Taxi Driver : Best Movie Ever?

Best Movie Ever?

Best Movie Ever.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Close! I have it at 3 on my all time favorite films

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Not even close. it's the kind of movie in which one viewing is more than enough. As opposed to a movie like " Gone with the Wind" or "The Godfather", movies you can watch over and over again. it might make a best of the 70s list, but that's about it.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Super close! I have it at 5 on my all time list. Only one other American movie ranks higher "2001 A Space Odyssey"

Either way it's a masterpiece:)

Re: Best Movie Ever?

It's a definitive masterpiece and one of the best for sure.

Btw, one viewing is enough? Maybe for certain viewers.


You want something corny? You got it!

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Chinatown is much better than Taxi Driver imo. The script, story and acting surpass Taxi Driver by a mile. Taxi Driver, while a good film.. borrows heavily from Blast of Silence. It's a good character study no question about it.. but it lacks a truly great story to be top tier.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Chinatown is a fantastic movie, but the acting is nowhere in the same league, nor is the directing even close. Chinatown is an achievement in screenwriting. That's kinda it. Elucidate on why the story is not truly great and you might post something worthwhile.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Who said that I need to explain myself on why I think Chinatown's story far surpasses Taxi Driver's? You? There are countless sites that can outline Chinatown's story.. and yes.. it dances circles around Taxi Driver's. As far as the acting is concerned.. If you think that Jodi Foster, Robert DeNiro and Cybill Shepherd are a league above Jack Nicholson, John Huston and Faye Dunaway, you're on the wrong website. I don't mind some hyperbole but even DeNiro & Foster & Shepherd would laugh at what you wrote. Yes, we're on Taxi Driver's page but... fans will be fans I guess.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Yes, you need to explain yourself. I said it. Your refusal to do so is a clear sign that you just can't. What would outlining the story do to prove that it is a better story? One is a crime mystery and the other a character study. Is your insipid point that because one has a more "complex" STORYLINE than the other, it is a better film? Are you this asinine? Robert De Niro alone is leagues above Nicholson, Houston, and Dunaway COMBINED. I am exactly in the right website. Maybe you should see your way out. Shut up, you lazy critic.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

uh oh.. I didn't mean to eat your dinner, dessert and drink your bourbon all at once, but I guess I did. De Niro acts circles around Nicholson? In your own world maybe. Are you a member of De Niro's family or something?

And since I could use a good laugh.. please tell me how exactly does De Niro in Taxi Driver, out act Nicholson in Chinatown? Since you seem to be very enthusiastic about this, prove it. I think we both know that you're begging the question there..

Again... Chinatown is the stronger film in every way. If you don't like it that's too bad.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

You embarrass yourself. Nearly everyone puts De Niro above Nicholson. The latter ONLY plays himself, whereas the former was very versatile during the 70s and 80s. De Niro's portrayal of Travis Bickle is a multi-dimensional portrayal of PTSD, mental illness, and obsession. Jake is merely an archetypal PI. Want to focus on Jodi Foster vs. Faye Dunaway instead? I'd love to wipe the floor with you there as well.

Do you even know what begging the question means? Because you did it when you claimed Taxi Driver had more acting talent than Chinatown and made no effort to prove the point. Don't use terms above your intellect.

Don't say "again" like you've proven your point. You haven't even made an argument. You just keep repeating that Chinatown is better. I've outclassed you twice now. Either present arguments or be quiet.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Hahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh.. I knew I could count on you to come through for me brother. You're like this angry puppet that doesn't know any better when it's strings get yanked. You open your yapper and jump on the bait every time it's waved in front of your blowhard face. You are just far and away simply THE smartest and sophisticated movie buff on the planet. Your intellect and credibility are only preceded by your wit and ability to flat out "outclass" any and every poor bloke that comes your way.

OBVIOUSLY De Niro played a multi dimensional character. His boring charade AHEM.. incredible portrayal of a boring lifeless character who barely manages to break his stone poker face as he shoots people at point blank range, is not only a testament to his discipline as an actor, but also his incredibly interesting choice to express NOTHING. All of those long pauses and blank stares.. man, that's such genius right there. To just be quiet and randomly take 10 seconds to answer people's questions, or not to answer them at all! Talk about oscar bait! I guess that's what you call the portrayal of an individual that is dealing with PTSD, mental illness.. which overlap one another by the way, lol.. and obsession? How does he portray his obsession any differently than his mental illness? By his monotone narrations that conveyed the same thing throughout the duration of the film? The guy sounds like he's reading at a third grade level all the while finishing every sentence with a yawn instead of a period. (From which you seem to be suffering from, pun intended). Yeah yeah... he can't sleep.. lol, ever. Later in the film he does sleep but sounds exactly the same... such a profoundly multi dimensional performance, lol. These are supposed to be his inner thoughts and he sounds like he needs a reading tutor. Whether it be narrations about his loneliness, disgust for others or be it sending a card to his parents, same default tone, and talking as if he's a monotone robot. These are supposed to be his thoughts are they not? Make no mistake, this is a ONE NOTE PERFORMANCE from an actor who can never be mistaken as charismatic. He took on a boring role that didn't require anything other than to mope up a rainstorm for a few hours. He was par for the course. Jodie and Harvey stole the show from De Niro.. and it didn't take much. Matthew the pimp's interaction with Iris regarding her "not liking what she's doing" that scene right there outdid anything De Niro did in his LAME performance that fools like you think is more than one demensional. Pfffffffft... why don't you go back to sleep just like De Niro should have all along.

As far as Jack Nicholson only playing himself.. I guess Colonel Nathan R. Jessup was Mr. Schmidt's twin brother according to your praiseworthy cinematic wisdom. So Robert Dupea was separated at birth with the Joker? Why don't you purchase yourself your first real clue at a store on Rodeo Dr... the second hand shops you seem to get them from not only drive the point that you are one bitter Neanderthal.. but a naive and outspoken one as well. Keep shooting your mouth off.. rookie.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Puppetmaster pulling all the strings! Yes! Your plan is coming along nicely! You are pathetic...

Do you have some form of autism? His character was not stone-faced and expressed quite a bit. He just wasn't overt enough for you. Yes, part of portraying PTSD is portraying someone who has difficulty answering questions and being social. Yes, his mental illness, obsession, and PTSD all overlap one another. This is how humans work. Most adults understand this. Is that supposed to be an argument against the idea that they are different and the character and performance are multidimensional? It would help if you would use words to make your arguments clearer, you illiterate buffoon. De Niro delineates between obsession, mental illness, and PTSD quite clearly. His struggles with PTSD are shown throughout the movie, including his lack of sleep, hostilities towards the Urban populace, and difficulty dealing with integrating back into the society around him. All shown through the performance. His mental illness is showcased in his inability to form relationships of any kind; something we see first hand when he interacts with others - men or women. His obsessions then stem from these two elements of his psyche. You can witness this in just how focused he is on saving Iris during the dinner scene and escaping his demons during his interactions with Shepard's character.

