Doomsday
Administrator 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299 
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 9, 2017 1:41:09 GMT -5
And now the continuation of.... Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography The Departed (2006)
View count: Several times  Looking at The Departed again it's difficult not to get caught up in the whirlwind of discussion, praise, hype and subsequent backlash that comes with a movie with all the praise and accolades it was given. After all, this is the movie that finally won Scorsese his much sought-after Best Director Oscar. It also featured an ensemble that is to this day still one of the best that's been put together in recent memory. Think about it, every main cast member in this movie is still an A-list star eleven years on, stars who if anything have only become more popular since. The Departed seemed like yet another high water mark for Martin Scorsese. Personally though, it was always a movie that never sat quite right with me. Even now it's hard to take a completely objective look at the movie since I've seen it so many times. It's probably the Scorsese film I've seen the most, second only to Goodfellas. On the surface it's a fun, fast-paced gangster movie with sharp dialogue, some solid performances (balanced out by other very over-acted ones) and the mix of violence and charm that Scorsese had perfected by this point. It's also a movie that feels bogged down by a lot of baggage and details that show clear cracks in its execution. Like many Scorsese movies it's a good yet flawed movie, only this time those flaws are more apparent and numerous than I would have expected. Everyone reading this probably knows that The Departed is based on the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. Infernal Affairs is a much tighter film than The Departed as it's almost an hour shorter but much of the foundation is still there. The Departed builds on this and tries to add more to it. Some of it is lean red meat, a lot is fat that could have been shaved, but the end result is a pretty capable and entertaining crime film. You have two massive movie stars, Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio, in a battle of wits trying to outsmart each other on the streets of Boston. Damon is Colin Sullivan, a cop secretly working for Boston's big time mobster, while DiCaprio is Billy Costigan, a hood working for Boston's big time mobster but is secretly a cop. The mobster, based on real life crime boss Whitey Bulger, is Jack Nicholson's Frank Costello in probably his last really memorable role. In addition we have Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Mark Wahlberg, Vera Farmiga and Ray Winstone lending their talents. There are some great scenes found throughout buoyed by equally great performances by, well, some. After a brief introduction to the major players, The Dropkick Murphy's Shipping Up To Boston blasts over Leo's Costigan as he dons his persona as an ex-cop/informant which really sets the mood for the rest of the film, and don't pretend like you didn't download the song off Limewire immediately after watching the movie. We all did. The way I would describe Gangs of New York is that it's a movie that's really rough around the edges and from the moment I walked out of the theater after first watching The Departed I thought the exact same thing. Over the years my opinion hasn't changed too much. There are so many things about this film, from the editing to some of the acting to the awkward humor that's peppered throughout the film and rarely lands, that could have easily been resolved had a little more time or even another set of eyes been invested. Some of it might be considered nitpicking and doesn't have a huge impact on the film as a whole. Pointing out how absurd it is that Sullivan is taking phone calls from Costello in the middle of a police station or a stakeout or a sting or from his home telephone might make someone scratch their head but it's also something that most people won't dwell on. I doubt anyone cares that it's a little weird that Costello recruits Sullivan as a young kid and nobody notices or remembers when the same kid goes to the police academy. I know that when you get a person of Scorsese's talent and reputation the words 'no' or 'this doesn't work' don't meet his ear that often. He probably cuts shots in, likes what he sees and that's that. Still, many scenes feel almost thrown together with no rhyme or reason to how they flow or the context they serve for the next scene. Some elements are introduced for a few seconds then discarded. The box that Costello gives Sullivan upon his graduation from the police academy is a great example. I'm sure some of you are already typing that it's a Macguffin, something open to interpretation and that we don't need to know what it is, we can decide for ourselves. Sorry but that's just not the case here. Something that's 'open to interpretation' needs to be earned, it can't be slid in for a few frames before never being mentioned again. That's lazy filmmaking. Not every movie is Pulp Fiction and not every movie needs Marcellus Wallace's briefcase. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorsese's longtime editor, again takes up the mantle but it's a mixed bag.. Chopping is another word for editing and a lot of times this movie feels like it was chopped more than edited. Many scenes are very poorly strung together, namely the scene where Queenan is tailed when going to meet Costigan, and timelines and jumps make little to no sense. Other scenes that are meant to elicit suspense just cut to something completely unrelated tonally. In all, for a movie that seems to have so much raw talent in every department it feels so thrown together at times. Again, I think if another editor, producer, anyone just took a look at the cut of the film we were given there would be adjustments made. Instead the movie doesn't feel suspenseful so much as it feels rushed. Whitey Bulger, the mob boss who inspired Costello, was revealed to be a rat for the FBI, a plot point which was just barely incorporated into The Departed. For something that's such an important facet to Costello's character it's hardly mentioned except when it's used to pull the story along. Why? It could have been a great source of conflict for all characters involved. What's Mr. French's backstory? There's the random shot of him strangling his wife which had nothing to do with anything, why not flesh that out? And the rat, the rat in the last shot of the film, the digitized rat that's something you would expect to see in a freshman film student's crappy first project, is