The Wolf of Wall Street

So big money, huh? Yeah, it scares the hell out of me mostly because the only time we ever hear about Wall Street and huge international corporations is when they're getting taken down for all sorts of tax frauds, insider trading and stock manipulation. How can the rich get richer basically. Like politics, right?!? Yeah, the world's a scary place. Nowhere is that more evident than in director Martin Scorsese's latest, 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street.

Arriving on Wall Street in 1987, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young, ambitious and even naive stock broker looking to make a career for himself. He also has horrific timing. Within months of becoming a full-time broker, Jordan is out of work as quick as he had it, a result of Black Monday. Looking for work, Jordan ends up working in a New Jersey boiler room selling penny stocks. The money is there, his aggressive selling style winning over customer after customer. It's not enough though. Jordan wants more. He needs more. He gets it his own way, starting his own start-up scam selling stocks with the very official sounding name, Stratton Oakmont, and a new right-hand man, Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), goes to work. He gets an office, gets some salesmen, teaches them the selling techniques, and it works....a lot. Money starts flowing in, ridiculous amounts of money, and Jordan's empire grows. Millions of dollars, a luxurious, self-indulgent life of sex, drugs, and everything in between, everything is attainable. Has Jordan's company gotten too big though?

You know what's the most terrifying thing to take away from this movie? It happened. This all happened. Read about the real-life Jordan Belfort HERE and know that as ridiculously over the top, as self-indulgent, as ludicrous as the movie is, IT HAPPENED. Belfort's story also served as the inspiration for 2000's Boiler Room. 'Wolf' doesn't delve in too much to the gory financial details, trying to introduce what's going on and moving on to the life and empire Belfort has created for himself. Not surprisingly, it has picked up some Oscar buzz, garnering nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, picking up five overall. It's a loaded Academy Awards so it will definitely be interesting to see what comes of it all.

What's the end result here? A terrifying, truly funny, unsettling, amazingly entertaining story. Scorsese's style is there at all times. DiCaprio's narration -- mostly heard over the action, at times seen as Jordan addresses the camera -- is almost non-stop, keeping things going, explaining all the new developments that the ever-crooked Stratton Oakmont is up to. 'Wolf' clocks in at a robust 179 minutes (that's almost 3 full hours for you non-math fans like me), the script from Terence Winter covering a ton of ground and a lot of years, but it never feels rushed. If you didn't know this was real, you'd think it was a drugged-up fantasy, a dream-like trip into a bizarre nightmare. There isn't one linear story, no one plot, just an ever-building doomsday scenario we all know is coming. The first hour is the rise to power, the second the stay at the top, and the third the inevitable and crushing downfall. Replacing mobsters with Wall Street brokers, 'Wolf' did remind me of Scorsese's Goodfellas at times in terms of that rise to power story arc.

As the appointed Wolf of Wall Street (earning the nickname 'Wolfie'), DiCaprio picked up another Best Actor nomination, his third Best actor and fourth overall (he remains winless), for his part here. It's a part that is hard to look away from. It is a trainwreck, and we're just waiting for the train to wreck. DiCaprio's performance is a gem as we watch Jordan's rise to power and inevitable fall from grace. He learns the ins-and-outs of the stock market from a veteran broker, John Hanna (Matthew McConaughey, a truly scene-stealing part, and he's on-screen about 10 minutes, maybe), and from there, Jordan is on his way. It's ego. It's pride. It's vanity. It is having everything the world can offer. His life becomes a cliche of the rich and famous as he visits prostitutes on a regular basis, does ridiculous amounts of drugs, becomes addicted to quaaludes, and commits himself to a life he loves and embraces, a life that will lead to his doom. From the narration to the decadence, DiCaprio brings this scumbag to life. It's not a likable character. Jordan is a deplorable individual, but he's epically, grandly good at his profession. Will DiCaprio win the Oscar? I don't know considering the opponents -- Dern, McConaughey, Bale, Ejiofor -- but he more than deserves that nomination. 

