Raging talent: Martin Scorsese’s films ranked
Now that Killers Of The Flower Moon has arrived in theaters, here's a look at how Scorsese's feature films stack up
Film Features Martin Scorsese
To generations of film lovers, it seems as if Martin Scorsese has always been with us, as have the cinematic obsessions informing much of his work: The lure of criminality and corruption (Goodfellas), urban alienation (Taxi Driver), and toxic masculinity (Raging Bull). But since his feature debut, Who’s That Knocking At My Door in 1967, Scorsese has also wrestled with his Catholic faith (Silence), changing social mores (Age Of Innocence) and our obsession with celebrity (The King Of Comedy).
The New York-born son of a garment industry presser and a seamstress, Scorsese, who will turn 81 next month, has also been an enduring evangelist for the art of film—even if that means occasionally angering fans of the superhero epics he famously declared in Empire magazine to be “not cinema.” Scorsese, proud owner of nine Academy Award nominations for Best Director, is a modern master of story and style, and a bulwark against what he sees as the lowering of the Seventh Art from its century-long position atop the cultural mountain.
Just in time for the release of Killers Of The Flower Moon, we’re ranking Scorsese’s feature films (we didn’t include documentaries like 1978’s The Last Waltz or shorts like 2015’s The Audition). Just scrolling down these titles reminds us that Scorsese remains a vital voice in film. If that means ruffling a few superhero feathers, well, when you consider that he’s created several of the greatest films ever made, he’s earned his right to his opinion.
124 Comments
It’s just a shame, that according to AV Club, Scorsese’s work will be largely forgotten because it is nothing but a celebration of “toxic masculinity”. Meanwhile, apparently, Eternals will replace Citizen Cane as the go-to movie for film school students to study.
On the bright side, I suspect “Ray Greene” is a pseudonym for their chatbot.
Man, for his sake I hope he is. If I were publishing anything close to film criticism I’d be utterly embarrassed to have that in my portfolio.
Ray Greene sounds like some guy who wears wing collars with bolo ties and waistcoat, underneath a pseudo-Victorian shawl-collared paisley smoking jacket and a fedora for his public-facing headshot-Oh. Oh, dear.
Objection!I believe that hat is technically a trilby.
Kane not Cane
Citizen Cane is a terrific title for a children’s book and I call dibs NOW.
Yesterday the AVC published an article calling Scorsese an out-of-touch, overrated old dude. Now they publish this praising his career. What a junk heap this site has become.
It’s almost like they have more than one writer working for them! Maybe this one missed the weekly consensus meeting.Plus, they got to feed the slideshow* engine! The workers are down in the engine room, loudly protesting about how the whole site will blow if they continue overloading it with slideshows, but they go unheard, as the command for more comes from on high.*Truly, the “theme park ride experience” of website design.
There’s still journalistic voice and presenting at least a front of not openly contradicting each other. For my money, my favorite was when huffpost ran these two stories on back to back days. You never run out of news if you ARE the news (journalism 101)
This is probably moving the goalposts a bit, but I tend to think of the slideshows as separate from the rest of the articles, especially the long-form essay stuff. It says a lot about how little compositional effort they require that the management did their test run of AI content creation on a few slideshows.
They don’t have any writers working for them anymore. They fired them a couple years back. Now they have “content” creators and AI-created articles.
If your opinion is Scorsese is overrated and Marvel films are actually more important to film history, you shouldn’t be writing about film. And I say that as someone who is a big Marvel fan.
Do they have absolutely no staff writers? They certainly have a handful of regulars that keep showing up here, but I guess they could all be stringers getting paid by the article.I certainly will not argue that the recent Scorcese hot-take felt a lot like it started with a foregone conclusion and cherry-picked arguments to reach that conclusion. Sure, studio heads have always been mercenary about the films they fund, but I’m not sure it’s a one-to-one comparison. I think fandom (of which I count myself a reluctant member) is at least partially to blame. We finally got exactly what we wanted, but it’s become like Midas’ curse: everything must be turned into a franchise.
*Truly, the “theme park ride experience” of website design.Man, you tryin’ to get Ray Greene to put a hit piece out on you?
