Why did Martin Scorsese's talent fall off a cliff after Goodfellas?

Wow, OP, you’re an ass! His talent fell off a cliff after “Casino” and you know it!

“Casino”

Sharon Stone as Ginger in Casino

I quite enjoyed Hugo.

Does he finance his own movies? Coz he took out millions in mortgage on his house in NYC.

Sorry about the pic @R2; here’s another (similar) still from “Casino” (which was a great movie)

Has anyone tried to sit through SHUTTER ISLAND?

His films started to suck when that lollipop head Leo replaced De Niro as his muse.

Oh, no, R5? Recently? He’s like 80 years old; that doesn’t sound good.

Where did you hear this?

I think he realized after GOODFELLAS that he'd run out of ideas, so he just carried on making GOODFELLAS and set it in Las Vegas...

DiCaprio isn't Deniro

Jonah Hill isn't Joe Pesci

I agree, but it's a sad indictment of his abilities as a director if he has to rely so much on his cast to elevate his films beyond mediocrity.

Yes, R8! You are correct; all his movies with Leo “make money” (good box office), but they suck.

And Leo is a really shitty “muse” compared to De Niro...

Sitting through “The Departed” was a terrible slog and I regretted watching it after just seeing it on Netflix a week ago.

I honestly can’t believe something so lifeless and boring won all those Oscars (including “Best Adapted Screenplay”? The screenplay was terrible..)

Filmmaker Martin Scorsese has been slapped with a foreclosure lawsuit over his Upper East Side townhouse, the New York Post reports. Scorsese is being sued along with his contractor for allegedly failing to pay for construction supplies for renovation work that was done on the townhouse back in 2014.

Now the construction supplies company, Extech Building Materials, is trying to force the sale of the townhouse, according to a lawsuit filed in the Manhattan Supreme Court. The Goodfellas director allegedly owes the construction supply company $18,000 for materials it supplied in 2014.

Scorsese paid $12.5 million for the four-story townhouse back in 2007. The townhouse measures 7,000 square feet, according to the Post, and has six bedrooms. The 1860s mansion, which is full of film memorabilia, was the subject of an Architectural Digest profile back in August 2016. Property records indicate that Scorsese took out an over $10 million mortgage on the home in 2016 as well.

UPDATE 05/02/18: The real estate lawyer for Scorsese, Steven Hochberg, issued the following statement to Curbed:

“This is a dispute between a contractor and a material supplier which names Mr. Scorsese only because he is the owner of the property where materials were allegedly supplied. Mr. Scorsese fulfilled all of his obligations under his contract with Smith, and paid Smith in full, but allegedly Smith failed to pay the material supplier. If this cannot be resolved between the contractor and the material supplier, we will pursue all legal remedies.”

He took out 10 million on his house in 2016 according to property records.

The Departed wins were career achievement awards.

He had a great run though. "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" is the real surprise. It's so out of left field given the movies he made during that period, but he pulls it off beautifully.

I wanted to love Hugo, R4, really (I love film history, like Scorsese a lot, and I felt like his/the movie’s heart was in the *right* place) but the story and film in general felt exceptionally long, that Chloe Grace Moretz girl really cannot disappear into a role (you could always see her “acting” and it was like she was in a Disney show or commercial type acting), and the visuals had a dull “CGI” looking quality to them that were really unappealing to me....

Is THE IRISHMAN, his purported long-in-the-pipeline film about the murder of Jimmy Hoffa, starring De Niro, Pacino and Joe Pesci, ever going to see the light of day?

Hugo is totally dead as a film experience. It has no life or soul whatsoever, and the visuals are the same.

Yeah, The Irishman's coming out this year. A teaser aired during the Oscars.

It didn't. STFU.

But congratulations on not stalking an actress this time.

r20 Thank you. I must admit, I am excited after watching (or rather listening to) that.

Wow, R14/R15, I had never heard that. Why would someone of Scorsese’s means and consistently high box office earnings (even “Wolf of Wall Street” was a hit) be so hard up for cash?

At his age too; it doesn’t make sense. Is it possible he gambles? That’s the only thing I can think of besides drugs (which I doubt he does a ton of anymore, because he’s almost 80) that has high money makers consistently out of cash and bleeding money...

R20 I was going to say it looks like a Netflix film even before noticing it actually is. He's old too! maybe a kind of return to form. Without all that CGI bullshit he's been doing since gangs of New York.

