Another movie with very similar plot is "The Ghost Goes West" (1935), starring Robert Donat, and directed by Rene Clair. The twist in this film is that the Scottish castle that is being haunted by the disgraced ghost has been sold, dismantled, and moved to the America, and reconstructed there. The ghost is tied to the castle, so the ghost ends up in the castle in America as well. I find this version of the story rather entertaining, and would definitely recommend checking it out. By the way, this is also Rene Clair's first English language film, and he did a few other English language films that I am quite enamored by, such as "I Married a Witch", and "And Then There Were None".
Films Worth Viewing Year 3
- Thread starter zymurg
- Start date
Another movie with very similar plot is "The Ghost Goes West" (1935), starring Robert Donat, and directed by Rene Clair. The twist in this film is that the Scottish castle that is being haunted by the disgraced ghost has been sold, dismantled, and moved to the America, and reconstructed there. The ghost is tied to the castle, so the ghost ends up in the castle in America as well. I find this version of the story rather entertaining, and would definitely recommend checking it out. By the way, this is also Rene Clair's first English language film, and he did a few other English language films that I am quite enamored by, such as "I Married a Witch", and "And Then There Were None".
CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 63,449
- Reaction Score
- 247,598
The Upside, Hulu
Kevin Hart Isabel ex-con who needs “signatures” showing he’s been looking for a job. By accident he interviews with billionaire Bryan Cranston who is a quadriplegic as his caregiver. Cranston who is frustrated with his circumstances offers him the job because a Hart is “he is the worst possible candidate.” Typical culture class movie. I have to say though Kevin Hart is surprisingly good in it. This is another film that isn’t great, but is thoroughly watchable, particularly when you realize it’s based on a true story.
Kevin Hart Isabel ex-con who needs “signatures” showing he’s been looking for a job. By accident he interviews with billionaire Bryan Cranston who is a quadriplegic as his caregiver. Cranston who is frustrated with his circumstances offers him the job because a Hart is “he is the worst possible candidate.” Typical culture class movie. I have to say though Kevin Hart is surprisingly good in it. This is another film that isn’t great, but is thoroughly watchable, particularly when you realize it’s based on a true story.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,252
- Reaction Score
- 82,103
Wishing you a full and speedy recovery. Looking forward to your future posts.
ClifSpliffy
surf's up
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 9,496
- Reaction Score
- 14,204
hang in there. one day at a time, and maybe watch some funny stuff!
u r awesome..
.-.
You started and contribute greatly to one of my favorite threads on the Boneyard. Certainly have missed your movie musings of late.
CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 63,449
- Reaction Score
- 247,598
Feel better and hurry back.
Dove
Who wouldn't want to be me?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 17,732
- Reaction Score
- 55,473
Zymurg is life!! Heal well and quickly, Charlie!
just barely
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,252
- Reaction Score
- 82,103
The Professor and the Madman. 2019.
Oh the audacity to make a film about the creation of the Oxford-English dictionary. Surprise. This is well crafted and interesting film. The professor is Mel Gibson and the Madman is Sean Penn. Both are terrific. Gibson plays an unappreciated genius while Penn plays and imprisoned genius. Both are set against the (evil) Oxford Press oversight committee (really). Gibson's family and flashbacks of Penn's past bring humanity to the film. This is an intelligent story made by people who understand film. Three stars.
Oh the audacity to make a film about the creation of the Oxford-English dictionary. Surprise. This is well crafted and interesting film. The professor is Mel Gibson and the Madman is Sean Penn. Both are terrific. Gibson plays an unappreciated genius while Penn plays and imprisoned genius. Both are set against the (evil) Oxford Press oversight committee (really). Gibson's family and flashbacks of Penn's past bring humanity to the film. This is an intelligent story made by people who understand film. Three stars.
