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

Guy:Incognito

The film was grand, just some scenes ruined visually by the hackiness. 8 years ago Marvel showed they could convincingly put a face on another body in Captain America. Theres no excuse today for spending $160m and ruining scenes like they did . Did no one look at it before it was signed off and say "lads , we cant let this go out with a scene of a (supposed) 40 odd year old man whos clearly moving like an 80 year old one"

As said already, it wasnt even a particularly close shot.It didnt need to be De Niro doing it

Pretzill

I have to say I enjoyed this. I watched it in three parts though and I don't think I would have enjoyed so much in one go. It's a good (if violent) story with a strong factual element and I like the era's, the music, the way time progressed - tge de-aging didn't annoy me.

DeNiro and Pacino roles were strange as you would associate them more as the Italians and I think despite the de-aging that was the first hurdle for me. DeNiro's portrayal was good though, cold - matter of fact - Pesci was brilliant - Pacino was really the standout. Despite the process of making them appear younger - I'm kind of sad they aren't anymore - some greats of the movie world in their elder years.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Anyone think that Pacino played Hoffa in a similiar vein to his Richard Roma performance in Glengarry Glenross?

Snake Plisken

Said I'd stick on the first hour of this at 11 O'Clock last night ended up watching the whole lot. Fantastic film and great to see DeNiro & Pesci back together again. But I thought standout performance for me was Pacino who was fantastic as Hoffa. After the first few minutes I stopped noticing the de-aging effects. I didn't find the film to long it was nice that Scorsese could cut the movie as he wanted. I do hope that he will do another project with Netflix in the not to distant future. 9/10 for me.

Jurgen The German

Watched it last night. Thoroughly enjoyed it, Pesci was wonderful, the aging effects were initially a bit odd looking but i soon disregarded them completely. Pacino was Brill aswell I thought. Only complaint was that the last half hour felt completely tacked on and could have been cut altogether. Otherwise a really great movie.

Oafley Jones

For most of this all I could see in Frank was Star Trek:TNG's Data. Odd.

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF-lElIlZM0

rob316

Massively disappointing but maybe I expected too much.

It's DeNiro and Al's best work in a long time but that's not saying much. A last hurrah for a golden generation of Italian American actors and it's such a let down.

The script was really poor, no great dialogue the lead actors really did there best with it. DeNiro just didn't look comfortable in the role, I don't know what it was but as the main character he just didn't draw me in.
Pacino and Pesci were excellent though and really saved it with their performances.

A slow pace isn't a bad thing but when the dialogue is uninteresting you can't wait for it to be over. The last 40 mins were totally pointless and added nothing to the story. They could of just ended it there and then when everyone went to jail.

The effects on their faces didn't bother me too much but you just can't fake the movement of a 70 plus year old man. Trying to pass DeNiro as a 50 year old was laughable and was most profound in the shopkeeper scene, it looked ridiculous him trying to throw a kick with his hands curled up.

By far and away Scorsese worst piece in recent times.

A meh and unforgettable 6/10 for me.

Collins2020

I think that time will bring into focus just how great a film 'The Irishman' is. I'm a Scorcese fan though not blindly fanatical. But truly loved this film. Graceful, restrained, sad and wintry... a perfect conclusion to a Mob Trilogy.

I think De Niro gives a monumental performance. It's a pity you can't fully enjoy it for the first hour or so due to the CGI issues. However, as the character ages, De Niro is liberated from the pixels. His character too is confronted by ever more painful questions... The scene with Pesci (excellent as always) in which a silver salad bowl gleams with echoes of John the Baptist and all that follows.

Thank you Marty, Bobby, Al and Joey : )

dublinman1990

Criterion has confirmed that The Irishman will be released, along with 3 other Netflix titles, on Blu-ray.

The 3 other titles being released for Blu-ray are American Factory, Atlantics & Marriage Story.

Although no release date has been announced for them yet.

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=26314

tylercheribini

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Criterion has confirmed that The Irishman will be released, along with 3 other Netflix titles, on Blu-ray.

