wonky
Full Member
Posts: 595
Likes: 712
|
Post by wonky on Nov 24, 2019 7:52:41 GMT
The awards ceremony was a particular offender in this respect because I felt they could've cut that thing down a substantial amount. Could have watched it for hours.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 24, 2019 9:05:24 GMT
Oh. Oh, gang.I'm still working out my thoughts and feelings on the movie in more detail, but here's the gist: I didn't care for it. I think there was a brilliant movie at its core, largely when it comes to the character of Jimmy Hoffa, but I found Frank Sheeran to be an absolute time-sink of a character. I didn't give a tin shit about him, and De Niro did nothing to make me care about him because the character is utterly facile. And this is him actually trying for once! I give him credit for at the very least trying to stir some life into Frank, but Zaillian's bloated, waterlogged corpse of a script is his albatross, and the CGI/blue eyes really do him no favors; he fails to be expressive at crucial moments, and it doesn't help that he moves like a seventy-year-old. The scene where he kicks that shopkeeper was like watching a retiree attempt to score a soccer goal.I will say this about the shopkeeper scene - it is no different to me than in The Godfather where Sonny "clearly" misses that punch with Carlo or in "Heat" where you can see Pacino's stunt double jump on Henry Rollins - I agree it looks like a gaffe but to me not that big deal overall nor is Frank's physicality an issue elsewhere to me. Now, I have sometimes criticized films for not making me care about their lead characters - hey has anyone heard of my Cliff Booth/Pike Bishop comparison in OUATIH (ducks, runs for cover ) - but here I think the way Frank is drawn is the entire point he turned his life over to the army, and then turned his life over to Russell and in the process......lost his life entirely........America turned its life over to these men too - events Frank witnesses or orchestrates both small (the meat trucks) and grand (Kennedy assassination etc.) and cumulatively lost its life in a way In that regard the film is like Godfather II in placing a hollowed out signifier like Frank at the center of the narrative - a lot of people dislike Godfather II (especially at first, I'm serious) for the same reason - but to me The Irishman doesn't court your interest in Frank as much as it asks you to put the scenes into their horrific and historical context - personally for Frank and in the context of US history too. The difference is Godfather II played on your feelings for Michael from the first film..........The Irishman plays on the feelings you think you should have because of the genre and actors history. I really think it's a daring narrative by Zaillian.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Nov 24, 2019 12:55:18 GMT
Anyway, I expect the pitchforks to be sharpened and 99.9% of this board baying for my blood when I wake up in the morning, so I'll enjoy this last peaceful night before my excoriation tomorrow. Cheers. Listen Stephen, always respect your opinion, but given you designated yourself the negative Nelly (No disrespect but it's true), towards this film for the last how many years, I would've been truly surprised if you liked it in the end.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Nov 24, 2019 13:26:47 GMT
Oh. Oh, gang.I'm still working out my thoughts and feelings on the movie in more detail, but here's the gist: I didn't care for it. I think there was a brilliant movie at its core, largely when it comes to the character of Jimmy Hoffa, but I found Frank Sheeran to be an absolute time-sink of a character. I didn't give a tin shit about him, and De Niro did nothing to make me care about him because the character is utterly facile. And this is him actually trying for once! I give him credit for at the very least trying to stir some life into Frank, but Zaillian's bloated, waterlogged corpse of a script is his albatross, and the CGI/blue eyes really do him no favors; he fails to be expressive at crucial moments, and it doesn't help that he moves like a seventy-year-old. The scene where he kicks that shopkeeper was like watching a retiree attempt to score a soccer goal. I’m also really surprised people are saying that this movie’s runtime flew by. Thelma’s usually unparalleled when it comes to her movies running at a decent clip, but Christ, this one dragged ass. So many scenes, but so many of them were superfluous and redundant. Did we really need three different shots of Frank driving past Hoffa to the house, then back to pick Hoffa up, then back to the house? The awards ceremony was a particular offender in this respect because I felt they could've cut that thing down a substantial amount. There's a good 45 minutes you could cut away easily, and probably more. The Peggy stuff should've been more emotionally resonant, if Scorsese and Zaillian had actually taken the time and care to build her up as a character. Where the film works (and indeed, works like gangbusters) is with Hoffa. Pacino is electrifying in a way he hasn't been in a feature film since the '70s, and he really does make the movie worth sticking out. And Pesci's truly sublime as the wizened old don, but his makeup/de-aging was also pretty distracting, shaving away a fair amount of his bountiful gravitas. But his quiet menace was truly something to behold, and indeed his individual scenes later in the movie are the acting watershed moments, even if there were times I was muttering under my breath, “Jesus Christ, he got old.” This happened a lot. I gotta say, I'm trying to be kind to this movie but for the most part, it felt like I was watching a serious gangster version of Uncle Drew. Scorsese rounded up his pals for one last ride into the sunset, but they're all arthritic and incontinent and only Pacino really comes away from the whole thing smelling like a rose from top to toe. People will say that I had my mind made up about the movie from the jump, because I’ve always been a Doubting Thomas on the de-aging gimmick. But I wanted to be wrong, guys. I did. But it turned out to be the least of this movie’s worries. I honestly feel like the closest movie in Scorsese's canon to this isn't Goodfellas, but rather The Aviator: a movie where I feel Marty had zero passion and it showed. There were very few moments of inspiration in Scorsese's work here, although I will say, I loved the superimposed "this is what happened to this mook" titles scattered throughout. Anyway, I expect the pitchforks to be sharpened and 99.9% of this board baying for my blood when I wake up in the morning, so I'll enjoy this last peaceful night before my excoriation tomorrow. Cheers.You think Joker is a better movie than Taxi Driver, so we've accepted you as a lost cause. ❤️