Bram Stoker's Dracula-Francis Ford Coppola-1992
This film is much closer to Stoker's original than any other version. I had wondered why Coppola chose to make this film. The answer is money. His company Zoetrope was facing bankruptcy. Keanu Reeves forced on him by Sony. Coppola was both producer and director. He made a number of unusual choices. They included using no CGI and only traditional methods to produce effects. During the initial table read the cast read Stoker's whole novel. That took 2 whole days. The marriage ceremony between Harker and Mina was performed by a real priest. Even in 2018 Ryder was still exploring the validity of the marriage. The film was a financial success and it won 3 Oscars,but they were for technical roles. This is a good looking film. The costumes and make-up are top class. Coppola patterned a number of scenes on paintings. Michael Balhaus's camera work is first rate. James Hart's script is solid, but not inspiring.
Gary Oldham is known for his over acting, but this time given his role, Dracula, he hits the right notes. Winona Ryder is excellent; I wonder why she didn't make more films. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is a disappointment. I think it is how the role is written. Reeves was cast because of sex appeal. In his defense he was overworked in this period. Harker is a role which demands nuanced acting. Coppola wanted Johnny Depp ,that would have been interesting casting.
This is a film where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. It still merits a solid recommendation.
This film is much closer to Stoker's original than any other version. I had wondered why Coppola chose to make this film. The answer is money. His company Zoetrope was facing bankruptcy. Keanu Reeves forced on him by Sony. Coppola was both producer and director. He made a number of unusual choices. They included using no CGI and only traditional methods to produce effects. During the initial table read the cast read Stoker's whole novel. That took 2 whole days. The marriage ceremony between Harker and Mina was performed by a real priest. Even in 2018 Ryder was still exploring the validity of the marriage. The film was a financial success and it won 3 Oscars,but they were for technical roles. This is a good looking film. The costumes and make-up are top class. Coppola patterned a number of scenes on paintings. Michael Balhaus's camera work is first rate. James Hart's script is solid, but not inspiring.
Gary Oldham is known for his over acting, but this time given his role, Dracula, he hits the right notes. Winona Ryder is excellent; I wonder why she didn't make more films. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is a disappointment. I think it is how the role is written. Reeves was cast because of sex appeal. In his defense he was overworked in this period. Harker is a role which demands nuanced acting. Coppola wanted Johnny Depp ,that would have been interesting casting.
This is a film where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. It still merits a solid recommendation.
.-.
ClifSpliffy
surf's up
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 9,496
- Reaction Score
- 14,204
back at the keyboard! nice! i actually saw this flic and liked it, and im not to big on dark, horror stuff. this one was slick.
HuskyHawk
The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 35,280
- Reaction Score
- 93,632
Agree on all points. It's solid. The cast is quite deep, including using Monica Belluci as Dracula's bride, Sadie Frost as Lucy and Cary Elwes. Tom Waits is a standout as Renfield. Winona Ryder probably never looked better. Hopkins made Van Helsing a bit boring unfortunately, but that could be the writing as you said.
Apocalypse Now-Francis Ford Coppola-1979 + 2001
This is one of those films goes beyond criticism into legend. The legend has changed over the years. Multiple versions of this film have appeared in theaters and on DVD. Then his wife was filming a documentary on the making of the film. "Hearts of Darkness" was released in 1991. I watched the 2001 version or Redux which adds 53 minutes tothe original. There is also a 2019 version which cuts 21 minutes from the 2001 version. Since Coppola sent over 230+ hours out of the Philippines, the odds are that other versions will emerge in the future.
I saw the Redux version in a theater. I have watched various DVD versions several times. The shoot was supposed to be 26 days. It ended up taking over 230 days. There were some major problems including a heart attack for Martin Sheen (Cpt. Willard) and Brando (Col. Kurtz)
showing up 80 lbs overweight. Coppola lost100 lbs during filming. It took over 2 years to edit the film. It shared the Palme d'Or with The Tin Drum. The version released in Theaters was not the version shown in Cannes.