Travis never gets decent sleep. You didn't pay attention to this movie. His narration of his inner thoughts are delivered the way they are delivered because he is supposed to be writing them down. That is what you hear. Again, you didn't pay attention this movie at all. He talks like a monotone robot only in his narration. Pay attention to his interactions with Jodi Foster. They aren't monotone. Social awkward, but not monotone. This isn't a one note performance. Travis acts very differently during his date than he does at the beginning of the film or with Jodi Foster. You just didn't pay attention to this movie at all.

Please, watch the movies you critique. And pay attention while you are watching them.

Nicholson only plays himself at different volumes. Yes, Jessup and Schmidt are strikingly similar in mannerisms, but I like how you had to span decades in order to find two performances that were somewhat dissimilar. One is a young man, and the other an old, tired man. You had to stretch that far in order to make your point. That tells me all I need to know. Dupea has the same cheschire grin that inspired the casting of Nicholson as the Joker, a role he butchered. Dupea is also a manipulative, actor-proof role. Stop with your tortured insults. They don't work. You are an inferior intellect and there is nothing you can say to change that, rookie.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

You have become so ill informed and warped throughout your pathetic existence that it's almost embarrassing to give you any attention at all. Yet your pretty little head probably wishes that men like Henry Kissinger got in touch with you when developing foreign and national security policy. No wonder you worship Taxi Driver. A flawed film, with a FLAWED and BORING performance by the main lead.

Autism? Rookie? Awwww... I called him a rookie so he called me an autistic rookie! Take that! LOL.. talk about an underdeveloped and juvenile mind. You're about as witty as a glass of milk. Oh Dear.. how many times can you keep bombing and begging the question, while passing it off as observant wisdom? You just keep passing gas to fellow movie fans and expect them to nod? Moreover, you seem to think that someone cannot grasp the concept of "begging the question" because they don't spell things out for your needy @$$. With all the name calling that you make a habit out of, it's pretty obvious that somewhere down the line, you certainly missed out on a few hugs. The more malarkey you spew, the more your attraction to Travis Bickle becomes apparent. Your "intellect" is pretty darn thin but you shouldn't give up kid. Keep at it.


You keep defending this flawed film with a flawed and boring performance from De Niro.. that's perfectly fine. Fans will be fans. Now I know that you have a full on brain cramp whenever people criticize it.. so I'll try to lay a few things down on the table for you..I'm gunna try. I'm gunna do what I can! Gently ok? Greeeeeeeeat. I don't want you to get BUTTHURT again.

Bickle does keep a journal. He also writes a card to his parents, etc.. at times, he narrates after providing the date, other times he doesn't but the narration concludes with a shot of him finishing a journal entry. FINE. HOWEVER... there are times that he is just talking about things without any of those elements shown or said. Are we to discern that he is ALWAYS writing in his journal whenever he narrates? The narrative technique leaves a lot to be desired there.. big time flaw either way in acting and script. So Travis decides to capriciously provide us with dates... then he omits them. Pretty safe to assume that some of his thoughts are on the fly and some are calculated and written in a journal. The scenes he has with Foster are decent and show a bit of emotion without any dissonance. You're telling me he can't form thoughts in his head when not writing in a journal with any degree of consonance? LOL Riiiiiight... yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Which brings me to De Niro's uneven, ONE NOTE performance. Oh yes.. it's supposed to be uneven and awkward right? uh huh... So the mashed potato face he displays front and center from the start of the film, to when he talks to people he kinda gets along with (his fellow cabbies) to the SAME MASHED POTATO FACE he has when observing the "scum" is perfectly acceptable when acting in a film right? Serious range there boy.. The same mashed potato face.. that same NOTHING, emotionless default, stock, blank stare when he speaks to Betsy in the coffee shop as when he drives past the thugs that egg his car and throw an object that breaks his back window (which is an awful editing error since the back window is in tact as he continues to drive and park the cab at the cabstand). This guy showed absolutely no emotional range here.. he was about as lifeless and boring as humanely possible. You want a solid performance from a similar character? See the Machinist and try not to pass out from a REAL performance. You want more De Niro greatness?? LOL.. The blank mashed potato face continues throughout the entire shootout ending.. HE EVEN GETS SHOT IN THE NECK AND WITHOUT A BLINK HE TURNS AROUND LIKE THE TERMINATOR AND CONTINUES THE ASSAULT ALL WHILE CONTINUING TO HAVE THAT SAME LAAAAAAAAAAME NOTHING LOOK. GARBAGE. I guess Travis turned into the Terminator there? The bullets had absolutely no physical or emotional effect right? I guess when people get shot through their neck and head areas they don't change their expression... just another day at the office. Yawn...

I do not expect you to get a grasp on these things on your own. Holding your therapists hand may do it though.

As far as Jack Nicholson is concerned... LOL. He butchered the Joker??? Hahahah!!! You MUST be a troll because he played the Joker character with respect to THE COMIC to a T. This has been well established by filmmakers as well as comic book aficionados. You just proved what an absolute HACK you are.. take a bow. Tim Burton could not have been more pleased with Jack's performance. Additionally, you wanted different character personas so I provided them to you. Then you proceeded to b!tch that the performances were decades apart. So your unfounded assertion (that Nicholson plays himself) got smashed through the back of your head and you couldn't come up with anything other than to talk about the gap between those performances? Talk about changing the argument once your claim was rendered obsolete. Shifting the goal posts are we? Sighhhh...
Since I'm a very nice and UNDERSTANDING person, I'll help you.. not to mention, I consider you to be a charity case.

The King of Marvin Gardens - 1972
The Last Detail - 1973

Ironweed - 1987
Batman - 1989

Now go troll somewhere else.. you victim of circumstance.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

A whole lot of insults with very few arguments.

Little baby boy needs a shot of Travis writing into a journal in order to figure out that the stilted delivery is that of a man repeating to himself (whether aloud or not) what he is writing on to a page. We are to discern that whatever he is saying to himself, he is writing. The narration is taking place at a different place in time from the events shown on screen. It isn't a big time flaw in acting. The delivery is perfect. You can't just say it is a big time flaw in acting and the script without explaining how it is a big time flaw despite the fact it makes perfect sense given what I explained. You never present any arguments. You just repeat assertions. Omit what dates? And why does this matter? Use your words to explain what you mean, idiot. Who said he can't form thoughts in his head without any degree on consonance when he is not writing in a journal? Can you expand on that? Can you make sense? Can you complete a thought? Talk about a lack of consonance...

Things which are uneven cannot, by definition, be one note. Please think through what you write before you write it. If it were one note, it would be the same throughout and therefore even. Silly dummy.

Anyway, your argument for why the performance lacks range is that he repeats his facial expression in two instances after the start of the film? You do realize people do this all the time in life, right? You do realize Nicholson repeats his facial expressions all the time, right? He is pretty emotionless at times, which makes perfect sense. And then, in other instances, he displays plenty of emotion. I am sorry that you can't ascertain this from watching the film - if you've even watched the film recently. Travis gets shot in the neck and continues his assault because he is absolutely driven by adrenaline at that point. This is what makes that scene so terrifying. But once again, this goes over your head because you aren't paying attention to the film. Something shiny probably distracted you.

