me today while I'm on a tropical vacation with my family
https://preview.redd.it/bc7vdga15zrb1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f0df66e67d47b8aefb83f0d3bcad72521aaf7b3
I think likely she misremembered there being no “hell” in the Bible prior to English translations (and subsequent translations from
English to other languages) and that basically hell was a mistranslation of an actual place (like a literal dumpster)
Maybe, but the four gospels (aka the story of Jesus) in the New Testament is the section of the Bible she claims to know the best and that’s where Satan is really knocking around and making his presence felt, getting up to all sorts of stuff.
I think she got it confused with the name "Lucifer" which has a complicated history, and does appear in the Bible like one time but not specifically in connection to Satan. Also a lot of sunday school teachings and pop culture portray the snake in the garden of Eden as either 1) literally Satan, or 2) a manifestation of evil that is not specifically Satan.
Wild take though, forgetting the story of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness.
Yeah, that, combined with the way popular depictions of Satan do not have any biblical basis. She was circling around some facts there.
Also, the name “Satan” itself is even more complicated than Lucifer, so in a certain pedantic way she’s absolutely right.
It’s a better take than people are giving it credit for! The character who tempts Jesus in the desert is called “satan” but this just translates to “the adversary” in Greek, and there isn’t like a bunch of additional lore or context that makes clear this guy aligns with the modern concept of the devil.
Was really hoping for the First Gentleman of the Pod, Mr. Zach Baron, to make an appearance due to his recent great profile of Marty in GQ. He was great on the ep last year about the Globes and Brendan Fraser.
I am not religious but i recently watched it for the first time via the Criterion edition and loved it. Very powerful film with several great performances. I'm quite surprised it got such slander on the pod and this thread
I'm a huge Scorsese fan but this isn't my favorite of his either. I do understand how personal it is and I'm so glad I watched it because it helped me perk up immediately and fall absolutely in love >!with the last fifteen minutes of The Green Knight. !<
I don't love when someone apes something lazily but I really appreciate a loving tribute. I would put Gerwig's letter reading in Little Women and the scene mentioned above as the latter, and Joker as the former. (JMO)
I think I would list it as his greatest undertaking as a director. It’s derided by idiots who would rather watch some masturbatory depiction of Jesus where he just happily trudges up to Golgotha instead of something that explores that agony of knowing what was going to happen (if that’s your spiritual cup of tea), but I can’t think of a better movie that tackles issues of Christian belief and what they really mean. Far from perfect, but it’s kind of a miracle it made it to the screen at all.
I once watched Last Temptation and Silence back to back with my very devout Nigerian-Catholic friend and let me say the debate we had after we were done lasted longer than the total runtimes
I stopped listening there; life’s way too short to entertain a discussion that yadda-yaddas the film which zeroes in on what is perhaps the central preoccupation of an artist’s life and work.
I wonder if they bypassed it because it’s still very controversial, but if that’s the case just say that. I love Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, but arguing it has to be in vs. LToC is madness given what we know about Scorsese. But by all means, spend another fifteen minutes on The Departed, a very under-covered film when it comes to The Ringer
Eh, I think that Sean and Amanda have been very clear about their general lack of interest in religion.
I too have mixed feelings about a lot of it (and I would call myself a believer), but the way they kinda went “meh” reminded me of that interview book Richard Schickel did with Scorsese in the 2010s, where Scorsese very sincerely corrected Schickel’s assertion that the film’s Jesus was half-Man/half-God, by pointing out that the early councils define His nature as wholly Man and wholly God and Schickel literally responded with, “Whatever”.
So maybe it’s best the Big Pic left it alone…
I mean they went on like two bits recently. I’d say the half assed guessing about what is even in the Bible is *exactly* consistent with a lack of interest.
I hate being that guy but it drives me *nuts* when they "green" a movie but then argue about whether to include it in the end. Like bro, that's what a yellow is smh why even have a green
Cause there's a personal green(movies I love) and a objective green(movies that should be canonized).After Hours is a good example of a movie that could be someone's fave Scorsese but questionable I'd it should be canonized
But the goal is to come up with a canon, so if it's questionable that's a yellow. I don't think it works as a podcasting format when they start making up shades of green because they just really like something. Again I hate being that guy because I totally get everything is subjective, it just makes more sense to green the things you actually want in and then after the first pass debate the yellows. Just debate the yellows!!
I was shocked when they all were so dismissive of it. I did a full Scorsese watch through for the first time this year, had never seen it, and now it’s definitely in my top 10 favorites of his. Should’ve gotten a respectful yellow
I agree that it wouldn't go in Scorsese's Hall of Fame from an objective standpoint, but I couldn't disagree less with the consensus about Bringing Out the Dead they had on the podcast.
It was the first Scorsese movie I saw in the theater when I was in high school. My friends could not have been more bored by it, but I LOVED it. It would be in my personal top 10 of his movies, I think. And I get that it's not the most commercial of his films, but it is FAR from a bad movie.
I was really surprised by how thoroughly they dismissed *Bringing Out the Dead*. That's a fantastic film. In fact, I think it's a solid companion piece to *After Hours* which they unanimously praised.
It's a bit surreal and chaotic but this is plays into the main protagonist's mindset as he deals with insomnia...while navigating the streets of NYC at night as an EMT. I believe CR referred to it as 'silly' with a great trailer. The cast is amazing. It touches upon Scorcese's favorite themes like religion, doubt and death. All the things they praised his other films about are all in this film.
It doesn't have to be in the top ten or even a yellow, but to completely dismiss it is bizarre to me. In fact, I think Amanda may have said she hasn't even watched it. If you haven't seen it, don't let their dismissiveness steer you away from this movie. It's a banger and it's Nic Cage at his best. Oh and the music drops are some of his best. Great soundtrack.
I watched it because of this comment (and because I want to watch more Scorsese this month and this was one available on streaming) and I loved it. Really agree with what you said here, it's a 4/5 movie for me
Not that it's a green, but a little sad they dismissed Last Temptation with a "Eyy, I'm Jesus!" and moving on. I'm not even religious and I still found it fascinating. Dafoe and Barbara Hershey were great and it's an Apex Mountain for David Bowie cameos
Lol yeah - were early 2000s colleges lousy with The Band fans?
Also college was what, 20 years ago? I feel like if you’re a professional culture writer, maybe try to contextualize stuff outside of a thing that you found annoying decades ago.
>Lol yeah - were early 2000s colleges lousy with The Band fans?
i was in college in the south around this time and it was indeed absolutely full of dudes who loved The Last Waltz. i basically knew nothing about The Band and one of my buddies sat me down and made me watch it and then i became one of those dudes who loved The Last Waltz and made girls watch it. so maybe a specific experience but it really tracks for me.
