Mar 2, 2017 Don't speak in riddles It's just really underrated. Love the Hustler but I rly dig how it's the least sequel sequel oat. Dope soundtrack amazing pre top gun super stardom performance from a young Tom cruise. Middle age Paul Newman always strong to me this is no exception -- supporting cast has a young turturro and forest Whitaker. I just love the weary 80s Americana vibe it exudes. Compare the fingerprints all over it compared to how, idk, vanilla and faux-epic the aviator feels. It's not as iconic as raging bull or taxi driver but it is a raw cinematic experiment nonetheless. Maybe it's bc Scorsese is operating in another persons story, or they just aren't drolled over like goodfellas or something, but movies like cape fear, age of innocence and color of money are too often overlooked imo
Mar 3, 2017 Oh rly? sry - missed that. I mean, honestly it could be a generational thing. Not trying to browbeat anyone but I've noticed younger people regard it higher, maybe bc it was their gateway to scorsese. id seen goodfellas, etc all before so when I saw aviator i was like.... well thats ok but anyone could have made that. i still like it in a way but its a little toothless. i also dont think cate blanchet deserved any oscar playing katharine hepburn lol
Mar 3, 2017 Anyone could've made The Aviator but not The Color of Money? The Aviator is cut from the same cloth as Raging Bull, Casino, The Wolf of Wall Street, etc.
Mar 3, 2017 Yes, Color of Money is pure adrenaline Scorsese. Check the transcript. And noooo way - stylistically, tonally Aviator is a far cry from all those films. It is a bio, true, but Raging Bull is a searing indictment of its subject, same with WOWS (to a lesser extent.) If Aviator does have a point of view, the film is quite taken with Hughes, his ambition, and largely sympathetic with his tragic end.
Mar 3, 2017 I don't see any of those films as indictments of the subject. I think that's one of the things that makes Scorsese so great is that he doesn't judge his characters or pick a side. Jake LaMotta may be a piece of s--- but I am able to sympathize with him at several points through his journey. Seeing where Scorsese was at in his life at that point, I find it highly unlikely that he didn't see himself in the character. Scorsese was a self destructive savage for most of his young life and that's why he is so drawn to these types of characters.
Mar 3, 2017 that's fine but doesn't really get at the heart of what I was saying. RB and WOWS are brutal depictions with black heart comments on human nature, Aviator isn't. LaMotta is ultimately a pathetic nasty figure, a joke - Hughes becomes consumed with mental illness. Not sure where you see the overlap between Aviator and Casino either besides the fact they're both epic scopes - shot entirely differently, totally different vibes.
Mar 3, 2017 Stylistically they're different and the characters are different types as you mentioned but imo he observes them in a similar way and it follows a similar arc of rise and fall. To me it's clearly got the quintessential Scorsese markings and it's one of his very best. I don't have an issue with you not liking it much but I just think it's silly to say that "anyone could've made it."
Mar 3, 2017 I stand by it though, issue or no - likewise your rebuttal about Color of Money is just... incorrect lol. Full of Scorsese stylistic flourishes and a seedy setting, undercut by a story about self destruction. Vintage tbh. Aviator idk - didn't Scorsese come on board as director like, years after the project had been announced? I just get an impersonal vibe from it, aesthetically or otherwise. I don't see the connection between Hughes and Rothstein tb frank besides some superficial overlaps... both are epics, sure lol. similarly observed how? Aviator has a gloss and flow that makes it sort of an outlier in his body of work imo
Mar 3, 2017 You're stuck on the stylistic aspect and I already said that I don't mean its stylistically in line with the other films. I never got the sense that he felt like a hired hand on the project, his mark is all over the thing and to me it's easily something that falls in line with his other character pieces. It's glossier because that matches the world he's working in and the time he's portraying, but it's still the same hand at work. The Color of Money may have stylistic flourishes but it doesn't have the passion or emotional impact of his great work, so it's never done much for me, not trying to say it's not a well made or capable film. It just definitely feels like a "one for them" type of thing in a way that The Aviator never has for me. Agree to disagree m8.
Mar 3, 2017 Ofc, but it's also a forum so I'm just leaning into the purpose of being here. In what way? Michael Mann was the original director when Leo signed up. It's a far cry from Kundun or Silence in terms of its development lol. How so? I know that's what Ebert said lol. Like, sure, Color of Money is a sequel to a classic, but has the grim and angst of his best stuff. It's not a historic epic biopic with celebrities (Gwen Stefani!) playing other celebrities. So yeah, I mean not seeing how you can watch Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas than see Aviator even close to being on the same plane. I just find that very dubious. Like, that's an example of him doing one for them. I do like how the look Aviator evolves with each era, that's kind of interesting, but (it's not like a rubric, which is the fallacy of auteurism) if you think about the issues Scorsese's great characters tackle with, guilt, etc. I'm not sure how Hughes is simpatico with that. In other words, the inherent light touch he applies to the fun grand biopic deprives him of taking the dark dive you see in his classic films. Personally - and again, I know outside the mainstream - I see that more with Fast Eddie.
Mar 3, 2017 Just cause it's not hugely personal like Silence, doesn't mean it's not something right up his alley. I mean, De Niro is the one who brought Raging Bull to him, so that could be seen as a similar situation. The Aviator is just very well made and memorable and maybe you're right, it came at an impressionable time for me and I always identified it with his other great works. I'm not saying it's as great as his absolute top tier like Raging Bull and Casino, but it sits comfortably in his top 10 for me. I'm not trying to throw shade at Color of Money because it's a lesser known or praised work either, it just really didn't stick in my memory at all. The Age of Innocence is something I could definitely get behind as an underrated masterpiece, but this one just falls flat for me.
Mar 3, 2017 you think Raging Bull and Aviator are comparable in how distinctly Scorsese they are????????? lmao
Mar 3, 2017 that's certainly true but if Aviator is so up his alley... prove it? You've backpedaled slightly which I grant you (style, tier wise aviator is far from the classics) but im not sure youve rly laid out whats so memorable. To each their own though. I am a big Newman fan, love Robbie Robertson, and just think having three great actors in there before their prime to be very intriguing. There's a vibrancy there that's overlooked -- it's not as iconic or overwrought as many of the other films.. to me thats a good thing. im not even trying to shame ur arguments/self esteem i just sometimes see you try to end debates with "well, ive studied this more than you" attitude.. like, have you?
