MovieChat Forums > New York, New York (1977) Discussion > Anybody else feel...just mixed about it?

Anybody else feel...just mixed about it?

posted 13 years ago by tarantinolover12
16 replies | jump to latest

I neither loved nor hated this film; I really wanted to love it, and I actually did for the first hour. The main things I like about this film are the jazz music and Liza Minelli's songs - and a gorgeous 34-year-old Robert de Niro playing a musician, but that's being shallow. I actually enjoyed the first hour, I loved the relationship between Jimmy and Francine, the music was great...but then the second hour came.
But the movie is flawed. I couldn't really understand the plot well, it was kinda all over the place, and it was really slow, and of course, De Niro's character became really unlikeable. Plus that 'Happy Endings' part felt a bit out-of-place, after that really intense scene with Jimmy and Francine in the car, and then being followed by the ending.
But at least Scorsese was trying something different. I respect him for taking a risk, but we all make mistakes; almost every director has a 'misfire' film) and it's such a shame that he didn't take the negative response for this film too well (but thank God for Robert de Niro convincing him to make 'Raging Bull').
Does anyone else have a mixed opinion on this film? Were there parts that people liked, because it seems a lot of people just hate this film; I can't hate this film, because I respect Scorsese's efforts and De Niro's commitment to the role (as always), but it just seems that most people really hate it.
Feel free to comment :)

-----
Say something that's against someone's opinion on IMDB, prepare to get a whole lot of hate.

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

I actually like it a lot that the story is somewhat "allover the place" as you say - it´s got such a natural energy and sort of an anarchic spirit that it feels inspired however undisciplined it appears or whichever turn the story is deciding to take. The film looks awesome with outstanding camerawork and set design, the music is powerful enough to carry a lot of the picture and De Niro gives one of his most overlooked great - or at least near-great - performances... there´s nothing really wrong with it as far as I´m concerned. And I usually can´t even stand musicals. That´s the kinda Marty I like.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] tarantinolover12 13 years ago

I like that thought on the plotline; I think I might need to watch it again, I'd like to watch it again, maybe I was just distracted that night I watched it, but thank you :)

-----
Say something that's against someone's opinion on IMDB, prepare to get a whole lot of hate.

[–] brookwriter 13 years ago

Every year this goes up a notch of my list of favorite films. I think is much more focused than even Scorsese gives it credit for.

I do understand when people say it is "dark", "slow", "harrowing", all these criticisms. But that's what I love about it. A musical that takes its own sweet time, gorgeously photographed, splendidly acted, scored, and directed.

I love it as much now as when it was released in the summer of 1977. A big "if only" with this flick is this one: "IF ONLY" they'd had the guts to keep in the complete "Happy Endings" production number and release "New York, New York" in its (thankfully current) 163-minute incarnation, I think we'd have saved a few years in the movie's re-evaluation.

But, so it goes. It's restored and available on DVD and it should be seen by anyone interested in musicals, Scorsese, DeNiro, and Liza Minnelli.

If you can see it in a theatre, GO.

[–] tarantinolover12 13 years ago

I am tempted to get it again on DVD, as I need to watch it again, thanks :)

-----
Say something that's against someone's opinion on IMDB, prepare to get a whole lot of hate.

[–] jazzbeets 13 years ago

Jimmy's attack on the pregnant Francine is one of the most uncomfortable to watch film sequences ever, but over all I liked the movie. I liked a lot of the music and the parts where they were playing bop in Harlem wee real cool but Liza's long production number at the end wasn't really my cup of tea.
The thing about Jimmy that everybody seems to miss is that he was fithful to his muse,uncompromising music, and it went against his nature to be a sell out even though it would have made things much easier for him.
I have to say I like the movie because it made me think a lot more than most films. I like a movie that is not so easy to process and forget right away. I missed it in 77 and only just saw it this week.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ANGRYal 12 years ago

I agree with tarantinolover12's comments, absolutely!

The only thing I can add, as I glance at it again tonight on "Turner Classic Movies," is that I remember seeing it the year it came out in the theaters and what added to my mixed feelings/confusion about this movie is that I remember they marketed it as a comedy. I was fairly young at the time and all I really cared to see were comedies. It was the only reason I decided to go and see it because they promoted all these humorous scenes (or when taken out of context, appeared to be humorous) in the commercials.

