I don't like it when people judge movies that they haven't seen. I saw it it was a freaking classic. I own it. did you ever research the characters?
Yea there's a bunch of stuff on wikipedia about the characters but not sure how much truth there is to some of it. I own it on blu-ray, looks fantastic.
the deniro character's car scene, true the pesci and his brother scene, true the casino in real life was the stardust (i actually stayed there)
Raging Bull Goodfellas/Casino Gangs of New York Cape Fear of the ones I've seen Departed so overrated. Jack mailing it in, Damon's performance okay. Gangs of New York grew on me, first it was just too long but but I got into the historical context. The best thing about Goodfellas and Casino is the story telling. like when pesci is talking about Kansas City, on the screen it reads "back home" or when liota is in prison and he is talking about the guys cooking.
I have seen after hours probably about 1000 times. I have the dvd with the deleted scenes and commentary. Used to watch it with my girlfriend in high school. I would hit it , then watch it then hit it again then watch it.. its the kind of movie that you can come into and out of an it's still entertaining.But only if you have seen it before many times. I've tried to show it to other people and those that did not sit through the beginning watching closely almost always wouldn't make it all the way. It's weird like that. Recently I found out that the story was actually stolen. That was disappointing to hear but most stories are. I think the ending of after hours was a bit of a letdown yet I understand scorsese tried to come up with a good ending ,and couldn't so they ended up with what they ended with. The scene at the club where paul wants to get in is also lifted from Kafka but is a great great scene. I'm not much of a scorsese guy but I do think after hours is well done. Some of it's becoming a tad dated now. I don't see some 14 year old on here enjoying it though. Here's the song by mozart from the beginning- good times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNJX0AShCX8
I feel he's retained his consistent level longer than say..Ridley or Spielberg. Of the lesser reviewed films Martin has done in recent years, i thought they were underrated. I loved the Irishman as a typical Scorsese movie and i loved the mood of Silence as a period piece of beautiful feudal Japan, but i'm a sucker for Japanese history and lore. I thought Hugo was a beautiful tribute to his love of cinema and different for him, but a 1 time viewing. Shutter Island is worthy of multiple viewings. He was really peaking in that early 2k era, but Wolf of Wall Street is arguably his best and it's pretty recent. Neither Spielberg nor Ridley have a film they have made in recent years that can be considered one of their best of their careers imo(the Martian won awards i guess, but i felt it was super disappointing and boring.) Spielberg had some heavy hitters in the early 2ks, but mostly solid stuff to meh since. I loved RPO. Lincoln was the big awards type of film, but outside of DDL performance, it's a bore. I felt he lost a lot of his magical traits and cinematic shots after the 2010's and didn't stand out anymore vs Ridley still has his aesthetic, but the stories have been poorly written and he did all he could to carry them with his visual appeal. So while i'm looking forward to the next Alien, Gladiator 2, and Napoleon(Speilberg is also doing a Napoleon mini series) from Ridley, i think Scorsese is going to bring the most consistent in tone and story heavy hitter to his lineup in Killers of the Flower Moon. He's also been involved with great tv series and has one of Gangs of New York coming up too. Not that i think he's better than the other greats, but i feel Tarantino is the only one who keeps getting better and he's trying to retire as he's peaking?
his movies are before my time. they seem heavy and mostly dialogue. what's the closest movie of his to the avengers?
I respect that but I can't talk about cinema the same way as about basketball players. Who is in their prime, who is declining as such ...... it is just not the same to me. To me a lot of those guys, they just find projects that fit their style and they deliver, or they make the most out of something that does not suit them. Some might discover a new perspective, new angle when they grow old, some do not. Much respect again.
Yeah i guess i was comping them like ball players which i didn't mean to. Thinking on it a bit, i suppose you can attribute it to cognitive decline with age and Tarantino is at an age where those other guys were at the top of their "game." Of course many factors and people have to come together for a film to be great and it's not just 1 person, but Tarantino does write and direct so maybe work and life experience is coming together for him at the right time.
I like Quentin but most of his works are based on great works or underrated works. And he figured out that he is a gifted dialogue writer. Maybe his job as video store clerk helped him discover those oldies. Great mix of content for contemporaries, not the old folk, the middle aged and young.
Agreed. I forget which films he was talking about on that bill mahr show where they get wasted, but I believe he's done it on many occasions where he calls out others for basically rehashing old films but thats exactly how Tarantino made his career! He does know how to put it all together in a way that can entertain modern audiences and no one can do dialogue like him.
