Sharknado

So this movie. I know you all are going to rip it apart (much like a shark ripping through the top of a pick up truck or a man cutting a shark in half with a chainsaw), but before you do...maybe i can give you a few things to consider.

Movies like this should most definitely be watched (preferably with a friend or someone you can laugh with) and taken for exactly what they are. Campy, hilarious, ridiculous, hot messes of movies. If you go into it with no expectations other than to laugh your ass off at the horrible CGI, the random, narcissistic portraits of Tara Reid on the wall and the insane plot line, I really believe it can be enjoyed.

Shane and I actually watched this one together while attempting to get Geoffrey to sleep. Much like his namesake, he seemed to thoroughly enjoy the movie (he told me himself- he's very advanced) and insisted on staying awake for almost all of it. Watching a movie like this with a friend really ups the entertainment value. Who wants to laugh at a man cutting his way out of a shark with a chainsaw alone? Not me, that's for sure.

I hate to admit (no I don't, who am I kidding?) that this is not the first SyFy movie I've experienced. Geoff had a certain affection for these sorts of movies, and his love of them grew on me. Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus comes to mind right off the bat. And last night, while flipping through the channels, I happened upon Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus (which I watched a few minutes of, purely for research purposes, of course). When compared to some of it's predecessors, Sharknado really isn't that ridiculous. Sure, it features not just one tornado, but two, full of sharks (which none of the main characters seem to be that shocked by...). But, in terms of campiness...it really doesn't reach the high level of some of the others I've seen. All in all, I'm not sure why this particular SyFy gem made the splash (zing!) it did on social media. It got 5,000 tweets per minute during it's premiere, including this relevant gem: "Twenty minutes in and we FINALLY have Tara Reid. They held her out like Brando in "Apocalypse Now". Is it the casting- who knew Tara Reid and an old 90210 star had such a big draw- or did they just do a better job of promoting this one? I personally saw the poster back in late 2011 and remember sending a screen shot to Matt (Geoff's best friend) and Christopher (his brother) proclaiming that this movie seemed to be right up Geoff's alley. We lamented about just how much he would have enjoyed it. Perhaps SyFy is just upping their game with promotional materials. Kind of wish they would have spent a few of those marketing dollars on some more advanced CGI, but hindsight is 20/20. Wonder if Sharknado 2 will have better graphics due to the crazy amount of money they made on the first one. Who doesn't want to see yet another movie with sharks bursting out of tornadoes? Don't answer that- I know you're all going to raise your hands. 

I can go ahead and pick apart the ridiculousness of the plot line but I really don't need to. A few key points...just because I feel like I have to for the sake of the review...that opening scene. While hilarious (why are these 2 men shooting at each other on a boat in the middle of a storm that will surely kill them both?)- it literally had nothing to do with the rest of the movie. Not a single thing. Ian Ziering seems to have some magical super power as he is the ONLY person in the ocean not losing a limb while the sharks storm the beach. Also, who knew that all you had to do to stop a tornado was drop a bomb into the middle of it to equalize the meeting of hot and cold air? Bet meteorologists around the world could sure learn a lot from this movie. And what are the odds that Fin (how ironic is that name) would end up in the belly of the EXACT SAME SHARK as the chick that fell out of the helicopter?! There had to be hundreds of sharks in those tornadoes, so I just call that fate. Are the son and the "girlfriend" of Fin going to hook up now? That's an awkward and unnecessary twist.

Tara Reid is a hot hot mess. Like seriously terrible. And she had the nerve to call one of the other characters a stripper. Hilarious. I actually saw an interview with Ian Ziering and Tara Reid in which they both said that when they received the script for the movie, it was titled "Dark Skies." The producers knew that they would have to put it under a different title in order to get anyone to even ready the script. Ian Ziering agreed simply b/c he was having a second child and needed the money. Once he found out the real title of the movie, he called his agent immediately and asked for a WAY OUT. Bet he's glad that request was not granted. Not really relevant to this review, but an interesting little fact nonetheless.

All in all I hope you at least got a good laugh out of Sharknado. Kissel- I'm pretty sure you did not as I recall vividly watching a movie similar to this at Dave Knox's house one summer with you and Geoff and seeing the actual pain you were in experiencing something of this low caliber. Don't worry- I know you're coming to visit this weekend and I've filled my DVR with so many gems for you. Between that and Fender's incessant forearm biting, I'm sure you'll have a wonderful visit.

