best movie i've ever seen.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

"Mean Streets" is a tough film for me to review because I am not particularly a fan of modern gangster movies. I tend to find them overly violent, overly bloody and overly nasty. That being said, I do think "Mean Streets" is a well made film...though not exactly a pleasant one or one I'd recommend folks rush out to rent.Despite Robert De Niro being listed in the lead, Karvey Keitel is the leading man in this story. Keitel plays Charlie....a gangster who is a relatively low level thug. Even lower is his friend, Johnny (De Niro). They are a very odd pair, as Charlie seems more thoughtful and folks like him. As for Johnny, he's a walking liability--as he's unpredictable, easy to hate and a mook. And, the viewer has the strong feeling that eventually SOMETHING bad has to happen....as Johnny can't keep burning all of his friends. What that is, frankly, was interesting but the finale also wasn't exactly satisfying because so many things are left unresolved.Overall, this is a film I recommend you see only if you are a huge Martin Scorsese fan. Otherwise, think twice before you see it because the film is pretty nasty for 1973--with ample cursing, violence, blood and boobs.

'Mean Streets (1973)' is seasoned with sprinklings of greatness, at times showing shades of what Scorsese would go on to do (i.e. 'Goodfellas (1990)'). Despite some solid acting throughout and a few entertaining sequences, though, the film generally falls flat thanks to the fact that there really isn't all that much of a plot and, as such, there isn't any real drama to latch onto. The result is a picture which feels much longer than it is and is also actually rather boring, floating along from set-piece to set-piece without any compelling connective tissue. It ends just as it seems to get going, too. 5/10

'Mean Streets' is Martin Scorcese's edgy breakthrough, reminiscent of Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs' & its exciting freshness (Keitel appearing in both), two young directors who became the epitome of cool, though bigger budgets does not necessarily mean better films, i.e. 'Casino', which feels superficial & bloated in comparison to this gritty but soulful first work where neither criminality or violence are glamorised as you sometimes feel they are in his later work (stylised, balletic). At least though, Scorcese hasn't become a parody of himself unlike QT.'The Mean Streets' are the streets of New York's Little Italy district, - the streets of Scorcese's early youth, 'mean' because they can corrupt & brutalise a man's soul. In this brutish world of violence, rigid social codes (racism) & machismo, young hood, Charlie (Harvey Keitel) , intuitively strives towards something purer. This religious dimension is shown at the beginning where Charlie holds his hand over a burning candle in a church where he ponders over the nature of pain (physical & spiritual). We are allowed an insight into Charlie's mind through his narration, thus privy to his private inner being.Charlie is a young man in torment with his world literally becoming hell such as the club Charlie & his associates hang out at, subterranean & shot through with a red hue. In one of the best scenes when Charlie & his associates have a lock-in, a swirling camera captures his disorientated state of mind as if he is on a carousel from which he cannot get off. Some of the images of this film are startling such as the lion kept in a cage. It is surprisingly tender with its hoodlum owner. What does it mean? Is it an allusion to the tenderness within Charlie? Charlie seeks transcendence (redemption) through his friendship & misplaced loyalty with Johnny Boy, a startling performance of frenetic energy & nervous tension by de Niro & his love affair with a local girl Terese, who suffers from epilepsy. He first glimpses her through a window, literally a glimpse into another possibility & kind of life away from the streets, but insecurity & the lure of this easy life pull Charlie back.The film concentrates on Charlie's life & his relationships in a loose structure that suits the film's more reflective moments. Why does Charlie feel such loyalty towards Johnny Boy? It wasn't clear to me, though avik-basu1889's perceptive review explained matters excellently, the religious element in how Charlie attempts to save himself by trying to save Johnny Boy but ironically damns himself.Charlie's life is riven by conflict & divided loyalties, between his Uncle, a local criminal bigwig, who disapproves of his girlfriend, & his criminal associates who are shown disrespect by Johnny Boy. Trouble follows Johnny Boy wherever he goes as he lashes out physically & verbally, literally walking on the edge. An early scene where Charlie & his associates go to collect a gambling debt descends into farce because of Johnny Boy's provocative behaviour. In a milieu where men cannot be seen to lose face for fear of being perceived as weak, Johnny Boy's increasingly erratic behaviour can only lead to a violent outcome.Scorcese's triumph is to give a young hoodlum, depth & spiritual complexity, that beneath the bluster & street swagger lies doubt & moral compromise.

Scorsese's first personal movie is a gangster epic that has all the hallmarks of the director's tour-de-force style that would reappear later in his career: from the fresh tracking shots to the unnerving camera angles, particularly one sequence where a camera is strapped to Keitel and the viewer takes part as he stumbles into a drunken stupor. The only real difference between this film and later offerings like GOODFELLAS is the budget, which at this stage in Scorsese's career wasn't great. Nevertheless the director crafts a plot-heavy epic which really puts across a picture of life in the big city, possibly more so than his second collaboration with De Niro, TAXI DRIVER.The film is quite slow-paced, which may be off-putting to some, and there isn't a great deal of the director's trademark violence to punctuate the more mundane moments as in his later movies – aside from the powerhouse climax, in which the red paint flows leaving the viewer feeling as if they've been punched in the face. Keitel is fantastic in the leading role and brings a real compassion to the part of the guy whose love for his friends gets him into serious trouble. However, as might be guessed, De Niro steals all his scenes here, as a small-time psycho who likes nothing better than to shoot his revolver from rooftops and beat up strangers on the street. De Niro is twitchy and deranged and scarily believable in this part, yet sympathetic at the same time too. He infuses his character with dynamism whilst at the same time invoking fear at the inescapable consequences of his actions. So, there you have mean streets: a typical enough gangster epic, infused with the energy of its young director and two stars, with enough originality, charisma, and hard-knuckle realism to make it a more than worthwhile watch.