The script uses Joseph Conrad's novel "Heart Of Darkness" as inspiration. Col. Kurtz shares a last name with Mr. Kurtz the flawed protagonist of Conrad's novel. The last line of Mr. Kurtz: "The horror...the horror," is also the last line of Col. Kurtz. The story is a variation on the classic quest. Willard isn't pure of heart. He can't go home again, but he both needs and fears a mission. He is dragged from his room where he had become drunk and smashed his into a mirror. He is given a secret black ops mission. This mission will never be acknowledged. He is to kill an American commander who has gone rogue. He has set up his own mini-state far beyond US lines in Cambodia. Willard must travel hundreds of miles by boat to reach Kurtz's realm.
gg
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning." This classic line is Lt.Col. Kilgore's bid for screen immortality. Robert Duvall parlayed 12 minutes of screen time into an Oscar nomination. The whole helicopter attack with the Opera music blaring and the copters firing bullets and rockets is classic. Kilgore wants to take the village so he can surf. Unfortunately, his napalm ruins the waves. He does manage to lift the boat and deposit it on the river so Willard can continue his journey up river.
Willard is the narrator, but I don't see him as a protagonist. He is a necessary device to transport us to Kurtz. The struggles along the way make the journey seem significant. When the boat arrives; Willard is at the mercy of Kurtz. The scenes between Kurtz and Willard are at once brilliant and confusing. Kurtz maintains that Willard can't judge him, but can kill him. The time in Kurtz's mini kingdom is brilliantly done. Dennis Hopper appears as a crazed photojournalist supposedly based on Sean Flynn, the son of Errol Flynn. Flynn died in Viet Nam, but before that he made an important film in Sri Lanka. "We came 9000 kilometers to film in a garden." Zymurg was there you won't see his face because the only direction he received was to keep his face out of the camera
I'm not sure why the Hopper character was created. He does mangle T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the world ends; this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper." Kurtz won't entrust his story to the photojournalist; the story must be told by Willard. To earn the right to tell the story; Willard must kill Kurtz. There are a series of scenes where Willard uses a machete on Kurtz inter cut with the butchering of a bull. Willard leaves with the only remaining crew member. He ignores the calls from on high.
Kurtz was a hero; then he lost his way. He removed himself from control/supervision of the army. He is treated like a demi-god by his Montinard followers, but that doesn't help. His only goal is to end his life, but to have the story told to his son. He is a tragic hero. We never see him in his heroic state. In Conrad's novel, Molloy who seeks and finds Kurtz, papers over much of Kurtz's career and changes his last words:"The horror...the horror." We don't know what story Willard will tell about his Kurtz. It probably won't be fit to print.
This is a great film, but it isn't an easy or an open film. Coppola shocks us. We can look back and acknowledge the technical mastery. The acting is excellent' however most of the characters are heightened, even Willard is an unreliable guide. There are no easy answers,
or for that matter easy questions.
This is one of those films goes beyond criticism into legend. The legend has changed over the years. Multiple versions of this film have appeared in theaters and on DVD. Then his wife was filming a documentary on the making of the film. "Hearts of Darkness" was released in 1991. I watched the 2001 version or Redux which adds 53 minutes tothe original. There is also a 2019 version which cuts 21 minutes from the 2001 version. Since Coppola sent over 230+ hours out of the Philippines, the odds are that other versions will emerge in the future.
I saw the Redux version in a theater. I have watched various DVD versions several times. The shoot was supposed to be 26 days. It ended up taking over 230 days. There were some major problems including a heart attack for Martin Sheen (Cpt. Willard) and Brando (Col. Kurtz)
showing up 80 lbs overweight. Coppola lost100 lbs during filming. It took over 2 years to edit the film. It shared the Palme d'Or with The Tin Drum. The version released in Theaters was not the version shown in Cannes.
The script uses Joseph Conrad's novel "Heart Of Darkness" as inspiration. Col. Kurtz shares a last name with Mr. Kurtz the flawed protagonist of Conrad's novel. The last line of Mr. Kurtz: "The horror...the horror," is also the last line of Col. Kurtz. The story is a variation on the classic quest. Willard isn't pure of heart. He can't go home again, but he both needs and fears a mission. He is dragged from his room where he had become drunk and smashed his into a mirror. He is given a secret black ops mission. This mission will never be acknowledged. He is to kill an American commander who has gone rogue. He has set up his own mini-state far beyond US lines in Cambodia. Willard must travel hundreds of miles by boat to reach Kurtz's realm.
gg
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning." This classic line is Lt.Col. Kilgore's bid for screen immortality. Robert Duvall parlayed 12 minutes of screen time into an Oscar nomination. The whole helicopter attack with the Opera music blaring and the copters firing bullets and rockets is classic. Kilgore wants to take the village so he can surf. Unfortunately, his napalm ruins the waves. He does manage to lift the boat and deposit it on the river so Willard can continue his journey up river.
