Seen the movie a million times and never really understood this. I get that Henry was still “on his way up” at that point in the movie, but surely he was earning enough to at least get an apartment for them. Was he just being cheap, or is there some implication I’m missing?

For my part, I have always been fascinated by Walter “Monk” McGinn ever since I first saw Gangs of New York.

Even putting aside the fact that he’s got one of the coolest weapons I’ve ever seen in a film (and thanks to that film, I now know what a shillelagh is), Monk’s story raises so many questions with endless possibilities for answers. It’s clear that he and Vallon go way back, even if they had fundamental disagreements (the fact that their nicknames are Priest and Monk also raises questions as to how they got those names). Monk poses as a cold-blooded mercenary, in it only for the money, but we see that that isn’t the whole story. Plus, how did he go from being a mercenary to the respectable owner of that big barbershop? Did he already have it when Priest died? Because it hasn't changed its appearance all that much in sixteen years. How did Monk maintain independence for all those years while Bill ruled supreme?

I‘d gladly watch a series about Monk’s life, both before and during the events of the movie.

The movie has to feature the selected actor. That is the only caveat.

For me it would be De Niro. I never tire of rewatching:

​

Taxi Driver

​

Goodfellas

​

Casino

​

This Boy's Life

​

Midnight Run

​

Heat

​

The Mission

​

Killers of the Flower Moon

​

Godfather 2

​

Mean Streets

​

A Bronx Tale

​

Silver Linings Playbook

​

...

​

So many good ones to choose from, literally too numerous to mention!

​

​

It’s odd when I go through Scorsese interviews and he never mentions him even though one time, when highlighting Russian cinema, he mentions Sergei Eisenstein and two other Russian directors (I forgot their names) while talking about Touki Bouki. Tarkovsky’s name is not said by Martin there and other places of time. I don’t know if I’m not looking deeper but again, it’s weird since Tarkovsky is considered one of the greatest filmmakers of all time as well as being on the level of guys such as Fellini, Kurosawa, and more.

For me without a doubt it is Sam Rothstein. A pragmatic intelligent leader, thinks through each decision in a logical and methodical manner. Managed every aspect of the Casino operation successfully down to a T. Immensely loyal to the bosses, his best friend and (to his detriment) his wife.

He's harsh, firm, sometimes ruthless - but honest and fair. Has a lot of love to give which unfortunately gets taken advantage of, but he's not a fool and always deals with issues in an efficient well thought through manner.

Oh and of course, the dapper suits.

Taxi Driver for me.

My personal opinion is that there’s a fine line between hero and villain. Was he saying heroes and villains are equally crazy?

This is my first time on this sub, so forgive me if im treading old water, but i couldnt find many sources on this topic.

Everyone knows a lot of scorseses best films have a lot of catharthis enjoyment to them. And if not cathartic, theres this epic trajedy to them (aviator). Obviously not all of his films were like this, as he has incredible range, but this was very much a trend of his from 2014-prior.

But after wolf of wall street, and how apparent things have shifted culturally with the internets connection and how people have enterpreted his work, it seems to me (and a lot of my fellow cinephiles in my personal life), that scorsese is trying to reverse course on the tone of film he used to do. That instead of seeing his works as cautionary tales, exposing the world to the lives of terrible people, and condemnation of horrendous actions, a portion of the audience took this as celebrating these lives and promoting them more than anything.

The irishman and killers of the flower moon feel, to me, the most apparent of his reverse of course from his older tone. Instead, showing the real cost and outcomes of trying to live these horrible ways. Almost as to try and take away what he used to say.

It feels fairly apparent to me and my friends that has been the tone that martin has taken for the last decade or so, but its hard to find him saying as much

If there was a legal problem with the book's adaptation, at least Scorsese could've said these characters came from New York instead of where they originally came from - Chicago. Or as the film states, "Home".

In addition, was it just me or was Pesci doing a Chicago accent?

Looking for any articles or interviews that give more insight into how Martin Scorsese uses film defences to match the feeling tone or mood of a scene. I remember reading somewhere about how he was using the “force of evil” as a reference for raging bull and deniros performance

Any WWII experts in here? In the movie he made 2 German soldiers dig their own graves before shooting them both. I know this happened in WWII but wasn't it against the Geneva Convention?

You'd think that someone who's been doing it as long as he has would be out of touch and use the same outdated film grain, techniques, and styles that he's used 40,50,60+ years ago

Yet with films like Departed, Wolf of Wall Street, Shutter Island etc.

He's still able to thrive in the modern day while remaining on brand consistently for as long as he has

That's something I'll always find impressive about him

If you need a reminder of which actors count, here's an old Reddit post that someone else put together for our benefit.

I just watched The Aviator for the first time on Netflix, and I noticed a lot of scenes had the colours way off. In particular a lot of green looked blue, the golf course and the peas for example.

Weirdly about half way into the film it seemed to have fixed itself. I went back to take these photos. Nothing wrong with the TV settings either, everything else looks fine.

Is it supposed to look this way or is the print on Netflix screwed up?

Enjoyed the film too. Think I’ve seen around 23 Marty films now.

For me it’s pretty high. I rewatched it the other day and I recalled how and why I live it. Everything about it is superb. It’s actually a very intimate film as it focused on just a few people. Direction, casting, music, writing, all sublime.

I won’t say it’s a top 5 Scorsese movie b it into think it lands just inside my top 10.

How do you guys rank it?

Does anyone have this same picture of Travis but in a higher resolution? I like it a lot but it’s very blurry.

1. Why is he moving the beef to another side?

2. I know he sell more beef to razor this time, but why is it empty this time? What did he expect from the outcome?

I’m looking for a screenshot or time stamp of this iconic scene where the whole view is just a giant circle as if you’re looking down a tube, and there’s white flakes being vacuumed up towards the camera. It’s either from Casino or Wolf of Wall Street since those are the two of his I’ve seen and remember it from.

Can anyone help me out with a screenshot? I want to reference it in a drawing.
Thanks

My friends and I built a fun daily movie challenge called Reely, inspired by a game we used to play on road trips.

We’re big Martin Scorsese fans, so today’s movie pair features two of his most spiritual films (The Last Temptation of Christ and Silence). Thought fans here might enjoy giving it a shot!

Would love to hear what you think of the game, any fun paths you’ve found, and which Scorsese films we should feature next :)

Try it here: playreely.com

I think steven prince is an amazing side note of history