raging bull Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Let me get this right out of the way: I love the folks over at Moviefone; they're cool people. We've hung out together, thrown back a few cold ones and even high-fived on one or two occasions. But this latest list ... well, I'm a little upset. Moviefone has counted down the top 40 films from the '80s, and while I certainly agree with a lot of the films on said list, their placement is completely out of whack. Here's their top five: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1), Blade Runner (2), Raging Bull (3), Empire Strikes Back (4) and This Is Spinal Tap (5). Don't get me wrong -- all dynamite flicks -- but Back to the Future at 21, Ghostbusters at 40 (!!!!!), E.T. at 20 and The Breakfast Club at 27? And don't get me started on the fact that Ferris Bueller's Day Off didn't even make the list -- just thinking about it sends murderous shivers down my spine. What's up with that Moviefone?

I guess when it comes to listing the best '80s movies, I'm more inclined to stick films that defined the decade in top spots moreso than films that were critically acclaimed (not that some can't be both). I mean, I definitely do not think Bull Durham (9) should beat out Aliens (10), The Terminator (13) or The Shining (14) ... but maybe I'm missing the total and complete awesomeness that is Bull Durham. Check out their list over here and let us know where they got it right and where they went wrong. (Trust me, I've already gone after them about the Back to the Future placement because if we don't protect Marty McFly, who will?)

Are you ready to see Robert De Niro and Al Pacino as partners in Righteous Kill? Is it the casting pair-up you've been waiting 35 years for? Or does it feel too strange to watch a whole movie in which they're all buddy buddy? Perhaps you were fully satisfied with their showdown as enemies in Heat, even though the esteemed veteran actors had much less screen time together. Personally, I like the idea of them going head to head better, but that's mainly because they're both such huge figures that having them team up seems a bit unfair to the other side. As enemies they're like the Incredible Hulk and the Abomination or Iron Man and Iron Monger, to compare them with recent superpowered showdowns in cinema.

It's difficult to choose the better actor of the two, or even decide who's been the more successful Hollywood player. De Niro's been in a lot more films, but his ratio of bad films to good might have suffered as a result. Meanwhile, they've both arguably become too much of caricatures of themselves, to the point where it's sometimes hard to tell which performances are intentional self-parodies and which are accidental. However, despite the difficulty of pitting De Niro against Pacino for a general comparative showdown, there are a number of easily corresponding roles among them. So, just for fun, I've come up with seven specific character showdowns, chosen my pick for which is the better performance, and invite you all to vote on your favorite, whether you agree or disagree with my own.

After the jump ... De Niro vs. Pacino -- it's on!

A lot of people think that the American Film Institute should shut up already with the lists, and they have a point: an ordered list of the "100 greatest" anything is bound to be so subjective as not to be worth much, especially when it's not clear why the people compiling the list should be seen as authorities. (The AFI's lists are compiled by "juries" of several hundred filmmakers, critics and historians.) But the lists (and accompanying TV specials) keep coming. The latest is the ungrammatical "AFI's 10 Top 10," a list of the 100 greatest American genre films organized by genre: animation, romantic comedy, western, sports (not really a genre, especially if you include Raging Bull in it, but whatever), mystery, fantasy, science-fiction, gangster, courtroom drama, and epic. The complete selections can be found here.

The lists are sometimes obvious (Alfred Hitchcock makes a 4 for 10 showing in "mystery," and if you can't guess their top three picks for "gangster" in order, you probably shouldn't be reading this blog), sometimes admirable (kudos for Terminator 2: Judgment Day in "sci-fi"), sometimes irritating (The Wizard of Oz as the greatest fantasy film of all time is rubbish), but the more relevant question is: what are they worth? The original "top 100" was a good conversation piece and a useful checklist. What are the rest of them supposed to be good for?

Also: they include "sports" as genre, but not horror. Screw you, AFI.

I'm glad that I didn't know anything about Resurrecting the Champ before studying its new poster (apologies to Martha for not reading this post or this one last year) This way, I was able to look at the thing objectively and judge its worth as a marketing tool for the film. From what I could figure out, the movie is about boxing, it stars Samuel L. Jackson and Josh Hartnett and the latter's character has a son, making it as much a family drama as a sports drama. Oh, and according to the tagline, it is based on a true story, though a true story about a lie. So, my guess, again just from the poster, would be that Hartnett is the boxer, Jackson is his trainer, and the lie, maybe about how good the boxer is, is told to Hartnett's son. Sure, it doesn't sound that interesting, but the one-sheet isn't that interesting either.

So, how did I do? Well, aside from the boxing, and the obvious part about its stars, I was way off. According to its new trailer, the film is actually about a reporter (Hartnett), who is sure that a homeless man he has met (Samuel L. Jackson) is an old boxing legend. What even the trailer doesn't make clear, though, is that the man is not the famous person Hartnett's character thinks he is (but the man does have an interesting voice, thanks to Jackson). So what is up with the kid on the poster? Well, the official plot synopsis does mention the reporter has to reevaluate his relationship with his family, so I guess it represents that (the kid is Dakota Goya, who plays Hartnett's character's son). It is interesting that he appears so prominently on the poster, considering he's barely in the trailer. I've never been much for boxing movies (no, not even Raging Bull), so I'm not that interested in Resurrecting the Champ, even though I want to like another movie by Rod Lurie, because he did such a great job with The Contender. This poster doesn't do anything to change my mind, either, with its Hartnett-as-Peppermint Patty photo and its blazing, cloudy with a chance of Armageddon background. Sorry, Yari, try again.

Click on the poster for a larger size image. Check out the trailer after the jump.

When it comes to sports movies, it's nearly impossible to compare, say, Caddyshack and Rocky. One's a comedy about a golf tournament featuring a demented groundskeeper who talks to gophers; the other's a stirring boxing drama about the triumph of the scrappy underdog. Apples and oranges, right? Golf balls and boxing gloves -- Bill Murray vs. Sylvester Stallone. (I'm pretty sure I know who would win that fight.)

But we at Moviefone are nothing if not courageous (or stupid), so we threw caution to the wind and picked -- and then ranked -- the 25 best sports movies of all time. This was not, I assure you, an easy task. Things were said. Gauntlets were thrown. Heartfelt arguments were offered up as to why Major League is an honest-to-God classic. At one point I thought my colleague Kevin was going to go all Russell Crowe on my ass if we didn't include Cinderella Man on our list ... and don't get me started on our Raging Bull vs. Rocky showdown.

When the dust had settled, we had a list of 25 sports movies we felt were truly great. Of course, there's many a terrific movie we had to leave off -- but that's where the fun begins. Take a look and then let us know: How do you feel about our No. 1 choice? Which of our picks do you agree with, and which ones are you outraged we didn't include? So let the games begin, and remember: Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes ... it rains.

In a short piece about the creation of a small new production company (Sunset Pictures) this morning, Variety casually mentioned that that company is currently developing ... Raging Bull, the sequel. What?! Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm under the impression that the people behind the company -- Martin Guigui, Dahlia Waingort, Pete Wooster and Thomas Baraka DiCandia if you want to write letters -- are pretty much the only ones on earth who think this is a good idea. According to Variety, the film will be based on an earlier bad idea, Chris Anderson's Raging Bull II: Continuing the Story of Jake LaMotta (released in 1986 and, not surprisingly, now out of print), and would focus on "the early years of boxer LaMotta." Gee, that sounds just fantastic.

Hands up, who want to see this movie? I mean, come on, people! What logic is possibly being employed in even thinking about putting this film together?