The 3 other titles being released for Blu-ray are American Factory, Atlantics & Marriage Story.

Although no release date has been announced for them yet.

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=26314

I shall be purchasing.

Spoilers:

Watched the first two hours this evening. So far, too ambitious in scope would be my general take. It's the type of movie where you could take any five-minute section of it and the "story" told could instead be a movie in and of itself.

But my main complaints are that it has a world-not-lived-in vibe, it relies too much on the general knowledge of the viewer, and Hoffa maintaining his position felt like it lacked substance.

Other similar movies have done a better job of showing how someone has maintained their position at or near the top. In Florida, he is in a meeting with a capo, and Hoffa, who needs his endorsement, makes a big issue out of his attire and being late. That's all fine if Hoffa's power had more depth to it so it made sense. I can believe Paulie in Goodfellas, or Frank in the Departed, or the Godfather in the Godfather, or Vondas in the Wire, or even Harry in In Bruges, talking like that, but not Hoffa when he was the one in need of votes. He could have just been killed there and no one would really care in the world the movie created.

Oranage2

Alright movie, the nostalgia of these greats giving good performances probably made it watchable. Swap the actors with younger guys and I probably wouldn't care about the movie, it's been done, nothing new.

pixelburp

Bumping this thread, as found this interesting. While deepfakes may yet prove a pox upon society and truth, for now a YouTube user managed (IMO) more convincing de-ageing than was seen in the final film. Obviously there was nothing that could be done with the septuagenarian gait and postures but the faces might been less rubbery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHSTWepkp_M

artvanderlay

pixelburp wrote: »

Bumping this thread, as found this interesting. While deepfakes may yet prove a pox upon society and truth, for now a YouTube user managed (IMO) more convincing de-ageing than was seen in the final film. Obviously there was nothing that could be done with the septuagenarian gait and postures but the faces might been less rubbery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHSTWepkp_M

It's crazy how good these deepfakes are, but they are definitely going to cause a world war at some stage :pac:

KilOit

I couldn't watch more than 30 mins of this film because of how bad it looked with De Niro aging, i would happily watch the entire film if deepfake was used in the entire movie. Amazing technology but a little scary on what it can be used for.

Echoes675

KilOit wrote: »

i would happily watch the entire film if deepfake was used in the entire movie.

Would Scorsese be likely to go back and redo this in the future? George Lucas certainly did and was slated for it.

murpho999

KilOit wrote: »

I couldn't watch more than 30 mins of this film because of how bad it looked with De Niro aging, i would happily watch the entire film if deepfake was used in the entire movie. Amazing technology but a little scary on what it can be used for.

Really don't get that.

The movie is about the story not all the visuals and the effects are in no way that bad that you cannot enjoy it.

Tony EH

murpho999 wrote: »

Really don't get that.

The movie is about the story not all the visuals and the effects are in no way that bad that you cannot enjoy it.

Exactly. I stopped giving a crap about how DeNiro looked after a while because I was interested in where the film was going. Now, if the actual story had been rubbish I might have been more drawn to the limitations of the effects, but as it was I was more interested in where the actual plot than nit picking visuals.

As to this Deepfake malarkey, we probably won't see it implemented into a movie for some time yet. Deepfakers can take bits an pieces from every movie that a given actor was previously in to make their little YouTube efforts. A studio cannot do that, because the money involved would be prohibitive and the rights negotiations with other studios would last years.

People on YouTube aren't subject to that...yet. But I can see a time coming when YouTube will start removing Deepfake vids due to copyright. At present I'd say that the fair use clause doesn't cover what Deepfake does which allows people to make short clips using Deepfake tech.

flasher0030

Tony EH wrote: »

Exactly. I stopped giving a crap about how DeNiro looked after a while because I was interested in where the film was going. Now, if the actual story had been rubbish I might have been more drawn to the limitations of the effects, but as it was I was more interested in where the actual plot than nit picking visuals.

As to this Deepfake malarkey, we probably won't see it implemented into a movie for some time yet. Deepfakers can take bits an pieces from every movie that a given actor was previously in to make their little YouTube efforts. A studio cannot do that, because the money involved would be prohibitive and the rights negotiations with other studios would last years.

