Not a huge hit but much admired - slick script, John Frankenheimer in fine form, a genuine "look", European action movie, with some stars in excellent form: Robert de Niro before these parts became caricatures, Nathsha McEllrone so beautiful and perfect for the world, Jean Reno, Sean Bean. Jonathan Pryce maybe not a scary villain.
I enjoy these cramped European action movies.
Just perfect. Astonishingly great script full of strong characters, revearsals, logic, bits of business. Everyone is allowed to be smart. Also dumb. But dumbness is motiviated. Perfect score. Perfect casting - all the little roles (people in diners, etc). Heartbreaking moments like the stuff with the daughter and the ending.
Smart. Literate. Gorgeous to look at. Top cast. Magnificent locations. Divine score.
Doesn't quite work. Jeremy Irons and Robert de Niro look too much alike. The original idea, for the priest to be an older actor, should have been persisted with. Irons is fine by the way. But he doesn't feel like a real person. Just a good priest.
Ray McNally feels real. So too does Robert de Niro. Liam Neeson. The other slave guy.
The depiction of the locals is unforgiveable. They are childlike simpletons.
It's a shame because the film has such a great driver - slaver tries to redeem himself, returns to violence, defends native people against colonisers. That's Avatar. But in Avatar the local culture had a voice. It was personified.
If there had been a proper Indian character who had a relationship with the men - a firebrand and a peacelover, both women, say - this would have really resonated. The movie needed some women in it (there's one briefly, she's in love with de Niro's brother Aidan Quinn, but that's it). Also they could have ended the film on some hope. Having de Niro and Irons die felt really men. Maybe it would've been okay if some dimentional Indian character survived.
So much great stuff but they didn't nail the story.
Scorsese gets off on people being executed. Period detail wonderful. Acting can't be faulted. Didn't have to be this long. Sorry but it didn't. Second half is better as it focuses on the investigation and there's story progression and less genocide.
A big deal in its day and the fame has lingered in part because of the notoreity of Michael Cimino. It's long - over three hours - so is probably best appreciated in the cinema. It looks gorgeous - the Pennsylvania steel towns, Vietnam and stuff.
There's New York actors pretending to be working class types and they mostly pull it off because they're excellent actors. The Russian Roulette stuff works brilliantly as a dramatic device. It's so homoerotic - the homophobia dialogue is accurate for the milieu but Chris Walken and de Niro seem to be in love and John Cazale accuses de Niro of not being interested in women and de Niro doesn't do anything in bed with Meryl Streep for a while.
We see a deer actually be killed. There is Hollywood shenanigans in de Niro is in Nam, then runs into Walken and Savage, then they are all captured, then de Niro escapes by being super heroic then de Niro gets back and does a silly but highly effective final Russian Roulette.
John Cazale's part isn't much and I sense the roles of George Dzunda and Chuck Aspegren could be combined and Streep is the Girl and Savage's wife could've done something more but...
You know what? This is still a really good movie. It's gorgeous. The money is on screen. De Niro is superb. It's moving. Russian Roulete words a treat. The cuts are terrific. It tackles PTSD very well. It does like its characters.
A series of films that sound pretty good
1) Out of Africa, based on the famous book, from director Nic Roeg with Julie Christie - this could've been fantastic, different from the Pollack version but with Julie Christie... wow
2) The Champ, a remake of the 1932 film, directed by Franco Zefferelli - O'Neal was going to do this but quit when the director wouldn't let his son co star - big mistake, he did Oliver's Story instead, bigger mistake
3) The Bodyguard - same Lawrence Kasdan script, with Diana Ross, and John Boorman directing - would've been amazing... possibly, if the director didn't rewrite all the popularity out of it.
4) The Thorn Birds, based on the best selling novel with Arthur Hiller directing - an utterly, utterly perfect film for O'Neal, who stepped in when first choice Robert Redford pulled out... I think it fell over when Warner Bros decided to not make a movie out of it... it became a fabulously successful mini series with Richard Chamberlain...
5) First Blood - Morrell's novel was optioned constantly from 1972 with Richard Brooks, and Martin Ritt among those seriously interested in doing it - potential stars included Al Pacino, Steve McQueen, Robert de Niro. Clint Eastwood, John Travolta, Powers Boothe... and Ryan O'Neal apparently. That's what he said in his memoirs - that Freddie Fields offered him the part but O'Neal turned it down because he didn't want to leave Farrah Fawcett at the time, which puts it in the early 1980s.
Thoughts:
- it's boring mostly
- lots of old man acting
- Joe Pesci steals the film - restrained, powerful, intense, he's great
- I liked the younger support
- what's it about? The friendship between Al Pacino and Robert De Niro isn't real. De Niro is his lacky. He's Pesci's lacky.
