Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[stanton]

Stanton, I think you'll like The Irishman a lot. Just don't quit during the first 2 hours. It all comes together in a stronger way after that.

Drink, I do like Mean Street a lot.

I rarely stop films when I start watching them, especially not when they are from good directors or do have some kind of good reputation. I'm too curious how they are, and without finishing them I can't be sure about them.

Mean Streets is one of Marty's best, and I don't think he was much of a hit and miss director before 2000. Cape Fear was obviously a more commercially orientated film, and even for that should have been better, but it is far better than Shutter Island

[noodles_leone]

The truth about Scorsese is that I don't know if another all-time great American director is as hit-and-miss as him (not counting directors at their twilights). How does someone make Goodfellas and Kundun in the same decade? There's also a huge discrepancy between something like Casino and duds like The Age of Innocence and the Cape Fear remake.

Yeah I'd put 1977-2001 Ridley Scott in the same basket (his prime is more 1979-1991, but he's still a great example of that in the extended bracket. And he managed to get both a turd and a very competently made film in 2001).

Scorsese in the 21st Century has been very underwhelming, just like all films in general. Wolf of Wall Street is far and away his best, but it lacks the flair of his previous work - and going with a blues heavy soundtrack over then contemporary popular music was a big mistake.

Interesting point about the music. It had not occured me that Scorsese had not gone his usual road here, and maybe it was a mistake. It's still one of the (if not the) most listenable OST for a Scorsese film.

And while The Irishman is sort of great at times, it's just as flawed with bizarrely terrible and expensive CGI de-aging, and it beats you over the head with themes that were much better handled in OUATIA.

Agree to disagree.

I'll never get the love for The Aviator. It's just a blah run-of-the-mill epic with a totally unconvincing performance from DiCaprio,

It's mostly forgotten by now, you're in the majority now (even if there was so much Oscar talk at the time).

and The Departed badly needed interesting visuals for it to age with any grace. It looks like it could have been directed by Ron Howard, et al. That movie gets a little worse every day.

While I see what you mean (and more importantly: where you come from) and can agree to disagree on everything else in your post, this one is where I really think that, objectively, you're plain wrong. But we'd need to go shot by shot on this one. I f you don't like the visuals themselves, at least focus on the incredible editing (and Marty's genius is always at least as much about editing than it is about camerawork). I know we often clashed about that and you keep mentionning Ron Howard. Trust me on this though: Ron cannot do 1% of that film. Not a chance.

Gangs of New York is one of those rare turkeys that a director of Scorsese's talent just don't make while they still should be in their prime, or close enough to it. Bringing Out the Dead, while not a perfect movie, to me, is the last film of prime Scorsese, or the old Scorsese, whatever way you want to phrase it.

Yeah, Bringing Out is definitely the end of a cycle in his career. I still don't think it's the end of the "good cycle". But it's definitely the end of something.

Yes, that's right, that one sequence in 3D was worth the price of admission. That's why I've never bothered with going back to the film--I don't have 3D at home.

Same here.

I rarely stop films when I start watching them, especially not when they are from good directors or do have some kind of good reputation. I'm too curious how they are, and without finishing them I can't be sure about them.

Mean Streets is one of Marty's best, and I don't think he was much of a hit and miss director before 2000. Cape Fear was obviously a more commercially orientated film, and even for that should have been better, but it is far better than Shutter Island

I'll watch Shutter Island at least 10 other times before I die, probably more. I think I have one, at most two Cape Fear rewatches ahead of me (and even that low number doesn't make me too happy).

[dave jenkins]

Il Boom (1963) - 8/10. Sordi and De Sica, together etc. etc. And it's pretty funny. Nothing here for Drink, though. Everyone else: https://ok.ru/video/2473057127022

[drinkanddestroy]

Drink, I do like Mean Street a lot. Just not as much as you do, and of course, not as much as The Patriot.

Mean Streets is Definitely not as polished as his later films. It is comparatively very raw. But I find it to be the most Rewatchable; I have watched it many times. Actually, I rewatched Goodfellas many times in my teens/20?s, maybe I am just unable to keep watching it now. Right now, no, Mean Streets is not actually Marty?s best movie, but the one I rewatch the most.

His best is probably Goodfellas.

[T.H.]

