MovieChat Forums > Raging Bull (1980) Discussion > Overrated Piece of Crap

Overrated Piece of Crap


Words cannot express how much I hate this film. It's depressing and not entertaining at all! I throw up at the thought of sitting through it again!

reply

Raging Bull is revered precisely because it's depressing, sometimes unbearable to watch. But it's powerful. That's the reason it's so damn respected.

reply

This might be the worst troll try I've ever seen. None of us should even be bothering.

"I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this."

reply

Perhaps you are correct, but I often see the sentiment expressed by the OP in genuine discussions of the film. Just wanted to offer my 2 cents on the matter.

reply

Bad films are depressing.

This was brilliant.

reply

Every film that has received wide-acclaim and accolades always has at least a few people who call it overrated.

That word has become overused to the point of parody. Just because you don't understand why something is good does not mean it's overrated. Your own individual idea of what is or is not good weighs nothing compared to wide consensus.

It is not overrated. It is rated just fine. You just didn't like it. I don't like roller coasters. I wouldn't call them overrated.

Can't stop the signal.

reply

Drop rides - now those suckers are overrated!

reply

It is not meant to be entertainment it is reality. A masterpiece.

reply

It is not meant to be entertainment it is reality.

Huh? Reality?

...

reply

The film stinks. It's a bad film about a one dimensional character. The script was so wacky that it had me laughing at it. (not in a good way)

reply

A character that is tragically flawed, brutish, wounded, desperate, disconnected, insecure, etc. sure is one dimensional.

Delete your IMDB account.

reply

You're an inner thigh rash just like this Angry Cow which you defend. La Motta is a primitive loon from the very beginning... a primitive and predictable loon in the middle and a boring loon, who flirts with 14 year olds towards the end. You call that a multi dimensional character? Yawn... beat it.

reply

Putting aside your awful grammar, your summation of La Motta is laughably inept and quite telling of your critical thinking skills. Your lazy critique deserves nothing but contempt, but I do delight in pointing out that film critics continue to cite the complexity of Jake La Motta as one of the elements that makes this film one of the greatest of all time.

I love this insight on La Motta:

"Raging Bull” is not a film about boxing but about a man with paralyzing jealousy and sexual insecurity, for whom being punished in the ring serves as confession, penance and absolution. It is no accident that the screenplay never concerns itself with fight strategy. For Jake LaMotta, what happens during a fight is controlled not by tactics but by his fears and drives. - Ebert

I am sure you think Roger Ebert is quite the poor critic. Shut your mouth.

reply

The whole point of the movie is that it was depressing.

reply

In the Ordinary People vs. Raging Bull debate, I vote for Redford's film. I just thought this movie was nothing more than an Italian-American boxer who beats his wife and says "Vickie!" all the time. What's so great about that?

reply

It doesn't matter that Raging Bull is one of the most elegantly and brilliantly Directed and Edited films ever made. By your idiotic reductionist sub-mental attempt at film criticism "Ordinary People" is nothing more than a film about a suicidal wasp kid who whines and cries to Pachelbels Canon in D.
Even Lynch's "The Elephant Man" deserved it more than Redford and OP, which is an average drama no more distinctive than an above average TV movie (from 1980)
Go away now.

reply

Yes, but I'm sure the average person can better relate to "a suicidal wasp kid" than they can to an Italian-American boxer. More people have dealt with Conrad and his family's problems than they have with Jake LaMotta's ordeal. In that sense, Ordinary People has a more universal theme.

reply

The Elephant Man and Raging Bull and then Ordinary People lol... That truly is laughable. The first 2 are FAR SUPERIOR in literally every aspect. I couldnt help but comment. When someone compares 2 Classics/Masterpieces to dogsh*t.... I boil up a bit lol

reply

Ok... Knee Jerk. Ordinary People was solid but not in the league of the others. Plus, The Shining was released in 1980 and that is the Ultimate. To me, 1980 is the year of The Shining, Raging Bull and The Elephant Man. Add in The Thing, The Empire Strikes Back, Friday The 13th and a few others, Ordinary People is in the bottom of the 2nd Tier. It doesnt compare to the elites

reply

Well 'The Elephant Man' is a masterpiece.

reply

I would hazard a guess that you are not the target audience for this film... Stick to Transformers etc

reply

Martin Scorsese's films can often be difficult for me to relate to - I'm from California, so the whole New York, Italian guy thing is not exactly apart of my heritage. More so, Scorsese's films are often about very ugly people and very ugly worlds - often extremely crude and very brutal. I respect Scorses's films and I do like them, but I wouldn't call Scorsese one of my favorite directors.

'Taxi Driver' had an effect on me and I loved that one the first time I saw it. It's no like no other movie I've seen before or since. No other movie I've seen has really ever come close to capturing the same sense of what it truly means to be isolated. It's still a very ugly and brutal film, but it's maybe more relatable to people more than many would like to admit.

'Raging Bull' was tougher for me to get into the same way. But there's some very impactful scenes that I really like.

reply

Completely agree with you. After all the hype I finally get around to watching it and found nothing inside it that could even make a movie great. I understand the praise for the Godfather, Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, The Maltese Falcon, Drive, etc. But this film had nothing I could even give praise to.

Even the acting and directing, while not bad, aren't good enough to warrant this film being praised as one of the greatest of all time. It just doesn't have a story worth seeing on-screen.

reply

This film was not made to entertain you.
Films made to entertain don't aspire to much more than that, entertainment.
Films made for the purpose of art become more, sometimes even masterpieces.
Masterpieces are not made to entertain you.

Now, the obligatory, "Go watch Transformers."
Transformers was made to entertain you.

reply

Sorry for being 7 months late, but that's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

reply

Really? Because the OP is the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I could at least elaborate on that in my previous post.

Perhaps your drawing absolutes from my post; when I say that art and entertainment are not synonymous that doesn't necessarily make them mutually exclusive.

 I second that motion... with a vengeance! 

reply

Art films or not, they're all made to entertain. Koyaanisqatsi, for example, may not have a plot or dialogue, but it's sole purpose is to intrigue and entertain.

reply

For the sake of hyperbole and correspondent insult: that's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

The idea that film is first and foremost a form of entertainment is such an overused, limiting sentiment. Film is not necessarily only a form of entertainment nor a form of art, it varies from film to film. If the former were true amateurish, self-important arthouse films would not exist, the latter, Michael Bay would not have a career.

I think we can agree that movies like Raging Bull are only partially entertainment and primarily art, which is what I was trying to express to the op.

 I second that motion... with a vengeance! 

reply