The only things I cannot grasp are the things you simply do not bother to flesh out. You write like a high school drop out.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is thoroughly mocked for being a terrible performance - particularly now that we have Ledger's take on the character. I love the confidence in your posts. Hahaha! "You're a HACK!" Shut up, stupid. You provided no examples of his range. I explained to you why your examples were invalid and schooled you like the hapless child that you are. The world agrees with me: Nicholson plays himself in every role. It is the one criticism most frequently thrown at him. Please, keep providing titles and dates. He is guilty of that in those titles, too. "You lose, sir!"

Now, please go back to the drawing board with your insults. "Victim of circumstance" is the weakest comeback I've ever heard in my life.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Did you seriously just edit your post instead of replying with the requested clarifications? You dummy.

You don't understand the concept of begging the question. All my assertions have been supported.

Clarify some of the dumb, half-thoughts you put forward like I asked you to.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Why don't you find a checkered taxi to drive your dimwitted, simple minded fanboyism away from this site? Actually, check that.. you humor me. I'm almost rooting for you. Why? Because it's fun to root for the underdog. You think that calling someone a victim of circumstance is a weak comeback but calling someone a dummy does the job? Can you at least make an attempt not to come off like a clumsy oaf long enough to finish one post? I like FVCKING with you.. and make no mistake about it.. your monitoring of edits on IMDB threads exude sadness and loneliness. That said.. you better promptly reply to each and every one of my posts. You got that private? Great.. now go fetch me a six pack of some Belgian ale because I'm going to enjoy it once this post is done.

You oscillate between over complicating De Niro's one note performance in Taxi Driver and dismissing numerous Nicholson performances as just him playing himself. You're either De Niro's offspring, or on his payroll. It's not difficult to surmise that you have never seen the King of Marvin Gardens. You've never seen Ironweed either. If you truly think that Nicholson plays Jack Torrance in those films then you are a flat out TROLL OR, you just hope to go on conversing with adolescents the rest of your life, instead of with informed adults who hold more than a casual interest in film.

It's hilarious how impressed you are with De Niro, and this film in general. I'm not a fan of repetition but here goes princess. A character gets shot in the neck with a magnum revolver. He doesn't squirm, blink, shift his body, stagger or exude any human emotion of any kind for that matter. He simply has a fountain of blood come out of the orifice! He turns around like a cyborg, and fires back killing a pimp, lol. (All the while maintaining that same mashed potato face) I guess the pimp had no adrenaline whatsoever after getting shot outside. Yeah.. De Niro's forced "Suck on this!" delivery outside, sucked all of the pimp's adrenaline and shoots it directly into DE NIIIIRO'S bloodstream. Ahhhhhh... now we're talkin'. As difficult as all of this is to rationalize.. and boy is it ever, TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE COMICAL, BICKLE NEVER EVEN MAKES A SOUND THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE SHOOTOUT!!! I guess the pimp tagged him right in the larynx?!?!? LOOOL!!! THE PIMP SHOT THE ACTING RIGHT OUT OF HIM!!! Talk about a ONE NOTE SPECIAL that only gullible fanboys like YOU eat up! Moving right along.. the man, AHEM!! THE CYBORG, formerly known as Travis, casually and silently walks along the hall, pops off a few more rounds and then after all of this he goes up the stairs.... BACKWARDS LIKE A NIMBLE KITTY CAT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It seems like the lethal magnum shot to the larynx and shoulder only made him stronger and more agile!!! How much time has passed since he got shot through the NECK at that point?!?!? The blood loss was only minimal, I'm sure. Right? Riiiiiiiight.

Moving on. He subsequently gets shot in the shoulder at point blank range. Our beloved Terminator takes a seat. Still no audible or facial reaction, ohhhhhh but don't you fear kiddo, with the cyborg's continuous "MAGICAL ADRENALINE" he manages to whip his injured shoulder around in order to aim and fire several rounds into the assailant. The assailant, obviously not under the influence of the MAGICAL ADRENALINE, stumbles back and drops to his death. Here's the thing Mario, hearing countless deafening .44 caliber rounds being discharged in the hallway of an apartment complex would only provide an endless supply of adrenaline to ONE MAN... AHEM, our one note performer of the hour.

UGHHHH... I could go on and on, well beyond the aforementioned.. murdering this flick into oblivion. Describing how this clown still managed to somehow, someway look bored as he got to his feet. Looking as cavalier as could be, all the while harnessing enough energy to drag a heavy set man into a room (while STILL maintaining that mashed potato face).

I gave this black comedy a six, but the more I think about it, the more it needs to be dropped to a 5. A shot is fired in MANHATTAN from a firearm without a silencer. No one cares enough to take a peek out a window in such a densely populated area? Ok.... let's let that slide for a moment. After Bickle shoots the pimp, he sits on a stoop and has a meeting of the minds with himself. In the background of that shot, there is a television set turned on with people watching it like nothing happened. What's that? Shots fired out front? Oh whatever.. yawn. LOL.. again, this takes place in MANHATTAN!!!

Then... to top it all off, our ONE NOTE SPECIAL Terminator enjoys the hero's treatment. OH YES YES!! After purchasing several firearms on the black market (no permit to speak of which he mentions himself) in NEW YORK CITY (a place that had, and still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation) he murders three people, but is as free as a bird!!! Trial? What trial? I'm sure everyone that Bickle murdered needed to be murdered per the NYPD. The criminal justice system must have said... fvck it. So he retreats back to the cum and blood stained seats of his taxi cab... I mean, what the fvck, why not right?

"Taxi Driver Hero to Recover" Such realism!!!

PS- One of the most constructive jokes stemming from this debacle, is that De Niro sported the mo hawk to compensate for his abysmal, boring and one note performance. I couldn't agree more. Please feel free to address the glaring flaws that run wild throughout this film. Try forming a few concise and constructive rebuttals instead of the usual disparaging remarks.


Re: Best Movie Ever?

Nice shifting of the goal posts without ever answering some of the things you were asked to clarify and never did. Go back read my requests again if you need a refresher.


Why don't you find a checkered taxi to drive your dimwitted, simple minded fanboyism away from this site? Actually, check that.. you humor me. I'm almost rooting for you. Why? Because it's fun to root for the underdog. You think that calling someone a victim of circumstance is a weak comeback but calling someone a dummy does the job? Can you at least make an attempt not to come off like a clumsy oaf long enough to finish one post? I like FVCKING with you.. and make no mistake about it.. your monitoring of edits on IMDB threads exude sadness and loneliness. That said.. you better promptly reply to each and every one of my posts. You got that private? Great.. now go fetch me a six pack of some Belgian ale because I'm going to enjoy it once this post is done.


Blah blah blah...

Calling someone a victim of circumstance is a weak comeback because it makes no sense. Calling you a dummy makes perfect sense. It isn't a comeback, just a fact.