- maybe you could interpret this as the story of a man who is full fo crap and a fantasist a la King of Comedy - that would've been really interesting and you can see it here a little but you have to squint
- you could also see it as the inability of servants to have proper friendships with their masters, but again you have to squint
- de Niro is a great actor but he's so Italian it's kind of silly he's in a film called the Irishman, he never seems Irish - it didn't matter in Goodfellas I felt it mattered here
- Anna Pacquin has seven words of dialogue and later de Niro complains he won't walk to her - that is genuinely hilarious
- other female "roles" include: wives who smoke and that's it, a daughter who cries and that's about it, a daughte who got married - there's a scene between de Niro and a blonde daughter which isn't bad but might mean more if we'd spent more time
- it repeats story beats constantly eg there's two scenes of Pesci telling de Niro they have to kill Pacino - or scenes that could've been cut - there's so much that could've been cut
- for all it's flaws it's clearly made by people with talent and has memorable moments like the build up to the murder of Hoffa, de Niro talking about Hoffa to a nice nurse who has no idea who Hoffa is, old Pesci being wistful in prison about killing Pacino - I enjoyed the last half hour but that was in part because of relief the film was over
Martin Scorsese's famous cocaine fuelled misfire killed Liza Minnelli's career as a movie star (along with Lucky Lady and A Matter of Time) and left a magnificent title song. It starts bold and brassy with credits then has a cringy meet cute with Robert de Niro being a sex pest trying to get Minnelli's phone number.
De Niro's character is really revolting - I think in part because the film was improvised so much, he's experienced at it and she isn't, so he overpowers her in the scenes. When she can sing it's even.
Scorsese says this is a film about creatives. It's not, not really - it's about a possessive, controlling man. He stalks her, love bombs her, is possessive, controlling, abusive.
It's really, really unpleasant. It gets better in the last third when de Niro leaves and the movie becomes essentially a series of production numbers, including the famous 'Happy Endings' which was removed. It's a whole film within a film like they would do in Singin in the Rain. Why did they cut that out and not those terrible abuse scenes which hit the same beat (he's possessive/jealous/mean). They could have trimmed that right back and put in more songs.
I'll say this for Scorsese - he doesn't glamourise domestic violence. But he shoves it down our throats.
Liza flashes her big eyes and can sing the hell out of anything but doesn't have much of a character to play. De Niro is possessive. The film needed a second lead. It has cameo turns from people like Lionel Stander and Dick Miller - it should have merged these.
Gosh this is a good film. I was turned off Scorsese with all his violence and redemption but presented with an excellent script by him he rises to the occasion. No whip pans, needle drops, people smashing up people in bars, nagging wives.
It's a slow burn cringe comedy about an obssessed stalker who winds up kidnapping a late night talk show. Jerry Lewis has a terrific role as the host, emotionally dead, wound up, stressed, abused by strangers in the streets. Robert de Niro is excellent as a pestering all too believable type. Sandra Bernhard is X factor as de Niro's deranged accomplice - she has so much danger and excitement.
It's a superb script from Paul D. Zimmerman. I love who it plays with time and reality. I get why it wasn't a hit. But it's great. I actually love that de Niro's character makes it in the end (although it could be fantasy, I love that too). It's a movie that was very ahead of the curve.
The Joker really copied this didn't it, right down to the black girlfriend.
I love the cameo from Tony Randall as the host who takes over and Scorsese as the director. Gore Vildal and Shlley Winters are guests on the show - shame they couldn't have been on it too!
Oh, Shelley Hack is in this and she's geat.
Not my cup of tea though I appreciate the talent, the authenticity, the pace.
Maybe I've seen too many imitators - slice of life coming of age dramas with wanna be toughs yelling at each other. Film critics/buffs loved all the references - the autobiographical bits, the film references (going to see a Western, Harvey Keitel liking John Wayne).
So much of it feels familiar I think now because Scorsese did so many scenes of Italian Americans yelling at each other in bars with tracks playing in the background and bursts of violence. And the depiction of women is so, as he tends do to (madonna/whore).
I respect this film, I really do. I just don't like it that much. I generally don't when Scorsese wrote the script. I think it's mostly because de Niro's character is such a boor I don't care about him, Keitel has every right to get angry. Why support him? If people accept that relationship and feel for de Niro they'll enjoy this movie more.
Oh shout out to the fact a Roger Corman film is in this. Scorsece picked up enough Corman exploitation to make sure there's female nudity from Amy Robinson in the Breathless sequence (also I gather he had to include it in Who's That Knocking on My Door to sell it.)
Many thoughts.
- Bits I liked. The milieu. The research.
- Too much smoking in lieu of acting.
- Robert de Niro and Joe Pesci aren't bad. But they are clearly bored. De Niro never seems into Sharon Stone. He never likes Pesci. Or his daughter. Or anyone. Anything. He gets fired up when he can't work in the casino I guess. Was this why he and Scorsese didn't work together for so long? Pesci goes through the motions too. He never seems to like de Niro or Stone. He has a moment at the end crying when his brother is killed.
