Brodinski's Best of the Year list
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
1980 - Raging bull... holds breath...
__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."
X
Favorite Movies
1980. Raging Bull
As you probably know by now, I usually start every entry in this series by naming my runners-up of the year. These are films that fell just short of the # 1 spot or simply films that I really liked, but were never in contention for the top spot. For the first time in this series, I refrain from naming my runners-up; my contenders (to get in the boxing spirit a bit), if you will, for film of the year. There are no contenders this year, even though there were a LOT of good to excellent films released in 1980. No film released in 1980, or in fact the entire 80s, can touch my # 1 pick (MC Hammer style). Raging Bull demolishes its competition, much like Jake LaMotta used to demolish most of his opponents during his prime in the 40s and 50s.
If there is anything I love more than watching films, it’s watching and practicing boxing. I picked it up at the age of 16 when I saw a taped fight at a friend’s house. I saw Roy Jones Jr. knock out his opponent, Otis Grant, with a right to the temple. Only a split second before that devastating blow, Jones Jr. kept his hands behind his back, so as to taunt his opponent. It’s what got me into the sport, first as an avid fan, then as a practitioner myself. No, I never got to fight professionally (and never will), but I have some amateur bouts under my belt and basically just enjoy practicing and learning the sweet science. Knowing as much about the sport as I do, I will be the first to be quite critical of a boxing film. Even some that are critically acclaimed I have serious issues with: I didn’t like Million Dollar Baby and Rocky. I’ll go ahead now and state the obvious: Raging Bull is the best boxing film ever made. In fact, Raging Bull is the best sports film ever made.
This is going to be a long read. No one has ever accused me of brevity when it comes to reviewing films, but even for my standards, this will be a mammoth.
Raging Bull was based on the memoires of Jake LaMotta (Robert DeNiro), a boxer hailing from the Bronx, who during the 40s and 50s was at the pinnacle of the middleweight division. He was the World Middleweight Champion from 1949 to 1951 and, perhaps more importantly, the first man to ever beat the greatest ever, Sugar Ray Robinson. The film tells the story of how Jake met his wife, Vicky (Cathy Moriarty); his constant struggle to cut weight and especially his mental problems. LaMotta was a sickeningly jealous husband who couldn’t stand seeing a single man talk to or look at his wife, not even if it was his own brother, Joey (Joe Pesci). As the years go by, he becomes more and more violent and thus insufferable to live with. As a result, life slowly slips through Jake’s hands: his wife Vicky leaves him, his brother no longer wants anything to do with him and in the ring, he is just a shimmer of the once fit athlete who was the first to make Sugar Ray Robinson taste defeat. Eventually, he opens a nightclub in Florida where he spends his nights entertaining his guests, sponging off his reputation as a boxing legend.
One could say that Raging Bull is a boxing film and one would indeed be right. Yet categorizing this film as just that, would be an insult to the drama of Jake LaMotta’s life that is retold in Raging Bull. In essence, Raging Bull is a character study of an insecure man. In fact, LaMotta is so insecure about himself, his sexuality and what others think of him, that he constantly feels the need to prove to everyone that he is a real man; a force to be reckoned with. Let me ask you this: why do kids fight? They mostly don’t fight because they want to hurt each other per se, but rather to make a point: “I’m the boss around here!”
Jake LaMotta had everything a young man could dream of. With every fight, he was seemingly unstoppably inching closer to the coveted World Title. He was married to a beautiful woman. His family loved him; his brother Joey stood by him through thick and thin. It seems like the best a young kid from the Bronx could hope for. And yet, throughout the film, we never see Jake be truly happy. Sure, he will occasionally laugh or smile, but there is always this underlying uneasiness when he interacts with other people. It’s as if he’s afraid that they are judging him. So, Jake acts like a child that has to make it clear to everyone who’s boss. And LaMotta does not spare anyone from his violent outbursts: he hits his wife, his brother and the few friends he has. I believe that he doesn’t do this to hurt them, but rather to keep them close to him: Stay with me and love me, or else… In reality, Jake isn’t only fighting his opponents in the ring, he is also fighting his own demons and unlike most of his opponents, these he cannot overcome. Because LaMotta is so afraid that the people close to him will leave him or betray him, he resorts to the one argument that always tips the scale into his advantage: violence.
This is also where LaMotta’s fights in the ring can be interpreted on a meta-level. You can look at them in a twofold way. Firstly, they serve as an outlet for LaMotta’s violent nature. In the ring, he can beat up guys all he wants and he does a splendid job at it. Vicky once made a remark that she found a certain boxer to be quite pretty. Later, LaMotta has to fight this man. He gave the kid a hellacious beating. In slow motion, we see the blood gushing from his face. We literally see his nose break from one of Jake’s power punches. The Bronx Bull shows us how he earned his nickname and we hear one of the ringside commentators say: “he ain’t pretty no more.” This was exactly LaMotta’s intention and Scorsese inserts a meaningful close-up of Vicky’s face. She got the message all too well.
Secondly, juxtaposed to the punishment LaMotta dishes out to his opponents, he isn’t scared of taking a punch either. It seems that in the ring, Jake penances for his sins by absorbing terrible punishment at the hands of Sugar Ray Robinson. It is a well-known fact in boxing that LaMotta’s chin was the stuff of legends. His defense remains underrated throughout history, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he was able to shake off punches that would’ve laid out just about any other man. As Scorsese once named the ring “an allegory for life”, it seems as if he and his screenwriter Paul Schrader wanted to make it look like Jake’s ability to absorb huge punches like a sponge isn’t just a case of toughness, but also a means of being punished for his sins. It’s like he’s saying in the ring: “I know what I do is wrong on some level, but I just can’t express it so I’ll do my penance in the ring.”
What Scorsese realized on a visual level, especially the fight scenes, in Raging Bull is – for lack of a better word – achingly beautiful. Before Raging Bull, boxing matches were pretty much always filmed from outside the ring. Scorsese not only brings the camera into the ring, but turns LaMotta’s fights into a sort of ballet through the use of slow-motion and Thelma Schoonmaker’s grand editing. Just watch the scene where we see the steam raise from Jake’s body. He really does look like a Raging Bull. Time and time again, in slow-mo, we see the punches make contact with his opponent’s body. The blood and sweat flies all over the place. During the final boxing scene of the film, we see a ray of blood splatter the people sitting on the first row. Subsequently, Scorsese slowly moves his camera upward, from Jake’s feet to his face. His entire body – even his legs – is covered in blood, his eye is swollen shut. There is no air of glamour attached to the sweet science in Raging Bull. It’s man against man in there. I have never seen the physical aspect of boxing, the pain and bloodshed that is an essential part of the sport, reproduced in such a realistic and believable manner as it was in Raging Bull. Michael Mann made a decent effort with Ali, where he managed to give the viewer a good sense of the intensity of the sport of boxing, but the film lacked the poetic beauty of Michael Chapman’s black-and-white cinematography.
The team that was responsible for the realization of Taxi Driver is largely the same for Raging Bull. Naturally, there are the usual suspects: Scorsese directing, Schrader writing the screenplay and DeNiro acting. But there’s another man that deserves special praise: Michael Chapman, the director of photography. He did an extraordinary job in Raging Bull and I’m not just talking about the virtuoso boxing scenes. My favourite scene of the entire film comes near the end. Jake LaMotta is arrested in Florida for intercourse with a minor. We see LaMotta in his cell, a single ray of light on him. As a result, LaMotta is a mere silhouette, a shell of the fighter he once was. He is pounding his hands and head to the wall while lamenting: “stupid, stupid, stupid…” Once again, LaMotta punishes himself for his acts. And I think the minimalist photography adds a lot to the emotional impact of that scene.
I’ve not yet gotten around to speaking about the performances. DeNiro, who portrays Jake LaMotta, actually came up with the idea of making the biopic. He became infatuated with LaMotta’s life after having read the man’s autobiography. As soon as Scorsese and Schrader came aboard, the project went into production and DeNiro immersed himself in the persona of The Bronx Bull. He met extensively with the man himself, his brother Joey and even his ex-wife Vicki. I’ve read that DeNiro even trained boxing with LaMotta and trainer Al Silvani, so as to make the fights look more realistic.
However, it is not DeNiro’s acting when in the ring that makes his performance so memorable. It’s his ability to communicate LaMotta’s mental issues. Like I said, there’s always this undercurrent of fear of being left or betrayed running through Jake’s head. The fact that DeNiro is able to effectively communicate this in a genuine way is a testament to his terrific acting skills. To this day, some of the scenes deeply unsettle me. When Jake starts beating his brother, convinced that he had a relationship with Vicki, I just cringe. This is the Robert DeNiro that I’ll remember, not the man making a clown of himself in Analyze This or Meet the Parents.
The other standout role is that of Joe Pesci as Jake’s brother Joey. He is as loyal a brother as he can be, training Jake, making him watch out for his weight and keeping the mafia at bay as best he can. It’s heartbreaking to see him get almost nothing in return from Jake, except distrust and a beating. You can think of Pesci what you want, but at his best, he is one of the finest actors I’ve seen on the screen.
Phew, I think I’ve mentioned pretty much everything I wanted to address. If you’ve taken the time to read through all of this, then I hope you understand by now why I think that this film is such a seminal achievement. Raging Bull not only captured LaMotta’s pugilist expertise, but also his violent, mentally uncertain persona, beautifully elucidating his success and adversity both inside and outside of the ring. After this gushing and knowing my love of boxing, I guess the one question left to answer is whether I consider Raging Bull to be my all-time personal favourite. Well, it’s in my top 5 and (much as is the case with Magnolia) after every re-watch I catch myself thinking that Raging Bull is the greatest film of all time… until I re-watch one of the other 4 in my top 5.
As you probably know by now, I usually start every entry in this series by naming my runners-up of the year. These are films that fell just short of the # 1 spot or simply films that I really liked, but were never in contention for the top spot. For the first time in this series, I refrain from naming my runners-up; my contenders (to get in the boxing spirit a bit), if you will, for film of the year. There are no contenders this year, even though there were a LOT of good to excellent films released in 1980. No film released in 1980, or in fact the entire 80s, can touch my # 1 pick (MC Hammer style). Raging Bull demolishes its competition, much like Jake LaMotta used to demolish most of his opponents during his prime in the 40s and 50s.
If there is anything I love more than watching films, it’s watching and practicing boxing. I picked it up at the age of 16 when I saw a taped fight at a friend’s house. I saw Roy Jones Jr. knock out his opponent, Otis Grant, with a right to the temple. Only a split second before that devastating blow, Jones Jr. kept his hands behind his back, so as to taunt his opponent. It’s what got me into the sport, first as an avid fan, then as a practitioner myself. No, I never got to fight professionally (and never will), but I have some amateur bouts under my belt and basically just enjoy practicing and learning the sweet science. Knowing as much about the sport as I do, I will be the first to be quite critical of a boxing film. Even some that are critically acclaimed I have serious issues with: I didn’t like Million Dollar Baby and Rocky. I’ll go ahead now and state the obvious: Raging Bull is the best boxing film ever made. In fact, Raging Bull is the best sports film ever made.
This is going to be a long read. No one has ever accused me of brevity when it comes to reviewing films, but even for my standards, this will be a mammoth.
Raging Bull was based on the memoires of Jake LaMotta (Robert DeNiro), a boxer hailing from the Bronx, who during the 40s and 50s was at the pinnacle of the middleweight division. He was the World Middleweight Champion from 1949 to 1951 and, perhaps more importantly, the first man to ever beat the greatest ever, Sugar Ray Robinson. The film tells the story of how Jake met his wife, Vicky (Cathy Moriarty); his constant struggle to cut weight and especially his mental problems. LaMotta was a sickeningly jealous husband who couldn’t stand seeing a single man talk to or look at his wife, not even if it was his own brother, Joey (Joe Pesci). As the years go by, he becomes more and more violent and thus insufferable to live with. As a result, life slowly slips through Jake’s hands: his wife Vicky leaves him, his brother no longer wants anything to do with him and in the ring, he is just a shimmer of the once fit athlete who was the first to make Sugar Ray Robinson taste defeat. Eventually, he opens a nightclub in Florida where he spends his nights entertaining his guests, sponging off his reputation as a boxing legend.
One could say that Raging Bull is a boxing film and one would indeed be right. Yet categorizing this film as just that, would be an insult to the drama of Jake LaMotta’s life that is retold in Raging Bull. In essence, Raging Bull is a character study of an insecure man. In fact, LaMotta is so insecure about himself, his sexuality and what others think of him, that he constantly feels the need to prove to everyone that he is a real man; a force to be reckoned with. Let me ask you this: why do kids fight? They mostly don’t fight because they want to hurt each other per se, but rather to make a point: “I’m the boss around here!”
Jake LaMotta had everything a young man could dream of. With every fight, he was seemingly unstoppably inching closer to the coveted World Title. He was married to a beautiful woman. His family loved him; his brother Joey stood by him through thick and thin. It seems like the best a young kid from the Bronx could hope for. And yet, throughout the film, we never see Jake be truly happy. Sure, he will occasionally laugh or smile, but there is always this underlying uneasiness when he interacts with other people. It’s as if he’s afraid that they are judging him. So, Jake acts like a child that has to make it clear to everyone who’s boss. And LaMotta does not spare anyone from his violent outbursts: he hits his wife, his brother and the few friends he has. I believe that he doesn’t do this to hurt them, but rather to keep them close to him: Stay with me and love me, or else… In reality, Jake isn’t only fighting his opponents in the ring, he is also fighting his own demons and unlike most of his opponents, these he cannot overcome. Because LaMotta is so afraid that the people close to him will leave him or betray him, he resorts to the one argument that always tips the scale into his advantage: violence.
This is also where LaMotta’s fights in the ring can be interpreted on a meta-level. You can look at them in a twofold way. Firstly, they serve as an outlet for LaMotta’s violent nature. In the ring, he can beat up guys all he wants and he does a splendid job at it. Vicky once made a remark that she found a certain boxer to be quite pretty. Later, LaMotta has to fight this man. He gave the kid a hellacious beating. In slow motion, we see the blood gushing from his face. We literally see his nose break from one of Jake’s power punches. The Bronx Bull shows us how he earned his nickname and we hear one of the ringside commentators say: “he ain’t pretty no more.” This was exactly LaMotta’s intention and Scorsese inserts a meaningful close-up of Vicky’s face. She got the message all too well.
Secondly, juxtaposed to the punishment LaMotta dishes out to his opponents, he isn’t scared of taking a punch either. It seems that in the ring, Jake penances for his sins by absorbing terrible punishment at the hands of Sugar Ray Robinson. It is a well-known fact in boxing that LaMotta’s chin was the stuff of legends. His defense remains underrated throughout history, but that doesn’t take away the fact that he was able to shake off punches that would’ve laid out just about any other man. As Scorsese once named the ring “an allegory for life”, it seems as if he and his screenwriter Paul Schrader wanted to make it look like Jake’s ability to absorb huge punches like a sponge isn’t just a case of toughness, but also a means of being punished for his sins. It’s like he’s saying in the ring: “I know what I do is wrong on some level, but I just can’t express it so I’ll do my penance in the ring.”
What Scorsese realized on a visual level, especially the fight scenes, in Raging Bull is – for lack of a better word – achingly beautiful. Before Raging Bull, boxing matches were pretty much always filmed from outside the ring. Scorsese not only brings the camera into the ring, but turns LaMotta’s fights into a sort of ballet through the use of slow-motion and Thelma Schoonmaker’s grand editing. Just watch the scene where we see the steam raise from Jake’s body. He really does look like a Raging Bull. Time and time again, in slow-mo, we see the punches make contact with his opponent’s body. The blood and sweat flies all over the place. During the final boxing scene of the film, we see a ray of blood splatter the people sitting on the first row. Subsequently, Scorsese slowly moves his camera upward, from Jake’s feet to his face. His entire body – even his legs – is covered in blood, his eye is swollen shut. There is no air of glamour attached to the sweet science in Raging Bull. It’s man against man in there. I have never seen the physical aspect of boxing, the pain and bloodshed that is an essential part of the sport, reproduced in such a realistic and believable manner as it was in Raging Bull. Michael Mann made a decent effort with Ali, where he managed to give the viewer a good sense of the intensity of the sport of boxing, but the film lacked the poetic beauty of Michael Chapman’s black-and-white cinematography.
The team that was responsible for the realization of Taxi Driver is largely the same for Raging Bull. Naturally, there are the usual suspects: Scorsese directing, Schrader writing the screenplay and DeNiro acting. But there’s another man that deserves special praise: Michael Chapman, the director of photography. He did an extraordinary job in Raging Bull and I’m not just talking about the virtuoso boxing scenes. My favourite scene of the entire film comes near the end. Jake LaMotta is arrested in Florida for intercourse with a minor. We see LaMotta in his cell, a single ray of light on him. As a result, LaMotta is a mere silhouette, a shell of the fighter he once was. He is pounding his hands and head to the wall while lamenting: “stupid, stupid, stupid…” Once again, LaMotta punishes himself for his acts. And I think the minimalist photography adds a lot to the emotional impact of that scene.
I’ve not yet gotten around to speaking about the performances. DeNiro, who portrays Jake LaMotta, actually came up with the idea of making the biopic. He became infatuated with LaMotta’s life after having read the man’s autobiography. As soon as Scorsese and Schrader came aboard, the project went into production and DeNiro immersed himself in the persona of The Bronx Bull. He met extensively with the man himself, his brother Joey and even his ex-wife Vicki. I’ve read that DeNiro even trained boxing with LaMotta and trainer Al Silvani, so as to make the fights look more realistic.
