Page 1 of 1

Raging bull

Posted: 10 Jan 2005, 10:03
by Trent
I just seem the movie Raging Bull, and there are a few questions i would like to ask..

firstly was jake Lamotta Really an animal like that to his brother and wife?
also it shows in there first 2 fights with Robinson that jake actually knocks him down in both fights, i didnt know that Robinson was knocked down ever by jake. How accurate is the movie?

anyways it was a cool movie.

Re: Raging bull

Posted: 10 Jan 2005, 13:32
by KOJOE90
Trent wrote:
firstly was jake Lamotta Really an animal like that to his brother and wife?.
When young Lamotta was a very nasty piece of work. I understand he even admits that himself these days.

Posted: 10 Jan 2005, 15:14
by klompton
He was even worse in real life and remains a prick.

Posted: 10 Jan 2005, 17:55
by wsbuf
Per the book Raging Bull II... he is at the screening of the movie with Vicki and he turns to her and asks her if he was really that bad,... she says "worse".

Worse

Posted: 10 Jan 2005, 21:50
by We Wuz Robbed
Believe it or not, LaMotta was worse than the film portrayed him. In the book he actually tells the story of how he killed a man.

As far as Robinson being knocked down by LaMotta, Jake didn't drop Robinson in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre fight and the early LaMotta/Robinson fights I never saw. Those early LaMotta/Robinson fights are not available on film. Collectors say that they were never filmed, but LaMotta in his book states that he has the fights on film and he can prove that he beat Robinson more than once (he feels he was robbed).

Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 01:18
by klompton
LaMotta knocked Robinson down at least once and maybe twice. I have several photos of Robinson being knocked out of the ring by LaMotta.

LaMotta

Posted: 11 Jan 2005, 21:40
by Boxscribe
I believe the movie took some liberties with the story LaMotta told in the book in that he beat up his best friend in a jealous rage over his wife and not his brother. also, LaMotta didn't acually kill anyone - he though for many years that a guy he mugged (a numbers runner or something) actually did die adn that was what gave him a certain amount of his rage in the ring.

According to LaMotta he believed he deserved to be punished and took beatings accordingy. He then claims that the guy turned up afte rhe beat Cerdan and that the rage - and his toughness - somehow dissappeared when he realised he hadn't actually killed anyone.

Also, I agree with Klompton - LaMotta remains a prick. He siezed on a TV opportunity when his son died in a Swiss-Air crash to promote his tomato sauce. Classy. More recently on a visit to the UK, he insisted on being paid £20.00 per autograph to fans who allready paid £30.00 a seat to hear his tired old comedy routine and his bullshit about how he and Ray Robinson were so feared and avoided they had to fight each other just to get a fight and get paid.

Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 13:16
by KOJOE90
I always felt that if there had been a rematch Cerdan may well have beaten Lamotta.

Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 13:54
by wsbuf
I was going to start a thread on what if there was a rematch. If Cerdan didn't get hurt would he have one the first one too?
I have argued this with my father for years.

Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 16:00
by mrbassie
In his own words "They made me look like a pussycat", you should read his autobiography of the same name, it's full of stories that were left out of the film, like the one about the neighbourhood bookie who disappeared and who for years Jake thought he had killed with a pipe (or was it a bar) in a fruitless mugging who turned up at the afterfight party when Jake beat Cerdan.
According to himself he was a lot 'worse' than the movie portrayal.

Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 16:02
by mrbassie
oops, sorry boxscribe, didn't read your post before I made mine.
Have a scone.

Posted: 12 Jan 2005, 16:55
by klompton
Cerdan didnt have a prayer with LaMotta. Everyone Ive spoken to who was AT that fight said that LaMotta was kicking Cerdans ass royally BEFORE the injury. Thats even if you believe there was an injury because if you watch the film of the fight he was using his injured arm AFTER the slip. Before he "injured" himself he was being lifted off the canvas by LaMottas body blows. Cerdan never fought and beat anybody who was as good as LaMotta. Washed up Zales and Holman Williams need not apply and controversial decisions over guys like Abrams and Raadick dont convince me that he was ready for LaMotta at any time in his career.

Cerdan - Raadik

Posted: 13 Jan 2005, 15:26
by Boxscribe
Very true Klompton. Raadik dropped Cerdan at least a couple of times in one of the Frenchman's first US appearences and should have got the decision.

I feel a prime Holman Williams would have beat Cerdan the best day he ever saw.

not a nice man

Posted: 17 Jan 2005, 18:41
by robert.snell1
the best story about him which sums him up well is when he was younger they played "hide and seek". When it was his turn to hide nobody went looking for him.

Posted: 18 Jan 2005, 00:51
by klompton
Another good one comes from LaMottas second book. He had some fan who was always hanging around him. This guy adored LaMotta. One day Jake was on the set of Raging Bull working with DeNiro. The fan was there sitting with Joey LaMotta, Jakes brother. Joey leaned over and said "so what are you gettin out of this?" The fan just looked at him puzzled and said "what do you mean?". Joey said "You have to be getting something out of this to always be hanging around with Jake." The fan said "Im not getting anything I just like him". Joey looked at the guy and said "You like him? Nobdoy likes him. Im his brother and I dont even like him."

Re: not a nice man

Posted: 18 Jan 2005, 13:08
by KOJOE90
robert.snell1 wrote:the best story about him which sums him up well is when he was younger they played "hide and seek". When it was his turn to hide nobody went looking for him.
:lol: :lol: