Poll

Your Favorite Martin Scorsese Film Is:

don't like any
0 (0%)
other
0 (0%)
Mean Streets
4 (4.3%)
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
1 (1.1%)
Taxi Driver
22 (23.7%)
New York, New York
0 (0%)
The Last Waltz
0 (0%)
Raging Bull
15 (16.1%)
The King of Comedy
7 (7.5%)
After Hours
2 (2.2%)
The Color of Money
0 (0%)
The Last Temptation of Christ
2 (2.2%)
Goodfellas
24 (25.8%)
Cape Fear
0 (0%)
The Age of Innocence
1 (1.1%)
Casino
2 (2.2%)
Kundun
0 (0%)
Bringing Out the Dead
0 (0%)
Gangs of New York
2 (2.2%)
The Aviator
2 (2.2%)
No Direction Home: Bob Dylan
0 (0%)
The Departed
8 (8.6%)
Shine a Light
0 (0%)
Shutter Island
0 (0%)
A Letter to Elia
0 (0%)
Public Speaking
0 (0%)
George Harrison: Living in the Material World
0 (0%)
Hugo
0 (0%)
The Wolf of Wall Street
0 (0%)
Silence
1 (1.1%)
The Irishman
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 91

Author Topic: Scorsese, Martin  (Read 8442 times)

DarkeningHumour

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 8866
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #130 on: January 08, 2017, 04:45:08 AM »
My admittedly strange ranking:

1. Taxi Driver
2. The Age of Innocence
3. Silence
4. Raging Bull

The strangest thing about this is that you, uniquely, made a Top 4 ; which is okay I guess.
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

pixote

  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31729
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #131 on: January 22, 2017, 05:23:43 PM »
Silence  (Martin Scorsese, 2016)
It seems to be a well kept secret that Martin Scorsese is a very subpar storyteller. He has other gifts as a filmmaker, but basic story sense is not among them. Silence is just the latest example of his being a visual filmmaker with a tell-not-show mentality an awful combination for someone who seems to be chasing after his own Apocalypse Now, Fitzcarraldo, Ran, or The New World. Scorsese, as often, leans on voiceover narration as a crutch in the film's first half, robbing the narrative of flow while adding little in the sense of poetry. There are a few nice long shots early on, especially in steamy locations, but the photography isn't as transcendental as the subject would seem to demand, often looking overly digitized. There's a moment in the second half where a character thanks god for answering a prayer, and the writing and direction in that moment are so disappointingly by-the-numbers and indicative of the film's failing as a whole. It doesn't help that a full twenty minutes of running time are devoted to people either stepping or not stepping on an icon of Jesus, with Scorsese unable to justify the repetitiveness. The only god here is Ogata Issei, whose brief appearances give life to a dead picture, in divine fashion.
Grade: C

pixote
I think I'd love how awkward it'd be, or how awkward it should be.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 27203
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #132 on: January 22, 2017, 10:20:35 PM »
I was wondering if the voice-over would turn people off. I think you're right about it to some degree in the first half, but I also think it's part of a larger way the film works that is really interesting. So it starts with a letter from Neeson that is read in VO, and then there's the scene where it shows them reading the letter and discussing it, then it transitions into Garfield's VO, also in the form of a letter. That continues for the first half, but then it changes somewhere into internal monologue, which is really interesting I think, because the movie also becomes more about his internal struggle. At some point he's pleading directly to God (and eventually getting a response). Then there's the final transition to another letter situation, this time from a Dutch trader. I'm less sure about that working, but it is a very interesting way of keeping the question of Garfield's internal beliefs silent. I think these changes keep it interesting and they worked for me, but I could see somebody getting turned off initially and staying turned off.

I also thought basically all the visual stuff worked. I talked about the low angles in my review and that still works for me. I think the beginning parts are more visually interesting, and the stuff with the three people on the cross in the waves was both terrifying and beautiful, visually speaking. There's a lot of good editing there I think, too.
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

pixote

  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31729
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #133 on: January 23, 2017, 12:33:38 AM »
When Liam Neeson's voiceover began, I rolled my eyes a bit. But then when it was revealed to be from a letter, I was relieved and even enthusiastic. When Garfield's narration began (also from letters), I was open to it ... but the content of the narration just wasn't strong enough, in my opinion. It distracted much while adding little, other than perhaps a nod to the embedded narrative of Heart of Darkness.

The cross and the waves were a definite highlight. I disagree on the editing, though. I thought it was pretty poor, in terms of maintaining continuity between shots and narrative flows throughout the film. Not Thelma's best work!

pixote
I think I'd love how awkward it'd be, or how awkward it should be.

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28043
  • Marathon Man
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #134 on: September 13, 2017, 06:54:03 PM »
Italianamerican (1974)
* * * - Okay
Not everybody's parents are interesting enough to be the subject of their own documentary. Martin Scorsese's parents are pretty interesting and whatever they may lack is boosted by Scorsese's natural skill and the indirect biopic glance into the world that raised one of cinema's greatest filmmakers. Still, while it's clear Scorsese was editing heavily to extract the best bits, the stories start to feel like one great song played for 49 minutes.


The Audition (2015)
* * * - Good
A 16-minute commercial for some casinos is well worth watching because Scorsese can't help pulling good work from stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro. They form a solid comedic rhythm with Scorsese on screen to keep things prickly. More proof beyond Wolf of Wall Street that DiCaprio should do more comedy. It's a rarely played card I don't believe DDL even has in his arsenal.


Shine a Light (2008)
* * * - Okay
Rolling Stones concert film, with Scorsese providing some pre-concert drama over the un-finalized set list and Jagger's worry about the cameras distracting him and the audience. In the end, it looks like a great show, and I love Scorsese cutting in early interviews of the Stones believing their careers will be brief, but it's still largely just a concert film.

DrWade42

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #135 on: September 14, 2017, 12:37:19 AM »
I've seen all of his feature films, not counting documentaries. Here's my ranked list on Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/drwade42/list/martin-scorsese-ranked/

My top 5 are:
1. After Hours
2. Taxi Driver
3. Raging Bull
4. The Last Temptation of Christ
5. The King of Comedy

DarkeningHumour

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 8866
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #136 on: September 14, 2017, 06:15:59 AM »
1SO, didn't you come back from Italy, like, two days ago?
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28043
  • Marathon Man
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #137 on: September 14, 2017, 09:26:23 AM »
Two shorts and a feature. Took a total of 3 hours to watch.

DarkeningHumour

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 8866
  • When not sure if sarcasm look at username.
    • Pretentiously Yours
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #138 on: September 14, 2017, 09:48:54 AM »
Where's the line between short and feature? 49 minutes is sort of long.
Society is dumb. Art is everything. - Junior

https://pretensiouslyyours.wordpress.com/

Corndog

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 15525
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Scorsese, Martin
« Reply #139 on: September 14, 2017, 09:54:55 AM »
40 minutes or less is typically the standard for a short film. Anything more is considered a feature.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

 

love