Directed by:
Martin ScorseseCinematography:
Kent L. WakefordCast:
Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro, David Proval, Amy Robinson, Richard Romanus, Cesare Danova, Victor Argo, George Memmoli, Jeannie Bell, David Carradine (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
The story of Charlie (Harvey Keitel), a charming 27-year-old who is supported by his devoutly Catholic mother. He spends his days wandering the streets of New York City and nights hanging out drinking with his good friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), a loose cannon that can't seem to escape trouble. Charlie's extreme affability makes him the middle man between his mob-tied uncle Giovanni (Cesare Danova) and various clients, as well as between Johnny Boy and Michael (Richard Romanus), a bookie who has become fed up with Johnny Boy's constant debt dodging. As the city's San Gennaro Festival takes over the streets of Little Italy, Michael seeks revenge on Johnny Boy once and for all. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Reviews (10)
In the film, it is evident that Scorsese was still exploring the world of cinema. His potential was apparent, and a social atmosphere of the 70s emerged on the screen - racism, the Vietnam War, minority integration, etc. The film follows the story of a foot soldier for the mafia who works as a collector for his influential uncle. He is not cut out for the job, not tough enough, but a family business is a family business, and being loyal pays off. Mean Streets lacks coherence, better character development, and work with them. The story is diluted into a chain of loosely connected scenes from the lives of the lower ranks of the mafia. It is nice to see the young faces of De Niro and Keitel, whom I had fixed as older guys from movies made 20 years later. The film itself, however, is only a slightly above-average affair. Overall impression: 60%.
()
Martin Scorsese’s understated warm-up before his major projects (Goodfellas, Casino). Though his later works are more
opulent and visually refined, Mean Streets definitely does not lag behind in terms of storytelling or portrayal of the
characters. The perfect Harvey Keitel as a good-natured and decent gangster in training who protects and sticks
up for his friend, an irresponsible fool played by Robert De Niro. De Niro, in a smaller role than Keitel, gives a delectably
eccentric performance. An honest gangster movie filled with love for the dirty streets of New York and their
vivacious inhabitants.
()
After being trained by Roger Corman in the art of rapid-fire directing (Boxcar Bertha), Scorsese got his dazzling filmography off to a good start. Together with story elements from Rocco and His Brothers, this dusky buddy movie contains most of Scorsese’s trademarks: rock songs, slow-motion shots (though it’s sometimes hard to determine the motivation for them) and disturbingly smooth camerawork that’s observational in the manner of a documentary. The semi-improvised acting in the style of films by John Cassavetes doesn’t create any tension with the chosen style (as in the later New York, New York); on the contrary, it superbly serves the dramaturgically loose story, or rather series of stories that have to be “resolved” through a deus ex machina by the director himself (who is not mentioned in the credits). From the group of friends who are sometimes too aggressive in defending their turf, Keitel’s Charlie stands out (and in the individual shots where a place in the centre suits him). He is better able than the unpredictable Johnny Boy to restrain his need to assert his male dominance and, because he is in a more serious relationship, he isn’t entirely committed to a life of high stakes and major losses. Keitel portrays the tension between cultivating a romantic relationship and professional growth without theatrical gestures, only with occasional, and thus all the more effective, outburst of anger. On the surface, the torn nature of Charlie and the other characters, their attitude shifting between “I am the master of the world” and “I'll be a good boy now, mommy”, is manifested differently in their confident behaviour at the bar, bathed in a hellishly red light that adds to their insolence, and on the street, where they live their other, normal lives and are obviously more vulnerable. The precise study of characters and relationships within one closed group prevails over a cohesive story that advances from one point to the next. Some may find that this absence of fixed points of reference in the narrative makes Mean Streets a more arduous viewing experience. Its very stylish exterior conceals a handful of more serious themes like the early and later autobiographically conceived films based on what the director was living through at the given time and the excellent actors serve as comprehensible conduits of complex emotional states. Mean Streets is not just a warm-up for the great films that followed; it’s Scorsese already operating at the top of his game. 80%
()
I have a little problem with Martin Scorsese. His older movies are not fun for me, even though I consider his newer ones some of the best flicks there are. I’m such a heathen that I gave Taxi Driver and Raging Bull three stars, and I will do the same with Mean Streets. In this case mainly because it’s so boring. Well, boring might be too strong a word. It’d be safer to say that the story is not as captivating as other mafia crime movies, failing to make me give it 100% of my attention while watching it.
()
A naturalistically dirty routine of good-for-nothings, rubberneckers, brokes, dandies and wannabe gangsters who only shop at bargain stores. It is based purely on situations, spontaneity (often it seems like improvisation), atmosphere and characters, it is not about a story. After all, except for a kind of digression about Johnny's debts, there isn't one. Although with reservations (self-serving slowdowns, paper-rusting internal monologues), it works even today and not only as a "supplementary material FYI", which would work purely in the level of the the movies it draw inspiration from like Taxi Driver, Goodfellas or Casino.
()
Martin Scorsese has always been able to give his key films an incredibly cool atmosphere. He managed to do the same with this unassuming gangster film. However, you have to play along with its game to really enjoy it, as the story unfolds through smoky bars, streets full of strange characters, or restaurants where cunning mobsters sit. So the setting is exactly to my cinematic taste. When I add in the charismatic Harvey Keitel and the slightly insane Robert De Niro, I know the only thing else it needed was to thicken the plot a bit and I would have been paying endless tribute to Marty.
()
Not very much happens. Marty filmed a great filler with a couple of brighter moments. Excellent actors, Johnny Boy De Niro was most impressive and a surprisingly posh Harvey Keitel also does a good job. But so what, if the excellently written dialogs don’t have a powerful result. This is simply a prelude to Scorsese’s later, more fundamental movies.
()
A fantastically portrayed atmosphere of New York in the 1970s with all the afros and the smoking, but, in terms of script, the film almost fails, because things get going only in the last 10 minutes. The rest is just a bar crawl with long shots with no editing, where the camera atypically flits around a bar trying to authentically portray the world of the time. Scorsese's start, De Niro's awesome performance.
()
It's not yet the Scorsese we know from Casino or The Departed, but there's already a hint of the precise and groundbreaking filmmaker who would define the crime genre for the next 40 years. The master outlines the relationships and status among gangster "nobodies" in a way that is very patient and typical for the seventies, incorporating into the story classical music, the gloomy New York setting and mafia dens full of dirty money and scantily dressed girls. Most importantly, he begins his collaboration with De Niro and Keitel, his acting stalwarts, who both give great and believable performances. I probably made the mistake of watching this lesser known work after all the other and more famous gems Scorsese has made, and it was difficult to appreciate its quality given the expectations. But I still liked it and I will surely watch it again. For the time being, 70%.
()
When you look at "Mean Streets," it's hard to imagine it being associated with that little man who looks so innocently and defenselessly. However, Martin Scorsese directed a film that could easily serve as one of the inspirational sources for Quentin Tarantino's first film, "Reservoir Dogs." And even for other films, while we're at it. Scorsese was not afraid to show the street as it really looked. He didn't exaggerate, but he also didn't hide anything. There's not much violence here, just fights that are definitely better than in the film "Raging Bull". However, what stands out the most are the characters and their performances. Especially the trio of De Niro, Keitel, and Proval, because this time it's truly their acting performances that take the lead.
()
Ads