Why not? I’ll give him a solid argument to start off. He has been coming to this site for ages, before Disqus and even commenting as a site feature*, through several management/editorial regimes, and probably for a longer span of time than some of the current writers have been alive. He frequently bitches about the fallen state of the site…yet he still shows up out of habit.*The tagline when they started allowing commenting on articles: “Now Tolerating Your Opinion”.I’m not sure what might finally cause me to actually cut ties with this site forever. I think it’s more that I haven’t found a suitable replacement. The Avocado (AV Club After Dark) is endearing in a “amateurs putting together a show” way, but it doesn’t quite fill the void left from Phipp’s abdication of the editorial position here (his editorial reign *was* the AVC Golden Age, IMO). Granted, neither is the site as it currently stands, but sometimes if I squint, I can see the potential just under the garbage.
Sure, but there’s writers for the same publication having different opinions and then there’s publishing a celebration of a man’s work literally the day after you published an article basically calling him an overrated out-of-touch hack. One is the diversity of human experience, the other is an utter lack of consistency in editorial standards.
It seems like one can report on comments an artist makes while also simultaneously talk about works they have produced throughout the years independently of those comments.But alas, this is the internet. Where that is impossible, apparently.
I’m not sure if your comment is aimed at me or at yesterday’s piece that was hardly “reporting” on his comments, but using them as a jumping off point for arguing, bafflingly so, that Scorsese is a less important voice in film than Marvel movies (which, again, I am actually a big fan of).
Either you didn’t read the article, vastly misunderstood it or are being disingenuous. The overarching theme of this hit piece was denigrating Scorsese’s filmography and commercial success in order to prop up Marvel.
This slide show is a good reminder of De Niro’s versatility. Italian gangster, Irish gangster, Jewish gangster…
Disturbed Vietnam vet/taxi driver, toxic, insecure boxer, wannabe showbiz comedian, deranged Southern convict, corrupt political boss behind the Osage murders…yeah, no range whatsoever!
It was a joke. I just find it amusing that he has appeared as an Italian gangster in more than one movie (understandable) but also as an Irish gangster in more than one movie, and a Jewish gangster in more than one movie. I don’t think it really needs saying that he’s done a few other things as well.
I like your top four. For me, some egregious errors just below that. The Departed – a slick, enjoyable film – is not better than The King of Comedy, Casino, After Hours, Silence…you get the picture. Your back half seems a little askew. And for my tastes, I’d rather re-watch the raw, dirty, miserableness of Boxcar Bertha than Hugo any week. But I get it, tough to order a great artist’s career.Also, you should have left The Last Waltz in.
It’s rated fairly low, and objectively speaking it probably should be, but of all his films it’s The Gangs of New York that I probably enjoy the most, in spite of all of its many flaws. If it ever shows up on TV I have to watch it through to the end – and I can’t say that about any of his other films.
For me Goodfellas, Casino and Aviator all fall into that category as well.
I like Gangs of New York a lot. I think it always gets a bad rap. But even at 3 hours, it’s good to rewatch every now and then.
It’s one of his most purely entertaining movies for sure, but the writer here is correct that Day-Lewis just buries DiCaprio and Diaz (both of whom were just fundamentally miscast).
It’s definitely a Day-Lewis tour de force, although I also really like the supporting cast – Brendan Gleeson, John C. Reilly, Stephen Graham, and I always like seeing Henry Thomas show up in things.Almost every mention of the film talks about Diaz being miscast, and she’s not the best, but I don’t think her or DiCaprio bring the film down as much as most critics think. Definitely not up to the task of sharing the screen with Day-Lewis, but not like, Sofia Coppolla in Godfather Part 3 bad.
For sure on the supporting cast (don’t forget Liam Neeson, pre-professional badass!), they’re all great. I don’t think Diaz or DiCaprio bring the movie down necessarily, they just feel a bit out of place. The other characters feel much more lived-in (esp. Gleeson).
Absolutely, regarding the “lived in” feel. They all seem like they belong, and Diaz and (to a lesser extent) DiCaprio do seem sort of out of place. Liam Neeson definitely elevates the proceedings, even if for only a couple scenes. Gleeson and the others definitely feel “of the world” especially Reilly, which is a standout given he’s usually more of a goofball comic actor.
Reilly’s a big dude and can definitely ramp up the menace when he wants. His look in the early scene of the White Rabbits heading out to fight the Natives is that of someone I wouldn’t fuck with.
Agreed on Diaz. I did a rewatch recently and was expecting much, much worse. She acquitted herself well. (Though DiCaprio should never do accents. Better to find a plot reason why he talks like an ‘90s American or simply ignore it — i.e. Titanic — then have him attempt another one.)
