The story of a majority?

Rating: 9/10 (6 January 2007)

Why am I adding 1 more comment to 514 existing ones? I simply cannot take the movie off my mind 6 days after the viewing.
The movie eloquently pictures the loneliness that follows many many Travis Bickles in the real world. The narration is phenomenal -- thanks to a scriptwriter, a director, and a lead character who understand or at least who manage to empathize those lonely (wo)men. The most scary part of the movie is not the violence but the loneliness that is lurking and ready to "kill" people.
A more mediocre movie would present loneliness as unwarranted tears or some other exaggerated actions (most movie-goers want ACTION) (see Babel, for example). Here, the feeling is conveyed by the endless streams of views on the street, distorted by the windshield, reflected from the windows. These are views and people of an "outside world" -- untouchable and surreal -- while the protagonist watches "inside" (the taxi is metaphor of an inside space totally separated from the outside and is constantly going nowhere). That feeling's heightened with the few painful expressions or dazed stares of DeNiro, and the haunting background music. Do we need to zoom in the anguished face of Travis when he last talked to Betsy on the phone? Is that one-sided conversation not unbearable enough? The presentation is so much stronger by leaving it to the viewer's imagination, and shooting the quiet hallway, with no one around and leading to nowhere. (This second technique showing isolation is also used heavily in most movies by Kar-Wai Wong.) The movie is great in being so engaging, while very little is going on. In the first viewing of mine, I was overwhelmed by fear and suspense. In the second viewing, knowing more in hindsight, I was simply struck by sadness.
Life is slow and aimless, and people can be full of contradictions and void of characters. That's life. Some other commentors have problems understanding these, and I envy their blissful disconnection with such painful reality.
I am no fans of Scorsese-style grandness but this movie really surprised me.
There are certain parts of the movie that are overly sentimental. There are also plot holes. For one thing, the sexual desires of Travis is quite contradictory -- the habit of watching porns vs the hatred of prostitution, and the nearly unbelievable act of taking Betsy to a movie (would he at least ask the girl to choose the movie)? Or is he really so much of a walking contradiction as Betsy calls it?
** MILD SPOILER HERE ** The ending -- my guess, after seeing the documentary, is that, the film-makers literally meant what they showed since Paul Schrader mentioned that Travis had not changed, and the ending was the beginning of his next violent act. But most viewers correctly voiced the legal problems (assuming the movie is one of reality than fantasy), and some came up with a much better alternative ending that the last portion is the flash-back and wish of Travis upon his death (though the actual scenes don't support this well). If I were one of the film-makers, I would definitely let people take their sides, esp if that covers up an original plothole :) I DISAGREE THAT this open-ending is intended or is a sign of greatness. (Compare Birds, or Before Sunset, or Broken Flowers.)