New York, New York (1977)
Martin Scorsese's musical noir New York, New York opens on V-J Day, 1945. During the Times Square celebration, would-be musician Jimmy Doyle (Robert De Niro) falls for USO entertainer Francine Evans (Liza Minelli), though the feeling isn't immediately reciprocated. Later on, they meet again at the nightclub where she works as a vocalist. Doyle, a saxophonist, wins an audition with the club's band thanks to Francine's enthusiastic assistance. When her agent Tony Harwell (Lionel Stander) finds another job for her with the Frankie Hartel (Georgie Auld) band in North Carolina, the smitten Doyle follows her. The two wed, and before long they become a professional team when DeNiro assumes leadership of Hartel's band. Although they have two children together, they grow apart, continually arguing over professional and personal matters. Originally released at 155 minutes, New York New York was pared down to 137 minutes. Current 164-minute prints, prepared for the 1981 reissue, include the huge production number "Happy Endings," which definitely does not describe the film's denouement. While opinions are divided concerning the film's dramatic scenes, few can fault the high-octane musical highlights, especially the title song by John Kander and Fred Ebb, who were responsible for Liza Minelli's 1972 triumph Cabaret. … More
Related News & Features
Five Favourite Films with Nick Love
– Rotten Tomatoes
No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.Login
Critic Reviews for New York, New York
If this movie were a big-band arrangement, it would be a duet for a sax man and a girl singer, but with the soloists in a different key from the band.
In a final burst from Old Hollywood, Minnelli tears into the title song and it's a wowser.
Scorsese's tribute/parody/critique of the MGM musical is a razor-sharp dissection of the conventions of both meeting-cute romances and rags-to-riches biopics.
Why should a man of Mr. Scorsese's talent be giving us what amounts to no more than a film buff's essay on a pop-film form that was never, at any point in film history, of the first freshness?
Martin Scorsese's New York, New York never pulls itself together into a coherent whole, but if we forgive the movie its confusions we're left with a good time.
Martin Scorsese created a very handsome and dynamic film, but the spectacular set pieces don't add up to much.
Though affectionate and colorfully stylized, Scorsese's tribute to the darker classic Hollywood musicals is only partially successful.
Ultimately a very personal film about how Scorsese views a genre of film and, as such, has a much more coherent vision than its reputation would suggest. [Blu-ray]
A stagebound valentine, but one vigorously constructed down to the last detail, with Scorsese reveling in the costumes and music. It's an itch that spreads into a full-body rash in the final act.
A downbeat homage to bright-lights showbiz dramas, an epic orchestration that indulges in stubbornly obsessive riffs, Martin Scorsese's New York, New York (1977) seems to value awkwardness and indecision above all else.
Embora interessante, a direção de arte acaba se tornando uma distração e os números musicais são, em sua maioria, frouxos. Por outro lado, De Niro e Minnelli criam personagens complexos que despertam a curiosidade do espectador. Um Scorsese menor.
It's the exact kind of craziness that could only have been made in the waning days of the 1970s.
There are some things about it that rub me the right way: it has style, fire in its belly, great visuals and was ahead of its time.
New York, New York never fully comes together as a cohesive picture. Rather, it's a film with many parts that don't gel, much like its fabricated lead characters.
Martin Scorsese's criminally neglected tribute to the heyday of the MGM musical has aged astonishingly well.
From a story perspective, nothing happens in the film's 'last act,' but from an emotional perspective, everything happens. Minnelli's performance leaves its peak and soars.
Scorsese's take on classic musicals is just as odd and arresting as you'd think.
Martin Scorsese attempts to pay tribute to his musical forefathers, specifically Vincente Minnelli, with this colorful, misguided epic.
Audience Reviews for New York, New York
Did you know that the song "New York, New York," which Frank Sinatra made so famous, was originally written for the 1977 Martin Scorsese film of the same name and first performed in that film? I can't believe it, but I didn't know that. I thought it was a song from the 1940s originally recorded by Sinatra.
The song was written by the legendary Broadway team of John Kander and Fred Ebb specifically for Scorsese's film and first sung by Liza Minnelli, who starred in the film opposite Robert de Niro.
It's good to get that history finally straight. Now for the movie. It's known as Scorsese's only bomb, with the famous theme song its only redeeming quality. I wouldn't go quite that far. There are things about the film that I find wonderful. But overall, it is a failure.
