MovieChat Forums > Mean Streets (1973) Discussion > To love this movie you have to overlook ...

To love this movie you have to overlook a lot

posted 14 years ago by Jimbo_BSD
30 replies | jump to latest

I just watched Mean Streets for the very first time and I enjoyed it but I don't consider it a great movie. I should start by saying that I am a very big fan of Martin Scorsese and own most of his movies on DVD or BluRay. I can see where somebody would love this movie if they saw if for the first time in the early 70's and thought it was revolutionary film making and the power of that stuck with them over time.

But let's be honest there are several flaws in this movie that you have to overlook to consider it a great movie.

First, the fight scene in the pool hall with the fat guy was terrible. When Scorsese was using the camera to follow one of the guys as he fought off 2 others it probably seemed creative in 1973. But today it looks ridiculous. You can see the horrible blocking used by the actors to create the illusion of mayhem, but it just looks amateurish. You can clearly see the guys slowing down so as not to catch him as he tries to get away. Also, when Scorsese speeds up the camera to add to the frenzy it just makes it look like a Benny Hill fight scene.

Also, when the cop comes in to break up the fight and is just looking for a bribe....come on!!!! The acting and dialogue in that part were terrible. Be honest, even if you love this movie you have to cringe a little during this whole sequence.

David Carradine as the drunk was another low point. It was way over the top and seemed like the type of thing you'd see in a late night jiggle movie on Cinemax. Carradine is a better actor than that and Scorsese is a better director. It's a pretty inexcusably bad scene.

And don't get me started on the scene in the back room with the lion or whatever that was. It came out of nowhere and was never referenced again. Maybe there was some point or larger commentary on these guys and the lion that I just missed. But to me it was just out of place.

I don't want to give the impression that I hated the movie. DeNiro and Keitel were amazing in it. I didn't feel that the movie dragged like some others have claimed. I thought the scenes where Keitel was interested in the black dancer but was also nervous and ashamed were very interesting and well done. Deniro was both charming and lovable as well as pathetic and annoying at the same time. Overall I rated the movie a 7/10 on IMDB. But I just don't understand why people think this is a masterpiece. I'm 39 and have been a fan of Scorsese for years so I'm not part of the Transformers generation and I do love 70's movies in general. What am I missing that some of you see?

If you haven't seen the movie in a while take a look at it and see if you agree with me. I'd be interested in your thoughts after a fresh look.

[–] red_skin123 14 years ago

I watched this movie over and over again and all I have to say, this movie is too deep for you

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jimbo_BSD 14 years ago

In other words, Red Skin and Roegcamel are incapable of stating coherent reasoning and therefore take cheap shots.

Basically you guys are a couple of babies that can't stand that somebody finds fault with something you like.

I like the movie, but it is flawed in areas. I'd be willing to bet that the director feels the same way. Unfortunately you guys are unable to have an actual discussion and resort to playground antics. Maybe you would be more comfortable on the Michael Bay message board. He seems to be closer to your intellect.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jimbo_BSD 14 years ago

Roegcamel, If your first post was as good as your second then we could have an actual discussion on the movie. I wasn't picking a fight, I was giving my observations. For some reason message boards seem to bring out the worst in people.

Basically you are in agreement with me that some of the movie is amateurish. That's my only point. I enjoyed the movie and I laid out my reasons for why in my first post. But there are elements of the movie that stand out as cringe worthy in my opinion. I'd credit it to a young filmmaker figuring out his style. But it's still pretty hokey in parts. To just ignore those flaws is dishonest and people wouldn't give that sort slack to most other films.

Every person has a right to their opinion. Maybe you have a PHD from UCLA film school and you feel your opinion is more valid than others. I don't, but I've been a fan of film for over 30 years and have watched hundreds of movies. So I feel pretty confident in my opinion and I'm willing to have a civil discussion with somebody who feels differently. If you don't like opposing opinions, maybe you should stay away from message boards. If you can keep it at an adult level, then please lets continue to disagree.

If you want to be a little bit c h about it, then I see no reason to continue the discussion.

