SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

connorbbalboa In the declining years of New Hollywood (1967-1980), a lot of the big directors who were successful during this time period made at least one film that was a major blow for their careers, financially and critically. For William Freidkin, it was Sorcerer (1977). For Peter Bogdanovich, it was At Long Last Love (1975). With a filmography like Martin Scorsese's, one wouldn't expect him to be in that boat. Unfortunately, New York, New York, his next film after Taxi Driver, put him in a career slump that led to his near-death from cocaine overdose. Scorsese made the film as a tribute to musicals from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Having not seen many of those, I can't say if this was successful as a tribute or not, but on its own terms, it's quite frustrating.The plot is that Jimmy Doyle (Robert De Niro) tries to hook up with Francine Evans (Liza Minnelli) during a V-J Day party (the film starts in 1945). He's initially unsuccessful, but at a later audition, the two discover each other's musical talents (she sings, he plays the saxophone), and they go through the next several years exploring their careers while trying to handle a rocky relationship that only deteriorates when Francine reveals her pregnancy.For me, at least, the most obvious problem is how the dialogue is handled. Scorsese films usually excel in it, but here, there is so much dialogue that drags scenes out and feel like each character is trying to explain everything he or she means. Other times, the dialogue can feel pretty sparse and useless. The opening scene is a prime example; when Jimmy keeps asking Francine for her phone number and tries to hit on her, all Francine keeps saying is "No," which keeps De Niro from coming with things for his character to say. Apparently, most of the dialogue was improvised and Scorsese had no control over it.Characterization is another major problem. Jimmy Doyle is supposed to be a guy who has a passion for music, but other than his scenes playing the saxophone, there doesn't seem to be much of an indication. He mentions it in one or two dialogue scenes, and one creative shot in the film where he plays under a light post shows off that passion, but besides that, you could easily miss that part of his character. He is also very annoying. Because of all the improvisation, De Niro just seems to be phoning in his performance and plays the character as extremely socially awkward with a temper, and as a guy who will not shut up. Nearly every time he started talking, I groaned in exasperation. The only real time when Jimmy seems to have any depth is during a large part of the second half where it is clear that he is jealous of Francine's constant career boosts while he struggles to get anywhere. Nobody calls him out on his flaws, either.Minnelli's Francine doesn't fare much better. Very little is revealed about her, except for her passion for singing, similar to Jimmy. She doesn't seem to be making that much effort to make her own decisions as a character, and while putting up with Jimmy for so long is admirable, it was so nonsensical, that in some of the later scenes, I kept thinking, "Just divorce this guy already." Thankfully, when Jimmy is not present, Minnelli makes the character shine with her singing skills and the last forty minutes are a treat due to that reason alone.For the most part, the production design looks well-done, although a few sets are obviously fake, although, Scorsese also made this a directorial choice. The design mostly stands out in some of the later scenes when Francine is making a career of her own away from Jimmy, such as when it revels in its "Happy Endings" musical number. Of course, Francine does sing "New York, New York," and while Frank Sinatra is usually identified with the song, Minnelli's voice arguably goes even better with it, as it is smoother and has much more energy.To conclude, New York, New York had plenty of ambition, but it's let down by the frustrating-to-sit-through dialogue scenes and the characterizations of both De Niro's Jimmy and Minnelli's Francine. I've complained about musicals that include songs which stop the story and go on for too long, but here, the story is what goes wrong. This film was a box office flop for United Artists, and while the film did hurt Scorsese as a person and as a director for a time, he did eventually bounce back with some hits throughout the 80s and 90s.

