Raging Bull is overrated.

*Note: I wrote this a while back and held off on posting it, but with EW.com's release of the 25 Best Biopics Ever -- and subsequent placing of this film at No. 1 -- I couldn't stop myself.

(Pic found at this site)

JOEY: Psst. You know we got everybody fooled, right?
JAKE: Whatchutalkin' 'bout we got everybody fooled?
JOEY: Ya know, how everyone thinks we're in this all-time great movie?

Yeah, that's right. Raging Bull -- a.k.a. the American Film Institute's fourth-best movie ever made, a.k.a. one of Time's 100 greatest, a.k.a. the No. 6 movie in the Sight & Sound Directors' Top Ten, a.k.a that top-ranked biopic, etc., etc. -- ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Now, there's a saying about Shakespeare that he has to be overrated because he can't possibly underrated -- and that kind of applies here. Seriously, Google "raging bull" and overrated and read the comment under the link with "DVD Talk Forum."

(Waiting ...)

Ouch.

Yeah, so treading on Raging Bull is trampling sacred ground.

But that doesn't mean we're dubbing Martin Scorsese's legendary film "bad." Its craft -- especially the editing of those boxing scenes -- is, of course, impeccable. Robert De Niro's performance as enraged boxer Jake LaMotta ... well, I wouldn't be the first to say it's very, very good. Joe Pesci (as LaMotta's long-suffering brother) and Cathy Moriarty (LaMotta's long-suffering wife) are fine, too.

Still ... exceptional filmmaking/acting don't make for an exceptional film. There's the little issue of story, and Raging Bull's goes something like this:

-LaMotta starts out an a-hole.

-He surrounds himself with a-holes.

-He becomes a successful boxer ... but an even bigger a-hole.

-His a-holeness catches up with him, so he ends up a fat, outcast a-hole.

Now, it's a character study, meaning plot is secondary. Fine. But character studies need arcs to make them compelling*. Not every protagonist must be a saint, or even likable. But there's gotta be something there, some sort of conflict -- and endlessly running around saying "Did you [bleep] my wife?" doesn't count.

*Even the dull Capote had a considerable character arc.

That's what keeps Raging Bull from reaching the heights of another character-driven Scorsese flick, Taxi Driver. Neither features lovable protagonists, but Travis Bickle's slip into insanity is far more gripping, IMO, than the simple tale of a jerk staying a jerk.

Revisiting Capote ...

... and wondering why.

(Rotten Tomatoes with the pic.)

Back in 2005 -- when Capote hit theaters, wowed critics and grabbed the biggest of all Oscar nominations -- I almost fell asleep watching the step-by-step retelling of how author Truman Capote came about his signature book, In Cold Blood.

Of course, I was in college then. Maybe I was tired from studying*. So I gave it another chance recently.

*Hahahahaha.

Nope. Still boring.

Now, it's not bad. Obviously the acting is excellent, especially Best Actor everwinner Philip Seymour Hoffman in the title role and Clifton Collins Jr. as one of the men who so infamously murdered a Western Kansas family in 1959. Director Bennett Miller crafts the film together cleanly and quietly.

And yet ... so what? Why are we watching this? The story on the pages of In Cold Blood -- captured documentary-style in writer-director Richard Brooks' fantastic 1967 adaptation of Capote's book -- is engrossing. The story behind it -- about the author balancing the book and his personal feelings for Collins' execution-bound character -- not so much. There's a point there, something about a writer getting too close to his work and ultimately becoming affected by it, but is it really worth the two hours?

TFO says no.

But hey, at least it's still better than the movie that beat it for Best Picture.

Wrestler/Frost/Nixon: 2 films, 1 problem

It's funny how* the two Oscar-nominated films hitting DVD shelves today suffered from, essentially, the same problem -- one that kept them in the good-not-great category (and, consequently, provided one more reason why 2008 was pretty eh as a movie year).

*/Life turns out/The odds of faith in the face of doubt/Camera one! ... Jeez, who else remembers that song from like eight years ago? Anyone? Just me? OK.

Those two are Frost/Nixon and The Wrestler, a Best Picture nominee and a critical darling (although F/N didn't do so badly with the scribes, either).

And yet ... consider me underwhelmed. Sure, the acting is great in both -- Frank Langella (F/N) and Marisa Tomei (Wrestler) both deserved their nominations, and Mickey Rourke (Wrestler) would have won Best Actor if the Academy hadn't been too busy playing politics.

But about that storytelling ...

Let's go with F/N first -- one that stirred my fellow journalists with its portrayal of a fluff TV guy who somehow extracted the Big Confession from Richard Nixon long after he left the White House.

(The Economist with the photo)

As a (semi) true story, it's fascinating. You really root for the David Frost character (played competently by Michael Sheen*) to beat the odds and get the bombastic Nixon (Langella) to offer much more than musings on his time in office. Also, Nixon is portrayed in an unusually sympathetic way -- which might not align with one's political leanings, but at least it's different.

*Not to be confused with Martin Sheen, not to be confused with Martin Freeman, not to be confused with Morgan Freeman, not to be confused with aging stock car driver Morgan Shepherd.

The issue, though, is storytelling. Director Ron Howard and writer Peter Morgan breeze through the proceedings with little originality. All the narrative rhythms -- the highs, the lows, the scene in the backyard where Frost tells his crew, "If you're not with me on this, then leave!" -- all of it felt so ... ordinary. We know Frost will get the Big Confession, so why try to play with our emotions like that*? Why not eschew conventions, like a certain other TV journalist movie did?

*One more complaint: For God's sake, Ron ... KEEP THE CAMERA STILL. This is David Frost we're dealing with, not Jason Bourne.

And then there's The Wrestler ...

















(/film with the assist)

Among other things, Darren Aronofsky's relatively straightforward movie about a pro wrestler seeking redemption (in his career, in his love life, with his estranged daughter), received praise for not being formulaic. I disagree.

**MILD BUT VAGUE SPOILERS**

Sure, the film's ending it's not the Hollywood happy one everyone might expect, but it's formula of a different kind. Instead of fairy tale, it's predictable tragedy. And almost every frame of the film points in its direction, seeming to follow a by-the-numbers story pattern. The conclusion, to me, seemed as calculated as Slumdog Millionaire's happy ending.

d. It is written.

And although some preceding parts are terrific -- the first (and less violent) scene in the ring was among the best in '08 -- several other elements are as familiar as pro wrestling is fake: The estranged daughter. The stripper with a heart. The day on the boardwalk. The take-this-job-and-shove-it moment. Been there, seen it.

Do they ruin The Wrestler? No. Nor did F/N's issues render it bad. They just needed something different, something more, to reach greatness. Instead, each took an easier path to make their points.

Really, that last sentence pretty much sums up (most of) the films of 2008.

Paging 2007 ...