User Reviews

Released in 1977, Martin Scorsese's NEW YORK, NEW YORK instantly divided critical response--and, facing box office competition from no less than STAR WARS, proved a major financial failure. A significantly edited re-release followed not long afterward but proved even less well received and even less profitable. Although a double VHS release eventually brought the film to the home market, the film remained unpopular and made barely a ripple in public consciousness. In 2005, however, NEW YORK, NEW YORK received an unexpected release to DVD. At long last it may begin to reach a significant audience.

As a story, NEW YORK, NEW YORK draws from a number of oddly "Noir-ish" musicals made at Warner Bros. in the late 1940s. Most particularly, according to Scorsese's commentary, it drew from MY DREAM IS YOURS, a film that not only starred Doris Day but actually reflected her life in its tale of a talented big band "girl singer" trapped in an abusive marriage with a musician. Although the film force-fed the audience a happy ending, later films would not. In the mid-1950s, Doris Day's LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME and Judy Garland's A STAR IS BORN offered stories of a gifted female vocalists locked into disastrous romances that played out to a very distinctly unhappy ending, and NEW YORK, NEW YORK draws from them as well.

Scorsese not only repeats the basic stories and themes of these films, he also repeats the artificially heightened visual style typical of Hollywood films of the 1940s and 1950s--it is no accident that Liza Minnelli looks and sings remarkably like mother Judy Garland in this film--but he does so to an entirely unexpected end. The bravado performing style of such films is completely snatched away, and the characters are presented in an almost documentary-like realism. In theory, each aspect of the film would emphasize the other; in fact, however, this was precisely what critics and audiences disliked about the film when it debuted. They considered it extremely grating.

But perhaps the passage of time has opened our eyes on the point. I saw NEW YORK, NEW YORK in its 1977 release and, music aside, I disliked it a great deal. I expected to retain that opinion when I approached the DVD release, but I was greatly surprised. It holds up remarkably well, and most of the time the balance of artifice and reality works very well. But there are significant flaws. In a general sense, the film has a cold feel to it that occasionally becomes so downright chilly you begin to detach from it. But even more difficult is the character of Jimmy Doyle, the abusive husband of the piece.

The recent DVD release includes a noteworthy director's commentary, and Scorsese states that both he and actor Robert De Niro sought to push the character far beyond the extremes of MY DREAM IS YOURS, LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME, or A STAR IS BORN. They were perhaps more successful than they expected. The result is a character you actively do not want to watch or hear, and although we are eventually allowed to see beyond his annoying qualities that moment comes much too late in the film to make him acceptable in any significant way. It makes for more than one bout of uphill viewing.

Overall, I recommend the film--but it is very much a "Hollywood Insider" film that is probably best left to those who know a great deal about film history and who can recognize the numerous antecedents from which it draws.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Good musical with De Niro and Minelli giving excellent performances as a pair of aggravating people. Both of them constantly had me grinding my teeth over their silly inability to get along with either each other or, in De Niro's case, with most anybody else. This sax blowing moron couldn't get his mind off himself long enough to notice that there were other folks in the world along with his royal presence. What a s**t! Francine Evans, Minelli, hacked me off about as much as the donuthead she married because he was so transparently phony and she still fell for his every line. Are women stupid? Even though I despised Jimmy Doyle and was aghast at Francine's glossy eyed belief in every thing that came out of this con man's platinum tonsiled throat, I still enjoyed the film, especially the big band music....and Liza can really belt out a song...besides being pretty.

The first thing that needs to be said about Scorsese's highly underrated "New York, New York" is that it can't possibly be fully appreciated by anyone who hasn't seen films like "An American in Paris" and "Singin' in the Rain". Scorsese's film is very much a pastiche (or parody, depending on your perspective) of these earlier musicals by MGM. The entire formula for the film is based around them. Stylistically attractive visuals, light and witty dialogue, a romance at the center of the story, and a foray into narratively digressive musical territory toward the end of the film. It's all there.

This hypotextual reflection of Hollywood's golden age, however, is only half the picture. The other half is that this is very much a Scorsese film, despite many claims to the contrary. Scorsese's hallmarks are all over it. We have Robert De Niro in the lead role, playing an oppressive, dominant alpha male personality type, amplified by a bit of that good old-fashioned Italian-American upbringing that Scorsese knew so well. Harvey Keitel played this character in "Who's That Knocking at My Door" and "Mean Streets" (and even "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore", in a lesser role), and now, for "Taxi Driver", "New York, New York", "Raging Bull", and even "Casino", it's De Niro.