unforgivable. I can vividly remember seeing it in the theater and rolling my eyes at something so shoehorned and borderline insulting. Because rats, get it? I bring up the final shot for a reason and it's not because my disdain for it is some original or earth-shattering observation, it's because it's a good reflection of how this movie feels. It feels like it's just trying so damn hard to be the next great gangster movie that it overcomplicates itself, it tries to be so many things at once and at times seems like it falls into self-parody. Like Gangs of New York, on the surface it's still a fun, enjoyable movie but it's hard to take it seriously especially when thinking of the similar films that Scorsese gave to us previously. It's almost night and day. The Departed is a movie that isn't without merit but also isn't without its faults. I think over time many people have started to see it that way and I know many people personally who were left pretty underwhelmed by it. I can understand those who enjoy it but all I ask is that you take another closer look at the movie. There's a lot going on and unfortunately a lot of it doesn't work. But let's look on the bright side, Scorsese has his Oscar. No one in Hollywood deserved it more after trying so hard for so long, no one alive anyway. Like Gangs of New York, it's a fun gangster movie that works but after being put on a pedestal where it didn't belong in the first place it's hard to agree that it deserves the praise it's received over the years. And one last note, I remember talking with my friends about the movie after we got back from seeing it in theaters. When discussing the third act I suggested a certain ending that I felt would have been a better, more dramatic and serious fit, something that would have made the movie more grounded. Come to find out that's exactly how Infernal Affairs ended. It would have been interesting to see that scene shot for the movie even if it were to have been released as a deleted scene for the DVD. It would have shown a good alternative to the ending of a movie that I never felt quite worked as well as it could have. |
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,647
Likes: 4,062
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 11:52:09 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Sept 9, 2017 9:26:40 GMT -5
None of your flaws bother me at all. Well, the rat in the final shot is a little on the nose and unnecessary, but even that seems pretty small in the grand scheme of things.
Elements like Sullivan talking to Costello in a police station do stretch credibility, but I'd argue they're necessary to keep the story's flow. The Departed only seems like breezy fun because of the tremendous storytelling skills of the filmmakers. The fact is this is a really complicated plot with a ton of twists, red herrings, and two main characters. Making all of that clear is no easy task. Making it entertaining as fuck all the more difficult. On that note, I disagree with your claim that the movie feels choppy. I think it moves along at a wonderful pace.
Also, Ray Winstone strangling his wife is all the charater developmwnt we need. Dude's a violent thug who puts his loyalty to Costello ahead of his own family. Got it.
You say Costello being a rat should have been more of a plot point, but it already is. It's what causes Sullivan to turn on Costello and it's also what gives Costigan the upper hand in the third act. And it leads to Vera Farmiga's character to leave Sullivan. Costello being a rat makes a huge difference even if Scorsese uses it for shock rather than suspense.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 9, 2017 11:36:50 GMT -5
I'm inbetween Doomsday and PG Cooper. The movie is loads of fun but it does have glaring flaws. Vera Farminga's character is unnecessary. It's as if someone at Warner Bros looked at the cast list and said, "what a sausage fest. Throw a chick in there." Jack Nicholson starts off as cool and in-control but then disintegrates for no reason. It's as if Nicholson forgot what movie he was making. It's like in Batman where he plays Jack Napier and The Joker but without the scene of him falling into a vat of chemicals. Then there's the ending. Possibly the worst ending in a major film. "Hey, Matt Damon. I got a shit ton of evidence against you. Meet me in a rooftop so I can make a citizens arrest." LOL. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 9, 2017 11:39:59 GMT -5
See I would say the opposite in that it's really not that complicated at all. Sure there are a few red herrings (or as I would say, random non-sequiturs) but sometimes they don't work the way it's intended. Take the infamous, discussed to death elevator shootout. I think it's a a little ridiculous and an unnecessarily over the top scene. Some people dig it and think it works because it's almost comical but to me it takes the movie out of that realm of groundedness and makes it feel like a self-parody. The Departed does that throughout, it tries to be engaging and leveled until something, like a bunch of people getting shot in the head or a guy shaking a black dildo in front of the camera, comes along to remind you that this isn't to be taken too seriously.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 9, 2017 13:43:27 GMT -5
See I would say the opposite in that it's really not that complicated at all. Sure there are a few red herrings (or as I would say, random non-sequiturs) but sometimes they don't work the way it's intended. Take the infamous, discussed to death elevator shootout. I think it's a a little ridiculous and an unnecessarily over the top scene. Some people dig it and think it works because it's almost comical but to me it takes the movie out of that realm of groundedness and makes it feel like a self-parody. The Departed does that throughout, it tries to be engaging and leveled until something, like a bunch of people getting shot in the head or a guy shaking a black dildo in front of the camera, comes along to remind you that this isn't to be taken too seriously. I'll never forget watching this movie in the theatre. The total silence of Martin Sheen getting thrown off the building versus the verbal outrage of Leo DiCaprio getting shot in the head. This movie definitely had been hooked and also went through the trouble of infuriating everyone. Not sure I've ever experienced such range of emotions at the theatre before or since. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 17, 2017 16:36:02 GMT -5
And now the continuation of.... Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography Shutter Island (2010)
