Goodfellas.

Review #1496: Goodfellas.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (Jimmy Conway), Ray Liotta (Henry Hill), Joe Pesci (Tommy DeVito), Lorraine Bracco (Karen Hill), Paul Sorvino (Paulie Cicero), Frank Sivero (Frankie Carbone), Tony Darrow (Sonny Bunz), Frank Vincent (Billy Batts), Chuck Low (Morris Kessler), Frank DiLeo (Tuddy Cicero), Henny Youngman (Himself), Gina Mastrogiacomo (Janice Rossi), Catherine Scorsese (Tommy's mother), Charles Scorsese (Vinnie), Suzanne Shepard (Karen's mother), and Debi Mazar (Sandy) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, and #1463 - Raging Bull)

Review: 

"You think you're doing something at the time, and that gets you through it. And maybe it changes over the years. A picture takes on a life of its own."

A great movie can come out of a little observation. In this case, a little bit of observation over the life of a mobster resulted in one of the best films of the 1990s, with others going farther in calling it one of the greatest ever made, with an influence that has reached across other media that took inspiration from its content and style, most notably with David Chase and his television series The Sopranos. The basis for the film is the 1985 non-fiction book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Nicholas Pileggi, which was about the exploits of Mafia mobster-turned-informant Henry Hill over the course of 25 years, and the film would follow a majority of the beats covered by the book (aside from a few name changes and certain omissions, such as Hill's hustling while enlisted in the United States Army). Scorsese was first interested in the book while in production on The Color of Money (1986), liking its documentary-style writings of how the Mob worked while beginning it "like a gunshot and have it get faster from there". There is a natural way to how everything flows together in this film, where one feels at ease with time when viewing the life of these wiseguys, with a script (done by Scorsese and Pileggi) that had improvisation that one can see at key points in the film. For example, the "How am I funny?" sequence was actually based on Pesci's experience as a waiter serving an actual wiseguy in a restaurant, which was acted and rehearsed with Pesci and Liotta before being constructed by Scorsese from the transcripts (since this was not actually in the original script). Scorsese was inspired by Jules and Jim (1962) with its use of voiceovers, while deciding to do a mix of the traditional narrative that would start in the middle and move backward and forward. 

Although Hill was not directly involved with the film, De Niro talked to both him and Pileggi (who let them use research material not in the book) in preparation of the role from his walk to how he ate his food, while Liotta listened to tapes of Hill talking to Pileggi, which would be key in the narration in how dynamic it is to the story being told. This is a film with plenty of nuance that handles its subject with precise execution in its cast and direction that spring for several memorable moments mixed in with swift and clear-cut violence that make a fascinating look upon a unsavory-yet-captivating world of crime. It moves at an efficient pace that uses its 145 minutes to tell a well-cut story that has the classic Scorsese hallmarks of quick cuts alongside frantic style (in an attempt to show a "punk attitude", he stated) and key choices of music to go alongside key moments. Liotta is our focus (and voice) for the film, and he does a tremendous job with being our center of unflinching energy that draws us in as well to a certain lifestyle through his eyes with conviction. De Niro proves just as prepared, wrapped in relentless gravitas that carries the film with naturalness. The third leg of our trio is Pesci, who moves along with crazed unflinching energy that attracts us with that early question about a funny wiseguy that keeps you on your toes (the scene with him and C. Scorsese involving cutting a deer and a painting proves just as well in improvised morbid energy). Bracco goes along with the action with frenzied perceptive timing that carries the film with her own narration as someone who enters in the action and stays in that web of crime, even with such turbulent (but fascinating) chemistry with Liotta, such as the moment where she has him in bed with a gun on him. Sorvino rounds out the cast with a collected presence that has plenty of stature and coldness for one to fear and appreciate whenever on screen. The others in the cast (including real-life mobsters cast as extras) prove fine in lending presence and body language to the key moments of the film, which can lead to some tension or a bit of humor (including the famed one-liner comedian Youngman) that make the shifting from youth to adult crime for our lead all the more easier. It handles its moments of violence with cold-cut effienct, never shying from depicting the lifestyle it wants to show in all of its honesty (for a film at least) that runs the gamut of ambition, avarice, and paranoia in all of its unseemly glory. Three decades have only brightened the legacy of this film, an achievement for its cast and director in execution that has kept it in the public consciousness as a seminal crime film for the 1990s and beyond.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Raging Bull.