DiCaprio isn't alone though, 'Wolf' featuring an impressive list of performances. Some are like McConaughey, quick, effective and lasting in terms of influence, while others figure more prominently, like Jonah Hill's Best Supporting Actor nominated part as Donnie. It's hard to put this character into words, a motor-mouth, a troublemaker, a loyal right-hand man, and just as greedy as Jordan, especially when the money starts to pile up (quite literally). Another really strong part goes to relative unknown (but not for too much longer) Margot Robbie as Naomi, Jordan's second wife, a former model and the definition of a trophy wife....who becomes much more. Adding to the scene-stealing list (how many such parts can a movie have?) is Rob Reiner as Jordan's Dad, helping his son with the business but quite aware where his son is heading. The link for these three parts -- and really the entire cast -- is the chemistry. As ridiculously goofy and off the wall as the story can be at times, it's at least somewhat grounded because of the chemistry, the believable qualities.

Also look for Kyle Chandler as Denham, the FBI agent leading the case against Jordan, Jon Favreau as Riskin, the security officer trying to help Jordan around the S.E.C. sanctions, Jean Dujardin as Saurel, the helpful Swiss banker, and Jon Bernthal, P.J. Byrne, Kenneth Choi, Brian Sacca, and Henry Zebrowski as Jordan's crew of "vice presidents" who become his inner circle. Even look for actor/director Spike Jonze in a small, effective part.

I have a concept of Best Picture nominations as being almost exclusively dramatic. This year's nominations certainly back up that assumption, from 12 Years a Slave to Captain Phillips, Nebraska to Dallas Buyers Club (American Hustle obviously had some laughs too). So what to take away from 'Wolf'? It is funny, ridiculously funny. This isn't physical humor laughs. These are scenes so far out of the ordinary that their unique qualities are funny just because. These are scenes played straight that produce countless laughs. My personal favorite? Jordan and Donnie overdo it on some old quaaludes (Lemmon 714) thinking they've lost their potency. Well...they didn't. The extended scene as both try to overcome some heavy duty effects are hilarious. I was crying. 'Wolf' has plenty of these moments, from analyzing a contract of a little person who agrees to be used as a throwing dart to McConaughey's Hannah's monologue about how to truly become a successful stock broker. It's incredibly dark humor, often uncomfortable, but these were genuine laughs.

Is there a complaint here? Yeah, the length of the movie. It never drags but the almost three-hour movie.....yeah, it felt as I was walking out that I'd been there three or four days. I don't know what you cut, but just be known it's a long movie. Mostly though, it's really good. It's the general negative outlook on, well, everything. Lost in the shuffle of the drama and debauchery is such a negative tone and outlook on life. Everyone is out for themselves, and no one really cares who gets caught in the wake. A trip of a movie full of drug use, nudity (some scenes far more graphic than others), truly interesting characters, lots of illegal stock and Wall Street activity, style to burn, and just a treat to watch. Scorsese does it again. I can't wait to see what, if any, awards it takes home at next month's Oscars.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Quiz Show

Everyone loves a good game show, don't they? Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, Jeopardy, The Price is Right, Wheel of Fortune, Deal or No Deal, they're all entertaining, bringing millions of viewers in. There's always something shady though -- to me at least -- about a lot of game shows. Some seem far too easy, others just the opposite and far too difficult. Let the conspiracy theories fly when whopping amounts of money are involved. Based on a true story, 1994's Quiz Show jumps right into some backstage shenanigans.

Starring on one of 1950 TVs most popular shows, Twenty One, New Yorker Herb Stempel (John Turturro) is on a huge hot streak, having won the trivia show and advanced in six straight weeks with thousands of dollars of winnings. His ratings have plateaued though, and the studio wants a new winning contestant, forcing Herb to answer a question incorrectly as he faces personable, good-looking Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes). A very intelligent man and trivia whiz himself, Van Doren goes on a crazy streak, winning week after week and making the money to boot, American audiences falling for him instantly and catapulting him to stardom. Watching the show though, a Congressional lawyer/investigator Dick Goodwin (Rob Morrow) is suspicious of what's going on, smelling some sort of fix or conspiracy. He couldn't be right, could he?