I love what Scorsese tried to do. Fresh from his triumph with "Taxi Driver" (1975), Scorsese could easily have gone on auto-pilot, churning out another gritty, masculine, urban neo-noir. Instead he did the complete opposite. He follows "Taxi Driver" up with a musical! My God, that is gutsy.
I admire the cojones but not the final product. Scorsese stumbled awkwardly through the whole film; almost every scene has a false tone. The editing is atrocious, with every scene twice as long as it should be. The sets are so cheap and fake that at one point Minnelli virtually rips a railing apart with her bare hands. And they didn't cut out that scene!
Scorsese surely chose the cheesy sets intentionally. I think he was trying to pay homage to the movies of the 1940s, particularly the female-driven melodramas (so-called "women's pictures"), which were always filmed on cheap Hollywood backlots. I absolutely love this idea. But it just does not come off well. The only way this could have worked is if the melodrama had been so captivating that it transported you back to the first time you saw "Mildred Pierce." (I can still remember seeing it for the first time on television as a teenager. Unforgettable.)
But Scorsese really fell down on the job when it comes to story development -- always a disaster when you're trying to do melodrama. I really never cared about either of the two main characters. So rather than getting swept up by emotion, I found myself limply watching actors pretend to have feelings. It's actually hard to get through this movie. Its running time is also particularly long.
It was a courageously un-hip and un-masculine tribute to old movies, but it just doesn't come together. Save for the title song, which is an old-fashioned masterpiece, "New York, New York" is a misfire.
This is a Scorsese film that typically gets overlooked, and, while I can see why (to a degree), I think it's actually pretty good, and probably one of his most underrated- and that last little bit is something that needs to change.
The film was a departure and an experiment for Marty. It was his follow-up to Taxi Driver, and needless to say, this didn't make the impression left by that one. For this, Scorsese decided to abandon the gritty realism of his previous works and craft a loveletter to his city, big band (and some jazz) music, and the lavishly produced movie musicals of Old Hollywood. It was a noble effort, and no one can deny the fact that this is made with tons of love, care, and respect.
The film follows a go-getter sax player named Jimmy Doyle who's got talent, but can also be overwhelmingly obnoxious, stubborn, and hard to deal with. He meets a low level club singer with big hopes and the two form a perfonal and professional relationship with one another. Over time though, the pressure of show biz see the fall of their love as their careers rise.
In order to bring his vision to life, Scorsese and his director of photography Laszlo Kovacs and production designer Boris Levin used intentionally artificial looking sets and specific lighting to recall the old days of studio musicals, with a touch of film noirish qualities thrown in for good measure. The result is gorgeous and one of the best made homages out there. (I'd say it's up there with Ed Wood and Black Dynamite in this regard).
Like most Scorsese efforts, it's more of a character driven piece than a plot driven one, and that's fine, but even then, I really noticed just how light this film is on substance, and, for that matter, characters who truly come to life that you can care about. All other aspects of the film help to cover this up, but there's no denying that most of the film feels like it's on auto pilot.
Still though, I can't hate this one too much. The performances are absolutely terrific, and this made me actually be interested in Liza Minnelli and the talent she has. De Niro of course not surprisingly delivers another solid performance. In fact, the first oh, 40 mins or so, were absolutely 100% brilliant. I was beginning to think that this was a great overlooked true masterpiece. Seeing De Niro slink around trying to pick up women is simultaneously hilarious, awkward, and annoying, but totally excellent. If only the rest of the movie maintained that same level of energy, fun, and focus throughout its 163 minute run time instead of gradually falling back and becoming a rambling drawn out procedure could it be called a great piece of work. I didn't quite get bored, but I started to get antsy and wonder what the point was.
All in all, this is a pretty good movie. It is flawed yes, but in the context of when it came out and what the intentions were, it's wrong to ignore this. Come to it with an open mind, and give it a chance.
A Scorsese masterpiece that happens to be forgotten, unfortunately. If this film had been released in the '50s and hadn't that usual Scorsese brutality to it, it would have been considered among the greatest classics. But then again, I loved the gritty yet beautiful touch from master Martin Scorsese he brought to this classy musical and I don't mind the time this was released for I watched it more than thirty years later. So for me, this is a masterpiece.More
Not just that the film is boring enough, but the fact that you've got to endure almost a smidge under 3 hrs. to finally get through to the ending, simply makes this one of the most painful movie experience I've ever had. Even De Niro's energy and his trademark manic intensity cant help to push the film forward any faster.More
Discuss New York, New York on our Movie forum!