So if these two actors and Scorsese have a special connection the question remains – who is the better muse for Scorsese?

The Stats

Number of Films – Robert De Niro – 10, Leonardo DiCaprio – 6

Oscars – Of De Niro’s two Oscars he won Best Actor for Scorsese’s Raging Bull. DiCaprio’s Oscar win was for The Revenant – not a Scorsese film. But Scorsese’s only Best Director Oscar came from The Departed, starring DiCaprio.

Reviews Aside from Oscars and looking at the general critical reception going through Rotten Tomatoes Scorsese-De Niro films have an average critic rating of 85%, compared to 80% for Scorsese-DiCaprio. Perhaps a small difference but the 5% between 80% and 85% might just be where a film becomes a classic.

Money In terms of box office – adjusted for inflation – Scorsese-DiCaprio films have made an average $168,000,000, compared to $84,000,000 for Scorsese-De Niro. DiCaprio’s box office is double that of De Niro, a huge difference…but what does Scorsese care of money? He is an artist and would rather make a good movie than a profitable one.

The Switch

De Niro worked steadily with Scorsese until Casino in 1995, when he didn’t work with the director again until The Irishman in 2019 and in this time it seems like Di Caprio replaced him as Scorsese’s go-to actor. Part of this could simply be down to age, Di Caprio could play roles that would be ridiculous for De Niro to play. Its worth noting that when Scorsese was confident enough in the technology he would digitally de-age De Niro for The Irishman allowing him to cover decades of the character’s life.

The Roles

De Niro is famous for playing gangsters, in Scorsese films and beyond, Goodfellas, The Irishman, Mean Streets and Casino all see him take on a gangster or someone in that world. Apart from gangsters De Niro has played a lot of troubled characters – King of Comedy, Taxi Driver and Cape Fear all feature characters who are deeply disturbed. The most glaring exception is New York, New York, a musical romantic comedy where De Niro plays a saxophonist.

DiCaprio has some similar roles – in The Departed he plays a cop posing as a gangster, in Gangs of New York he plays a gangster but this time in the nineteenth century, in Shutter Island DiCaprio plays a cop/patient at a psychiatric hospital. In The Aviator DiCaprio plays the real-life character of Howard Hughes, inventor, filmmaker and more. Then there is The Wolf of Wall Street, with DiCaprio playing the charismatic, ruthless stockbroker Jordan Belfort.

Obviously, when the technology exists Scorsese will splice together some terrifying DiCaprio-De Niro hybrid clone creature – terrifying but undeniably a compelling actor (Robnardo Dei Nirio?)- but until then can we determine who has the best working relationship? My instinct leans towards De Niro but that could be just because the passage of time has elevated these films to classics while Di Caprio’s are more recent. Outside of Scorsese DiCaprio’s recent film output has been vastly superior to De Niro’s…but this isn’t really about outside of Scorsese and so the title will have to be given to Robert De Niro.

Also Read: The Many Films of Martin Scorsese

The post Scorsese’s Silver Screen Legends: De Niro vs. DiCaprio appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The victims in the film are targeted by the surrounding White folks due to their ownership of oil found in their land making them one of the richest communities in the globe, and the carnage led to the creation of the Bureau of Investigations (BOI) which would later become the FBI. The Osage Nation killings are contemporary to the Tulsa Massacre, the wiping of an affluent African American community and the only time that airstrikes took place on US soil, which the HBO series Watchmen (2019) re-enacted thus bringing the event to mainstream discussions and is once more referred in the Scorsese film, while in its turn the Killers of the Flower Moon exposes to the world another of America’s grimiest moments.

The violence in previous Scorsese installments is abrupt, mercurial, and sometimes nihilistic be the outbursts and domestic violence in the LaMotta household in ‘Raging Bull’ or the vulgar displays of power by Tommy DeVito in ‘Goodfellas’ which latter erupts in an almost pubertal manner. In ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ it is methodical and orchestrated by the mastermind William Hale (Robert De Niro) thus more insidious. In this role the public is presented to a malevolent patriarch different from staple characters of De Niro as young mobster Vito Corleone, boxer Jake LaMotta, cab driver Travis Bickle or career criminal Neil McCauley.

