ITT: Times you thought a director couldn't get any worse, but they proved you wrong

ITT: Times you thought a director couldn't get any worse, but they proved you wrong.

pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/UhtOdfjfNp8
youtube.com/watch?v=pCKwtUXyU1k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>DUDE CONTINUOUS ONE SHOTS

It's my favorite movie he's done.

Wolf of Wall Street and Silence are two of the biggest Scorsese pleb filters.

Plebs can't understand that he has just made two of the greatest movies of his career, and two of the greatest movies of the current decade.

Silence is literally his third best movie

Scorsese hasn't made a good movie since the turn of the century

This is fact

what fucking century

when you grow up you will understand

The Aviator, Shutter Island, Wolf of Wall Street, and Silence are all good.

Wolf and Silence are masterpieces. Aviator and Shutter are very solid.

Everything he's collaborated with DiCaprio on was horrible.

Silence was toothless in terms of its brutality and lacked any beauty or anything interesting about faith.

You could go back and look at any Bergman or Bunuel movie and find more interesting movies.

I love the inability of people to argue persuasively so they just cite other directors as though that is proof of their more refined taste. Bergman and Bunuel are both great, so is Scorsese.

And no, Wolf of Wall Street is a masterpiece.

Wolf of Wall Street is a masturbatory celebration of excess that pretends to his previous gangster epics about how "ultimately crime doesn't pay" without any of the horrid details present in those movies. It was too much flash and not enough fire.

Also DiCaprio was reliably bad.

When I grow up, I'll be awed by hacky cinematic gimmicks like one shots?

The very fact that you think it is a celebration of excess makes it rather clear that you refuse to engage with the movie's critique. Either that or it just went completely over your head.

Also it's DiCaprio's best performance and one of the best Hollywood lead performances of the last several years.

No to all accounts

If you think the movie is a celebration of excess then you do not understand the movie. That's a fact.

>Marty & De niro
>Marty & Leo

Marty and De niro anyday you fucking pleb

Oh yeah we all know it was supposed to be a condemnation, but it adheres to Scorsese's "glamor-excess then gutpunch of consequence" formula without having as much impact or grit compared to earlier movies. When the gutpunches and "condemnation" is overwhelmed by the comic excess then it's no longer a movie criticizing its subject. It was done better in Casino which was done better in Goodfellas which was done better in Mean Streets.

Nice reading comprehension. The guy said that Scorsese hasn't made a single good movie since 2000.

Tell me, since you're obviously so bright, what is your favourite De Niro/Scorsese movie since 2000?

this

shutter island is overrated. All those dream cut scenes ruined it for me.

Absolutely incorrect and a terrible basis of comparison.

Comparing Mean Streets to the three other movies you just named indicates your complete inability to look at these movies with any critical acumen. Mean Streets is filled with the Catholic perspective of its central character that allows us to constantly question the morality of the events occurring on-screen. The events are also depicted with far more grimy, fumbling violence that cannot be misinterpreted as something seductive. The fact that you conflate Wolf of Wall Street, a movie about the ravenous seduction of the 90s capitalistic excess, with Goodfellas and Casino, two movies about mob violence and casinos, reinforces your refusal, or inability, to think critically beyond surface dismissals.

The entire point of Wolf of Wall Street is the surface-level comic excess. It is entirely geared towards sucking the audience in while making us, or at least those of us with our eyes open, feel uncomfortable at the ease with which we are implicated. You clearly had your eyes closed if you were not seeing the characters as wholly reprehensible individuals the whole way through. The movie puts in lots of explicit moments of this for people like yourself. See: characters sitting around debating whether midgets are human beings, Belfort discussing how wonderful the company is while laughingly talking about one of the workers who commit violent suicide, Belfort laughing over manipulating poor people into buying things they can't afford while he's on the phone with them, Belfort beating his wife, Belfort nearly injuring his child, etc etc etc.

You really, really sound like someone who doesn't have a very deep view of films. I wonder if you just watched those Bergman and Bunuel movies because you saw them on a list, logged them on your letterboxd, and never spent any time trying to understand what they were expressing.

Some of those dream sequences are among the most astonishingly beautiful of Scorsese's career.

Yet none of those statements counter the fact that it was a failure to have as effective repulsion for the audience as what it should have had. People were too busy laughing at the paulsy-phase and the tremendous excessive drug use (particularly the popeye segment). It was loaded with too much comedy to repulse anyone. There was also NO internal struggle with any of the characters. The closest point was during DiCaprio and Matt are having lunch and he states it's better to make both the client and himself money and Matt just rebukes him. DiCaprio's character at that point is the same person onward, a guy willing to fuck over anyone and anything for a dime. The only thing remaining is an exhibition of him having ludicrous orgies and drug binges and the occasional shouting match.

If it worked for you, sure that's fine. But Scorsese lost his teeth the minute he started making movies with DiCaprio.

What could have made it a better movie was to show Belfort's internal struggle with doing this horrible backdealing and maybe the consequences of his fucking people over, SHOW them being fucked over. Instead we got the "how fucking wacky is this boys?" show starring a ludicrous caricature of a wallstreet millionaire playboy.

>condemnation
>thinking Scorsese works his movies with a manichean point of view

He doesnt codemn jack shit, he never worked with a good or bad point of view, you can watch that with any movie of his.
Taxi Driver is easier to see, Travis literally kills people and he is redeemed as a hero.
Goodfellas, saved by being a snitch.

How can silence be Scorcese's masterpiece when it's clearly flawed on a technical level.

The editing, particularly at the start, is often poorly done.
Every use of CGI is awful.
There is some laughably bad ADR.

Andrew Garfield completely lacks a presence and his already rough accent disappears completely when his character had to shout.

Also, if Neeson's character was Portuguese, why didn't he do the accent? Why have that inconsistency?

Overall I thought the film was decent but not nearly as compelling as that story could have been and was overlong without earning it. That epilogue would've worked if the lead had've been a more engaging character.

>I need my films to be morally upstanding
>I need my movies to articulate a message that I agree with and deliver that message in a way that I find to be unproblematic
Are you a woman?

This is just such a terrible way to read a movie to me. If it were to complicate Belfort's character, if it were to make it seem as though he had an internal struggle, it would be completely inaccurate and simplistically moralizing. We see a guy who wrecks the lives of many and doesn't care about it at all. Nothing matters to him beyond filling his bank account and getting loaded, he is the classic Scorsese male who is oblivious to what might be best for him and he hurts those around him that are supposed to be his loved ones. In Wolf's case though Scorsese pushes that even further to the point that it seems as though Belfort doesn't even care if he does injure those closest to him.

Nothing in the movie seems wacky to me at all. The movie is actually a toned down depiction of drug abuse in its adaptation from Belfort's book. The bacchanalia on display has been pushed further in other movies to the same great effect.

The entire point of the movie is that we are seduced by what is happening on screen because these are the latent attitudes and ideas that we harbor in North America. These things look seductive to us because that might be something that is lingering within us despite our more conscious dismissal of the rich, wild lifestyle. Our capitalist hunger and greed is thrown up in an extreme form on screen for us hopefully to see and wake up from. The fact that you think the movie is not repulsive might say something about yourself. Wolf, like Scorsese's best movies, is not some easy morality play in the way that you seem to want it to be. It requires that we look beyond just what we're being shown on a surface level, to look beyond our laughter and to see the human beings behind this disgusting behaviour. I mean you seem to be missing the movie's fundamental point when you say that the movie could be improved by making DiCaprio a character with a more pronounced internal struggle or showing us the people he fucked over.

If technical proficiency was synonymous with quality, Bob Dylan would be considered a worse musician than most modern pop stars

Also,
>complaining about ADR in a Scorsese movie

Scorsese Kurosawa'd the shit out of this film.

But when a lack of proficiency is so blatant that it pulls me out of the film, then I'd say it impacts the film's quality.

Is bad ADR a Scorcese meme? I hadn't heard this.

>Travis literally kills people and he is redeemed as a hero

If you've listened to any of the interviews with Shrader and Scorsese or paid attention to the movie we watch the spiral into madness of Bickle. He was willing to go out and murder Palantine for superficial reasons, an innocent populist politician, and was only foiled by his own ineptitude. After his shootout with the gangsters to "rescue" his loli he is ONLY given praise because it happened that he killed the bad guys. But the ending shots line up with the shots at the beginning, showing that he hasn't changed as a person and will probably kill again. The next time it probably won't conveniently be criminals.
>I like my media to glorify and condone a greedy amoral lifestyle that ignores everyone but yourself
>I think that media consumed by tens of millions of people every day has no impact on the cultural mindset
>I think that cultural swing towards amoral behavior, rejection of authority and infighting has nothing to do with glamorization of criminality, selfishness and smug superiority depicted all over tv, music and movies

Not only are these kind of movies not as good as previous ones, they're actually destructive. Look at what's happened to urban youth because of the glamorization of ghetto gangster lifestyles.

>Look at what's happened to urban youth because of the glamorization of ghetto gangster lifestyles.

Jesus fucking christ.

Why do I always waste so much time arguing with simpletons?

Yeah it's a thing. RLM parodied his editing in this video
youtu.be/UhtOdfjfNp8

helllo reddit

...

new scorsese is best scorsese
>Aviator
>Gangs of New York
>Departed
>Shutter Island
>Wolf of Wall Street
>Silence

how can you dislike these? Better than this 80's output (sans Raging Bull) and giving his 90's output a run for its money

...

Here's what you don't understand, Scorsese does not give a fuck about changing the world. His art is a reflection of society, not an attempt to alter it. The reason the commupance is minor in Wolf of Wall Street is because, for these amoral Wall Street executives, their commupance generally was either death through drug use, or a few months in a resort-like prison. Did you want Scorsese to lie to his audience and invent some sort of cosmic justice just to moralize at us? You want him to direct after school specials?