Andrew Boone The first thing that needs to be said about Scorsese's highly underrated "New York, New York" is that it can't possibly be fully appreciated by anyone who hasn't seen films like "An American in Paris" and "Singin' in the Rain". Scorsese's film is very much a pastiche (or parody, depending on your perspective) of these earlier musicals by MGM. The entire formula for the film is based around them. Stylistically attractive visuals, light and witty dialogue, a romance at the center of the story, and a foray into narratively digressive musical territory toward the end of the film. It's all there. This hypotextual reflection of Hollywood's golden age, however, is only half the picture. The other half is that this is very much a Scorsese film, despite many claims to the contrary. Scorsese's hallmarks are all over it. We have Robert De Niro in the lead role, playing an oppressive, dominant alpha male personality type, amplified by a bit of that good old-fashioned Italian-American upbringing that Scorsese knew so well. Harvey Keitel played this character in "Who's That Knocking at My Door" and "Mean Streets" (and even "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", in a lesser role), and now, for "Taxi Driver", "New York, New York", "Raging Bull", and even "Casino", it's De Niro. I've seen nineteen Scorsese films, and this is by far the most cinematographically impressive of them all. The lighting is flawless; the direction exemplary. Scorsese has always been a top talent in terms of his technical skills as a director, but visually, this film is stunning on an entirely different level. The film's aesthetic seeks to mimic the visual attractiveness of those classic Hollywood musicals (Scorsese even gives us a few false backgrounds, just for good measure), and in that way it was very successful. This film is eye candy on a par with Wong Kar-wai's "In the Mood for Love", Korine's "Spring Breakers", Refn's "Only God Forgives", or Fassbinder's "Lola". As for the film's content, about which too little has been written, the entire thematic core of the film is reflected in the casting of its two principal parts: First, we have Robert De Niro, the classic Scorsese casting choice, playing very much the same character we've seen him play in other Scorsese films. On the other end, we have Liza Minnelli, the daughter of none other than Judy Garland, the ultra-famous musical actress of Hollywood's glory days. And Liza's father? Vincente Minelli, director of famous Hollywood musicals like "The Band Wagon", "Gigi", and "An American in Paris". Scorsese throws these two characters together in a violent tempest of passion and suffocating possessiveness. But we, the audience, are also witnessing two worlds being thrown together: De Niro represents Scorsese's world — his vision of a reality steeped in alpha male aggression and hyper-possessiveness over females — and Liza Minnelli, daughter of the golden age of Hollywood, represents that other, make-believe world of American culture — that unique brand of lighthearted escapism and pure cinematic fantasy that Hollywood produced so enticingly in the '30s, '40s, and '50s. Cinematically, we are watching traditional Hollywood fantasy pitted against a vaguely Cassavetes-esque realism.What will happen when these two disparate realities attempt to coexist? Well, Scorsese doesn't offer an outright answer, except to say it will be difficult — extremely difficult. Hollywood fantasy has created in the American mentality a world of misplaced priorities and unrealistic expectations regarding life. When the film begins, Minnelli's character seems to have her life together in a way that few Scorsese characters do (naturally, since she's not from Scorsese's world — she is born of that distant land called Hollywood). And then De Niro enters her life, from the other end of the spectrum, and emotionally shatters her to pieces. And so it's very much a film about the conflict between reality and fantasy. Ultimately, reality obliterates fantasy. The musical detour (the film-within-the-film at the end of the movie) has been the source of a lot of criticism, but once again, no one who's seen "An American in Paris" or "Singin' in the Rain" would be surprised by it. It was a structural necessity if the film was going to accurately echo the formula of those older films, as it clearly intended to do. That being said, I will admit that, at 160+ minutes in length, to abandon over two hours of plot and move into a musical digression so late in the film certainly tests the viewer's patience. There is a moment in this segment, however, that makes it all worthwhile. In this moment, we see movie theater viewers sitting in their seats watching a film, looking straight at us (the camera is placed behind what would be the screen of their theater), and behind them is the projector, casting its image directly at us. And so just as we are sitting in our theater watching them stare at the screen (at us), they are, perhaps, sitting in their theater watching us stare at our screen. And so Scorsese subtly implicates us into the film's themes of fantasy versus reality. Their reality has become our fantasy, and, possibly, our reality has become their fantasy. The final shot of the film is a reference to Gene Kelly's most memorable moment from "Singin' in the Rain". De Niro is in the street. He stands still, propping himself up with an umbrella. The camera pans down to his feet, pausing on them for a moment. The credits roll. We are left to savor the bitter and disenchanting taste of a reality so contrary to the one that Hollywood has offered us. De Niro was standing on a road that could have very well been the same one on which Gene Kelly sung in the rain with his umbrella. But there is no singing here, the umbrella is closed, and those feet aren't dancing. Reality has decimated the Hollywood fantasy.RATING: 8.00 out of 10 stars

disinterested_spectator At the beginning of the movie, when Jimmy is trying to pick up Francine, the first thirteen words out of her mouth are the words "No." That would have been more than enough for most men, but Jimmy is so pushy that he keeps at it, getting nowhere. However, through a bizarre coincidence, Francine ends up with Jimmy the next day at his audition as a saxophone player. He flops. She tries to give him some advice, and he gets angry. Being a professional singer, she encourages Jimmy to accompany her in a song, and the manager is so impressed that he hires them as a boy-girl team. She agrees to meet Jimmy the next day, but when she gets back to her hotel, she finds out that her agent has a good singing job lined up for her, which means going on the road. But she has to leave early in the morning if she wants the job. As she has no way of breaking her date with Jimmy before she leaves, she simply takes off, giving her agent a letter to give to Jimmy explaining what happened.This first sequence of events is a harbinger of all that is to come, and so it is worth pausing here to see what this represents. First of all, Jimmy is a snob about the kind of music he plays, and thinks he is too good to take advice from anyone. Francine, on the other hand, is casually great, a natural, someone who sings the kind of songs people want to hear, and does so with a lot of personality and polish. This reminds me of "The Way We Were" (1973), when Katie works really hard, desperately trying to write the best essay in the course she is taking. Instead, the professor reads aloud the essay written by Hubbell, who probably just dashed it off the night before. And just to rub it in, the essay is about a man for whom everything came too easily. Katie is devastated. But at least she has the strength of character needed to admit that his essay was better, and to tell him so with a smile. Not so with Jimmy in "New York, New York." He can't stand the fact that Francine has more talent than he does. He resents her for it, and he begrudges every concession he has to make to her.Second, Jimmy is obnoxious, arrogant, and pushy, and Francine is submissive and passive, to the point that a lot of people see her as a victim. But Danny Peary, in his "Cult Movies 3," argues that "it is Francine who constantly victimizes Jimmy and who ultimately destroys (their professional and personal) relationships. He may do bad things, but she is the villain." (p. 152).Regarding the sequence of events already discussed, Peary argues that she promised Jimmy to perform with him, and that she knew that without her, he would lose the job. Well, the fact that Jimmy is not good enough to hold down the job on his own is not her problem. She was willing to help him out as long as she had nothing else going on in her life right then, but when something came along that was really important to her, she was not about to sacrifice her own career for someone she just met the day before. In other words, what people like Jimmy do not understand is that people like Francine only appear to be submissive and passive because they are good natured and easy going. And so it comes as a great shock to Jimmy that Francine really is not under his thumb after all, but is capable of bending that thumb back when it comes to the things she cares about. Call her a "villain" if you want, but let this movie be a cautionary tale to those like Jimmy who think they can dominate women like Francine.Danny Peary is my favorite critic, which is why I have given his Francine-as-villain analysis so much attention. He gives several more examples of what a villain she is, but this one really floors me: "Francine became pregnant without discussing it with Jimmy." In other words, I guess Francine should have discussed it with Jimmy before she decided not to use a condom.Jimmy's pushiness arises from an egocentric delusion. He thinks that what he wants, what will make him happy, will therefore make Francine happy. If she is reluctant to do what he wants, it is only because she just does not understand what is best for her. And so he just cannot believe that she stubbornly keeps wanting to do things her way, when he just knows that her true happiness lies in her doing exactly what he says she should do.She goes on to be a big movie star, while he manages to have some minor success owning his own night club, finally giving him almost enough self-confidence to tell her that he is proud of her in her dressing room where there is a party going on celebrating her successful return to New York. I say "almost," because in his inimitable, small-minded way, he immediately qualifies the compliment by saying, "in a way."He goes down to a payphone and calls her, asking her to meet him, because there is something he wants to talk to her about. Impulsively, she agrees. But then she gets to thinking about the important thing he wants to talk to her about, which obviously is about their getting back together. Not wanting to go through another scene of telling him "No," she goes home instead. When she does not show up, he realizes that she does not need him and just wants him to go away, which is what she tried to tell him at the beginning of the movie. At long last, he finally learns to accept this brute fact.

Boiledbeef While some reviewers were raving over the newer, restored length version, I, for one, would like it cut down again. This film is an adaptation of What Price Hollywood and the later remakes titled A Star Is Born. Two talented individuals meet and the woman soon surpasses her husband in fame; something he cannot endure. Unfortunately unlike the predecessor films, the male lead (DeNiro) doesn't walk out into the sea and spare us anymore of his vile character. He is petty, childish, jealous, lying, manipulative, angry....there wasn't a redeeming aspect to this character. And Liza Minelli's character was the polar opposite. She was a weak co-dependent that just couldn't swallow enough abuse. Hard characters to sit with for 3 hours. The story takes place in the 40's just after the war but you often feel the staginess of it. It has that very 70's feel to the look and sound. It looks dated, but not to the 40's sadly. While Ms. Minelli does some nice renditions of standards, there is a very long montage of songs in the last hour as we watch a movie within a movie that goes on forever. Minelli belting one out after the other with all stops removed accompanied by lavish dancing and scenery a la those big MGM movies of the period. The songs, however, are not memorable and I was squirming for it to end already. A quick blend of each song would have sufficed but we got one full song after another. And of course, the big show stopper of NY,NY at the end. Personally, I don't like the song, even when Frank sings it. It's a let down. This is the big number that both people have been lovingly slaving over for years to get just right? There are a few great moments where the real Scorcese comes through such as a scene where DeNiro is hauled out of a nightclub down a hallway of light bulbs. Nicely composed with that touch of grunge as a struggling DeNiro kicks out bulbs. Another is a fantastic screaming match in the car between the two stars. Otherwise, the director gets lost in all the production and staging.