Mean Streets is much more of an anti coming of age film than a crime or mob movie, and for that reason it's endlessly watchable in the same way that American Graffiti and Dazed and Confused are. Mean Streets is basically Little Italy Graffiti.

Yeah I'd put 1977-2001 Ridley Scott in the same basket (his prime is more 1979-1991, but he's still a great example of that in the extended bracket. And he managed to get both a turd and a very competently made film in 2001).

While I see what you mean (and more importantly: where you come from) and can agree to disagree on everything else in your post, this one is where I really think that, objectively, you're plain wrong. But we'd need to go shot by shot on this one. I f you don't like the visuals themselves, at least focus on the incredible editing (and Marty's genius is always at least as much about editing than it is about camerawork). I know we often clashed about that and you keep mentionning Ron Howard. Trust me on this though: Ron cannot do 1% of that film. Not a chance.

I find it bizarre that you praise the editing in The Departed when something like Bringing Out the Dead is a much better edited movie. I don't know how you watch that movie and think the editing is close to Scorsese's best works.

The Departed is a product of its time with a bland color palette and pedestrian visuals. Even if the editing is very good, so what? Am I supposed to re-watch Kundun because the editing is probably better than 95% of movies? Please tell me which group The Departed better fits in terms of how the movies were filmed -- group A: Goodfellas & Casino or group B: Apollo 13 & A Beautiful Mind?

[drinkanddestroy]

somehow, despite us having a dedicated Scorsese threat, at least once a month the RTLMYS thread becomes a Marty discussion. No complaints

As for whether he has made good films since Casino: I think The Aviator, The Wolf of Wall Street, and The Departed are very good. (I have not seen Hugo, Kundun, Shutter Island, and most of the documentaries). I was disappointed with Gangs of New York, thought Bringing Out the Dead was subpar, and Silence is one of the most excruciating moviegoing experiences I have ever endured; I never would have stayed till the end of it hadn't been Scorsese. Then we have The Irishman, which is an interesting experiment with the aging stuff but overall not at the level of his other gangster films.

Now, if you go to the pre-Casino period, there were also some clunkers, too, like King of Comedy and New York, New York. I'm not a fan of After Hours. On the other hand, I really like The Color of Money and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, which don't get that much acclaim.

So bottom line is he made plenty of crappy movies even in that pre-Casino period, and he has made good movies since then as well, and anytime he makes a new film, I am still confident that he has every ability to make a great film, and will be at the theater to watch it on Day 1.

[dave jenkins]

A Man For All Seasons (1966) - 10/10. Saintly Thomas More (Paul Schofield) is hounded and finally condemned to death via the schemes of evil Thomas Cromwell (Leo McKern).

Wolf Hall (2015) - 10/10. Nice guy Thomas Cromwell (Mark Rylance) gets dissed by flakey Sir Thomas More (some guy), who he is then unable to save from execution. Later he is also unable to save Anne Boleyn.  But he's still a nice guy.

Huh, where's Groggy when we need someone to sort this and give us a faithful historical accounting?

[noodles_leone]

The Departed is a product of its time with a bland color palette and pedestrian visuals. Even if the editing is very good, so what? Am I supposed to re-watch Kundun because the editing is probably better than 95% of movies? Please tell me which group The Departed better fits in terms of how the movies were filmed -- group A: Goodfellas & Casino or group B: Apollo 13 & A Beautiful Mind?

Seriously, group A. It's even better edited than these 2. Not as innovative, mind you, but it's building on the cinematic grammar Scorsese invented for Goodfellas/Casino and keeping it up to date, pushing it forward, refining it to a never seen before level, and I mean it. It's much better crafted than Wolf of Wall Street (that I like, but for all its flashy camera moves, seems quickly done, almost botched (by a genius, but still botched), from a purely technical standpoint. It sometimes looks to me more like someone emulating Marty than Marty himself). Now, yeah, maybe the visuals of The Departed have less of a cinematic flair, more of a high end tv look than those from G and C, but still. I get people attacking the film for the lack of ambition of its premise, and how self contained it is. But if we're talking about how it's done, I'm sorry, it's absolutely incredible.