I've seen nineteen Scorsese films, and this is by far the most cinematographically impressive of them all. The lighting is flawless; the direction exemplary. Scorsese has always been a top talent in terms of his technical skills as a director, but visually, this film is stunning on an entirely different level. The film's aesthetic seeks to mimic the visual attractiveness of those classic Hollywood musicals (Scorsese even gives us a few false backgrounds, just for good measure), and in that way it was very successful. This film is eye candy on a par with Wong Kar-wai's "In the Mood for Love", Korine's "Spring Breakers", Refn's "Only God Forgives", or Fassbinder's "Lola".

As for the film's content, about which too little has been written, the entire thematic core of the film is reflected in the casting of its two principal parts: First, we have Robert De Niro, the classic Scorsese casting choice, playing very much the same character we've seen him play in other Scorsese films. On the other end, we have Liza Minnelli, the daughter of none other than Judy Garland, the ultra-famous musical actress of Hollywood's glory days. And Liza's father? Vincente Minelli, director of famous Hollywood musicals like "The Band Wagon", "Gigi", and "An American in Paris". Scorsese throws these two characters together in a violent tempest of passion and suffocating possessiveness. But we, the audience, are also witnessing two worlds being thrown together: De Niro represents Scorsese's world — his vision of a reality steeped in alpha male aggression and hyper-possessiveness over females — and Liza Minnelli, daughter of the golden age of Hollywood, represents that other, make-believe world of American culture — that unique brand of lighthearted escapism and pure cinematic fantasy that Hollywood produced so enticingly in the '30s, '40s, and '50s. Cinematically, we are watching traditional Hollywood fantasy pitted against a vaguely Cassavetes-esque realism.

What will happen when these two disparate realities attempt to coexist? Well, Scorsese doesn't offer an outright answer, except to say it will be difficult — extremely difficult. Hollywood fantasy has created in the American mentality a world of misplaced priorities and unrealistic expectations regarding life. When the film begins, Minnelli's character seems to have her life together in a way that few Scorsese characters do (naturally, since she's not from Scorsese's world — she is born of that distant land called Hollywood). And then De Niro enters her life, from the other end of the spectrum, and emotionally shatters her to pieces. And so it's very much a film about the conflict between reality and fantasy. Ultimately, reality obliterates fantasy.

The musical detour (the film-within-the-film at the end of the movie) has been the source of a lot of criticism, but once again, no one who's seen "An American in Paris" or "Singin' in the Rain" would be surprised by it. It was a structural necessity if the film was going to accurately echo the formula of those older films, as it clearly intended to do. That being said, I will admit that, at 160+ minutes in length, to abandon over two hours of plot and move into a musical digression so late in the film certainly tests the viewer's patience. There is a moment in this segment, however, that makes it all worthwhile. In this moment, we see movie theater viewers sitting in their seats watching a film, looking straight at us (the camera is placed behind what would be the screen of their theater), and behind them is the projector, casting its image directly at us. And so just as we are sitting in our theater watching them stare at the screen (at us), they are, perhaps, sitting in their theater watching us stare at our screen. And so Scorsese subtly implicates us into the film's themes of fantasy versus reality. Their reality has become our fantasy, and, possibly, our reality has become their fantasy.

The final shot of the film is a reference to Gene Kelly's most memorable moment from "Singin' in the Rain". De Niro is in the street. He stands still, propping himself up with an umbrella. The camera pans down to his feet, pausing on them for a moment. The credits roll. We are left to savor the bitter and disenchanting taste of a reality so contrary to the one that Hollywood has offered us. De Niro was standing on a road that could have very well been the same one on which Gene Kelly sung in the rain with his umbrella. But there is no singing here, the umbrella is closed, and those feet aren't dancing. Reality has decimated the Hollywood fantasy.

