MovieChat Forums > Raging Bull (1980) Discussion > Really didn't like it

Really didn't like it

posted 12 years ago by cmkenny
42 replies | jump to latest

Finally got round to watching this and felt fairly disappointed. It looked great and both De Niro and Pesci give great performances, but the story and characters just left me cold and uninterested.

La Motta was such an unsympathetic bag of *beep* I really didn't care what happened to him and couldn't feel even engaged in his story. He's essentially just a thug, and not even interesting in a flawed/troubled/tragic way, he's just an asshat.

That said, the fight scenes were very well done and could easily have been real footage.

I'd be interested to hear the arguments for this being the classic its often held up to be.

[–] beer_logic 12 years ago

I felt exactly the same way - great performances, but the characters weren't very sophisticated or intelligent. I couldn't empathize, sympathize, nor care about them very much so it was difficult for me to appreciate this film overall.

[–] BobbyDupea 10 years ago

You can only feel empathy or sympathy for people who are sophisticated or intelligent? Wow.

My real name is Jeff

[–] IMDB_Vits 11 years ago

Most people (myself included) feel that there's something in the movie that makes one feel sympathy for JAKE, whether it's the acting or the script. But that's personal and not technical, so it's not wrong to feel the way you do.

[–] cbartal 11 years ago

I do think it is wrong to think the way you all have.

You seem to demand to have some sympathy for a character or characters in a movie for the movie to be interesting, noteworthy, etc, etc.

Why in the world is there a need for sympathy, or empathy, or whatever else in a film, or in any work of art for that matter, for that work of art to be brilliant, memorable, or anything else?

Sometimes art takes on characters that start bad, end bad, or start good, end bad, or start bad, end good, on and on.

What is the need to have some redemption, resolution or plot character arc in film?

Humanity has a bunch of different types of people in its history. In some situations there are no good guys. In other situations there are no bad guys. Build and execute every artistic formula where everyone learns, loves, and lives happily ever after and you have Rocky over and over and over and over and over. That's fine, but cant you sometimes swallow a bit of sour with the sweet and appreciate it?

[–] IMDB_Vits 11 years ago

It's not that we have to like all protagonists. But when they're supposed to be likeable and actually aren't, it ruins the movie. If we don't care about the characters, we don't care about what happens to them, and therefore we don't care about the plot.

[–] BobbyDupea 10 years ago

Where did you get the idea that Jake Lamotta was supposed to be likeable in this movie? It seems to me that the filmmakers went to great lengths to point out that he was in many ways not likable, but he accomplished great things.

I found it perfectly easy to empathize with Lamotta when he tried to make amends with his brother, but could not, and when he clearly felt deflated and small in his later years, performing in dingy clubs before people who in many cases were not even listening to him.

My real name is Jeff

[–] robertedupea 8 years ago

The problem with Raging Bull is that Jake is the way he is from the beginning and we are never told why. I suppose we can just chalk it up to character traits but it just makes for a pretty one dimensional portrayal, at least for me it does. He beats and yells at his family members and then if that weren't enough, he likes to take his frustrations out in the ring. Eventually everyone leaves him alone with his demons so maybe he could take a swing at himself. Sure there are many people like this but what is the point of making a film about them? I think that this film needed more of a back story to make a solid impression. Watching it, I never found myself caring about Jake at all. This is a film with good production value, but it suffers from a lackluster script and story.

PS- Did anyone actually believe that Vicki was 15?

[–] loepark 8 years ago

Nah, you don't need backstory as to why Jake is the way he is, that just takes away from the focus of the story. The actual focus here is Jake Lamotta's insecurities as a person and his inability to channel his anger other than through violence. Robert Deniro's performance and the storytelling already give us a clear picture as to who Jake Lamotta is: a stupid, violent boxer who can't stop hitting people. One of the earliest scenes where Jake tells his brother to hit him in the face to vent his frustration already implies his backstory by showing his interaction with his brother who he lived his entire life with.

And what is the point of making this movie? Well have you ever met an absolutely detestable person and wondered "what" that person actually is? Raging Bull explores that subject magnificently by barefacedly showing this ugly human being.

Raging Bull = Best movie

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"Most people (myself included) feel that there's something in the movie that makes one feel sympathy for JAKE, whether it's the acting or the script.'

I would agree with that contention.

It's worth remembering I think that the film script is very largely based on Jake's warts and all conjunctive autobiography, which is extremely transparent about his strengths and many weaknesses. He doesn't really try to make excuses for his faults, though its pretty clear for instance he had a tough upbringing (unseen in the movie).

This is the stuff that De Niro bases his performance on then; an inarticulate, uncouth, violent but honest individual who does reflect self-pride in his achievements and defeats, whilst plying his damaging trade.

[–] aasoloway 11 years ago

I'll give you credit for saying you didn't like RB instead of saying it was a lousy movie. Too many people don't make that distinction.

When I saw RB in the movies when it was first released I didn't think much of it. Over time I think it might be MS's best although not necessarily the most entertaining.

I've seen everything from MS in the movies since New York, New York. Aside from that, Goodfellas and Age of Innocence they've all needed repeated viewings before I really liked them. Gangs of New York and the Departed - I still don't like them or think they're up to his standards.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Citation_Needed 11 years ago

Shouldn't a good movie have a decent story, and at the very least, sync the fuqqing audio? This movie is bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fanboy who puts more stock in what other people say, and rankings, than what's actually in front of their eyes.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BobbyDupea 10 years ago

I judge movies only by what I see and hear, and I love this movie.

The story was very dramatic and interesting to millions of people. In addition, the audio was done the way it was on purpose - it is an artistic choice. If you don't like it, it would make sense for you to say it isn't to your taste, but your comment that it is a "bad" movie is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because I have not ceded to you my responsibility or my ability to judge the quality of a movie myself. You are not the sole arbiter of what is "good" or "bad" cinema.

My real name is Jeff

[–] fylmphony 11 years ago

To say that De Niro is "great" misses the mark in its vagueness. The movie is remarkable, perhaps the finest achievement in film, because De Niro lives this character with every atom of his being. He goes beyond just method acting. He eats, sleeps, works and loves as this man. The goal of an actor is simple: you try to convincingly portray someone else; but it's never done perfectly. This is as close as anyone will ever come. It's the crowning achievement of the greatest actor of his generation.

[–] NextLeo 10 years ago

Very well put. DeNiro does things with La Motta that I've never seen any other actor in history do.

The only comparison I can think of is Bryan Cranston's Walter White in Breaking Bad.

[–] OroVerde 11 years ago

The film was well made but La Motta was just disgusting (superb acting by DeNiro though). The only person I felt sorry for was Vickie. That poor girl, for nearly 20 years she had to put up with his *beep*

[–] Misha0809 11 years ago

I totally agree with you!

He was so unlikeable!!

[–] leskataus-1 11 years ago

From what I understand, he really was like that. In the early 1980s after seeing the movie, he asked his former wife Vikki if he really was that awful a person. She told him he was much worse.

[–] the_departed94 11 years ago

I think the movie's similar to Taxi driver in some regards, Character studies about disturbed men(in completely different aspects) and challenges us to empathise with them.

Being able to relate to the protagonist is irrelevant when talking about the film's quality.

I just take it as we're looking through a window at this whole guy's life and watching him self destruct. Some people can relate to that. Some don't. Still a great movie regardless.

If you look at anyone's life under a microscope you're gonna find some crappy moments. There must be a time in your life where you look back and realise you were being a douchebag. Learn to live with yourself, not dwell on your mistakes and not throw your life away like Jake did.