However, it is not DeNiro’s acting when in the ring that makes his performance so memorable. It’s his ability to communicate LaMotta’s mental issues. Like I said, there’s always this undercurrent of fear of being left or betrayed running through Jake’s head. The fact that DeNiro is able to effectively communicate this in a genuine way is a testament to his terrific acting skills. To this day, some of the scenes deeply unsettle me. When Jake starts beating his brother, convinced that he had a relationship with Vicki, I just cringe. This is the Robert DeNiro that I’ll remember, not the man making a clown of himself in Analyze This or Meet the Parents.
The other standout role is that of Joe Pesci as Jake’s brother Joey. He is as loyal a brother as he can be, training Jake, making him watch out for his weight and keeping the mafia at bay as best he can. It’s heartbreaking to see him get almost nothing in return from Jake, except distrust and a beating. You can think of Pesci what you want, but at his best, he is one of the finest actors I’ve seen on the screen.
Phew, I think I’ve mentioned pretty much everything I wanted to address. If you’ve taken the time to read through all of this, then I hope you understand by now why I think that this film is such a seminal achievement. Raging Bull not only captured LaMotta’s pugilist expertise, but also his violent, mentally uncertain persona, beautifully elucidating his success and adversity both inside and outside of the ring. After this gushing and knowing my love of boxing, I guess the one question left to answer is whether I consider Raging Bull to be my all-time personal favourite. Well, it’s in my top 5 and (much as is the case with Magnolia) after every re-watch I catch myself thinking that Raging Bull is the greatest film of all time… until I re-watch one of the other 4 in my top 5.
X
User Lists
My favourite Scorsese film.
Fantastic review Brod 
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Always love how in depth you go with your reviews in this thread. While I don't love Raging Bull, I can appreciate it and I love how much you love it.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Excellent choice, Brodinski. While I don't think it's Scorsese's best, it's still a fantastic film, with some of the greatest performances ever. Again, great choice.
X
Favorite Movies
The 80s have been completed. I've once again tried to rank my top picks:
00s
1) City of God (2002)
2) Lost in Translation (2003)
3) The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4) Mulholland Drive (2001)
5) Inglourious Basterds (2009)
6) Traffic (2000)
7) 35 Shots of Rum (2008)
8) Babel (2006)
9) Dogville (2004)
10) Syriana (2005)
90s
1) Magnolia (1999)
2) The Big Lebowski (1998)
3) As Good As It Gets (1997)
4) Goodfellas (1990)
5) Trainspotting (1996)
6) Heat (1995)
7) Unforgiven (1992)
8) Schindler's List (1993)
9) Pulp Fiction (1994)
10) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
80s
1)Raging Bull (1980)
2)Blood Simple (1984)
3)Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
4)Full Metal Jacket (1987)
5)Cinema Paradiso (1988)
6)Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources (1986)
7)The Thing(1982)
8)Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
9)Ran(1985)
10)The King of Comedy (1983)
There's not getting past Raging Bull, which is up there with my top 5 films of all time. None of the films on this list will ever knock it off that # 1 spot of the 80s. In fact, in the 00s, 90s and 80s, there's only one film that can really trade blows with Raging Bull and that's Magnolia.
Blood Simple is what I consider to be as close to a perfect film as one can get. I've already praised it enough in my review, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say, it stands firmly at # 2 of the decade.
Numbers 3 to 5 are interchangeable. Depending on the day you ask me, they could switch places. Cinema Paradiso packs the biggest emotional punch, Full Metal Jacket contains arguably the finest 45 minutes of cinema I've ever seen and The Last Crusade is possibly the best action/adventure film I've seen.
Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources is fixed at # 6. I think it's an all-around more accomplished film than The Thing, which nonetheless stands firmly at # 7. In spite of it being in my top 3 horror films ever, it 'only' made # 7, which probably says more about me than about the film itself.
I'm sure that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Ran may seem a tad too low for some, but I'm not always in the mood for a film like Ran and I prefer Last Crusade over Raiders.
The King of Comedy is far and away the worst of the bunch. I could pick about 20 runners-up from other years that could take its spot had they been released in 1983.
The 70s?
What's certain is that I'll do the 70s, but the exact date when the countdown will begin is as of yet undetermined. I still have a LOT of important 70s films to watch before I can actually start doing any write-ups. I wouldn't want to just go ahead with it and not have seen 40 % of the critically-acclaimed 70s films. If you want to do something, do it right.
I reckon the earliest start to the 70s countdown will be late 2011. I'll dig up this thread when I have a more precise date.
Thanks for all your positive comments and rep so far. It is - as always - much appreciated.
