Raging Bull

Filipe Manuel Neto 1/15/2024 10:57:29 PM 8.4

**One of Scorsese's best.** This is considered by many to be the best boxing film made to date. And in fact it is a very well made film, where director Martin Scorsese shows all his value as a filmmaker. I don't know if we can say it's his best film, but it's certainly on the top five list. The plot revolves around the controversial sporting career of Jake “Bull” LaMotta, one of the most famous middleweight boxers of all time. At a time when sport was controlled by criminal mafias and where fights were often a hidden and manipulated betting business, LaMotta managed to succeed and become champion before his career collapsed under accusations of fight manipulation that led to the sanitation of the competitions for several years. The film portrays his journey well, but also dedicates a lot of time to showing us the violent man, coming from very humble origins and where violence is everyday, and who lives in a conflictive marriage due to constant jealousy. A man that very few could like, I dare say, he paid the price for what he experienced and finally understood the true value of violence. In fact, being such a violent film, it is obvious that children and more sensitive people should avoid it. Technically, the film is simply impeccable. The black-and-white cinematography could not be sharper, more pleasant, clear and well-framed, and the cuts made during post-production work are surgical and made with millimeter precision. With very special care for the sets and costumes, the film makes us travel through time with silky smoothness, from the 40s to the end of the following decade: without being an expert, I can say that I didn't observe any great problems with recreating eras and the sets, costumes and props are of high quality. The effects and makeup are unblemished, transforming the scenes in the ring into authentic massacres that make the real fights look like classical ballet rehearsals. I'm not sure, but I believe that, along with “Taxi Driver”, it was the film that launched Robert DeNiro's career to a level of maturity that allowed him to become the undisputed star he is today. The actor embraced the character with a commitment and dedication that is truly enviable and worthy of applause. Joe Pesci isn't far behind and does an excellent job as LaMotta's brother. In a more reserved but undoubtedly suffering role, Cathy Moriarty is very good, and we still have some room to see the elegant work of Frank Vincent or Nicholas Colasanto.

Andres Gomez 6/23/2021 3:57:24 PM 8.4

Impressive Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci in a classical Scorsese movie.

CinemaSerf 6/7/2023 1:45:55 PM 8.4

Sorry but I was really unimpressed with this tale of the life of legendary boxer Jake La Motta. It's based on his own book, so it can be relied upon to be authentic, but somehow this Martin Scorsese effort just fell flat for me. The usual mix of Robert De Niro (La Motta) with probably the least versatile actor I have ever seen on screen, Joe Pesci, as his brother Joey; Cathy Moriarty as his wife Vickie and an ensemble of Italian American co-stars just reminded me of a very much weaker "Midnight Cowboy" (1969). Sure, that's not about boxing - but I'm not too sure how much this is about it, either. There is precious little by way of ring action - though what there is is excellently and intensively photographed - for the most part it is more of a soap opera, backed up with loads of expletives and a bit of domestic violence that seems to have come to epitomise the attitudes this New York community have for their womenfolk. There is the usual gangland, fight-fixing, shenanigans but somehow it all comes across as remarkably sterile. I don't really rate De Niro as an actor. Like Pesci, he only really seems to have one gear; one style and it all usually involves him playing well to his own roots, armed with a ripe vocabulary and lots of angry tantrums. At times it is shot like a television movie; the black and white imagery is just too clean and pristine. It seems to be trying for a look that places it contemporaneously in the late 1940s, but instead, for me anyway, it came across more as a film out of it's time. I am certain that I am in the minority here; it played to a very full cinema the other night and received applause at the end, but I am afraid I just cannot see what all the fuss is about.