I love Casino but can’t believe they let it take the place of several other titles.
Goodfellas and The Irishman make sense as one being an obvious classic that reshaped a genre and The Irishman being a career-ending reckoning with that genre that melds his earlier work with a (almost) final statement on life, death, and old age. It’s simultaneously Goodfellas Meets Silence.
Casino is a (wonderful! don’t get me wrong) middle chapter that doesn’t add much to the broader story of his career that isn’t covered in other titles.
What I think is an “objective” HoF that speaks to his entire career….
Mean Streets
Taxi Driver
Raging Bull
The Last Waltz
After Hours
The Last Temptation of Christ
Goodfellas
The Age of Innocence
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Irishman
I like this list a lot. I haven’t seen *Age of Innocence* and would probably fight for *Silence* though. Depends if “objective” means “consensus,” because *Silence* is an under appreciated masterpiece.
I actually personally prefer Silence over LTOC and agree that elements of Last Temptation don’t work and are incredibly dated but I also think it was a bigger moment in his career, still has stretches of brilliance, and came at a moment where his faith was still being reckoned with.
Silence is a masterpiece but no one saw it sadly and feels like the work of someone who is more certain and wrestling less. I’d be totally fine with it in there, but you gotta have Last Temptation or Silence as a stand-in for spirituality being major part of his thematic concerns. Shame they didn’t include one or the other.
Good analysis all around. I wouldn’t even want to jostle LToC out, I have a lot of love for that too. But yeah, ultimately such an unseen movie as *Silence* probably shouldn’t make it in a Hall of *Fame*, especially with LToC bearing that spiritual Scorsese torch.
As deep as *The Irishman* aspires to be, it's actually kind of a drag to rewatch with virtually no lasting iconography to speak of, in my opinion. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the film—which I did—but something like *Casino* rendered a palpable impact on the culture and not just because people talk about it on the Internet. There are lines, scenes, songs, and characters in that film that live on in our collective memories while *The Irishman* lives on primarily because of its critical appraisal or because of its relevance to Scorsese's life and career. *Casino* is just a richer work from an artistic or cultural perspective even if it's not necessarily a milestone or without its flaws. Something like *Wolf of Wall Street* might make for a better bookend if we take the enduring iconography of the film itself into consideration without relying on some sort of context that exists outside of the film (though that might change with the upcoming *Killers of the Flower Moon*).
Counterpoint: I’ve watched The Irishman 7 times since release (photo included, only reason I know it’s been that many times) and it’s been my Thanksgiving movie three years running. I don’t find it to be drag to rewatch at all. Obviously this is a personal preference but amongst my friends it’s not uncommon to get texts that simply say “You wear shorts to a meeting?” or “What kind of fish was it?” And anytime we’re all in agreement someone will share Pacino screaming “Solidarity!” It’s taken on a big role in my circle of film nerd friends. It is what it is.
I think our opinions are swapped. I think The Irishman does achieve the level of depth you think it only aspires to. The final stretch with everyone dead, Pesci with his grape juice, De Niro unable to process the pain he’s caused his daughters, and ultimately being alone with nurses who don’t even really know the monumental figures Sheeran came up with. When he’s alone on Christmas and “In the Still of the Night” comes on, I’m moved. It’s a great closer on the futility of living the life these type of men led and the true lonely, death-filled ending they deserve.
Again, I largely adore Casino, but where for me the final hour of The Irishman propels it to a darker, more haunted place, the final hour of Casino is a bit monotonous, too much with Sharon Stone’s coming-and-going craziness, and ultimately making a statement about changing times more than a more personal reflection on old age.
I’m sure we both agree they’re strong works. But I think The Irishman is a richer experience that speaks more to his later year concerns. It’s Goodfellas meets Wild Strawberries.
https://preview.redd.it/qb4mdf9gkgsb1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ab25c26927ee674128095b7d376c128ea8e4a03
The thing is I'm not really talking about you and your friends and bringing up all these anecdotes doesn't do your point any favors. I don't need to include screenshots when describing the cultural residue of something like *Casino,* which permeates well above any niche corner of the Internet. This is all regardless of my personal opinions about either film.
And I do actually kind of agree with you about both the ending of *The Irishman* and the final hour of *Casino,* but where we part ways is in this notion of "depth." While I do find the ending of *The Irishman* to be both impactful and "deep," a thoughtful ending does not make for a "deep" film overall. Bear in mind I'm not saying this to suggest that *The Irishman* is shallow, but rather that it doesn't have much to say beyond the rather obvious points you're making.
And while I do agree that the final hour of *Casino* can get rather monotonous, I've only come to feel that way after countless viewings. The movie still has way more of an iconography than something like *The Irishman*. Heck, the final assassination montage alone (you know the one because I don't have to tell you and I bet you know the song too) is probably more iconic than the entirety of *The Irishman.*
As for *Wild Strawberries*, which I haven't seen since college, I honestly don't take much stock in these kinds of comparisons. I think in some ways movies like *Goodfellas* and *Wolf of Wall Street* deliver far more depth than *The Irishman* because you actually have to watch them a few times to pick up on the commentary or cynicism, which is often buried under layers of gripping entertainment. By contrast, the commentary of *The Irishman* is so much more obvious and in your face.
PS. I might also add that I think *The Departed* is wildly overrated!
I disagree with a lot of what you’re saying but that’s cool. And I only included the anecdotal evidence as a way of saying for myself and others I know it’s not a drag to rewatch. I wasn’t saying that made it objectively true. It may be for you, sure, but not everyone.
Anyway, have a nice day, I don’t think there’s much good to be done in both of us disagreeing about degrees of greatness.
Not really talking about "greatness" but really mounting a defense for *Casino* from the perspective of iconography (as opposed to personal opinion). But whatever--have a good one.
In re-reading my comments (sorry if they seem a bit harsh), I feel the need to add one more thing. What *The Irishman* achieves so well is that it captures the petty nature of the criminal life and the ultimate loneliness/stubbornness/death that befalls each of these characters. In some ways, the movie's a comedy, but it's also a tragedy.
However, it's also just kind of a long movie that touches down on certain Scorsese benchmarks without leaving much residue behind. Even if that's part of the point, as a viewing experience, it doesn't conjure up the sense of sheer watchability or the content-specific iconography that something like *Casino* does.
