Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'martin scorsese'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Arts
    • Film
    • Music
    • Television & Radio
    • Literature & Creative Writing
    • Visual Art, Architecture, & Design
    • Theater & Dance
    • Broad Brush -- The Arts in General
    • Announcements
  • The Wider World
    • Faith Matters
    • The Good Life
    • Science & Technology
    • Games
    • Catch-All
  • About You, About Us
    • About IMAGE
    • About this Website
    • Short-Term Parking

Location


Interests


Occupation


About my avatar


Favorite movies


Favorite music


Favorite creative writing


Favorite visual art

Found 5 results

  1. Silence (2016)

    Nicolosi has a seizure when she hears the news.
  2. The Wolf of Wall Street

    For the search engines: Martin Scorsese. Leonardo DiCaprio. Matthew McConaughey.
  3. Revenge of the Green Dragons

    For the search engine: Andrew Lau, the director of Infernal Affairs and Legend of the Fist, and Martin Scorsese: Revenge of the Green Dragons IMDB summary:
  4. Gangs of New York

    Mark Steyn just re-posted his review of Gangs of New York, and I rather liked the way he summed up the film's conclusion: I so wanted to like Gangs Of New York, which is why I'm reviewing it a week early: I couldn't wait. It's based on a justly legendary book, Herbert Asbury's 1928 tour de force of the same name, a panorama of the New York underworld from the 1830s to the 1920s. You read it and think, 'There's gotta be a movie in here somewhere.' That's evidently what happened to Martin Scorsese. He read the book 30 years ago and he's been mulling it over ever since. He mulled too long. The director's initial choices were good ones. For the prologue, he picked a notorious gang showdown at the Five Points on Manhattan's Lower East Side in 1846. For the rest of the movie, he zoomed in on the year leading up to the famous Civil War draft riots that convulsed the city in 1863. It's in how he connects the two that things start to fall apart. [ snip ] You know this story backwards, though Scorsese tells it forwards and takes just shy of three hours to do so. It's the old revenge meller: son returns to avenge father's death; unaware of the kid's identity, the big-time murderer takes him into the organisation, makes him a valued sidekick, then discovers the truth. Oh, and there's a girl. You've seen it a thousand times. Is this really the best Scorsese and his numerous writers can do? They take a singular, distinctive book, and in shaping the material can come up with nothing better than a triangular cliche fest you could write in your sleep? Apparently so. [ snip ] The plot's climax is set against the background of the 1863 draft riots, a bloody spasm that's long faded from the city's collective memory, in part perhaps through shame: more blacks were killed that week in New York than in any other event in American history. By the time Scorsese gets to the riots, he's pretty much given up on his lame-o plot and the background - the riot - is all there is. The trouble is, he has no point of view on the material - or, rather, he's deliberately chosen to dodge the question. The riot just sort of happens, and spreads, like a disease or a meteorological disaster. The director is broadly pro-immigrant, pro-poor people, but, in this case, as he surely must know after all that research, the poor people, the immigrants, the draft dodgers happened to be pro-slavery, pro-lynching, anti-Negro and anti-American. Yes, it's a shame the treasonous racists got gunned down by the soldiers, but it's difficult to understand the mindset of a director who yearns to film this incident for his entire adult life and then goes to inordinate lengths to obliterate the context of it. What a waste. Scorsese is never short of memorable images: there's one beautiful sequence linking today's New York with the Butcher's battleground - though, even as you admire it, you know the director's thesis - that these bloodsoaked thugs are somehow America's real Founding Fathers - is a lot of baloney. The Five Points was the worst slum on the continent, and the backwardness of New York politics generally was irrelevant to political evolution elsewhere. But it somehow encapsulates the limitations of Scorsese's genius that one can enjoy the visuals even while recognising it's bunk. Even the many good reviews he's had in America sidle up to saying as much. They're polite to the great man. The preferred word is 'flawed', which is traditionally followed by 'masterpiece', though this time round no one can quite bring themselves to use the word. I think it's a little more than 'flawed'; I'd say it's the worst Scorsese film since New York, New York. I doubt the Best Director Oscar rumours will come to anything, though the visual design is spectacular and deserves an award. The real victim here is Herbert Asbury. Reminded me of some of the confusion we had interpreting Scorsese's intentions on the old board.
×