You oscillate between over complicating De Niro's one note performance in Taxi Driver and dismissing numerous Nicholson performances as just him playing himself. You're either De Niro's offspring, or on his payroll. It's not difficult to surmise that you have never seen the King of Marvin Gardens. You've never seen Ironweed either. If you truly think that Nicholson plays Jack Torrance in those films then you are a flat out TROLL OR, you just hope to go on conversing with adolescents the rest of your life, instead of with informed adults who hold more than a casual interest in film.


The problem with saying that I am overcomplicating De Niro performance is that most critics agree with me. As they do about Jack Nicholson.

I have seen both King of Marvin Gardens and Ironweed. He is Jack in both of them.



It's hilarious how impressed you are with De Niro, and this film in general. I'm not a fan of repetition but here goes princess. A character gets shot in the neck with a magnum revolver. He doesn't squirm, blink, shift his body, stagger or exude any human emotion of any kind for that matter. He simply has a fountain of blood come out of the orifice! He turns around like a cyborg, and fires back killing a pimp, lol. (All the while maintaining that same mashed potato face) I guess the pimp had no adrenaline whatsoever after getting shot outside. Yeah.. De Niro's forced "Suck on this!" delivery outside, sucked all of the pimp's adrenaline and shoots it directly into DE NIIIIRO'S bloodstream. Ahhhhhh... now we're talkin'. As difficult as all of this is to rationalize.. and boy is it ever, TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE COMICAL, BICKLE NEVER EVEN MAKES A SOUND THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE SHOOTOUT!!! I guess the pimp tagged him right in the larynx?!?!? LOOOL!!! THE PIMP SHOT THE ACTING RIGHT OUT OF HIM!!! Talk about a ONE NOTE SPECIAL that only gullible fanboys like YOU eat up! Moving right along.. the man, AHEM!! THE CYBORG, formerly known as Travis, casually and silently walks along the hall, pops off a few more rounds and then after all of this he goes up the stairs.... BACKWARDS LIKE A NIMBLE KITTY CAT!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He gets grazed in the neck by the gunshot. The shot does not go into his neck, thus why he lives. Apparently he was supposed to fall back ten feet? Again, you are a dummy. By the way, no one has ever had this issue with De Niro's performance. This is why you know you're reaching.


It seems like the lethal magnum shot to the larynx and shoulder only made him stronger and more agile!!! How much time has passed since he got shot through the NECK at that point?!?!? The blood loss was only minimal, I'm sure. Right? Riiiiiiiight.


It wasn't a lethal shot. Neither shot was lethal. Maybe watch a movie before you write about it? Much like when you claimed Travis got restful sleep eventually, it is clear you only half-remember the movie.


Moving on. He subsequently gets shot in the shoulder at point blank range. Our beloved Terminator takes a seat. Still no audible or facial reaction, ohhhhhh but don't you fear kiddo, with the cyborg's continuous "MAGICAL ADRENALINE" he manages to whip his injured shoulder around in order to aim and fire several rounds into the assailant. The assailant, obviously not under the influence of the MAGICAL ADRENALINE, stumbles back and drops to his death. Here's the thing Mario, hearing countless deafening .44 caliber rounds being discharged in the hallway of an apartment complex would only provide an endless supply of adrenaline to ONE MAN... AHEM, our one note performer of the hour.


People get shot all the time and do not react due to adrenaline. The assailant was fatally shot. Travis was not. Thus the difference in reactions. Again, you're just making yourself look stupid.



UGHHHH... I could go on and on, well beyond the aforementioned.. murdering this flick into oblivion. Describing how this clown still managed to somehow, someway look bored as he got to his feet. Looking as cavalier as could be, all the while harnessing enough energy to drag a heavy set man into a room (while STILL maintaining that mashed potato face).


The only thing you murder is other people's brain cells. You haven't made one salient point to begin with.




I gave this black comedy a six, but the more I think about it, the more it needs to be dropped to a 5. A shot is fired in MANHATTAN from a firearm without a silencer. No one cares enough to take a peek out a window in such a densely populated area? Ok.... let's let that slide for a moment. After Bickle shoots the pimp, he sits on a stoop and has a meeting of the minds with himself. In the background of that shot, there is a television set turned on with people watching it like nothing happened. What's that? Shots fired out front? Oh whatever.. yawn. LOL.. again, this takes place in MANHATTAN!!!


Who says they didn't peek out the window? In 1970s New York, people were not going to run out of their home to see what was going on. You saw in the movie how bad the city was back then, but forgot it for this criticism? You didn't think this through, again.



Then... to top it all off, our ONE NOTE SPECIAL Terminator enjoys the hero's treatment. OH YES YES!! After purchasing several firearms on the black market (no permit to speak of which he mentions himself) in NEW YORK CITY (a place that had, and still has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation) he murders three people, but is as free as a bird!!! Trial? What trial? I'm sure everyone that Bickle murdered needed to be murdered per the NYPD. The criminal justice system must have said... fvck it. So he retreats back to the cum and blood stained seats of his taxi cab... I mean, what the fvck, why not right?

"Taxi Driver Hero to Recover" Such realism!!!


Way to miss the point of the reception Travis got, idiot. Travis gets such a treatment as a commentary on the way American culture romanticizes vigilantes. You cannot possibly be this autistic. You needed the ending to be realistic? Jesus, people with Asperger's say stuff like that. Do you have Asperger's?


PS- One of the most constructive jokes stemming from this debacle, is that De Niro sported the mo hawk to compensate for his abysmal, boring and one note performance. I couldn't agree more. Please feel free to address the glaring flaws that run wild throughout this film. Try forming a few concise and constructive rebuttals instead of the usual disparaging remarks.


De Niro's performance is wildly multidimensional and runs the gamut. No need for a mohawk to make up for non-existent deficiencies. The mohawk was due to the fact soldiers wore such haircuts in Vietnam and Travis is a veteran of the Vietnam war.

I have been the only person making intelligent arguments throughout our exchange. Your arguments are hilariously inept. "Where were the people looking out of windows!?!? Why didn't he fall back when a bullet grazed him!?!?!"

Re: Best Movie Ever?

I suppose that hearing a gunshot, just outside of a street level apartment SIMPLY PUT... WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to sway anyone to move away from the windows! NOPE.. NOT A CHANCE! Maybe they were watching Chinatown?!?! If Manhattan was so dangerous throughout the 70s (and it was) why would the family just go back to watching television next to street level windows? They never heard of errant bullets in 1970s?

LOL... so the 44. round just grazes his neck eyy? That's your theory? OOOOOh all right, even if it does, it creates a gash and blood is shown to be gushing out of it immediately. Try watching the scene again to back up your lethargic contention. If it was only a slight graze than why would Scorsese want to go through all the trouble of showing a very serious wound, complete with a substantial amount of blood loss? The only explanation is that the bullet severed one of the carotid arteries which in turn, would prevent blood from reaching the brain. Thanks for helping me SOLIDIFY my point Hun.

