Martin Scorsese: Ordinary People or Raging Bull

Don't get annoyed. In honor of Martin Scorsese I am going to do a few of these today.
Which one do you link more?
I suspect I am in the minority, but I really like Ordinary People (I've seen it at least 5 times) while, IMO, I think Raging Bull is ok......that said Robert De Niro is great as usual.
Ok, I am ready to be slaughtered. Go and vote

 

Mr. Scorsese his the High Priest of American Cinema, our greatest living director.

"Raging Bull" over "Ordinary People" in March, 1981 or any other time.

"GoodFellas" over "Dances With Wolves" in March 1991 or any other time.

That is all...

 

Raging Bull

 

I don't think this poll is all that necessary. After all, this is just about the most well-known and universally accepted Best Picture travesty of all time. Infamous.

 

Raging Bull for me. De Niro was awesome in this, as usual.

 

Raging Bull hands down!

 

Except maybe for the Star Wars vs. Annie Hall travesty.

 

No, this one is worse in hindsight. Obviously Star Wars should have taken it, being a totally revolutionary and visionary achievement that changed the film landscape forever and all, but Annie Hall has at least gone down in history as a Woody Allen classic. People still enjoy it and talk about it on its own merits, whereas Ordinary People is remembered only as the movie that stole Raging Bull's Oscar. (That's the sole reason why I've even seen it).

 

Raging Bull. My favorite part is the biblical quote at the very end.



Haas

 

That's no travesty. This is the first time I've heard it referred to as one.

 

So what was Chariots of Fire over Raiders of the Lost Ark.


I don't care if 100 people think Raging Bull is a better film.
I still am amazed by the acting in Ordinary People and its still one of my favorite film.
Raging Bull does nothing for me. I tried to watch it again last week and I still don't see why its such a great film....except for De Niro.

 

Raging Bull is narratively flawed but the fight sequences are just about the most amazing thing I've ever seen in a movie. Miniature masterpieces of editing and sound.

 

They are great, but they remind me of Killer's Kiss directed by Kubrick.

 

Well, I'll be in the minority with you. I like Raging Bull, but I've always really liked Ordinary People.

 

I have to admit I find RAGING BULL technically brilliant but kinda boring and monotonous.

 

Two movies that weren't as good as REDS.

 

Hardly.

 

Raging Bull is a cinematic masterpiece. I was just watching the documentaries on the 2-DVD set. What an incredible movie.

 

Ordinary People was an excellent drama, a film that improved considerably on its source novel, boasted several excellent performances (including a redefining one for Mary Tyler Moore), and made for an auspicious directorial debut for Robert Redford. I like it.

But to say it was a better film than Raging Bull is patently ridiculous.

 

Interesting debate... while I would put Scorcese and Raging Bull up there with the all time best, I don't think Ordinary people should be dismissed. For it's time, it was a pretty confronting film, and very well done.

I must however take issue with the so called Annie Hall vs Star Wars travesty. Annie Hall was deserving of it's Best Picture Oscar - it's a great film that, notwithstanding the funky fashions, is ageless and beautifully put together. Star Wars, on the other hand, could never be a contender - sure, it has become a cult classic, and perhaps no-one could have foreseen the magnitude of the whole Star Wars phenomenon - but Star Wars is the weakest of original trilogy, IMO. The acting is fairly ordinary (even Alec Guiness couldn't do mcuh with his role). The fact that Star Wars had to be reimagined by George Lucas, with new bits and special effects, and the original version now virtually disowned by its creator, suggests that it wasn't quite up to scratch to begin with.

 

No way. Jedi is the worst of the first three by a million miles.

Lucas has indeed disowned the first three movies in their original theatrical forms. And one whiff of the fetid diarrhea George Lucas has been spraying at audiences across the world since 1999 is all the guidance you need as far as deciding how much credence his modern day opinions demand. To claim that he needed to "reimagine" those movies, to right some sort of wrong, is to claim that the George Lucas who made the prequel trilogy is a George Lucas who has his head on straight. If you think that, I think we'd better step outside.

I'm not saying the original 1977 Star Wars is better than Annie Hall. I've never seen Annie Hall. I'm saying that being renounced by a psychotic turkey man a quarter century after the fact is not a reason for anybody's opinion on any movie to be swayed.

 

Hmmm....fine dramatic movie vs. cinema masterpiece...

I love both films, but come on...

 

No contest on this one.

 

Well there's Chicago vs The Pianist...
And Rocky over Taxi Driver...
And Kraver vs Kramer over Apocalypse now...
And Citizen Kane vs How green was my valley...
And Rebecca vs The Great Dictator...

 

No contest between the two choices provided, but throw in there Elephant Man, and I have a harder time...just saw that one recently and I must say...what a fine film, all around.

And if The Stunt Man had been nominated, I'd have an even harder time