I paid to see silence in a theater. Nope. Taxi driver still holds up.

I got excited seeing that during the Oscar broadcast too, R20, but then I realized that we didn’t actually “see” anything from the film, so it still may suck :(

With all the great actors in it (and Scorsese directing) I am still hoping that it will be great though.

And no DiCaprio, right? So that may be a very good sign.

He had Isabella Rossellini in her prime, which is nice.

And Liza, R27; so, there’s that...

Because it's vanishingly rare to be a genius all the time. Planets aligned for 'Goodfellas', and masterpieces can't be willed every time.

Bad Scorsese (like bad Kubrick) is always watchable, because it's Scorsese. He's earned the right to fail. Be great if those planets aligned again though.

Wolf of Wall Street seemed like Scorsese doing self-parody, but it fell flat for me, and came off as a lesser director stealing his style. For instance, the first-person narration was ON CAMERA, to be cheeky I guess, but Scorsese’s winking at his own filmmaking methods seemed self-indulgent and made me cringe. I liked “Hugo” as a kid’s movie, though.

r29 I think it's more to do with Scorsese's apparent lack of personal engagement with any of the subjects he's chosen since CASINO. You rarely get the feeling he's excited by the subject matter and its possibilities anymore. That plus the fact he's probably no longer hungry and, like De Niro, is more interested in making big money and investing in financial ventures outside the movie industry.

I think that commentary sounds about right, R31.

I have never seen “Wolf of Wall Street” even though it spawned so many gifs, etc. that I have seen.

Is it worth it?

Liza and Marty. Were they really in love?

I thought Wolf of Wall Street was great, and I'm not even into machismo-fueled fare. It's also the film Leo should have won his Oscar for.

I thought the Departed was a very good film.

'Silence' was a pet project, and hardly a hot sell for its opening weekend. Yet Scorsese spent his brilliance and diminishing time on it. Personal engagement it had to be. It was hardly 'The Color Of Money.'

I see Leo's found this thread.

I had never heard of “The King of Comedy” (1982) and didn’t know Scorsese directed it (and I like multiple Scorsese films) so when it became available on Amazon Prime about a month ago (or when I noticed it a month ago) I decided to watch it out of curiosity...

It was great! What an unexpected surprise!

I was incredulous at first about De Niro playing this kind of role and was wondering what the main plot was for the first 15 minutes, but I just went with it and it got better and better.

One of Scorsese’s best films. Period.

It’s a satire and a black comedy and in ways a drama as well . A gem of a film and wonderfully written too.

His direction here is also excellent.

I was surprised by how prophetic it was about modern day culture at the end (not to give anything away), but that amazed me too.

You can say the same for many film makers...Speilberg makes drek now. De Palma, Rob Reiner, John Landis had huge hits, John Carpenter, Robert Zemeckis, take your pick.

[quote]Why did Martin Scorsese's talent fall off a cliff after Goodfellas?

A lot of great artists' work hit a wall because they were depending in instinct or intuition, "Talent," rather than a deeply internalized technical knowledge and understanding about what they are doing and how, especially when they draw heavily from their own personal experience or are exploring ideas and themes important to them (i.e., wrestling with their internal demons).

So, what happens over time is that their work become derivative, of themselves, but derivative nonetheless. What was once groundbreaking gets copied by many, then when they do it again, it's no longer inspired, but overworked and overused. Since there isn't a conscious knowledge of the technical mechanics of what they did, writers and songwriters are especially susceptible to this, they become less and less able to reproduce their former glory - they become one hit wonders.

Few people are such creative geniuses with such prodigious natural ability and talent that they can ride for years and produce hit after hit, one masterpiece after another. The rest see a steep decline in quality as they founder beneath the weight of expectations.

r40 Of those, only De Palma and Carpenter are considered auteurs. The former's saving grace is that he can make highly efficient b movies like Mission Impossible, whereas Scorsese tries to turn b material into bloated a pictures (see Shutter Island). Carpenter essentially gave up in the 90s because he was pissed off with constant studio interference, but his incredible 12 year run of movies between Assault on Precinct 13 and They Live is unparalleled. He made 12 films and 10 of those are unique masterpieces. Scorsese hasn't made 10 masterpieces in 52 years.