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 13:56:17 GMT
Anyway, I expect the pitchforks to be sharpened and 99.9% of this board baying for my blood when I wake up in the morning, so I'll enjoy this last peaceful night before my excoriation tomorrow. Cheers. Listen Stephen, always respect your opinion, but given you designated yourself the negative Nelly (No disrespect but it's true), towards this film for the last how many years, I would've been truly surprised if you liked it in the end. Perhaps, but I could also make the argument that with all the hype that has been surrounding it for years, people have also blinded themselves to its flaws. Works both ways, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Nov 24, 2019 14:51:21 GMT
Loved the scene where De Niro kicks the shit out of the grocer. Scorsese's use of slo-mo was terrific!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 16:03:39 GMT
Oh. Oh, gang.I'm still working out my thoughts and feelings on the movie in more detail, but here's the gist: I didn't care for it. I think there was a brilliant movie at its core, largely when it comes to the character of Jimmy Hoffa, but I found Frank Sheeran to be an absolute time-sink of a character. I didn't give a tin shit about him, and De Niro did nothing to make me care about him because the character is utterly facile. And this is him actually trying for once! I give him credit for at the very least trying to stir some life into Frank, but Zaillian's bloated, waterlogged corpse of a script is his albatross, and the CGI/blue eyes really do him no favors; he fails to be expressive at crucial moments, and it doesn't help that he moves like a seventy-year-old. The scene where he kicks that shopkeeper was like watching a retiree attempt to score a soccer goal.I will say this about the shopkeeper scene - it is no different to me than in The Godfather where Sonny "clearly" misses that punch with Carlo or in "Heat" where you can see Pacino's stunt double jump on Henry Rollins - I agree it looks like a gaffe but to me not that big deal overall nor is Frank's physicality an issue elsewhere to me. Now, I have sometimes criticized films for not making me care about their lead characters - hey has anyone heard of my Cliff Booth/Pike Bishop comparison in OUATIH (ducks, runs for cover ) - but here I think the way Frank is drawn is the entire point he turned his life over to the army, and then turned his life over to Russell and in the process......lost his life entirely........America turned its life over to these men too - events Frank witnesses or orchestrates both small (the meat trucks) and grand (Kennedy assassination etc.) and cumulatively lost its life in a way In that regard the film is like Godfather II in placing a hollowed out signifier like Frank at the center of the narrative - a lot of people dislike Godfather II (especially at first, I'm serious) for the same reason - but to me The Irishman doesn't court your interest in Frank as much as it asks you to put the scenes into their horrific and historical context - personally for Frank and in the context of US history too. The difference is Godfather II played on your feelings for Michael from the first film..........The Irishman plays on the feelings you think you should have because of the genre and actors history. I really think it's a daring narrative by Zaillian. I mean, it is a gaffe. It just comes down to whether or not you can forgive it. For instance, the scene where Graham and Pacino are brawling on the floor of the prison -- that had to be a stunt-double for the 78-year-old Pacino, right? But I didn't really notice if it was or not because of how Scorsese framed it. But the way he filmed that grocer's beatdown just couldn't help but draw attention to the fact that you had an old man tickle-kicking this guy while trying to convince us it was brutal and violent. Compare it to how he framed the Billy Batts beating in Goodfellas, where I think the frenzied editing helped to mask it. Doing it as a one-take shot just revealed too much, and it came off as laughable. When it comes to Frank as a character, I think my biggest issue isn't that he's a cipher or that he's surrendered so much of his soul to The Life that he has very little of himself to offer us. We've seen characters like that before. But they usually have some sort of compelling "hook" for us, whether it be charisma both inside and outside (character vs. actor). But De Niro, hampered by distracting visual augmenting, didn't really provide us with either. Frank is a character who, I feel, was intended to be a blend between Henry Hill and Michael Corleone, but didn't come anywhere close to the complexity and nuance of either. I also don't think he does much "orchestration" at all. The meat-truck scam, sure, but he sort of stumble-fucks his way through "grand" history rather than being an active mover and shaker. Forrest Gump, he is not. (And it's telling that I really do think this is Scorsese doing Gump, relying on lazy tricks to emphasize the era changes, i.e. the movie theater marquees.)