00s
1) City of God (2002)
2) Lost in Translation (2003)
3) The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (2007)
4) Mulholland Drive (2001)
5) Inglourious Basterds (2009)
6) Traffic (2000)
7) 35 Shots of Rum (2008)
8) Babel (2006)
9) Dogville (2004)
10) Syriana (2005)
90s
1) Magnolia (1999)
2) The Big Lebowski (1998)
3) As Good As It Gets (1997)
4) Goodfellas (1990)
5) Trainspotting (1996)
6) Heat (1995)
7) Unforgiven (1992)
8) Schindler's List (1993)
9) Pulp Fiction (1994)
10) Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
80s
1)Raging Bull (1980)
2)Blood Simple (1984)
3)Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
4)Full Metal Jacket (1987)
5)Cinema Paradiso (1988)
6)Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources (1986)
7)The Thing(1982)
8)Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
9)Ran(1985)
10)The King of Comedy (1983)
There's not getting past Raging Bull, which is up there with my top 5 films of all time. None of the films on this list will ever knock it off that # 1 spot of the 80s. In fact, in the 00s, 90s and 80s, there's only one film that can really trade blows with Raging Bull and that's Magnolia.
Blood Simple is what I consider to be as close to a perfect film as one can get. I've already praised it enough in my review, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say, it stands firmly at # 2 of the decade.
Numbers 3 to 5 are interchangeable. Depending on the day you ask me, they could switch places. Cinema Paradiso packs the biggest emotional punch, Full Metal Jacket contains arguably the finest 45 minutes of cinema I've ever seen and The Last Crusade is possibly the best action/adventure film I've seen.
Jean de Florette + Manon des Sources is fixed at # 6. I think it's an all-around more accomplished film than The Thing, which nonetheless stands firmly at # 7. In spite of it being in my top 3 horror films ever, it 'only' made # 7, which probably says more about me than about the film itself.
I'm sure that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Ran may seem a tad too low for some, but I'm not always in the mood for a film like Ran and I prefer Last Crusade over Raiders.
The King of Comedy is far and away the worst of the bunch. I could pick about 20 runners-up from other years that could take its spot had they been released in 1983.
The 70s?
What's certain is that I'll do the 70s, but the exact date when the countdown will begin is as of yet undetermined. I still have a LOT of important 70s films to watch before I can actually start doing any write-ups. I wouldn't want to just go ahead with it and not have seen 40 % of the critically-acclaimed 70s films. If you want to do something, do it right.
I reckon the earliest start to the 70s countdown will be late 2011. I'll dig up this thread when I have a more precise date.
Thanks for all your positive comments and rep so far. It is - as always - much appreciated.
X
User Lists
Im hoping to get some interesting new films to watch from the 70s, excellent decade for filmmaking
__________________
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Love the way you write and how insightful you are. But you knew that.
I'm actually going to watch Raging Bull again because of this review.I am not a massive fan of it but I did admire it's artistic achievements. The film just struck me as a little TOO cold, even for me. But then, I last saw this about 5 years ago, so perhaps I can handle the bleakness more.
Didn't know you did some amateur stuff, Brod's. I actually trained Muay Thai (Thai boxing) for a few years during my teens which as you know involves some boxing techniques, so I kinda relate to you in appreciating the level of detail Scorsese goes into showing the pain and blood and genuine nastiness of the sport. I never even had amateur muay thai bouts. I was never that into it and I don't even think I would have been good anyways. But I would have intense sparring sessions where me and an opponent would go as hard as 80%. This with about 16oz soft gloves on..and I would STILL feel like a fragile mess for a few days or so. It wasn't 'workout soreness' but genuine pain from having the body and face battered. I didn't and don't have the heart for that type of thing which is why I admire thai boxers, mma fighters and general boxers out there because when they go out and do the real thing I get a good understanding of the intensity and physical impact of the damage they take and inflict. Raging Bull takes that into account but the slow mo gives it a poetic touch. The bit where LaMotta throws the fight is pretty difficult to watch. Full twisting haymakers and body shots? This is the only film I can think of that makes those punches look unglamourous. I think fighters are very special athletes. A normal person couldn't be a fighter. You need a different mentality for that ****. It takes a special person go out there and test his will against another man (or woman) who has been specifically trained for 8-12 weeks to bring you to your knees.
I really liked how you interpreted LaMotta's psych though. I never looked at him at those angles. Just looked at him as a scarily jealous bloke, but never considered his insecurities with his masculinity and his fear of being left alone - which is pretty much what happens in the end. But in hindsight his actions make a bit more sense. I don't think I have ever felt so sorry for Joe Pesci as I have done in this film. Even when his Casino character got done in with a baseball bat. But he wasn't exactly sympathetic in that film. In this one, I kinda felt like I was being bullied when I was watching him, which is definitely a testament to both him and DeNiro, specially as I saw this film after Goodfellas.