Your so called "post" just had more of the same typical kool-aide drinking fanboyism. It has become embarrassing to give you the time of day, it really has.
I could rebut every single one of your fan finicky insistent & delusional theories concerning this HEAVILY flawed film.. but you are best left to wallow in your own pinch of nostalgia.

My apologies for tearing into a movie and actor that you just happen to jerk yourself off with so much.

Re: Best Movie Ever?


I suppose that hearing a gunshot, just outside of a street level apartment SIMPLY PUT... WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH to sway anyone to move away from the windows! NOPE.. NOT A CHANCE! Maybe they were watching Chinatown?!?! If Manhattan was so dangerous throughout the 70s (and it was) why would the family just go back to watching television next to street level windows? They never heard of errant bullets in 1970s?


Who said they didn't move away from the windows? I just said we don't know if they peeked through the windows because we weren't shown any of that. Also, first you complain about the "unrealistic" possibility that they didn't peek through the windows and now you've changed your stance; now you are complaining about the "unrealistic" possibility that they might not have moved away from the window? More shifting of the goal posts. How do you know they went back to watching TV? You're just making things up. Does your autism cause you to imagine all of these things playing alongside the actual film?




LOL... so the 44. round just grazes his neck eyy? That's your theory? OOOOOh all right, even if it does, it creates a gash and blood is shown to be gushing out of it immediately. Try watching the scene again to back up your lethargic contention. If it was only a slight graze than why would Scorsese want to go through all the trouble of showing a very serious wound, complete with a substantial amount of blood loss? The only explanation is that the bullet severed one of the carotid arteries which in turn, would prevent blood from reaching the brain. Thanks for helping me SOLIDIFY my point Hun.


Why would a gash not be the product of a bullet grazing you? Why would he have to be taken aback by a simple gash and some blood when he is pumped full of adrenaline and completely focused? That's not what lethargic means, by the way. I didn't say slight graze. I said graze. He didn't show a very serious wound. He showed a bleeding wound. Not all bleeding wounds are serious. The bullet did not sever one of the carotid arteries. It simply was not deep enough. The amount of blood is perfectly in keeping with a minor wound. I didn't help you solidify your point. At all. You just keep claiming people are helping you make a point when they're in fact embarrassing you.


Your so called "post" just had more of the same typical kool-aide drinking fanboyism. It has become embarrassing to give you the time of day, it really has.


My post was pretty fact-heavy and very light on insane speculation like "WERE PEOPLE WATCHING TVS AS THE SHOOTOUT HAPPENED BECAUSE I IMAGINED IT IN MY HEAD SO IT MUST BE TRUE".



I could rebut every single one of your fan finicky insistent & delusional theories concerning this HEAVILY flawed film.. but you are best left to wallow in your own pinch of nostalgia.


If you could, you would. You can't, thus you didn't.



My apologies for tearing into a movie and actor that you just happen to jerk yourself off with so much.


Thank you for apologizing for your inept analysis.

Re: Best Movie Ever?


Who said they didn't move away from the windows? I just said we don't know if they peeked through the windows because we weren't shown any of that. Also, first you complain about the "unrealistic" possibility that they didn't peek through the windows and now you've changed your stance; now you are complaining about the "unrealistic" possibility that they might not have moved away from the window? More shifting of the goal posts. How do you know they went back to watching TV? You're just making things up. Does your autism cause you to imagine all of these things playing alongside the actual film?


Again, who did you have to bribe in order to have your IMDB account reinstated? If a group of people are sitting by street level windows and hear a gunshot, they're either going to move away or look to see what happened outside. To sit there and casually keep watching television is unrealistic, just like this entire film. I'm shifting the goal posts? Shifting the goal posts is precisely what you have done several times during this discussion. I let it slide to an extent but you also tend to sidestep away from answers you simply do not like. Whether or not you care to acknowledge that you are naive and ignorant is irrelevant. Your assertion that Nicholson only plays himself is quite baffling. I could provide countless links from highly regarded film historians who would not only color you as dim, but utterly senseless as well.


Why would a gash not be the product of a bullet grazing you? Why would he have to be taken aback by a simple gash and some blood when he is pumped full of adrenaline and completely focused? That's not what lethargic means, by the way. I didn't say slight graze. I said graze. He didn't show a very serious wound. He showed a bleeding wound. Not all bleeding wounds are serious. The bullet did not sever one of the carotid arteries. It simply was not deep enough. The amount of blood is perfectly in keeping with a minor wound. I didn't help you solidify your point. At all. You just keep claiming people are helping you make a point when they're in fact embarrassing you.


A 44. caliber round severed one of his carotid arteries. The immediate and intense bleeding from his neck, supports this. LOL. Your lack of knowledge concerning human anatomy is quite evident. I wouldn't be surprised if you're jumping puddles to make ends meet. Mommy's anticipation to see her baby graduate High School never came to fruition? I digress.. You keep mentioning the "magical adrenaline" that Travis possessed (the other people in the building notwithstanding) Do you even understand how adrenaline works? Your refusal to accept factual evidence, underscores your inability to learn and evolve because you insist on defending a primitive movie! The carotid arteries are located on either side of the neck near the epidermis, and their main function is to supply the brain with blood. (90% of it to be exact) Adrenaline is produced in the medulla and the lack of blood reaching the brain, coupled with a furious heart rate, would cause a person to loose consciousness almost immediately.


My post was pretty fact-heavy and very light on insane speculation like "WERE PEOPLE WATCHING TVS AS THE SHOOTOUT HAPPENED BECAUSE I IMAGINED IT IN MY HEAD SO IT MUST BE TRUE".


Except it wasn't speculation since people were clearly shown to be watching television near the windows immediately after Travis shot the pimp. Just accept that you're dead wrong. Everyone else already has. Moreover your awkward, if not desperate phrasing is becoming more and more glaring with every subsequent post you make, e.g., "pretty fact-heavy and very light on insane speculation" Ok Hun.


If you could, you would. You can't, thus you didn't.


I did.. and again, whether you acknowledge it or not is irrelevant. So you can go back to eating the yellow snow now.


Thank you for apologizing for your inept analysis.


I did apologize didn't I? But you failed to grasp the reason for it. Do you consider reading comprehension to be an arduous assignment? LOL.


Re: Best Movie Ever?


Again, who did you have to bribe in order to have your IMDB account reinstated? If a group of people are sitting by street level windows and hear a gunshot, they're either going to move away or look to see what happened outside. To sit there and casually keep watching television is unrealistic, just like this entire film. I'm shifting the goal posts? Shifting the goal posts is precisely what you have done several times during this discussion. I let it slide to an extent but you also tend to sidestep away from answers you simply do not like. Whether or not you care to acknowledge that you are naive and ignorant is irrelevant. Your assertion that Nicholson only plays himself is quite baffling. I could provide countless links from highly regarded film historians who would not only color you as dim, but utterly senseless as well.


They're never shown sitting there watching TV like nothing happened. What goal posts have I shifted? Also, the fact you claim I've done something does not change the fact you did something. So, stop shifting the goal posts. There is no ignorance of naivete to acknowledge. I am more educated on the subject we are discussing than you are, and your weak arguments are a testament to this fact.

