-blood muppet.


Which one?

You tell me.


It doesn't help that the guy is 5'4". Also, his eyebrows are like 100% bushier in person. They stick out like an inch from his forehead.

I think he looks like Gonzo



PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:20 am
by tstreet
YOu gotta love the man work. His movies are great and I am always first in line when a new one comes out.

I am truly excited about the DEPARTED

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:33 pm
by Oh Dae su
Whats goin on guys? Been reading the boards for some time now but never really took the time to register. Ive got a film presentation that I figured a few of you might be able to provide some insight on. Basically it concerns Martys art direction in the film raging bull. I need to explain what he was trying to achieve by his choices in art direction. As I understand it he was influenced mainly by black and white portraits of the time period taken in life magazine among other things. My teacher...if you want to call her that...left me rather high and dry when it came to how she wants me to approach the topic but I figured a few of you might be versed enough in film to throw out a few ideas.

As far as what i saw from rewatching it the other day it seems as though he s used a lot of sharply contrasting whites and blacks as they would a noir in the past, but the films art could not qaulify as such because of the abundance of grey found throughout. The film has a hazy glow to it both in the fighting scenes and the bar sequences from all the smoke effects and there are constant flashbulbs in multiple scenes.

So guys what do you think his intentions, inspirations and motivations behind filming this classic the way he did? Its definately done differently in many ways then his others..what was he trying to show us?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:50 pm
by John-Locke
I'm curious how you were reading the boards without being registered as the unregistered just get a login screen.

I hope this isn't just some BS market research thing.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:19 pm
by Bob Samonkey
Damn I wanted to ask the same question but did not know how without answering the Raging Bull question. I have not seen that movie in years and my mind is not fresh.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:40 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
One of the reasons it is in black and white is down to his protest or something against colour being used too much in movies, or not enough monochrome. Something like that. It's a lead, check it out, pursue it more, see what you find Bubba.

I just hope you get a break.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:40 pm
by Oh Dae su
I used a friends name that I never posted on. GameOver or DrunkRed or something along those lines. It was on auto login so I never bothered.

This is definately not a marketing thing so dont worry about that. Ive just gotta come up with a few things as a basis for my presentation and this is the most knowledgable base of film fans I know of.

The color/protest things is intersting. Thanks for the start.

Anyone else have any clue?

Re: Scorseses Thought process on Raging Bull

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:35 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
Oh Dae su wrote:As I understand it he was influenced mainly by black and white portraits of the time period taken in life magazine among other things...The film has a hazy glow to it both in the fighting scenes and the bar sequences from all the smoke effects and there are constant flashbulbs in multiple scenes.

decent article here that confirms various things I've come across over the years...

Powell helped Scorsese realize that, for most adults, memories of boxing were black-and-white memories (MSI, 84). Scorsese’s decision to film Raging Bull in black and white partly stems from his desire to re-create such boxing memories. His growing dissatisfaction with color film stock also helped persuade him to make the film black and white.

Have you've ever seen any photos from the boxing matches of the 40's and 50's? Marty was mimicking those. I don't know where to go to find 'em online or anything (a quick google search didn't really help) but I know I've seen a compare and contrast somewhere.

[quote]The photography of Life magazine also influenced Raging Bull, as Eleanor Ringel noticed. She called Cathy Moriarty “a Lana Turnerish blonde with the sultry, sun-baked appeal of the ‘40s Life magazine cover.â€

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:00 pm
by Oh Dae su
Thats about as good as anything I could have ever hoped to get. Thank you very much Keep. I think this thing will come togather really nicely.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:30 am
by Ribbons
WinslowLeach wrote:Cape Fear: JL Im with ya on this one. I think alot of people overlook this remake, but I like it more than the original because it more ambiguous as far as the morality and as far as cinematic technique, its almost like Scorsese doing a riff on Bava meets DePalma. A totally energizing thriller.