My grade? I did have this at C...but I'm going C+. I enjoyed it and feel it deserves to at least be a full letter grade higher than the train wreck that is Tomb Raider (gross).

Have at it like a shark eating that poor girl's grandfather when she was a kid (she really HATES sharks).

-Ashli

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Let’s get the positives out the way quickly - I LOVED the scenes above ground in Cambodia because I’ve walked those paths and I could pick apart the Angkor Wat CGI scene.

The opening scene was awful, and it was somehow made worse by the shower scene. Thinking things couldn't go more downhill, everything in slow motion was terrible. And how did she get to Cambodia so quickly? I thought they said the triangle pieces were taken to opposite ends of the earth. Chincha Alta, Peru is opposite Siem Reap, Cambodia.

I think this movie had potential if they had used it - fighting religious statues could offer so much more, but obviously the statues obviously weren't ready for machine guns. Plus, I love secret society movies, any mention of the Illuminati, and I am in!

Whoever directed this really screwed the pooch. At least it wasn’t long and we got to see Jorah Mormount and Daniel Craig before they were known.

If we’re looking for a discussion question, (outside of ripping this movie apart because it’s not even so cheesy it’s good territory) are there any movies where you have a personal connection and that somehow influences your opinion? This movie and Hoosiers jump to the forefront of my mind. What do non-basketball people from outside of Indiana think of Hoosiers?

Grade, I don't know, D+

Apocalypse Now

Well, we have a lot to unpack here.  Apocalypse Now is an overall analysis of the Vietnam war told through the eyes of one shell-shocked soldier who may or may not be as crazy as the war itself.  Coppola’s vision of the war a harrowing one and in the pantheon of all-time great war movies. 

The main reason I chose this movie is that I am a big fan of the unreliable narrator story-telling device, and I think we get hints of it here.  It isn’t quite as overt as many other movies – Big Fish is one of the few that we know throughout the narrator is unreliable at best, but it is more apparent than another movie we have watched, Taxi Driver.  We hear this story through Captain Willard’s eyes, and it would be hard to suspect his motivations and mental stability didn’t influence the overall narrative.  Was Kilgore really that brazen?  Did Phillips actually try to take Willard with him to the great beyond?  And how did we know Lance was on acid if he only told Chef and not Willard?   That last question really bothers me, as it’s really the only interaction we see that does not involve Willard directly.  Lance is the only survivor from the group, so maybe he told Willard after the fact.  (More on Lance, and the crew in general, later.)

I also chose this movie due to the source material, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.  There are some very overt references to Heart of Darkness in Apocalypse Now, specifically the name Kurtz for the “villain” of the story.  Heart of Darkness is, in essence, a condemnation of 19^th century imperialism in Africa.  The story has been modernized in a couple instances to draw a parallel between imperialism and the American war machine.  We can agree/disagree on whether or not this is a fair viewpoint of Cold War era America, but I don’t think that’s the point of this discussion.  The main question to be answered here is whether or not you feel Coppola succeeds in defending this thesis while still displaying the horror of Vietnam.  That’s asking a lot of any movie, and I don’t feel like the imperialism parallel was quite there.  We would have needed more time with the Vietnamese people beyond the interaction with the boat people and Kurtz’s natives.  I’m not entirely sure Coppola even meant to attempt an imperialism parallel and just chose to use the source material as a convenient plot to wrap around his image of the war.

Heart of Darkness is a novella clocking in at a mere 72 pages.  Therefore, there’s only so much plot you could derive from there.  So, Coppola had to fill quite a few gaps.  I don’t know if I would classify Apocalypse Now as either plot-driven or a character piece.  It seems to live somewhere between these two worlds.  We do have an overarching story for sure, but it really feels like we’re watching a character piece, and the character in question is the Vietnam “conflict” itself.  Throughout the course of the movie, we get an abbreviated timeline of the war and a better understanding of the attitude toward it as it progressed.  We have the initial landfall, where Willard and company are told to “ignore the cameras.”  CAMERAS!  This wasn’t a war, it was a TV event!  We get some pretty amazing shots during this early section as well, including a nice long shot of everything which is occurring in this initial battle.  Then we move to the raid on the village, which brings in the full-on view of the American arrogance in war.  This, by the way, was well-earned in the eyes of the leadership.  We were less than a generation removed from crushing the Nazis and Hirohito.  Kilgore has no taste for subtlety – cue the Valkyries!  What seems like a crushing defeat turns out to be a deep wound that bends but does not break the Viet Cong in the village, as we then see the tenacity of the enemy in full force.  Kilgore claims it safe enough to surf (again, who knows if this is true or Willard’s embellishment) despite the battle raging on.  So that’s what Vietnam was early on.  A war we thought we would come in, crush our outgunned foes, and spend a nice little vacation in the jungle.