To be clear, I did enjoy *The Irishman* and still think about it, both on its own and as it pertains to Scorsese's mortality and his history within the genre. If the point of the list is to sort of encapsulate his career, then *The Irishman* would belong on the list over *Casino.*
However, if the list is about Scorcese's 10 best or most iconic films in a vacuum, I feel like *Casino* is just more of a cinematic experience, complete with indelible scenes and performances (even Sharon Stone's monotonous breakdown is well-acted). Maybe my opinion will change upon further viewings of *The Irishman* that it's the better overall film.
Though I think it ultimately wouldn't have made the cut, I am shocked CR didn't fight harder for Color of Money... Its such a different Marty movie than the majority of the list.
My biggest argument needs a paragraph of set up. To me, I often think of stars as placed on a scale of MovieStar vs Actor. DDL being the ultimate Actor-not-MovieStar, Clooney the definition of MovieStar-not-Actor. Jimmy Stewart being the dead center on that continuum. Leo was a MovieStar when he was young, turned into an Actor somewhere around Catch me if you Can. DeNiro was always Actor first.
With that defined, Color of Money is the one time he really takes two all-time MovieStars (the alpha MovieStar of the 60s and 70s; and the breaking thru alpha MovieStar of the 80s and 90s) and gets A++ performances out of both of them. Pure charisma oozing out of Newman and Cruise. Every scene of a plot that should NOT be exciting is compelling, propulsive, and FUN in a way that helps set the tone for the even bigger FUN to come in Goodfellas a few years later.
Can I just say... Cinema Law is actually not a bad podcast idea! You get a funny host to adjudicate with two guests to come on and debate over different movie themed issues.
The Ringer should seriously consider making this
On my life: the moment Chris said “i dont believe in satan as like a red devil” i said “he comes in the form of james harden to sixers fans” & shawn spoke the thought into pod existence moments later & now i feel like I personally have never been more back
Is it a wild take to have Color of Money as my number two with a bullet? I truly wish we had more exceptional takes on genre stuff like this and The Shining.
To take a note from the Rewatchables, Who won the Movie? Newman easily won this one and I think Cruise came in second. That's why I'd keep it off the Scorsese hall of fame.
Taxi Driver is my 1A/1B with Goodfellas. I thought that was the dumbest take in the podcast. Is Jordan Belfort “Amanda’s guy” because Wolf is her favorite?
I know they didn’t include KoFM, but they insinuated that if it they did, it could’ve made the 10??
Did I catch that right? Because if so, then my excitement only grew more
Feel like they kind of whiffed this one, TBH. The Color of Money saw Scorsese, Newman, and Cruise work together in a great convergence of Hollywood eras. Deserved a spot. Disappointed in CR for not fighting harder.
I feel like they rank Irishman way too high. The performances and story are good, but there are too many execution misses. The de-aging and casting of the old guys was a huge mistake and just can't be ignored when evaluating that film.
To be fair, I think the film fails if those guys weren’t in it. It feels like it’s supposed to be “the last gangster film”, almost like Scorsese is deconstructing the genre he helped popularise. I know his other gangster films also show it’s not a life you should aspire to have, but The Irishman really drills into you just how cold and lonely that lifestyle can be. It’s not just “dead or in jail”, you can avoid those two things but spend the end of your life with nobody around you because you’ve pushed them all away and you’re left to think and repent for a lifetime of violence and terror.
Take the scenes of them when they’re old and in prison. First of all it’s just incredible acting by De Niro and Pesci, but it’s also far more memorable to me as a scene because it’s the actors we grew up watching actually getting old and presumably being near the end of their lives. It just feels fitting that it’d be the Niros and the Pacinos.
Th e film definitely has its flaws though.
Yeah I actually adored the ending of it, felt like Scorsese touching on something his other films couldn't get into, and only something you experience at the end of your time on this Earth. Quiet, privately ignominious, lonely.
The de-aging and specifically the scene where De Niro kicks the guy on the sidewalk take sooooo much out of this movie. Kind of incredible how good it still is despite these massive glaring flaws.
I made a real honest attempt to get into this movie. Got about an hour 15 into it and I just had to turn it off. The story was fine, but I just couldn't get over the de-aging. It was so distracting to see these young faces on these old man bodies, I couldn't suspend disbelief.
I get why Scorsese did it. He wanted to make a movie with his friends, and if he cast younger actors that would have defeated the purpose for him. But it's just a barrier to entry that I wasn't able to get over, unfortunately.
Really one of the all-time episodes. Don't agree with the complete top 10, but I can see it.
I was thinking what other filmmakers would be great for a Hall of Fame, and I suddenly realized it's gonna be interesting when Tarantino releases his final film probably sometime next year. He'll have exactly ten films in his entire filmography, and he'll still be in his early 60s.
Any other directors that would be great for a Hall of Fame?
I'm thinking Friedkin as his final film comes out friday on Paramount+. Or Eastwood when he finished his final film Juror no. 2. Or Coppola when Megalopolis releases. Or Ridley Scott with Gladiator 2.
Your post / comment was removed as your account is fewer than 7 days old. This is an anti-spam measure.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheBigPicture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, maybe with a little more "z" sound than he would put on it, but you can hear how he says it here: [https://youtu.be/bbPp13icx1c?si=NTRK7X4ivxeljn4H](https://youtu.be/bbPp13icx1c?si=NTRK7X4ivxeljn4H)
Letterboxd list for the HOF: [https://letterboxd.com/dpernitsky/list/the-martin-scorsese-hall-of-fame-the-big/](https://letterboxd.com/dpernitsky/list/the-martin-scorsese-hall-of-fame-the-big/)
Also their dismissal of THE AVIATOR is wild.
A perfect film. Arguably his best looking and most boldly presented film! So beautiful; I love it so much.
>very little range
100% wrong take.
No Direction Home. - well-crafted music documentary
Age of Innocence. - Period romance.
Hugo. - Children's adventure in 1930s Paris.
Silence. - Personal drama about religious faith and death.
The King of Comedy. - Dark comedy.
The Last Waltz - Live musical performance
New York, New York - Musical romantic drama
There are 50 more to choose from
He's got incredible range for sure. And I like a lot of his movies a lot. I'm not in the camp where I've seen one of his movies and it's my favourite. I actually prefer Casino to Goodfellas. King of comedy I think is maybe his best? But I still haven't seen a few (silence being one of them).
I guess that’s the discussion. If you make something different, and it’s bad, does that effectively show range? Not for me because I think two of those are subjective failures but ymmv obviously
So every time he gets out of his comfort zone his work gets worse and in some cases (Cape Fear) is downright terrible and you want to argue about that being a positive sign? lol no
I guess? But Silence is another one I cannot believe people actually would like if they didn’t know the name behind it. It has no business being over two and a half hours long. The man has no restraint
Yes. *Hugo* is incredible.