From director Robert Redford, this 1994 film received almost unanimous support from critics and fans, even earning nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay (no wins). It is based off the true story of the game show Twenty One, a highly popular television game show that caused a scandal when it was revealed contestants were coached and/or given answers. The end result is a highly polished, well told story that features a great cast and a well-written script that is easy to appreciate. In the end unfortunately, something is missing that keeps it from being a classic. I liked it, but as the movie moves along I liked it a little less. More on that later.

With a deep cast assembled, the main focus nonetheless remains on three characters; Morrow's Goodwin, Fiennes' Van Doren and Turturro's Stempel. Three young, talented actors all bring these real life individuals to life, not just cardboard cutouts of real people. I thought Turturro should have gotten the Best Supporting Actor nod, but that instead went to screen vet Paul Scofield as Van Doren's father. Turtorro's Herb is quirky to say the least, a man with seemingly infinite knowledge who resents what was taken away from him and wants to gain some fame in the aftermath. As his replacement, Fiennes is smooth, suave and likable as Van Doren, the contestant who questions the morals of what they're doing but eventually goes along with it. The actor without much of a following, Morrow too does a fine job as Goodwin, a dogged investigator who stops at nothing to get truth and answers when he senses something amiss. It's a good trio to lead the way.

Along with Scofield as Van Doren's father, 'Quiz' is almost showing off with its talented cast. David Paymer and Hank Azaria are an excellent team together in their sliminess, Dan Enright and Albert Freedman, the Twenty One executive and his assistant who head the behind the scenes corruption on the show (with some higher studio "encouragement"). Christopher McDonald is good in a smaller part as Jack Barry, the smooth, popular host of Twenty One. Also look for Mira Sorvino as Goodwin's wife, and director turned actor Martin Scorsese as an advertising executive who more than has his say in how contestants perform (i.e. = who advances and who doesn't). As well, there's a handful of parts for actors who would become recognizable faces on film and television in the coming years. Check out the cast listing or give it a watch and see who you can spot.

One other aspect worth mentioning is the attention to detail. Everything from the clothes and wardrobe to the haircuts and cars, furniture and decor, sets to dialogue, it feels like we've been transported to the 1950s. Everyone almost always seems to be smoking a cigarette/cigar in a nice little touch too. More than the look though, we get a sense of what 1950s America and television was like. We see families surrounding TVs to catch the latest installment of their favorite shows. Quite a departure from the 6,000 channels available to most viewers now, huh? We see news spreading at a different pace -- no Twitter, Facebook, e-mail -- and an innocence balancing out with a more sinister reasoning with dollars as the bottom line. It's the little things.

So enough with the positives. It clocks in at 133 minutes, and from the 60-minute mark on, it feels long. Very long. Movies almost solely dependent on talking, dialogue and a script are tricky. The dialogue and acting is all good here with a lot of talent putting it all together, but it feels repetitive, even slow-moving in long stretches. I won't say self indulgent, but it's awful close. When the tension and drama should be ratcheted up during the Congressional hearings, I'd already lost interest. So much time is spent on the relationship between Goodwin and Van Doren that it takes away from the natural drama of the situation. It's still a good movie, but the issues here definitely affected the final ranking, tearing it down a notch.

Quiz Show (1994): ** 1/2 /****

Mean Streets

Even the most talented directors have to start somewhere, typically from the bottom and climb their way up. Yeah, even Martin Scorsese. After making his big screen directorial debut with 1970s Big Bertha, Scorsese followed up the effort with 1973's Mean Streets, a film typically identified as a near-classic, especially considering how influential it was in the years to come.

It's New York City in the 1970s, and it is a less than pleasant place. Among all the craziness is Charlie (Harvey Keitel), a young man in his 20s working for his uncle who has some Mafia ties. Charlie typically works as a collection agent (of sorts), picking up any tributes owed his uncle. He has a good niche, a good life carved out for himself, but Charlie wants more. He wants to start a business of his own -- preferably a restaurant -- and marry his girlfriend (sort of), Teresa (Amy Robinson). A couple things are holding him back though. One, Teresa has epilepsy, and everyone associated with Charlie looks down on the girl. Two, his longtime friend, Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), is always in trouble, usually related to his lack of success paying off debts. If Charlie ever wants to amount to something, he's going to have to figure out both issues.