View count: Second time  Not every movie features an opening scene where its main character has his head in a toilet, nauseous and disoriented from seasickness. He tells himself to keep it together and continues onto the main deck. Stretched in front of him is his destination; Shutter Island, home of a maximum security insane asylum. The rest of the film has this character, Teddy Daniels, keeping his wits and his sanity while investigating a disappearance. His disconnection from reality hits him from all directions and is only exacerbated by the doctor in charge (Ben Kingsley). It's a movie where tension is continuously mounting, where discovery seems like it's right around the corner and brings us to an abrupt if predictable ending but one that still satisfies regardless of what's telegraphed. It's a movie with many different elements that make it a successful thriller despite the fact that it doesn't bring much new to the table. Coming a little over three years after his last directorial effort, Scorsese's Shutter Island is yet again a change of pace from previous films. His last suspense thriller, Cape Fear, was a good combination of building tension between perverse, energetic characters. Shutter Island is Scorsese's attempt to delve into the Hitchcockian style where the setting and tone are just as important as the mystery the movie centers around. Insane asylums have always been good sources of wonder and horror not only because of the people who are sent there but because of what occurred inside the walls. There was a time in the early to mid-twentieth century when people who were presumed insane were placated by having a lobotomy performed via brain surgery. Not long after the practice began doctors discovered that they didn't have to arduously cut open a patient's skull, they could simply take an ice pick, insert it through a patient's eye socket and slice up the frontal lobe. Of course this was seldom done with any anesthetic. Naturally we view such medical practices as barbaric but the idea of people being lobotomized, thousands over the course of a few decades, is something horrific just to think about. Scorsese brings all of these elements into play in Shutter Island while presenting the hospital that houses criminals and their terrible crimes and also juxtaposes that with the luxury that the hospital staff seems to enjoy. With the exception of some shoddy green screen that could be attributed to my blu-ray player, it's one of the most unique and effective settings that Scorsese has ever presented. It's a great atmosphere to place the movie's story; a convict has escaped her cell on Shutter Island and U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leo) is brought in to investigate. While there he suffers migraines, hallucinations and begins to be convinced that those working at the hospital are behind a more insidious plot to keep him at the island for good. One of the problems with Shutter Island was found in the marketing. After The Sixth Sense a lot of thrillers wound up with the same kind of climax, either the main character is really the killer or is really dead or what have you. The trailer for Shutter Island featured Daniels coming onto the investigation but also coming to grips with the harrowing island. It was pretty easy to tell that he would end up 'being the patient.' As I said earlier though, a predictable plot is buoyed by a great atmosphere and setting as well as good characters, a haunting score and writing that gives you just enough without divulging everything in one or two scenes. In fact, the story itself while fine is a little redundant and when arriving at the 'twist' ends up being rather anti-climactic. Daniels is told that his crime is 'unspeakable' but all he did was kill his wife who murdered their children. It's bad but it's not THAT bad, is it? For someone who's supposed to be the most violent inmate on the island I could imagine him having committed much worse crimes. But the real climax isn't what Daniels discovers about himself, the finality is what he is destined to endure after the credits roll. Daniels forced himself to change because of his inability to confront his past and now because of his reluctance to do just that the hospital is going to do it for him. It's unfortunate that Shutter Island gets lost in shuffle among other thrillers of its kind. Despite the fact that it's predictable it's still an effective suspense movie that's better than it probably would have been with a different director at the helm. While not Scorsese's best movie it's one that I think people will discover and enjoy if they ever go down the Scorsese filmography road. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Sept 17, 2017 17:41:39 GMT -5
Inception is the better "Leo's wife is dead" movie.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 18, 2017 13:18:39 GMT -5
But neither include bear rape. Revenant ftw.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 21, 2017 19:16:21 GMT -5
And now the continuation of.... Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography Hugo (2011)
View count: Second time  Hugo, or as I like to call it Martin Scorsese's Steven Spielberg movie, is a heartwarming story about a boy who discovers a link to his past and makes a connection to a pioneer in filmmaking. At least, that's what it's trying to be. In reality it's annoying, often groan-inducing movie whose success is really still a mystery to me. In many ways it's Martin Scorsese eschewing his trademarks as he embraces a bland story, stock characters and predictable plot points. It's everything that Martin Scorsese movies aren't. It's inoffensive, it's melodramatic, it takes zero chances, it's riddled with Hollywood cliches. For as much as I've given credit to Scorsese for taking on all types of movies, he once again adds another genre to the list; the commercial, mainstream 'family' film. This was the first time I had watched Hugo since it's release in the winter of 2011. It was a while back but not that long ago which made it fairly surprising to me that I remembered next to nothing about it. Well, almost next to nothing other than the fact that I wasn't fond of it even back then. Still it was almost like watching it for the first time. Almost immediately we're thrust into the life of young Hugo Cabret, a young orphan who sneaks around the busy Paris train station making sure all the clocks are working properly. Always nipping at his heels is the station inspector played by Sacha Baron Cohen in an almost painfully tortuous performance. It's never clear why the inspector is chasing Hugo, wouldn't he know that Hugo works there? And if he doesn't, isn't that something that could be