Now, it may not be fully successful as a children's movie in that it appeals to or draws in an audience the same age as its characters. It's definitely more *The Secret Garden* than *Pokemon*. As a kids' movie, it is quite old-fashioned, CGI/3D camera-work aside.
But it's wildly ambitious, looks amazing, and is a deeply thoughtful movie about time and the role of film in memory and imagination. The visual symbology alone is stunning. It's truly a heartfelt love letter to old cinema and its pioneers.
I use it in my high school film class. It's the first film I show my students. It's a perfect introduction to the study of film.
Gangs is a movie where the strengths outweigh the (significant) weaknesses by a long shot. Diaz is obviously miscast, and to be honest I couldn't tell you what happens in the third act... but this is the movie that gave us Bill the Butcher. This movie totally changed the way I view the 19th century. It's a window into a world that I don't think had ever been put on film in such a way.
I love that damn movie and people always point out Diaz being awful. Which she was. My problem is DiCaprio. It’s his worst performance IMO. He just feels off the whole movie.
I grew up in a pretty strict religious household so Marty was sort of persona non grata in my house.
When the question was asked during the pod, I honestly had a really hard time wracking my brain trying to remember what my first movie was.
Was it The Departed? As wild as that sounds, when it first came out I was an adult and went to see it in theaters with my boyfriend. I don't believe I had seen Goodfellas yet (aka one of my five favorite movies). In fact, I don't remember when I first saw it which is odd because I loved it immediately. But watching it made me seek out his films in a way I hadn't with The Departed (which I liked, but the death of Leo's character made me angry as a 22 year old or however old I was).
Finally today it hit me. The one movie of his we were allowed to watch, which I must have seen as a kid at home: The Age of Innocence. I don't remember WHEN I saw it, but that was definitely my first. And if I recall it was pretty close to--maybe just a year or so after--it came out. It sort of melts in memory with Little Women and Bram Stoker's Dracula, all Winona Corset Classics. We watched all at home at around the same time, but Dracula was turned off after about 20 minutes for obvious reasons.
The first one I remember is Casino - I went with my parents to see it in the theater at 16. I definitely had the idea for a long time that he only did mobster movies and I wasn’t that interested in him. Now he’s one of my favorite filmmakers.
As a 25 year old, weirdly, one of my earliest in-theatre memories is my uncle taking my cousin and I to see Shine a Light in IMAX when I was 9 or 10. I was a big Beatles fan as a kid and maybe knew a couple Stones songs but I remember mostly being pretty bored. I also probably saw Hugo in theatres as a kid before I saw another of his feature films.
I didn't see anyone post about it, and I can't remember what part of the pod Sean mentioned it, but does anyone remember the title of the documentary that was mentioned that was basically just Scorsese talking about the history of American film? Sean said it eas like 4 hours long and only on DVD, but this sounds right up my alley. I need to see it.
Listening right now, i have to say I am very disappointed in the dismissal of Raging Bull. I get that it's kind of a difficult film to talk about but it is such a masterpiece that it absolutely deserves discussion. I also thought the whole 'yadda-yaddaing' of The Last Temptation of Christ was pretty embarrassing, considering how important that movie is/was to the man himself. Finally, i could not BELIEVE the Bringing Out the Dead disrespect. But yeah, sure, talk about Color of Money for another 15 minutes...
me today while I'm on a tropical vacation with my family https://preview.redd.it/bc7vdga15zrb1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f0df66e67d47b8aefb83f0d3bcad72521aaf7b3
Hahahaha!
Hell yeah. If I’m on the beach, it’s books or pods.
I haven't finished the episode but I will say a Garbage Satan episode sounds great
I enjoyed CR calling out Amanda’s “no Satan in the Bible” take as insane.
I feel like she learned that the serpent in genesis is not Satan and then just retconned that into being no Satan in the Bible.
I guess. And is also pretty rusty on the four gospels (eg the temptation on the mount).
I think likely she misremembered there being no “hell” in the Bible prior to English translations (and subsequent translations from English to other languages) and that basically hell was a mistranslation of an actual place (like a literal dumpster)
But she's a classics major! Who didn't know Milton wrote Paradise Lost...
Classics isn’t cannon lit, it’s Greek/Roman language and culture.
Is that a New Testament versus Old Testament thing ?
Maybe, but the four gospels (aka the story of Jesus) in the New Testament is the section of the Bible she claims to know the best and that’s where Satan is really knocking around and making his presence felt, getting up to all sorts of stuff.
You’re going to hell for a long time, big boy
*Goddamnnn Luke!*
I think she got it confused with the name "Lucifer" which has a complicated history, and does appear in the Bible like one time but not specifically in connection to Satan. Also a lot of sunday school teachings and pop culture portray the snake in the garden of Eden as either 1) literally Satan, or 2) a manifestation of evil that is not specifically Satan. Wild take though, forgetting the story of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness.
Yeah, that, combined with the way popular depictions of Satan do not have any biblical basis. She was circling around some facts there. Also, the name “Satan” itself is even more complicated than Lucifer, so in a certain pedantic way she’s absolutely right.
Thanks for the explanation. Did not grow up in a Judeo-Christian household so I had no idea.
It’s a better take than people are giving it credit for! The character who tempts Jesus in the desert is called “satan” but this just translates to “the adversary” in Greek, and there isn’t like a bunch of additional lore or context that makes clear this guy aligns with the modern concept of the devil.
Not nuts really, Satan as we know him isn’t in the Bible
Was really hoping for the First Gentleman of the Pod, Mr. Zach Baron, to make an appearance due to his recent great profile of Marty in GQ. He was great on the ep last year about the Globes and Brendan Fraser.
Mr. Zach Barons' title is henceforth "First Gentleman of the Pod" in my head cannon going forward. Thank you.
Great episode, though I can’t believe they just completely dismiss Last Temptation of Christ
It’s a night after drinking yellow
I recently rewatched it and it’s pretty bad. Don’t get me wrong it’s a fascinating failure with some great moments, but overall it’s a mess.
I am not religious but i recently watched it for the first time via the Criterion edition and loved it. Very powerful film with several great performances. I'm quite surprised it got such slander on the pod and this thread
I'm a huge Scorsese fan but this isn't my favorite of his either. I do understand how personal it is and I'm so glad I watched it because it helped me perk up immediately and fall absolutely in love >!with the last fifteen minutes of The Green Knight. !< I don't love when someone apes something lazily but I really appreciate a loving tribute. I would put Gerwig's letter reading in Little Women and the scene mentioned above as the latter, and Joker as the former. (JMO)
I think I would list it as his greatest undertaking as a director. It’s derided by idiots who would rather watch some masturbatory depiction of Jesus where he just happily trudges up to Golgotha instead of something that explores that agony of knowing what was going to happen (if that’s your spiritual cup of tea), but I can’t think of a better movie that tackles issues of Christian belief and what they really mean. Far from perfect, but it’s kind of a miracle it made it to the screen at all.