The bloodshed is not like in a gang war picture but more personal with the perpetrators abusing the hosts’ naiveté with cunning schemes under the veil of friendship and love. World War I veteran Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio), the nephew of Hale, marries the Indigenous Mollie Kile, later Mollie Burkhart, under the guidance of his mentor to advance their takeover plans. Ernest poisons his wife slowly while experiencing a moral crisis while doing his role in the plan, still when going after the other Indigenous community members or rival white men aiming for their riches, the former military man lets slide all his perversion. One of DiCaprio’s best performances. DiCaprio and De Niro show how long-term partnerships between actors and directors can produce great artistic experiences.

In smaller roles, the veteran Cardinal Tantoo brings gravitas as the Indigenous matriarchy Lizzie Q, while Cara Jade Myers shines, showing a bohemian and rebellious side in this community by playing Anna Brown. The deep depression of Henry Roan interpreted by William Belleau serves as an analogue to the mental health issues that plague Indigenous communities around the world due to centuries of abuse, neglect, and oppression.
Brendan Fraser is having a second wind and with his imposing physique and powerful voice plays defense attorney W.S. Hamilton who clashes with his matinee idol of yesteryear coming as a surprise act. The BOI agent Thom White incorporated by Jesse Plemons, shows a quiet and almost non-threatening presence that throws off the murderers from his true intentions while keeping the authority that comes with being a lawman.

Among the supporting cast is also Jason Isbell who spars with DiCaprio for the sisters’ fortunes and treats his wife with tenderness, nevertheless in an almost imperceptible way is someone who wants to hold a prize and not the hands of a full-fledged human being.
However, the range portrayed by Gladstone deserves more screen time as it is filled with lust, doubt, insecurity, unconditional love, and despair, all painted in her face, voice tone and body language revealing a leading lady that for long has been as Gladstone gives the picture’s most compelling performance.

The cinematography is another strong point as it is conducted by Rodrigo Prieto who with Panavision engineer Dan Sasaki crafted custom lenses that give a distinct look reminiscent of the 1930s photographs composing a mixture of Western flirting with noir. The props department gives a sense of really being in those times and the clothing section comes with a distinct representation of the Osage Nation that separates them from other Indigenous cultures on the screen.

Opening doors for Indigenous storytelling from their own artists

Scorsese really consulted members of the Osage Nation as can be perceived in the language and the craft mentioned above as also with a more humanized vision towards them when compared to previous movies and series or even current ones. Nevertheless, the movie is not immaculate of criticism by Indigenous peoples on matters of representation.

After watching the picture, Christopher Cote, one of the Osage language consultants, has expressed nuanced and complicated feelings about the result as for him it should be from the perspective of Mollie and the ordeal of her family. Cote added in his Hollywood Reporter interview that to represent them in a proper manner it should be an Osage creative, still for him Scorsese not being Osage did a great job. His opinion can be seen in Burkhart, one of the conspirators, who became sympathetic in some moments which is due to DiCaprio’s skill set.

Indigenous actress Devery Jacobs (Reservation Dogs) has expressed in her X (former Twitter) account “strong feelings” towards ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ saying that it “dehumanizes people” and the difficulty of seeing their ancestors already brutalized in real history going through it once more in the silver screen with graphic detailing. For Jacobs the saving point of the whole picture is Gladstone.

It is understandable that some art can be triggering, in particular when touching delicate matters as the Osage Nation and the criticism from Indigenous voices should be heard as they are the ones living with the aftermath of said events that still influence their livelihoods. However, in defence of Killers of the Flower Moon, it opens the door for narratives on Indigenous lives and talent in front of the screen, although brutal to watch it is still respectful to their ordeal.

