View Single Post
#11
Old 02-04-2013, 12:36 AM
S. Saddler 1310
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,531
Rep Power: 0 S. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond reputeS. Saddler 1310 has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 1,998,946,979.14
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,998,946,979.14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Corners View Post
Raging Bull is one of the best films ever.
i'll assail it.

Scorsese didn't care less about LaMotta. his narrow sensibilities were completely unsympathetic to the man ('uh, some sports guy') and he had to be coaxed into making the film by De Niro, whose pet project/ego-vehicle it was. of course, Scorsese's attitude to the piece became very self-satisfied and warm as he revelled in all the unexpected critical gushing and 'masterpiece' accolades heaped on it down the years (over-praise, imo) - as such, he's more than happy to talk about it now as if it were some great passion of his creative life, for the reason that it has earned him so much flattering kudos.
De Niro, meanwhile, captured some superficial sense of LaMotta, but was unable to channel Jake's soul (or, perhaps, even realize the depth of it to begin with). it was a macho-vanity performance.

i think it's a heavily flawed film in its unmindfully skewed reflection of Jake. but it looks pretty (here, Scorsese did invest some passion) and Moriarty is worth the price of admission.

Last edited by S. Saddler 1310; 02-04-2013 at 12:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
S. Saddler 1310 is offline
Advertisements
>>>TO REMOVE THESE ADS, PLEASE REGISTER HERE FOR FREE<<<