ragingbull1980 Reviews

Gangs of New York (2002)

A selfish indulgence I can't escape

[10/10 · 22 February 2005]

Gangs of New York is a flawed picture, but oh what a masterfully entertaining flawed picture. Buoyed by the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher, and quite possibly one of the greatest villains ever to appear on screen, the movie is a wonderfully detailed, semi-fictional account of New York in the 1860's--when the country was a political hotbed and the people were as ruthlessly dug in and divided as... well, today.

DiCaprio is good, and maybe great even. But how would we know? The picture belongs to the Butcher--perhaps DiCaprio's ability to allow the villain to shine as he is and not attempt to steal the spotlight is a credit to the young actor. After all, he's not really the main character--rather, he's the pair of eyes through which we see this complex war-torn, urban society. The main character is Bill Cutting, whose moral, political, and xenophobic complexities mirror the contradictions in all Americans, particularly of that period--though such contradictions have been the subject of American historical fiction for two and a half centuries.

Scorsese makes this picture the way it should be made, with caution to the wind and a heart bursting with vivid imagination that can be seen in every nook and cranny of the massive Five Points neighborhood on screen. He indulges in every turn to fill the film with multiple thematic elements, running at once both concurrent and in contradiction to one another. This creates a film that many people are uncomfortable with because let's face it: with all this going on, where's the plot? I think the plot, fragile as it is, only exists to deliver this world and its characters for us to observe, consume, and relish in. I certainly do. For all of its mistakes, it is a film I continue to watch over and over again, with a fascination I reserve perhaps for only three or four other films I have ever seen.

I love this movie, God help me.

The Aviator (2004)

A new Scorsese classic

[10/10 · 25 January 2005]

Martin Scorsese's "heroes" usually aren't heroes at all; rather they end up being only one of the unbalanced characters through whom we see the entire film. Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Last Temptation, Goodfellas, Casino, Bringing out the Dead and Gangs of New York--who would want to really be any of these guys? Even Jesus has issues.

In the Aviator, Scorsese has made a slicker, more Hollywood friendly film, and it will likely be rewarded with Oscars for his more accessible approach. But the themes still remain: a troubled misfit attempts to shape the world to meet his wants, but the world is not his opponent--once again, it is his demons.

There will be people who criticize this film because it's not as "Scorseseque" as most of his work, but come on, guys, not much has changed really. The editing and special effects might diminish the grittiness that permeates most of this great director's work, but Martin Scorsese is at his peak as a storyteller here; the film is three hours long but I didn't even know it until I looked at a clock after exiting the theatre. It feels like it plays in half that time--the movie is a very entertaining masterpiece about one of the most influential and complicated industrialists in American history; the man Howard Hughes was a true visionary, and dare I say in the world of aviation... apparently an artist. But like so many artists, this one is troubled, and DiCaprio plays him very, very well.

I still liked Gangs of New York better, but this is a great movie and if it nabs Scorsese the key Oscars he has never called his own (Best Picture, Best Director) then he can finally fulfill that tiny blank space on his resume. If not, who cares? Scorsese doesn't need an Oscar to prove he's the greatest of all American filmmakers.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Critics have forgotten that this is a comedy

[10/10 · 28 December 2004]

Somewhere along the lines, the film critics and masters of so-called 'high art' lost their grasp of this Wes Anderson film. I have read review after review about how the movie fails to find the "sweetness" of films like Rushmore, and that it fails to be interesting on any emotional level. Well, isn't this a comedy? Last time I checked it was, and a hilarious one at that.

One of the great things about this film is how it lampoon's every potential moment of emotional depth into something over-dramatic and purposefully clichéd--furthermore, it even triumphs in making fun of 'reality TV' to some extent, as Steve Zissou tries to find countless ways to incorporate the real-life drama he can't even comprehend into his documentaries.

The films overzealousness and unevenness is what I actually love about it. Like other films deemed too "ambitious", it rolls all the dice and taking the risk paid off: I laughed until I cried.

All of this however, isn't possible without Bill Murray. His portrayal of Steve Zissou truly is something deserving of an Oscar. How could this film live without Murray setting the tone? The film is funny, but only if you believe what the character Steve Zissou is all about, and that's why Murray is so important to this movie--without discrediting Jamie Foxx, a truly great actor in his own right--people can do impressions like Foxx's Ray Charles--but how many actors create characters so original and absorbing that without them the film cannot exist? That's Murray's gift here, and his is the best acting job of the year.

I would have to go one step further and say that perhaps the reason critics hate the film is that it blasts the very high-minded pretentiousness that clouds their minds: maybe they just don't get it because they ARE a bunch of Steve Zissous. If you saw someone making fun of you on screen would you like it? Probably not. But hey, no matter what the critics say, everyone else in the world who isn't caught up with themselves should go to this movie and enjoy it. If Anchorman hadn't been released this year, it would have been the year's best comedy--but it's a deeper film than Anchorman (of course, what isn't), an Oscar-worthy film that is serious about just how darn funny life really is.