Scorsese had a hard time putting this film together and he is one of the most accomplished living directors who still has an impact, and if it is hard for Scorsese to convince the studios, it is sad to know that a director from a different background hardly would have the necessary pull within the studio game as Gladstone stated in an interview with British Vogue. Killers of the Flower Moon is a solid entry in the final stages of Scorsese’s career, a serious contender in awards season and part of its legacy is opening the discussion of having more Indigenous directors, producers and writers telling their own stories.

Rating: (5 / 5)

Also Read: Martin Scorsese and Denis Villeneuve Vs The “Marvel Movie” Formula

The post ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ Can Open For More Indigenous Storytelling and Talent appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Synopsis

Former police officer turned bounty hunter Jack Walsh (Robert De Niro) is offered $100,000 to retrieve mob accountant Jonathan Mardukas (Charles Grodin) when he skips bail. Unfortunately, rival bounty hunter Marvin Dorfler (John Ashton), FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Yaphet Kotto), and mob boss Jimmy Serrano (Dennis Farina), and his cronies are also after Jonathan. With his deadline being midnight in five days can Walsh get Jonathan from New York to Los Angeles in time to claim his reward? And can they make it there alive?

What Did I Like?

This film’s writing is its biggest strength. George Gallo’s script contains many brilliant comedic and dramatic moments. Like when Jack reveals why he quit the police force or when he and Jonathan steal money from a bar by pretending to be FBI agents. The main thing that makes everything work though is the interesting, distinct characters at the story’s centre. Everyone here feels unique because of their motivations, personal histories, and the way they speak. Which makes the narrative feel more alive than your typical action-comedy.

This is further helped by great performances. Unsurprisingly Robert De Niro is outstanding as Jack. De Niro makes him feel like a character who really knows the rough side of life. Charles Grodin is also compelling as the quiet accountant who slowly becomes more daring. But it’s Midnight Run’s supporting cast that truly shines. Actors like Joe Pantoliano, John Ashton, Yaphet Kotto, Richard Foronjy, and Robert Miranda all get big laugh-out-loud moments. However, the standout is Dennis Farina whose every malicious line as Jimmy Serrano is solid gold.

Lastly, the production has a lot to appreciate. Danny Elfman’s atmospheric and exciting score is incredibly underrated. With the main theme being a quintessential 1980s action backing track. And the directing really enhances the action. Whether that be through the fantastic incorporation of the actors with practical effects. The camera’s placement alongside the performers during stunts. Or things as simple as lingering on the character’s reaction to pain. It all gives the action more weight and increases the suspense by investing the audience in our lead’s safety.

What Did I Not Like?

The movie doesn’t start out strong. We are introduced to Jack by watching him transport Monroe Bouchet (John Toles-Bey) to prison where the police are incredibly hostile towards him. It feels quite meanspirited. Considering other criminals are depicted more humanely Monroe’s treatment seems out of place. It’s definitely not the best way to introduce the main character. The film’s beginning is also largely quite boring. With the characters initially feeling like tired archetypes reciting exposition (though they later become more vibrant). Which also makes much of the early comedy falter.

Furthermore, while the movie is generally funny not all the jokes land. This is because some of the jokes just consist of characters swearing or shouting rather than using comedic timing or build-up to create humour. 

Additionally, some plot elements feel lazy or unnecessary. This is particularly true regarding the inclusion of Jack’s estranged family. The mentioning of Jack’s family illustrates how far away he is from his previous life. But their physical inclusion only acts as a cheap way to elicit further audience sympathy. And the duo being forced off the plane because of Jonathan’s panic attack seems hugely contrived. Especially considering how Jack routinely knocks people out. It feels like a very forced progression of events. Which can take some out of the experience.

Verdict

Although its opening has several issues, some parts feel unneeded or lazy and not all the comedy hits its mark, Midnight Run is still thoroughly enjoyable. This is thanks to its mostly great writing, which gives every character a distinct personality and has some inspired moments of both comedy and drama, the fantastic performances, particularly by the supporting players, an underrated soundtrack, and well-directed action. It’s definitely a run worth taking.