The battle at the Du Long Bridge shows a stark contrast to this picture of the war.  This far down the river, we see nothing but chaos.  Build the bridge, blow it up, build it again, blow it up again, wash, rinse, repeat.  Willard asks a couple soldiers who is in charge, and they think he is.  They have no idea who is in charge and why they are fighting.  They received some order, likely lost their commander at some point, and were now just fighting some stalemate until they were killed or told they could finally go home.  The Du Long Bridge is the quagmire Vietnam had become.  It was a war that could not be won.  Willard returning to the boat to declare “there’s no one in charge here” says all we need to know. 

Meanwhile, the river itself becomes an allegory for the timeline of the war itself and the psychological effects it has on a man – specifically Kurtz before and Willard now.  From the self-assured bravado to the Du Long Bridge, we see the slow descent into madness from an organizational perspective.  We go from discussions of surfing, TV cameras, and small religious ceremonies, to what can best be described as an utter shitstorm.  The midpoint between these two events is the USO show, where the troops essentially become animals just at the sight of a few playmates.  The breaking down of the barb-wired wall is the breaking down of that mental stability; the desire to return home still.  Beyond the USO show, there seems to be no turning back – only death and madness await.

As Willard progresses beyond the army’s reach, we see the true horror of the war and the effects of a drawn out conflict.  The potential that any passerby could be an enemy, as this was a war where the foe cared nothing for order or uniforms.  We get the naiveté of those at home, where Clean’s mother just assumes he’ll be back and already have plans for “when” he returns.  And, we eventually see what all of this paranoia and hopelessness does to a man, when we finally get to Kurtz’s lair at the end of the river.

 We hear tidbits about Kurtz throughout the movie.  We can see that this is a man that Willard both respects and fears.  Since we’re hearing this story as a retrospective, we can only guess whether or not these feelings were developed before or after meeting Kurtz.  Kurtz and his compound are the metaphorical result of the insanity we have witnessed for the past 105 minutes.  Here’s a man who, in his eyes, is getting results leading to a U.S. victory.  However, he is condemned for his actions, and is driven mad by a war that is equally mad.  The final death scene for Kurtz is drawn in overt parallels with the sacrificial bull, himself the sacrificial bull of a war gone all wrong.  It is really the only moment of lucidity we see from him, his world ending not in a bang, but in a whimper.

And, of all people, Lance makes it back.  Who would have bet on that with the rest of the crew involved?  Lance is the only one who truly descends into any sort of madness, and his descent ends up being his saving grace.  It goes to show us that anyone who survived an ordeal like that had to be forever changed, to a level almost as unsalvageable as Kurtz.  We don’t know what happens to Lance or Willard after their ordeal is done, but I can’t imagine it’s anything good.  We know Lance and Willard had some sort of lucid interaction after the ordeal, given that Lance never tells Willard he dropped acid before the battle of the Do Long bridge. 

Chef exists as a foil of sorts to Lance.  Unlike Lance, Chef never truly loses his mind at any point.  During the attack on the innocent boat, we see Chef as the only one who doesn’t suspect trouble.  It makes me wonder if that sense of trust is what caused him to eventually lose his head.  To survive at the end of the river, you had to embrace the madness, just like Lance.  Chef still held on to some strand of sanity, and a person like that could not survive in this place.

We end on Kurtz’s final words, “The horror… The horror.”  And that truly is the best way to describe this war and what everyone involved in this story went through.  There is no good way to summarize it.  Many of the actions taken by all involved were deplorable.  It was not the bloodiest war in American history – some civil war battles saw more American casualties then the entire 14 years we were in Vietnam – but the overall damage to the American psyche, the end of our feeling of invincibility, and the distrust in authority that resulted is still apparent today, and it is no surprise that this war has been one of the most analyzed events through the medium of film we have ever had.