It's funny though, because for all of it's lack of realism, I always loved Rocky. Its by far the least realistic boxing film made, but I like the notion of it all. I like the training montages and the fact he can take an inhuman beating and come back for the win. Exaggerated, yes, but still fun. I guess that's just the American Dreamer in me.
What did you think of The Fighter, Brod's? I liked how it touched upon the bodyshots being a bigger deal than the ones to the face.
I'm actually going to watch Raging Bull again because of this review.I am not a massive fan of it but I did admire it's artistic achievements. The film just struck me as a little TOO cold, even for me. But then, I last saw this about 5 years ago, so perhaps I can handle the bleakness more.
Didn't know you did some amateur stuff, Brod's. I actually trained Muay Thai (Thai boxing) for a few years during my teens which as you know involves some boxing techniques, so I kinda relate to you in appreciating the level of detail Scorsese goes into showing the pain and blood and genuine nastiness of the sport. I never even had amateur muay thai bouts. I was never that into it and I don't even think I would have been good anyways. But I would have intense sparring sessions where me and an opponent would go as hard as 80%. This with about 16oz soft gloves on..and I would STILL feel like a fragile mess for a few days or so. It wasn't 'workout soreness' but genuine pain from having the body and face battered. I didn't and don't have the heart for that type of thing which is why I admire thai boxers, mma fighters and general boxers out there because when they go out and do the real thing I get a good understanding of the intensity and physical impact of the damage they take and inflict. Raging Bull takes that into account but the slow mo gives it a poetic touch. The bit where LaMotta throws the fight is pretty difficult to watch. Full twisting haymakers and body shots? This is the only film I can think of that makes those punches look unglamourous. I think fighters are very special athletes. A normal person couldn't be a fighter. You need a different mentality for that ****. It takes a special person go out there and test his will against another man (or woman) who has been specifically trained for 8-12 weeks to bring you to your knees.
I really liked how you interpreted LaMotta's psych though. I never looked at him at those angles. Just looked at him as a scarily jealous bloke, but never considered his insecurities with his masculinity and his fear of being left alone - which is pretty much what happens in the end. But in hindsight his actions make a bit more sense. I don't think I have ever felt so sorry for Joe Pesci as I have done in this film. Even when his Casino character got done in with a baseball bat. But he wasn't exactly sympathetic in that film. In this one, I kinda felt like I was being bullied when I was watching him, which is definitely a testament to both him and DeNiro, specially as I saw this film after Goodfellas.
It's funny though, because for all of it's lack of realism, I always loved Rocky. Its by far the least realistic boxing film made, but I like the notion of it all. I like the training montages and the fact he can take an inhuman beating and come back for the win. Exaggerated, yes, but still fun. I guess that's just the American Dreamer in me.
What did you think of The Fighter, Brod's? I liked how it touched upon the bodyshots being a bigger deal than the ones to the face.
First of all, thanks for you hall-of-fame worthy comment, mate. Your input is this thread has been of high quality throughout and this deserves special praise. Seeing as I can't give you a lollypop, I'll just express my gratitude this way.
I can't stand Rocky because it's sooooo unrealistically. There's only so much of that ***** I can take when it comes to boxing. Furthermore, Stallone is a terrible actor.
To my shame I have to admit to not having seen The Fighter yet. I've put off watching it because I can't stand Mark Wahlberg. The only thing that guy can act convincingly is anger or telling other people to go "**** themselves" (The Departed). I think he'll mess up my whole experience of the film.
I can't stand Rocky because it's sooooo unrealistically. There's only so much of that ***** I can take when it comes to boxing. Furthermore, Stallone is a terrible actor.
To my shame I have to admit to not having seen The Fighter yet. I've put off watching it because I can't stand Mark Wahlberg. The only thing that guy can act convincingly is anger or telling other people to go "**** themselves" (The Departed). I think he'll mess up my whole experience of the film.
X
User Lists
Heh, i'd be more at home with a packet of wine gums than a lollipop. 
I kinda understand where detractors of Mark Wahlberg come from. His face isn't very likeble. But the main thing with him is when he is bad, he is VERY bad (The Happening, Truth About Charlie) but when directed well by good filmmakers, he can be pretty good (Three Kings, Departed, Boogie Nights and The Fighter). He is actually very reserved in the latter which I think strengthens the performance. Bale didn't totally eclipse him. Maybe it was just good casting, I don't know, but I thought he did a decent job.
It's definitely worth watching. It should be out on DVD this month.
