Forty years on, Taxi Driver remains almost impossibly perfect: it’s hard to think of another film that creates and sustains such a unique, evocative tone, of dread blended with pity, loathing, savage humour and a scuzzy edge of New York cool.
The movie has an air of recent discovery, of shocked innocence about the tawdry quality of city life that is gratingly naive. The film goes most disastrously wrong when it tries to turn slice-of-life realism into full-scale melodrama.
Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a brilliant medical engineer on her first shuttle mission, with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney) in command of his last flight before retiring. But on a seemingly routine spacewalk, disaster strikes. The shuttle is destroyed, leaving Stone and Kowalsky completely alone - tethered to nothing
Taxi Driver isn't a bad movie at all. In fact it's above average and I thought about giving it a four but in the end I settled at 3.5/5. First off I would like to acknowledge that Robert de Niro played the **** out of this character and it was great seeing his evolution but that being said, I do have some critical points to make. The movie showcases Travis, a young taxi driver with not much of a purpose in the 70s in New York. He's sour rounded by scum bags who just care about money and sex and he feels like he has a purpose in this world. Travis meets up with Besty, a girl working at a campaign office. He goes out with her for awhile but eventually after taking her to lets say- the wrong place she dumps him. Travis begins to see the world as disgusting and full of irony, however the main plot doesn't arrive until an hour and a half later which is the real problem I have with this movie. Travis meets a minor prostotute and spoiler alert, eventually takes down the people abusing her for cash. Keep in mind that the main plot didn't come until an hour and a half almost. Regardless, it builds Travis character arc very well and the ending was good. Again, the movie just seemed to run way to long and it could have been cut shorter and parts of the ending felt rushed at times. I was also left confused as to why he wanted to kill the senator. Parts like that tried to convey a message that just didn't seem to reach me on a metaphorical level. Overall, the movie was a good movie, maybe not one I would watch again unless I reached the peak of boredom, but it wasn't a bad movie at all.
I am starting to see a trend in movie reviews that mimic's restaurant reviews. I would call that trend "by the industry and for the industry". I am sure this movie broke a lot of new ground, but the story was disjointed and didn't really flow at all. Restaurant's seem to do the same thing. Food might be inventive with a bunch of flower petals artfully arranged on it will get stunning reviews by critics when everyday eaters might not see the advantage. This movie just had a feel of a collection of 'What would a functional psycho do?' stories. I have seen a lot of classic movies that I do like, so it isn't just that I hate older movies. This movie suffers from a severe case of overrated just like Citizen Kane.