- Sharon Stone is magnificent. Warm, compelling, sexy, touching, emphathetic. Steals the film. I wish she'd had better roles at her peak. Even here she's stuck in endless Scorsese yelling domestic scenes.
- I also liked the guy who plays Pesci's mate who kills him. He was putting in good work and had a fantastic worm turns moment at the end.
- Could have been trimmed. The journalism stuff. The yelling scenes.
- Always interesting direction - camera angles, colours, sounds.
- Don Rickles terrific. Aparet from de Niro and Pesci the acting is very strong. And those two aren't bad just bored.
The perfect director, the perfect writer, the perfect piece of IP, the perfect composer, the perfect new star (Costner), the perfect old star (Sean Connery) the perfect showy star (Robert de Niro).
It all works brilliantly. It helps the structure is solid - like The Fugitive it's a TV series that can be told in a film, and it was, The Scarface Mob.
Actually I will admit the scenes with the wife are treacly - but how else to do it? The scene at the border on horseback... that's a little unmemorable (Mamet didn't write it).
But the good stuff is so terrific - the Mamet arias, the murder of Charles Martin Smith (so shocking and intense), the death of Sean Connery, the finale in court.
Sequel to Greetings is more focused, with Robert de Niro as the only protagonist, but also has less life though it's similiarly wacky with political sants.
De Niro goes to work in the porn industry, then for a black revue.The black revue segment is startling - it's immersive theatre, the whites have black polish put on them, get harassed by cops (one of them de Niro, doing an acting gig), one is raped, the girl screams, it's all filmed. This is powerful. Then the rape victim praises the immersive theatre experience.
It's bold I'll give it that. Lots of ideas. Interesting. I'm not sure how I think about it.
The cast includes people like Jennifer Salt, Charles Durning, Allen Garfield.
Brian De Palma's first feature although his third released. It's a wacky comedy years before Wise Guys which starts with a sped up dubbed chase that feels as though it belongs in a Beach Party movie.
It's one of those "interesting because it has people who went on to become famous" films with De Palma, Robert de Nero (as he's billed), Hill Clayburgh. There's a lot of actors in this.
There's novelties - seeing de Niro, who is a little chubby in the face, seeing Clayburgh. There's energy, some interesting dialogue (references to Fellini, Anna May Wong, Lionel Barrymore).
But they don't sustain. It gets annoying - the groom who doesn't want to get married (okay boomer), the wacky Indian character (Peter Sellers influence no doubt). What might've been an interesting short definitely doesn't have legs as a feature. By the time the groom tries to root the organist it's really uncomfortable. Haw haw haw, unwilling woman, haw haw haw.
It is less painful than Wise Guys.
Brian De Palma in groovy mode with its Brit cinema and French new wave cinema influences on its sleeve. It has bright colour, homophobia, racial slurs delivered "satirically" and a lot of energy.
It's a series of adventures with three films one of whom is a young Robert de Niro in glasses, another who is Gerrit Graham who was in a bunch of de Palma films.
This was a hit relative to its low budget. It's in colour, and is simple ish to follow - just three dudes hanging out bantering. The attitudes would have been fresh and cutting edge at the time.
There's lots of long takes with the actors just talking and interacting - Cassavetes like which is different from what De Palma would later specialise in.
I think this would have meant more to people going through this at the time but it's of interest.
The first fifteen minutes of this were terrific - plunging into a mystery, two deaths, both murder, our heroes framed, massive stakes with the accused being a black man in 1934 - and I thought "why the dislike?" But then it goes into flashback and wobbles. All the repetitive dialogue - repetitive everything really. The heroes get off the hook too quickly, too early, the film lacks tension (the heroes have so much help - like why not use Mike Myers and Michael Shannon more), it's really about Robert de Niro's character. It goes on too long.
The stuff about fascism in America is pertinent and good on Russell for giving us a lesson, it just feels like they filmed the first draft.
The trailer didn't look great but I allowed myself to be caught up in the hype of people in twitter. It's not a bad movie, of course... but when it starts with a tracking shot through a nursing home with some 50s pop tune I couldn't help thinking "haven't we seen this already?"
And yeah we kind of have.
There's a lot of loving period detail, an excellent actors and moments of people being shot. But a lot of the time I was going "so what?" He was a war veteran and takes that attitude into working for the mob... Jimmy Hoffa is corrupt... his kids didn't like him...
The de-aging technology is interesting. It's very well acted and directed. The killings are effective, particularly the death of Hoffa. It gets better as it goes on and focuses on the leads being old men. Nice to see Joe Pesci being still. The movie is absolutely fine. Maybe it'll stay with me.