I'm with you completely on this one (although I would have used a more cliched word like "riveting"). It really stems from the fact that I think the character of Max Cady and his particular worldview is just fascinating to me; it's like he devotes his entire life to finding a way to prove to himself that he's a better man than Nick Nolte. And for a while it sort of works, even though he's still a murderous nut. That scene where he scares/seduces the guy's daughter in the auditorium, even though some of the character's decisions are a little hard to swallow, holy crappa is it tense. Great movie villain, and maybe even one of DeNiro's last great performances.

Hearing everyone talk up The King of Comedy is giving me an itch to see it like pronto.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:55 am
by Chilli
Just a random thought, but does anyone else love how in films like Casino and Goodfellas he basically manages to break the cinematic boundaries that says you have to tell a story instead of telling a life? I feel at times that he's not given enough credit for making films a bit more literary, making these films which have no obvious story, but instead are a miniature biography of an existence, filled with the humane pauses and natural moments.

Its most true, for me, in Casino, where the story is slim but the characters and situations are rich, and we often get plonked into situations with minimal context, thrown into them like we were reading a book and making our own mind up. (The vice scene in Casino is an example of this, a case of morally reprehensible individuals torturing a morally reprehensible individual in a horrific way, leaving us no-one to obviously root for.)

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:06 pm
by havocSchultz
I was rooting for the vice...

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:12 pm
by Chilli
havocSchultz wrote:I was rooting for the vice...

Succint point over many paragraphs... destroyed by Havoc with one line. Just like democracy.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:18 pm
by havocSchultz
Vote 4 Vice!

PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:19 pm
by Chilli
havocSchultz wrote:Vote 4 Vice!

He's just doing his job. :lol:

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:37 am
by LeFlambeur
I saw Scorsese's most recent film in Imax a while back. I wrote some observations but then forgot about them. I don't know if this is the proper place to put this, but anyway:

The general weakness of Shine A Light (the new Scorsese, Stones roc-doc) stems from the nature of the venue. In Shine a Light they play at a small benefit concert hosted by (ugh) the Clintons, and audience is loaded with young yuppies who often seem oblivious to some of the criticisms heard in the Rolling Stones lyrics. They've have been playing the same music for years, and you can hear it, it often sounds as though they have partially forgotten the groove that made the songs work in the first place. Shine a Light often lacks the necessary alchemy that elevates concert docs from recordings and technical exercises into something more. Consider the recent examples of the egalitarian communion in Gondry's Dave Chappelle's Block Party, or the humble continuation of grassroots American tradition in Demme's Neil Young: Heart of Gold. Even when lacking in inspiration, Scorsese is still a skilled, masterful craftsman. He gives the concert a textured intimacy, editing feels raw but controlled, and the band's dynamics are well traced throughout the performance. Shine a Light also displays a near elating visual iridescence; with no small assistance I'm sure from his all-star team of cinematographers.

The beginning is admittedly, very amusing. Scorsese's onscreen persona and first person tangents are nearly as fine tuned as Godard's, and by bringing the viewer into the circumstances of the concert's creation lends a bit of sympathy to his efforts. The band's general indifference to the scale of things and their position of privilege also provides a few choice moments after the Clintons stop by, Richards off-handedly sums up the moment, quipping "I'm sorry Mr. Clinton, but I'm bushed." The rest of the concert is unfortunately, long on runtime and short on privileged moments. Shine a Light climaxes when Buddy Guy appears on stage to do version of Champagne and Reefer. Energetic as their performances have been thus far (at least Mick's), when Buddy enters the picture, something inside them seems to wake up. As they start mimicking Guy's bluesy riffing they all start surrounding him, and play towards him as if seeking approval. Unlike the other uninspired appearances of Jack White and Christina Aguilerra, Buddy steals the scene. Now I don't really know who this Buddy Guy, um, guy is; but I didn't want him to leave, and I don't think the Stones did either (Richards surrendered his guitar at the end of the number). Scorsese later finds a strained poignancy unique to the nights proceedings during As Tears Go By, fixing the camera on Jaggar's face and switching the lighting to underscore his age.