RATING: 8.00 out of 10 stars

There *are* things to love in NYNY. But over and over again I kept coming back to this thought: does director Martin Scorsese (a genius storyteller) really love musicals, or is he, in fact, satirizing them here? I can't find any other explanation for the creation of a leading character (DeNiro) so self-absorbed, rude, brutish, and jealous of his future wife's (Minnelli) growing fame, while at the same time trying so hard to establish his own fortune with a tenor sax. It's like there's a highly pitched voice of reason trying to remind the audience that in real life, people aren't so happy as they always seem to be in musicals. I know everyone doesn't love (some of you proudly hate) musicals, but usually one can find something redeeming in the characters who populate the stories. For 2 1/2 hours of film, we are presented with a love story which borders on spousal abuse, and somehow be expected to care about the husband. It doesn't work. And yet, Scorsese bends over backward to recreate the 1940's musical/big band atmosphere, from Hawaiian shirts and two-tone spectator shoes to sumptuous big band pieces, not to mention a charming pair of dancers (channeling Gene Kelly and Vera-Ellen?) spotted on a subway ledge or a sultry torch singer in a Harlem nightclub (a cameoed Diahnne Abbott, whose 11th-hour performance of 'Honeysuckle Rose' tips a well-fitted hat to Billie Holiday). One critic seemed to personally resent the channeling of mother Garland through daughter Minnelli (particularly in the supper club where the title song is stunningly performed with all guns blazing), but I think that was very much on purpose. Even though she got much bigger acclaim for "Cabaret," I think Minnelli reached the peak of her musical talents in this film. I loved her. I just didn't love them, and unfortunately, that kept me from loving the whole project. Watch it on DVD, and skip to your favorite parts.

What is fantastic and wonderful about this film is the music, the sets and when Liza Minnelli sings. Liza is superb in her performance and Robert DeNiro plays a character that is arrogant, brutal and slightly erratic in a way that only DeNiro can perform. His character is quite disturbing to watch as the film takes a serious turn. There are several twists and turns in this film. Try to see the 2 hours + 44 min. version that includes more of the "Happy Ending" musical number that features Larry Kent. Beware of prints that have been cut down to 153 min. and 137 min. This film is at its best in the 164 min. form. I enjoy the performance of the woman who sings "Honeysuckle Rose". Whether this movie has a happy ending is something to behold. It can be best interpreted by the viewer. Some woman (and men) may say "hurray" for Liza while Alpha-males may be on the DeNiro's character's side. Watch Liza for her excellent, dramatic performance. This is one film I wish they could have made a sequel to.

Scorsese's flop musical (it opened against Star Wars), starring Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli. It's getting more respect nowadays (actually that began in 1981, when a longer version, the version I watched, was released), but it's mostly considered one of his least good movies. I'd definitely agree with that, but it is interesting. The film has two major faults: first, De Niro is simply despicable. I mean, he is in Raging Bull, too, but you always know you aren't supposed to like Jake La Motta. Jimmy Doyle, on the other hand, I think we're supposed to kind of like and sympathize with. But from his first appearance, where he pesters Liza Minnelli to a degree that would even make Gene Kelly in An American in Paris think he's a possible rapist, I just couldn't tolerate him. I kept thinking, "Girl, get away from this guy. He's dangerous. At the very least, he's going to beat you silly." We never quite understand Doyle like we do La Motta or even Travis Bickle. He just comes off as a baby, not as a pathetic schlub. The second flaw is in the film's basic gimmick: the art design is artificial in a way that recalls the classic Hollywood musicals of the '40s and '50s, but the acting and level of realism is much more in line with the gritty films of the time. That in itself is fine, but I kept thinking Scorsese was trying to say something with that. Yet it never comes through what that is. The only answer I can think of is that he was trying to criticize Hollywood in its Golden Age. That's fine by me, but he never brings that argument up in the text. Personally, I think he just wanted to do it and had no deeper reason. So what's good about the film? Well, I do like the art design, even if it never really makes any sense. Liza Minnelli is quite good. The music is pretty good, too. I especially liked the half hour or so that works up to the climax. And that scene in the hospital is exceptional, and the only time where De Niro rises to the talent he normally displays.

Somewhere inside Martin Scorsese's bloated New York, New York, there's a trim, taut little movie trying to claw its way out. Apparently envisaged at one point as an epic retro-musical (over four hours long!), it was sweated down to just over two for its theatrical release (Scorsese blamed its lukewarm reception on studio-imposed cuts). Later, he managed to restore at least some of his footage, which didn't much help (the clunky movie-within-a-movie extravaganza just added to the aimlessness). But the Wagnerian length Scorsese hoped for is a clue that New York, New York disappoints not because of slash-and-burn editing after the fact but of Scorsese's grandiosity and self-indulgence from the start.

Despite some swell numbers and gorgeous (if static) shots, New York, New York remains a puzzlement, never settling on a cohesive tone or style (except for sour). Scorsese claims that it stands in tribute to the 1946 Ida Lupino vehicle The Man I Love, though there's only the faintest resemblance. (The1955 James Cagney/Doris Day Love Me Or Leave Me seems more convincingly the inspiration for its storyline, the 1941 Anatole Litvak Blues In The Night the template for its style.)

