You haven't got a valid reason to dislike the film if..

This is basically "Domestic Violence: The Movie".

Not sure how I feel about that. It doesn't really give any insight or provocation as to why people act the way they do, like say, for example, Dolores Claiborne does. The film takes place 100% in LaMotta's fantasy world and never leaves.

Maybe it would have worked better as a documentary.

This film was basically vanity project by Scorsese.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

Preach it, OP.

The film doesn't show or tells us how Jake became the way he is... and because of this many people have a hard time appreciating the film, much less being able to sympathize with Jake. But, that's one of the things I love most about Raging Bull - it ignores biographical film cliches. From the moment Jake appears on screen, we see this awful person who is self-destructive, and eventually loses it all... and that's that! I know this can make for an unpleasant film experience to some, but I for one find it effective.



Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

That's not fair. We can't always sympathize with movie characters, but at least we have to care about what happens to them, or we won't care about the story. I did care despite not liking him, but a lot of people didn't, and I respect that.

Have to disagree with the OP, though I understand the point he's making about films in general. Some people do believe that films must be palatable, all their protagonists without flaws, etc. It's an outlook that's extremely limiting to art.

However, when it comes to Raging Bull I truly did not find it compelling to suffer through Jake LaMotta's presence. No, didn't feel sorry for the SOB in jail, rather was disgusted by his oblivious self-pity.

The film's artistry and craftsmanship are undeniable, I never say it's a bad film. That said, I certainly do dislike it. I simply do not share Scorsese's fascination for his subject.

When I watched this film, by the end I was thinking to myself: What is the message of this movie? What did Scorsese and co. want to say?

I believe there are two answers.

1) An obvious one; don't waste your life! Seeing LaMotta throw away his shot at the title, everything he had worked for, including his brother, down the drain because he couldn't battle his demons or those voices inside his head. Until he finds himself completely alone.

2) The ending paraphrase from the Bible ""Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner." 25He then answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see."

What does it all mean? I think it's asking the viewer, if *you* see empathy for Jake LaMotta, and if you would forgive him for what he did to the people around him. It ties into Scorsese's Catholic themes that he puts in every movie. Themes of redemption, and whether LaMotta deserves such a thing.

That's my 2 cents.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

[deleted]

Quit pretending the character was realistic. No one is that paranoid. It's over the top GARBAGE!!

Any reason is a valid reason for disliking a film. Because, liking or disliking is called being subjective. If you are trying to be OBJECTIVE is when you should question someone's position.