To anyone even remotely familiar with Scorsese's work, it was almost a foregone conclusion that he would do a Rolling Stones concert-doc sooner or later, but he's picked an interesting point to do so. In many ways both are in artistically, and commercially similar positions. Their trailblazing days are well behind both of them, and both are at points of comfortable middlebrow critical acclaim. Is Scorsese's hollow rehashing of
doomed urban gangster youth clichés, tough guy brutality, moral erosion within a laboriously directed milieu in the Departed really that different from the Stones forcibly energetic spitting out of Jumpin' Jack Flash for the millionth time all that different? Yet Scorsese isn't really able to wring a narrative out of this, the flashback interviews only seem a form of congratulations to the Stones for still being around. At the end, all Scorsese can do is rip out his Goodfellas tracking shot by way of La Dolce Vita, before a CGI crane-out to the city.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:01 am
by TheButcher
From CHUD:
Devin Faraci wrote:There’s been a trend on the interwebs of sites passing off information that’s been hidden for years – usually stowed away in antique technology like ‘books’ or ‘magazines’ – as news. Who am I to buck the trend? Instead of pretending that this stuff is news I’ll present it to you as interesting bits of info that you may have never learned otherwise. It’s not news, but it’s probably news to you.

In this world, Tim Burton’s first feature film is Pee Wee’s Big Adventure. In another world his first movie out the gate is something quite different: After Hours.

You (hopefully) know After Hours as one of the most underrated Martin Scorsese movies. A surreal, satirical trip through downtown New York City at night, After Hours is one part paranoid fantasy, one part gritty homage to New York and one part weird-ass mindfuck. That it comes from Scorsese only heightens the film’s oddness.

But Scorsese almost didn’t make the film. In fact, if his attempts to get funding for The Last Temptation of Christ had been any more successful at the time, we’d be looking back at After Hours as Tim Burton’s first movie. Burton had come out of the concept art department at Disney Animation with some good friends who helped him get short films, like Vincent and Frankenweenie, made. These films got Burton noticed by Hollywood types, including Griffin Dunne, who was developing a script by a 26 year old Columbia Film School student named Joseph Minion (which was originally called Lies and was heavily lifted from NPR monologues by a guy named Joe Frank. So lifted, in fact, that Frank was apparently paid off).

Before Burton could get far Scorsese came into the project. I’m not sure if he had been involved before Burton and returned or if he came across the script after Burton was already attached (I’ve heard the story both ways), but apparently Burton realized that his best career move was to step away and let Scorsese have the film.

And that turned out pretty well for him, as he went on to do Pee Wee’s Big Adventure more or less immediately. But it’s intriguing to imagine what a Tim Burton-directed After Hours would have looked like. The director wasn’t so ossified in his style at the time, but it’s easy to picture Burton-esque flourishes in that strange story of a mild-mannered office worker getting sucked into the bizarre New York nightlife. Scorsese brings a certain amount of naturalism to the film, even in the more far out scenes, and it’s not hard to see a very different version coming from a young Burton.

In many ways After Hours is a mirror image of Pee Wee’s Big Adventure - characters out of their element on a quest, and it’s like Griffin Dunne and Paul Reubens each walked into the other’s world.

The big question has to be whether a Tim Burton who began with After Hours would be the same Tim Burton who made this weekend’s Alice in Wonderland. Maybe we could have ended up with a better Burton.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:03 am
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
As much as I depsise Burton's attempts at drama, I thought he was a great hand at hilarity in Pee Wee and Beetlejuice was funny too. So to do a dark comedy that is After Hours, I would actually have been up for.

Scorsese's take is excellent and fast and snappy and definitely nightmarish, and I still think Burton could have rode this ride confidently ad brought his own dark quirkiness to bring that nightmare element to it as well.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:44 am
by Spandau Belly
I vote for Raging Bull. Pure virtuso masterpiecery.