Willard is the narrator, but I don't see him as a protagonist. He is a necessary device to transport us to Kurtz. The struggles along the way make the journey seem significant. When the boat arrives; Willard is at the mercy of Kurtz. The scenes between Kurtz and Willard are at once brilliant and confusing. Kurtz maintains that Willard can't judge him, but can kill him. The time in Kurtz's mini kingdom is brilliantly done. Dennis Hopper appears as a crazed photojournalist supposedly based on Sean Flynn, the son of Errol Flynn. Flynn died in Viet Nam, but before that he made an important film in Sri Lanka. "We came 9000 kilometers to film in a garden." Zymurg was there you won't see his face because the only direction he received was to keep his face out of the camera
I'm not sure why the Hopper character was created. He does mangle T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the world ends; this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper." Kurtz won't entrust his story to the photojournalist; the story must be told by Willard. To earn the right to tell the story; Willard must kill Kurtz. There are a series of scenes where Willard uses a machete on Kurtz inter cut with the butchering of a bull. Willard leaves with the only remaining crew member. He ignores the calls from on high.
Kurtz was a hero; then he lost his way. He removed himself from control/supervision of the army. He is treated like a demi-god by his Montinard followers, but that doesn't help. His only goal is to end his life, but to have the story told to his son. He is a tragic hero. We never see him in his heroic state. In Conrad's novel, Molloy who seeks and finds Kurtz, papers over much of Kurtz's career and changes his last words:"The horror...the horror." We don't know what story Willard will tell about his Kurtz. It probably won't be fit to print.
This is a great film, but it isn't an easy or an open film. Coppola shocks us. We can look back and acknowledge the technical mastery. The acting is excellent' however most of the characters are heightened, even Willard is an unreliable guide. There are no easy answers,
or for that matter easy questions.
ClifSpliffy
surf's up
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2018
- Messages
- 9,496
- Reaction Score
- 14,204
one of my absolute all time favs, from my limited experience. an essay on reality in the jungle of life that can often be messy.
as always, 'If u can keep ur head...' and,
surfs up.
.-.
I saw this when I was a student at UConn. I believe it was the first day of classes in the spring semester, and a bunch of us on my dorm floor decided to go see this movie at the old Storrs theater that was just off campus. Great stuff. I remember that when the movie was over, we walked back to The Jungle in total silence from the shock of the film. That total silence from my dorm mates was certainly a different experience, as they were rarely quiet about anything.
It has that effect on many. It is an experience. When I finished watching it this time, I found I just had to go back and re-watch from where Willard reaches Kurtz's kingdom to the end of the film. The pacing is brilliant, it is real but unreal. I think that Sheen's performance has been underestimated. The best analogy I can come up with is :"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king." I have an inherited condition which made me legally blind in one eye. I have no rods in my right eye; I can see amorphous blobs of color. I'm not sure that this condition has helped my understanding.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,252
- Reaction Score
- 82,103
Apocalypse Now was a very early Vietnam film. It came out before America had truly digested the war. Coppola's over ambitious approach to the movie was to give us everything, even a French Mansion in the jungle. It is an insane exploration of an insane venture. There were multiple different endings to the movie and just as there were multiple endings to the war. What did it all mean? Who the freak knows. How do you make sense of nonsense?
"Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom"- Justin Chadwick-2013
The title comes from Mandela's autobiography. Chadwick is known primarily for his work in British TV, However, he directed films between 2008-2017. The writer, William Nicholson, is known for some prominent films: Shadowlands, Les Miserables, Hyde Park on Hudson, and Gladiator. In "Hyde Park on Hudson" once you get over the shock of Bill Murray playing FDR; you see that both films attempt to show us the personal life of huge historical figures. Neither Murray, nor Elba pass the basic look test; this is my problem,but it detracted from my appreciation of the films.