cleared up pretty easily? Anyways, in the first scene of the movie the inspector gets his leg caught on the door of a moving train which drags him down the platform. Of course all the bags that are lined up hit him in his genitals. Because that's funny, you see? Hugo has been stealing from a local shopkeeper to work on an Automaton, a mechanical human-looking device that he had been working on with his late father until he died in a fire. After being caught red-handed by the shopkeeper he steals Hugo's notes and is amazed upon seeing the Automaton. Hugo soon meets Isabelle and they slowly uncover the mysteries behind the shopkeeper's past, namely that he was the famous French filmmaker Georges Milies, the creator of the classic A Trip to the Moon among other early twentieth century silent movies, who went bust after World War I and lost his passion for filmmaking. Other stuff happens and none of it is really related to the main story line because Hugo is a mish-mash of subplots that go nowhere and don't service the main reveal of the movie. I don't know what a lot of this movie had to do with anything. There are mainly two stories that stem from Hugo and instead of them threading together naturally it feels like the film just shifts gears at a certain point and goes onto a different track. We watch as Hugo fixes his Automaton, it draws a picture that's coincidentally from a 'movie' that Hugo's dad once described to him and then we shift to Milies getting his groove back. The execution just felt so unnatural and forced, like fitting a square peg into a round hole with a sledgehammer. Characters and entire scenes are also put into focus that have nothing to do with anything. The station inspector has a few scenes with a flower girl whom he secretly admires and a couple scenes are spent there. One of them describes how he was injured in World War I and that she lost her brother at Verdun, one of the bloodiest battles in world history. Okay. Another portly older gentleman befriends a woman with a small dog and other scenes are dedicated to that. None of these characters have any bearing on the journey of Hugo, Isabelle or Milies. Other characters such as Christopher Lee's librarian and the always great and underappreciated Michael Stuhlbarg are relegated to shallow characters who only serve as vessels for exposition at just the right times. Again, it's very forced and at no point does the movie ever feel like it flows together. Much of the reason is because Hugo is a movie that's trying to be heartfelt and unique while also hitting the standard, usual bases at the same time. One of my ultimate pet peeves in movie-dom is when children are written like adults. The epitome of this is Dakota Fanning's character in War of the Worlds. Chloe Grace-Moretz's Isabelle comes close as her character is almost as insuffable. It's not Chloe's fault, her character is just written poorly as area almost all the others. But I know that the main point of the movie isn't Hugo. Well, if it was then it was a big fail. No, the main point is the reawakening of Georges Milies. I understand Scorsese's passion for filmmaking and it's suitable that a director of his caliber would attempt to pay homage to a pioneer such as Milies, this just seemed like such a strange way to communicate it. Everything such as Hugo's discovery for his dad, a move that gave me flashbacks to the dreadful Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, feels like it's tossed by the wayside once we discover who Milies really was. It made me want to scream 'if you want to make a movie about George Milies, just make one about George Milies, don't shoehorn it into a movie for children who don't care about him one way or the other.' If it didn't come through clearly enough, I really don't care for this movie at all. I didn't care for it the first time I watched it in theaters and my thoughts haven't changed. A movie like Hugo just feels so beneath a filmmaker like Martin Scorsese and outside of the Melies subplot I have a hard time wrapping my head around what he was trying to say. I see shades of passion from a passionate filmmaker bleeding through awful gags, bad acting, worse characters, a heavy reliance on the poor visuals (the fact that it won Oscars in this category is a complete joke) and storylines that are near impossible to care about. Hugo makes me scratch my head more than anything as I wonder about every decision made regarding its execution. This movie is a mess and what's worse, it's boring. It's a movie that really could have been made by anybody with the same result which is probably the most disappointing of all. There's nothing about it that required the talents of an auteur like Scorsese. I know it sounds like I'm over exaggerating but there really wasn't much about Hugo that I enjoyed or admired. It's a movie that baffles me if anything. I don't know, maybe there's an audience for this movie outside of movie critic circles but whatever that audience is I know I'm not part of it. |
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Sept 22, 2017 5:48:16 GMT -5
*slowly crosses Hugo off 'Films I need to see' list*
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,102
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Sept 22, 2017 5:59:30 GMT -5
I thought Hugo was a little overrated too when it came to the Oscars and whatnot, but I do like it better than you. The first half didn't do much for me but anytime a Hollywood family movie turns into a heartfelt tribute to silent film and a call for film preservation... that's something I'm going to respond to.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Sept 22, 2017 17:27:31 GMT -5
That's what's frustrating. I would loved to have seen a tribute to a person like Melies, just one that's not as irritating. The montage at the end of Hugo was hands down the best part of the whole movie.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 3, 2017 13:20:27 GMT -5
And now the continuation of.... Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