From the word 'Go' here, it's obvious that Scorsese is a very talented director behind the camera. All those little touches we're used to now in 2012 with a very established Scorsese are already on display in this 1973 mobster flick. He uses the camera to give his film a style, following the action around with some impressive tracking shots. The camera isn't stationary, always on the go. Maybe Scorsese's most recognizable touch though is his soundtracks, especially using songs from The Rolling Stones. Here, he uses Jumpin' Jack Flash in De Niro's character's entrance. Watch it HERE. It's the epitome of cool. Some 30 years later, it may seem cliched, but Scorsese set the mold here. Just like that ever-moving camera, the soundtrack ends up being a key ingredient to the movie's success. Check out the soundtrack listing HERE.

With style to burn, it's easy to forget the interesting story that 'Streets' presents. Identifying as a story isn't exactly an accurate description as long as we're talking about it. If anything, I would say it's a series of vignettes held together by a handful of characters. The focus in the story is on Charlie, but it's a little trip through his life, his world, and his problems. There are no huge set pieces over even huge scenes. The bouncy, jumping story makes a 112-minute long movie a tad long in portions, but for the most part it works. Working off a script written by Scorsese and Mardik Martin, it has an easiness with its characters and surroundings. It might not always seem like it, but 'Streets' knows where it's going. If I can say anything, it's this. Stick with it. 

One of my favorite things about Scorsese's films are his ability to introduce and present characters that are far from likable, but they just the same end up being very likable, even sympathetic. This was Keitel's first major, starring role, and he's a scene-stealer. It's a subtle job he does too. You don't even realize how good he is because everyone else has showier, flashier parts, but this is Keitel's movie. As for De Niro, it's odd to see him in a goofy, almost dumbed-down role as Johnny Boy just because his parts in The Godfather 2 and Taxi Driver are the complete polar opposite. I loved Keitel and De Niro's chemistry, loved their interactions, everything about their friendship. Their group of quasi-friends include Tony (David Proval), a tough guy and restaurant owner, and (Richard Romanus), a bookie who lent Johnny Boy some serious money. Cesare Danova plays Giovanni, Charlie's Mafia-connected uncle who seemingly has a pull on everyone.

If there is any complaint I have about this movie, it is the ending. It's apparent as we get to know Keitel's Charlie -- and more importantly how stupid Johnny Boy is -- that things are not headed in a positive direction unless something drastic changes. So here we are with one of my favorite film elements; that impending sense of doom hanging over characters. 'Streets' builds and builds on that premise and even presents an ending that could (and probably should) have worked. I don't need everything spelled out for me, but a little more closure would have been good here. A little too open-ended for me. But overall, it's a minor complaint in an otherwise very good movie. Scorsese's talent is evident if a little rough at this early point in his career. Seriously though, it's Scorsese, De Niro and Keitel. That's a difficult trio to beat.

Mean Streets (1973): ***/****

Shutter Island

When a big budget movie comes out and I find out it's based on a book, I typically try to read the book first before seeing the movie.  It isn't a hard and fast rule, but it always helps when I've heard of the author or know the book is held in high regard.  For that reason, it took me a month and a half to see Shutter Island in theaters.  When I saw previews for a thriller from director Martin Scorsese, I was hooked, but I paused when I heard it is based on a novel by Dennis Lehane and features quite a twist.  My thinking has always been with books/movies, if I'm going to be surprised, I'd rather be surprised by a book.  

After reading the book, I can say the twist worked very effectively and I never saw it coming.  In a way, seeing the movie after finishing Lehane's novel almost made the theater viewing feel like a second time around.  Scorsese sticks extremely closely to the storyline with a few small exceptions and one MAJOR exception, but on the whole, the highly respected director more than treats the subject matter with respect.  As for the twist, knowing it going into the movie certainly influences the viewing.  No two ways about it, this is a good twist.  Hints are dropped left and right, but they are incidental moments that mean nothing without the knowledge.  It's not a twist for the sake of having a twist, instead providing a moving and surprising ending.

