criterionforum.org

Oh for fuck's sake.

Bananafish wrote:Oh for fuck's sake.

When Scorsese reads this thread, this response will be scored by "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" in his head.

“They’re [still] developing it,” Wahlberg sighed. “If it can be better than the first, then great. I’ll be all for it. I’m not interested in going for the paycheck. I love ‘Godfather 2’ but, then again, I don’t like ‘Godfather 3.’”

LMAO! I can just picture him saying that with the Dirk Diggler voice.

It is disheartening to hear that someone like Scorsese who possess real talent is now being reduced to making prequels and sequels. While the original Infernal Affairs does indeed have sequels they are far inferior to the original. Then, I felt that The Departed was a poor re-imagining of a better gangster film that displays what is right about the hong Kong style and what is wrong about the current state of American filmmaking.

Great, 35+ years of honest film making and the second you give a guy an Oscar it's on to sequel land.

Well I for one am looking forward to The Arrived and The You're Back-- Did You Forget Something?

hot_locket wrote:Great, 35+ years of honest filmmaking and the second you give a guy an Oscar it's on to sequel land.

<ahem>The Color of Money</ahem>

In his defense, you're the first person to remember the Color of Money in over twenty years.

hot_locket wrote:Great, 35+ years of honest film making and the second you give a guy an Oscar it's on to sequel land.

I'm glad we're so immature as to believe that sequels are inherently inferior and anyone who makes one is dishonest. David Bordwell recently argued very effectively in favor of sequels.

People have been saying that Scorsese has "fallen off the tracks" for years. It's nothing new: he makes movies that are more "commercial" now. Are they as good as his best stuff? Not really (he gets close sometimes). But let's compare the "fall of Scorsese" to the fall of Coppola and Lucas and thank our stars that he's making movies anywhere NEAR his previous greatness.

What the hell kind of sequel is there? Mark Wahlberg's arrest and trial? I haven't seen the original franchise, but any sequel to this thing would require a whole new cast of characters.

Svevan wrote:

hot_locket wrote:Great, 35+ years of honest film making and the second you give a guy an Oscar it's on to sequel land.

I'm glad we're so immature as to believe that sequels are inherently inferior and anyone who makes one is dishonest. David Bordwell recently argued very effectively in favor of sequels.

People have been saying that Scorsese has "fallen off the tracks" for years. It's nothing new: he makes movies that are more "commercial" now. Are they as good as his best stuff? Not really (he gets close sometimes). But let's compare the "fall of Scorsese" to the fall of Coppola and Lucas and thank our stars that he's making movies anywhere NEAR his previous greatness.

Totally with you on the issue, Svevan.

exte wrote:

Svevan wrote:

hot_locket wrote:Great, 35+ years of honest film making and the second you give a guy an Oscar it's on to sequel land.

I'm glad we're so immature as to believe that sequels are inherently inferior and anyone who makes one is dishonest. David Bordwell recently argued very effectively in favor of sequels.

People have been saying that Scorsese has "fallen off the tracks" for years. It's nothing new: he makes movies that are more "commercial" now. Are they as good as his best stuff? Not really (he gets close sometimes). But let's compare the "fall of Scorsese" to the fall of Coppola and Lucas and thank our stars that he's making movies anywhere NEAR his previous greatness.

Totally with you on the issue, Svevan.

^ This, definitely. And everybody can trash me all they want for saying this, but this probably stands as my favorite of Martin's work. I think at the very most, it's significance to this generation will be the same as Goodfellas was to the previous one and Taxi Driver before that.

In my defense, I was being more than a little facetious.

Having rewatched the Departed today, I slogged through this thread. Two things stick out:

1. Bordwell’s criticism of the editing seems to be misplaced. The staccato effect of the audio and visual editing creates a slightly jerky effect that compliments the tension experienced by the characters. So it has function. EG. when Costigan receives a silent call from Queenan’s phone, he reacts by grabbing his keys and papers and preparing a rucksack to leave. The continuous motion is broken up in editing with very brief temporal ellipses. This conveys Costigan’s state of mind pretty well I think and it is not a million miles away from the use of temporal ellipsis between compact scenes in Scorsese’s previous work-most obviously, GoodFellas and Casino. If anything, the editing here shows a development-applying a trusted technique to create a new effect. I thought this kind of stuff was the very thing Bordwell’s approach to style was supposed to illuminate.

I like Bordwell very much but like all theorists (like all of us) his approach to style is far less objective than he would admit and is very dependent on a particular fondness for certain techniques.