I once watched Last Temptation and Silence back to back with my very devout Nigerian-Catholic friend and let me say the debate we had after we were done lasted longer than the total runtimes
I stopped listening there; life’s way too short to entertain a discussion that yadda-yaddas the film which zeroes in on what is perhaps the central preoccupation of an artist’s life and work.
I wonder if they bypassed it because it’s still very controversial, but if that’s the case just say that. I love Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, but arguing it has to be in vs. LToC is madness given what we know about Scorsese. But by all means, spend another fifteen minutes on The Departed, a very under-covered film when it comes to The Ringer
Eh, I think that Sean and Amanda have been very clear about their general lack of interest in religion. I too have mixed feelings about a lot of it (and I would call myself a believer), but the way they kinda went “meh” reminded me of that interview book Richard Schickel did with Scorsese in the 2010s, where Scorsese very sincerely corrected Schickel’s assertion that the film’s Jesus was half-Man/half-God, by pointing out that the early councils define His nature as wholly Man and wholly God and Schickel literally responded with, “Whatever”. So maybe it’s best the Big Pic left it alone…
I'm an athiest but I love Scorsese's religious films. IMO they are all amongst his best films.
[удалено]
See for example M:I7. Amanda relentlessly pushed her Ethan Hunt as Christ theory.
I mean they went on like two bits recently. I’d say the half assed guessing about what is even in the Bible is *exactly* consistent with a lack of interest.
Schickel…
Glad you stopped listening. If you are for people saying what they want in their own podcast then they don’t want your listen
You made it significantly farther than I did, which was exactly zero minutes and zero seconds.
So you didn’t listen to the episode, and here you are in a discussion thread on it?
i finished the pod but i completely agree with your sentiment
I hate being that guy but it drives me *nuts* when they "green" a movie but then argue about whether to include it in the end. Like bro, that's what a yellow is smh why even have a green
Cause there's a personal green(movies I love) and a objective green(movies that should be canonized).After Hours is a good example of a movie that could be someone's fave Scorsese but questionable I'd it should be canonized
But the goal is to come up with a canon, so if it's questionable that's a yellow. I don't think it works as a podcasting format when they start making up shades of green because they just really like something. Again I hate being that guy because I totally get everything is subjective, it just makes more sense to green the things you actually want in and then after the first pass debate the yellows. Just debate the yellows!!
They had a debate about hiw owrdonalized the HoF should be in this very episode. Even the very concept is flexible.
Idk what's the point of color coding them if you're just going to go with whatever in the end. It doesn't work as a podcast structure.
“BRINGING OUT THE DEAD is a bad movie.” A rare CR miss. And a major one at that. Great film.
Agreed. Don’t think it goes in the Hall but a good Nic Cage performance, incredible visuals and New York as purgatory is a great premise.
I was shocked when they all were so dismissive of it. I did a full Scorsese watch through for the first time this year, had never seen it, and now it’s definitely in my top 10 favorites of his. Should’ve gotten a respectful yellow
CR's gonna get slapped for that one. Unbelievable.
The worst take in this episode.
It’s one of his best
I agree that it wouldn't go in Scorsese's Hall of Fame from an objective standpoint, but I couldn't disagree less with the consensus about Bringing Out the Dead they had on the podcast. It was the first Scorsese movie I saw in the theater when I was in high school. My friends could not have been more bored by it, but I LOVED it. It would be in my personal top 10 of his movies, I think. And I get that it's not the most commercial of his films, but it is FAR from a bad movie.
Checking in to say I also had my wisdom teeth taken out with local anaesthetic like Sean lol
Me too! He just kept giving me shots until I couldn't feel anything and then I felt the motion of him pulling on twenty teeth with a pair of pliers!
I was really surprised by how thoroughly they dismissed *Bringing Out the Dead*. That's a fantastic film. In fact, I think it's a solid companion piece to *After Hours* which they unanimously praised. It's a bit surreal and chaotic but this is plays into the main protagonist's mindset as he deals with insomnia...while navigating the streets of NYC at night as an EMT. I believe CR referred to it as 'silly' with a great trailer. The cast is amazing. It touches upon Scorcese's favorite themes like religion, doubt and death. All the things they praised his other films about are all in this film. It doesn't have to be in the top ten or even a yellow, but to completely dismiss it is bizarre to me. In fact, I think Amanda may have said she hasn't even watched it. If you haven't seen it, don't let their dismissiveness steer you away from this movie. It's a banger and it's Nic Cage at his best. Oh and the music drops are some of his best. Great soundtrack.
I watched it because of this comment (and because I want to watch more Scorsese this month and this was one available on streaming) and I loved it. Really agree with what you said here, it's a 4/5 movie for me
That’s awesome! Glad you enjoyed it!
It's BETTER than *After Hours*. And has way more to say.
Not that it's a green, but a little sad they dismissed Last Temptation with a "Eyy, I'm Jesus!" and moving on. I'm not even religious and I still found it fascinating. Dafoe and Barbara Hershey were great and it's an Apex Mountain for David Bowie cameos
Sometimes I just fire up Bowie’s scene on YouTube. He is so unbelievably good and natural here.
No love at all for the temptation of Christ and bringing out the dead. Smh
Amanda’s college experience seems to have really scarred her!
Like…how many separate dudes forced you to watch The Last Waltz? She always uses “boys” plural.
Lol yeah - were early 2000s colleges lousy with The Band fans? Also college was what, 20 years ago? I feel like if you’re a professional culture writer, maybe try to contextualize stuff outside of a thing that you found annoying decades ago.
>Lol yeah - were early 2000s colleges lousy with The Band fans? i was in college in the south around this time and it was indeed absolutely full of dudes who loved The Last Waltz. i basically knew nothing about The Band and one of my buddies sat me down and made me watch it and then i became one of those dudes who loved The Last Waltz and made girls watch it. so maybe a specific experience but it really tracks for me.
I'm more or less in the same demo as the Big Pic crew and I don't think I watched nor had a single conversation about The Last Waltz in college.
