Mean Streets (1973)

This is the film that broke Martin Scorsese into the big time and helped launch the careers of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. Its gritty realism and hip cultural awareness was lauded upon its release and it continues to be held in high regards in terms of its originality and historical importance. Sadly, I am unable to give Mean Streets the credit it is due.

Harvey Keitel stars as Charlie, an Italian-American Catholic who is trying to respectably work his way up the ranks in the local Mafia establishment while also trying to atone for his sins by trying to help his off-kilter and borderline sociopathic friend Johnny Boy clean up his act. For Charlie, its purgatory on Earth, as Johnny Boy’s antics grow wilder and more destructive, both outwardly and inwardly. Though saving Johnny Boy from himself is the ideal, Charlie would settle for saving Johnny Boy from Michael a local loan shark tired of being jerked around one too many times by the kid.

Mean Streets is filled with masterful touches. The dialogue is witty but realistic, never sounding false or overdone for one second. Some characters attempt to speak in a dignified manner while others like Johnny Boy keep their vocabulary pleasantly in the low-brow gutter they live in. At the end of the day, they’re all street rats; local bums jostling for position at the bottom of the totem pole. The only difference is who has respect and who doesn’t.

The film is shot on a very intimate scale. Gritty camerawork makes it feel more like a documentary than a film at times. The use of slow motion and voice-overs bring an added flair to an already stylish film. Scorsese provides the voice for Charlie’s conscience and inner-monologue, often times providing a wry outlook on things while Charlie outwardly seems to be having a good time. It helps accentuate Charlie’s inner conflict.

I can’t talk about this film without mentioning the stellar soundtrack, apparently provided almost entirely from Scorsese’s personal record collection. My generation fell in love with Quentin Tarantino’s eclectic and inspired musical selections for his films but there is a difference. While Tarantino includes music that few have heard before for the sake of keeping things interesting, Scorsese includes a stellar mix of popular and secondhand tunes that elevates the hipness, coolness and attitude of his characters to new heights.

While directors like Francis Ford Coppola portrayed organized crime on grand white collar levels, Scorsese focused on the gritty small time hustlers, pushers and loan sharks that make crime dangerous on a day to day level. It’s a far more believable, yet jagged pill to swallow. Instead of stylized violence, allegory and inference, Mean Streets is brutally honest and upfront about everything, no matter how graphic and disturbing it may be. This is why the film was hailed as an American original.

This all sounds like it’s leading to a glowing review and a high rating, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s why- ever since Mean Streets and Scorsese’s ensuing work, this kind of gritty realism and exposure to big city crime on its lowest levels has become the norm. Nowadays a film is almost expected to be brutally honest and realistic if it is to be taken seriously. People in my generation, myself included, have been exposed to this kind of stuff our whole lives and we take it more or less for granted.

After doing some research on Mean Streets, I understand the film’s importance in cinema history and can instantly spot its influence on dozens of motion pictures, but I can’t quite feel the marvel of its originality while watching it. It’s the same problem I encountered while watching films like Frankenstein and Rear Window. I’ve been exposed to so many references, allusions, parodies and spoofs of their themes and concepts in my lifetime that I can’t capture the originality of it all while watching it. It’s as if my film-going experiences have spoiled me from latching on to something truly great.

While I appreciate Scorsese’s breakthrough for all the impact and influence it has had on all the films I watched growing up, and while I understand the cultural and historic importance of the film, Mean Streets is one of the ones that got away; an otherwise great film falling victim to my sometimes-jaded generation.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

National Treasure (2004)

Brainless popcorn fodder is what this mess of bad science and inference amounts to. Essentially, it’s an attempt to create an American version of The Da Vinci Code. It even succumbs to America’s greatest vice- greed. Instead of a controversial, well-sought after relic like the grail in Da Vinci, the heroes and villains of National Treasure are after, well, treasure. It’s a meaningless search for something that has no radical impact on anything profound (okay, so some bad guys would get rich- whoop-dee-doo).

It pretends to be smarter than Tomb Raider, and at least manages to be a quest involving real historical stuff. But it is strung together like a Michael Moore ‘documentary’- there’s so much inference and dotted line dangling between each phase of the plot that you have to either believe that (as the filmmakers hope) these characters truly are geniuses for figuring all this out in only a few days time (in the movie), OR (as your brain should tell you) this is one ginormous festering mess of a film.

Case in point: The opening scene leads us to believe that a century-plus old wooden ship can survive (hull perfectly intact no less) the constant melting and refreezing of the arctic ice cap, would only be a few feet under the ice surface, and that gunpowder (at least 100 years old to boot) explodes in a giant fireball. No. Just…no. And besides, didn’t anyone in the casting department remember from GoldenEye that Sean Bean isn’t believable as a mastermind villain?

RATING: 1.25 out of 5

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Quentin Tarantino’s original masterpiece, this film shows us what the director was capable of doing. The success of Reservoir Dogs on the Indie circuit elevated his credibility to the point where he acquired the funding to create his magnum opus, Pulp Fiction. Tarantino’s style is still in the refining stages here, and compared to Pulp Fiction, Dogs is grittier and less polished. But what do you expect from a first time indie director who learned all he knows about movies from working at a video store?

The thing that makes this movie stand out the most is the way it is told. Dogs covers the before and after events of a botched bank robbery. We never actually see the robbery and what makes it go wrong. Tarantino leaves that one gap for us to fill in with our imaginations. This is novel and at the same time risky. It pushes the edge of the fourth wall, but doesn’t tear it down completely. He merely gives us a chance to imagine part of the details. It’s subtle, but genius.

As far as themes go, Reservoir Dogs is about trust. There are several underlying themes and symbols throughout the movie, but trust is by far the biggest. Honor also plays a large factor into why some of the characters are thrust into their situations. While seemingly ultra-violent, the movie is also an examination of the male psyche. In a group of men unknown to each other, there are plenty of egos to flaunt and Alpha Male issues.

Other big pluses are sharp, witty writing that makes you question the archetypal brainless gangster, and Steve Buscemi (who excels in every one of his film roles). Despite some unrealistic parts (Mr. Orange would not have been able stay conscious after losing that much blood), the film is tense and a terrific first effort from one of the quirkiest directors in Hollywood.

PS- You’ll never be able to hear “Stuck in the Middle with You” again without thinking of this movie.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5