Cool News
John Robie steals a look at Scorsese's BRINGING OUT THE DEAD
Hey folks, AICN regular, John Robie is back from a trip he took to steal... Well... until his fence moves it, I'm not about going to rat him out. But suffice to say he's back on active duty and on our list of agents bent on serving your desire for information and news from the films of tomorrow. This time out he reports in from a screening last night of BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, the latest from directing god, Martin Scorsese. My trouble with the following review is this... I get the sense that Johnny here, didn't like the movie, but his description of the film he saw and his analysis enthralls me. He's asking questions about what we as an audience should feel about Cage at the end of the film, and you know... I love open ended left to personal interpretation endings. Perhaps we are each meant to wonder about Cage. Maybe we feel he's had an arc as a character, and perhaps we'll feel he's merely walking in circles. I don't know... but the movie Robie describes has actually heightened my interest in seeing BRINGING OUT THE DEAD. To each their own, eh? Right. Here's the world's 2nd greatest cat-burglar...
Like Spanish by way of a Chinaman Martin Scorsese's new film Bringing out the Dead is at first painful and funny but ends up being just plain unintelligible. The film rambles and bops along for the first hour or so, precariously toeing the line between being a slice of psychosis and a depressing fable that promises to pan out with an ultimately striking look at one man's life. What's so surprising is that there's so much that's funny in the first half of the film. The humor here comes from the situation; these New York City ambulance drivers are like rubber bands stretched one millimeter from snapping, and when you're that wired some pretty sick things become funny. All that's left to do is laugh. Scorsese does a brilliant job of balancing the humor and the horror. For the first hour.
The film that was screened looked pretty much finished. The end credits weren't affixed yet, probably because they didn't have the time to sit down and type out all of Scott Rudin's assistants. There are fine performances here. Scorsese doubles as an ambulance dispatcher (in voice only), Ving Rhames is brilliant, Patricia Arquette might be very good but I'm not sure, John Goodman is terrific as always. Nicolas Cage has the look of a dead man for the greater part of the film. A few times crazy Cage breaks through the surface, and you're forced to pay attention to him. And that works. For the first hour.
Then there's the drug scene.
Note to prospective screenwriters: the trippy drug scene that happens about halfway through your script is probably going to be the weakest part of your story, and more often than not it will throw off the narrative, leaving it to spin in wild spirals towards an ugly death. In the drug scene here Cage walks through the empty streets of New York, pulling up the souls of dead people, granting them hope for life and calm. It looks like a Gap commercial.
From this point in the movie things spin wildly. Is Cage getting better? Is he getting worse? He seems like he's fine…oh, no, he's still messed up. He might be getting better….oh it looks like he's fine….oh no, gotcha, he's even worse than he was before. The problem here is that there's no leverage. We see Cage from the outset as low as a man can be. He maintains that low, then gets even lower, down to a point that doesn't even seem real. It doesn't seem real because we never got to see how Cage got brought down. We never get to see Cage the fresh-faced young medic, eager to help. We don't get to see Cage a year into the job, when he's starting to realize that there is a lot of ugliness in this world. We don't even get to see him when there's a glimmer of hope in his eyes, a desire to try to see the good in what he's doing. We start out with Cage wracked with guilt, with anger, with sadness and thoughts of death. And from there we go down. You don't have to be pedestrian and spell out the man's downfall, but asking the audience to understand all of Cage's baggage right away is asking a lot.
It's hard on the audience, and that's why Scorsese is so smart in that first hour to balance out the utterly abysmal vortex that is Cage's character with such humorous situations. It's also the downfall of the movie. In the end, how can we feel for a man who can't feel for himself? A few voiceovers that ponder the philosophy of his situation don't do it. Glimpses of a ghost of a girl he lost play a big part in the movie, but they don't pan out in the end. Cage is forgiven by the ghost, by himself, but for what? For figuring out that part of being a savior is granting mercy to oneself? That kind of comes across in the end, but there's so much meandering in the second hour of the movie that it's hard to swallow that dose of realization.
The scenes of the inner-city hospital are great, the drug kingpin scenes are not. There's no letdown with the visuals; even when a scene doesn't play out very well, as in a late scene on a rooftop with a dying drug dealer, it still looks stunning. Still there's something missing here, something very important. The film ends up being too detached for its own good. We can get by on dragging despair balanced with nervous laughter for only so long; after awhile it all bleeds together into real sadness. Cage might be a dark man of tin here, but there's no sense that he's been given life by the end of the film. He doesn't have a heart. He's only tricking himself, and us, into thinking he does.
John Robie
Expert Cat-Burglar
-
+ Expand All
-
Scorsese is god
-
yep..they are.