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Nov 24, 2019 16:24:59 GMT
Oh. Oh, gang.I'm still working out my thoughts and feelings on the movie in more detail, but here's the gist: I didn't care for it. I think there was a brilliant movie at its core, largely when it comes to the character of Jimmy Hoffa, but I found Frank Sheeran to be an absolute time-sink of a character. I didn't give a tin shit about him, and De Niro did nothing to make me care about him because the character is utterly facile. And this is him actually trying for once! I give him credit for at the very least trying to stir some life into Frank, but Zaillian's bloated, waterlogged corpse of a script is his albatross, and the CGI/blue eyes really do him no favors; he fails to be expressive at crucial moments, and it doesn't help that he moves like a seventy-year-old. The scene where he kicks that shopkeeper was like watching a retiree attempt to score a soccer goal. I’m also really surprised people are saying that this movie’s runtime flew by. Thelma’s usually unparalleled when it comes to her movies running at a decent clip, but Christ, this one dragged ass. So many scenes, but so many of them were superfluous and redundant. Did we really need three different shots of Frank driving past Hoffa to the house, then back to pick Hoffa up, then back to the house? The awards ceremony was a particular offender in this respect because I felt they could've cut that thing down a substantial amount. There's a good 45 minutes you could cut away easily, and probably more. The Peggy stuff should've been more emotionally resonant, if Scorsese and Zaillian had actually taken the time and care to build her up as a character. Where the film works (and indeed, works like gangbusters) is with Hoffa. Pacino is electrifying in a way he hasn't been in a feature film since the '70s, and he really does make the movie worth sticking out. And Pesci's truly sublime as the wizened old don, but his makeup/de-aging was also pretty distracting, shaving away a fair amount of his bountiful gravitas. But his quiet menace was truly something to behold, and indeed his individual scenes later in the movie are the acting watershed moments, even if there were times I was muttering under my breath, “Jesus Christ, he got old.” This happened a lot. I gotta say, I'm trying to be kind to this movie but for the most part, it felt like I was watching a serious gangster version of Uncle Drew. Scorsese rounded up his pals for one last ride into the sunset, but they're all arthritic and incontinent and only Pacino really comes away from the whole thing smelling like a rose from top to toe. People will say that I had my mind made up about the movie from the jump, because I’ve always been a Doubting Thomas on the de-aging gimmick. But I wanted to be wrong, guys. I did. But it turned out to be the least of this movie’s worries. I honestly feel like the closest movie in Scorsese's canon to this isn't Goodfellas, but rather The Aviator: a movie where I feel Marty had zero passion and it showed. There were very few moments of inspiration in Scorsese's work here, although I will say, I loved the superimposed "this is what happened to this mook" titles scattered throughout. Anyway, I expect the pitchforks to be sharpened and 99.9% of this board baying for my blood when I wake up in the morning, so I'll enjoy this last peaceful night before my excoriation tomorrow. Cheers. Well, if it helps to hold of some pitchforks, I certainly back your opinion in nearly all aspects you mentioned: - I didn't care about Frank Sheehan - The film feels way too long (yeah, that driving past Hoffa scene and then the way back with that stupid fish dialogue was so unnecessary) - Hoffa is the most interesting thing about the film - Peggy's character should have worked out much more
Maybe the only point where I disagree: To me it definitely felt quite close to Goodfellas.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 16:31:53 GMT
I will add one positive note on the movie: I loved the little in-joke they had of Bufalino referring to "that fairy named Ferrie." David Ferrie was the character Joe Pesci played in JFK. He had alopecia which caused him to lose his eyebrows, which necessitated that bizarre appearance. Just loved that.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 24, 2019 16:39:27 GMT
Ok, we just see it differently - I don't think the marquees serve that purpose - they are a rather cruel joke on Frank - one of many - to me in terms of thematic resonance. I'd say the film very consciously isn't Gump because of the specific way that Frank is portrayed again - Zemeckis loved Gump and how Gump acted - not so Scorsese here - At several points Frank doesn't know how what he is doing even ties into bigger things - he's a pathetic man, he can't even make a confession actually because he was so marginalized - he's being mercilessly mocked by Scorsese throughout and brilliantly too imo, which ties into the script design - not since Taxi Driver has Scorsese been as indebted to his screenplay You see that best in a throwaway line from Hoffa to him "his ears aren't that big" what did that mean, it is gibberish cruelly and casually said back to him - the only time Frank tries is when his life has a purpose and direction as a union leader which is why Hoffa is the hero of this piece and why Peggy gravitates to Hoffa - he cares about something, however cynically, about something bigger than himself............Frank, does not and can not even fathom it. I can only imagine what this thread will look like by end of week though it's gonna be some good reading material then