People on YouTube aren't subject to that...yet. But I can see a time coming when YouTube will start removing Deepfake vids due to copyright. At present I'd say that the fair use clause doesn't cover what Deepfake does which allows people to make short clips using Deepfake tech.[/QUOTE

Same as. The only time I had a little chuckle was when DeNiro was kicking the shopkeeper, and he looked like he had arthritis. Better off getting a body double for that scene. But other than that I took no notice. Was just enjoying the script.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

Really don't get that.

The movie is about the story not all the visuals and the effects are in no way that bad that you cannot enjoy it.

I don't agree that it was just about the story. Half the reason this cost what it did, and went to Netflix, was because it was only they who were willing to pay the amount needed for the FX in this. Now, a dozen other versions of this kind of film simply cast younger actors for the previous eras. If you're lucky you can get good uncannily similar folk (see the TV series "Dark" where sometimes I wondered if the young and old actors of the same character were related).

Instead, the FX became part of the conversation precisely because it insisted itself upon the final film. Look what we can do, asked The Irishman. A seamless passage of time. Which it really wasn't at times. The CGI will only get worse as the years and technology ticks on, while no amount of face de-ageing was able to polish the obvious old man gaits of the cast (even the best in class so far for de-ageing, Captain Marvel, couldn't avoid that)

Cinema is a visual medium, and Scorsese a master of visual storytelling, so it tracks The Irishman was pulled up on its shoddy visual FX. The director should have just cast some younger versions of characters.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't agree that it was just about the story. Half the reason this cost what it did, and went to Netflix, was because it was only they who were willing to pay the amount needed for the FX in this. Now, a dozen other versions of this kind of film simply cast younger actors for the previous eras. If you're lucky you can get good uncannily similar folk (see the TV series "Dark" where sometimes I wondered if the young and old actors of the same character were related).

Instead, the FX became part of the conversation precisely because it insisted itself upon the final film. Look what we can do, asked The Irishman. A seamless passage of time. Which it really wasn't at times. The CGI will only get worse as the years and technology ticks on, while no amount of face de-ageing was able to polish the obvious old man gaits of the cast (even the best in class so far for de-ageing, Captain Marvel, couldn't avoid that)

Cinema is a visual medium, and Scorsese a master of visual storytelling, so it tracks The Irishman was pulled up on its shoddy visual FX. The director should have just cast some younger versions of characters.

Younger versions of the characters would not have been the same performances without De Niro, Pesci and Pacino who are all great actors and they gave great performances in my opinion.

The special effects were not that bad or dominant.
The only weak moment I found was their movement/gait as discussed by others and it's brief.

I really don't get the complaint as years ago, special effects were awful but still good films.

Are you saying the original King Kong as an example would be a bad film?

I think the audience is capable of filling in gaps and/or adapting to the scene in relation to the story so that they understand it's about a younger De Niro or Pacino and then just enjoy the story which is the most important part of the film.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

Younger versions of the characters would not have been the same performances without De Niro, Pesci and Pacino who are all great actors and they gave great performances in my opinion.

...

Are you saying the original King Kong as an example would be a bad film?

Big difference between FX trying to recreate the uncanny or nonn-human - something we know cannot exist in our world - and something literally attempting to turn back the clock. As the term goes, it's the Uncanny Valley effect and is well documented. It can be a hard blocker to accepting "reality" on screen.

I'm not arguing against people enjoying the film despite the FX, or being capable of ignoring them, simply that the nature and history of the film made the conversation more prominent than others, coupled with the limitations of the FX.

And whatever about the rest, DeNiros performance wasn't so unique and memorable a good, younger actor couldn't have managed. Not like Scorsese isn't an actor's director.

buried

The story here in this film is what makes it so enjoyable. Its the perfect blend and flow of interesting historical and criminal elements that make the thing literally feel like a classic 1 hour 30 minute motion picture, as opposed to a 3 hour slogfest.

pixelburp

buried wrote: »

The story here in this film is what makes it so enjoyable. Its the perfect blend and flow of interesting historical and criminal elements that make the thing literally feel like a classic 1 hour 30 minute motion picture, as opposed to a 3 hour slogfest.

