Not very much about this movie was known to me. I had never heard of it, and all I could gather from the vague video store case was that it had Robert De Niro in it and Martin Scorsese directed it. I didn't even know that it was a boxing movie. My thoughts as I checked out went something like this:Thought 1-"De Niro and Scorsese? This could be good...Of course it will probably have a lot of blood and F-words."
Thought 2-"Why don't they have any Coconut M&M's? I want to impulse buy!"
Thought 3-"The cashier's nose hairs are really long."
Thought 4-"I hope this is a good movie."
My thinking continued on the drive home, but I will spare you the details. I could have hoped all I wanted but it wouldn't have changed my feelings about this movie: Big thumbs down!
The film is based on the middleweight champion Jake LaMotta. It focuses less on the boxing aspect of Jake's life, and more on his destructive nature as a violent poo-poo pee-pee head. This I don't mind so much. DeNiro, wearing a prosthetic nose, plays Jake who is constantly worried about what his wife is doing and whether or not she is cheating on him. His reactions are always loud and violent. While DeNiro does a great job playing the part it in no way saves the film from being extremely boring and slow.
So why is Raging Bull on AFI's list? My guess is the smoke and mirrors that Scorsese uses to distract from the slow pace of the film. DeNiro starts the film with a six-pack, and ends it with a beer gut. Drastic body altering like this was used by Renee Zellweger to distract from the weak spots of Bridget Jones' Diary. It's a classic Hollywood trick. Combine it with the before mentioned prosthetic nose and you have yourself a clever magic mirror. But what about the smoke? Raging Bull was filmed entirely in black and white. With all the advancements that we have made, the only reason to revert back to black and white is to make the film seem more artsy (Schindler's List excluded). Why do you think that any movie made by a college film student is in black and white? You got it, artsy!
The bottom line:
Rating: 3.0 (Only because DeNiro did so well)
Would I own it? No way Jose.
Would I recommend it? Only to a college film student.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion,
ReplyDeletebut in all fairness, you've missed the point of the film completely.
Mentioning the prosthetic nose, 60 pound weight gain, slow-pace and black & white filter as "smoke screens" and negatives, don't really credit a negative review.
A film that charters the rise and downfall of a character should be slow paced, otherwise it wouldn't really be a tale, perhaps you're just impatient?
Positives in contrast to you're negativity:
Scorsese's brilliant use of editing and slow motion as an actual psychological device and not a gimmick. Amazing supporting performances and dialogue. De Niro's stand-out portrayal of La Motta, who is extremely convincing as a paranoid, aggressive and violent b*****d.
Now iconic scene's such as "you F**k my wife?, the wall beat down, "hit me". The barbaric and ingeniously shot fight scenes, the subtle yet complex engagement between De Niro and Joe Pesci (amongst some of cinema's greatest subtle acting).
I dunno, obviously you can't win 'em all, but in all fairness, the second I read "poo-poo pee-pee head" as a description of La Motta's behaviour, I was more worried about you're skills as a reviewer and less about Scorsese as a director.
Fair play mate, you don't like one of the greatest films of all time, and that's cool, but if you're thought's are focused on coconut M&M's and the cashier's nose hair's, I frankly believe you're attention span is the problem and not the films pace.
You wrote this three years ago...hopefully you've grown up!
You're definitely not a film buff buddy and I'm not a college film student, so you're recommendation's suck as much as you're reviews do :)
I just watched this film for the first time, working through the top movies as well. And while I agree with some if not all of the points of the anonymous above, overall the story was just boring. All the good acting and camera work can't save a boring story. There was no suspense, no real drama. I didn't really care for anyone, I didn't fear for anyone's safety, and I didn't hope anything for anyone.
ReplyDeleteWhen something happened, I expected some emotion to come from me. Anything. Any emotional feeling at all, positive or negative. But I felt nothing. It barely held my attention. The most "riled up" I got was "wow, he's a jerk". That's the extent of my emotional connection with this movie. My wife started texting on her phone, she was completely bored. A few times we thought, "why is this the #5 best movie of all time?"
Like a lot of the old classics from the 40's, they are just slow, drawn out, boring affairs. Except this time the protagonist is a jerk that you really don't care about.
The acting was great, I just wish it moved me.
It received 8 academy award nominations. What did it win? Best Actor, for De Niro, and Best Film Editing.
That's about right. So much for #5 of all time.