Mean Streets

I know, I know. I've been slacking. Hell, I haven't updated this thing in.... what, 3 weeks? Well, guess what, I've been busy so BACK OFF, MAN!*... Mhm... sorry 'bout that. What I meant to say was: I decided to do an easier review today. What makes this so easy? Well, for one, it's Scorsese. That means most anyone will have a good idea what I mean when I use the phrase, "That Scorsese flare." Secondly, I think I know exactly what I want to say about this movie. It is still really fresh in my mind.

Mean Streets is, of course, the movie that made Scorsese so noteworthy. And why not? In a lot of ways, it marks the beginnings of a lot of Scorsese methods. Most notably, it includes his first pairing with the always-excellent Robert DeNiro. For those of you who don't know, these two guys have worked together roughly 800 times through their career. They really do great together, too. DeNiro is one of the greatest actors, Scorsese one of the greatest directors. Both of them have been in one movie you like. If that isn't true, you have bad taste and should GET AWAY FROM MY BLOG!!!!

Well, here's the thing about that: Mean Streets is definitely a performance-driven movie. DeNiro and Harvey Keitel both shine in their performances as the two buddies at the center of all the crap going on (and believe me, there is plenty of crap going on). They really feed off of each other's energy, delivering each well-written line with ease and in such a natural way that you think that Scorsese grabbed a camera and said, "Go." Really really good.

Also well done is Scorsese's ability to capture a certain feel in his films. His use of classic rock and soul music has always been a part of this, as has his knack for being able to edit appropriately. A really cool sequence has a camera stuck on Keitel's face as he walks around a bar, completely drunk. Scorsese just has that.. you know, that flare. Also, he manages to strike a fine balance between light-hearted and heavy-handed moments. Sometimes within seconds the film transitions between these feelings.

See? He's about to shoot someone, but he's smiling!

So what's the problem? What's not to like? Well, Scorsese was so wrapped up in getting the feeling of little Italy across, he totally forgot to put narrative in the film. Half the time, you might be wondering what exactly is going on. Sometimes, you'll probably wonder about the relevance of the scene. Certainly once or twice, you'll kind of wonder what the point of all of this is. If not, then you probably read more into than me, in which case, maybe you should start a blog! (DO IT!) I just found this to create an inconsistency that gave the movie an almost... er, disjointed(?) feel. Just really flimsy, you know what I mean?

Also, and maybe this is more of a personal gripe, but I foun myself really dissatisfied with the ending. I don't mind sudden, open-ended conclusions to movies, but this one really didn't do it for me. The story and the conflicts didn't feel as if they had come to a proper conclusion. No one really did anything of significance. As a result, this movie probably left me with a bad taste in my mouth that made me think it is worse than it actually is.

Overall - 6. Good for seeing the roots of Scorsese's trademark style, but he clearly is still not 100% familiar with what makes a great movie. It is a worthy view, though.

* - EDIT: Should have said, "Lazy." Oh darn.

More Like GreatFellas! (I got nothing.)

So, I've been demanded on the spot to bust out a review tonight... I didn't know what to review, really. I also have no idea what I'm going to write ahead of time on this one, but I'll give it a whirl with Goodfellas. Why? No particular reason. I guess because it's pretty fresh on my mind from the last viewing, and I know what I like and dislike when it comes to this film.

For a lot of people. Goodfellas is Martin Scorsese's best work. That's entirely understandable, in a way. After all, it's one of his most accessible movies, and it has a story that a lot of people will latch on to. I mean, damn... who doesn't like a good gangster flick, after all? It has all of the great American values - violence, drugs, and sex. What? You thought we valued chastity? Psh... this ain't 500 A.D. This is 2010, an era of thriving porn industry. The post-video nasty era, the post-Requiem for a Dream era... I could've just summed tht up by saying, "It's the 80s again." If only there were still video-nasties...

I digress. GoodFellas is just a damn fine flick in general. There's a lot to like about it: the stylistic flare, the paranoid plot, Robert DeNiro being all deceptively nice-like, and of course, any movie's main attraction: Joe Pesci. Though I've never met the man in real life, it's easy to imagine that he carries a gun at all times and will shoot someone because they gripped his hand too tight when they shook it.

Pictured: Joe Pesci at In-N-Out Burger

Pesci won an academy award for his portrayal of the downright insane Tommy DeVito. Deservedly so, too. He just outshines the rest of the (still great) cast. You may have noticed something here: every character has some insane flaw. Each of them is facilitating the undermining of their own lives in a way. Liotta is too stubborn and ignorant to realize the trouble he's getting into, Pesci is ruffling too many feathers, DeNiro is a paranoid mess, and Chuck Low (playing Morrie) brings them all together in a way that's really not going to end smoothly. It's important for me to explain why I'm pointing all of this out: the film is leading towards a very tense ending, and the inevitble cluster-fuck that's going to pursue is a direct result of their lifestyle. They life of the gangster is glorious, sure... but everyone's ride is going to have it's end. It isn't all gratifying, as some have built it up to be. That's the Goodstuff.

What's wrong with this movie? Gosh, the biggest problem is something that would become worse 10-fold in Casino: the voiceover narration. I've always thought of the voiceover as the weakest form of storytelling, as it betrays one of my movie virtues: it tells, it doesn't show. So what we get are very compressed moments that are gone in a flash... it's tough to keep up. Not to mention some moments don't need the voiceover in any shape or form (Liotta's first date, e.g.). Super-frustrating.

Most people will be able to get past that, and I don't blame them. It's restrained enough that it doesn't become distracting. So as that is the main negative aspect, I can't complain too much. This is just a damn good movie, and one that deserves to be watched. Peep the Samuel L. Jackson bit part as Stacks. That's just sweet.

Also at In-N-Out Burger... Probably watching Joe Pesci

The movie actually made itself more gangster by total accident! That's the power of GoodFellas, and that's why you need to watch it for yourself.

Overall - 8. Voiceovers be damned, I wanna go shoot something now.... Lesson not learned? A great movie from a great director. No surprises there.