The volatile, schizophrenic nature of Robert DiNero's character took a lot enjoyment out of the expected comedic nature of the film, also.

I really hate when the studios do that. I remember when "City Heat" with Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds came out. First they marketed as a comedy, then they changed it to an "edgy Depression-era drama," then comedy again, then released it when VHS came out as a drama. UGH!

[–] nycruise-1 12 years ago

It's a mish-mash but not a trainwreck.

Alot of talent - that doesn't necessarily mix well.

DeNiro is great as this jack-ass musician, but he's in the wrong movie.

Liza does her best "Judy Garland" impression - which actually wouldn't be so bad if the musical numbers were better staged. Scorcese is no Stanley Donen or Vincente Minnelli - although it's obvious Martin was inspired by their musical stagings.

I saw it when it was first released. Everybody couldn't get over how much Liza looked like Judy. I saw it with my parents and my dad was very impressed with DeNiro (although he liked Liza from "Cabaret").

"Funny Lady" with Barbara Streisand and James Caan came out before this film, and I remember thinking that, in that film, the story worked better because Babs walked all over James and so the film was decidedly hers. NYNY, on the other hand, is schizophrenic: when DeNiro is onscreen, the film becomes this intense drama; then when Liza gets the spotlight, the film becomes this (twisted) Hollywood musical. Neither one ever really dominates the other, which leaves the audience somewhat confused at the end because you really don't know who to feel sorry for.

But I remember hearing the title song for the very first time, before it started getting any airplay. Everyone in the audience KNEW that song was going to be a BIG HIT - even possibly replacing Liza's signature "Cabaret" (although it never ended up doing so).

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

I think it´s a lot richer, more inspired, energetic and engaging experience than Garland´s A Star Is Born, at least. The song and dance numbers in the latter film looked so silly I pretty much fast forwarded through all of them.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] trekkie313 12 years ago

I watched it for the first time last night on TCM, it was the 3hr. version too. I liked the story/romance between Liza and DeNiro, but some of her musical numbers weren't too good and the "restored" footage really didn't look restored. More like a LaserDisc copy of a 50's film.

"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sleepwalking 11 years ago

I REALLY want to like this film. The talent involved is astounding on paper. I watch it once a year, hoping for it to click but it just... makes my brain hurt!

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

As earlier posters have mentioned, I love the look of the film and can appreciate Scorsese wanting to make an old Hollywood style musical dedicated to New York. The musical production numbers are really good and whilst not being a huge Liza Minnelli fan, I think she was well cast in this role.

Unfortunately whilst Robert De Niro looks like a musician, I only really enjoyed his performance when he shut up and stuck the reeds in his mouth. It was a one tone performance in a long film that strangely entertained no nuance or development IMO, whilst never allowing any chemistry to be established between Francine and Jimmy. (The marriage proposal/wedding scene was truly appalling, though I think was supposed to be funny...perhaps?).

It's an interesting part of Scorsese's body of work, but musically speaking,I much preferred his next offering...The Last Waltz.

[–] rooprect 9 years ago

De Niro's character became really unlikeable.

That's really my only gripe about an otherwise great film. In the DVD prologue, Scorsese talks about wanting to create a musical with all the fantasy visuals of the classics but with a realistic edge. He wanted to tell a more credible sort of love story where things are not always perfect. Bravo for that. But where it failed is I think De Niro went beyond being "realistically flawed" and became a total scum. Seriously, how can anyone relate to a character who smacks a pregnant woman around?

It wasn't just that scene (although that was the coup de grace), but his presence throughout the film was very menacing, as if he & Scorsese couldn't quite cool their jets after "Taxi Driver". I think "New York, New York" was a great idea, a great effort and ultimately a great film. But I just can't bring myself to enjoy it because of how unintentionally disturbing De Niro's character turned out to be. Scorsese says he wanted to tell a lovestory about people with realistic differences. But he ended up telling a pretty 1-sided tale of spousal abuse.