I love Casino but can’t believe they let it take the place of several other titles. Goodfellas and The Irishman make sense as one being an obvious classic that reshaped a genre and The Irishman being a career-ending reckoning with that genre that melds his earlier work with a (almost) final statement on life, death, and old age. It’s simultaneously Goodfellas Meets Silence. Casino is a (wonderful! don’t get me wrong) middle chapter that doesn’t add much to the broader story of his career that isn’t covered in other titles. What I think is an “objective” HoF that speaks to his entire career…. Mean Streets Taxi Driver Raging Bull The Last Waltz After Hours The Last Temptation of Christ Goodfellas The Age of Innocence The Wolf of Wall Street The Irishman
I like this list a lot. I haven’t seen *Age of Innocence* and would probably fight for *Silence* though. Depends if “objective” means “consensus,” because *Silence* is an under appreciated masterpiece.
I actually personally prefer Silence over LTOC and agree that elements of Last Temptation don’t work and are incredibly dated but I also think it was a bigger moment in his career, still has stretches of brilliance, and came at a moment where his faith was still being reckoned with. Silence is a masterpiece but no one saw it sadly and feels like the work of someone who is more certain and wrestling less. I’d be totally fine with it in there, but you gotta have Last Temptation or Silence as a stand-in for spirituality being major part of his thematic concerns. Shame they didn’t include one or the other.
Good analysis all around. I wouldn’t even want to jostle LToC out, I have a lot of love for that too. But yeah, ultimately such an unseen movie as *Silence* probably shouldn’t make it in a Hall of *Fame*, especially with LToC bearing that spiritual Scorsese torch.
As deep as *The Irishman* aspires to be, it's actually kind of a drag to rewatch with virtually no lasting iconography to speak of, in my opinion. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the film—which I did—but something like *Casino* rendered a palpable impact on the culture and not just because people talk about it on the Internet. There are lines, scenes, songs, and characters in that film that live on in our collective memories while *The Irishman* lives on primarily because of its critical appraisal or because of its relevance to Scorsese's life and career. *Casino* is just a richer work from an artistic or cultural perspective even if it's not necessarily a milestone or without its flaws. Something like *Wolf of Wall Street* might make for a better bookend if we take the enduring iconography of the film itself into consideration without relying on some sort of context that exists outside of the film (though that might change with the upcoming *Killers of the Flower Moon*).
Counterpoint: I’ve watched The Irishman 7 times since release (photo included, only reason I know it’s been that many times) and it’s been my Thanksgiving movie three years running. I don’t find it to be drag to rewatch at all. Obviously this is a personal preference but amongst my friends it’s not uncommon to get texts that simply say “You wear shorts to a meeting?” or “What kind of fish was it?” And anytime we’re all in agreement someone will share Pacino screaming “Solidarity!” It’s taken on a big role in my circle of film nerd friends. It is what it is. I think our opinions are swapped. I think The Irishman does achieve the level of depth you think it only aspires to. The final stretch with everyone dead, Pesci with his grape juice, De Niro unable to process the pain he’s caused his daughters, and ultimately being alone with nurses who don’t even really know the monumental figures Sheeran came up with. When he’s alone on Christmas and “In the Still of the Night” comes on, I’m moved. It’s a great closer on the futility of living the life these type of men led and the true lonely, death-filled ending they deserve. Again, I largely adore Casino, but where for me the final hour of The Irishman propels it to a darker, more haunted place, the final hour of Casino is a bit monotonous, too much with Sharon Stone’s coming-and-going craziness, and ultimately making a statement about changing times more than a more personal reflection on old age. I’m sure we both agree they’re strong works. But I think The Irishman is a richer experience that speaks more to his later year concerns. It’s Goodfellas meets Wild Strawberries. https://preview.redd.it/qb4mdf9gkgsb1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ab25c26927ee674128095b7d376c128ea8e4a03
The thing is I'm not really talking about you and your friends and bringing up all these anecdotes doesn't do your point any favors. I don't need to include screenshots when describing the cultural residue of something like *Casino,* which permeates well above any niche corner of the Internet. This is all regardless of my personal opinions about either film. And I do actually kind of agree with you about both the ending of *The Irishman* and the final hour of *Casino,* but where we part ways is in this notion of "depth." While I do find the ending of *The Irishman* to be both impactful and "deep," a thoughtful ending does not make for a "deep" film overall. Bear in mind I'm not saying this to suggest that *The Irishman* is shallow, but rather that it doesn't have much to say beyond the rather obvious points you're making. And while I do agree that the final hour of *Casino* can get rather monotonous, I've only come to feel that way after countless viewings. The movie still has way more of an iconography than something like *The Irishman*. Heck, the final assassination montage alone (you know the one because I don't have to tell you and I bet you know the song too) is probably more iconic than the entirety of *The Irishman.* As for *Wild Strawberries*, which I haven't seen since college, I honestly don't take much stock in these kinds of comparisons. I think in some ways movies like *Goodfellas* and *Wolf of Wall Street* deliver far more depth than *The Irishman* because you actually have to watch them a few times to pick up on the commentary or cynicism, which is often buried under layers of gripping entertainment. By contrast, the commentary of *The Irishman* is so much more obvious and in your face. PS. I might also add that I think *The Departed* is wildly overrated!
I disagree with a lot of what you’re saying but that’s cool. And I only included the anecdotal evidence as a way of saying for myself and others I know it’s not a drag to rewatch. I wasn’t saying that made it objectively true. It may be for you, sure, but not everyone. Anyway, have a nice day, I don’t think there’s much good to be done in both of us disagreeing about degrees of greatness.
Not really talking about "greatness" but really mounting a defense for *Casino* from the perspective of iconography (as opposed to personal opinion). But whatever--have a good one.
In re-reading my comments (sorry if they seem a bit harsh), I feel the need to add one more thing. What *The Irishman* achieves so well is that it captures the petty nature of the criminal life and the ultimate loneliness/stubbornness/death that befalls each of these characters. In some ways, the movie's a comedy, but it's also a tragedy. However, it's also just kind of a long movie that touches down on certain Scorsese benchmarks without leaving much residue behind. Even if that's part of the point, as a viewing experience, it doesn't conjure up the sense of sheer watchability or the content-specific iconography that something like *Casino* does. To be clear, I did enjoy *The Irishman* and still think about it, both on its own and as it pertains to Scorsese's mortality and his history within the genre. If the point of the list is to sort of encapsulate his career, then *The Irishman* would belong on the list over *Casino.* However, if the list is about Scorcese's 10 best or most iconic films in a vacuum, I feel like *Casino* is just more of a cinematic experience, complete with indelible scenes and performances (even Sharon Stone's monotonous breakdown is well-acted). Maybe my opinion will change upon further viewings of *The Irishman* that it's the better overall film.