2. I’m committed to all things Scorsese but I just can’t understand the appreciation shown for Casino here. It is so dependent on voice-overs to move the film along, that watching it is like attending a book reading with (admittedly vivid) power-point illustrations. For me, it’s one of his weakest films.

Is there a petition going anywhere to have Jack Nicholson put down or at least, deeply sedated?
Failing that, how about an official record of films he has ruined by playing a parody of himself trying to be an actor. It would have to be graded against the quality of the individual films though...

Parody or not, I'd love to see a two hour spot with him on Inside the Actor's Studio.

Nicholson has given at least 2 brilliant performances in the last 15 years: Blood and Wine and About Schmidt. Which is two more than the amount of brilliant films that Scorsese has made in the same period.

exte wrote:Parody or not, I'd love to see a two hour spot with him on Inside the Actor's Studio.

He's refused to do it before, but some people who have eventually changed their mind. Morgan Freeman was one that Lipton mentioned when he was on Larry King several years ago.

rs98762001 wrote:Which is two more than the amount of brilliant films that Scorsese has made in the same period.

I count Casino and Kundun, with Age of Innocence a bit shy of the window of time. But valiant attempt

I desperately want Kundun to be great, because it feels like a real, personal Scorsese film, and is so beautifully made and such a departure for him. But it really isn't. It has much to recommend it, but it's so dramatically inert. And Casino in my opinion is a pale shadow of Goodfellas, as has been argued a thousand times by others. But I agree with you about The Age of Innocence. His last real masterpiece. Hopefully Silence will rectify this.

rs98762001 wrote:Nicholson has given at least 2 brilliant performances in the last 15 years: Blood and Wine and About Schmidt. Which is two more than the amount of brilliant films that Scorsese has made in the same period.

I think the two performances you mean are The Pledge and The Crossing Guard.

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:

rs98762001 wrote:Nicholson has given at least 2 brilliant performances in the last 15 years: Blood and Wine and About Schmidt. Which is two more than the amount of brilliant films that Scorsese has made in the same period.

I think the two performances you mean are The Pledge and The Crossing Guard.

The Pledge was the last film he gave a decent performance in-I almost forgot it was him.

So, I realize no one's posted in here since 2009, but I rewatched this the other night as part of a Scorsese festival at my local theater and decided to skim through the thread here. I'm a little puzzled by the pronounced dismissal of the scene where diCaprio's character sleeps with the shrink. I can see where it comes off as Hollywood-y (the grumpy, 15-year old punk I was when Titanic came out is still leery any time diCaprio gets busy on screen), but the core of the film is about dovetailing the parallels between Costigan and Sullivan, and Farmiga's character seems an important mirror in this, which would be less complete without this scene. Maybe it's not the best use of Farmiga (see Down to the Bone for that), as she's more of a device than a person here, but it serves the purposes of the film well and the parallel character studies would be less complete without it.

Did anyone else pick up on the idea that Matt Damon's character is impotent?

When he gets his appartment the guy insinuates that he might be gay. He is never once shown making love to his girlfriend. When he first is brought on the force Mark Whalberg compares his rise through the ranks to that of a 12 year old boys penis. His boss says that "a girl sees a wedding ring and she knows you got money and your cock must work" and then he laughs and says "oh ya its working... over time" Then we have the shot of his girlfriend with a banana in her hand telling him "it happens with a lot of guys". When he is shown the picture of his baby (I dont think its his, because the only shot of them in bed his girlfriend is behind him and he is in a fettle position) his girlfriend says "that little speck they say is the penis".

Also, we have our introduction to him taking place during a scene where a girl is continually asked about her period. Groceries and goods are taken from this girl and given to matt damon, and this is the first time we see him, then the very last time we see him he again has a bag of groceries and is killed. I know the groceries speak more to other subtexts of the film, but it bears relation to this theory given the young girl that is accosted at the beginning. His boss asks him if he "likes having his cock sucked" by her and he talks about "other fat cocks" penetrating her in his stead. He says himself to his boss "is this what its all about? All that fucking and killing... and no sons".

Plus, what else would explain Jack sticking a big fake black penis in his face, and then musing to himself aloud how easy it is for him to get women? I can go on and on with this. The silly scene where he calls the firemen Homo's... the building he wants to live next to because It probably has some relation to political office (I dont know that area) is also kind of phallic.

I think you lost me with your opening 'gay' -> 'impotent' assumption. Just how do you think gay sex works?

Film analysis straight out of a psychiatric ward.