I think Scorsese's main contribution over the last few decades has been his dedication to film history and preservation, the documentaries, and the World Cinema Project. The narrative features are sometimes OK (despite Leo) but they just don't have the energy of the pre-GoodFellas work. I'd love another left field film like King of Comedy, but those days seem over.

I love Casino and enjoyed Wolf of Wall Street, but they are pale copies of Goodfellas, WoWS being much paler than Casino.

I see “Casino” as distinct from “Goodfellas”. Yes, both are “mob movies”, but Casino does a very good job of telling the history of Las Vegas and “how it came to be” essentially. I found it fascinating from that perspective.

I also thought Scorsese and Stone created an unforgettable character with “Ginge” and that De Niro played a much more sympathetic, interesting main character than Liotta did in “Goodfellas”.

It was also beautiful to look at too, which didn’t hurt...

*Ginger (not Ginge!)

To me, Goodfellas is a WB film whereas Casino is MGM.

The Irish looks fucking ridiculous and stupid. The makeup on Pacino looks like a circus show. Worse than Depp in Black Mass.

After the masterpiece HOFFA starring Jack Nicholson written by the great David Mamet ... we don't need another Hoffa movie.

Here's "Italianamerican" with Scorsese and his mom and dad. I liked it.

"Casino" was 2 hours, 58 minutes. Too long to tell a simple story. However, I like the movie.

Jesus, Mrs. Scorsese looked exactly the same in Goodfellas and Casino, even though they were made years after that clip above. She must have been one of those little old ladies who looks exactly the same between the ages of 60 and 90.

Is “Hoffa” really a masterpiece? And is Scorsese really covering the exact same story? I didn’t realize that was the plot....

*I don’t know that was the plot of “The Irishman”

Also, after the awfulness/soullessness of “The Departed” I don’t think that Scorsese should go near anymore “Irish-American” centered stories.

He felt very emotionally removed and incompatible with that whole world in “The Departed”.

Compare that to say Ben Affleck with “The Town” (and yes that wasn’t a great movie and Affleck is a *much* less talented director than Scorsese, but) you could feel how emotional plugged in Affleck was with that group of people and that neighborhood (Irish Americans in a shitty part of Boston) and it really helped bring that particular story and those particular characters to life...

I do wonder if, sometimes, these big filmmakers who came of age in the 70's where it was anything goes started suffering in the 90's when the Hollywood studio system came back in full force. They were no longer allowed to make or finance the kinds of movies they'd make in the 70's or 80's. It's weird that they've all suffered since the 90's - Scorsese, Copola, Carpenter, De Palma, Argento, etc. Something definitely seems up. Maybe it's true that they just aren't hungry anymore and have already proven themselves and made a few masterpieces to be left behind for future generations, but they still make movies and most of them seem a bit passionless.

Who’s the Irishman? I thought Hoffa was Dutch/Polish.

Okay, DLers, is “New York, New York” as *spectacularly bad* as its reputation (and the critics and audiences at the time) suggested, or is it worth it to watch and/or has it been critically reappraised in any positive way in recent years??

New York, New York is boring unless Liza is singing.

Who could believe anyone would fall in love with Liza?

Interesting thoughts about the traditional studio system prototype resurgence in the 90’s, and how that may have affected these great filmmakers, R53.

I also wonder if the ascension of an insane, nasty, Oscar and film culture dominant “super producer” like Harvey Weinstein (who basically “ruled” the 90’s film scene and had what now seems to have been a stranglehold over the industry and its funding, etc.) changed the industry landscape so much that it also negatively affected all these directors and their careers in some way or another (and possibly also prevented fresh talent similar to them from being discovered and cultivated)....

Why does “New York, New York” suck though? No plot? Bad songs?

Would it have been good if not directed by Scorsese?

He seems to be a victim of big budgets. When he was making great films they were much smaller budgets to work with. It's like having a good design constraint, helps to hone and focus.

Casino was the last film of quality with an inflated budget and even though the costumes are fantastic, good cinematography, the right musical accompaniment and a solid cast, but it's a bit like Goodfellas 2.0 (although personally I did enjoy some of Gangs of NY just bc of DDLs performance).

Do you think Scorsese knows how shit his output has been for the last 25 years or is he so surrounded by yes men that he's totally oblivious?

This film still doesn’t make NY, NY look so bad...

I know that Scorsese (and Liza of course!) were on tons of cocaine at the time of filming, so maybe that’s why it turned out the way it did?