Review #1463: Raging Bull.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (Jake LaMotta), Cathy Moriarty (Vickie LaMotta), Joe Pesci (Joey LaMotta), Frank Vincent (Salvy Batts), Nicholas Colasanto (Tommy Como), Theresa Saldana (Lenore LaMotta), Mario Gallo (Mario), Frank Adonis (Patsy), Joseph Bono (Guido), Frank Topham (Toppy), and Lori Anne Flax (Irma LaMotta) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver and #992 - The King of Comedy, and #1276 - Mean Streets)

Review: 
"Movies touch our hearts and awaken our vision, and change the way we see things. They take us to other places, they open doors and minds. Movies are the memories of our life time, we need to keep them alive."

"I just can't fake acting. I know movies are an illusion, and maybe the first rule is to fake it, but not for me. I'm too curious. I want to deal with all the facts of the character, thin or fat."

It should only figure that one of the best films of the 1980s came about as a chance for Martin Scorsese to save his life and career and for Robert De Niro to have a soulfully devastating performance to lead a film of tremendous quality in their fourth collaboration together. This was the seventh film directed by Scorsese, with his previous effort in New York, New York (1977, a tribute to classic musicals) having been a failure with audiences that had led him to depression and an addiction to cocaine, which nearly led to his death. It was De Niro who had pushed for Scorsese to try and make a film about Jake LaMotta, who had written an memoir in 1970 called Raging Bull: My Story (which he said had a lot of heart despite not being a great book), which had depicted the noted rough fighter's life from youth to the end of fame that was comprised of moments such as his troubled childhood and struggles with the mafia and his own demons outside the ring. De Niro spent years trying to convince Scorsese to take up the project, since he was not a fan of boxing (or sports in general). Scorsese treated this film as if it could have been his last, and it would not prove to be the easiest of shoots for anyone, not particularly for its star or director. It's interesting to note the boxing sequences, which only last a fraction of time in a two-hour film and the fact that they were shot first over a period of ten weeks (having been designed on paper first and meant to be done over three weeks). The film was written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin, which went through a number of re-writes, with Scorsese and De Niro being soon tasked to do re-writes that were quite significant in molding the film's content, such as eliminating the depiction of LaMotta's father (it should be noted that Schrader's initial re-write, though thought to be potentially X-rated, was the one that had added Joey to the script) alongside the calm re-enactment sequence at the end from On the Waterfront. One great technique that helps in making this such a distinct boxing film is the way those scenes are shot - inside the ring, with distinct sounds that make for a raw and intense experience to view, particularly since the editing (done by Thelma Schoonmaker) cuts everything together with finesse to where one never gets lost in seeing this descent for 129 minutes.

For an actor who is tasked to play such a tormented man over the span of several years, De Niro sinks right into the part with no difficulty at all in an electrifying performance of the soul. This plays out whether when in the ring (having been trained by LaMotta and actually participating in three matches) or when confronting the people that know and love him with his jealousy and self-destructive tendencies as the film goes on and as he starts to wither down and grow old (having gained 60 pounds for the last half of the film) and he has to face his toughest opponent - trying to find redemption. One can't take their eyes off him and his seething performance that beats at you with a tremendous punch every step of the way. Pesci (known by Scorsese and De Niro because of his debut performance in The Death Collector four years prior) proves to be just as great in following along the action as one with plenty of raw spirit in keeping up with De Niro (with occasional confrontation) that make for captivating scenes, particularly with their last one together, where one tries to do a reconciliation, filled with quiet awkwardness to brilliance. Moriarty, making her film debut (thanks to Pesci), proves just as capable in her role, resourceful and knowing as the time goes by for the film. The rest of the cast prove just as well in filling the grimy world around the film, one that dares you in with a stark look from Michael Chapman in cinematography to go alongside tremendous ambition from Scorsese to show a man on the edge without any false sentiment or step. It seems obvious now to call it a masterpiece, although it had a gradual rise in reputation (having proved a fair hit with audiences) that is now considered one of Scorsese's best films (along with one of De Niro's best). With a stark devastating look and feel and a great director and trio at hand, you can't go wrong with this film, one that lands its punches everywhere in emotion.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 4.