If anything, like several films on this list — The Aviator, Silence, Casino, Wolf of Wall Street, to name a few — Gangs of NY would be dramatically improved if it was 2 hours, 10 mins instead of nearly 3!
I actually like it at its current length. There are certain movies that it’s jut fun to get lost in, especially period pieces that go out of their way to create a lost sort of world and atmosphere.
really makes me curious if that hit piece yesterday was editorially mandated for hate-clicks or if the writer pitched it. either way, i’ve never been a ‘this website is dead maaaaan’ type, but after that, this website is dead man.
Stop! Stop! I can only withstand so much toxic masculinity!
Why rank all the films of a director who is doomed to obscurity?
who?
I think it would be a much more productive to rank the Marvel movies in terms of cultural significance, from “incredibly” to “earth-shatteringly important.”
This pairs really well with yesterdays Martin Scorsese is a hack, change our mind article. I know I said this place isn’t a hive mind, but can we not look like Golum shifting personalities please?
I’m in the minority in thinking The King of Comedy is the best film he ever made. It’s a bit more restrained visually, but it’s such an incredible pitch black comedy with possibly De Niro’s finest, least showy performance.On the other hand, I would put Gangs of New York and Cape Fear much lower down. GONY is worth watching for Day-Lewis, but it’s far too long and both younger stars are out of their depth. And Cape Fear is fine but about as cartoony as Cape Feare, the Simpsons parody, and I think De Niro’s performance is one of his worst.
after hours is my ‘favorite’ and i watch goodfellas every new years day (perfect hangover movie)…but the more i revisit the irishman the more i think it’s his masterpiece.
I find The Irishman a bit slow going in the first half, but I think the last hour might be Scorsese’s masterpiece.
I made this comment yesterday on the absurd “history will forget Scorsese” article, but Color of Money is by no means a second-tier work. It’s not as grimy as his very best stuff but always feels like he knows his way around the environments Newman and Cruise circulate through.
Yea was shocked to see Color of Money rolling low on this list. I consider it top tier at least as it gave Newman some meat to really re-carve his niche with the return of Fast Eddie. It was a great blend of the old talent mixing with the young hotness all over the green felt of the eternal table. I have watched it numerous times and still love the charm the characters exude between one another.And I still consider it one of Scorsese’s best in terms of the camerawork..its right up there with Goodfellas as a study on positioning and using the zooms to enhance the story.
I love it too, it might be a tie between Goodfellas and King of Comedy for me, but I also love Cape Fear. Wolf of Wall Street is probably my favorite of his more recent work, and I thought he made Jordan Belfort come across as kind of pathetic by the end of the movie.
King of Comedy was my favorite Scorsese film until The Age of Innocence came out.The list’s ranking is kind of messed up, I think. I was scanning and was responding with “This is so low…? This is so high…!?” overall.
I really like Bringing Out the Dead, but I am a sucker for both Schrader’s writing (probably has something to do with me being Dutch. Although I didn’t exactly have a religious upbringing, there’s always something of a cultural click with his movies) and movies that have that feverish feel. Nic Cage is perfectly cast too. I also really love The Irishman. The de-aging stuff is iffy, but it is basically a play: it’s all about the dialogue, what the characters say and how they say it. I don’t know if other actors could’ve done with the script what DeNiro and Pesci do.
On the other hand, I don’t care all that much about Raging Bull. Motta is not just awful, it’s worse than that: he’s awful in an extremely boring way. Even Scorsese and DeNiro can’t make him interesting.
I adore Bringing out the Dead. Probably an all-time Top 10er
Totally agree on Bringing out the Dead. Just a greatly weird fever dream. Also thought Raging Bull was overrated. However, I hated the Irishman. Boring, unnecessary and forgettable.
I can totally understand people hating The Irishman. Personally I love talky movies, which are all about scheming and diplomacy, but I get why people find those boring. I am not Christopher Nolan’s fan (I actually hate Interstellar with a passion), but am totally in love with Oppenheimer, a movie a lot of people found boring too.
I’ve only seen Bringing once, and found it a profoundly disorienting experience.
I’m still convinced ‘Bringing’ ripped off a lesser-known indie flick called ‘Broken Vessels’ released a year prior. There are more than a few extremely similar scenes and themes in both. I’m not saying Scorsese knowingly stole from another movie, but it’s a really weird coincidence and made me not like ‘Bringing’ maybe as much as I should.