Vinyl was awful. I tried to watch the first episode and it was so boring and off-target that my friend and I changed channels to a Ted Cruz town hall.

He's just too artistically bloated now to make anything worthwhile. He should try and make a film fast and on a tiny budget again.

I'm just a schlub that watches movies and has some opinions, but I loved "New York, New York" and thought it was underrated.

There is enough interesting about it - music, production values, Liza Minelli - that one viewing wouldn't be a complete waste of time.

"The Age of Innocence" is on Criterion and has been hailed as a masterpiece. "The Departed" won him an Oscar for Best Direction and has also been hailed as an important film, as have been "The Wolf of Wall Street" and "Gangs of New York."

I didn't think NYNY was that bad (maybe a little overlong) but it's been ages since I've seen it. It's worth a watch if you're interested in the principals, at any rate.

The Age of Innocence was a mess. Persistent, intrusive voiceover to makeup for the fact that he didn't know how to get across the subtleties of Old New York society in any other way, and disastrous casting: Daniel Day Lewis as a callow, naive American lad? Michelle Pfeiffer as a sophisticated European temptress? Winona Ryder as a glassy, patrician ingenue? Girl, please.

Am I the only one who thought The Departed was boring? It's such a great story, but the movie is somehow just . . . dull.

Yeah, I never really got the praise for The Age of Innocence. The House of Mirth was a far superior Wharton adaptation in every way. Scorsese just seems like he's trying to do his version of The Leopard.

r66 I don't think I've ever seen The Departed, Wolf of Wall Street or Gangs of New York described of as important films.

his newer movies are too fucking long. Stick to scripts and producing. With his name alone people will most likely watch or know about it.

DDL was fascinating in Gangs of New York.

"Gangs of New York" wasn't a great film (thanks to Leo), but its themes resonate oddly in our Time of Trumpian Trials.

Who is more "MAGA" than Bill the Butcher?

"The Departed" won the Oscar for Best Picture for 2006, as well as the Oscars for Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Editing.

The AMPAS certified it as an important film by doing so. Whether you agree with their choice is another matter; but to somehow claim that you've never heard of anyone else having the opinion it is an important film, given those Oscars, is just complete bullshit. You are wasting our time.

[quote]Am I the only one who thought The Departed was boring? It's such a great story, but the movie is somehow just . . . dull.

Not me, I saw it opening day first matinee sight unseen, didn't even see a trailer. I loved it and predicted that day Best Picture and even a nom for Mark Wahlberg.

R23 I'm totally uninterested in this man's gangster stuff.

But he gives lots of money away on restoring other filmmakers such as Michael Powell.

Those involved in filmmaking will learn something from each and every Scorsese film. He directs camera in a different way in each film, which influences the way his films are edited (picture, sound design and music included). While his films may seem derivative of his own style on the surface, each is in fact very different when looked up close.

Scorsese is a great lover of cinema who still watches films (on the big screen) as part of his continuing education (he feels he's still learning about film).

He's been played out since MEAN STREETS.

Sorry, Marty. You know it's true.

I loved Daniel Day Lewis in "Gangs of New York." Realistically, Bill the Butcher would have killed Amsterdam (the Leonardo DiCaprio character) when Amsterdam was a child instead of waiting for A to grow up. (Like how Don Ciccio (The Godfather II) tried to kill Vito Corleone when Vito was a boy.)

I did like "The Departed" a lot, especially the Alec Baldwin character.

I think Scorsese is stuck listening to the Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton and should branch out more.

Film is my favorite form of entertainment. Thank god for the world of cinema and TCM etc.

I could watch reel after reel without ever getting sick of it.

Or would I?

R73 of course DDL was excellent, but god that movie which I watched in the theatre had absolutely no impact besides him.

What's strange about Gangs is how terrible Cameron Diaz was. Usually Scorsese excels at getting good performances out of mediocre actresses (Lorraine Bracco in Goodfellas, Sharon Stone in Casino, Winona Ryder in Age of Innocence, etc.), but he just couldn't make Diaz work. But he made up for it with Margot Robbie: She was the best thing about Wolf of Wall Street.

R11

Thank you.

So true, R83! And Diaz lost all her beauty as a redhead and then couldn’t act for shit; she was *terrible* in that movie.

She is the only one worse than Leo in that film.

It is dull and lifeless, R69, and a chore to watch.

And I say that as someone who likes Scorsese and respects him and was looking forward to the film.

