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

Beechwoodspark

Just to say I loved this far more than wolf of wall st

biggebruv

Arghus wrote: »

I don't want to rag on the movie too much, because, overall I think it is one of the best of the year, but I did notice little bits of sloppiness like that throughout, particularly in the first hour and a half - cuts or edits that didn't quite match or looked rushed. For instance, when we have the flashback of him shooting the Germans I don't think the gunshot sounds and bullet impacts are synced up perfectly - it wasn't a deal breaker, but there was enough to be noticeable, for me. I found that surprising because Scorcese's films are usually very well edited and Thelma Schoonmaker was at the helm for this as well too.

It's obviously a double in a Hoffa wig for that scene in the prison, which I was also a bit surprised by, surprised by its obviousness. I guess you have to expect this, given the age of the actor, but I still found it strange they didn't make the deception more artful.

It's not a particularly violent film, but I thought there was something quite bloodless and artificial to the violence portrayed on screen. It didn't feel real - and the bloodshed in Scorcese films always feels meaty and tough.

For a film that supposedly cost over 150 million to make, I felt that it didn't always look it.

Most of the money prob went to all the big name cast and director for the movie

Anyways yeah I’m not liking it either it’s on an 1hr30 mins now and once I reach for the iPad I know it’s lost me and I find nothing interesting about it I’ll skim the rest and move on

J Mysterio

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just to say I loved this far more than wolf of wall st

Ah heyor

whomitconcerns

Great movie. Great story. Long but worth it

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Just finished it. I’ll write a more thorough review once I’ve digested it a bit more but for now, I’ll say I liked it but I didn’t love it. I’m surprised that it’s received no middling reviews. It’s far from perfect. I do also get fed up of people criticising those who say a film is too long. It’s not always short attention span, sometimes films are just too long!

metaoblivia wrote: »

Great performances, interesting plot line, but the length and pacing just kills it. The film could easily stand to lose an hour. It becomes especially torturous

after Hoffa has been killed

. I walked out with about 15 minutes left as it was clear the movie was over, I was tired and didn't care.

I totally agree about the spoilered bit. It completely deflated after that. I think Scorsese wanted to show how these guys end their days but it was just ponderous and uninteresting.

shamrock55

Brilliant, I loved every minute, fastest 3 1/2 hrs ever

Carcharodon

Doesn’t happen often but the movie got better as it went on. Some scenes when they were “younger” are pretty awful to be fair but overall it’s ok

NIMAN

Long but excellent.

Good to see all the old actors together for what will surely be their last film as a group.

padjocollins

hated it, was bored throughout. A miss for me prob either love it or hate it

Always Tired

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Just finished it. I’ll write a more thorough review once I’ve digested it a bit more but for now, I’ll say I liked it but I didn’t love it. I’m surprised that it’s received no middling reviews. It’s far from perfect. I do also get fed up of people criticising those who say a film is too long. It’s not always short attention span, sometimes films are just too long!



I totally agree about the spoilered bit. It completely deflated after that. I think Scorsese wanted to show how these guys end their days but it was just ponderous and uninteresting.

To me, the part about how the ends of these guys lives look was actually the most interesting. The rest we have seen in other films. I think it's probably the younger crowd who think they'll never grow old who find those bits tedious.

Always Tired

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Wonderful movie. Superb performances and writing. Anyone looking for the next Goodfellas should probably avoid - it's much more laid back and subtle than Goodfellas, but I absolutely loved it. Modern day classic!

I think if they made it as snappy as Goodfellas it wouldnt have worked. Would have been like 'Last Vegas.' As some have said the more physical scenes were a bit less convincing than normal with the older actors. The same people who say it was boring, annoyingly.

I think they would have been better off casting younger actors for the younger scenes, considering deniro and co. would still have had plenty of screen time due to the length of the film.

No Scorcese mob film could ever be too long for me. I loved it, hard to decide if this or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is my fav of the year but gonna have to give the edge to the Irishman. I mean first off, the title. Second, theyre fine actors and all but the likes of Pitt and DiCaprio will never be as legendary as Deniro, Pacino and Pesci.

Pesci was actually great in this, glad he wasnt another Timmy Devito type, the scene where he just can't get Peggy to like him no matter what he does to butter her up made me lol.