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 24, 2019 17:54:43 GMT
Ok, we just see it differently - I don't think the marquees serve that purpose - they are a rather cruel joke on Frank - one of many - to me in terms of thematic resonance. I'd say the film very consciously isn't Gump because of the specific way that Frank is portrayed again - Zemeckis loved Gump and how Gump acted - not so Scorsese here - At several points Frank doesn't know how what he is doing even ties into bigger things - he's a pathetic man, he can't even make a confession actually because he was so marginalized - he's being mercilessly mocked by Scorsese throughout and brilliantly too imo, which ties into the script design - not since Taxi Driver has Scorsese been as indebted to his screenplay You see that best in a throwaway line from Hoffa to him "his ears aren't that big" what did that mean, it is gibberish cruelly and casually said back to him - the only time Frank tries is when his life has a purpose and direction as a union leader which is why Hoffa is the hero of this piece and why Peggy gravitates to Hoffa - he cares about something, however cynically, about something bigger than himself............Frank, does not and can not even fathom it. I can only imagine what this thread will look like by end of week though it's gonna be some good reading material then I still think that the only reason Hoffa was drawn to Peggy was because he needed an excuse to eat ice cream sundaes around adults. I don't think Scorsese had to "love" Frank the way Zemeckis "loved" Forrest, because I feel Scorsese often makes films about protagonists he doesn't fully embrace. But even his most flawed focal characters -- Jake LaMotta, Henry Hill, Jordan Belfort -- have some sort of complexity that makes them compelling and we empathize with them, even if we're repelled by their actions. But I felt none of that for Frank. He wasn't just a cipher; he was a blank.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Nov 24, 2019 20:12:04 GMT
For the good — Pacino killed it. Would totally support if he won for this. The film really came alive when he showed up. As for the film, you’re killing me, Schoonmaker! I really want to get my hands on it and trim it down because good Lord that was a slog. The CGI was really distracting and the makeup was half-assed — didn’t even attempt to age any of the women which was odd. There were some fun characters here and there (I loved that watermelon dude so much) but it lacked focus. Liked the use of the song Sleep Walk and was surprised at the predominantly instrumental music used. So yeah… Pacino’s great. So there’s that.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Nov 25, 2019 1:18:43 GMT
That married couple hive mind though
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Nov 25, 2019 12:19:36 GMT
I will be seeing this in a few days but really looking forward to seeing Pesci back on the screen again. How did you find his performance?
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Nov 25, 2019 12:27:11 GMT
I will be seeing this in a few days but really looking forward to seeing Pesci back on the screen again. How did you find his performance? I thought he was excellent. Wonderful reluctant peformance, but able to add authority to his character whenever needed. Second best behind Pacino with some distance to every other.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 25, 2019 12:50:20 GMT
He is going to win a large amount of critics awards I think and severely muck up the BSA Oscar honors because of it (though I don't think he could win) - his performance is perfectly calibrated in a "playing the role" kind of way - there's nothing in it that doesn't work and you can't misread it or be cynical about it the way you could be Pacino's turn (which is fantastic but very Pacino and not everyone likes Big Al).
I don't really like comparing The Irishman to Godfather II because I think that's too easy to do but in some ways it fits and it's sort of like the Lee Strasberg performance in Godfather II where it's exactly what's needed in a way........ (whereas Pacino drives the narrative like De Niro in Part II to me).
The acting is monumental in this film .....
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 25, 2019 13:37:18 GMT
All three of them were great. I rank Pesci and Pacino in this movie at the same level and that means a lot when it comes from... you know, me!!!!
He was silent and very low key but you could understand how dangerous his character was every time he was on screen. Hell, even when others were just mentioning his name.
If Pesci was campaigning and Netflix pushed him, it wouldn't surprise me if he won the Oscar.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Nov 25, 2019 14:23:12 GMT
Happy to see Joe Pesci receive such praise. Very promising. Always been a fan.