Rating: (3.5 / 5)

Also Read: The Best Action Films of the Decade (2010 – 2019)

The post Retro Review: Midnight Run appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Spoiler Warning – Huge spoilers for The Godfather trilogy

Vito Corleone

The Godfather Part I and Part II are often considered two of the best films ever made (and I would agree with that assessment), bringing together a truly fantastic cast with Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro winning Oscars for their portrayal of Vito Corleone. So clear is the love for these films there is a Family Guy sketch about how The Godfather is perfect. 

The Oscars are by no means a perfect measure of quality but it is interesting to think about why two portrayals of the same character were so well-received. The Godfather Part I introduces us to the character of Vito Corleone, the most powerful crime boss in New York, respected and feared, The Godfather Part II is very much an origins story for Vito. In this film we see Vito Corleone (he still has the surname Andolini at this point) as a boy, fleeing Sicily in fear of his life, coming to America, alone and trying to make his way in the world. He has a difficult life and we see how he is slowly drawn into a life of crime. Whilst Vito is a criminal figure there is a contrast between the far more restrained figure of Vito compared to his son Michael. Vito genuinely takes his role as a protector of the Italian-American community seriously yet Michael seems less concerned with this and more concerned just with power. When Michael is Godfather he radiates menace, whereas there is more of a statesman feel to Brando’s Vito.

Why Is This Character So Memorable?

To look at the actual performances – Marlon Brando is understated and calm but gives off the power and authority of the position. The first scene of The Godfather Part I sums up so much of what Vito Corleone is about; how he insists on there be justice, how he is offended that someone is trying to hire him to commit murder rather than to be his friend and ask for help. Not far into the movie Brando’s Vito is nearly killed and never recovers his strength with his other family members taking his place but he still exudes authority and gives wise counsel.

De Niro’s Vito tells the story through the other end of the telescope. It starts with a powerless child with no family sent to another country so he isn’t killed and his name taken away at Ellis Island. Part of what comes across in this film is that it was very hard for Italian-American immigrants not to be involved in the Mafia, De Niro’s Vito loses his job as his employer has to give it to a friend of the local Mafia representative. The motivations of De Niro’s Vito are not entirely clear – when he kills Don Fanucci there is an element of this is a bad guy but is his ambition also coming into play? Far more understandable is when De Niro’s Vito travels to Sicily to finally take revenge on the man who killed his family. De Niro’s Vito is also portrayed as someone who almost fell into being a gangster, with people coming to him for help with their problems. Brilliantly De Niro portrayed a man who seemed like a decent person, certainly before his life of crime starts he just seemed nice. Then there is obvious reluctance De NiroVito has to take up this position of power.

There is certainly a connection between Brando’s Vito and De Niro’sVito and this is important as De Niro’s job was not to just play a character but make it seem like he was the younger version of a character.

Vito’s relationship with his children is also a crucial part of the character. Brando’s Vito has many brilliant scenes with or about his children – talking to Michael about what hopes he had for him away from crime, to his heartbreak at the death of Sonny. With De Niro’s Vito we see a man who is very preoccupied with providing for his family and ensuring they are safe. Vito’s story in The Godfather Part II takes places over many years and the passage of time is tracked by the presence of his children. And, of course, The Godfather Part I starts with the wedding of Vito’s daughter.

The End Of The Story

Brando Vito’s story ends with his death and playing with a grandchild was probably a better way to go than many of the other options for a Mafia Boss. De NiroVito’s story ends as he is ascending to power, his revenge fulfilled and ready to lead a life on his own terms.

Vito Corleone is one of the most enduring characters in cinema – played by two of the greatest actors in the history of film and so it’s no surprise the performances were rewarded with Oscars.

Also Read: 30 Years On: The Godfather

Read More: Oscar Worthy Characters : The Joker

The post Oscar Worthy Characters [Part 1]: Vito Corleone appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

The Irishman follows the life of Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) from meat-delivery driver to well… not in the Mafia, but certainly doing a lot of work for them, after all, he’s Irish, not Sicilian. Frank is effectively brought into this life by Russel Buffalino (Joe Pesci) a high up person in the Mafia. Frank does a lot of work for him up to and including killing people. After a few years, Russel sends Frank to watch over Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), head of the Teamsters union and very much in business with the Mafia. The film follows the course of this relationship and especially how Frank is pulled in opposite directions because of his friendships with Russel and Hoffa.

Behind The Scenes

I’m sure this isn’t a surprise to anyone – the director is Martin Scorsese, certainly one of the best directors alive if not one of the best directors ever. And this is a crime movie with an incredible cast, hardly unfamiliar territory for Scorsese. He’s already directed what in my opinion is the best Mafia movie ever – Goodfellas and expectations are high.

In Front Of The Camera

First, there is the key trio of De Niro, Pesci and Pacino, and already that’s amazing. De Niro is the narrator and gives an excellent performance especially as things become strained as the film goes on. Pesci, normally known for his wild, unpredictable and maybe a little crazy criminal characters plays against type as a very calm and, for the mafia, reasonable man. However, it’s Pacino who I think gives the best performance. Hoffa is a man surrounded by criminals, murderers even, and never bats an eyelid. He will argue with them, he will insult them, he’ll get in fistfights with them. He’s a larger than life character and you can see how he ended up union president.

Outside of those three roles, the cast is still full of diamonds. Actors like Bobby Cannavale, Stephen Graham, Jesse Plemons, Anna Paquin, Harvey Keitel and Ray Romano taking on small roles. I was convinced that Plemons was going to go through the movie and not actually have a line. Paquin, and indeed the child actors who play her characters, are excellent and act almost like the conscience of the film, judging the bad people around her, including her father Frank Sheeran. At one point Paquin says a single word that seems to break Sheeran.

Historical Note – Jimmy Hoffa & The Teamsters Union

Jimmy Hoffa was a very famous person in America, and in many ways still is, and I don’t think there will be a person in America who doesn’t already know where the story is heading and Scorsese made this film knowing that. I only knew of Hoffa from references to him in American film and TV but didn’t really understand who he was or what happened to him. After all, union bosses don’t tend to be that famous. Again, I’ve heard of “teamsters” but didn’t really know what that was but it’s enough to say this was the largest union in America at the time, giving Hoffa an incredible amount of power and influence, and in looking after their pension fund, access to literally billions of dollars. My perhaps controversial opinion is you look Hoffa up on Wikipedia before you watch the film.

He Looks Good For His Age

The film shows these characters at various stages of their life Scorsese employed some clever de-ageing special effects which I thought were flawless.

Does It Work?

My expectations for The Irishman were very high, not only is Scorsese one of my favourite directors many of the early reviews were saying that was his best film in a long time. Personally I would put this in the second-tier of Scorsese films, with Gangs of New York and The Departed, it’s great but not quite up there with his best. Let’s be clear, it’s a great film, it’s three and a half hours long and keeps you engaged throughout, the acting is all first-rate and is full of brilliant little flourishes – one scene of a person having to psych themselves up to start their car as they were worried it might explode was one such moment. But I was a little disappointed and perhaps thought it was a mistake for Scorsese to return to territory he has already thoroughly explored. I am a big fan of Wolf of Wall Street and see it as a kind of Goodfellas for a different sort of crime and was a good move for him and I think maybe another gangster film wasn’t the best use of Scorsese’s time and talent.

That said if this was a film by virtually any other director I would only be singing it’s praises and really the only problem is it’s Martin Scorsese so you’re hoping for a masterpiece.

Even before this film, the debate about are Netflix films proper films was surely settled and this just adds to the argument that they are. They’ve made everything from Oscar-winning drama like Roma to fantasy special effects-laden frippery like Bright, not everything is gold but the same is true for every studio.