View count: Second time  What is The Wolf of Wall Street? Is it a comedy? Is it a crime film? Is it an exercise in the obscene? It's hard enough to pin down exactly what the movie is or how you would define it. It's nearly impossible to do so in a few words. It's a three hour long descent into the life of a wall street kingpin who bilked people out of millions while funding a lifestyle built on sex, drugs and debauchery. For some viewers it might be hard to find any redeeming value in The Wolf of Wall Street but redemption isn't the purpose of the movie. It's a depiction of a man who gets everything he wants, something that we all think sounds good but we know probably isn't. It's the James Bond fantasy of trying to be someone who could never possibly exist except in this case Jordan Belfort comes close. It's a movie that will leave a lot of people sickened while showing others how entertaining a movie can be while going at breakneck speed from start to finish. Like I said, it's hard to pin down what's really the motivating theme of Wolf of Wall Street. Jordan Belfort (Leo) starts off as a new, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed stock broker who learns his trade at a major firm before it goes under in the big crash of 1987. He quickly finds that he can earn a boat load of money selling penny stocks to ignorant investors. After employing his equally money-hungry neighbor Donnie (Jonah Hill) they kick off the founding Stratton Oakmont. They earn millions selling worthless stock to big investors which funds a lifestyle filled with women, drugs, and anything a millionaire could afford to buy. The FBI catches on leaving Jordan with a choice; cash out while he's ahead or stay playing a game which could lead to disaster. Of course a man like Belfort would never be able to take himself away from the empire he single-handedly built which results in his arrest and imprisonment...but not necessarily his downfall. The character of Jordan Belfort is very similar to another non-fictional character profiled in another popular Scorsese film; Henry Hill. From the onset Belfort, like Hill, narrates how he goes from nothing to a major player in the world where he thinks he belongs. Both Hill and Belfort are people who strive for more and know that they truly won't find satisfaction no matter how high they climb. Naturally that ascent results in a similarly catastrophic plummet from the heights they reached bringing everyone and everything else with them. Usually in movies like this these sorts of characters either get their comeuppance or miraculously learn the err of their ways. Neither Hill nor Belfort wind up in either situation. Both of them see their lives come apart, both are shamed and their crimes laid out in the open but they don't seek redemption nor are they met with any real justice, at least none that suits the crimes they committed. It's a nice little epilogue in the James Bond fantasy I mentioned earlier. Both are men who lived a life of corruption and excess and both basically were able to walk away with minimal punishment. Goodfellas concludes with Hill looking at the audience from the porch of his witness protection-based home stating how he's now just a regular guy, a 'schnook.' Belfort, after serving a brief stint in prison, reemerges as a motivational speaker trying to bestow others with his gifts of selling anything to anyone. After Wolf of Wall Street was released the real Belfort was thrust back into the spotlight. Apparently he had made quite a bit of money from book sales, movie rights, etc. It was soon discovered that he had only paid a few thousand dollars in restitution out of the tens of millions that he owed. In reality Belfort probably is the scummy guy that he's made out to be in court records and television bios. That's not the Belfort that Wolf of Wall Street is interested in. We're given the Belfort that we want to see because in a lot of ways, right or wrong, he's the guy that a lot of us want to be. Even now it's hard for me to think of a description for The Wolf of Wall Street. There isn't much of a story outside of Belfort's shenanigans, there isn't much of an arc, there really isn't much of anything in addition to the carnal excess. That said, it's just a really fun watch. It's three hours that go by at breakneck speed because there's really no other way this movie would have worked. From the first scene of the movie, Belfort getting some oral TLC while driving his sports car, the movie is firing on all cylinders. At no point does the movie slow down, save for a few scenes at the beginning used to show a glimpse of Belfort's personal life. It's actually a pretty ballsy way to make a film, especially one clocking in at just shy of 3 hours. The energy had to be kept up to the highest level continuously for this movie to work, there's no other way. Who else could make a movie like Wolf of Wall Street? Who else would even try? On the surface it's a movie that would make your grandparents walk out but it's really a very interesting study in filmmaking, namely how to make a film that's meant to tempt every desire you could possibly have. To me it's a great antidote to the likes of Hugo, an anti-Scorsese Scorsese movie if there ever was one. The Wolf of Wall Street, while clearly, obviously not for everybody, is a demonstration of just how skilled a filmmaker Martin Scorsese really is. If the book is anything like the movie I imagine that many read it thinking it would be unfilmable. How could you do it? Why make a movie about a man who destroyed lives while painting him like a celebrity? Even when they attempt to go into the layout of their scams Belfort stops and says 'Wait, why explain? You aren't interested in that.' For the most part he's right. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 25, 2017 16:54:24 GMT -5
And now the continuation of.... Doomsday's Exploration of the Scorsese Filmography Silence (2016)
View count: Second time  In the past few years we've seen a lot of success with faith-based films. The obvious movie to stand out is Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, a Jesus-centered movie filmed in Aramaic and Latin that shredded the box office after Christian churches rented out entire theaters for their congregations. In the years since we've seen a steady flow of other Christian-themed movies that are met with varying degrees of financial success but for the most part they pander to the lowest common denominator audiences. They're shallow, dumb and in no way challenge a viewer. Considering that those are the 'religious' movies that actually do well it's no surprise that Scorsese's Silence, based on the book by Shusaku Endo, didn't perform all that well at the box office. Silence closely follows the source material as it tells the story of Rodrigues, a Portuguese priest who travels to Japan to find his mentor who supposedly has renounced his faith. It doesn't deliver a 'Jesus loves me' message at the foot of the viewer nor does it take a dump all over non-believers like those other Christian films tend to do. There's some ambiguity in its message (moreso in the book) and features conflicted, flawed characters who are totally unsure of what to do. Not since The Last Temptation of Christ has Scorsese, or any filmmaker