It's Times Square on V-J day, when just demobbed Robert DiNiro (in two-toned shoes and Hawaiian shirt, on the prowl to get `laid') homes in on Liza Minnelli, all pert and sassy in her WAC's uniform. For a very long half-hour, they flirt and bicker in semi-improvised dialogue that's a bad match for everything else in this deliberately faux, meticulously stylized movie. (And why isn't there more end-of-war exuberance on screen? Steven Spielberg managed to catch a gung-ho, going-to-war spirit in his maligned 1941, where the jitterbugging is infectious; here, in the emotional release of victory, it's just extras going through their over-rehearsed steps and cameras swooping.)

DiNiro, wooing tiresomely, at least manages to establish his character: A controlling, self-absorbed saxophone player who's also (in a strand that fizzles out) a penny-ante impostor who blows off his lavish hotel bills. Minnelli, housed in a drab little side-street room, never manages to create a character of her own, except as doormat, so it comes as a surprise when, accompanying DiNiro to an audition, she turns out to be a sensational singer. (Who knew?) But even when her stardom begins to eclipse his, and she climbs to the top of the heap, there's little flesh and bone under the performer. But that doesn't seem to be the movie's point, either; she achieves her success passively.

On tour, they get married, their impetuous union doomed from the get-go by low-grade spats, a pregnancy he doesn't want, her fleeing from the boondocks to the Big Apple, and his cheerless adulterous flings (with Mary Kay Place, the canary substituting for Minnelli). The best part of the movie is this dreary routine, the comforting tedium of the road, with its slapdash tourist courts and ritzy roadhouses and card games on the bus. It's also the part that Scorsese photographs (and distances) so quaintly, with `outdoor' settings that are plainly - ostentatiously - filmed on sound stages under feathery Christmas-card snowfalls. They're never less than charming - pretty as pictures - even when the continuity lapses. DiNiro arrives at a mountain resort one dark winter evening, in pursuit of Minnelli, who's headlining a band. When the couple goes outside shortly thereafter to continue one of their constant tiffs, they're posed in front of a stagy stand of birches glowing in an amber sunset. Does time run backward in the Carolinas?

Unfortunately, the only story arc New York, New York chooses to follow is the ever more rancorous breakdown of Minnelli's and DiNiro's marriage. There are ugly incidents in neon-bright jazz boîtes, and in a car, where she suffers birthpangs. Then there's an abrupt jump forward to the 1950s when DiNiro has opened his own club, The Major Chord, while Minnelli drags their six-year-old son to recording sessions and signs a Hollywood contract to star in a musical (ironically, `Happy Endings') that might have been directed by her father Vincente except that it retains his flamboyance while lacking his deft and idiosyncratic touch.

And then something peculiar and perverse happens in regard to Minnelli: She's allowed - or encouraged - to do a miscalculated impersonation of her mother, Judy Garland. There's the go-for-broke belting; the fluttering, febrile hand movements; and, in a nitery atop a skyscraper, singing the Big Number the movie's been all too impatiently heading for (Kander and Ebb's `New York, New York'), she's decked out in full Judy drag - a flowing, hot-pink top, with more sashes and panels than can be anatomically accounted for, over a pair of skin-tight black toreador pants. It's her dead mother's 1953 A Star Is Born, her1961 Carnegie Hall concert and her short-lived 1963 TV variety show all over again.

This misbegotten homage is more than mere bad taste; did nobody have the decency - or common sense - to spot it and stop it? Martin Scorsese didn't, too drunk on his obvious love for old movies and their stars to remember that movie-making consists of more than reviving old genres - and more than composing eulogies. Those great movies are still out there - on cable channels and in repertory houses and on DVD and e-Bay. Maybe that wasn't the case in 1977. But even so, what's the point of trying to improve on them by leeching out all the sincerity and most of the fun?

Whose misguided decision was it to make Robert De Niro's character a complete creep throughout this picture? Playing an impatient, hot-headed saxophone player in New York City on VJ Day, De Niro meets lovely Liza Minnelli at a party; she turns out to be a talented songbird, yet his jealousy and paranoia quickly puts their musical romance on the rocks. You have to laugh at some of De Niro's over-the-top stupidities (the movie would be a real downer if you didn't), yet director Martin Scorsese doesn't provide enough relief from De Niro's outbursts. "New York, New York" is certainly handsome enough, and the songs (chestnuts and new additions) are terrific, but the plot builds no momentum and Liza's love-interest comes off as somewhat masochistic. Who would stay with this guy so long? Heavy-handed, heavy-going movie has the feeling of an expensive experiment, and Scorsese at times appears to be winging it with his leads. Minnelli searches in vain for a tighter direction, and she doesn't look comfortable with dramatic improvisation (her song numbers were probably carefully planned out, and in these instances she shines). The finale is moving--almost in spite of itself--and the picture may actually have something to say about abusive relationships and letting go. There are moments of heartbreak and passion, but just as many scenes with nothing but flailing about. **1/2 from ****