For the most, if Schraeder ain't writing, Scorcese's movies don't work for me. Color Of Money is the one big exception. I love that movie.

I like After Hours, it's pretty good, but it's not greatness.

The last time I enjoyed one of his films was Bringing Out The Dead. But I'm not one of these guys who takes any remote satisfaction in seeing great directors hit slumps or make bad movies. There seem to be loads of guys on the internets waiting for the mighty to fall so they can kick them.

I hated Gangs Of New York. It is one of the most frustrating movies I have ever seen. There's so much potential. Such a great world in that film. Such great characters. Even some great scenes and sequences. But what a mess.

I can't call The Aviator a bad movie, it's just a really pedestrian biopic.

I think everybody but Leo and Matt was drunk on the set of The Departed. Jack drunker than the rest.

I haven't seen Shutter Island, though I intend to rent it. I don't really get into Leo D as an actor. I'm kinda indifferent on him. If it had been Jon Hamm in the lead role I would've seen it ten times by now.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:53 pm
by so sorry
Spandau Belly wrote:I think everybody but Leo and Matt was drunk on the set of The Departed. Jack drunker than the rest.

So does that mean you liked it or not?

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:54 pm
by so sorry
I've watched Casino a few times recently (its making the rounds on some of the lesser HBO channels). one of my least favorites of Marty's, but I still have problems turning it off!

I forget what my original vote was for this ancient thread, but most likely it was Goodfellas.

Gangs of New York was pure shit.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:16 pm
by TheBaxter
i'm quite sure my original vote was for taxi driver, so i would like to renew my vote at this time.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:16 pm
by Maui
WHAT?! No Cape Fear on the list? For shame.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:15 pm
by TheButcher
Martin Scorsese, William Monahan Teaming for 'The Gambler' at Paramount (THR Exclusive)
Daniel Miller wrote:Paramount is going all-in on The Gambler, a remake of the 1974 James Caan addiction drama.

The studio has set Martin Scorsese to direct and William Monahan to write. Irwin Winkler, who produced the original, will again act as producer of the new film.

The 1974 movie, an adaptation of the short novel The Gambler by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, detailed a New York English professor who inspires his students but suffers from a secret gambling addiction. The affliction causes him to extort money from his mother and convince one of his students to shave points in a basketball game.

Caan received a Golden Globe nomination for best actor for his performance in the original. Lauren Hutton and Paul Sorvino co-starred for director Karel Reisz. (The project is not related to the series of Gambler TV movies that starred Kenny Rogers in the 1980s and 90s.)

The gritty New York setting of the original seems a perfect match for Scorsese, who teamed with Monahan on 2006 best picture Oscar winner The Departed.

The director has been especially active lately. He has his first family film, Hugo, slated for a Thanksgiving release, and he’s preparing to direct Silence, an adaptation of the Shusaku Endo novel. He’s also attached to The Wolf of Wall Street, an adaptation of the Jordan Belfort memoir that has attached Leonardo DiCaprio, with whom Scorsese collaborated on Shutter Island.

Scorsese is repped by WME. Monahan is repped by WME and Anonymous.

Paramount declined to comment.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:35 pm
by SilentScream
Doesn't sound anything special to me. Be interested in seeing Hugo though purely out of curiosity to see how he handles a family flick.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:11 pm
by Spandau Belly
So I saw THE KING OF COMEDY for the first time on the weekend and you can colour me impressed. The film has held up due to a strong script, solid performances, good directing, but most surprisingly the subject matter is still relevant. Or at least that's what's most surprising to me. I really can't believe these late night talkshows are still on the air. I always figured they were there because they were cheap to produce and people could comfortably fall asleep watching them. I would think in this age or PVRs and on-demand video these types shows would've gone the way of the dinosaur, but no. I remember a few years ago hearing about this big caffuffle over Conan O'Brien taking over from Jay Leno and just shaking my head not only because these guys were still around, but also that anybody actually cared. But I remember people having really strong opinions about which guy they wanted to see tell lame jokes, engage in lifeless banter with their band leader, and kiss celeb bums.