to my knowledge, really taken on religious concepts in such an unflinching way. Considering how I watched this less than a year ago during my awards season movie binge a lot of it had stuck with me. I was still moved by the conflict that the characters faced and the oppression under which they suffered. Rodrigues ultimately finds his mentor Ferreira living among the Japanese and discovers that Ferreira indeed has left his priestly duties behind him. Rodrigues sees that the Japanese aren't just hunting priests, they're torturing Japanese Christians until the priests themselves renounce their faith. Rodrigues soon has to come to terms with his own actions especially those done out of self-preservation and how we're left to judge Rodrigues and Ferreira is somewhat open-ended. Playing Rodrigues, Andrew Garfield had a lot to take on. He had to portray a priest who must appear stalwart and immovable to the Japanese Christians he wishes to lead all while dealing with his growing inner turmoil. While I question Garfield's acting abilities on the whole he does a serviceable job here, although I wonder why his role wasn't given to Adam Driver, his costar who is a much more dynamic presence on screen. Liam Neeson also does well as the manipulative Ferreira, portraying a sort of quasi anti-hero who serves as an opposing force to Rodrigues conscience. What makes this such a personal film for Scorsese is that it's a story about the conflict of faith as told by a man who has felt such inner conflict while struggling with his own demons. It's much more a story of faith than it is a story centered on a certain belief. Almost all other religious movies can automatically isolate a viewer that doesn't adhere to the belief system that the film revolves around, typically Christian. Scorsese's films, while incorporating Christian characters, revolve around human conflicts that people can feel regardless of what they do or don't believe. Silence, as the title suggests, focuses on whether God really is present. It's not an atheism/monotheism argument as it doesn't quite suggest that God might not exist. Rather it asks if God is indifferent as shown through the suffering of Christians and those they follow. If God is all-powerful and just, why does injustice exist? And if God chooses not to reveal himself how far could someone like Rodrigues be expected to go, how much could he be expected to endure in order to keep that faith constant? It's a story that almost questions God's motives rather than existence which to me is a much deeper, more complex issues rather than proving vs. disproving the existence of a deity. Much like The Last Temptation of Christ, it takes a different approach to religion and leads the viewer down roads they might never have otherwise considered. While Silence isn't a very commercial film it's one that I think people will discover down the road. It's unsettling and often times very unpleasant but the intensity and gravity of the movie gives it the authenticity that's required to make it that much more powerful. While it's not a movie I plan to watch soon it's one that I'll watch again to see what else I can glean from it. It's a movie for people who ask questions and most of us find ourselves at that point sooner or later. Silence doesn't try to answer these questions but does give us a nod telling us what Rodrigues is constantly searching for, that we're not alone. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 25, 2017 17:31:08 GMT -5
Well look at that. After so many months of some good movie watching we are finally up to speed. Although it's a little obvious it's pretty amazing to see how personal Scorsese makes his films. Not only does he have a huge and diverse array of films, he speaks through each one of them in a different way. His flawed and often unlikeable characters make them more relatable and intriguing and he knows exactly what mood to infuse in each scene. It's pretty amazing that he's still making movies of such a high caliber while still trying to push how own boundaries into his seventies. You can hardly say the same of most filmmakers his age. While going through my collection taking inventory on what I have in my collection I took a hard look at my Alfred Hitchcock blu-ray box set. While I've seen the mandatory Hitchcock films I do have to admit that my knowledge and experience in AF viewing is extremely and sorely lacking. Of the 15 or so movies in the box set I've watched maybe half, perhaps less. I know that PG Cooper has posted in his own Hitchcock thread but I'm thinking of taking this box set down rather than go through the entirety of Hitchcock's filmography. It would be a good way to revisit the standard Hitchcock classics I've seen several times (Psycho, North By Northwest), rewatching ones I've only seen once (Vertigo, The Birds) while shamefully admitting which ones I haven't seen (most everything else). Who knows, maybe a Doomsday favorite like Rebecca could sneak in there. |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 25, 2017 21:15:59 GMT -5
Well look at that. After so many months of some good movie watching we are finally up to speed. Although it's a little obvious it's pretty amazing to see how personal Scorsese makes his films. Not only does he have a huge and diverse array of films, he speaks through each one of them in a different way. His flawed and often unlikeable characters make them more relatable and intriguing and he knows exactly what mood to infuse in each scene. It's pretty amazing that he's still making movies of such a high caliber while still trying to push how own boundaries into his seventies. You can hardly say the same of most filmmakers his age. While going through my collection taking inventory on what I have in my collection I took a hard look at my Alfred Hitchcock blu-ray box set. While I've seen the mandatory Hitchcock films I do have to admit that my knowledge and experience in AF viewing is extremely and sorely lacking. Of the 15 or so movies in the box set I've watched maybe half, perhaps less. I know that PG Cooper has posted in his own Hitchcock thread but I'm thinking of taking this box set down rather than go through the entirety of Hitchcock's filmography. It would be a good way to revisit the standard Hitchcock classics I've seen several times (Psycho, North By Northwest), rewatching ones I've only seen once (Vertigo, The Birds) while shamefully admitting which ones I haven't seen (most everything else). Who knows, maybe a Doomsday favorite like Rebecca could sneak in there. You mean MY Hitchcock thread. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 25, 2017 23:50:58 GMT -5
Uncle Leo?