Go ahead and provide those links. I will provide links that attest to the greatness of De Niro performance in Taxi Driver and highlight the fact Jack Nicholson does not have much range.

For De Niro, here are two of the first links on Google. I can provide far more, you lummox:

https://www.1843magazine.com/culture/the-daily/how-taxi-driver-ruined-acting

http://moviecritic16.blogspot.com/2011/01/robert-de-niro-as-travis-bickle-in-taxi.html

On Jack, here is a good, even-handed appraisal:

http://sabotagetimes.com/tv-film/rounding-up-the-one-trick-ponies-5-actors-who-only-play-themselves

Many more, if you'd like them.



A 44. caliber round severed one of his carotid arteries. The immediate and intense bleeding from his neck, supports this. LOL. Your lack of knowledge concerning human anatomy is quite evident. I wouldn't be surprised if you're jumping puddles to make ends meet. Mommy's anticipation to see her baby graduate High School never came to fruition? I digress.. You keep mentioning the "magical adrenaline" that Travis possessed (the other people in the building notwithstanding) Do you even understand how adrenaline works? Your refusal to accept factual evidence, underscores your inability to learn and evolve because you insist on defending a primitive movie! The carotid arteries are located on either side of the neck near the epidermis, and their main function is to supply the brain with blood. (90% of it to be exact) Adrenaline is produced in the medulla and the lack of blood reaching the brain, coupled with a furious heart rate, would cause a person to loose consciousness almost immediately.


Funny thing about wounds: They bleed a lot even when no artery is severed. The fact you want to make this argument about human anatomy is dumb. You know why? Because you can't keep up. Observe:

The fact that Travis did not pass out defeats your own argument concerning whether a carotid artery was severed. You cannot apply scientific scrutiny to how adrenaline behaves in the face of a severed artery and then disregard biology when it comes to Travis's behavior post-gunshot wound to the neck. You defeated your own argument. You are truly stupid. If you wish to argue that it was because he held his hand to the wound, then your argument is once again defeated; in such a scenario, adrenaline would've still had enough time to act upon Travis.

Someone call the fight!

Just admit it: Travis's carotid artery was NOT severed and adrenaline had time to take effect as I described.



Except it wasn't speculation since people were clearly shown to be watching television near the windows immediately after Travis shot the pimp. Just accept that you're dead wrong. Everyone else already has. Moreover your awkward, if not desperate phrasing is becoming more and more glaring with every subsequent post you make, e.g., "pretty fact-heavy and very light on insane speculation" Ok Hun.



Incorrect. A television set is shown through a window. That television set is on. No one is seen watching it. You know why? Most likely, because they got the hell out of the living room and called the cops. Just accept that you are dead wrong.

What awkward, desperate phrasing? I am succinct and you are rambling; stringing together tortured insults in order to disguise your ineptitude as a debater and film watcher.


I did.. and again, whether you acknowledge it or not is irrelevant. So you can go back to eating the yellow snow now.


You admitted to not doing so in the very quote I selected. Now you're saying you did? This is the amazing thing about this exchange: you are so stupid that you cannot keep your points straight.



I did apologize didn't I? But you failed to grasp the reason for it. Do you consider reading comprehension to be an arduous assignment? LOL.



You apologized for your ineptitude. We all saw it.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

I would agree that Taxi Driver is generally considered the greater film than Chinatown, Martin Scorsese's direction is considered greater than Roman Polanski's probably by most and that most would say that Travis Bickle has more depth than J.J. Gittes.

However, your wrong about Jodie Foster and Faye Dunaway. Foster doesn't give a better performance and Iris Steensma doesn't have more depth than Evelyn Mulwray.

Besides the screenplay, the other aspect of Chinatown that is generally considered greater than Taxi Driver is the film score.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

No one has denied the screenplay bit.

Jodi Foster is a far better actress than Faye Dunaway. Not only overall, but in these two roles. Faye Dunaway is a ham. She barely does any acting of note in Chinatown. She is simply either stoic or panicked. Iris so natural. There are so many tones to Foster's performance.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Maybe Faye Dunaway is at times stoic or panicked because Evelyn Mulwray is at times stoic or panicked. Why's that the case?

And like I said, the superior film score to Chinatown clearly served as inspiration for Taxi Driver's film score.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

I doubt your claim regarding one score inspiring the other. Scorsese is a huge Hitchcock fan. That is the reason Taxi Driver's score sounds like it does.

No one is doubting that Faye Dunaway's choices are appropriate. However, they are limited and Foster's character is a far better showcase for a far better actress.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Bernard Herrmann's approach to Taxi Driver, which includes a bluesy melody, was much different than most of his previous works.


The presence of a steamy saxophone (played by Ronny Lang, for the most part) causes many to consider this a “jazz” score when it really is anything but. The saxophone suggests a jazzy respite from the composer’s orchestral flourishes, which provides a perfect counterpoint to the teeming underbelly of an urban nightmare right out of Dante. But the little jazz that is present here (usually the painful wail of the saxophone) is only suggestive in the way that Jerry Goldsmith’s use of a mournful trumpet suggests a stilted romanticism of a corrupt L.A. in Chinatown. Herrmann’s use of a saxophone here isn’t unlike the use of the predominant solo instruments in his later scores (whistle, harmonica, synthesizer, etc.) to carry a certain thematic mood across his otherwise dominating themes. Like the expressive considerations of jazz, the saxophone here represents a soul crying for release.

http://dougpayne.blogspot.com/2011/06/bernard-herrmann-at-100.html


Goldsmith's score was the start of the neo-noir trend in film music, applying a bluesy, jazzy sound to the mystery genre (the noirs of 40s and 50s tended to have more traditional orchestral scores) that was continued in such scores as Farewell My Lovely, Taxi Driver and Body Heat.

http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/2004/27_May---One_Hundred_Favorite_Themes_Part_Two.asp

Of course there were a very small amount of noir films featuring jazz before Chinatown but Herrmann's offsetting a jazz theme with dark, brooding, and non-melodic textures is, while having completely different orchestration and compositional techniques than Chinatown, not unlike Chinatown.

Regarding Dunaway and Foster, you still haven't proven how Foster's character enacts more depth than Dunaway's.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

That sure is an opinion some people had that Taxi Driver's score kinda sounded like Chinatown. Find me Herrman, or someone close to him, saying he was influenced by it.

Foster's performance simply has more range to it. She is funny, terrified, romantic, etc. A character enacts nothing. A performance brings things to life. The fact that Iris is a much richer character only allows for exploration by a talented actress.

And stop demanding "proof" when you have no authoritative points regarding anything you've claimed and clearly have no idea what "proof" entails. Herrman was an original and I doubt he gave two *beep* about Goldsmith's fantastic score. He composed a score that fit the script. That is where he got his inspiration. You said so yourself: the only similarity was the dark, brooding tone and non-melodic textures. This is easily drawn from the script itself.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Saying Taxi Driver is a great film is an opinion also and the people who I cited know far more about film music than you (or I). (Those were their quotes not mine.)

