Scorsese is my favorite director. Goodfellas, Age of Innocence, Taxi Driver and Gangs of New York are in my top 25 favorites of all-time. With that context in mind:
Mean Streets was OK, but nothing special. Keitel and De Niro did well, as did some others. It was realistic. It just felt like a rough draft, and there wasn't enough story to really grab me.
Hype only applies to new films, classics are above such a silly notion.
"You'll have to speak up I'm wearing a towel."
If you think the aviator isn't a master at his best you don't know cinema at all. Styling the colors of the film to fit the period it took place in and everything else like that he did in that movie makes it the ultimate example of scorcese's directing abilities. You may not like the story, but his contribution to the aviator was flawless and a pure work of art.
shareIf you think the aviator isn't a master at his best you don't know cinema at all. Styling the colors of the film to fit the period it took place in and everything else like that he did in that movie makes it the ultimate example of scorcese's directing abilities. You may not like the story, but his contribution to the aviator was flawless and a pure work of art.
Yes, The Aviator had some nice colors. Some nice production design.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I also think its rough draft quality is one of its many charms. It's realism is so true to the "mean streets" of any big city. Its rough format makes the film incredibly spontaneous and fresh (even though it is nearly forty years old).
shareI've seen a bit more than half so far and I gotta agree. The film is a respectable early effort from a filmmaker who would then become one of the greats, but in hindsight, the film is really just kinda boring. I think had if Scorsese made it later down the line in his career, the film would've been a lot more.
shareThe story didn't grab ne either. I thought it was very sterile.
share[deleted]