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 11:47:10 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Oct 25, 2017 23:59:05 GMT -5
When are we getting your Renny Harlin RENtrospective?
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 26, 2017 0:12:09 GMT -5
When are we getting your Renny Harlin RENtrospective? Prison - Thumbs Up Freddy 4 - Thumbs Sideways Rock n Roll Detective - Thumbs Sideways Die Hard 2 - Thumbs Up Cliffhanger - Thumbs Sideways Cutthroat Island - Thumbs Up The Long Kiss Goodnight - Thumbs Sideways Deep Blue Sea - Thumbs Up Driven - Thumbs  . . . . . Legend of Hercules - Thumbs Down |
|
1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 26, 2017 0:53:04 GMT -5
I love Hitchcock discussions, because I can use the word "cock" used over and over and nobody will look at me funny.
I've been trying to branch my Hitchcock filmography ever since seeing North By Northwest in theaters earlier this year. After that I was like "I must see more." As soon as my Schlocktober marathon is over I think I'll spend the holidays digging into deeper cock...Hitchcock that is.
|
|
1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 26, 2017 1:04:13 GMT -5
When are we getting your Renny Harlin RENtrospective? Prison - Thumbs Up Freddy 4 - Thumbs Sideways Rock n Roll Detective - Thumbs Sideways Die Hard 2 - Thumbs Up Cliffhanger - Thumbs Sideways Cutthroat Island - Thumbs Up The Long Kiss Goodnight - Thumbs Sideways Deep Blue Sea - Thumbs Up Driven - Thumbs . . . . . Legend of Hercules - Thumbs Down What? No Skiptrace or Exorcist: The Beginning? |
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,773
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 22, 2024 18:30:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 26, 2017 8:44:47 GMT -5
Prison - Thumbs Up Freddy 4 - Thumbs Sideways Rock n Roll Detective - Thumbs Sideways Die Hard 2 - Thumbs Up Cliffhanger - Thumbs Sideways Cutthroat Island - Thumbs Up The Long Kiss Goodnight - Thumbs Sideways Deep Blue Sea - Thumbs Up Driven - Thumbs . . . . . Legend of Hercules - Thumbs Down What? No Skiptrace or Exorcist: The Beginning? Never saw them  |
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,102
Likes: 5,731
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 26, 2017 12:41:14 GMT -5
Well look at that. After so many months of some good movie watching we are finally up to speed. Although it's a little obvious it's pretty amazing to see how personal Scorsese makes his films. Not only does he have a huge and diverse array of films, he speaks through each one of them in a different way. His flawed and often unlikeable characters make them more relatable and intriguing and he knows exactly what mood to infuse in each scene. It's pretty amazing that he's still making movies of such a high caliber while still trying to push how own boundaries into his seventies. You can hardly say the same of most filmmakers his age. While going through my collection taking inventory on what I have in my collection I took a hard look at my Alfred Hitchcock blu-ray box set. While I've seen the mandatory Hitchcock films I do have to admit that my knowledge and experience in AF viewing is extremely and sorely lacking. Of the 15 or so movies in the box set I've watched maybe half, perhaps less. I know that PG Cooper has posted in his own Hitchcock thread but I'm thinking of taking this box set down rather than go through the entirety of Hitchcock's filmography. It would be a good way to revisit the standard Hitchcock classics I've seen several times (Psycho, North By Northwest), rewatching ones I've only seen once (Vertigo, The Birds) while shamefully admitting which ones I haven't seen (most everything else). Who knows, maybe a Doomsday favorite like Rebecca could sneak in there. Good series, I enjoyed following it. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 30, 2017 16:48:11 GMT -5
A few years ago I got a pretty cool gift for Christmas. It was an Alfred Hitchcock blu-ray box set featuring many, but certainly not all, of Hitchcock's more popular selections.  As stated earlier, I've seen most of the major Hitchcock selections albeit many of them I watched maybe one time years ago. It wouldn't be tough to find even a casual movie-goer who has a much broader familiarity with the Hitchcock catalogue than I do and although I've had this box set in my possession I've never really gone through it other than rewatching Psycho or North By Northwest. That changes now. I'll be going through this pretty nice collection in chronological order and who knows, maybe (definitely) other Hitchcock films not included in this set will work their way in too. And now the commencement of....
