Boxer with Serious Rage Issues
So, my roommate and her boyfriend have been watching a lot of old movies and stuff, off some 100 best list they got somewhere (similar to my reading list), and I've been watching most of them with them. Last night's selection was Raging Bull. Now, can anybody tell me how this movie makes it onto a hundred best anything list? I mean, it's directed by Scorsese, so I'm sure the cinematography and directing and whatnot is lovely, but it's a little hard to pay attention to such things when the everything else about the movie is so obnoxiously bad. Of the 40 minutes we actually watched, there was a little bit of boxing, a little bit of sex with a supposed 15-year-old (Ew! And also, 15? Hah. Try 30.), and perhaps a teeny tiny smattering of civil conversation. The rest was loud, ridiculous and drawn-out fighting and obscenity-hurling. Oh yes, and repetetive. These people say practically everything at least twice. I think "Boxer with Serious Rage Issues" would have been a much better title for this movie. And does it ever go anywhere? We gave up after the first 40 minutes, but aside from a boxer with serious rage issues and borderline pedophilia, I couldn't detect any actual plot.
After those 40 minutes, we went back to the video store and came back with a John Cleese movie (Privates on Parade), which was probably the worst John Cleese movie I've ever seen, but it was amusing, and infinitely better than Raging Bull.
So if anyone can explain the appeal of this movie, please share.
After those 40 minutes, we went back to the video store and came back with a John Cleese movie (Privates on Parade), which was probably the worst John Cleese movie I've ever seen, but it was amusing, and infinitely better than Raging Bull.
So if anyone can explain the appeal of this movie, please share.