This film is Martin Scorsese's tribute to the city that never sleeps, New York City. Scorsese is not only a native New Yorker but one of the city's finest residents. There are some problems with this film that are apparent like the ending. I don't get it. He brings together Robert DeNiro and Liza Minnelli but it's Liza's film especially in the musical numbers. The film is over 2 hours and 43 minutes long. It should have been edited. There was some problems with the script. Of course, Liza and Robert are brilliant in their roles of a USO singer, Francine Evans, and musician/con man Jimmy Doyle. Like I said, there was a lot that could have been cut from the film to condense it into a solid film. The performances were excellent. You really get to the stars' acting skills and the title song is classic. I don't know why it wasn't awarded the Oscar for original song because it's one of the most played songs about New York since it debuted.

Martin Scorsese's deconstruction of the golden Hollywood musical is a meandering disaster.

"New York, New York" is damn near unwatchable. It tells the VERY slight story of a jackass saxophone player (Robert De Niro) who falls in love with a nightclub singer (Liza Minelli) and proceeds to emotionally abuse her until her life is miserable. De Niro is consistently one note in his performance, creating a character without a single redeeming feature. In his early scenes, I think we're supposed to be charmed by him, and by extension understand why Minelli's character would fall for him in the first place -- unfortunately, he comes across more as a creepy sociopath than anything, Travis Bickle with some musical talent. Minelli's role is utterly thankless, but she's absolutely the only thing that kept me watching. The last 40 minutes of the film is practically a Liza Minelli concert. Her character has vaulted to film stardom and left her loser husband in the dust; Scorsese devotes what feels like half an hour to a movie within a movie featuring Minelli in one of those epic ballet scenes that always derailed Gene Kelly musicals. It does the same to this film, but the diversion was welcome, since it meant we could enjoy a nice break from De Niro.

The movie grinds on for 163(!) minutes. At the 120 minute mark I wanted to cry. At the 150 minute mark I was beaten into submission by indifference. By that point, the film had been going on for far too long, yet at the same time I couldn't believe it would be ending in 10 minutes because it didn't seem to be moving toward any kind of resolution.

Scorsese seemed to be unaware that this story had already been told -- maybe he'd never heard of "A Star Is Born." More likely, he was paying homage to that film, but he created something that on its own terms has no reason for existence.

Grade: D

If you are a fan of Liza Minnelli (as I am), this film will certainly enthrall you at the very least. She looks and sounds terrific from start to (a spectacular) finish and more than holds her own against a fiery Robert DeNiro (in one of his more overlooked performances). This is a dark musical, it is NOT a musical comedy, and it is almost three hours long (DO NOT SEE ANY EDITED VERSION OF THIS PICTURE). It is lavishly filmed and the musical score is sublime.

Minnelli, although charming from the get-go, is not really front and center until the last hour, and then, Scorsese basically hands the picture over to her, and boy does she deliver. Liza made several film classics, This to me is her best movie.

If you can see this in a revival house, I recommend it. This now has a devoted cult, and you will be among devotees.

Then you can start spreading the news!

I never knew that the classic Frank Sinatra, New York, New York song was sung for the very first time in this film by Liza Minnelli. The song was written specially for this movie. It just shows how something recent can become considered as an old standard so quickly!

New York, New York is a gritty studio bound musical drama directed by Martin Scorsese. He was coked up at the time and having an affair with Liza Minnelli. This might explain why the film is such a mess with a narrative that is all over the place.

The film opens on the night of V-J Day in New York. Jimmy Doyle (De Niro) wearing an Hawaiian shirt goes to a nightclub to hit on a woman, any woman whether she is married, got a boyfriend sitting next to her. It did not matter to him. He relentlessly ask girls he does not know for their telephone numbers.

Doyle then sees USO singer Francine Evans (Liza Minnelli) seated at a table alone and pesters her relentlessly. The film has already made its initial mistake. Doyle is a sex pest, a creep, a louse.

It gets worse, Doyle goes from hotel to hotel running up debts. He pretends to be an injured soldier. Doyle also is a saxophonist who gets into arguments with promoters and club owners. Yet somehow Francine falls for him and they become an act performing in nightclubs.