That being said, Apocalypse Now would be the defining analysis of the Vietnam War we had if a little film called Platoon didn’t exist.  Other movies have tackled certain subjects of the war, like Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter or Hamburger Hill, but Platoon and Apocalypse Now feel like the two that really tackled the war itself more than any other movie.  Now, I feel like choosing between the two is a classic “Beatles/Rolling Stones” argument.  Both are amazing (to most), and there’s no reason you cannot like both.  I still feel the need to compare them though.  I felt like Platoon was the better movie, in that it had a stronger narrative.  Platoon had a real plot; Apocalypse Now wrapped a plot around several smaller events that spoke to the war as a whole.  (It’s been a while since I watched Platoon, so I could be way off on this.  I did want to watch Platoon again before writing this, but it isn’t available to stream for free anywhere.)  Truth be told, there are a couple scenes you can remove from Apocalypse Now and preserve the message – it may lose a little impact, but you could do it.  We didn’t need the USO scene for example.  We probably could have told the entire story without Clean and/or Chief Phillips.  However, the movie would have been less without them.

I’ve already worn out my welcome, so I’ll quickly hit the technical stuff that I have a feeling most of you will hit.  Coppola was at the top of his game directing.  Some awesome shots, especially considering this was made 35 years ago.  Also, it had to be a pain in the ass doing those Brando scenes with a body double.  We got a lot of good performances, especially from Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, and the aforementioned Marlon Brando.  Martin Sheen was fine but a tad dry.  I later read that was by design, him serving as an observer of sorts, so I won’t deduct points for his performance.

(Side note 1: I’ve heard the documentary based on the filming of this movie, Hearts of Darkness, is also amazing.  We may need to pick that one sometime soon.  Truth be told, we could do an entire round of just Vietnam movies and watch nothing but great stuff.)

(Side Note 2: Besides this movie, a video game I mentioned in Side Pieces called Spec Ops: The Line also bases several of its themes on Heart of Darkness.  I would actually argue the storyline of Spec Ops is much darker and more sinister then Apocalypse Now – I would love to “assign” you all that game, but I know we don’t have a lot of gamers in the group, so I’ll leave it at that.)

+ Hits many of the major points of the Vietnam War

+ Well-done analysis of Vietnam

+ Enjoyed the story-telling devices

- Maybe a few extemporaneous scenes… How is there a 45 min longer version?!

Grade: A

Machete Kills

Machete Kills

As I sat down to write this, I was listening the Adam Carolla Show and they're playing the Rotten Tomatoes Game. For those not familiar, a Rotten Tomatoes guy comes by, gives five movies and everyone has to guess the Tomato score. I like to play along. They brought up Tommy Boy, a movie I'd guess we all enjoy. Sure, it's not art, but it's hilarious, quotable and doesn't pretend to be something its not. Tommy Boy is a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes. 44%. That is ridiculous. People need to just appreciate certain movies for what they are, not what they aren't.

The first Machete is right up Tommy Boy's alley of not trying to be art, though obviously not on the same level. It's a comedy first, action movie second and is mocks action movies well enough that it's not just a Wayans Brothers parody. The first Machete's Rotten Tomatoes score is 72%. I think that's about right. And if Machete is a 72, then Tommy Boy should be about an 80.

So what is Machete Kills' score? A rotten 29%. Ouch. Is this movie a 80? No. But I think it's closer to an 80 than a 20.

So what's going on here? Well, everything that mainstream audiences love in action movies. Ridiculous action scenes, hilarious death scenes and a convoluted plot-line that doesn't even bother to tie itself together at the end. I'll be damned if I didn't laugh my ass off as those things became more and more ridiculous. There is serious physical humor here from Danny Trejo. Does it get a little old? Sure. But I still kept laughing because this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's making fun of itself and every other action movie, kind of like a poor man's Team America. (And let's not act like the plot and action scenes are any less probable or ridiculous as any of the Transformers movies.)

Things that were mindlessly awesome:
Carlos Esteban as the President. Is he scummy? Is he a patriot? Can he be trusted. I say Yes, yes, and yes!

Throwing the clones intestines into the helicopter. Just fantastic.

Damian Bichir as Mendez. His performance was fantastic for a character that could have been a complete throw-away.

Every El Camaleon character except Lady Gaga was pretty awesome and would belong in any summer blockbuster action flick. Lady Gaga remains boring.

The trailer for Machete Kills Again... In Space. God yes.

This is the exact role Michelle Rodriguez was born to play. Nothing challenging and you actually buy her as a chick who could fight and is a bit crazy. Drives me nuts when TV shows and movies expect you to buy that Sandra Bullock could fight somebody. Looking forward to eyeless Rodriguez in Space.

Someone is killed by a tiara. If God was just, then anyone involved in the creation or support of Toddlers and Tiaras should enjoy the same fate.

