This movie was shot by Robert Richardson who greatly prefers the look of Panavision's anamorphic lenses.

I like them too, they give an "organic" look that is attractive in a totally subjective way.

When using this with high speed film, you will of course see funny looking grain...

Went with my film editor wife, and she liked it though felt that the pace could have been better.

I thoughly enjoyed it, and my first comment was that the DP was my pick for the cinematography Oscar. Though it was nearly three hours the SBF (sore butt factor) was nil.

Ralph Nelson

The pace could easily have been faster; that film shouldn't have been more than 2 hours tops. But I appreciated the mix of saturated colors and desaturated colors, angle of shots, the way the angles were cut together, etc. The story was well hidden in the development, IMO, until the bathroom scene, which could have been made out to be more pivotal through the cutting, music, and angles.
I don't know that I thoroughly enjoyed it, it dragged on for me, but was an interesting story line, although it had several disconnected moments. The appearance of Joe Pesci, for instance, could have been completely cut from the film and no one would have missed it at all. It was a non-event in both story development and plot. DeNiro wrongfully assumes that the audience knows something about Cuba, Castro, and Meyer Lansky (whose name never is uttered in the film, but definitely referred to in other ways). I'd wager that most viewers of this film won't have any clue that the Mafia cared one way or another about Cuba and Castro.
It certainly isn't a "film of the year" for me, but is an incredibly well shot film, with some awesome editing technique, even though the film is at least an hour too long, IMO.
It also irked me a bit that the trailer for the film has virtually nothing to do with the actual story.

It's funny to think of the famously terse De Niro going to promote his movie. When he's not acting he just doesn't like to speak. I don't know if it's shyness or what. I won a ticket to see the 25th anniversary screening of Raging Bull. The screening was held up for at least a half hour, because De Niro was late. He probably was dreading all the interviewers and photograhpers outside. Scorsese spoke, Cathy Moriarty spoke and finally De Niro comes in and he gives a little wave. Scorsese says, "Bob, say something."

De Niro: "Thanks for coming."

That was it. This is on a movie he spent years trying to make. It was his vision not Scorsese's that made the movie. Scorsese didn't get it at first, but agreed to do the movie because it was A. so important to De Niro and B. perhaps work would help him get over his drug addiction. This is a movie that De Niro wrote the final version of the script uncredited.** And he didn't want to talk about the movie.

** I just reread Final Cut, a book every film maker should read. UA was not going to make Raging Bull because they still didn't like the script. They said Jake LaMotta seemed to be a cockroach with no humanity and they didn't think any writer could fix that. Here's what ex-UA exec Steve Bach writes in Final Cut:

Six months later a new script was submitted and UA agreed to make it. It was still brutal and violent and profane. It was still a serious commercial gamble. But the darkness Jake LaMotta inhabitated was that not of an insect, but of a man lost in the mysteries and pain of his own violent nature.

This is a big serious movie and I would guess that a good portion of its audience have seen Godfather II or perhaps even the Robert Richardson-shot JFK and thus know something about the Mafia interest in Cuba.

I assume James Jesus Angleton is never mentioned in the movie either.

I've heard the first hour is good and then it slows, but I am going to see it, mainly because I like the subject matter.

..."The appearance of Joe Pesci, for instance, could have been completely cut from the film and no one would have missed it at all"...

That's too bad. Especially when De Niro coaxed Pesci out of retirement to be in this film. He hasn't done a movie in 8 years.

> and Meyer Lansky (whose name never is uttered in the film, but definitely referred to in other ways)

Funny - We have a family phgotograph of my great-grandfather (mother's father's father) standing with Meyer Lansky as they both light up cigars. Think there was involvement? He did own a bunch of real estate in NY before, during and after the depression. (I never saw a nickel from the association however)

I saw the movie last night, personally wasn't crazy about it. It was honestly a little hard for me to follow, and I didn't think they did a good enough job making Matt Damon (and others) look older and younger for their flashbacks. Matt Damon looked practically the same age to me pretty much throughout the whole movie, but maybe that's just me. I'm not a big-time movie buff.

I caught the Good Sheppard tonight. I enjoyed it. More than I thought I would. It might have been because I went prepared for it to be slow.
Also the trailers were on right as we sat down, so we didn't waste a lot of time in the theater beforehand.

I don't think the Mafia figure in the movie is Meyer Lansky, my guess is that the character Joe Pesci plays is intended to be Santo Trafficante. The movie makes clear that the character is Italian and Lansky was Jewish. Lansky was involved in Cuba, of course, and in fact worked closely with Trafficante. Trafficante also appeared in Donnie Brasco. They didn't have to disguise his name for that one.


That was a couple of interesting looking trailers for upcoming spy films. One is The Kingdom about a terror attack in Saudi Arabia loosely based on the one that happened in 2003 and Breach about FBI agent Robert Hansen who became a Russian spy.

IMO, the best and smartest movie I've seen in ages! The viewer must pay close attention. DeNiro, Richardson, everyone is in top form.

The movie is very subtle. Almost to point of ambiguity, but for the most part, they let viewer catch up to them, but some points I had to talk about with my wife to verify.

You're probably right about Pesci being Trafficante, I guess I was focusing on the fact that the Mafia was brought in while talking about Castro and the casinos.
Subtle or not, I felt that entire scene was a complete waste, and if you were a younger person without knowledge of what had happened in that period of history, it would be even less meaningful.

"Breach" looks like a great movie, I'm looking forward to that one hitting the theatre.

My feeling is that there were other mafia related scenes that were cut for time and they kept this one for two reasons. One is to show the differences in temperment/volume from Damon's household and Pesci's. The other is for the dialogue about what the various ethnic groups value. I'm still trying to decide if that dialogue is brilliant or ridiculous.
(Just looking up a detail of the movie and found an interview where DeNiro says Matt Damon's response is one of his favorite lines in the movie. That's why it's in there.)

I think there's a lot of things that the movie is expecting you know to get the picture. You have to know the CIA routinely toppled governments, that the Bay of Pigs was a Fiasco, that Skull and Bones is a real club. who the Whiffenpoofs are, that Guatemala was part of Mayan empire. All that stuff helps enrich the movie for the viewer. Since the movie is over such a long time span, it only hints at a lot of these and is relying a fairly educated audience to fill in the rest themselves.


So Spot I thought of you while watching the movie.
Greenscreen or hidden ICARUS VX-39? (Trying to be subtle here, you can message me offline.)