[–] red_skin123 14 years ago

You should stay away from the internet, because if you think you're gonna be getting a serious response ON THE INTERNET, or at least a response free of some anomosity, you're an old fool and should just stay away from the internet and keep the intelligent responses for when you're in person with an actual person.

Rule number 1 of the internet, IT AIN'T SERIOUS SO DON'T TAKE IT AS SO

[–] Jimbo_BSD 14 years ago

Thinking that trolls are trolls is not a reason to stay away from the internet. Believe it or not, some people can have adult civil conversations. It's rare, but appreciated.

Maybe you're the type that loves to start fights on the internet. Who knows maybe one day you'll actually engage in a discussion. It's not impossible. It happens everyday. Try it, you might like it and actually learn something.

[–] red_skin123 14 years ago

Do you even know what troll means? Let me give you a hint, it ain't someone who is bitter and disagrees with you. Go look it up and come back when you're ready to handle the internet and maybe watch a good movie and sport the ability to read between the lines.

[–] Jimbo_BSD 14 years ago

Red Skin, you have some growing up to do. You don't have to flame in every post. People can be civil. It happens. Maybe not in your world, but it happens.

Stop being so angry about everything. It's kind of pathetic.

[–] red_skin123 14 years ago

You ain't fooling me son

[–] Island_Of_Ireland 14 years ago

red skin you are a moron

[–] Bro2 13 years ago

I think "idiot" fits him better.

[–] Bro2 13 years ago

Just because you are incapable of a serious discussion you write off everybody else's capabilities?

You're a troll red_skin123, in case you already didn't know.

[–] Badlands1 11 years ago

Given as how you have a Johnny Cash pic, and the name Jimbo, I dont doubt you for not understanding MeanStreets, and Italian sub culture, and mannerisms.

[–] jeanniemotherof3 14 years ago

roegcamel, thank you, just saw it for the first time and you helped answer my questions, now i understand the film a lot more, and why it was the way it was.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] robhiphop 14 years ago

I could only point you in the direction of my own review of Mean Streets (which is really more of a love letter to the film, written for the benefit of those who share my enthusiasm for it).

http://robertod.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/blood-and-redemption-mean-streets-review/

Your reaction to the movie is not uncommon. Mean Streets is definitely what you would call a divisive movie. You either love it unconditionally or you're left completely non-plussed by it. A lot of people simply find the movie boring. I guess there's not much I could say about that beyond what I've already said in my review.

But to answer one of your points more specifically: the fight scene in the pool hall is not supposed to be taken entirely seriously. In fact, the whole sequence is played more for comic effect. These guys are not "legit" tough guys and they do not have the same resort to casual, cold-blooded violence of say, the hoods in Goodfellas. They're really just your garden variety street scallies rather than hardened gangsters. You might ask how far they are prepared to go to actually hurt each other, and how much of the brawl is really just play acting.

There is definitely a kind of "staginess" to the fight that is obviously artificial. Conversely, I'd say the scene actually captures the messiness of a real life brawl much better than your usual choreographed Hollywood fight scene. Most people really don't have any skill at fighting and end up stumbling around and falling over each other like the guys in Mean Streets do. The long, handheld tracking shots Scorsese uses to follow the action are great, and the whole sequence, from the "what's a mook?" conversation through to the guys getting hit up for a bribe by the cops, serves up some great comedy. It's one of my favourite parts of the movie.

THE INQUISITOR
Movies, Culture, Opinion and more...

http://robertod.wordpress.com/

[–] The_White_Hotel 14 years ago

Fantastic review of one of my all time favourites, robhiphop, loved it. It touched on virtually everything that I love about this briliant film. Thanks for sharing.

Out of interest, have you ever seen the Hammer film Frankenstein Created Woman (d, Terence Fisher, 1967)? I'm a big Hammer fan and saw this movie for the first time a few years ago, having already watched Meant Streets a dozen or so times. Anyway, apparently Martin Scorsese picked the movie as part of a 1987 National Film Theatre season of his favourite films, and there is a fight scene in it, I think about twenty minutes in, involving one of the main characters and three antagonists. When I saw this scene I immediately thought of the pool hall brawl in Mean Streets and am convinced that Scorsese based that on this earlier Hammer movie. I have tried to find it on youtube but it seems to have been taken down, but if you get a chance to see it (or if you are already familiar) I'd be fascinated to know what you think.