It's also amazing how many celebrities wanted to be in this flick.

Danny Trejo. How can you not love the guy? His physical presence goes a long, long way and he carries it throughout the movie.

One critic says this is entirely and inside joke. I think that's a positive because the joke is on Hollywood and pretentious critics. It's an inside joke making fun of some asshole like that. Just because you don't get a joke, doesn't mean it's not funny.

So what's bad here?
Well, there's not much new if you watched the first movie. As I said above, it got a bit old. "Machete Kills, yeah, but he overkills," said one critic. Sure. I can buy that.

Mel Gibson... I just wasn't buying him. He's just too likeable outside of his whole racism issues. You get Liam Neeson for that role and BAM. Home run.

The plot definitely gets away from them. I only had 3 beers while watching, but ended up a bit confused.

Sofia Vergara is a terrible actress. I don't even find her -that- attractive. (Compared to other Hollywood people. Of course if I saw her at the pool right now, I'd be attempting to hide my wiener in my wet shorts.)

So, time for a grade. I remember my first experience with Robert Rodriguez. It was From Dusk Til Dawn. The first half of that movie had me hooked. It was a good movie. Then, BAM!, goddamn vampires. I was disappointed. But then I watched that movie again and enjoyed it more when I could appreciate it for what it is. Someone taking Machete Kills seriously would give it a D or an F. But I think you'd be trying too hard.

C+/B-

MConvince me one way or the other.

Holy Motors

Holy Motors? More like Holy Shit, what the fuck did I just watch? Am I right? Am I right?

Jokes aside, I can honestly say that I did not expect anything that Director Leos Carax created with Holy Motors. My only criteria in selecting this film is that I wanted Drew to hate it. I was bitter with his veto and was seeking revenge. French movie? Subtitles? Perfect!!

 I purposely did no research on the movie prior to viewing, and I am glad I took this approach. It takes a bit of time to get into to the flow of the seemingly disjointed vignettes, which I think are 9 in total. I could be off by one or two. Once I figured out that the movie was pushed along using Mr. Oscar’s appointments, I found myself looking forward to each new character Denis Lavant would transform himself into. By the time “Monsieur Merde” started tearing ass through that Parisian cemetery eating flowers and taking Eva Mendes to show off his cuddle boner I was all in.

Focusing briefly on some of the technical aspects first, I loved the colors that Carax implements in to the film. Particularly the lighting during the makeup/transformation scenes in the limo are some of my favorite. The music that he uses is excellent for setting the tone for the different characters, or pushing character narratives like Kylie Minogue’s musical number. But neither of those compare to the awesome accordion interlude Lavant nailed. That is probably my favorite scene in the entire film. Incidentally, that scene also shows off some of the great panning shots that Carax used throughout the film. Just an awesome awesome scene all around.

The more I get into to trying to explain this film, the more I realize that my words are just not going to do it any justice. Instead, I will offer some advice on anyone who has yet to watch. Sit back and relax. Don’t allow yourself to be constrained by the typical limitations of narratives and scripts. Enjoy the ride you are about to go on and let mind explore the characters that Lavant brings to life before you. I promise you this, you will feel closer to dreaming while you are wide awake than you ever have before.

I’ll let you gents discuss the underlying theme of the degradation of film as an art form as it allows technology to transform it.  

EDIT: A-

Me and You and Everyone We Know

You ever watch something... and not know completely why you like or dislike it? I watched Me and You and Everyone We Know a few or so years ago... maybe even a couple times.  I liked it quite a bit then ,but couldn't tell you why beyond that it was different, eccentric, and interesting. Since we started this group, I thought it would be a good one to revisit since nobody else here has seen it and give a bit more thought as to why I gave it a high rating.

Miranda July's feature debut seems like one of those 'love or hate' it things.  It's a mix of small stories, varied characters and quite a bit of awkwardness. There aren't any high profile actors, with July herself playing one of the leads. John Hawke is the only recognizable, as you may have seen him in Lost, Deadwood, East Bound and Down, or Lincon. While some will find the conversation to be smart and interesting, others will see it as dull and too drawn out at times. You can find me in the former camp, but definitely felt lulled a couple of times. I like the overall pace of the movie as it actually felt like a pretty quick ~90 minutes.

I thought the acting was pretty solid overall. Hawkes and the young actors stood out the most, but I didn't feel that anybody was horrible. July may have been the weakest, but I think her character was a portrayal of herself in many ways, so it worked.