Idris Elba is best known for his TV work most prominently "The Wire." Morgan Freeman was the original first choice, but he lost out after he made "Invictus" with Clint Eastwood. Trying to be fair, Elba is very solid in the role. I have more problems with Naomie Harris as Winnie Mandela. I admit that this is a crushingly difficult role; Harris stated she found seven Winnie's. She is best with the young and sexy Winnie. Elba gets stronger as the film goes on. He makes the transformation into the heroic Mandela believable. The trial sequence in the film is not the only time he was tried for treason. He and 28 other ANC leaders were tried between December of 1956 and March of 1963. They were acquitted.
I think that the film tries to cover too much ground. "Invictus" fares better with its more limited scope. Still for all my carping; this is a solid film. Serious biopics are a very difficult genre. They are unlikely to be big at the box office either. This is well worth viewing.
The title comes from Mandela's autobiography. Chadwick is known primarily for his work in British TV, However, he directed films between 2008-2017. The writer, William Nicholson, is known for some prominent films: Shadowlands, Les Miserables, Hyde Park on Hudson, and Gladiator. In "Hyde Park on Hudson" once you get over the shock of Bill Murray playing FDR; you see that both films attempt to show us the personal life of huge historical figures. Neither Murray, nor Elba pass the basic look test; this is my problem,but it detracted from my appreciation of the films.
Idris Elba is best known for his TV work most prominently "The Wire." Morgan Freeman was the original first choice, but he lost out after he made "Invictus" with Clint Eastwood. Trying to be fair, Elba is very solid in the role. I have more problems with Naomie Harris as Winnie Mandela. I admit that this is a crushingly difficult role; Harris stated she found seven Winnie's. She is best with the young and sexy Winnie. Elba gets stronger as the film goes on. He makes the transformation into the heroic Mandela believable. The trial sequence in the film is not the only time he was tried for treason. He and 28 other ANC leaders were tried between December of 1956 and March of 1963. They were acquitted.
I think that the film tries to cover too much ground. "Invictus" fares better with its more limited scope. Still for all my carping; this is a solid film. Serious biopics are a very difficult genre. They are unlikely to be big at the box office either. This is well worth viewing.
"When Harry Met Sally"-Rob Reiner-1989
"Persuasion"-Ang Lee-1995
"Pride and Prejudice"-Joe Wright-2005
Rom Com is a genre which seems to be ailing and close to death, but seems to gain new life every few years. Shakespeare has been the basis for many films. Jane Austin is another prime source; in America we have Louisa May Alcott. Jane Austin's novels were published anonymously. The novel was a new form when she began writing. Her novels are alive today. Fiction is a popular medium, and female readership is necessary for success. IMDb ranks films popularity among men and among women. These 3 films rank very highly among women viewers. It is interesting that all three directors are male.
Jane Austin writes of a time when marriage was the only option for a woman. The necessity of marriage is in conflict with romantic love. Austen created intelligent characters both male and female. She wrote of what she observed and knew. It is a tribute to her genius that her characters have a reality 200 years later. However, the translation of novel to screen seems to be tied to a particular time. It is probably hopeless to look for a definitive screen version of any of her novels. Then we must give a nod to adaptations; "Clueless" is a prime example; this reconfiguring of "Emma" was a critical and box office success. I find "Pride and Prejudice" to be my favorite Austen work; however, this version isn't my favorite. The cast is mostly excellent. Donald Sutherland (Mr. Bennet) is one of my favorite actors, he deserves praise. Keira Knightly is also a favorite, this is a nuanced performance which does her credit. Matthew McFadden I like, but this performance is lacking in the Charisma I want in a Darcy. "Persuasion" i a weaker book,but the screenplay by Emma Thompson is better.
Ang Lee is a superior director, and this first effort with an English story and cast shows his expertise. The 4 principals: Alan Rickman, Rosamund Pike, Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson are excellent. This is the better of these two movies, but both are highly recommended.