The film never addresses that Doyle could be bi-polar or is some kind of manic depressive who acts on impulse. Doyle and Francine suddenly get married and they have a volatile, even an abusive relationship. The marriage destructs when Francine becomes pregnant.

The film becomes something different in the latter stages, as Francine becomes a hit musical star. In this long segment we see Liza Minnelli perform (or should I say, shout) show tunes that would be at home in those 1940s and 1950s MGM musicals. This includes New York, New York.

Well Scorsese certainly gave his own original tribute to the Hollywood musicals of yesteryear. The film is never coherent in narrative and style. In places the film is dull. Most of the supporting characters are never fleshed out or look uneasy in acting roles such as Clarence Clemons. It is a misfire but it's not without interest. There were instances of Scorsese trying to emulate Powell & Pressburger.

The biggest problem was making de Niro to be such a psycho jerk. I never bought him once as a saxophone player or someone who could even lead a band.

Robert De Niro's character is creepy, aggressive and irritating from the very first scene, and he never lets up. Liza Minnelli's character seems like a saint just for putting up with him. Liza and De Niro have zero chemistry. The movie gives you no reason as to why these two people would be in love or even want to spend time with each other. Every scene goes on too long and falls flat, as if in every shot Scorsese keeps the camera running because he's waiting for something to happen. Both De Niro and Minnelli feel like they are in the wrong movie, and the backlot on which the entire movie was filmed gives it a lifeless, artificial aura. It is a seedy, mean spirited film that is trying to be upbeat and cheerful, like an angry and unstable ex-con that is trying to put on a good face for a social gathering. The entire movie feels muted, drab and dull. It rambles from one scene to another with no point or purpose. It is an enormous misfire on every level, and to top it all off it is almost THREE HOURS long. It is almost inconceivable how Scorsese, arguably the greatest American filmmaker, and at the height of his creative powers, could produce such a disaster.

New York, New York is Scorcese's most underrated film. Ahead of its time, out of the mainstream of mundane tastes, and both a tribute and a criticism of the musicals of the 40s and 50s, New York, New York is constantly misunderstood - especially by a culture weened on Rambos and Die Hards. DeNiro is a misogynist; Minnelli, a codependent. The characters are not necessarily supposed to be likeable or easily understood. They are consciously not written to be cozy, comfey typical boy-meets-girl characters. Like any couple caught in the disease of romantic addiction and career obsession, Jimmy Doyle (DeNiro) and Francine Evans (Minnelli) depict flaws that approach hyper-visibility within the context of fake scenery, big brassy musical numbers, a slow pace, and sparse dialogue. It's not that there isn't any normative plot; there just doesn't NEED to be one. Through its minimalism, NY, NY breaks boundaries for musicals in the way that Ingmar Berman films broke ground for European movies. In the 70s, people were tired of musicals and Star Wars had been released. Out with the "old," in with the new. NY, NY only LOOKED like the old movies that modern culture was trying to get away from. Had people looked at it as parody (a trend that was to consume 80s cinema), NYNY would have been seen through a truer lens. DeNiro is tempermental, insensitive, and bombastic. Minnelli is shy and patient. DeNiro is jealous and insecure. Minnelli is focused and self-assured. Minnelli, in fact, not only evokes the period, she IS the period. Her doe-shaped eyes are not lost behind her extravagant custumes, and Minnelli's voice is the best of her career, displaying everything from subtlety (in songs like "You are my Lucky Star," and "There Goes the Ball Game") to power and emotion (in "But the World Goes 'Round," and "The Man I Love"). Minnelli's classic rendition of the title song is a show stopper, coming on the heals of a 15-minute production number entitled "Happy Endings" that takes the film into a three-dimensional surreality, for within "Happy Endings" (the movie within the movie) is a ANOTHER movie called "Aces High," where a sequined Liza combines the personas of Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russel into a single glamorous diva. The film's downbeat ending is actually a sign of strength for the Minnelli character, and DeNiro's Doyle is left alone to ponder the love he left behind.