Going through a mini Scorcese marathon ATM (basically whatever is available on Netflix and Prime), and what strikes is that Irishman IMO lacked a protagonist like his previous, standout works. The story was fascinating sure, but DeNiro felt a very passive, disconnected figure compared with any of his other Scorcese leads such as Taxi Driver or King of Comedy. While you look at Wolf of Wall Street with DeCaprio cutting an almost psychotically manic figure. The Irishman only came alive for me once Hoffa turned up and arguably he might have made a better focus ( I know the film was based on a book written by DeNiros character). He had agency, stakes and a magnetism Sullivan lacked.

buried

pixelburp wrote: »

Going through a mini Scorcese marathon ATM (basically whatever is available on Netflix and Prime), and what strikes is that Irishman IMO lacked a protagonist like his previous, standout works. The story was fascinating sure, but DeNiro felt a very passive, disconnected figure compared with any of his other Scorcese leads such as Taxi Driver or King of Comedy. While you look at Wolf of Wall Street with DeCaprio cutting an almost psychotically manic figure. The Irishman only came alive for me once Hoffa turned up and arguably he might have made a better focus ( I know the film was based on a book written by DeNiros character). He had agency, stakes and a magnetism Sullivan lacked.

Yeah I get what you are saying for sure. I think though that in this piece of work the actual entity of 'The United States of America' is the actual protagonist as opposed to any of the main characters. How the USA was managed and ultimately run by figures deep in the shadows. The real sources of power that were in control at that time, and the film doesn't heavily scream at the audience these power systems that were in place, it just brilliantly and subtly showcases them with all that quickfire entertaining editing that Scorcese does so well.

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

Big difference between FX trying to recreate the uncanny or nonn-human - something we know cannot exist in our world - and something literally attempting to turn back the clock. As the term goes, it's the Uncanny Valley effect and is well documented. It can be a hard blocker to accepting "reality" on screen.

I'm not arguing against people enjoying the film despite the FX, or being capable of ignoring them, simply that the nature and history of the film made the conversation more prominent than others, coupled with the limitations of the FX.

And whatever about the rest, DeNiros performance wasn't so unique and memorable a good, younger actor couldn't have managed. Not like Scorsese isn't an actor's director.

I get what you're saying but I don't think the effects marred the film at all and worked very well except for one scene with De Niro moving.
I think the problem is that people know how these guys really look in reality and find their younger versions jarring rather than there being anything wrong with the tech.

I disagree strongly about the performances and De Niro's role. I thought he was different and we saw a very different side to him in his telephone scene.

De Niro's career is ending, and these type of roles he excels and I thought it was great to see perform in this whilst he can compared to some of the other poor roles choices has made in the last 10- to 20 years.

I really enjoyed and as I did Pacino's and Pesci's performance and I don't think the we'll ever get to see it again.
So I'm glad it was done and there's plenty of time for other young actors you want to do other roles.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Cinema is a visual medium, and Scorsese a master of visual storytelling, so it tracks The Irishman was pulled up on its shoddy visual FX. The director should have just cast some younger versions of characters.

The problem is I'd say that they had reached a point of no return with the CGI route that scrapping it would have just cost too much. It's clear to people, watching the movie when everything was done, that in some places the CGI wasn't working no matter how long the designers would have had to tinker with it. But it might not have been that clear in the middle of production.

And considering the budget creep that was already in place, opting to just do it actors wouldn't have been on the cards.

I think Scorsese just fell into the trap that a lot of directors fall into in that someone somewhere blew a lot of smoke up his ass about the possibilities of CGI.

johnny_ultimate

The film does have the advantage of the CG being front-loaded. The worst offending moments are near the start, and not only is your mind likely to adjust to it over time... they cast are all back to their less (or more subtly) CG manipulated selves for the back half of proceedings anyway.