Moreover, you obviously didn't pay much any attention to what I wrote. The similarity is not only in the aforementioned dark, brooding and non-melodic textures (though the orchestration is completely different), but juxtaposing that with a bluesy theme, so the inspiration is evident.

Like it was pointed out, Taxi Driver fits in with Farewell, My Lovely from 1975 and Body Heat from 1981 in continuing this bluesy scoring trend.

Iris is not a richer character than Evelyn Mulwray at all but she does have a greater range of emotions and, given the circumstances of both characters, it's not difficult to see why.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Don't appeal to their authority. "Sounds like..." is still just an opinion. And saying Taxi Driver is a great film IS an opinion. No one denied this, you lummox.

You're right. I failed to mention that you also posted that a "bluesy theme" was present in both, so the inspiration is obvious! Wow. What a knockout blow! No wonder I omitted it. Shut up.

HAVING A GREATER RANGE OF EMOTIONS MAKES YOU A RICHER CHARACTER! Repeat that to yourself until you understand it. Don't minimize Iris by saying it is simply a matter of circumstance. You can say that about any character. What we see is always a product of circumstance. They are reacting.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Again, with Iris and Evelyn Mulwray, they're both sexually exploited characters who convey they're experiences differently and therefore one can't credibly be valued more than the other.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

But one performance (Jodi's) displays far more range than the other. No one is arguing the writing isn't great for both characters.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Still, one performance is far more subtle while no less effective than the other.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Faye's performance is not subtle at all.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Of course it is. Otherwise, you would've recognized all of her motivations from the moment she appeared on screen the very first time you saw it. And you didn't.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

That is called a twist and it is entirely up to the writer. Are you trolling now?

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Her reactions throughout the film have as much to do with the actor/actress as they do with the writer, in order to be sold as credible.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

But we aren't talking about her reactions, but how many of her motivations you are able to discern right away. Don't shift the goal posts. You have done this repeatedly and I've been charitable in letting you get away with it. And don't try to argue that you're really talking about the same thing because we know what words mean.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Has nothing to do with shifting. How she reacts in some scenes have to do with her underlying motivations and that's a testament to both the screenwriter and the actor/actress. And you can't discern that "right away" from first viewing in part because of her subtle acting, a concept you seem to have difficulty understanding.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

I don't have difficulty understanding the concept. I simply know you are *beep* because these rhetorical techniques are transparent to anyone with experience. You ARE shifting the goal posts. You started this latest shift by talking about how much more subtle Faye's performance was because you could not discern her character's motives early on in the plot. When it was pointed out that this was merely a product of the plot, you went on to say that it was he reactions that caused this... Because I guess being stoic is really subtle? After all that, now you are saying her subtle reactions are indicative of her many underlying motivations and you cannot discern this on first VIEWING because of her subtle acting. You've gone from arguing that upon her character's first appearance you cannot tell everything that is going on with the character to claiming that upon first VIEWING you cannot tell everything that is going with the character. You've gone from claiming that it is due to her ACTING that you cannot initially know all you must know about the character to claiming that it is due to her subtle REACTIONS that you cannot initially discern the mystery of the character even after the film is done. That it requires multiple viewings.

Then, when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes and exposes your argument, you claim that they are stupid and have difficulty understanding a point that you have changed several times over.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

I suspect you haven't even pointed out a single scene from the film to support your argument because you may be afraid I'll disabuse you of your analysis of the character.

So you really haven't exposed my argument.

It's also amusing that you would write the that "emperor has no clothes" when you wrote yourself that Herrmann's score wasn't inspired by Chinatown (despite film music scholars who know more about film music than you suggesting the opposite), after incorrectly implying that Scorcesse's admiration for Herrmann's work is the reason the Taxi Driver score sounds the way it does despite his work for the film marking a sharp shift from his work on earlier films scores.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

How can I point out a single scene from the film to support my argument when I think she is not subtle in a single scene in the film? Do you understand my point of contention? Do you understand my argument? Do you think about what you're going to write before you write it? Trust me, no one is scared of your meager intellect.

If you're going to be so intellectually dishonest as to say I have not exposed your argument, then why even bother continuing this conversation? You clearly don't give a damn and are perfectly willing to lie to someone's face.

How is that amusing? You just misinterpreted what I said - and clearly went back looking for something to complain about in my posts after I pulled up your skirt. I didn't incorrectly imply anything. I correctly implied that Herrmann was hired by Scorsese because Scorsese loved Herrmann previous work with Hitchcock; Herrmann then went on to be inspired by Taxi Driver's dark tone and wrote an appropriate score that still had plenty of similarities to the work that Scorsese loved. How is this in any way a case of the emperor having no clothes? Hell, how is your stupid misinterpretation of what I said a case of the emperor having no clothes? You don't even think before you write. Keep going back to more things I said and bring them up again since I obviously bruised your ego.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Again, I think she is subtle and you certainly haven't disproved my contention because you've chosen not to highlight a scene from a film that negates my opinion. My original point was that Iris from Taxi Driver does not have more depth than Evelyn Mulwray and you certainly haven't pointed to anything that disproves this.

But based on your logic you'd also have to agree that Jim Carey gives a greater performance in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind than Anthony Hopkins does in Silence of the Lambs because Carey clearly shows a greater range of emotions in both of these films than Hopkins does. Tobey Maguire's character in Spiderman and Spiderman 2, Peter Parker, has a greater range of emotions than Anthonly Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter in the Silence of the Lambs. Surely he must have given a better performance than Anthony Hopkins based on your logic.


I also believe you instigated the going back looking for something to complain about with suggesting that I was shifting my arguments.

Look, Bernard Herrmann took inspiration from Chinatown, among other film scores, among other film scores to write Taxi Driver. Taking inspiration in film music is not uncommon as Goldsmith's score for Chinatown took some inspiration from his own Planet of the Apes and his later score for Alien took inspiration from Chinatown . (Of course, if one were to pit Chinatown against Taxi Driver, Taxi Driver would be the less original of the two.)

Let me remind you what people educated in film music have said about the score:


The presence of a steamy saxophone (played by Ronny Lang, for the most part) causes many to consider this a “jazz” score when it really is anything but. The saxophone suggests a jazzy respite from the composer’s orchestral flourishes, which provides a perfect counterpoint to the teeming underbelly of an urban nightmare right out of Dante. But the little jazz that is present here (usually the painful wail of the saxophone) is only suggestive in the way that Jerry Goldsmith’s use of a mournful trumpet suggests a stilted romanticism of a corrupt L.A. in Chinatown. Herrmann’s use of a saxophone here isn’t unlike the use of the predominant solo instruments in his later scores (whistle, harmonica, synthesizer, etc.) to carry a certain thematic mood across his otherwise dominating themes. Like the expressive considerations of jazz, the saxophone here represents a soul crying for release.


http://dougpayne.blogspot.com/2011/06/bernard-herrmann-at-100.html



Goldsmith's score was the start of the neo-noir trend in film music, applying a bluesy, jazzy sound to the mystery genre (the noirs of 40s and 50s tended to have more traditional orchestral scores) that was continued in such scores as Farewell My Lovely, Taxi Driver and Body Heat.


http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/articles/2004/27_May---One_Hundred_Favorite_Themes_Part_Two.asp

Re: Best Movie Ever?

