The Irishman (Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci and Pacino)

Seathrun66

artvanderlay wrote: »

Just saw it this evening. The first 60-90 minutes were very good; great to see De Niro and Pesci back together, and there were some familiar faces I was looking forward to seeing more of, but then it turned into the Jimmy Hoffa story, and that dragged on for ages. Scenes were stretched out far too long (at one stage I went to the loo, and when I came back De Niro and Pesci were still talking in code about

how Hoffa had to go

!). I was hoping for a lot more of Keitel too; I smiled when I saw him but he just didn't figure. De Niro's acting has waned; he just turns up these days, and goes through the motions. He's still De Niro, but he's old and not as dynamic as he once was. Pesci was outstanding; the best thing about the movie. Pacino gave a fairly standard Pacino performance. The de-aging was ok, but De Niro's looked the ropiest (like the conductor on the Polar Express!). I don't think there was any need for this movie to be longer than a couple of hours, to be honest; some decent editing could have really improved things. It was a nice movie experience on a cold winter's night, but it felt fairly minor overall; we have seen these characters and themes done a lot better in Sopranos and Goodfellas/Casino. This felt old hat in comparison to them. James Ellroy's books have also covered similar ground with a lot more dynamism. This just felt like a swansong for some old legends to work together one last time. 7/10 And I hope Pesci stays unretired - I missed him.

I concur with all of the above. Pesci outstanding, De Niro being himself and Scorsese should have reined in Pacino. Anna Paquin utterly wasted, as were all the other women, Keitel and Bobby Cannevale. More of them and less of the Hoffa stuff. In 150 mins you can focus on more than three characters. 7/10 for me too, and no interest in rewatching.

ISOP

Joe Pesci is immense in this

Culchie_85

• Seen this last night, the acting is top notch.
• The deaging technology takes a little to get used to but once you get adjusted to it you don't notice it.
• The first scene or two it's very obvious and then it just normalises.
• The story is a little all over the place and it introduces new characters and mentions them very quickly so you really have to pay attention.
• I didn't really like the production design and the cinematography felt a little off almost like CGI sets.
• It felt as though as though the move in general was trying to channel "Goodfellas" a little too much.
• It's not as good as critics make it out to be, wait for it on Netflix and split it up over two nights.
• Joe Pesci stole the show.

Beechwoodspark

Although overall I liked it I was struck by how it really was the bob, al and joe show. The women barely get any dialogue. Kietel as someone says only really has 1 substantial scene (the whispers issue).

Other than that he was totally under used.

He just sat wearing shades looking vaguely p1ssed off in the back of a murky Italian restaurant!

artvanderlay

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Although overall I liked it I was struck by how it really was the bob, al and joe show. The women barely get any dialogue. Kietel as someone says only really has 1 substantial scene (the whispers issue).

Other than that he was totally under used.

He just sat wearing shades looking vaguely p1ssed off in the back of a murky Italian restaurant!

It would have been a much better movie without De Niro and Pacino altogether! Frank Sheeran was a non-character, he was just a way into this world for Scorcese. Henry Hill in Goodfellas was similar, but he was really into the lifestyle of being a gangster and enjoyed it; I don't know what Frank Sheeran got out of his life. It's like he sleep-walked through things, without any motivation or emotion. He was a dead character; very uninteresting. Who cares about his relationship with his daughter? That was ridiculously overdone.



Focusing more on Keitel and Pesci would have helped (they still have an edge to them as actors, that Al and Bobby D don't have anymore) and even actors that I don't really like, such as Bobby Cannavale and Stephen Graham, were excellent in this; they should have been given more to do. Even Ray Romano was convincing! Jesse Plemons wasted too. Strange, strange choices made with this movie. Just saw that it was written by Stephen Zaillian, who I don't particularly like as a writer. He has written some really over-praised snooze-fests in the past, including Gangs of New York, which looked great but was ultimately a turd.

Redhighking

artvanderlay wrote: »

It's like he sleep-walked through things, without any motivation or emotion.

Frank Sheeran was very much just a soldier, he gained respect and influence by following orders not leading. He was literally a hitman so I think being emotionless is a key element to such an occupation!

Culchie_85

artvanderlay wrote: »

It would have been a much better movie without De Niro and Pacino altogether! Frank Sheeran was a non-character, he was just a way into this world for Scorcese. Henry Hill in Goodfellas was similar, but he was really into the lifestyle of being a gangster and enjoyed it; I don't know what Frank Sheeran got out of his life. It's like he sleep-walked through things, without any motivation or emotion. He was a dead character; very uninteresting. Who cares about his relationship with his daughter? That was ridiculously overdone.