Rating: (4 / 5)

Also Read: For Your Consideration: Sci-Fi, Comedy & Oscar Snubs

The post Review: The Irishman appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

From party clown to murderer

Welcome to Gotham City in the ’70s. It’s a time during which a massive economic and political crisis is threating the city, that’s crumbling down completely. Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is one of the people who have to endure those uncertain times. He’s having mental health problems, a cigarette addiction and when his social worker won’t give him medication, life becomes even worse. His job as a clown and his ambition to become a stand-up comedian bring a little bit more laughter to his life. Most of the time way too much laughter as Fleck has to deal with his uncontrollable laughter decease. Despite his troubled and dark life, he’s trying to give his mother (Frances Conroy), with who he lives together, the best life possible. He’s cooking her food and watching her favourite show “The Murray Franklin show” together.

His life gets even darker when he is fired from his job and when his comedy act isn’t working. When people are making more and more fun of his incurable decease, something in Fleck’s mind snaps. Ready to take revenge on those who mock him and those who neglected him when he and his mother needed them the most (such as Thomas Wayne). What happens when his anger, frustration, and vengeful feelings are being enhanced by the troubled society? Well, then Fleck becomes the Joker!

Give the man an Oscar

You probably have seen joker in multiple shapes (Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger,…) and many different films (Batman, The Dark Knight,…) but no one or no film comes as close as the real thing as this one by Phillips.

The main reason is without a doubt the stunning performance from Phoenix (Walk the Line, You Were Never Really Here). Having to portray a broken, confused, desperate but also vindictive, violent and determined man must have been extremely hard to do. Phoenix pulls it off extraordinarily. He’s shy, reserved and insecure as the comedian but strong, violent and reckless as the Joker. We can still hear his hard and cruel laugh. By the end of the film, he made us feel confused, uncomfortable and astonished, all in a good way though. We certainly need to applaud Phoenix’s stunning psychical transformation.

While Phoenix does rise above everyone else, this is not a one-man show. As the entertaining, suave and typical talk show host, we see captivating and intriguing Robert De Niro (The Irishman, Silver Linings Playbook). It might not be his best work but the last scene with Phoenix makes up for that big time. That talk and everything around it shows the best of the best of both actors and will leave you breathless way after the film ended.

The motherly emotions are being brought to life by the great and captivating Conroy (American Horror Story (TV series), Mountain Rest) as the sad, confused and naïve Penny. More wonderful supporting performances come from Brett Cullen (Ghost Rider, The Dark Knight Rises) as the egocentric, powerful and forceful politician Thomas Wayne and from the fine and delighted Zazie Beetz (Lucy in the Sky, Deadpool) as Fleck’s neighbour who’s a little spark of light in his life.

More than just a comic

While watching Joker, you might even forget that this movie is based on the DC Comic characters. Phillips made such an immensely mature movie. Instead of focussing on the superhero side, Joker becomes a psychological study of a damaged and mentally ill man. Phillips wasn’t only able to create this via the brilliant acting performances but also via the impressive cinematography from Lawrence Sher (The Hangover, Godzilla: King of the Monsters) and the bombastic music from Hildur Guðnadóttir (Chernobyl (TV series), Sicario: Day of the Soldado).

Phillips and Sher already worked together during The Hangover films and their partnership is again spot on. While Phillips brings the Joker story to life by work, Sher does it with dark, enigmatic and mysterious images. Images of which you ask whether they’re happening or whether they’re just Fleck’s imagination. That very last scene is really the highlight of their corporation. If you add the grandiose, over-the-top and disturbing musical score from Guðnadóttir to it, you feel the gloomy, dark and disturbing vibe coming out of the (IMAX) screen instantly.

Who’s laughing now?

Well, pretty sure it’s director Phillips. Since the world premiere during the Toronto Film Festival, both critics and audiences fell in love with Joker. Not so hard to guess why. This brilliantly made, perfectly performed and spot-on dark character study will blow you away big time.

Rating: (4.5 / 5)

Also Read: Joke’s On You: The History of Batman’s Arch-Nemesis

The post Review: Joker appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.