I kinda understand where detractors of Mark Wahlberg come from. His face isn't very likeble. But the main thing with him is when he is bad, he is VERY bad (The Happening, Truth About Charlie) but when directed well by good filmmakers, he can be pretty good (Three Kings, Departed, Boogie Nights and The Fighter). He is actually very reserved in the latter which I think strengthens the performance. Bale didn't totally eclipse him. Maybe it was just good casting, I don't know, but I thought he did a decent job.
It's definitely worth watching. It should be out on DVD this month.
I'm a little confused about Prestige's Rocky statement concerning "coming back for the win". You are talking about the original Rocky, correct?
The Fighter is a very good film. It's very entertaining on multiple levels. Sure, it's based on a true story, but it's even more Rocky than Rocky. HA!
The Fighter is a very good film. It's very entertaining on multiple levels. Sure, it's based on a true story, but it's even more Rocky than Rocky. HA!
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm a little confused about Prestige's Rocky statement concerning "coming back for the win". You are talking about the original Rocky, correct?
The Fighter is a very good film. It's very entertaining on multiple levels. Sure, it's based on a true story, but it's even more Rocky thn Rocky. HA!
The Fighter is a very good film. It's very entertaining on multiple levels. Sure, it's based on a true story, but it's even more Rocky thn Rocky. HA!
The 70s?
What's certain is that I'll do the 70s, but the exact date when the countdown will begin is as of yet undetermined. I still have a LOT of important 70s films to watch before I can actually start doing any write-ups. I wouldn't want to just go ahead with it and not have seen 40 % of the critically-acclaimed 70s films. If you want to do something, do it right.
I reckon the earliest start to the 70s countdown will be late 2011. I'll dig up this thread when I have a more precise date.
Thanks for all your positive comments and rep so far. It is - as always - much appreciated.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yeah, the 70s are still in the pipeline. I've finished reviews for 5 years so far, have made my choice for # 1 film for 9 years in total, with one still undecided.
I don't really know when I'll actually get this going, because I'm very busy with work, keeping in shape and just relaxing during the weekend. A rough estimation would be March or April.
I don't really know when I'll actually get this going, because I'm very busy with work, keeping in shape and just relaxing during the weekend. A rough estimation would be March or April.
X
User Lists
Oh please, I would love to see your 70s list. I'll plus rep the sh*t out of it once you start
Just a quick question to you, Brods: it is pretty well known that you don't think much of Bruce Willis, but I noticed you had The Sixth Sense pretty high up in the runnerup section of 1999 (unless they aren't in any kind of order). Is that the exception to the Willis dislike rule?
X
Favorite Movies
After meaning to for a long time I finally decided to go through your thread here Brodinski, and have been doing so the last couple of days. Fantastic effort man. 
Even though there are a few films I don't agree with I still admire the sheer amount of work and love you put into them. And you do have some fantastic picks (some of which I may not have expected) such as Terminator 2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Last Crusade, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction etc. Oh and while it would not be my choice Blood Simple is a brilliant left-field pick for 1984.
Just going through and I was amazed how many films you chose as winners or runners-up that I have actually done a review for. Wall-e, Assassination of Jesse James, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Lives of Others, the Lord of the Rings flicks, Oldboy, Memories of Murder, Moulin Rouge, Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, LA Confidential, Forrest Gump, Ed Wood, Unforgiven, RoboCop, Stand by Me, The Hitcher, Gremlins etc. It makes me think I should have gotten a lot more rep and feedback from you!
Anyway as I said great stuff, and I hope you continue with the thread either into the 70s or catching up the last few years
Even though there are a few films I don't agree with I still admire the sheer amount of work and love you put into them. And you do have some fantastic picks (some of which I may not have expected) such as Terminator 2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Last Crusade, Unforgiven, Pulp Fiction etc. Oh and while it would not be my choice Blood Simple is a brilliant left-field pick for 1984. Just going through and I was amazed how many films you chose as winners or runners-up that I have actually done a review for. Wall-e, Assassination of Jesse James, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Lives of Others, the Lord of the Rings flicks, Oldboy, Memories of Murder, Moulin Rouge, Truman Show, Saving Private Ryan, LA Confidential, Forrest Gump, Ed Wood, Unforgiven, RoboCop, Stand by Me, The Hitcher, Gremlins etc. It makes me think I should have gotten a lot more rep and feedback from you!
Anyway as I said great stuff, and I hope you continue with the thread either into the 70s or catching up the last few years
__________________
JayDee's Movie Musings (Reviews - Frailty / Total Recall / Lone Ranger / Nightcrawler / Whiplash / Imitation Game / Birdman / Avengers: Age of Ultron / Mad Max: Fury Road)
X