Here's really early Scorsese. One of his films from NYU. I saw this one a few months ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4hFu4fzno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th4hFu4fzno
Mean Streets
- Thread starter J.R. Hudson
- Start date
Luis Caffesse
Admin
Yeah, of course we've had the benefit of having Scorsese to look at.
That's what always makes those "Top 100 Directors of All Time" lists" such an impossible endevour...
Speilberg, Scorsese, Lucas, et al.... they all had the benefit of Welles, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, etc.
Anyhow - total tangent, my mind is just wandering today.
But I know what you mean DeSica - it is nice to see peoples beginings...and to see that while the work might still be engaging, it wasn't always groundbreaking.
That's the great part about Who's that knocking. The film was shot over several years, and that dream sequence where Keitel sleeps with that woman and hallucinates was shot a couple years later to help sell the film. It's so rough, but the progression of his talent is clear.
If you want to really feel humbled check out Polanski's student film Two Men and a Wardrobe. It's MOS, but his control of storytelling and the subtext of the film are very strong.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051566/
And he also plays a thug in it as well, a scene that mirrors that scene in Chinatown when he cuts Nicholsen a new nose.
If you want to really feel humbled check out Polanski's student film Two Men and a Wardrobe. It's MOS, but his control of storytelling and the subtext of the film are very strong.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051566/
And he also plays a thug in it as well, a scene that mirrors that scene in Chinatown when he cuts Nicholsen a new nose.
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
First off, I've been drinkin....alot
Secondly, I just finished watching Gangs of New York for what I am realizing is only the second time (I'll be damned...who woulda thunk it.)
The first time I saw it, I left the theatre scratching my head. Because I didn't know just what to make of the damnable thing. Enough time went by, and I assumed that I grossly disliked it...or, at best, I was greatly under-impressed.
Needless to say, after a second viewing, I still am left confused...confused both on how I feel about this period piece AND confused on many of the plot points themselves. I can say 2 things with certainty tho...
#1 Marty Scorsese is neither infallible nor bullet-proof...and is not above making a bad film
#2 Daniel Day Lewis' performance was un-poo pooing-believable. It was sooo perfect, in fact, that it was way too good for this film...it was much, much better than the sum of Gangs' parts
Secondly, I just finished watching Gangs of New York for what I am realizing is only the second time (I'll be damned...who woulda thunk it.)
The first time I saw it, I left the theatre scratching my head. Because I didn't know just what to make of the damnable thing. Enough time went by, and I assumed that I grossly disliked it...or, at best, I was greatly under-impressed.
Needless to say, after a second viewing, I still am left confused...confused both on how I feel about this period piece AND confused on many of the plot points themselves. I can say 2 things with certainty tho...
#1 Marty Scorsese is neither infallible nor bullet-proof...and is not above making a bad film
#2 Daniel Day Lewis' performance was un-poo pooing-believable. It was sooo perfect, in fact, that it was way too good for this film...it was much, much better than the sum of Gangs' parts
DeSica
Well-known member
I'm stone cold sober, and I agree, so take that for what it is worth.
Most critics agreed that Daniel Day Lewis was remarkable in the film, and that he seemd to be in a whole other movie on his own.
What do you expect when you cast Cameron Diaz in that kind of role?