Isn’t Bringing Out the Dead based on a novel?
Do Scorsese films even lend themselves to parody? I can’t think of much that can be done with them.
Yeah, but unlike Avengers: Endgame, absolutely none of them will stand the test of time.(Source: The AV Club, just yesterday.)
… Nah, you guys ain’t gonna be living that piece of shit down for a while.
Finally, a Dawes replacement
How anyone…..ANYONE could read that schlock and immediately not bust a J Jonah Jameson cackle and ‘you serious?’ is beyond me. It was simply put, the DUMBEST take I ever witnessed.
I literally thought it was some sort of joke.
Paul Schrader didn’t write Mean Streets.
I don’t care that much about the rankings, but this is the worst headline title I’ve read recently lol
They didn’t realize until yesterday that people who read this site like Scorsese and had to do the most explicit fanservice to avoid ruining their site more
The worst since yesterday.
The worst today… so far
Scorsese’s legion of cis white fanbois will come out frothing at the mouth cause their favorite movie wasn’t #1
Hey we’re not all white
Obviously my take is anecdotal, but black (and to a degree, latino) people don’t really love Scorsese like “white” men do. Look at his body of work, and man does that man love to create characters or settings where they would drop the n-bomb.
Believe it or not we poc love good movies, too
Never said we don’t like good movies, but you can also be capable of having a nuanced convo about it. Similar criticism can be levied against Tarantino, but at least he cast black people in positive leading roles.
Wow, the Irishman at number 9? I heard that was a snorefest! My favorite writer Ray Greene said so!
Sorry, but The Age of Innocence is minimum top 10, probably top 5, it’s a masterwork – to have it behind Shutter Island, to name one, is laughable
Where’ The Last Waltz’? I mean, come on!
I rank The Departed lower. Mainly due to the fact that it’s a remake of Infernal Affairs, and Infernal Affairs is a better film.
After Hours at #16 instead of #1? Fuck this.
Bringing Out the Dead that low? Don’t make me take off my sunglasses!
I got to Who’s that Knocking At My Door? being second to the last…
It really is kinda amusing how much more or less straight crap there is on his resume.“Age of Innocence” ranking in the mid-line quality level of his work is an indictment, not a compliment. Scorcese was horribly out of his element, and works with the subtlety of a sledgehammer working neurosurgery. DDL’s performance is pure melodrama, everyone else in the cast seems to be cashing paychecks with the exception of Winona Ryder (mostly just looking kinda lost). I’ll give him credit for making the question of “is watching the screen or the movie theater’s ceiling more entertaining” a valid and worthy debate. Beyond that, it was an ill fitted directorial choice along the lines of Friedberg/Saltzman taking a whack at Shakespeare.
I saw it recently and quite liked it. Different strokes but I gotta take umbrage with describing Daniel Day Draaaaaaiiiiiinaaaaage Lewis’s restrained performance in that movie as melodramatic.
I also like it a lot, and the first time I saw it was forced by my mom when I was not even a teen and I was complaining the whole time in the cinema.
Still, your phrasing indicates the movie was, in fact, cinema.
going to retire from social networks for a while. Back to blogs, probably with comment sections closed. Will give my opinion on things, better or worse, and not look for any feedback, not looking for any conversation. I really cannot handle the jokey misunderstandings well.
Oh sorry that bothered you. Sounds like a healthy choice!
The scene I always refer to is the one where DDL decides he’s going to run off with the Countess, opening with him being shown into a parlor where he immediately stokes a fire. Scene continues and you can track DDL’s required emotional state by shots of the fire, up until he finds out Countess bailed on him…. and the close up shot of the fire collapsing. See? He was STOKING the FIRE of his PASSION! GET IT?!?!? GET IT!!!???!!!??? IT COLLAPSED!!!! GET IT???!?!??!!?!?It’s a work that came out when Merchant Ivory were at the height of their output and was a pale imitator in every respect. I respect Scorsese more for trying something he wasn’t fitted for, but I cannot look at the movie as ‘good’.
Well when you describe it like THAT… It’s been decades since I’ve seen Howard’s End and my perception of what a Good and Serious movie is has changed, so I should revisit. I thought Last of the Mohicans was a Good and Serious movie when I was in high school, turns out it’s a slightly self-serious action flick with a lot of hot people running around. Not a complaint, just a change. Anyway, I did like AofI on its own terms , but I should rewatch the stuff it came in the wake of for perspective.
It’s astounding to me that I agree with every assessment of all 25 films. I rarely agree with others about film. Great ensemble job. One nit pik, no mention of Sandra Bernhard in the King of Comedy review.
Thanks to the comments, it’s been fun to read AV club again, for the last day and a half and glad to know I’m not crazy thinking these loafers have been putting up slideshows wayyy to much. Tomorrow, Ranking The Best Slideshows of October 2023 and We’ll Be Digging Up Alfred Hitchcock and Finally Telling Him How We Really Feel.
This is a decent list. I would rank Bringing Out The Dead higher and The Departed lower. But Raging Bull is still that perfect movie from that incredible cinema year of 1980.
Taxi Driver actually lost me after the climactic shooting, when Bickle was suddenly “made a hero.” Maybe my opinion was coloured by the fact I didn’t see it until after 9/11, but I just couldn’t let go of the fact that however undesirable Harvey Keitel’s character and his accomplices were, Bickle’s original target was a presidential candidate. A right wing presidential candidate. And even if Bickle never got to take a shot at him, he still killed at least one Secret Service agent. Even in the 70s there’s no way anyone would let that go.
See, I always read that ending as Bickle’s delusion. Like he’s finally let go of reality entirely and we’re just sort of floating in the ether of how he’d like his life to be. Haven’t seen it in a while though.
That’s how I want to interpret it, too, but the film goes on after that. I don’t remember the ending exactly, but I remember him talking to the same cabbies he talked to before like nothing ever happened, then getting behind the wheel, and going “You talking to me? I’m the only one here” to an empty back seat.
The ending is implying he’s inevitably going to snap again and commit another shooting. My only problem with that is, well, he’s a cabbie. In New York City. In the Seventies. No one who’s anyone is going to allow him to do that, especially with a dead Secret Service Agent on his hands. The fact that he’s still a taxi driver at the end is too implausible for me.
But then again, I am the guy who watched the original Higlander film and thought the most ridiculous character was the former marine driving around NYC with a trunk full of guns, looking for someone to shoot, so what do I know?
I gotta see it again. Apparently there was talk of a sequel 10-20 years ago, which I guess would have cleared things up. If making a sequel to Taxi Driver wasn’t a horrible idea that is.
I haven’t seen the movie in years but.. He kills an agent? When? I don’t remember that at all. He runs away from the rally and only shoots the robber in the store and the criminals at the end as far as I remember?
I swear he shoots the same Secret Service Agent he talks to earlier in the film before running away. I swear the reason he does run away is because he shot the agent and sent everyone panicking.
No, he doesn’t shoot anyone at the rally.. He reaches for his gun and is spotted then runs:
The Berenstein Bears strike again, it seems.
That makes the ending a little more plausible, though I can’t imagine that politician being happy about his would be assassin being “made a hero.”
Did you hear that? It was the sound of my eyes rolling, which was so hard it must have been audible. Imagine creating this ranking and actually putting your name to it. The top 3 are pretty obvious (I’d accept any order, but generally agree that Goodfellas is #1), but after that, the list completely falls apart. Last Temptation ahead of King of Comedy, Casino and Wolf? The Irishman better than Wolf? The Color of Money *WHERE*???? What a trainwreck.
It’s hard to take this list seriously after the swill you published yesterday, but fine…After Hours is too low – top 10 Scorsese.
I despise myself for clicking on this shitty listbait piece.Also, Age of Innocence and Color of Money both way too low.
Nice. I agree with the top 2:)
Did a little list of my own:
Silence is way too low and The Departed way too high.
Commenters here really have a hard time grappling with the fact that different writers have different opinions.
Nah we totally need 20 separate posts dragging the writers of this list on top of the 300+ comments from yesterday. If anything, it’s not enough.
First they’re mad at the opinion in one article, then they’re mad another writer doesn’t repeat it.
Different writers have different opinions, sure, but the fact that they published two such extremely diametrically opposed takes within a single day of each other is more bipolar than Two-Face.And he just robs banks and tries to kill Batman, he’s never done anything as bafflingly terrible as publish an article which in all seriousness basically tries to claim that Martin Scorsese is an overrated bitter hack who’s just jealous because he’s never done anything that will have as eternal a legacy as Avengers: Endgame.
Then fine, go disagree with the article that has a truly bad take on Scorsese. The other writers are not required to repeat it, agree with it, or defend it. They can have their own opinion.
Nah. The AV Club as a collective fully deserve their lumps on this one. It betrays a site-wide lack of editorial consistency and standards which reflects poorly on everyone regardless of whether or not they agree with the specific article. They published the stupid article purely for clicks and engagement, so they can live with people engaging with it by throwing it back in their faces.Besides, you’re not the boss of the forums and I’m not breaking any rules, so I’ll bring it up anywhere I feel it’s pertinent. Such as another article about Martin Scorsese.
Nobody is the boss of the forums so I’ll keep pointing out how silly it is to criticize writers for having different opinions from each other. And I have no issue with folks criticizing particular opinions, just the criticism that having different opinions at all is bad. Having different opinions about art is good, actually. A site that has only singular subjective opinions about art is bad and has terrible editorial policy. This does not mean every opinion about art is good, just that it’s perfectly OK for writers to have different subjective opinions.
As is your right. Unlike you, I didn’t tell you to go somewhere else to do that.Also, like I said earlier; the problem isn’t people having different opinions. The problem is a site publishing drastically different opinions within a ridiculously short time span. It makes the site look like there’s no one around implementing any kind of consistent or clear messaging, and/or like they’re just cynically trying to wind people up for clicks rather than engaging in any kind of honest good-faith criticism.
I said if you had a problem with an article, maybe go comment on that article, instead of bitching at the writer who did not express the opinion you are having an issue with. I stand by that. But hey you can express your shitty opinion on any comment thread, knock yourself out. I have sympathy for writers who have commenter come bitch at them for things they don’t write and opinions they don’t hold. There’s nothing wrong with the writers having different opinions about art. None at all. One person can hate Scorsese and the other can love him. How terrible if everyone were in lock step about the art they enjoy.
Who is “bitching at the writer” of this article? I’m certainly not. I’ve pointed out that there’s a drastic gulf in the opinions expressed here and the opinions in the other article, which is fine because there is. And I’m doing so here because it’s relevant to both articles, which it is; they’re both about the same subject and have been published in close proximity towards each other, thus making a dialogue between them relevant. And I’ve been a bit snarky in doing so because, well, online communication. But at no point have I specifically complained about the writers of this article or the opinions they’ve expressed, nor so far as I can tell has anyone else. That just seems to be a strawman you’ve constructed because otherwise your point seems to boil down to “shut up and stop making me read opinions I don’t want to read!” Which is fair enough in and of itself, I guess, but is also no one else’s problem but yours.
You are 100% complaining about what the writers and what they are writing. One writer had on opinion, and the next writer had a different one and they had the audacity to write these different opinions on the same website. They are allowed to have different opinions about Martin Scorsese. It is good, very good, that a website devoted to pop culture has writers that interpret art and pop culture differently.
Well, that’s another strawman; I’ve not said they’re “not allowed” to have different opinions on Martin Scorsese (in fact, I’ve said the opposite in this very conversation). Nor, frankly, am I in a position to stop them expressing their different opinions even if I didn’t think that. I’ve explained why I think publishing such drastically different opinions so close together is problematic, but since I think it’s pretty clear by this point that you’re just talking past me and we’re just beginning to go around in circles, I’m gonna leave it there. I wish you all the best.
You say in one breath that you’re all for differing opinions and in the next sat that these different opinions are problematic. I am back where I started: it’s very weird how much trouble commenters are having with writers having opinions of their own that may be unlike other writers.
I would have Gangs Of New York higher. Last Temptation of Christ is probably my favorite Scorsese film, but I admittedly haven’t seen the overwhelming majority of his movies because I’M A HUGE MARVEL FAN.
The book Goodfellas is based on is called Wiseguy, not Wiseguys. Sorry for being that guy, guys.
Any list that includes The Departed in the top 5 is bullshit. Sorry
Age of Innocence at 17?? Booo.
swap 1 and 2
Weird, of the 25 films ranked, I have seen 22 of them, and really only liked 5 of them. Does that mean in my mind Scorsese is overrated?(Yes.)
“Goodfellas is a black comedy in gangster garb”.Black comedy, like it amuses you? It makes you laugh, it’s here to fucking amuse you? What the fuck is so funny about Goodfellas?
He makes the best fucking films!
It’s funny they’re farming both kinds of SEO clicks. The ignorant and the hopelessly ignorant.
After Hours should be closer to the top, just for creating the “oddball character black comedy” genre that the Coen Brothers have made a killing on.
Pretend you guys don’t shit on him all the time