It's 1954 and U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Scorsese favorite Leonardo DiCaprio) has been teamed up with a new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), on a strange investigation.  In Boston Harbor on a small island called Shutter Island, a violent criminal escapes from her cell at Ashecliffe Mental Hospital.  Daniels and Aule are called in to investigate the escape which as the evidence is revealed seems more and more like a disappearance.  Nothing adds up concerning the escape, and the head physician, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) seems to be hiding something.  Nothing on the island is what it's supposed to be, and Daniels and Aule begin to wonder what they've gotten themselves into.

Several reviews I've read said Scorsese's newest movie has some Hitchcockian cues, and I'd be hard pressed to argue that, especially making some comparisons to Vertigo.  I think the closest thing you can compare Shutter Island to is Scorsese's remake of Cape Fear, but even then, it's a loose comparison.  The director has created a visually stunning movie here, full of doom and gloom on this island out in Boston Harbor.  The cinematography is beautiful in a dark, terrifying sort of way, a foreboding that everything is not quite right.  Lots of play with dark and light, shadows and smoke make the story uncomfortable to watch at times like a good thriller should.

However, after watching the trailer, reading the book, and now having seen the movie, I think it was marketed wrong.  It's advertised as a scary movie, but it really isn't.  Sure, there's some 'Gotcha!' moments, but as a whole, it's a moody, dialogue-driven movie.  The creepiest parts of the movie by far are the flashbacks and dream sequences as Teddy deals with some demons from his past as he investigates this peculiar case.  The island setting contributes to this because as the marshals begin to uncover things there's no place to go, they're trapped and at the mercy of the hospital's staff.  That feeling of claustrophobia just adds and builds on this sense of doom that starts from the opening shot and never really lets up.  Kudos to the soundtrack (can't find a composer) that at times is loud and ominous at times, and quiet and soothing at others.

Early in his career, Scorsese's favorite actor was Robert De Niro, but now DiCaprio has stepped into the spotlight as the favorite.  I loved him in The Departed, and here he even continues on with that Boston accent.  Other than that, it's a great performance.  His Teddy Daniels is a man who's good at what he does, but sometimes at a cost.  His mental stability is questioned because of his past when his wife died in a fire started by an arsonist.  The character is basically the viewer, trying to piece things together as they're presented.  DiCaprio hasn't made a ton of movies for being such a huge star, but this quickly climbs to the top of the list in my opinion.

With a Scorsese movie though, one star wouldn't be enough, and here his supporting cast is pitch perfect.  Ruffalo gets the workmanlike role as the new partner trying to keep up with Teddy's investigation.  It's a thankless part, but he's rewarded in the end.  Kingsley matches DiCaprio step for step as Dr. Cawley, the head physician at Ashecliffe in a role that keeps you guessing.  What's he really up to?  He is steering the marshals away from something or steering them where he wants them to be?  A consummate pro like Kingsley handles it with ease in a part that I hope gets him some Oscar buzz for best supporting actor.  Michelle Williams plays Dolores, Teddy's dead wife who he still sees in his dreams in a very moving part.  If that trio wasn't enough, add Max von Sydow, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Elias Koteas, Ted Levine, Emily Mortimer and John Carroll Lynch.  Other than von Sydow, none of those mentioned are in more than a scene or two, but they all bring their A-game with their brief appearances.  Audiences may have issue with the movie, but it's not because of the cast.

I go back and forth with movies with a twist, but when handled well I have no issue with them.  This is clearly one handled well.  It's the type of story that leaves you confused and questioning everything you saw and will almost certainly make a second viewing almost mandatory to see all the clues and hints.  Even knowing it's coming in the movie, it still surprised me because it is handled so well.  The reveal is by far the best scene in the movie and the most powerful/emotional too.  Scorsese did make one addition -- the movie's final line -- which I thought was unnecessary, but other than that, I have no issue with a twist that seems to divide audiences right down the middle.

A little different for Martin Scorsese, sure, but with one of the best directors ever, it's fun just to see him work.  This is a movie that works in term of story and also on its own as a strong movie with casting, cinematography, and atmosphere.  It doesn't really matter the order, but read the book and see the movie!

Shutter Island <----trailer (2010): ****/****

Raging Bull

When Martin Scorsese won the best director Oscar in 2007 for The Departed, I don't think anybody thought he did not deserve the award. But was it his best movie really? Probably not, with the Oscar serving as more of a lifetime achievement for his previous five nominations in the category which he lost. So what was his best? There's a long list to choose from that includes Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, Mean Streets, and my new personal favorite, 1980's Raging Bull.

Too often biographical movies take the easy way out and only show the positive aspects of the character so Scorsese goes down the complete opposite path. His portrayal of middleweight boxer Jake LaMotta is brutally honest that doesn't shy away from showing the man as he truly was and is, he's still chugging along at almost 90 years old. There are scenes so honest and real that it can be difficult to watch as LaMotta self-sabotages everything that is good in his life.

The story starts in 1941 as a young LaMotta (Robert De Niro) is tearing through the boxing circuit on his eventual climb to the middleweight crown. But with his brother/manager Joey (Joe Pesci) at his side through the ups and downs, Jake decides to get to the top on his own without accepting a helping hand along the way. His decision ends up both hurting and helping his effort. Along the way, he marries a young woman, Vickie (Cathy Moriarty), and starts a family. But through the years, both in the ring and in his personal life, Jake's demons -- especially his paranoid, overly aggressive personality -- start to get the best of him, throwing detour after detour on his path.

The sign of a good sports movie -- with Raging Bull certainly qualifying -- is that you don't have to be a sports fan to enjoy it. And while the boxing scenes are incredibly well-done and beautifully shot, it is the story of Jake LaMotta more than anything. His fights are quick, never dragging on, but always brutal in their execution. Like Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, there is a horrible beauty to the fight. With Scorsese's decision to film in black and white (an incredibly brave but brilliant choice), Jake's story has a feel of the time it is set in, predominantly the 1940s and 1950s and gets off on a positive note from the beautiful opening, filmed in slow motion in a smokey boxing arena.

No slouch in the Oscars department himself with two wins and four other nominations, De Niro becomes Jake LaMotta for this part. He underwent months of training to make the boxing scenes look realistic -- they do -- and then packed on 60 lbs. for the scenes of a retired, post-boxing Jake. It's an incredible performance that earned him his second Best Actor Oscar, and a role that shows LaMotta for what he was...a deeply flawed individual who had problems in his personal life that ended up taking everything good from his life. Two scenes in particular stand out, both late in the movie (so beware of SPOILERS) as Jake realizes what he's done to himself. One, Jake's been thrown into prison and realizes he has hit rock-bottom. Two, the final scene as he recites Brando's famous monologue from On the Waterfront in one of the most moving last scenes I can think of, and all handled with just one extended shot.

Working with Scorsese and De Niro for the first time, Pesci hits his first major Hollywood role out of the ballpart with his performance as Joey, Jake's brother and manager. It's a more subdued Pesci -- although he does have his outbursts -- but one that counters De Niro so perfectly that it is easy to imagine the two men being brothers. They have such a strong chemistry, especially in this classic scene, that it helps make this already great movie even better. As Jake's long-suffering wife Vickie, Moriarty gives a performance that makes you question why she didn't go on to become a bigger star, and this was just her first part! Frank Vincent and Nicholas Colasanto are also good in supporting parts, but De Niro, Pesci and Moriarty are the standouts.

Lost amidst all the shuffle of great performances is that Scorsese was a great director at not only getting those performances out of the actors, but making a story that could have blah or boring incredibly visual. The black and white filming is inspired, and with cinematographer Michael Chapman, Scorsese brings his story to life. His ability is top-notch, like this impressive tracking shot, but also this family montage that shows the heart of the story. One of those movies that makes you glad movies are around. Don't know how I let this one slip by for so many years but I'm glad I caught up with it.

Raging Bull <----trailer (1980): ****/****

Goodfellas

If there is one thing director Martin Scorsese knows -- and I'd say he knows a lot more than that one thing but just go with me -- it is the gangster/mobster movie, a theme he has gone back to the well for several times, starting as far back a 1973's Mean Streets and continuing through 2006's The Departed with a few ventures spread through the years in between. With other successful movies like Gangs of New York, Raging Bull, The Aviator and Taxi Driver, Scorsese is shown he is more than just a one-trick pony, but for many fans he will always be associated with gangsters and mobsters.

Is it really a bad thing to be known for success with one type of movie? Scorsese is far from being typecast, and he can make any movie he wants at any time he wants to so I wouldn't say he's been typecast. What sets all his gangster movies apart from your average mobster flick is that he brings the underworld to life in a way where the viewer can appreciate all aspects of the life. One, there's the bond, the camaraderie that develops among these crooks, making the life almost seem glamorous, Second, the not so nice end, the betrayals, double crosses, murders left and right. Nowhere are both aspects handled better than 1990's Goodfellas.

Growing up in 1955 New York, half-Italian, half-Jewish teenager Henry Hill wants nothing more than to be a mobster. Living with his family across the street from a mobster's hangout, Henry sees the life and knows he wants to be a part of it. So he gets a job working for the local boss, Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino), and starts working his way up the ladder. Fast forward seven years and a 20-something Henry (Ray Liotta) is a powerful member of Cicero's crew and showing no signs of slowing down. Working with Irish hitman Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) and livewire psycho Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), Henry continues to make a name for himself.

He marries a Jewish girl, Karen (Lorraine Bracco), and starts a family with the nice suburban house. Everything seems to be in Henry's favor as the money from all his *cough* business ventures continues to roll in. But how many times have we seen this story? For every meteoric rise to the top, there's also the inevitable downfall. Based on a book called Wiseguy, Goodfellas brings you into the life of a mobster like few other movies have -- sometimes to the detriment of the story, but more later on that. Henry serves as the narrator (Karen gets a few voiceovers too), explaining and illustrating background in a few sentences that would have taken whole scenes to describe.

And working with a true story as a source, Scorsese nails the scenes with these underworld personalities. The dialogue crackles with energy, the banter between these guys is unbelievable, blunt, in your face, filthy, and generally as politically incorrect as possible. These scenes also serve to show the tight-knit bond and culture these guys share -- sometimes for good, sometimes for bad -- having chosen a "job" that will most likely end with a jail sentence or a bullet in your head.

For years, all I heard were positively glowing reviews for this movie, and I'm not disagreeing but parts are both sluggish and too fast-paced at the same time. In 145 minutes, Scorsese covers 25 years of story with some parts going by too quickly and then the whole last 30 minutes devoted to a single day. And as good as Bracco is as long-suffering wife Karen, the segments dealing with Henry's family don't have the same energy as the rest of the movie. That's not to say these scenes aren't good, but it never feels like I'm watching anything I haven't seen before.

The scenes that are on par with everything Godfather I and II offers are with Henry, Jimmy and Tommy. It's the type of role for Liotta that makes me question why he never became a bigger star. He might not have the most glamorous part here, but don't fool yourself...this is his movie, and he's the star. De Niro and Pesci (who won a best supporting Oscar) have parts that don't require them to be in every scene so their characters drift in and out of the story. But when they are on-screen, it's some of the best scenery-chewing (thank you Netflix for the description) you'll ever see. Pesci is a lunatic (watch this classic scene), ready to blow somebody away for insulting him, and De Niro isn't too far behind. Great parts here for two great actors.

Picking this movie on my Netflix queue, I wanted to love it but only ended up really liking it. All the Scorsese touches are there, the great rock soundtrack used to perfection, the amazing script, and that dark humor that works so well in stories like this, like THIS scene where all the mobsters are introduced. All the positives definitely outweigh the negatives, and I'm definitely recommending this one, but I'm a little disappointed I didn't like it more.

Goodfellas <----trailer (1990): ***/****