I believe you're blinded by something you deeply dislike about it. I highly encourage you to give it a try and focus on the technical stuff (especially the editing) and try to forget the story and even the performances. Check out, for instance, the way the editing plays with different feels and timelines when DiCaprio's mother dies. It's pure art. Maybe Scorsese at his most Malickian, in a good way. Or maybe you don't care. All I know is that I steal from it almost every single day on my editing bay, and have been doing so for over a decade now.

somehow, despite us having a dedicated Scorsese threat, at least once a month the RTLMYS thread becomes a Marty discussion. No complaints

I think it has to do with three major points:
- the sheer number of films he did
- the highly cult and influential status of many of them
- the weird and brutal changes in ton and qualities TH underlined... and that you perfectly described here:

So bottom line is he made plenty of crappy movies even in that pre-Casino period, and he has made good movies since then as well, and anytime he makes a new film, I am still confident that he has every ability to make a great film, and will be at the theater to watch it on Day 1.

[noodles_leone]

Huh, where's Groggy when we need someone to sort this and give us a faithful historical accounting?

Keeping up with the good work, but mostly on Facebook. Also he's still as political as he used to be (just on the other side).

Payback (1999) 7/10
Terrible grading, fun little neonoir. I keep coming back to it every 5 years or so. The performances are a treat. I keep forgetting Coburn is in it, and his scenes are heartwarming. Of course, the film works because it's based on a collection of cool and memorable genre scenes with a gritti"er"/hard"er" boiled twist and nice dialogues.

[drinkanddestroy]

Keeping up with the good work, but mostly on Facebook. Also he's still as political as he used to be (just on the other side).

Yeah, I read a bunch of his blog entries for a period of time. As I recall, he (a moderate Republican) got really unhappy with Trump?s election and wrote a helluva lot on that.

[noodles_leone]

Yeah, I read a bunch of his blog entries for a period of time. As I recall, he (a moderate Republican) got really unhappy with Trump?s election and wrote a helluva lot on that.

I think he went full "moderate democrat" even before Trump. He was a true, unmovable yet moderate republican during his first years on this board and kept fighting liberals at the time. Now, political talk is only tolerated when it's American Sniper related.

[drinkanddestroy]

I think he went full "moderate democrat" even before Trump. He was a true, unmovable yet moderate republican during his first years on this board and kept fighting liberals at the time. Now, political talk is only tolerated when it's American Sniper related.

I know he was a (moderate) conservative, but (at least since I joined this board, in 2010) the political talk has not been all that extensive, and good-natured when it is. I am thankful for that, because political stuff often gets nasty and I?m happy that doesn?t happen around here. I generally only mention it if it?s related to a movie, or I am goaded by you   

I say hi to Groggy once in a while via email, and ask him to return here 

[drinkanddestroy]

I think he went full "moderate democrat" even before Trump. He was a true, unmovable yet moderate republican during his first years on this board and kept fighting liberals at the time. Now, political talk is only tolerated when it's American Sniper related.

When you say ?fighting liberals,? do you mean real European liberals, or American liberals, who you think are really conservative? 

[noodles_leone]

When you say ?fighting liberals,? do you mean real European liberals, or American liberals, who you think are really conservative? 

Haha, good call. At the time, American teenagers. Not sure how to label these ones.

[dave jenkins]

Now, yeah, maybe the visuals of The Departed have less of a cinematic flair, more of a high end tv look than those from G and C, but still. I get people attacking the film for the lack of ambition of its premise, and how self contained it is. But if we're talking about how it's done, I'm sorry, it's absolutely incredible.

Even granting what you say is true, you are merely arguing that Scorsese is a great craftsman. Who would deny it? But craftsmanship is not artistry.

It's like talking about Turner vs. van Gogh. The latter is generally thought superior to the former, but no one argues that van Gogh had the superior technique. I don't say that either were insufficient in terms of technique; they had different approaches. But Turner is all technique. Van Gogh has technique plus something else, something that provides what one critic used to call the shock of the new (a shock that van Gogh's paintings continue to deliver to this day). And put a Turner up beside, say, a Gainsborough. Can the casual viewer tell the difference? But no one can mistake a van Gogh.

Craftsmanship may be necessary for artistry, but it is not sufficient. I'm afraid I have to say that after Casino Marty stopped making films and began crafting impeccably elegant furniture.

Maybe Scorsese at his most Malickian

Damning, absolutely damning. I remember once when people were telling me how Marty was aping Oliver Stone. Sure, good technique. But where was Marty in any of that?

It's like what a wise man once said: "McFilm . . . "