Doomsday Burning Through His Alfred Hitchcock Blu-Ray Box Set Saboteur (1942)
View count: First time  Right off the bat, Saboteur is a movie that has almost all of the standard Hitchcock trademarks. It has the wrongfully accused protagonist, the innocent lady who jumps on board the action and the high stakes, suspenseful climax. It's all there and anyone who has any experience with Hitchcock films would see these staring them in the face. At the same time there are still more than a few cracks that are pretty apparent and the end result is a passable B-movie that's a little outlandish and at the same time a little dull. Saboteur is a classic wrongfully accused thriller about an airplane factory worker named Barry Kane who runs into a mysterious figure at his hangar. Soon after a fire breaks out and the mysterious figure hands Barry a fire extinguisher that Barry then hands to his friend. Flames immediately erupt around his buddy and it's quickly discovered that the fire extinguisher was filled with gasoline. All eyes fall on Barry who is pinned as the prime suspect. He travels across the state of California and soon the entire country to clear his name and discovers a ring of saboteurs who wish to change the entire landscape of America as we know it. While it sounds like a fun movie, there's a lot that seems pretty forced and all too convenient. While Barry is on the run he runs into many fantastical characters who for some reason or another completely sympathize with his plight with next to no information other than the fact that he's one of the most wanted men in the country. An old blind man who seems like he was ripped straight from Bride of Frankenstein right down to his nice little fireplace helps Barry even though he knows he's wanted and presumed dangerous. In fact he trusts him so much he enlists his niece (the typical Hitchcock damsel) to help Barry as well. Later on the two find themselves on a literal side show train car. Again the bearded lady, Siamese twins and Skeleton man do what they can to help because they just like the look of them, much to the chagrin of the little man (NOT a midget!) who wants to turn them in. Later still the shadowy figure from the beginning, the man who set Barry up from the start decides to high tail it to the Statue of Liberty for no real reason other than the filmmakers thought it would be cool to set the climax there. Again, everything just felt forced and convenient and it didn't flow as well as it otherwise should have. It's also possible I'm reading too much into it because Hitchcock movies can set a pretty high standard but unfortunately this one doesn't really meet the expectations that some might have. Saboteur is a movie that's fine on its own but is still more of a precursor for great Hitchcock movies that come later on. There's a lot of silly stuff and a lot of down time and it doesn't yet feel like a masterwork of a master filmmaker. I'm unsure how I would have felt had I seen this movie upon its release, I guess I would have found it entertaining for the most part but that's about as much praise as you can give it. It feels more like an exercise in suspense that hopefully taught Hitchcock a few lessons in what to do and, what's infinitely more important, what to work on. |
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,299
Likes: 6,765
Location:
Last Online Nov 23, 2024 12:06:28 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Nov 13, 2017 19:08:49 GMT -5
And now the continuation of....
Doomsday Burns Through His Alfred Hitchcock Blu-Ray Box Set Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
View count: Second time  The second movie in my Alfred Hitchcock box set brings me to one featuring the great Joseph Cotten. Probably best known for his work in Citizen Kane and The Third Man, Cotten stars in this earlier Hitchcock thriller about an uncle who shows up to stay with his sister's family. His niece, also named Charlie after him, idolizes her uncle and is thrilled when he arrives, believing that he'll fill the void in all their lives. She soon begins to suspect that there's more to Uncle Charlie than she initially thought and with the help of a detective soon realizes that her uncle is a serial killer, the Merry Widow Murderer who is being pursued across the country. While it's considered to be in the upper tier of Hitchcock films, it doesn't have many of the trademarks that we commonly use to identify a Hitchcock movie. There aren't any fast chases, breathtaking climaxes or sinister crosses and double-crosses. In fact the movie is very self-contained with most of the movie taking place at the family home and slowly builds to a verbal confrontation between the two Charlie's. In fact there's not even an on-screen death save for the very end. There's no victim, nobody getting disposed of, it's all verbal and atmospheric tension. While the concept is intriguing it does seem to run through that concept rather quickly. The setup is great and watching the younger Charlie slowly discover her uncle's secret keeps you engaged. The stern intensity of the elder Charlie blends nicely with Charlie Jr.'s initial playfulness and carefree demeanor and her skepticism upon first hearing of her uncle's crimes seems genuine. It's when her skepticism is erased and the truth sets in when the movie finally switches gears. One of the best scenes of the film features her POV as she reads the newspaper clipping of the Merry Widow Murderer, the same one Uncle Charlie hid from her. The score playing over the slow scroll of the newspaper adds a certain level of gravity to the scene as if we're making this discovery along with Charlie. The movie works best as we watch Charlie come to the realization that her favorite uncle isn't just a man with a secret, he's actually a monster in disguise. Unfortunately this realization happens around the halfway mark of the movie. The rest of the time is a sequence of events where Uncle Charlie unsuccessfully tries to kill Charlie Jr. It's not so much a mystery anymore as we already know the secret that was being hidden and the question of how Uncle Charlie will react is answered. Another rather strange addition is Charlie's father Joe frequently playing a game with a neighbor as to the best method to murder the other and get away with it. It has little bearing on the plot and seems to just serve as an indicator to the audience that this is an Alfred Hitchcock movie. Because they talk about murder, you see? The movie downshifts rather suddenly, almost as if it ran out of ideas and coasts rather clumsily to the final 'confrontation.' Shadow of a Doubt is a fun and interesting movie to watch as characters constantly shift their demeanors and focus as facts come to light. While that part of the movie ends perhaps a little too quickly it's still executed in a way that keeps you captivated and wondering just what Uncle Charlie will resort to in order to keep his secret safe even after he's supposedly in the clear. While it loses steam toward the end and has some unnecessary elements to try to send the 'murder' point home, it's an enjoyable movie that just might be given a little more credit nowadays than it deserves. |
|
