9/10
I want to belittle all of Martin Scorsese's work - believe me. Anyone responsible for Gangs Of New York, a self indulgent, bizarre and overlong waste of time, should get a bit of a beating at every opportunity, but today I'm reduced to merely referencing that later film obliquely, since all you can do is stand and applaud King Of Comedy, a film that is just plain darn good.
Damn that guy.
This one is an opportunity for Robert De Niro to act outside his usual casting and get his teeth into a rare "loser" role. He plays Rupert Pupkin, a guy obsessed with getting famous and those with fame, most particularly Jerry Lewis' Letterman/Leno alike.
Also in the mix is Sandra Bernhard as a particularly creepy and obsessed fan who has a more "base" ambition.
The sheer amount of damage these people display, and which is superbly acted, is quite breathtaking. We are in the presence of two or three great acting performances while watching this film.
In fact, De Niro has never been better - astonishing as you'd imagine in such a tough role.
The journety of this film is the main thing, so I'm not going to spoil any of it, but take my word for it - it should be on your "to see" list.
This is a quick review since Mark Kermode mentioned it earlier, and I don't want to seem like a bandwagoner!
A
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Did you not like The Departed?
ReplyDeleteI preferred the original.
ReplyDeleteA
Hmmmm. Interesting. I tend to split Scorsese's work into two chunks 'The Good Stuff', 'The Rest'. I put films such as 'Gangs of New York' and 'Age of innocence' into the later but I am undecided where to put 'The King of Comedy'. I like the film, don't get me wrong. But it is not one of the best Scorsese films. Indeed in it's first release it was almost universally panned. I do like the Jerry Lewis role - the scene where he is taped in the chair and starts spitting bile at the 'network' folks was improvised by Lewis in rehearsals - but I'm not convinced it's as good a film as, say, Cape Fear, and it certainly doesn't match up to Goodfellas or even Casino (aka 'Goodfellas Jr'). I suppose the acid test of a film is 'would I sit and watch it again if it came on the telly on a wet Bank Holiday?' By that test the answer is 'yes'. But it's not his best. Not by a long shot.
ReplyDelete"Indeed in it's first release it was almost universally panned."This is not, and never will be, the measure of a good film.
ReplyDeleteAside from that, it's all subjective of course, but this is by far superior to Cape Fear, and I would rather see it again than Goodfellas, Casino or any of the other more "conventional" movies he made.
Once again, I agree to disagree on this one, Gary - but nice to know you see Gangs Of New York my way, what a dog.
Ahem, I of course mean you can't say how good a film is solely by its reviews.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes a mockery of this site, I suppose.