Martin Scorsese's music drama is a tribute to the 'big band' era of America and stars Robert DeNiro and Liza Minnelli as a couple of lovers and musicians. The film starts off brilliantly, with Robert DeNiro trying to charm his way into getting Liza Minnelli's phone number and, in fact, the first half hour is as good as anything Scorsese ever did; but unfortunately the film quickly loses it's way. The reason the film doesn't completely work is mostly due to the characters that Scorsese has created; Robert DeNiro's character, Jimmy Doyle, starts off as a likable scallywag who's both amusing and enticing, but he quickly degenerates into one of the most hate-inducing characters ever portrayed in a movie. Liza Minnelli's character, on the other hand is dislikeable for completely different reasons; she bears the brunt of everything we hate Doyle for; and that's the problem, she simply bears it; he says jump and she says how high, and this gives us no reason to care for her, despite the fact that she's the innocent party. The characters are the centrepiece of any movie and a film that has no likable characters will be difficult for the audience to like, and that is where 'New York, New York' fails.

The film isn't completely devoid of good moments, however; obviously, Robert DeNiro stars, and that is a credit to any movie. His performance here isn't among his best...in fact, it's a more a re-run of previous performances if anything; but DeNiro's screen presence is always enough to make him worth watching, even if he is only doing what he's done before. Liza Minnelli seems to be a strange casting choice to me; she was obviously used to musicals by the time this film was made, so I can see Scorsese's view from that point, but she isn't believable as a romantic interest, mostly because she just isn't attractive enough...she's very funny looking, isn't she? She does have some good moments in the film, though; most of them towards the end in the big dance numbers, including the catchy "Happy Endings" and, of course, the title track; "New York, New York".

However, despite the film's plus points; it can't get over it's dislikeable characters. If it had, we may have had another Scorsese "classic", but it doesn't; and overall this makes the film one of good moments, rather than one of a satisfying whole. Which is a shame really.

Robert De Niro, as Jmy Doyle, is such a disgusting creep that I can't understand how Francine could ever evince any ínterest in him.

This is perhaps the film that I have the most problem in Scorsese's ouvre, even though I like certain aspects of the film. De Niro's character is so disgusting that I can never feel any empathy with him.

I'm not sure what Scorsese was trying for in this film. It bears watching, ar least once, but don't try to find protagonists or antigonists in this film. Jimmy Doyle is absolutely detestable; Francine Evans is not much better.

So don't search for a moral in this film. Perhaps Scorsese simply wanted to make a film about an extremely disfunctional couple with a background of mid-century jazz. It works on that level, but not on any level of morality.

An afterthought: I absolutely did not remember Mary Kay Place, one of my favorite actresses, having a part in this film, which just adds to my respect for her imense talent.

New York New York is a musical about a passionate jazz player and his struggles with love and career with a Hollywood love letter thrown in as well. Now which film does this remind everyone of? Just like La La Land, New York New York is a homage to the golden age of musicals but packs Scorsese's intensity. Robert DeNiro is in his 70's prime and knocks it out of the park with his performance, easily the best feature of the film. Liza Minelli does a decent job but she's there for her singing and does great in that. However this is easily the most flawed film I have seen from Scorsese, it stands at an enormous run-time of nearly three hours, there's more than a few scenes which could be trimmed down, especially during the first hour and a half, I think a lot can be blamed on Scorsese unable to handle a big budget film back then, the sets were expensive so were the cars and the props but he was spending way too much time in pointless scenes. However the film really picks up and the last one hour is where this movie truly shines. DeNiro was just brilliant in his role of an insecure but ambitious saxophonist. A film despite it's flaws should give you a handful of scenes which will stay with you once the film is over, one scene in particular will always stay with me, DeNiro is angry and frustrated with his wife Minnelli but keeps it bottled in and it comes out during a magnificent scene with him and his saxophone playing an energetic and a furious melody while his eyes rain down fireballs on her, no dialogue just music and body language.

to enjoy and understand this movie, one has to view it differently and there are certain requirements and they are, u has to be a fan of scorsese films, u must have observed and analysed his films...

the requirements are because this is a musical film and it might not be one of the best musical films made but this is a martin scorsese's musical film and that is the whole point, marty doing a musical, it may sound ironical but that's the beauty, he did musical...

basically i don't like musicals, in fact i hate it but it is not in this case , i watched it, i liked it and i am going to watch it again bec i liked it. there is a misconception in audience that marty is good in gangster films alone but it is not like that bec he is the one who experimented himself in all kind of films, he did sports movie, periodic pieces, noir, biographical films, in fact comedy too, so is now; a musical...

believe me, i never imagined a musical like this, u can see only in marty's films using intellectual camera movements, using more reds and other contrasty colors and the characterisation of the lead characters, usually in musicals u cant see deep emotional complexed characters, so the description goes on...

Bottom Line - a MARTIN SCORSESE'S MUSICAL....