Review #734: Lethal Weapon 4.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Jet Li (Wah Sing Ku), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Chris Rock (Detective Lee Butters), Kim Chan (Uncle Benny Chan), Steve Kahan (Captain Ed Murphy), Calvin Jung (Detective Ng), Jack Kehler (U.S. State Department Official), and Eddy Ko (Hong) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, and #731 - Lethal Weapon 3)

Review
It's hard to say how I feel about finally finishing this series of films. On the one hand, the first two movies are really, really excellent buddy cop movies. On the other hand, the last two don't exactly cut it. It really is hard to stay fresh when you've already done three films. Remember how I said the last movie had a lack of punch? This film essentially is a sucker punch when it comes to action, though the effectiveness of it all depends on the audience. It does have a good deal of night-time action, and even Riggs and Murtaugh get bloodied up, which I guess is some sort of variety (seriously, they have more than just bruises - one's on crutches!), and shows that...yeah, they really too old for this-you get the idea. But was this film really necessary? I suppose if you like fours, sure. The cast is fine, and Gibson-Glover is about enjoyable as they have been earlier. Russo is given barely any time, but she does fine. Li doesn't speak too much, though at least he knows how to beat the snot out of people. Is he a good villain? Not really, but at least he puts up a fight. Pesci and Rock are (mostly) endearing, being relevant to the plot just enough. The underlying problem with the movie is that it isn't as funny (or fun) to watch. Remember the toiler bomb scene in the 2nd movie? It was funny, in a movie that really set the bar for action-comedy. In this? Murtaugh's house gets burned down, and unless being saved by a kid is funny, that whole sequence to me just sums the relative lack of fun emitted in this one. Sure, there is a scene with laughing gas that is fun (unless you've already seen people laughing and laughing over and over *cough* Fresh Prince of Bel-Air), but the action and tone pretty much suffocate the movie. The opening sequence is entertaining, and even the ending is poignant enough, but the movie isn't so lucky. Don't get me wrong: This is not a bad movie. It is entertaining, though not so much as before. At least it is a good way to end the series, no matter any attempts Hollywood will try in remaking the magic.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Lethal Weapon 3.

Review #731: Lethal Weapon 3.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Rene Russo (Lorna Cole), Stuart Wilson (Jack Travis), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Steve Kahan (Captain Murphy), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Ebonie Smith (Carrie Murtaugh), and Nick Chinlund (Hatchett) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, and #619 - Maverick)

Review
Compared to the two previous Lethal Weapon movies, Lethal Weapon 3 isn't as good. But that's not saying it's not a good movie. It doesn't have the same punch as the first two movies, but the banter between Gibson and Glover combined with good entertaining action push the movie to respectability. If you liked the first two films, you'll like this one too, though admittedly not as much. It's not as if there's any terrible characters, in fact I love Russo's character, mainly because it's nice to see another person kick some people to the ground. Or maybe because I prefer her over Pesci's character. This time around, he's not as helpful but at least he's in the movie in limited quantities. In fact, Pesci's character wasn't in the original script, but added in later, which explains the "pop ins" he does. At least he doesn't grate on your nerves too much. The villain this time around isn't half-bad, though I won't probably remember too much of him. I do like his introduction in which he deals with an employee...with cement. It's always nice to see Gibson and Glover together because they make a good pair and have some fun that rolls with the audience. Take this for what it's worth, which is pretty good.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Moonwalker.

Review #403: Moonwalker.

Cast
Michael Jackson (Himself), Joe Pesci (Frankie "Mr. Big" LiDeo), Kellie Parker (Katie), Sean Lennon (Sean), and Brandon Adams (Zeke "Baby Bad" Michael) Directed by Jerry Kramer and Colin Chilvers.

Review
This is a rare experience to review an anthology film, where instead of one composite plot, it is split into multiple stories, for one film. What's more rare is to review one with Michael Jackson, who's only other film credits are The Wiz, cameos, and This Is It, so there's slim pickings, but oh well. Moonwalker is more of a music video anthology film, with six segments and having two of them having some resemblance of a plot. The acting (and that might be a stretch to say) is okay, but it is nothing too special, probably to make sure the music isn't overshadowed, though Joe Pesci isn't exactly convincing as a villain, reminding me of Yosemite Sam for some reason. The music is good though, but it doesn't link the film at all, giving the film an appearance of disjointedness. Jackson was a fine performer and he seems to try hard, though I do wonder why the song "Leave Me Alone" is used. It's a weird film as well, but after Jackson turns into a car, ...it all seems to feel normal, even with the pop robot. It's not too much of an ego trip, and it does have some enjoyability, with all its weirdness. Take it for what its worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lethal Weapon 2.