I also found it unintentionally hilarious that Vera Farmiga of all people (who I like as an actor) was basically the “only woman in town” and both Damon and DiCaprio’s characters found her irresistible and they both ended up sleeping with her. That all felt very random..

Even though I liked "The Departed," Jack Nicholson was hard to watch. I never realized how much of an over-actor he was until I saw that movie.

[quote]The AMPAS certified it as an important film by doing so

Every film that wins an Oscar is by definition an important film? Okay.

I felt like Jack was trying whatever he could to bring that dead movie to life, R87; it was one of the only times I really forgave his excesses.

Some scenes they had the cast do in that movie were just bizarre (Jack and his gang and DiCaprio meeting with a Chinese gang with machine guns—in Boston— to sell stolen computer parts to them for money?? I know the material was an America based remake of a Chinese film, but still, that scene felt so bizarre...)

I love Shutter Island.

Scorsese is not alone, of course. Year ago, Francis Ford Coppola made 3 films that are often listed as among the 10 best films ever made, and then {{{ crickets }}} . It's harder to be a consistent, sustained genius than we can imagine, apparently.

As Tarantino said, after 55-60 years old directors should wrap it up and stop because the quality of their films, mainly due to caring so much, falls to shit.

Tarantino should have hung it up after Sally Menke died. Without his long-time editor to reel him in, his movies have become bloated messes.

Scorsese made the mistake of hitching a ride with Thelma and Louise.

I can't help it. I love Casino. I can't take my eyes of Sharon Stone. Clearly she is channeling the truth about what happens when a BPD person with a tough facade starts to crumble. It's devastating to watch. It might be her own life story, too.

Are you high, OP? Casino, The Departed, Silence and Wolf Of Wall Street are as good as anything on his early resume. Great films. And in a day and age where all we get are sophomoric superhero movies, we should be thankful there's still someone out there making adult movies for an adult audience.

They simplified Ginger's story a lot from the book of Casino--changed her name from Geri, got rid of a couple of her kids, etc--but it's still a sordid and sad story. When she first started seeing Lefty (Ace in the film), she smirked at him and said, "You've never been with anybody like me, have you?" Meaning someone as gorgeous as she was. Geri tried to make the trophy-wife thing work with Lefty, but he was such a control freak she couldn't take it. Of course, she was a gold-digging grifter, so it really was a match made in hell.

The book Casino is worth a read, BTW.

Nothing will ever top Goodfellas, but it IS nice to see someone making something besides superhero movies. I thought the fad for comic book heroes would have died down by now, but it feels like that particular trend will be with us forever.

[quote]As Tarantino said, after 55-60 years old directors should wrap it up and stop because the quality of their films, mainly due to caring so much, falls to shit.

Tarantino is 56. I guarantee you he won't listen to his own advice.

R93 is right. The Hateful Eight was a paceless, rhythmless mess.

Agreed, R99: He doesn't know when to quit.

I liked Django Unchained until the last bit, when instead of ending it after Christoph Waltz's and Leo DiCaprio's characters died, letting Django ride off into the sunset with this wife, they tacked another totally unnecessary 30 minutes or so, including a truly horrific cameo by Tarantino himself, attempting to do some kind of accent (Irish? Australian?) and coming off sounding like a stroke victim. Talk about not understanding the rhythms of your own story . . .

I loved his early work, and I hope Once Upon a Time in Hollywood will be a return to form, but after Django and Hateful Eight, I'm not optimistic.

Almost all of Tarantino's films are too long. His shtick is making exploitation films at art house length and pacing. It's tiresome.

I love Casino, The Age of Innocence and, though to a lesser extent, The Departed.

Yeah, Kill Bill would have made ONE good three-hour movie, not two bloated two-hour movies.

People are missing the point, Tarantino said he's stopping at 10 or 11 because he KNOWS that HE will make crap movies like all his heroes. Father time is undefeated in his eyes. Directors stop giving a shit.

He said he's getting there already.

If he's stopping at 60 after 10/11 movies, that means he has maybe one movie left in him after Once Upon at Time in Hollywood. That's probably just as well.

[quote]Tarantino said he's stopping at 10 or 11 because he KNOWS that HE will make crap movies like all his heroes.

Maybe Tarantino is overestimating himself when he says 10 or 11.

If you count Kill Bill as two movies, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood makes 10.