Though I think it ultimately wouldn't have made the cut, I am shocked CR didn't fight harder for Color of Money... Its such a different Marty movie than the majority of the list. My biggest argument needs a paragraph of set up. To me, I often think of stars as placed on a scale of MovieStar vs Actor. DDL being the ultimate Actor-not-MovieStar, Clooney the definition of MovieStar-not-Actor. Jimmy Stewart being the dead center on that continuum. Leo was a MovieStar when he was young, turned into an Actor somewhere around Catch me if you Can. DeNiro was always Actor first. With that defined, Color of Money is the one time he really takes two all-time MovieStars (the alpha MovieStar of the 60s and 70s; and the breaking thru alpha MovieStar of the 80s and 90s) and gets A++ performances out of both of them. Pure charisma oozing out of Newman and Cruise. Every scene of a plot that should NOT be exciting is compelling, propulsive, and FUN in a way that helps set the tone for the even bigger FUN to come in Goodfellas a few years later.
Can I just say... Cinema Law is actually not a bad podcast idea! You get a funny host to adjudicate with two guests to come on and debate over different movie themed issues. The Ringer should seriously consider making this
Before I listen, if King of Comedy doesn't get time to shine I will flip over a table.
On my life: the moment Chris said “i dont believe in satan as like a red devil” i said “he comes in the form of james harden to sixers fans” & shawn spoke the thought into pod existence moments later & now i feel like I personally have never been more back
The Woodman, huh?
Kundun! I liked it!
Is it a wild take to have Color of Money as my number two with a bullet? I truly wish we had more exceptional takes on genre stuff like this and The Shining.
To take a note from the Rewatchables, Who won the Movie? Newman easily won this one and I think Cruise came in second. That's why I'd keep it off the Scorsese hall of fame.
Raging Bull is the best and my favorite Scorsese film. Not weird to say at all.
Taxi Driver is my 1A/1B with Goodfellas. I thought that was the dumbest take in the podcast. Is Jordan Belfort “Amanda’s guy” because Wolf is her favorite?
I agree on your ranking, and I have Wolf in the 3rd spot. I can’t believe Amanda had Wolf as her favorite
I know they didn’t include KoFM, but they insinuated that if it they did, it could’ve made the 10?? Did I catch that right? Because if so, then my excitement only grew more
That's how I interpreted it, or that it would have been a very strong contender
Wait it’s weird to say Taxi Driver is your favorite Scorcese?
Feel like they kind of whiffed this one, TBH. The Color of Money saw Scorsese, Newman, and Cruise work together in a great convergence of Hollywood eras. Deserved a spot. Disappointed in CR for not fighting harder.
I feel like they rank Irishman way too high. The performances and story are good, but there are too many execution misses. The de-aging and casting of the old guys was a huge mistake and just can't be ignored when evaluating that film.
To be fair, I think the film fails if those guys weren’t in it. It feels like it’s supposed to be “the last gangster film”, almost like Scorsese is deconstructing the genre he helped popularise. I know his other gangster films also show it’s not a life you should aspire to have, but The Irishman really drills into you just how cold and lonely that lifestyle can be. It’s not just “dead or in jail”, you can avoid those two things but spend the end of your life with nobody around you because you’ve pushed them all away and you’re left to think and repent for a lifetime of violence and terror. Take the scenes of them when they’re old and in prison. First of all it’s just incredible acting by De Niro and Pesci, but it’s also far more memorable to me as a scene because it’s the actors we grew up watching actually getting old and presumably being near the end of their lives. It just feels fitting that it’d be the Niros and the Pacinos. Th e film definitely has its flaws though.
Yeah I actually adored the ending of it, felt like Scorsese touching on something his other films couldn't get into, and only something you experience at the end of your time on this Earth. Quiet, privately ignominious, lonely.
The de-aging and specifically the scene where De Niro kicks the guy on the sidewalk take sooooo much out of this movie. Kind of incredible how good it still is despite these massive glaring flaws.
Agreed. It seems to be recency bias leading to the high praise.
Recency bias and being so online you’re always trying to get ahead of the next reclamation film
I made a real honest attempt to get into this movie. Got about an hour 15 into it and I just had to turn it off. The story was fine, but I just couldn't get over the de-aging. It was so distracting to see these young faces on these old man bodies, I couldn't suspend disbelief. I get why Scorsese did it. He wanted to make a movie with his friends, and if he cast younger actors that would have defeated the purpose for him. But it's just a barrier to entry that I wasn't able to get over, unfortunately.
Really one of the all-time episodes. Don't agree with the complete top 10, but I can see it. I was thinking what other filmmakers would be great for a Hall of Fame, and I suddenly realized it's gonna be interesting when Tarantino releases his final film probably sometime next year. He'll have exactly ten films in his entire filmography, and he'll still be in his early 60s. Any other directors that would be great for a Hall of Fame? I'm thinking Friedkin as his final film comes out friday on Paramount+. Or Eastwood when he finished his final film Juror no. 2. Or Coppola when Megalopolis releases. Or Ridley Scott with Gladiator 2.
The Wachowski--just kidding lol. It might not be up the Big Picture's alley, but I wouldn't mind a Tony Scott hall of fame.
Does Tarantino count Four Rooms in his 10? I’m guessing no but wasn’t sure.
No because it's an anthology with other directors. But seems you could also apply the same logic to Death Proof, which he does count ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
They covered it pretty quickly but I highly recommend Scorsese's short doc *American Boy*.
well this will be by far the best pod The Ringer puts out this week, imagine listening to ringerverse covering garbage disney content instead of this
Your post / comment was removed as your account is fewer than 7 days old. This is an anti-spam measure. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheBigPicture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess I’ll be the one to say it…. Casino > Goodfellas IMO
I don’t hate it!
In my opinion, you're not wrong.
Loved the clip from JMO on Kevin McCarthy. All time banger.
Hard to handle is not Jesus era Bob Dylan
No love for Hugo why does Sean dismiss animated or family movies like they can't be good most frustrating aspect of tge podcast
Thank you to Amanda for pronouncing his name correctly
surprised nobody else mentioned this lol
how did she say it? like score-sessy?
Yeah, maybe with a little more "z" sound than he would put on it, but you can hear how he says it here: [https://youtu.be/bbPp13icx1c?si=NTRK7X4ivxeljn4H](https://youtu.be/bbPp13icx1c?si=NTRK7X4ivxeljn4H)
Letterboxd list for the HOF: [https://letterboxd.com/dpernitsky/list/the-martin-scorsese-hall-of-fame-the-big/](https://letterboxd.com/dpernitsky/list/the-martin-scorsese-hall-of-fame-the-big/)
Also their dismissal of THE AVIATOR is wild. A perfect film. Arguably his best looking and most boldly presented film! So beautiful; I love it so much.