"When Harry Met Sally" is an American take on the Rom Com. The Nora Ephron script is excellent. She and Rob Reiner worked on the script for years. Billy Crystal was a longtime friend of Reiner. He made several additions to the script the most famous of which is "I'll have what she is having" which punctuates the fake scene was a Billy Crystal suggestion. The actress who has the line is Rob Reiner's mother. This was Meg Ryan's first starring role. The film was a huge financial success. Reiner was in the groove in this film;he had a 10+year period where he made a bunch of classic films; this is one of those films. I like the use of music, Ephron did even better with music in "Sleepless in Seattle." We have two clever, articulate characters. They talk about male/female relationships in a way that hadn't been seen on screen before. Still there is a debt to Jane Austin. Filming in NYC added to the film's charm.
I'm big on DVD extras; "When Harry Met Sally" is one of the best ever. Don't miss the discussion between Nora Ephron and Rob Reiner. The DVD came out in 2008. "Pride and Prejudice"has lots of extras, but the quality is just okay. "Persuasion" has a single excellent extra, Emma Thompson's acceptance speech at the Golden Globes.
I.ve watched many films lately. I thought of grouping these three films in a comment. I hope that this will interest you.
"Persuasion"-Ang Lee-1995
"Pride and Prejudice"-Joe Wright-2005
Rom Com is a genre which seems to be ailing and close to death, but seems to gain new life every few years. Shakespeare has been the basis for many films. Jane Austin is another prime source; in America we have Louisa May Alcott. Jane Austin's novels were published anonymously. The novel was a new form when she began writing. Her novels are alive today. Fiction is a popular medium, and female readership is necessary for success. IMDb ranks films popularity among men and among women. These 3 films rank very highly among women viewers. It is interesting that all three directors are male.
Jane Austin writes of a time when marriage was the only option for a woman. The necessity of marriage is in conflict with romantic love. Austen created intelligent characters both male and female. She wrote of what she observed and knew. It is a tribute to her genius that her characters have a reality 200 years later. However, the translation of novel to screen seems to be tied to a particular time. It is probably hopeless to look for a definitive screen version of any of her novels. Then we must give a nod to adaptations; "Clueless" is a prime example; this reconfiguring of "Emma" was a critical and box office success. I find "Pride and Prejudice" to be my favorite Austen work; however, this version isn't my favorite. The cast is mostly excellent. Donald Sutherland (Mr. Bennet) is one of my favorite actors, he deserves praise. Keira Knightly is also a favorite, this is a nuanced performance which does her credit. Matthew McFadden I like, but this performance is lacking in the Charisma I want in a Darcy. "Persuasion" i a weaker book,but the screenplay by Emma Thompson is better.
Ang Lee is a superior director, and this first effort with an English story and cast shows his expertise. The 4 principals: Alan Rickman, Rosamund Pike, Hugh Grant and Emma Thompson are excellent. This is the better of these two movies, but both are highly recommended.
"When Harry Met Sally" is an American take on the Rom Com. The Nora Ephron script is excellent. She and Rob Reiner worked on the script for years. Billy Crystal was a longtime friend of Reiner. He made several additions to the script the most famous of which is "I'll have what she is having" which punctuates the fake scene was a Billy Crystal suggestion. The actress who has the line is Rob Reiner's mother. This was Meg Ryan's first starring role. The film was a huge financial success. Reiner was in the groove in this film;he had a 10+year period where he made a bunch of classic films; this is one of those films. I like the use of music, Ephron did even better with music in "Sleepless in Seattle." We have two clever, articulate characters. They talk about male/female relationships in a way that hadn't been seen on screen before. Still there is a debt to Jane Austin. Filming in NYC added to the film's charm.
I'm big on DVD extras; "When Harry Met Sally" is one of the best ever. Don't miss the discussion between Nora Ephron and Rob Reiner. The DVD came out in 2008. "Pride and Prejudice"has lots of extras, but the quality is just okay. "Persuasion" has a single excellent extra, Emma Thompson's acceptance speech at the Golden Globes.
I.ve watched many films lately. I thought of grouping these three films in a comment. I hope that this will interest you.
This is really excellent. I urge Apocalypse Now fans to watch this.