The score was especially strong for me. Apparently most of it was done on a single keyboard. It was never distracting, but was certainly noticeable a few times... but in a positive way.  It flowed well with how I felt throughout the movie, especially during any awkwardness.

Most of this film's delight, I think, relies on its subtext and constant reminders of the general theme here.  For me, the movie is simply about people and connecting with others. I hesitate to say relationships, as I don't feel like the point relies on any sort of familiarity or longevity between the people. Be it face to face, through art, jokes, innuendos, chat rooms, shared interests, or lighting your hand on fire... people are trying to connect, and pass the time. People are individuals and we all have our own intricacies, interests and issues.  From the right views... we're all pretty much the same at a distance. Peter points this out specifically in his punctuational printout as everyone is nothing more than a spot of ink, but in different positions and in approximations to each other.  We all need to come to grips with ourselves...and even when we finally have most of that figured out... we want to share it with others. The film shows that this is something we all go through and struggle with, regardless of age, gender, profession, etc. It instantly made me think of a quote that I've seen tossed around the internet a few times (although, Dr. Seuss did not say/write it):

"We’re all a little weird. And life is weird. And when we find someone whose weirdness is compatible with ours, we join up with them and fall into mutual weirdness and call it love." 

 - Robert Fulgham, True Love

I think it's a generally optimistic film... leaving us with a rising sun in contrast to the sunset in the very first shot.  We won't make all the right connections and often won't go about making them in the right way, and many times we'll even try to avoid them for some reason... but we continue to make them, feel a need for them and hope that some stick and provide a bit of happiness.

Many of us look for certain scenes to really stand out. I think the film definitely had a couple, but the most notable for me was Christine's and Richard's walk to their cars. This is one of the more important conversations, I think, as they compare their walk to a relationship. Each sees Tyrone St at a different distance, other people would likely see it differently than them. It encompassed the point of the movie in a well written, well shot, and well executed scene.

I've gone on quite a bit, so I won't dive into each separate story or other individual scenes yet. But there are definitely some interesting scenes, lines and characters. I expect there was a bit if discomfort from the chat room, signs in the window, and the park bench.  I think those scenes all provided an intentional sense of awkward tension, but were handled well.

 So, I'm sticking with my initial A- grade. Most components felt right and fit together well. I'm usually a fan of eccentric people and things, and this was no exception.

Taxi Driver

First of all, Travis Bickle might be one of the best names of a character in movie history.

The movie was my selection but I don't watch movies the same way many of you do so I'm sure I won't do the initial review justice as I don't watch with an analytical lens too often, replies are more my forte.  I shall do my best.

The movie begins and ends with De Niro, masterful doesn't do his performance justice.  He is especially strong in the first half of the movie when he is awkward and uncomfortable.  He is incredibly believable as the awkward quiet loner who as the viewer you always know is going to explode.  The degree of difficulty in playing the 6 out of 10 crazy person is so much more than when he goes full tilt.  He's great full tilt too but the whole first half he really pulls you in knowing he will inevitably snap.

Two great scenes in his breakdown- 1st the phone call after the date to the porno theater- I personally found it strange that the camera pans over into an empty hallway during the conversation but knew it had to mean something so I looked it up.  Apparently Scorcese has called this shot the most important of the film as he says it's as if we can't bear to watch Travis' pain of rejection.

Second scene that made me think instantly was when he asked advice of veteran cabbie the Wizard.  Travis knew he was on the verge and was beginning to worry about himself.  Wizard's advice was to basically get out of his own head and accept that everyone is fucked up.  Travis of course did the opposite and dove deeper into his own shit.  This is also the first time I noticed the other cabbies began to call him Killer.  Was this representative of the feelings toward Vietnam during the era or foreshadowing that the other guys knew he was kinda fucked up.  Probably both.

This was my second viewing the first being about 2 years ago and I completely forgot that Travis survived and was hailed as a hero.  His "cleansing" attack and survival certainly had an impact on his confidence and well being, though he still seemed like he was only marginally better than his awkwardness from the beginning but happier.  I'm guessing Travis probably discovered some purpose in his attack and began making vigilante style attacks to clease his filthy city.

My only complaint is it felt like it was slow to get going-alot of quiet driving and introspection, then again I make similar complaints for movies that don't take the time to build on characters.

I didn't even mention Albert Brooks or Cybil Shepherd who were both great in their parts- Cybil used to be pretty hot.  I'll give it an A-