Review #356: Lethal Weapon 2.

Cast
Mel Gibson (Martin Riggs), Danny Glover (Roger Murtaugh), Joe Pesci (Leo Getz), Joss Ackland (Arjen Rudd), Derrick O'Connor (Pieter Vorstedt), Patsy Kensit (Rika Van Den Haas), Darlene Love (Trish Murtaugh), Traci Wolfe (Rianne Murtaugh), Steve Kahan (Captain Murphy), Mark Rolston (Hans), and Jenette Goldstein (Meagan Shapiro) Directed by Richard Donner.

Review
Lethal Weapon 2 is a film that in the end manages to hold up to the first one in many ways, with twists of its own. To begin with, Gibson and Glover do well, but the twist to this is the addition of Joe Pesci (part of the "Sequel-Character" Rule, where a film's sequel has added a new character to affect or help out in the story.), who..does a fine job. Maybe it's because I can handle his aspects of acting in the film better than Chris Tucker in Rush Hour. Come to think of it, this is more entertaining than the Rush Hour films, with a better to story to boot. This story is allright, weaving the good parts of the first with unusually more comedy aspects that make this an entertaining flick that keeps the magic of the first film alive.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Review #310: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Brenda Fricker (Bird Lady), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Tim Curry (Mr. Hector), John Heard (Peter McCallister), Eddie Bracken (Mr. Duncan), Rob Schneider (Cedric), Dana Ivey (Mrs. Stone), and Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone)

Review
In a way, I could be generous to this film given that originally I was going to review Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but I backed out of sheer horror 15 minutes in. But then I realize, this film deserves no special treatment, not one bit. Is it horrible? I'll tell you this much: It won't continue the unintentional unlucky streak ratings in the past reviews (From 8 to 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3), but it isn't as good as Home Alone either. While this film does have some of the Christmas spirit as Home Alone, my problem is that it feels too phoned in. It doesn't feel warming, it feels forced at times. The acting is decent, Culkin does a fine job, and Pesci and Stern do fine as well. The scenery sometimes looks nice, and it does have some decent laughs. But then the main glaring flaw comes in. It's a bit too...cartoonish. It may sound weird to say it, but it really isn't as funny, with one scene involving one of the bandits getting hit in the head with a brick...four times. I may be no doctor (just a reviewer), but I'm pretty sure that might hurt a whole lot more than it looks. They fall down ladders, they get slightly electrocuted (For a few seconds you can see a skeleton face as one gets electrocuted), they get hit with paint cans and more, and etcera and etcera. It goes on a bit much, and it feels weird the second time around, even though some of the gags are repeated and some are funny, it is a slightly weak sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone.

Review #304: Home Alone.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Roberts Blossom (Marley), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister), John Heard (Peter McCallister), and John Candy (Gus Polinski) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)

Review
Ah yes, Home Alone. It's fitting to review it right around the Christmas corner, and also fitting to review some actors for the first time here (Gee, that sounds familiar...), which is a good thing. Mostly. And hey, a familiar person involved here as well, John Hughes. (Director and writer of #046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles) So how does this film fare out? It's good...for the most part. I have to admit it is a bit warming to the Christmas spirit, and it does have some good references here and there (With one brief clip on Miracle on 34th Street...which I reviewed previously 5 days ago. Huh.), especially near the end. Ah, yes, what about Macaulay Culkin? (Trying spelling that correctly 5 times) Well, he's not bad (I'd repeat a line I use when mentioning child actors, but I think you know the near standard of child actors already.), he has some moments that give a laugh or two. But my favorite acting performances from this film are from Joe Pesci and Roberts Blossom. I like how Pesci is just so...gnarly offbeat, combined with all that happens to him. As for Blosson, he does giving a small but useful performance that contributes to the film's eager spirit. The rest of the actors do a good job, including Catherine O'Hara and...John Candy? Oh...Yes. The plot is decent, slightly plausible. The traps and comedy are allright, a bit inventive (Even though sometimes I wondered if the traps would lead to really bad injuries...) at times. After over 20 years, this film still has some legs and is enjoyable enough, especially on Christmas. Mostly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.