"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"

[–] robhiphop 14 years ago

Thanks for your compliments, stupid_flanders.

I haven't seen Frankenstein Created Woman, but I'll see if I can track it down.

THE INQUISITOR
Movies, Culture, Opinion and more...

http://robertod.wordpress.com/

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I agree: I was surprised to see the fight scene singled out for criticism as I thought it was very well done. Modern Hollywood movies' fight scenes are far more unrealistic. As you say, they tend to show everyone as some kind of martial arts expert; yet at the same time as they use elabourate, deadly manoeuvres on each other, they somehow emerge relatively unscathed.

Those who study animal behaviour report that most "fights" between animals amount to a lot of bark but not much bite. They are out to intimidate each other and settle who is tougher without risking serious mutual injury. My sense is that real life fights are often like that as well, and this was brilliantly portrayed in the film.

That said, I don't agree either with the dismissive putdowns posted in reply to the OP. Just because someone criticises your favourite movie, does not give you call to say they are too stupid to "get it" or whatever. These boards are rife with that kind of talk and it is tiresome to say the least.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zoomorph 14 years ago

I agree. Watched it for the first time and giving it a 5/10.

- Crappy lighting, can't see what is going on in half the scenes.
- Cinematography is nothing special, even poor in the fight scenes.
- Boring characters, maybe they've just become cliches in gangster movies.
- Drags on far too long about a very simple conflict, and doesn't really resolve it in the end.
- Lots of confusing cuts to different stories, not sure what was going on at times.

On the positive side, the acting is pretty good and the characters are authentic. But still I don't feel there's much to empathize with, nothing to learn from watching it, nothing really remarkable whatsoever about it other than the tits. Maybe you had to see it in the 70s.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] The_White_Hotel 14 years ago

Poor cinematography in the fight scenes? The pool hall scene? Done with one camera? One of the most celebrated scenes in New Hollywood? Nothing really remarkable except the tits? So it's the tits you're really in this for?

"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jeanniemotherof3 14 years ago

Thank you Jimbo for your mature, knowledge, and detailed post. I learned a lot from it and felt the same way. De Niro was amazing, so was Keitel, but I was wondering the same things you mentioned. I just chalked it up to Scorsese just beginning, and it being the 70's. Then I remembered how good Rocky and Jaws was done, same time era, I think anyway. I still enjoyed it though. I wonder if the Masterpiece title comes because of the well loved director(which I am one of those People, he's my favorite) Also because of the 2 main, GREAT actors, I am guessing here. I could never imagine this movie had it not been for them starring in it. I will watch it a second time eventually.

[–] teddyg86 13 years ago

You're complaining about a fight scene from a movie that came out in 1973? How many older movies have realistic fight/violent scenes by today's standards? You can say the same thing about sound and video quality or special effects. You have to take into account when the movie came out. Remember the fight scene with Sonny in the Godfather (1972)? It was almost laughable, but it didn't distract from the movie's excellence. 2001 (1968) was considered a revolutionary film when it came out do to its special effects, but would be laughed at if it was released today.

Now go home and get yer fuccin' shinebox.

[–] jigalini 13 years ago

Fight scene was filmed god, and looked real. The cop--that is how things were, it is realistic. They did look for bribes, and openly. Dialogue was accurate too in that bribe scene. "Carfare" was actually term used in those days.

The dialogue that was off was the way they talked, they overdid it, like in scene with the Jewish girls, when they go through that comic 'You first" routine.

[–] xchar 11 years ago

jimbo_rd wrote:

"You can see the horrible blocking used by the actors to create the illusion of mayhem, but it just looks amateurish. You can clearly see the guys slowing down so as not to catch him as he tries to get away."

I think Roger Ebert had a more perceptive take on this scene:

"These are not smooth stuntmen, slamming each other in choreographed action, but uncoordinated kids in their 20s who smoke too much, drink too much, and fight as if they don't want to get their shirts torn."