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Nov 26, 2019 6:08:17 GMT
Love to walk around all day crying about this movie, fuck you Scorsese. Going for my 3rd watch in a few days. One of the most dense films in his filmography. The most devastating movie of the year. 'It's Christmas?'
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Nov 26, 2019 17:18:33 GMT
Got my ticket for tonight
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 26, 2019 19:20:17 GMT
Got my ticket for tonight Congrats Pelle. For many people, we've been waiting since what since...........2010 (?) for this film and for many its Netflix debut tomorrow will be the first chance to see this instant classic.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Nov 27, 2019 2:17:13 GMT
My ass is in the seat to see this stone cold masterpiece again. See you bastards at 1 am.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Nov 27, 2019 14:14:57 GMT
This is such a dense film. A mixture of Scorsese's panache and personal. It unravels as it goes not revealing the big picture until the last act. So i took all of it in and enjoyed as it progressed but had doubts on whether it's gonna stick it's landing and wham! Scorsese killed it with the landing. The film is surprisingly lighter in tone but it's complemented with a poignant last hour where it reaches to greatness. It's three and half hour run time didn't really bother me but a little bit shorter run time couldn't have hurt.
De Niro reminded me of his 'Goodfellas' days but his performance in the last act deserve much praise. Pacino stole every scene he is in. Joe Pesci surprisingly gave an understated performance. On the flip side, i did thought that this would've been even perfect had it been made when these old timers were young or say some 20 years before. The de-aging is fine on the face but it's clearly evident in the way De Niro moves. It was hard to ignore. That said the last act couldn't have come at a better time when Scorsese is in his twilight stage delving into the inner psyche (also one of the reasons i loved 'Silence'). The first two hours needed the last hour more than it needed them but compliment each other well- 8.5/10
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Nov 27, 2019 14:43:36 GMT
Scorsese is 5/5 this decade in my book. Yes i even loved Hugo.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Nov 27, 2019 19:42:25 GMT
So... why wasn't this called I Heard You Paint Houses? Oh wait, it was! Super weird. Anyway, I loved it. On one viewing I'm not quite sure where I'd place it in Scorsese's filmography, but it is a serious accomplishment that deserves serious contemplation. Vintage Scorsese, even moreso than Wolf and Departed. If you threw Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and Casino into a blender this is the film you'd get. The cast is sublime. I can't even pick a favorite since everyone had their own moments to shine. Overall I think Pesci owns the first hour, Pacino dominates the middle, but ultimately it becomes De Niro's film by the end. That final hour reminded me why he used to be considered the best. That phone call scene was absolutely terrific work from him. Easily his best performance since the 90s. Stephen Graham also CRUSHES it in this film. He holds his own against these legends and then some. I definitely agree with the consensus that the whole movie is engrossing but it's the final hour when things really become brilliant. That entire scoreless stretch depicting Frank's journey to go whack Hoffa is RIVETING work, and probably the best usage of suspense-sans-score since No Country for Old Men I do have a couple nitpicks. First off, while eventually the CG de-aging became seamless to me, I was CONSTANTLY distracted by De Niro's contact lenses. What a horrible idea to implement those. Also, even though the shot composition is unsurprisingly genius, there were quite a few moments where I was turned off by the digital cinematography. I really wish he stuck with film. The movie looks way more like an episode of Boardwalk Empire than it does a fitting companion piece to Michael Ballhaus' brilliant work in Goodfellas (or even Richardson's ostentatious work in Casino). This really bugged me. I also have a problem with the really crisp, sleek way Rodrigo Prieto lights the frame. I think out of all his DPs Prieto is by far the worst. And finally, while I hate to be a part of some woke outcry over the lack of female representation in the film, I found it utterly absurd that Peggy was given such short shrift. I wouldn't have any issue with this whatsoever if not for the fact that the movie dwells upon his relationship (or lack thereof) with Peggy to such a crucial degree that it's downright LAUGHABLE the movie makes zero attempt to provide her with a single human character trait beyond staring at her dad with reproach. This was a major failure of the script, again not because it doesn't have enough lady-dialogue, but because the movie really seems to care about this father-daughter angle and then leaves it so undernourished. This is without a doubt my biggest issue with the movie, and I'm frankly shocked Zaillian and Scorsese left such a blind spot within an otherwise masterfully designed script. It doesn't ruin the film by any means but it keeps it from masterpiece status for me. Despite these misgivings, it cannot be overstated what an essential work this is in contextualizing Scorsese's entire career. I can't wait to watch it again. 9
|
|