No I want him to show the damage that Belfort did to the economy and how he ruined people's lives. It's like how Spotlight barely had anything with the victims on top of that disgusting "we have a formula that will tell how many priests diddle kids". It was just "We did it gang". You can criticize a mindset or lifestyle without making it a Tales of Virtue episode.

Pain and Gain was better

I dislike some aspects of silence (it had a couple really hammy shots that weren't necessary at all) but this is correct. He's the best he's been since taxi driver

First of all, the victims of financial injustice are often so diffuse that it's impossible to portray that in a film without it coming across like a weird digression. Second, it wouldn't be interesting from a narrative standpoint. The point of the film was to give us a sort of first person account of what this lifestyle is like, and why it would attract someone. The empathetic core of the movie would be ruined if we weren't made to understand why Jordan did what he did.

>The empathetic core of the movie

There was one?

I fell asleep in the cinema

Given that you think that the film promotes that lifestyle, it clearly did a very good job of allowing the audience to put themselves in Jordan's shoes and understand why the lifestyle would be so attractive to him. That's the definition of empathy.

Post top 5 Marty movies.

Hugo
Age of Innocence
The Last Temptation of Christ
The Aviator
Silence

Honorable Mention: The King of Comedy, After Hours

Mean Streets
Taxi Driver
Last Temptation of Christ
Raging Bull
Bringing Out the Dead

youtube.com/watch?v=pCKwtUXyU1k
you think this was bad? Someone hasn't seen kundun

I think that spirituality as a subject is just inherently uninteresting to some people.

you mean people are starting to realize religion is a crock of shit? There's much more spiritual gain in learning about science given we are all made out of that which makes up the earth and stars, not a man in the sky and his doctrine that was written clearly by AND for uneducated fucks out in the desert

>There's much more spiritual gain in learning about science given we are all made out of that which makes up the earth and stars, not a man in the sky and his doctrine that was written clearly by AND for uneducated fucks out in the desert

typical christfag response

>people have to be religious to understand the value it has given us
wew lad

Spirituality as a subject isn't necessarily synonymous with Christianity, or even anything supernatural

who are you even quoting?

top fucking kek looks like it's time to hop back on the boat to reddit, how was that new sam harris podcast by the way?

Sam Harris wrote a book exulting spirituality. This guy is more of an anti-religion fundamentalist than king atheist himself.

I'm sad I'll never get to read Ebert's take on this film

christianity is synonymous with the supernatural, and that's the brand of "spirituality" Silence seems to boast of, even though the actual movie is more about telling a story than it is preaching gospel

>misquotes me
>replies to that with AYYLMAO SAM HARRIS REDDIT

you got me?

who are you even quoting?

I liked Taxi Driver, but you wouldn't be able to tell his other movies were made by the same guy. Goodfellas is terrible.

>Goodfellas is terrible.
Articulate

I was using 'or' as an alternative function word, not a substitutive one. Christianity is supernatural, but spirituality as a concept can refer to a whole series of phenomena that range from supernatural to just another word for the subjective feeling of transcendence.

Ray Liotta's voice is grating, and the only interesting character was Joe Pesci.

Ah ok you are just being a contrarian

No, I really hated the movie, it's not good.

I agree 100% with all of this. It's the most literate post in the thread and of course the other guy stops responding immediately after

Im actually surprised this comment wasnt post before

>I really hated the movie so it's not good
Yeah not counting all the influence and the fact that 0 important gangsters movie after that.
It was the peak of scorsese gangster filmography, Important as Mean Streets and the peak of scorsese visual style

Just because it's influential doesn't mean it's good.

>Better than this 80's output
>The King of Comedy
>After Hours
>Last Temptation of Christ

This.
Pulp Fiction is one of the worst movies ever made, but you can't deny its large influence.

Worst movies ever made? What makes you say that? It's not amazing, but I wouldn't go that far.

Maybe damaging would've been a better word.

I can understand that.

inb4 im the same user, im not

While I respect your point of view, I do not think the movie is so keen on making a moral statement about Belfort's conduct. Sure, I can see how the authorial intent is, quite understandably, to condemn the excess of Belfort's life, however, that is something that Scorsese perhaps expects from a certain fringe of the audience, while portraying the events reasonably objectively. What stroke me was that it does seem to glorify the ability of Belfort the con-man, especially in the penny-stock trading scene. The fact that Belfort survives all his vicissitudes seems to imply that "crime does not pay", that albeit being an immoral agent, Belfort is a shrewd salesman and a great one at that: this aspect of his, to me, is praised.

So, while I agree with how Scorsese plays with the audience in certain scenes (the one about the throwing of midgets is a perfect example), I do not agree with the statement that the film ultimately condemns the behavior it is showing. It is explicitly constructed so as to be not repulsive, but seductive, as you said. I believe, however, that the film ultimately praises individual intelligence and shrewdness.

Yes, 2000's > 1980's.