But back to the movie. This is a stalker flick with a dark humour and social satire about a culture raised in front of televisions, but more disturbing and funnier than THE CABLE GUY (sorry Ben Stiller, you're no Scorcese). It's pretty amazing how many stalkers DeNiro has played (TAXI DRIVER, CAPE FEAR REMAKE, THE FAN) but how he always finds a different spin on it. This performance was probably most like his work in JACKIE BROWN in that it's funny without being muggingly so. For those of you who haven't seen the film, he plays a loser who dreams of being a comedian and stalks a Johnny Carson type guy played by Jerry Lewis. Lewis is definately an interesting pressence in the film. Lewis is a comedian, playing a comedian, who never does any comedy or anything funny during the film. But casting a well-known comedian works because we in audience know he can do comedy without having to see it, and we can get into him as a real character and not a comic persona.

The film handles its themes of celebrity obsession well and builds tension well. The big suspense for me was DeNiro's comedy act. I found myself really anticipating seeing it. I wanted to see just how bad he was, but then when he turns out to be as funny as any other Rodney Dangerfield type it was kinda interesting. This guy probably could've made it as a working comedian. That was a strange twist. I thought he would get out in front of the audience and freeze.

I am not sure whether I think the ending is in DeNiro's head or not. I tend to think it is real because it drives home the cynical social satire that the public rewards the wrong people with fame.

So yeah, this is a really solid film. Very original in its tone and very clever in its handling of its themes.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:04 pm
by TheBaxter
definitely one of scorsese/deniro's more underrated films.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:26 pm
by Bloo
I'm a big fan of King of Comedy and had I known you hadn't seen it Spandau, I would have totally recommended it. It plays right into your style and sensibilities.

Great fucking film

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:14 pm
by Spandau Belly
It's strange, people never talk about this film. Not in the context of DeNiro performances, or Scorcese films, or stalker movies, or even movies where a comedian is cast against type. I knew this film existed and had seen the box at my various videostores over the years, but always wrote it off. I didn't even know it was a stalker movie, I figured it was something more like PUNCHLINE until I saw it. Glad I finally checked this one out on a whim.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:44 pm
by Bloo
hell King of Comedy isn't really mentioned in cult movie discussions or underratted Scorsese movies. It's just...almost forgotten

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:20 pm
by Spandau Belly

I had prettymuch no interest in seeing this movie and skipped it during its initial theatrical run, probably because the Scorcese DiCaprio partnership has resulted in movies that are mediocre at best, and usually feature a totally miscast DiCaprio. My friends all love Leo D, and hated this movie. But I caught the first little bit on the airplane and really enjoyed it, so I rented it and watched the whole thing.

I have to say, these guys have finally done something worthwhile together. Scorcese is just firing on all cylinders with this thing. And Leo gives an excellent performance playing the type of sleazy salesman guy that Tom Cruise usually plays. DiCaprio really sinks his teeth into the role and delivers. His Noo Yawk accent pops in and out, but other than that, he is this guy for the 3 hours of this movie's screentime.

The film tells a familiar story of one man's rise and fall. The main character is a white collar criminal and the film is based on a real guy, but it still follows a similiar arc as the gangster pictures with which Martin Scorcese is most associated. What sets it apart is that it is told as a comedy and it's consistently pretty funny. A lot of the jokes come from how these characters try to function while fucked up on drugs. And a lot of the humour comes from just how brazen they are with their criminal activity. And the remaining jokes come from midgets and fucking.

Marty's manic directorial style and a charismatic cast keep this thing's pace up. I can't say it ever felt like it dragged. Like I said, most people I know hated this movie, but I really enjoyed it.

Re: Scorsese

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:06 pm
by Al Shut
Spandau Belly wrote:I have to say, these guys have finally done something worthwhile together.

I thought Shutter Island was pretty worthwhile, although DiCaprio arguably get's to have the least fun because his character is the only one not in on the joke.