.-.
"Taxi Driver"-Martin Scorcese-1976belon
Many cinephiles think this belongs in the highest reaches of film heaven. Many others hate it. While critical opinions vary; they generally hold this film in high regard. Well over 40 years have passed since this low budget (1.8 million) film with a young director and an unknown screen writer was made. I hadn't watched this film in at least a decade. I found this film to be better, much better than I remember.
I was fortunate enough to watch a DVD version which included many hours of extras. Despite a gore filled ending; this is introspective filmmaking. Who is Travis Bickle? We know little about him; he was honorably discharged from the Marines in 1973. He served in Viet Nam. The film opens with him applying for a job as a cab driver. He has trouble sleeping, and he wants to work maximum hours.
Travis is lonely. He refers to himself as "God's lonely man." During the picture no one comes inside his apartment. He has no friends. De Niro is great as Bickle. His performance carries the film. There is a discussion about whether Travis is responsible for his isolation. He tries with Betsy (Cybil Shepard), he tries with Wizard (Peter Boyle), he tries with Iris (Jodi Foster), all are failures. He despises the city. He comes to believe that he can make a difference. We watch him as he purchases guns, practices shooting, develops methods to conceal his weapons; the first culmination comes when he shots and kills a grocery store robber. The store owner tells him to leave; he will take care of things.
We see the world through Travis' eyes. Sometimes that view is almost hallucinatory. There is the famous scene where Travis is posing before the Mirror. "You talking to me?...." There is no one else there.
I believe that certain individuals find it difficult to relate with others. Some people find interpersonal contact easy. They search out situations with crowds. They reach out to others regularly. Others find such efforts difficult. If they are rebuffed; it is very difficult. Several rejections in quick time, and they are less likely to put themselves out there. Sometimes the reaction can move the person to violence.
Rarely do we find a film which delves so successfully into the internal workings of a troubled mind. I should mention the Bernard Herman score. He is one of the all time greats; this was his last score. He died while the score was being recorded. Herman used no strings. This adds an underlying melancholy note to the film.
This isn't an easy film, but it is a great film.
Many cinephiles think this belongs in the highest reaches of film heaven. Many others hate it. While critical opinions vary; they generally hold this film in high regard. Well over 40 years have passed since this low budget (1.8 million) film with a young director and an unknown screen writer was made. I hadn't watched this film in at least a decade. I found this film to be better, much better than I remember.
I was fortunate enough to watch a DVD version which included many hours of extras. Despite a gore filled ending; this is introspective filmmaking. Who is Travis Bickle? We know little about him; he was honorably discharged from the Marines in 1973. He served in Viet Nam. The film opens with him applying for a job as a cab driver. He has trouble sleeping, and he wants to work maximum hours.
Travis is lonely. He refers to himself as "God's lonely man." During the picture no one comes inside his apartment. He has no friends. De Niro is great as Bickle. His performance carries the film. There is a discussion about whether Travis is responsible for his isolation. He tries with Betsy (Cybil Shepard), he tries with Wizard (Peter Boyle), he tries with Iris (Jodi Foster), all are failures. He despises the city. He comes to believe that he can make a difference. We watch him as he purchases guns, practices shooting, develops methods to conceal his weapons; the first culmination comes when he shots and kills a grocery store robber. The store owner tells him to leave; he will take care of things.
We see the world through Travis' eyes. Sometimes that view is almost hallucinatory. There is the famous scene where Travis is posing before the Mirror. "You talking to me?...." There is no one else there.
I believe that certain individuals find it difficult to relate with others. Some people find interpersonal contact easy. They search out situations with crowds. They reach out to others regularly. Others find such efforts difficult. If they are rebuffed; it is very difficult. Several rejections in quick time, and they are less likely to put themselves out there. Sometimes the reaction can move the person to violence.
Rarely do we find a film which delves so successfully into the internal workings of a troubled mind. I should mention the Bernard Herman score. He is one of the all time greats; this was his last score. He died while the score was being recorded. Herman used no strings. This adds an underlying melancholy note to the film.
This isn't an easy film, but it is a great film.