Barney224

I enjoyed this movie. I though Pesci and Pacino were great. ALso great to see Stephen Graham make an appearance. It was typical Scorcese with some really lovely shots (excuse the pun) and scenes.

My only main criticism of the movie was De Niro. I really think he's one of the most overrated actors in Hollywood and has no range. Anytime I watch him in a movie, he's the same character with no personality....just lots of his facial expressions. I think anyone else in this main role would have made this move so much better.

El Duda

To say that De Niro has no range suggests you have barely seen anything he did pre 1995.

He did Goodfellas and Awakenings in the same year FFS. Those roles couldn't be more different.

McLoughlin

Regarding Pesci there was one scene towards the end with him with a cinema in the background and the film showing was The Shootist (John Wayne final film) I wonder was that deliberate ie this is Pesci final film or perhaps it was just a random sign with no meaning.

Sharp MZ700

Sat down intending to watch it over 2 nights, didn't get up til it was over. A good story well told, thought Pesci was excellent. Only gripe was Hoffa's rants to the unions, very "Devils Advocate", when he gets on one of those runs I think Pacino overdoes it sometimes.
Three legends saying adieu, sad to see.

pixelburp

Hard not to shake the feeling this was a Victory Lap and Last Hurrah rolled into one; that barring a sudden and miraculous update in actual anti-ageing techniques, this is the the last chance we'll see Scorsese, Pesci, DeNiro and Pacino together on screen. The final moments left a lump in the throat for that reason. The smattering of freeze frames on various side characters, noting their time & cause of death, gave the entire movie the feeling of one long wake. Of course, technically there was de-ageing present, albeit of the digital variety, and will no doubt drive a lot of subsequent conversations about this film in future. Plenty will be said on that, so all I'll say is that the faces worked, but the postures & movements betrayed the trick every time.

As to the film itself? Sure it was baggy and overlong, but I've watched films half the length of this which dragged twice as much. And while the movie never quite presented the punchy, aggressive momentum of older Scorsese pictures, The Irishman had a continuously thoughtful, reflective sense about itself, looking back on violent years - to the extent where I wondered was the feature also a chance for Scorsese to perhaps reflect on his own career, one whose bedrock came from Italian-American bloodshed. There was less of the Grand Guignol that would punctuate important moments, going for a more naturalistic and understated approach to the violence; one that to me left a stronger taste in the mouth once the film ended. The entire last act was most surprising, watching the last survivors fade and deteriorate into cripples and empty shells. That wasn't the Scorsese we're used to, that had to have come from a different place. With its principle cast made of septuagenarians, I wonder how close to the bone the director hewed. Maybe I'm reading way too much into it.

Going back to that idea of the understated approach to the violence, I was thinking specifically of

Hoffa's

death compared against DeVito's own in Goodfellas: that older film played that important moment full of almost melodramatic staging and ceremony, full of swooping cameras & big emotion. With The Irishman, the composition was flat & relatively static; the murder itself played in an almost offhand fashion, partially obscured by a door-frame, while a strangled "uff" escaped the victim. It just felt oddly more chilling than the ostensibly "grander" assassination of the other film.

shamrock55

I thought Joe pesci was brilliant particularly in the last few scenes, for acting quality I'd have it as Joe, Al, Bob in that order for this film

awec

To start with, I'd say I did enjoy watching it, and I wasn't bored. It was entertaining. But, I personally do not see where all the hype came from.

I don't think the story was told particularly coherently. It required a bit of brain usage to try and decipher what exactly was going on, who was loyal to who etc. I think the underlying problem was the pacing, it was too slow. Too much irrelevance.

On the de-aging, I thought it was ok. De Niro looked like a retired boxer in some scenes with his eyes looking ridiculously swollen as they tried to smooth out the wrinkes. While the CGI did make them look somewhat younger, they never looked young . Pacino looked like an old man throughout.

This led to other problems for me in the story, because it wasn't linear, and because it wasn't really obvious what age the characters were in the current scenes, it took a while to realise we'd transitioned from present day, to past, to present day etc.

Definitely agree with some of the sloppiness in filming. Scenes filmed from multiple angles where the characters are not even in the same position between cuts, all pretty jarring.

People laughing at the De Niro grocery scene are spot on.

The other one I had a laugh at was when De Niro did the hit on Crazy Joe. It was like a dodgy western movie, he goes in, then spins with pistols in both hands while running, while simultaneously moving like an old man. It was just weird.

Joe Pesci was excellent. I loved the juxtaposition of him being so nice and friendly, courteous and polite, but also utterly ruthless, dangerous and respected. He's always so calm throughout.

So again, personally enjoyed it overall and would recommend people watch it, but really glad I didn't go to the cinema to watch it. 3 1/2 hours without pauses would have been too much. It could, and should have been shorter.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Always Tired wrote: »

To me, the part about how the ends of these guys lives look was actually the most interesting. The rest we have seen in other films. I think it's probably the younger crowd who think they'll never grow old who find those bits tedious.

You’re talking to a terminally ill young(ish) one here. I can assure you I am very aware of my mortality. :pac: Some might find the “if they don’t end up riddled with bullets, they decline and die like everyone else” idea illuminating, but I didn’t. Surely anyone who has watched an elderly relative go downhill knows the score. I think the problem for me was that the character didn’t earn the poignancy imbued in the last half hour or so. I didn’t care enough about this bozo to be touched by it so the impact was neutered for me.

I was thinking watching this that if James Gandolfini was still alive, there was a place for him in this film. Tony Pro seemed the best fit.

Finally, there was a few parts where I felt Scorsese was aiming for a quotable, iconic scene like in his best films. For example,

the car fish bit.

It was funny, no doubt, but I just felt like he was straining for memorable there or something.

El Duda

Scorsese is IN The Sopranos though?!

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’re talking to a terminally ill young(ish) one here. I can assure you I am very aware of my mortality. :pac: Some might find the “if they don’t end up riddled with bullets, they decline and die like everyone else” idea illuminating, but I didn’t. Surely anyone who has watched an elderly relative go downhill knows the score. I think the problem for me was that the character didn’t earn the poignancy imbued in the last half hour or so. I didn’t care enough about this bozo to be touched by it so the impact was neutered for me.

I was thinking watching this that if James Gandolfini was still alive, there was a place for him in this film. Tony Pro seemed the best fit.

Finally, there was a few parts where I felt Scorsese was aiming for a quotable, iconic scene like in his best films. For example,

the car fish bit.

It was funny, no doubt, but I just felt like he was straining for memorable there or something.

Very much doubt Gandolfini would have got near this set, Scorsese never cared for The Soprano's and I dont blame him.

tylercheribini

El Duda wrote: »

Scorsese is IN The Sopranos though?!

Really? Makes it even odder so, Ive seen him say in an interview he could only watch the first one or two as he couldn't relate to that era of gangster.

Ipso

tylercheribini wrote: »

Very much doubt Gandolfini would have got near this set, Scorsese never cared for The Soprano's and I dont blame him.

A bit harsh given Christopher's love for Kundun.

tylercheribini

Ipso wrote: »

A bit harsh given Christopher's love for Kundun.

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/martin-scorsese-i-couldnt-identify-with-the-sopranos-38558102.html

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

Very much doubt Gandolfini would have got near this set, Scorsese never cared for The Soprano's and I dont blame him.

A mark against Scorsese, if true. Could also be construed as dick-measuring.

El Duda wrote: »

Scorsese is IN The Sopranos though?!

That’s not him. It’s a lookalike.

mickey1979

I loved it, but I would not call myself a film buff. I loved hard to stay with for 3 & 1/2 hours but that’s my waining concentration.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

A mark against Scorsese, if true. Could also be construed as dick-measuring.

In fairness without Scorsese there is no Sopranos, they even used the same actors ffs! Beyond intertexuality!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

In fairness without Scorsese there is no Sopranos, they even used the same actors ffs! Beyond intertexuality!

I’m not sure what that has to do with Scorsese liking or disliking the Sopranos? I doubt David Chase would deny that Goodfellas was an influence. Everyone is influenced by things that came before, including Scorsese.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m not sure what that has to do with Scorsese liking or disliking the Sopranos? I doubt David Chase would deny that Goodfellas was an influence. Everyone is influenced by things that came before, including Scorsese.

Why exactly is it a mark against him name to not like something?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

Why exactly is it a mark against him name to not like something?

I didn’t think I had to tack ‘in my opinion’ on to posts for people to know that it’s my... opinion but here we are. In my opinion, The Sopranos is a great show (different mediums but I put it on a par with Goodfellas) and Scorsese judging it based off watching only one episode as he claims makes me think less of him. He can not like the show. I can judge him for that.