Focusing more on Keitel and Pesci would have helped (they still have an edge to them as actors, that Al and Bobby D don't have anymore) and even actors that I don't really like, such as Bobby Cannavale and Stephen Graham, were excellent in this; they should have been given more to do. Even Ray Romano was convincing! Jesse Plemons wasted too. Strange, strange choices made with this movie. Just saw that it was written by Stephen Zaillian, who I don't particularly like as a writer. He has written some really over-praised snooze-fests in the past, including Gangs of New York, which looked great but was ultimately a turd.

The movie is based on Frank's book, which is told from his perspective so therefore he is the central character. Yes Pacino/Pesci are more interesting but their real life counterparts didn't write a book to be adapted into a movie so therefore they are secondary characters.

Also whats wrong with Bobby and Stephan as actors? They're always good in whatever they're in. They're character actors and suit their roles well.

Did you watch "The Virtues" with Stephen Graham?

The Nal

The Lies of the Irishman

Netflix and Martin Scorsese are making their biggest bets ever on the confessions of a mafia “hitman.” The guy made it all up.

tylercheribini

The Nal wrote: »

The Lies of the Irishman

Netflix and Martin Scorsese are making their biggest bets ever on the confessions of a mafia “hitman.” The guy made it all up.

Thank God its only a movie so.

pixelburp

The author better stay clear of Fargo then, if there's a concern over the veracity of "true" stories

Josey Wales

There is one thing that confused me about the film and that is the character played by Jesse Plemons.

I was surprised to see

his character driving the car bringing Hoffa to his execution. The filmmakers are saying Hoffa's own son was involved in the murder which seems a bit strange.

tylercheribini

Josey Wales wrote: »

There is one thing that confused me about the film and that is the character played by Jesse Plemons.

I was surprised to see

his character driving the car bringing Hoffa to his execution. The filmmakers are saying Hoffa's own son was involved in the murder which seems a bit strange.

Unwittingly.

branie2

Another Best Director Oscar for Scorsese, I hope?

py2006

Very surprised on the hate for this movie here.
It's a sigh of relief compared to the trash we are served of late. Some absolutely quality acting.

It was never meant to be in the same vein as Goodfellas and Casino etc.

py2006

I'm thinking of seeing it again on Monday in the IFI.

I've never been there before, hopefully better sound than the Savoy

Thelonious Monk

Saw it last night. Longest film ive ever seen in the cinema but flew in. Movie magic highly recommended.

ISOP

I thought the emotion of the moment it was announced JFK was assassinated was done brilliantly

artvanderlay

py2006 wrote: »

I'm thinking of seeing it again on Monday in the IFI.

I've never been there before, hopefully better sound than the Savoy

Go to The Lighthouse Cinema. Best in Ireland. Much better than IFI, especially if u hate wanky, touristy Temple Bar (which I do!).

Slydice

Does it need the big screen? Streaming feels like a good option for.. well.. 'streaming' breaks

johnny_ultimate

To be fair the IFI is back in contention after its revamp. I still prefer the Light House but Screen 1 and 2 in the IFI are now pretty great with absolutely tonnes of legroom (only issue I have is that the first row or two seem way too close to the screen). They always had top-tier projection and sound so great that the seats now manage to live up to that after years of neglect.

py2006

artvanderlay wrote: »

Go to The Lighthouse Cinema. Best in Ireland. Much better than IFI, especially if u hate wanky, touristy Temple Bar (which I do!).

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair the IFI is back in contention after its revamp. I still prefer the Light House but Screen 1 and 2 in the IFI are now pretty great with absolutely tonnes of legroom (only issue I have is that the first row or two seem way too close to the screen). They always had top-tier projection and sound so great that the seats now manage to live up to that after years of neglect.

I primarily want good sound and avoid annoying talking, texting teens

artvanderlay

py2006 wrote: »

I primarily want good sound and avoid annoying talking, texting teens

Either IFI or Lighthouse will do then. I prefer Lighthouse; less tourists hanging around, less oldies, nice cafe/bar. Good staff. It's a cooler venue in general :pac: (could do without the unisex toilet at the front though. Got a shock first time I went in there!)

sReq | uTeK

Just back from this, absolutely dreadful. The dialogue the acting, everything about it stems of 3 lads meeting up 30 years later for a bit if crack.

3.5 hours could easily have been condensed into 2 hours.

AMKC

So I went and seen this on Thursday in the Savoy screen 1 which was my first time in Screen 1 since they done it up. I was waiting for the right film. The seats are definitely some of the most comfortable of any cinema and the 3.5 hours of the film flew by even if I did not get half of it. I would watch the film again just not in the cinema again. I think some of the posters here got the film spot on do and got it more than I did..

ISOP wrote: »

I thought the emotion of the moment it was announced JFK was assassinated was done brilliantly

It was very well done alright. I had expected to see them jumping up and down when it happened but that would have been inappropriate where they were I suppose. I was not sure if they liked him or not I thought they did not like him but may be I am wrong.

Slydice wrote: »

Does it need the big screen? Streaming feels like a good option for.. well.. 'streaming' breaks

No it does not. There is nothing in this tat makes you go wow I am glad I came to see it in the cinema for that scene that you can not see just as good on your T.V. In fact there is series out there that would look cooler in a cinema than this but this this film is not about the effects or picture its about the story of these gangsters I think. In fact you might be better watching it at home but its still fun to get to see a 3.5 hour film in the cinema too.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair the IFI is back in contention after its revamp. I still prefer the Light House but Screen 1 and 2 in the IFI are now pretty great with absolutely tonnes of legroom (only issue I have is that the first row or two seem way too close to the screen). They always had top-tier projection and sound so great that the seats now manage to live up to that after years of neglect.

When did it get revamped? Being a couple of years since I was there. Seen ''Star Trek The Motion Picture'' in it.

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair the IFI is back in contention after its revamp. I still prefer the Light House but Screen 1 and 2 in the IFI are now pretty great with absolutely tonnes of legroom (only issue I have is that the first row or two seem way too close to the screen). They always had top-tier projection and sound so great that the seats now manage to live up to that after years of neglect.

Oh, that's good news and might give me pause to return. That old legroom was an abomination that would have made even Ryanair think it was a bit tight. Not sure about praise for the audio, I abandoned that place after a nightmare performance of Blade Runner that bled the ears (it was so loud it was actually painful. I asked them twice before giving up. Shuffling along those narrow rows wasn't fun either ), but I'd reconsider if they have revamped the room.

IAMAMORON

I watched it during the week and really enjoyed it. I was very apprehensive when I heard about the time length of the movie, but I did not clock watch once. I always judge a movie by 2 questions, did I clock watch? Would I watch it again ? The answer is no I didn't and yes I am looking forward to watching it again. All the acting was great and there were some lovely cameos, it is a good movie.

Joe Pesci gets typecast, but no one plays a better gangsta, he just has it in spades.

johnny_ultimate

AMKC wrote: »

When did it get revamped? Being a couple of years since I was there. Seen ''Star Trek The Motion Picture'' in it.

Within the past few months - August / September iirc.

Kermit.de.frog

py2006 wrote: »

Very surprised on the hate for this movie here.
It's a sigh of relief compared to the trash we are served of late. Some absolutely quality acting.

It was never meant to be in the same vein as Goodfellas and Casino etc.

Loved it. Felt like a release from all the super hero stuff polluting the film industry.

Great acting as well.

It's nice to see effort all round. It's become so rare.

Need to see more of this and hopefully success will make the industry realise there is a vast audience who want quality film making and will be rewarding for it.

RasTa

Not great. Forgettable movie that that just seems to tick along. Pacino was not good and Bobby was ok. Pesci stood out but the young guys where better.

That scene where he batters the shopkeeper was laughable. Should have just younger characters for the flashbacks scenes as the body movements where off.

2/4.

Saruwatari

We're blessed to get both this and Once Upon A Time within the same year. Both similarly restrained odes to their respective eras and meditations on their chosen subject matter, handled by passionate moviemakers given ample room to do what they want with some of the best actors in the biz.

I saw someone suggest it's not worth a trip out to the cinema to, but I disagree intensely. A film doesn't have to be Michael Bay levels of gratuitous action and special effects to warrant the big screen treatment - there's a lot of fantastic photography, attention to era-appropriate detail and lighting in this film, and to see it on a smaller screen with a lower resolution and bitrate would be a significant downgrade, IMO (maybe the only downside is the de-ageing being easier to spot in parts, but you lose track of this fast enough for it not to be a clincher).