Of course NOW I buy it, but at the time, he had only ever played eternally youthful teenagers. It wasnât until The Departed in 2006 that I started to buy Leo as an adult man.
As an actor, Leo has one of the best arcs in Hollywood history. Itâs probably really all thanks to Scorsese, who saw something a whole lot of people probably didnât. He was hard to take seriously for a very long time. Everyone takes him seriously now.
I guess I can halfway understand why this is being reviewed as Kelly Reichardtâs weakest work today, because I canât definitively put it above anything in her catalog that Iâve seen (Iâve seen six of her 10 feature-length films), but I also donât think itâs a notable step down from her marginally lesser fare.
Basically I think she transcended with Wendy and Lucy and with Certain Women, honorable mention to First Cow, and this is in that Showing Up/Meekâs Cutoff space. Pending how I digest this one, maybe I like those better than this? But a Reichardt fan should see it and expect to like it.
Itâs the usual Reichardt fare where not a lot happens and youâre just left to luxuriate in whatever world she selected for the project. Wouldnât work for everyone, and honestly movies with that description could torture me in the wrong hands too, but she always creates an interesting enough setting that I end up feeling glad I took the time with it.
This is to suzzer also but its a nearly 25 year old film. The battle scenes sucked but if you were watching that movie for that you totally missed the point of the movie imo.
For me the rewatch was a big jump forward, really. I feel like I just got it as an older dude better than I did when I first watched it as a college student.
100%. I watched it in the theatre as what 20 year old or so. It was good but didnât blow me away. I watched it a couple years ago and holy shit is absolutely rocked. I dunno why exactly. At the time I rewatched it I think I thought it was DDL and Leo. But itâs also possible my perspectives on life had changed and I related better to the subject material. Itâs an unreal good movie and an absolute banger from start to finish. Iâll agree Diaz is a bit of a miss but she really isnât that integral to the movie imo.
I remember thinking the fight scenes were good, that wasnât my problem at all. Itâs also a fine movie, and I wouldnât fault anyone for enjoying it, and I enjoyed it myself. As far as Scorseseâs filmography though, itâs at the bottom for me and overall was pretty forgettable.
What I do remember feeling though, was that only DDLâs character really shone. Leo was great, but I didnât care the character much. Diaz⌠ugh.
The plot itself had a bunch of American history that didnât directly tie into the revenge plot, and I would have rather had 30 minutes to an hour cut out to have it just be a tight revenge story. The ending is a great example: what should have been an epic showdown is instead eclipsed by the draft riots, and the plot itself is very much secondary to the events that unfolded outside the characters story.
Itâs possible Iâd like it more now, but even so I doubt it would move up to be something Iâd place in his top 10, and no chance in his top 5.
Also this is more of a pet peeve, but I remember a scene where Bill figures out who Leo is, confront and overpowers him, then lets him live for no good reason.
Edit: Gleeson was great, he always is. I was hoping for more John C Reilly who I also really like, but donât recall much about the character anymore.
At least for me, I think youâve hit on where we fundamentally part company. The stuff that brought it down for you is what elevates it more on my end.
I love the period, and thought the sets and style was great. I would love to watch a documentary on all of this stuff, or even a series that fleshed out all of the topics. For a movie though, it seemed like it touched on too much with very little substance behind it.
Lincoln, for example, managed to choose a few isolated things to focus on and then really developed them fully. (In general my problem with biopics is that they tell a story which has far too much material for a 2-3 hour movie and then fails to be compelling, instead just going from plot point to plot point.)
I think most USAians werenât even aware than major cities like NYC were actual warzones long ago. To me whether they got the history exactly right or not the depiction of that was valuable 20 years ago. On rewatch it is even more so.
That makes sense. The movie does look great and have a lot of fascinating stuff happening around the main story. I love the sets, the styles, and the time period in general.
As far as most movies go though, especially with someone as talented as Scorsese, Iâd rather exit the theater with a deep understanding of Henry Hill, Travis Bickle, or Sam Rothstein rather than watching Leoâs character and having a bunch of awesome stuff happening on the periphery of the story.
I tried to phrase that in a non disparaging way. I totally see why people would think the opposite and there are settings where I feel that way too.
