Taxi Driver - Movie Forums

Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)

- General Movie Discussion (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Taxi Driver (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=54322)

Originally Posted by Mr_TagoMago (Post 1905606)

He looks like the hero in the end but weve seen how unstable he is. If he had succesfully assassinated that politician hed have been seen as a villain, but he was stopped and instead murdered some pimps and saved a kid from prostitution. Theres a bit of a hint towards the end hell do something insane again and it might not be as pretty.

It's not known is he good then? It's thought-provoquing. It's simmilar to Apocalypse Now. A hero, or celebrated as one in the end who's f+cked up, but everything around him is hell. Apacalypse has an increadible atmosphere. I'd always put FFC over Martin.

I was struck by how much 'The Sword of Doom' might have influenced Scorsese's 'Taxi Driver'. At least in relation to being influenced enough by your immediate surroundings to be forced into a path of self destruction and sociopathic tendencies.

Originally Posted by Achoo42 (Post 1905641)

The entire point of Goodfellas is to portray the underbelly of vicious criminals in a raw, unfilitered, manner. The beginning of the film romanticizes the Mafia- Henry talks constantly of how great his life is an how awesome it is to be a gangster. But as the film goes on, he becomes more and more disgusted and disillusioned with his life- until finally, it all comes tumbling down. The point of the film is the evil stuff, and that's all.

I agree. The point is crime doesn't pay. Joe, who was the wildest, got killed. The two were less wild and ended up in prison. Ray, who was the least bad, got out alive. It's a Christian movie.

Originally Posted by Beatle (Post 1905772)

I agree. The point is crime doesn't pay. Joe, who was the wildest, got killed. The two were less wild and ended up in prison. Ray, who was the least bad, got out alive. It's a Christian movie.

A little bit, I guess.

I think it's a good movie, but I don't see why it's considered to be one of the greatest movies of all time. Still good though.

I've got some funny ideas in my head...

Maybe the whole point is raising the question will good or evil prevail. We're on the edge. But I truly believe good will prevail. That's the only thing that makes sense. So I still don't see a purpose of the film.

I've never sat and watched Taxi Driver all the way through – I just see sections of it every now and again and last night I saw the first twenty or so minutes.

The music's outstanding – Bernard Herrmann's my favourite film composer – and I'd say it's my way in to the film really. I like the opening titles and typography as well. As I'm typing this I recall how much I love the knockabout music in Ghostbusters by Elmer Bernstein, which, though tonally different, is clearly coming from the same place.

No argument regarding Hermann's music in this film...I hope you get through the whole film from beginning to end someday...it's well worth it.

It's weird how this movie was composed by Bernard Hermann as it doesn't sound like him at all. Hermann's other scores transcend the tests of time, where as Taxi Driver's score, feels forever trapped in the 70s compared to his other work.

It’s a film very much of its time, so...

Originally Posted by Saunch (Post 1989809)

It’s a film very much of its time, so...

And in the best possible way. Some movies are timeless, and that's great, but some movies of very much of their time in an iconic way. Taxi Driver bleeds 1970's, and it would be worse if it didn't.

Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 1989796)

I know what you mean in that it's an unusual score and different to his other ones – maybe it's more personal? But, I think it's recognizably him because his music's the audio equivalent of monolithic :p. It certainly makes its presence felt.

I think if you listen closely you might find echoes of Psycho in there.

Taxi Driver is a little overhyped from what I remember of it, but the ambiguity of the moral subject allows anyone to take what they want from it. That's the way the movie was planned.

What? No overreaction to someone not understanding the glory of Taxi Driver? Not express offense or anything but I got the **** end of the stick when I said that in my latest review.

It's arguably Scorsese's finest hour as far as I'm concerned, but I get that it's not for everyone.

Excerpt from my review

Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 1829380)

Taxi Driver...I was totally impressed with Robert DeNiro. His performance was worthy of the Oscar, indeed he was nominated Best Actor. I mean he was the character! He immersed himself into the role, it was really quite an amazing feat of method acting.

And I'm guessing it's DeNiro as the mentally unstable taxi driver that people love. Sure I could see this movie being a cult classic, but one of the all time great classics? Nah, I don't think so.

The first act, which ends after he takes Cybil Shepard to a porn film was all amazing. The intensity and oddness of the taxi driver, along with the ultra realness of the gritty world that he inhabited, was powerful stuff. It felt like I was there! I'd give the first act a 4/5, good stuff!

But when the director Martin Scorsese appears in the film for the second time, things went downhill. As soon as I spotted him it took me right out of the film's world and made me acutely aware I was watching a movie. Worse than that, I realized as Scorsese set in the cab talking about shooting his cheating wife...his dialogue...and his body language was a duplicate of the taxi drivers. That took me out of the film even further...and it reminded me of Tarantino's stupid choice of inserting himself into Django Unchained. Neither director is a great actor, so they should have left the acting to the professionals.

In the final act I was hoping the relationship between Jodie Foster's 12 year old prostitute and her would-be hero the taxi driver, would be dynamic and would power the last part of the film. Unfortunately we only get one good scene between them in the restaurant.

And while it can be said the prostitute was what triggered him to go on a shooting rampage, there wasn't enough about their relationship to bring the movie to a fevered pitch. Instead the final act of the shooting rampage just seems to be rushed. It's like there needed to be another scene before the ending.

As it was I found the ending emotionally unsatisfying, as I the viewer hadn't sufficiently been primed by the movie to hate the pimp and the hotel manager enough to really want to see them dead.

But I'm surprised I enjoyed the shooting spree as entertainment. I found it kind of funny/entertaining when he blows his fingers off, it was kind of comically filmed. But it lacked utter seriousness in the way it was filmed and so didn't deliver an emotional wallop like I would have hoped for.

Even the sound effects for the guns seemed muted and the camera angles got all artsy during the shooting. It was like Scorsese made a conscious decision to downplay the violence...especially in his choice of ending music score with an overbearing harp, of all things.

Wait, that nervous **** of a wreck was SCORSESE HIMSELF? Hell, I loved that scene. In my eyes, it was showing Travis just how far gone his surroundings were, and would affect him greatly making him a more dangerous part of the city.

Originally Posted by Beatle (Post 1905323)

Since no one anwered, what's so great about it? What's the point? Is he good or evil. It's absolute crap! A fmadman goine ever insane until he kills people.

Don't you mean, going insane until he frees people?

Can't we be both? You know, a walking contradiction. Partly truth, partly fiction.

I don't have anything against someone that dislikes Taxi Driver, actually, that's the people I wanna hear, and @KeyserCorleone expressed the why he didn't like it, or how he didn't like it that much, and that's why his opinion is valid to me. Just saying it's boring is for me like someone trying to overdue a Picasso painting because he didn't like the colors, actually, is not the same thing, because at least that person is trying to overdue. Say the why, and if you don't know, shut up. I have many films I like and never review them because I don't even know why I really like them. The same for the other way around.

Originally Posted by Swan (Post 1989822)

And in the best possible way. Some movies are timeless, and that's great, but some movies of very much of their time in an iconic way. Taxi Driver bleeds 1970's, and it would be worse if it didn't.

I always felt the soundtrack to Taxi Driver was deliberately more evocative of the smooth jazz of the post war era. Partly Scorsese wanting to bring up film noir but also to have the music be deliberately at cross purposes with the film. Basically the soundtrack is more a reflection of Travis's word view, some simplistic and idealistic view of a golden age that's now been corrupted.

Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are I think Scorsese at his best, he's still got the close focus on his characters and visually there a lot more expensive than what follows.