The onus is on you to highlight a scene that proves your point. Not on me to highlight a scene that disproves a point you have not proven to begin with. I can highlight every scene in order to show she is not subtle, and have implied as much for ages now. It is dishonest of you to say that I have not proven that Iris has more depth than Evelyn; I highlighted several scenes in which I argued Iris had more depth, subtly, and range than Evelyn did in all of Chinatown. In turn, you simply claimed I was wrong and were to lazy to highlight examples of Evelyn being any of those things to a greater degree than Iris. I repeat: the onus is on you to highlight these scenes. I have already supported my horse in this race.

Carrey absolutely gives a greater performance in those two films than Hopkins does in Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lecter has overshadowed the rest of Hopkins's career to the point of absurdity. It is not even one of HIS better performances. As far as Tobey Macguire in Spiderman, you are being overly simplistic in an effort to dismiss my point. This is you doing yourself an injustice. It is not merely a matter of range, but depth as well. We've discussed this already. Hannibal Lecter has more depth than Spiderman as far as the portrayals and characters themselves. Do me a favor: understand the logic before you apply it.

Pointing out that you are shifting your arguments is not going back for something. These were, after all, arguments you were currently shifting the goal posts on. I let arguments you had previously shifted rest. Stop trying to defend yourself at every turn. You made a mistake. Admit it.

You're repeating your arguments concerning Taxi Driver's score. Is this what it has come to? While that gentleman may be learned on the subject of film music, the fact remains that nothing in his opinions necessitates an education in film music to agree or disagree with. He simply thinks it sounds like another score. Great for him. I have ears, too. I have listened to many film scores, too. I happen to think that the similarities are not indicative of a direct influence until you can actually show me Herrmann admitting to as much. There are other, simpler explanations for why Herrmann's final score sounds the way it does. The script being the obvious one. No one disagrees that they sound similar. We all have ears. You're the one making the logical leap that not even those writers make: that Herrmann was clearly influenced by Goldwyn's score. Do you need to read a book on logic in order to figure out how sounding similar does not necessarily mean one influenced the other? Do you need to work on your reading comprehension in order to figure out that those writers are NOT agree with you, but merely pointing out similarities?

Re: Best Movie Ever?

So now you're the one shifting the argument from a range of emotions to depth, because Peter Parker clearly shows a greater range of emotions in Spiderman 1 and 2 than Hannibal Lector and you realize that your argument would be severely undermined if you don't add something else.

No, the onus should be on you to demonstrate that the prostitute Iris has more depth than the rape victim/mother Evelyn Mulwray. Are you now saying that rape victims/ possible sexual assault victims are required to convey the same emotions to be more authentic?

Sounding similar has less to do with Taxi Driver's score being influenced by Chinatown than the way Herrmann employs the saxophone, a singular jazz melody played consistent through the film that lingers in the conscious far more than the rest of the score. That is clearly consistent with one of the quotes I provided demonstrating how Goldsmith's score served as inspiration for Herrmann's score.


But the little jazz that is present [in Taxi Driver] (usually the painful wail of the saxophone) is only suggestive in the way that Jerry Goldsmith’s use of a mournful trumpet suggests a stilted romanticism of a corrupt L.A. in Chinatown.


This has nothing to do with sounding similar.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

Actually, we already discussed that depth was a factor in what makes a performance great, you disingenuous prick.

In fact, you brought it up as a factor:


Foster doesn't give a better performance and Iris Steensma doesn't have more depth than Evelyn Mulwray.


And I let it stand because I agreed it is a factor, but you are wrong by claiming Evelyn has more depth than Iris.

Why are you reciting the fact one is a prostitute and the other is a rape victim and mother? Are you implying that a prostitute has less depth than a rape victim and mother? See how annoying that is? This is the last time I correct one of your dumb impressions about what I am saying. Work on your reading comprehension in the mean time. I am not saying they need to express the same range of emotions. They need to express an equally large range, because all human beings have them regardless of circumstance. Jodi expresses plenty of range that she doesn't HAVE to, but she does because she is a much better actress.


Anyway, here is my case for Iris:


She is funny, terrified, romantic, etc. A character enacts nothing.


This is not only range, but depth. As I said, the onus is on you. Support your horse in this race, you lazy bum.

The quote you provided is exactly about sounding similar. You continue to point similarities, but nothing to support the idea one inspired the other. Only allusions.

Re: Best Movie Ever?


The quote you provided is exactly about sounding similar. You continue to point similarities, but nothing to support the idea one inspired the other. Only allusions.



Since when does a saxophone sound like a trumpet? Go back and learn about musical instruments before engaging in a constructive conversation.


Jodi expresses plenty of range that she doesn't HAVE to, but she does because she is a much better actress.


This rationale applies to Toby Maguire's performance as Peter Parker in Spiderman 1 and 2 where he is in your words "funny, terrified romantic, etc", and demonstrates that he gave a greater performance as Peter Parker than Anthony Hopkins' performance in the Silence of the Lambs by expressing that plenty of range you talked about.

In fact he probably expresses as much emotional range as Jodie Foster. That should make his performance as great or better than Foster based on your logic, right?

Re: Best Movie Ever?

You're focusing on which musical instruments are used, instead of mood and tone? You've lost this argument.

Tobey did not express more range than he had to. He checked exactly the boxes that he was supposed to. I am absolutely on board with the idea that Tobey expressed greater range than Hopkins. The problem is that what he did express he was not particularly convincing in expressing. In contrast, what little Hopkins did with Lecter, he did with the craftsmanship of a season pro. When we compare Evelyn to Iris, we compare performances that were both equally convincing in what they each individually expressed, as asymmetrical as the comparison is given Faye's lack of range. While Faye may not be as diverse an actress as Foster, she certainly has her gimmicks down pat.

So no, it doesn't make Tobey's performance as great as Foster's by any logic either of us has expressed. Unless you think all this time we've been saying that the quality with which the range is expressed doesn't matter simply because we never explicitly mentioned it. That's like saying all wine is the same as long as it is the same type of wine. All red wine is the same, by that logic. This is why your "gotcha" moment doesn't work. It is a transparent attempt to dig yourself out of hole where I have tramped you, exposed you for shifting the goal posts, and left you behind.

Re: Best Movie Ever?

You stated that the quotes comparing between the scores from Chinatown and Taxi Driver were about them sounding a like which is false because a trumpet does not sound like a saxophone. Mood and tone aren't about sounding alike. Therefore, you've lost the argument.

The problem with you're logic is that if Maguire expressed greater range than Hopkins, you're pretty much acknowledging that he was convincing in expressing, probably more so in Spiderman 2 than Spiderman 1.

One thing I would agree with you on is that Faye and Jodi are equally convincing in these films and that Foster's career has arguably displayed better acting than Dunaway's career.
Top