In my opinion this is one of Scorsese's best films. One could only imagine what he(Martin) would have wanted for the final cut. Bob gives another A+ preformance, along with Liza. For the "Happy Endings" sequence, I would say that is some of Scorsese's best direction ever. A viewer might think this film is a little long... well, I say get some balls and enjoy the show, it's worth every minute. 9/10

"Start spreading the news... I am leaving today..."

Well, the best thing about Martin Scorsese's "New York, New York", directed in 1977, is Frank Sinatra's song of the same name that became the trope identifier of Manhattan, in the same way than a certain iconic Rhapsody. But apart from the musical numbers and the flamboyant rendering of the mood and texture of the 40s big-band era, there's nothing much to say about it. It's a solid and laudable attempt from Marty to recreate a New York City that diverges from the gritty more Goya-like portrait in "Taxi Driver", but there's a reason why the film hasn't gotten the same reception than its glorious predecessor, it's a story with potential but not that good a story to begin with.

Here's why, Scorsese is a director of atmospheres and settings, the former are generally the causes of the protagonists' states of mind (whether choleric or melancholic) and the latter the operating theaters of their actions. Take "Taxi Driver" again, it's not much New York City that is highlighted but its nightmarish perception from Travis Bickle without which his climactic actions wouldn't make sense. Ultimately, it's all about characters, visions and action. As said before, "New York, New York" intends to be a tribute to the roaring second half of the forties, with the explosion of jazz music and solo artists, combined with a passionate love story, so if anything the film should be boisterous and flamboyant with a zest of sorrow, but if the ingredients are all there, the recipe doesn't work.

The major problem of the film has been pinpointed before, it's like the two characters were written by different persons. De Niro is Jimmy Dugan, the hot-headed sax-tenor player and as Pauline Kael says, there's something reminding of Cassavetes' movies in De Niro's approach. He's a man who always at the verge of exploding, a paradoxical man who loves to improvise but in his own calculated way, a man whose doesn't take no as an answer no matter how hard to get Francine Evans is (or plays. That they end up together is quite the stunt the film makes hard to believe. And as Francine, Minnelli plays it sweet and tender like a woman who means well but never seems to satisfy her man, even when she gives a pep talk to the band, all she gets is a nasty tap in the bottoms.

Watching Minnelli and De Niro together, I was reminded of Liza's mother Judy Garland in her defining role "A Star is Born" while De Niro reminded me of Bosley Crowther's obnoxious and hair-trigger tempered husband in "Born Yesterday" ,there are so many scenes of conflicts, arguments and shouting, punctuated by a few intimate moments that the film left me with two alternate opinions, both negatives. Either the film insists too much on the fact that this relationships is doomed from the start and they're too talented to stay together and have converging careers or maybe Scorsese intended to paint a true romance but we've never given the single clue about whatever Francine found in Jimmy. And that's because the expositional party during the Victory Day celebration sets very well the characters and gives Minnelli an aura she's never seen with ever after.

De Niro carries the movie with a bravura performance that outshines everyone else, but his Jimmy is so unpleasant in the long run that we never connect with him and neither do we with Francine whose portrayal by Minnelli seems marked by that uncertainty of feeling. The irony is that De Niro acts better but as a character it's impossible to root for, because we never see whatever he sees to understand his actions. Even in "Raging Bull", we were given some perspective on La Motta's chronic jealousy. There are too many things to take for granted in "New York, New York" and the only that work are the musical numbers and the swinging homage to Hollywood Golden Age.

But let's not kid ourselves, as soon as the first notes are hummed or played by De Niro's saw, we know the film is headed toward a big finale with "New York, New York", we're overdue a "Life is Cabaret"-like ending but the film isn't "Cabaret" and Scorsese isn't Bob Fosse, which is all right, he's still one of the best but Scorsese is a man of moods and atmospheres and his nostalgic view of New York City is rendered beautifully but there's too much a gap between Scorsese's artistic ambitions and the requirements of a genre that's not his strongest suit in the first place. The gap is too big between the recreation of "New York" and its deliberate factice look and a raw energetic performance such as De Niro's.

I talked of Bob Fosse, his "Cabaret" conveyed the impending doom and the last outbursts of fun before darkness would envelop German life, it had a meaning and the relationships felt genuine. "New York, New York" starts right after that era, the celebration gives us appreciations of the two characters but nothing that justifies a relationship, let alone a marriage, and after the pregnancy, I kind of lost it and waited for the big finale with "New York, New York". The film had the look, the music but not the meaning and for Scorsese, it's quite a sin.