Italianamerican: The Eleven Greatest Martin Scorsese Films
Submitted by thecritic on Mon, 04/23/2001 - 11:39
Tags:
- 1. Raging Bull
- 2. Taxi Driver
- 3. Goodfellas
- 4. The Last Waltz
- 5. Mean Streets
- 6. The King of Comedy
- 7. Alice Doesnt' Live Here Anymore
- 8. Italianamerican
- 9. Casino
- 10. The Color of Money
- 11. Kundun
The Color Of Money was bogged down by a so so performance by Newman and Cruise. The direction is magnificent, the story is weak. The Hustler did not need a sequel.
For someone who steadfastly defends that a film should be judged on its own merits and not on how it measures to the book it was based (a stance I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way), I find you criticism of The Color of Money by saying, "The Hustler did not need a sequel." a bit puzzling. Isn't this unfairly comparing one film to its "source," whether that source is a book or another film?
I agree about the direction being fantastic, and I to some degree agree about the story being weak (well, I'll say it has flaws), but I completely disagree with your assessment of Newman and Cruise giving so-so performances. Both actors were perfectly cast and delivered the goods. They both were fantastic.
So the film is not without problems, which is why it did appear in the lower region of my list. I still think it is quite good and definitely worth one's two hours to explore.
I'm not being hypocritical here. many films didnt need a sequel, and that has nothing to do with based on the novel theories. Come on critic, you know that! Did Jaws need a sequel, or friday The 13th? Some movies stories do not need to be revisited, and in my opinion The Hustler is one of them. The comparison to sequels and Films Based On Novels is way out there.
I think Mr. Critic is correct. Either a film should be judged by its source or not. Did The Hustler need a sequel? No, it didn't NEED one, but then neither did The Godfather. We don't need films, for that matter, but they did exist, just as The Color of Money exists, and I'm glad for both.
Really, either your comment was off the cuff and not a criticism or a comment implying that The Color of Money should not have been made since The Hustler was so great (which does not treat it as an independent work of art). The first is not a criticism and therefore harmless. The second does indeed fall into the very same trap you argue against when people compare a film to the novel it is based on - refusing to treat a film as an independent work of art.
This isn't really my argument, so I'll step out now, but no, the critic is not stretching to make his point.
And, of course, I still love ya'!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
"This isn't really my argument, so I'll step out now."
Shucks, you were doing great.
And I also still love J. Black, who certainly needs no sequel.
Excellent arguments all around, but I do think there is a distinction to be made between sequels (follow-up movies) and filmizations (movies from novels). It is generally true that filmizations are cinematic transfers (often with plenty liberties, distortions or deviations) of the story that exists in novel form. Sequels differ in that they are entirely new stories set in the same universe. With that distinction, I think it's a fair attempt to say they can't be compared (as jblack does when he claims filmizations should be judged independently of their literary source but sequels can/should be judged in context with the original).
Note that I said "it's a fair attempt." I personally don't agree. I think if you're going to make a case that filmizations should be judged independently from their literary source, that argument must be extended to sequels as well. Why? Simply because the tie back to the source is more tenuous with a sequel than it is with a filmization. A filmization is derived from an existing story and thus shares that story (unless we're talking about The Lawnmower Man, which only shares the title :-). A sequel only shares the environment, which I don't think is as strong a tie. If two works that share the same story (filmization) should be judged separately, than why shouldn't two works that share the same environment (sequels) also be judged separately?
Arguing that a film should be treated seperate from its literary source and not wanting a sequel made are two very different things. Mostly when sequels are made, they retread the pre existing story. Watered down from the first and filled with cliche's that remind us of the first one. The Godfather Part II is an extension of The Godfather(ironically both movies are the composite to the novel The Godfather).
But there you go. It is perfectly fine to not want a sequel made from a great film. That's cool. I'm saying that I don't think its fine to rate a sequel, once it has been made, poorly because it fails to live up to the original.
To call The Godfather II an extension of The Godfather still doesn't excuse anything. It is a sequel, just like The Empire Strikes Back is a sequel and an extension of Star Wars. Before the serial madness of the 80s, it was assumed a sequel would be an extension of the original.
You said, "mostly when sequels are made, they retread the pre-existing story." I don't see how this argument is valid while, "mostly when filmizations are made, they retread the pre-existing story" is not. I don't think you can have it both ways. And if you try, it makes you look inconsistent to us laypeople. :-)
And just to throw another wrench into the works, what about remakes? Judge them in context with the original, or as independant works of art?
Funny, I thought Color of Money was one of the better sequels. I think more movies should wait 20 plus years to do the sequel. I thought Cruise was great and Newman was his usual stellar self. But then I used to play pool for money a lot when I was younger...and more stupid.
I agree. Well, except that I never played pool for money. I stink at the game.