Reservoir Dogs

Pulp Fiction

Jackie Brown

Kill Bill 1

Kill Bill 2

Death Proof

Inglourious Basterds

Django Unchained

Hateful Eight

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Scorsese is without question a better director than Tarantino at least...

I recently watched Casino and it was awful, except for The Rolling Stones soundtrack.

After the 5th time Sharon Stone got drunk, stoned, wasted and screamed her head off I was like, "You DO kneow we've got this, right? We get that she's a drunk, slut, thief, maniac and DeNiro's character doesn't do anything about it. We get that. We got that three scream scenes ago."

The film seemed pointless to me.

Scrosese is the type of director who makes films about filmmaking. There is the film that you're watching and then there is this language that speaks to you at the same time, if you can see it. To those who study film this type of experience is always going to be exciting. For that reason, his films are never going to be pointless or dull to me.

Millennials always talk about how amazing Casino is, it's like "their GoodFellas." Sort of the same way The Phantom Menace was "their Empire Strikes Back."

Casino is most definitely not a great movie. Scorsese is a powerful film maker, so his scenes are often interesting to watch even if the story itself isn't that great, but in Casino ... the story itself isn't that great. I guess everyone thought that Pileggi, Pesci and De Niro could make that GoodFellas magic happen again, but lightning did not strike twice.

[quote]Scrosese is the type of director who makes films about filmmaking.

What a ridiculous typo -- it's obviously Scrotumsese.

Casino sure is a good looking film, though. And the trailer is fantastic.

Casino is a Millennial favorite? Huh? It came out 5 years after GoodFellas.

I don't think anyone of any age really thinks Phantom Menace is as good as Empire.

The Departex was awful and Scorsese knows nothing about Irish Americans. Jack Nicholson's character was so non-itrish-American it wasn't funny.

Scorsese had his Irish American goons behave exactly like Italian American goons and they're nothing alike. Nicholson's character was obsessed with dick. Everything was cock, dick, prick. Irish Americans aren't nearly as obsessed with cock as Italian Americans are. Cock obsession is a macho Italian American virgin/madonna thing.

When Irishmen swear, it's all about shit. You eat shit, you're a shithead, a dipshit, you don't know shit from shinola, a woman is built like a brick shithouse, you stepped in shit, you've got a shit eating grin on your face, you got shit coming out of your ears, you're a bullshitter, a shit kicker and you look like shit.

No Irish American crook, not even Whitey Bulger, was as obsessed with dick as Nicholson in Departed. It was just so stupid

Sounds like a lot of Irish mobsters had unfortunate toilet-training experiences.

[quote]Casino is a Millennial favorite? Huh? It came out 5 years after GoodFellas.

Yes and it's those five years that make the difference. Millennials were too young for Goodfellas, but were teenagers by the time Casino came out.

I think “Casino” is great and it got plenty of excellent reviews at the time. It’s also gorgeous to look at.

I also found both the storyline and characters to be compelling.

I don’t understand this trying to denigrate it somehow by calling it a “Millennial favorite” (which I don’t even think that it is really—more Millennial “film geeks” know of “Goodfellas” and definitely “Wolf of Wall Street” more than “Casino”....)

It's too bad that IMDb's message boards are down. There were endless arguments on the comments section of Casino about how it was a better movie than GoodFellas, a position usually taken by Millennial posters. For the same reason that they defended the "prequels" so fiercely. lol

Nobody was going to see Martin Scorsese movies—let alone “Casino”—as a teenage Millennial!

Also: “Goodfellas” and “Casino” are *both* set in the past and are technically “period films” so it’s not like millennials would have a more “relevant” time period to cling to in either “Casino” or “Goodfellas”...

Maybe not YOU, miss r120....

God, that is a great trailer, R113! Reminds me that De Niro was still in *top* form then too (the same year as “Heat” as well if I recall correctly).

I want to watch the film all over again after watching that...

[quote]Are you high, OP? Casino, The Departed, Silence and Wolf Of Wall Street are as good as anything on his early resume.

Um, no.

Did Scorsese ever pay that $13 million home mortgage back? Can’t Leo just pay it off for him Jack Nicholson style if he really gets in trouble (like Nicholson did for Robert Evans when he eventually fell on hard times)?

Behind the scenes of “Casino” (since we clearly all love this film here at DL)...

The costumes and set design in this movie are amazing.

In the second half of Casino, Sharon Stone's hair and costumes looked awful, like Carol Brady. I realize her character (Ginger) was supposed to be spiraling out of control (cocaine, bad marriage, worried about money), but they really made her look awful.

First half of Casino, Sharon Stone looked beautiful. Whole different look.

Here's Sharon Stone (Ginger) in the first half of Casino.

Another terrible look for Sharon Stone / Ginger in Casino.

He was probably replaced.

Young Marty #1

Young Marty #2

Lumpy Nosed Replacement Scorsese

Lumpy nosed replacement Scorsese young

BUMP!!!

An airport shoeshiner asked for my autograph thinking I was Scorsese. I think it was the eyebrows and the fact that I was sitting down.

Did you give him Scorsese's autograph? I would've.

I was just discussing peak periods that many filmmakers have.

Film as an art form probably morphs quicker than others. I can more readily picture an aging poet or painter continuing to produce relevant exciting work.

Film is a young art form.

Not always true: Robert Altman directed Gosford Park, one of his masterpieces, at age 75.

Fosse directed “Star 80” at almost 60 and I believe that a lot of the original excellent and pioneering old Hollywood filmmakers like Cecil B. DeMille and William Wyler directed very good films into old age....

George Cukor did “My Fair Lady”’ at around 65 years old...

R23, Agree, but also think if his problem is gambling, you can probably add in the costs of hoors and drugs, too. Even if MS doesn't do drugs much himself anymore, I imagine he still has some of this & that on hand as a lifestyle facilitator.

As soon as he replaced Robert De Niro with Leonardo Dicaprio.

R129---That styling reminds me so much of Sharon Tate.

Poor Mawty!

Poor Mawty!

Eminem 1 - Mawty 0!

3-6-Mafia 1 - Mawty 0!

Huh, R146? Scorsese won a Best Directing Oscar for “The Departed” in 2006....

No, I just checked public property records, he hasn't paid back the mortgage yet.

Wow, R148! Then what is he thinking? What is he doing with his money??

(And Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro took a job for $13 million dollars doing a “short film” to promote a Chinese Casino (in I think 2017); that was kind of random and unexpected! Are they all hard up for cash and bad with money?)

[quote]The costumes and set design in this movie are amazing.

Yes, they are. Eachwrist watch DeNiro wore matched some piece of his clothes in color.

If his talent fell that far off a cliff, he should do a reboot of Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner.

Someone posted earlier that the passion in his work has dissipated and I agree. The thing about Scorsese is he was always passionate and almost obsessive about his films, but I don't see that anymore.

From Mean Streets to Goodfellas, wow, what a filmography. Cape Fear, Age of Innocence and Casino are very good but then after that, it starts to get dull.

I wonder if it was the lack of drugs or the lack of inspiration, or perhaps losing his mother (who died in 1997). But the passion started to flame out in the '90s.

And the DiCaprio collaborations are nowhere near as good as the De Niro ones.

The voice-overs in most of his films are exhausting and nettling; it seems like he has to meticulously explain all the minute details in his movies.

Bernardo Bertolucci, his contemporary, was a much better filmmaker.

Ah, but Bertolucci was actually from Italy.

Nice pic, R150. I read somewhere that the costume designer used 70s vintage fabric to line De Niro and Pesci's suits, to help them feel more in character.

OP, I think his talent fell off after the tremendously underrated bringing out the dead. That was his last great movie.

Story about the Chinese Casino ad/“short film” called “Audition” where De Niro, DiCaprio, Brad Pitt (that’s a random addition to that group)—and I guess Scorsese too?—*each* made $13 million dollars for making it, and it’s rumored that the Chinese company paid $70 million total to make it....

This was in 2015! Couldn’t Scorsese use that to pay off his $13 million dollar mortgage??

Well, maybe that company has pull and they have to do that movie for their possible future projects (if any) in China, a huge market.

BUMP!!

[quote]The Departex was awful and Scorsese knows nothing about Irish Americans. Jack Nicholson's character was so non-itrish-American it wasn't funny.

Psssst.... William Monahan, Alan Mak & Felix Chong wrote it. He just directed their script. Blame them.

[italic]After Hours[/italic] proved he could do comedy, yet he seldom does anymore.

I think he should make some hot czech gay porn.

Watched 'Cape Fear' again quite recently (rainy afternoon) with lowish expectations. More than pleasantly surprised.

Had a faint memory of it being too lurid, trying too hard - but no. Expertly paced and edited (of course), vividly filmed, compellingly acted.

Acted in the style befitting a thrilling dark modern B-movie. Fun indeed for a rainy afternoon.

His films for the last 30 years have been mostly tedious and lacking in engagement, but he's always been boringly consistent as a filmmaker. As opposed to someone like Coppola who is wildly inconsistent and can make epic failures as well as epic successes. I find Coppola much more interesting, in that sense.

Totally OT:

A buddy of mine hooked with her daughter. Nice girl.

Continue.

Which one, R166? He has three.

BUMP!!

Your friend “hooked up” with Scorsese’s daughter, *or* Scorsese’s daughter was a “hooker” and your friend tricked with her, R166?

He should go back to his roots and make a low budget exploitation again

LOL, R169.

I love Goodfellas and Taxi Driver and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (prob my favorite). I really like Age of Innocence and Casino. But I don't like the DiCaprio movies. God was he miscast as Jordan Belfort. After Hours is a fun NYC curio, along with his chapter in New York Stories. GAPS: haven't seen Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Silence.

"The Curse of Leo".

CASINO is the best movie ever made about Las Vegas. It's only flaw is that Scorsese chose to cast DeNiro and Pesci in the main roles so the movie never got out of the shadow of GOODFELLAS. Everyone, critics included, kept comparing it unfavorably to the earlier film. If he had cast James Woods in the DeNiro part and someone else in Pesci's part, the comparison wouldn't have been as obvious and the movie would be better appraised today. I also think it's a mistake that Marty cast DeNiro and Pesci in THE IRISHMAN. Doesn't he pay attention to any of the new actors that are out there?

The answer is simply: cocaine.

Being on it drives you to heights of passion and intensity, fuelling (potentially) great works. All the while, it’s killing brain cells, eroding your intelligence and sensitivity, leaving you drab, jaded and disengaged. And what has been the signature of Marty’s work been lo these past years?

This goes too for most erstwhile brilliant actors, directors and other artists whose work irreparably collapses.

Fuck Goodfellas.

Many of Scorsese's best films are non-mafia.

The Age of Innocence, as one example, is a fantastic piece of work. And far better than either Goodfellas or Casino.

[quote]I love Goodfellas and Taxi Driver and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (prob my favorite). I really like Age of Innocence and Casino. But I don't like the DiCaprio movies.

The Aviator is one of the best things Scorsese has done. But I agree that other Dicaprio entries, such as The Departed and Gangs of New York (a generic, pandering, slog of a disaster; this was Scorsese's "dream project"?), are terrible.

Gangs, in particular, is a mess because of Dicaprio and (Diaz, who is shit in it, like so much else). Even Day Lewis can't turn the tide against Dicaprio and Diaz's shit characters/acting, and the film's outline is a very bland mistake.

[quote]I don't think anyone of any age really thinks Phantom Menace is as good as Empire.

Sith is better than both.

[quote]They simplified Ginger's story a lot from the book of Casino--changed her name from Geri, got rid of a couple of her kids, etc--but it's still a sordid and sad story. When she first started seeing Lefty (Ace in the film), she smirked at him and said, "You've never been with anybody like me, have you?" Meaning someone as gorgeous as she was. Geri tried to make the trophy-wife thing work with Lefty, but he was such a control freak she couldn't take it. Of course, she was a gold-digging grifter, so it really was a match made in hell.

This was the role I was born to play!

[quote]Yes and it's those five years that make the difference. Millennials were too young for Goodfellas, but were teenagers by the time Casino came out.

Heat was better than both.

[quote]Heat was better than both.

Nice comparison, but I'd say 'Goodfellas' and 'Heat' are first among equals. Each of them phenomenally exciting, layered, and re-watchable. Lucky De Niro to have graced both such great works.

[quote] Nice comparison, but I'd say 'Goodfellas' and 'Heat' are first among equals. Each of them phenomenally exciting, layered, and re-watchable. Lucky De Niro to have graced both such great works.

Heat feels like the end for Deniro as a generational, genius actor. After that it was middling dramas/thrillers, and a strange obsession with playing comedic roles.

There's a sort of metatext to Deniro's death in Heat. And maybe Pacino's survival. His career has been more interesting than Deniro's since 1995.

Yeah, De Niro and Scorsese's talents fell off a cliff around the same time.