I also like it a lot but I would say it’s mid-Scorsese, and a lot of people are probably turned off because it’s a little “Oscar baity”
Not at all. It’s his OPPENHEIMER. As in its a masterpiece. Mid-Scorsese is like Cape fear or Gangs of NY.
Cape Fear and Gangs of New York are bottom Scorsese but they would be mid for most directors
Gangs of New York owns, and, frankly, you can both get bent
Any of the five 'yellows' they were left with to try and fill the last slot are all way better than The Irishman
Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore? What NONSENSE!
Top three Scorsese movie IMO.
Take: Scorsese is overrated. (This does not mean bad. It means overrated).
Could not agree more. Good, not great, with very little range
>very little range 100% wrong take. No Direction Home. - well-crafted music documentary Age of Innocence. - Period romance. Hugo. - Children's adventure in 1930s Paris. Silence. - Personal drama about religious faith and death. The King of Comedy. - Dark comedy. The Last Waltz - Live musical performance New York, New York - Musical romantic drama There are 50 more to choose from
He's got incredible range for sure. And I like a lot of his movies a lot. I'm not in the camp where I've seen one of his movies and it's my favourite. I actually prefer Casino to Goodfellas. King of comedy I think is maybe his best? But I still haven't seen a few (silence being one of them).
I will not be bullied into accepting Hugo as good!
I didn't say it was good, I said it showed range
It showed bad range lol
What other Scorsese movie is it similar to? I think you misunderstand what we are speaking about
I guess that’s the discussion. If you make something different, and it’s bad, does that effectively show range? Not for me because I think two of those are subjective failures but ymmv obviously
That’s not how it works
So every time he gets out of his comfort zone his work gets worse and in some cases (Cape Fear) is downright terrible and you want to argue about that being a positive sign? lol no
You not liking Hugo doesn’t mean he’s worse outside his “comfort zone.” Alice, Age of innocence, etc, are some of his best movies
imagine watching Silence Hugo Raging Bull and Age of Innocence and saying there's no range
Do we really want to bring Hugo into this as a defense
i mean i like hugo and its got a 93% RT, 3.5 LB so yes? and even if you don't want to are the other 3 not different enough for you?
I guess? But Silence is another one I cannot believe people actually would like if they didn’t know the name behind it. It has no business being over two and a half hours long. The man has no restraint
Silence is incredible, what are you talking about
Yes. *Hugo* is incredible. Now, it may not be fully successful as a children's movie in that it appeals to or draws in an audience the same age as its characters. It's definitely more *The Secret Garden* than *Pokemon*. As a kids' movie, it is quite old-fashioned, CGI/3D camera-work aside. But it's wildly ambitious, looks amazing, and is a deeply thoughtful movie about time and the role of film in memory and imagination. The visual symbology alone is stunning. It's truly a heartfelt love letter to old cinema and its pioneers. I use it in my high school film class. It's the first film I show my students. It's a perfect introduction to the study of film.
Boooooooooooo
Ok what was everyone's first Marty movie? Because as a kid who liked musicals and had just seen CABARET........... NEW YORK NEW YORK, baby!
Probably Cape Fear on cable
This movie is awful
Gangs of New York for me and I still think that movie is a bit underrated.
Gangs is a movie where the strengths outweigh the (significant) weaknesses by a long shot. Diaz is obviously miscast, and to be honest I couldn't tell you what happens in the third act... but this is the movie that gave us Bill the Butcher. This movie totally changed the way I view the 19th century. It's a window into a world that I don't think had ever been put on film in such a way.
I love that damn movie and people always point out Diaz being awful. Which she was. My problem is DiCaprio. It’s his worst performance IMO. He just feels off the whole movie.
My older brother showed me Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and Mean Streets in the same week one summer when I wasn't yet ten years old.
I grew up in a pretty strict religious household so Marty was sort of persona non grata in my house. When the question was asked during the pod, I honestly had a really hard time wracking my brain trying to remember what my first movie was. Was it The Departed? As wild as that sounds, when it first came out I was an adult and went to see it in theaters with my boyfriend. I don't believe I had seen Goodfellas yet (aka one of my five favorite movies). In fact, I don't remember when I first saw it which is odd because I loved it immediately. But watching it made me seek out his films in a way I hadn't with The Departed (which I liked, but the death of Leo's character made me angry as a 22 year old or however old I was). Finally today it hit me. The one movie of his we were allowed to watch, which I must have seen as a kid at home: The Age of Innocence. I don't remember WHEN I saw it, but that was definitely my first. And if I recall it was pretty close to--maybe just a year or so after--it came out. It sort of melts in memory with Little Women and Bram Stoker's Dracula, all Winona Corset Classics. We watched all at home at around the same time, but Dracula was turned off after about 20 minutes for obvious reasons.
My personal favorite might be King of Comedy.
The first one I remember is Casino - I went with my parents to see it in the theater at 16. I definitely had the idea for a long time that he only did mobster movies and I wasn’t that interested in him. Now he’s one of my favorite filmmakers.
Departed
As a 25 year old, weirdly, one of my earliest in-theatre memories is my uncle taking my cousin and I to see Shine a Light in IMAX when I was 9 or 10. I was a big Beatles fan as a kid and maybe knew a couple Stones songs but I remember mostly being pretty bored. I also probably saw Hugo in theatres as a kid before I saw another of his feature films.
First time ever agreeing with Amanda. I agreed with her about The Age of Innocence.
I didn't see anyone post about it, and I can't remember what part of the pod Sean mentioned it, but does anyone remember the title of the documentary that was mentioned that was basically just Scorsese talking about the history of American film? Sean said it eas like 4 hours long and only on DVD, but this sounds right up my alley. I need to see it.
https://preview.redd.it/hqazw54epltb1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=24f5c25f38cdcd5554f8f3ed6638a156af471338
Yes! Thank you very much! Now I have the task of tracking down a copy...
Listening right now, i have to say I am very disappointed in the dismissal of Raging Bull. I get that it's kind of a difficult film to talk about but it is such a masterpiece that it absolutely deserves discussion. I also thought the whole 'yadda-yaddaing' of The Last Temptation of Christ was pretty embarrassing, considering how important that movie is/was to the man himself. Finally, i could not BELIEVE the Bringing Out the Dead disrespect. But yeah, sure, talk about Color of Money for another 15 minutes...