-
Any person with the genious to make films like these, gets my $6.50 everytime he releases a film. The whole concept of the movie sounds intriguing, Marty, I know will develop it into a engrossing picture, he always does.
-
I saw Scorsese's first feature the other night (i think it was his first anyway). Who's that knocking at my door? was probably the most definitively Scorsese film Ive ever seen. The themes that surface in so many of his other films were in the center of this one. The movie-obsessed protagonist (in the credits, it says: "introducing Harvey Kietel as J.R."--how cool!) hangs out with his loser italien friends every night being dumb and violent. Every woman is either a whore or a virgin. Harvey meets the perfect girl. Shes a virgin...or so he thinks. Sorry, ive ruined too much as it is. Go rent this film. The way Scorsese overlaps seperate story lines is quite refreshing from regular 1-2-3 storytelling. Seriously, its an amazing film that really questions traditional gender roles and the steotypical male view of these roles.
-
What have we been offered by the above-mentioned trio lately. Scorsese last gave us "Kundun" a film so abysmal that it took only $5 million at the box-office in the US. In other words no body went to watch this stinker. No characters to care for and no narrative. Then we had from Kubrick "Eyes Wide Shut" the worst performing Tom Cruise film for many a year. This film made less money than "Inspector Gadget" once again a great majority of the people found it to be boring and a waste of time and money. From Malick we had the extremely banal "The Thin Red Line" which surprise surprise bombed at the box-office again. It is one of the most unrealistic portrayels of war, The film was shot like a perfume commercial with "Hallmark Cards" style cinematography, against the backdrop of perfect sunsets, almost all the battles took place either at dawn or at sunset, and how realistic is that. And once again had no narrative and no characters any one can relate to. The point being these three directors have zero ability as far as storey teling is concerned. All three of these Directors and their sychophants have lofty pretensions to high art. Their sole aim in making films is to bore everyone to sleep. No wonder their films bomb at the Box Office. Because that is what they deserve. What is especially FUNNY is that despite their assertion that they make "QUALITY" films none of these three have ever won any Oscars either.
-
Litestorm, for God's sake, I certainly hope your post was yet another of those with such "subtle sarcasm" that I failed to get it; as it is, your post, at face value, strikes me as a solid contender for the absolute stupidest post I have read in my long history of skimming Talk Back-- and that is no small feat. I find it truly remarkable that you equate box office return with artistic value. "Kundun," "Eyes Wide Shut," and "Thin Red Line" were all clear artistic visions, and unique ones at that. Let's see, "2001: A Space Odyssey" never broke $60 million-- what a piece of shit, huh? "Independence Day" made over $300 million-- it must be a fucking masterpiece!!! Again, maybe I just didn't "get" your post- or maybe you just don't "get" what movies are about.
-
I would like to hear some movies that Litestorm does like, since they obviously aren't good ones. Judging from your user ID, you must be a fan of master filmmaker Jimmy Cameron. How about that TITANIC dialogue? Jack...Rose...Jack...Rose. Oh yeah, much better than Scorsese, Kubrick, and Malick. Notice that film students don't watch PIRAHNA 2: THE SPAWNING, they watch DAYS OF HEAVEN or 2001.
-
I don't want to hear anyone griping about Cameron's merits. I liked THE TERMINATOR too, but the latest stuff is not up to par.
-
yet another drone who measures worth by the box office. i am above the "average" moviegoer. if that makes me a snob, so be it, but at least i have taste. i LOVED the thin red line and even tho it was disapointing, eyes wide shut is the most intrigiung film ive seen yet this year. get back in the box office line with the rest of the dolts, and leave the question of taste to those who have it.
-
I did. And from what the reviewer says it sounds like the book is the main problem with the film. I obviously don't know how faithful the adaptation is but it sounds pretty similar: Unrelentingly depressing, ambiguous character backgrounds. I think you're just supposed to accept that working as a medic in hell's kitchen will do Very Bad Things to your mind. I'd be interested to see the movie anyway, seeing as Scorsese is my fave director. If anything, the good thing about a Scorsese pic is that, no matter how dubious the story or plot construction, the visual are always worth a long hard look. So count me in. BTW any more news on Dino. Now THAT's gonna be good!!!
-
montag606 got it wrong again, I have never mentioned anything about AIDS in any of my postings and none of the above 3 have ever won any Oscars. So the box-office doesn't mean anything and Oscars don't mean anything either, well what the hell does count with you sycophants of scorsese,kubrick and malick just the the opinions of you bloated few with your pathetic pretensions to high art. why don'y you come out of your padded cells and join the real world
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts