Home
cinema

Top 100 Movies Robert DeNiro’s Raging Bull

Taylor Holmes
Top 100 Movies
Top 100 Movies Robert DeNiro’s Raging Bull
Screenplay
50
Editing
70
Acting
75
Directing
50
Animation
70
Reader Rating7 Votes
85
63

Top 100 Movies Robert De Niro’s Raging Bull. A bit ago, I started going through this list of movies, one by one. I figured I could stand to learn a thing or two about “good movies” from Hollywood’s perspective as I’ve been something of an outsider in the world of film. Today is a fun day, because I’ve never seen Raging Bull… and have heard lots of different things about it, and now I get a chance to experience it for myself, finally! So, let’s hit play shall we?

For those of you who don’t know, Raging Bull is a 1980 biographical sports drama film directed by Martin Scorsese, starring Robert De Niro as the legendary middleweight boxer Jake LaMotta. The movie is based on LaMotta’s memoir, Raging Bull: My Story, co-written with Joseph Carter and Peter Savage.

Top 100 Movies Robert DeNiro’s Raging Bull Walkthrough

The film opens with middle-aged Jake LaMotta (played by Robert De Niro) getting ready for a comedy club performance. He is overweight, retired from boxing, and struggling to make a living. He reflects on his life and career as a boxer, and the film then flashes back to his early days as a boxer in the 1940s.

It’s obvious that early on, LaMotta was a hardcore competitor. Better yet, he also had a very short fuse, and was easily prone to violence. His manager, his younger brother Joey (played by Joe Pesci), helped guide his career and tried to keep his boxing brother focused. Meanwhile, LaMotta meets and marries his first wife, but he becomes increasingly paranoid and abusive, suspecting her of cheating on him and quickly his first marriage ends in divorce.

LaMotta then meets and falls in love with Vickie (played by Cathy Moriarty), a 15-year-old girl who becomes his second wife. (Is this back when child-brides were normalized things??) Regardless, despite their age difference, they have a passionate and tumultuous relationship. LaMotta’s jealousy and suspicion of Vickie leads him to become physically and emotionally abusive towards her, causing her to leave him. Are we sensing a theme here? Remind me why there are books and movies made about this guy? Because he was prodigious in the ring?

Yup, as expected, LaMotta’s boxing career reaches its peak when he becomes the middleweight champion of the world. Simultaneously though, his personal life is in turmoil, and he becomes increasingly paranoid and abusive towards those around him. And voila, I could have predicted this, LaMotta begins to suspects Joey of having an affair with Vickie, causing a rift between the brothers. And it is LaMotta’s completely unhinged and reckless behavior that lead to his downfall. Soon after, he loses his title. And, like a switch has been flipped, he falls into obscurity.

Now we return back to the opening, LaMotta, overweight, and performing as a comedian. There on the stage he attempts to come to terms with his own screw-ups, his own failures earlier on in his life. And the film ends with LaMotta still on stage, but apparently at peace with who he is. Yeah. I’m sorry. But, no thank you.

Thoughts on the Film Raging Bull

Throughout the film, there are several memorable boxing sequences, including LaMotta’s famous fights with Sugar Ray Robinson. The film is known for its stark black and white cinematography, its gritty portrayal of LaMotta’s life, and De Niro’s powerful performance as the troubled boxer. And I’m guessing that it’s these moments that built the film up and earned it over $70 million dollars. But the fact that we are glorifying this guy in book and in technicolor (I guess it was in techniblack?). Maybe if he had attempted to reconcile with his wives? Or his brother? I don’t know. That ending definitely did not do it for me at all.

Yeah, I see the fantastic cinematography, and the BOLD choice to go retro-black and white. The lighting was impressive, many of the scenes were really quite mesmerizingly well shot. And yes, the acting was true grit. But why? Seems like we are glorifying a has-been. I’d never heard of LaMotta, so maybe this was a film for his fans? Or for the wider popular culture that were aware of who he was?

I do think I see that one of the key themes of the film is the destructive nature of jealousy and obsession. LaMotta’s jealousy of his wife Vickie, whom he suspects of infidelity, drives him to beat her and ultimately drives her away from him. His obsession with his own image as a boxer also leads him to take unnecessary risks and engage in reckless behavior, ultimately leading to his downfall. So, as a message against vanity, rage, and jealousy? Okay. We have our poster boy right here. And yeah, the more I let the movie soak, and the more I think about it (it’s been a week now), I am realizing that that is literally what this film is doing. If we get so wrapped up in ourselves, we not only damage the ones we love, but ourselves as well.

Edited by: CY

Previous THiNC. Movie Spotlight 107
Next Operation Fortune Ruse De Guerre Recommendation
Taylor Holmes

Related Posts

9 Responses

  1. Weird previous comments on this one!

    I often think how through 80s having child brides was not so taboo in film or actually in life! This would be a completely different film now. I think about how many Woody Allen films portray really young girls as just completely dippy things but I have my own strong personal feelings toward that guy I’ll refrain from posting here.

    Anyway, I was looking through a list Shelby posted recently on Discord which had IMDb rankings of all the previous Oscar winning films and I noticed that many of the much older films were further down the list. It made me wonder if we are easier on films now in regard to reviewing or if they are actually better. I still don’t know. There’s so much more that goes into filmmaking now. But what I do know is that when I watch a film I previously thought as a great classic it often doesn’t resonate with me as much as it did in the past. The only one I can think of that really stands the rest of time for me is Amadeus.

    What do you think? Has watching these films had the same effect on you as when you first saw them for the ones you have seen before?

  2. That is a really great question actually. And it’s one I’ve been thinking about in variously nuanced ways. A) What does the zeitgeist of society at large have to do with it? B) What does it say about us today as people? aka, are we more complex? or jaundiced, or nuancedly intricate? C) What does the style of the times have to do with it vs. the styles of today?

    Let me extrapolate… and this answer already should just be a post, because once you start enumerating, and then filling in the enumerations, everyone in the comment thread really is in trouble. I at first thought that maybe the ideas of the generation – what mattered to them, was being reflected in their movie making. And while that is obviously true it isn’t overwhelmingly different. I mean, look at Licorice pizza… a movie that could have been made today, or yesterday, and it is loved equally well in either generation. The overwhelming things that movies were made about then, are being done today. So generally speaking, similar chords are being hammered on. (War, Peace, love, justice, humor… like, these are universal ideas… mannnnnn.)

    But what about that second point? Are we intrinsically more complex? Or dark, or jaundiced? I doubt it. I just don’t think humankind as any more or less complex psychologically. But we are infinitely more technologically complex (see point three.) But ultimately, people are people.

    Now, what about this third point? Modern styles? Could it be that society’s tastes are really what it is all about. Hell, in the 70’s, someone, at one time or other, thought it was a brilliant idea to craft orange shag carpet, and sell it to other human beings, who also thought it was a great idea to purchase it. I mean… come on. That literally makes no sense. And could it be the same way with movies? If you don’t think there are extreme stylistic choices that film makers make from generation to generation, you are kidding yourself. But is it that big of a deal?? Single word answer? YESS!!! Think about this for a second… when was the last time, in a modern movie theater, you saw the credits at the front of the film? It’s been decades. Why? Because modern movie viewers will not suffer a film’s self important bloviations prior to seeing it. Yes, we understand you guys care that you made the film… but we do not. A better example? Editing styles. Fast cuts, hand held cameras, drone shots, etc etc. Better (worse?), a movie’s shot length has declined from around 12 seconds a shot down to … wait for it, 2.5 seconds in 2010. Who knows what it is today! .5 seconds a shot? hahaha. Why? Well, to hold the viewer’s attention, that’s why. And kids today, when they watch an older film they feel the interminability of it. 12 seconds staring at our heroine?? As she hints that she knows the real killer’s identity by fiddling with her eyebrows? Are you kidding? We get it in 3 seconds max. And that still leaves a second left over for checking that Instagram notification.

    So yeah – I really do think it all comes down to cinematic maturity. Which, also explains why perfectly good movies keep getting remade. Modern audiences can’t cope with slow edits, molasses long takes, and pedantic acting. Not to pat myself on the back with that point – but YES! Pedantic acting… thankyou, may I have another? Gah, acting styles have dramatically changed more than any other single detail about movie making. Subtlety, that is the name of the game these days. But during the era of silent movies? They had zero room for nuance. There were too many technical hurdles to overcome. Right?

    Now, to your specific question… the only movie I have watched from this list that has really blown me away… aka, surprised me? Is Taxi Driver. And I haven’t even gotten to it yet in the list. We did it as a Patreon Movie Watching thing, and I was just GOBSMACKED by how that movie ended. It was such a mature screenplay choice. Politically risky. And just amazingly brilliant. Especially seeing as though the film seemed to be heading in a totally other direction. But otherwise? It really hasn’t been too great of a list. Nothing shockingly good anyway. I mean, we are still down in the Holy Grail, Lion King, and Avatars of this 100 long movie list. So, who knows… it might getter eventually? I really don’t know. I am looking forward to the timelessness of Hitchcock… Those should be interesting to rewatch.

    Sorry for the book of an answer!! But it was a really good question.

  3. Wow. Ok. I guess you have been thinking about this as well watching the films on this top 100 list. You should definitely save that answer for a post down the road somewhere.

    But think about it- in 20 or 30 years people will laugh at our style choices of today much as we laugh at the shag carpets of yesteryear. Our films will also be dated to the next generations.

    Taxi Driver is a pretty extreme film for a number of reasons! Where does it sit on the list?

    You mention timeless and I rarely find this to be the case when I watch an older film. Even films like Godfather 1 and 2 seem just dated to me now.

    As for credits? Yeah. We fast forward through them at the beginning of a film or show and rarely stay to watch them at the end but usually when I watch something I’ve already been down the Google rabbit hole and already know who made it and who stars in it.

    I often wonder if as a society we are so used to the extreme right now that this is also reflected in our film and tv choices.

    Anyway, thank you for the extrapolation and I’m thinking about this even more now!

  4. Ok, so check this out. I’ve had Taxi Driver on the brain this morning after reading your comment and I gave myself a bit of a refresher on it. I wasn’t able to do the watch party but I rewatched it around the same time you guys did. I agree with you that Taxi Driver is the far superior film for a multitude of reasons. The ending is quite a twist and the film in general seemed ahead of its time. I also love the neo noir feel of it. Raging Bull wasn’t a big hit with me.

    It also got me thinking about Martin Scorsese films in general and how they are usually big budget epics with major players starring in them.

    Anyway, what I found interesting is that Taxi Driver was made on a budget of 1.9 million dollars in 1975 I believe? The actors had to take pay cuts for some reason. Raging Bull a few years later- 18 million. And The Irishman just a few years back? 159 million. Yes, you read that right!

    So, does a big budget make a film better? Not for me. Of these 3 films, Taxi Driver stands out as the best even with the paltry budget. I liked The Irishman but not enough to think 159 million dollars was worth it!

    The Departed budget- 90 million in 2006
    Goodfellas- 25 million in 1990

    Goodfellas is one of my personal favorites but I think that’s more because of when it came out. I’m sure it would seem dated to someone watching it for the first time today.

    Anyway, do you think big budgets make better films? Please extrapolate as much as you wish!

  5. If you aren’t careful Lisa, you’ll end up commenting your way into interviewing me in a post on the site! hahah.

    Budget carries a hype factor to it that is its own sort of snowball momentum. But that momentum can go one of two ways… good, and really bad. Think James Cameron’s Avatar movies. That goes well for him generally. Bad? Nick Carter maybe would be a good example?

    Flip this conversation on its head… the budget actually doesn’t matter much in my opinion. Sure, the DFX need to service the story, and it needs to seem believable. But MORE importantly? Is the screenplay. A perfect example in this sort of sci-fi world of ENORMOUS budgets, is Arrival. I think the film was like $45 or $50 million. And it brought in $200 million. Why? Because the screenplay was an impossible gordian knot to solve, and Eric Heiserrer solved it. It was about characters that mattered to the viewing audience, even in spite of the aliens on the screen, and the military. And when that reveal at the end made everything clear? And it was because of the glorious brilliance of that screenplay that it hit out of the park. NEVER MIND that Eric had to sell the studios on a female lead (come on the screenplay required it!) and had to convince the money to take a chance on original IP. But it was Arrival that allowed Eric to start to take on some really cool stuff on his own (Shadow and Bone anyone? Season 2 is out now!).

    A better – more extreme example than even Arrival (which some would say $50m is not a small budget) would be Infinite Chamber. $125k budget. I think Travis Milloy told me that he created that prison chamber in his grandmother’s garage? Or parent’s? I can’t recall. He spent his last few dollars to finish it in order to sell Christopher Soren Kelly on the idea. But that movie was 100% screenplay. One guy in a prison cell, talking to an AI prison guard? I mean… some consider it too heady. But whatever. Primer is the most famous example. But well-worn and over used. Look at that screenplay though – most mistake it to be a time travel movie… no. It’s a movie about what power, what capability, would cause a perfect friendship to break? And that is why that movie is so good. Not the time travel or special effects (of which there aren’t any! haha.)

    It is more expensive to make, and release a movie today. Of course. And our viewing tastes will not allow for lame special effects. I would argue though that budget really doesn’t matter for pure viewing pleasure. Look at Hippopotamus, or other closed box films. They are doable, for cheap, with a great script. All the budget, all the sci-fi wizzbangs though, are not going to solve a bad script. Nope. Not going to happen. And that is why, if I get a chance to interview someone on a movie, I always try first for the screenplay writer. If they are also the director, GREAT! But it’s the guy with the idea I want to talk to.

    I will say that in reviewing these top 100 movies, that I have come to appreciate why movies are remade now. I didn’t before. But I do now. A lot of these movies are good ideas. And are good scripts. And the acting is decent. But the cutting, and the aesthetics? Just come off as really tacky and dated. There’s that 70’s shag again! hahaha. But if you give them a modern color palette, and a quicker cut style? Money!

  6. I think I did just interview you! This could probably be crafted into its own post at this point. Your reflections on watching a bunch of these older films against newer ones….

    Even tacky and somewhat dated, I’m not a huge fan of remakes just because it seems lazy to me instead of trying something new. Funny thing about that shag carpet in a film made today because we would just call it retro and embrace a lost era. Interesting how that works!

    Thinking about big budgets made me think of Waterworld. What a waste of 175 million dollars. Actually it hit 235 million with promotion. Insane. I love those small budget films you talked about because they have a great story attached and a huge budget just wasn’t necessary. That’s true filmmaking in my opinion as anyone can overspend on blowing stuff up and special effects but that doesn’t necessarily make a film any good.

  8. Watch this short clip with Matt Damon, he explains it really well, the shift in financing even a “small” $25m budget movie, and why that is really risky nowadays: https://streamable.com/pedvjq – aka:

    1. If $25m to make the film
    2. x2 (+$25m) to market the film (=$50m)
    3. Split 50/50 with theaters (=$100m)

    So when you think about financing a film, you have to think about it more holistically… A $50m film is actually $200m, $100 = $400m… I’m sure that breaks down at some point, but the general principles here are staggering. So it’s even worse than we realize when talking about raw costs.

    Now, I will admit… that it is lovely when the cosmic stars align and we get a brilliant idea and also a larger budget. Why? Because it’s the best of both worlds. But it’s not as simple as that. Why? Because instead of dealing solely with an artistically brilliant creative, and his parent’s credit card debt… you are now dealing with a COMMITTEE that is committed to turning that race horse into a camel. Why? because they are now having to find the largest demographic possible… the most ticket sales. In a word, they are required to liquify the entire whole down into a pablum. Something consumable by absolutely everyone. It’s a stock now… its an investment. Not a work of art or entertainment. So instead of being a darkhorse internet tech stock coming from someone’s basement or garage, they are too big to fail. which in itself, guarantees failure… of a sorts.

    Alright, I’ve beat this proverbial dead horse enough.

  9. Which again brings me back to Waterworld. Even though people went to see it there was no way to recoup the money spent on the film and the promotion so it is considered a huge flop. I wonder if that was a turning point for studios. I mean, how much is truly a reasonable amount to spend when you don’t truly know if the film will be a hit or not? Funding for just one of these blockbusters is more money than you, me and all our friends put together will ever see in a lifetime yet we still fork over our hard earned dollars to go to the theater.

    Also makes me think of M Night who got tired of the game and now tries to fund his own stuff. And think about it? Someone like him who had such a massive hit with The Sixth Sense which pretty much revolutionized the twist ending shouldn’t have any trouble scoring funding but yet it’s still an issue. He works it out by primarily filming in PA which I’m sure he must get some kind of discount for being a local hero and all but even such a successful filmmaker having trouble getting his films made? Makes you wonder….

    Anyway… thank you for indulging me!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.