|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 28, 2019 8:39:02 GMT
Just booked my ticket to re-watch this in a theater tomorrow! I know it's on Netflix but I don't want to miss the chance to see it again on the big screen. Where this film belongs.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 28, 2019 11:43:29 GMT
De Niro is great in the phone call scene and toward the end, but it's his, "I talk to this guy, I talk to him, I talk to him, I talk to him, he don't listen, but he's gotta listen now. I gotta make him listen," that moved me the most. And how about that long talk with Hoffa himself during the Appreciation Night? "It's what it is..." - when he sees that Hoffa is not going to back down, it really is heartbreaking, the look on his face, the attempts to persuade him, to insist with no avail. De Niro is goddamn fantastic in the film.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 28, 2019 14:27:33 GMT
This is perhaps Scorsese's worst film (I'd say since Who's that Knocking on My Door?). The script just stalls out completely. 2.5 hours in I was in disbelief.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 28, 2019 16:36:20 GMT
Some little goofy things I loved about the film - although the first one below I'm not sure of exactly where that first pops up but think it's right (some confirmation would be appreciated) * The way Russell is nicknamed McGee - we the audience are never once overtly told this iirc - and it ties into "things not meaning what people think they mean" - this script is amazing in this subtle way you notice it in the dialog in "last car ride" before Hoffa gets in when he asks Frank why he was late I think the first mention is at Appreciation night, right after he gets the ring too... then taking Hoffa aside, towards the end of that exchange Sheeran says "What am I gonna tell McGee?"
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 28, 2019 16:37:45 GMT
I've always been afraid of death. That's not something I talk about a lot, or ever really, but it's true. And the weird thing is, I'm not particularly sure why. I haven't even known too many people who have died. Certainly no more than normal for someone my age. But for nearly as long as I can remember, I have always been hyper-aware of my own mortality. I vividly remember when I was little that the thought that I would die someday literally kept me up at night. In more recent years, I haven't been obsessed with the prospect of my death so much as I've been tormented by the passing of time. For the sake of context, I do need to clarify that I am only nineteen years old. I am well aware that I am still relatively young. As they say, I "have my whole life ahead of me." But, in some ways, that's the scariest thing to me. I do have all this time left -- but what if I waste it all? It's not like I'm gaining any more of it. Time just slips away to me. Time, to me, feels like an acceleration -- the older I get it, the faster it moves. Constantly, on a daily basis, I am tormented by the feeling that I cannot keep up with that. That I'm not doing enough with my life. That I'm letting it all pass by. And that the end will come long before I'm ready for it, before I've done anything worthwhile with it. Perhaps I've always been drawn to various forms of art, because it provides comfort from that existential dread. But art -- really good, great art -- also makes us more aware of the truths that we most want to deny, to avoid, to live in ignorance of. The Irishman is a film about our mortality. Where death comes suddenly, indifferently, and for all of us. Where buying your own casket is just like shopping for a new car. If you don't believe that an 83-year-long life can pass by an instant, what Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker brilliantly do is present a three-and-a-half-hour epic that flies by in what, at the time, feels like hardly half that time. And this isn't just because every moment of the film is packed with information and entertainment and world-class performing of the highest caliber. This sensation is woven into the very DNA of the film itself. When five, ten, twenty years pass over the course of Frank Sheeran's house-painting career, we hardly notice. The '50s become the '60s become the '70s. TV news coverage shows the Kennedy assassination in one scene and Watergate hearings in the next. Sheeran's young daughter is abruptly replaced with a fully-grown Anna Paquin. It's an utterly ruthless disregard for the conventional cinematic language to convey the passing of long periods of time. The Irishman is undoubtedly an epic -- it's broad, expansive, and packed to the brim with history and definitive events. And yet, it feels like it all just flashes before the eyes. Much like Sheeran's life itself. A hell of a lot happens, but nothing is ever dwelt on for longer than it occurs. It's there, and then it's gone. The Irishman is also largely a film about duality. A contrast between the very public, political life of Jimmy Hoffa as the nation's leading union organizer, and the private, shady, conniving machinations of organized crime that secretly operated to influence the powers at be. Rodrigo Preito develops a striking contrast between the soft whites and yellows of courtrooms and administration buildings with the harsh reds and pinks of the restaurants and clubs that make up the home territory of the mafia -- all of which further contrasts with the inviting blues and greens of family and home that get hardly any screen-time, and the overly sanitized and sterilized monochromatic look of Sheeran's life of old-age. Sheeran himself acts as a mediator between these worlds, in a sense playing both sides, at one point literally compromising the difference between ten and fifteen minutes to an arbitrary twelve and a half. He's passive, nearly absent of any asserted qualities of his own, in strict contrast to the profoundly stubborn nature of those around him. Instead, he's nimble, always navigating and maneuvering. Sheeran becomes a man so full of history precisely because this passivity allows him to experience so much, to pass between different worlds that most people stay within. At times, Sheeran is companion to Russell Bufalino, the Philadelphia mob boss who takes Sheeran under his wing and first truly introduces him to the American criminal underbelly. The two develop a deep friendship -- one that magically invokes the nostalgia of an entire history between Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci as actors. Pesci, as Bufalino, is the one always in control, though, so subtly icy and cold that even to those closest to him he is utterly terrifying, an always threatening presence that one not dare to cross. Sheeran develops another profound friendship, one that's just as intimate if not more so -- with Al Pacino's Jimmy Hoffa. When these legendary actors are on-screen together here, under Scorsese's eye, it's a far cry from the tension undercut by mutual respect we see in Michael Mann's Heat, which succeeds in using these two men precisely because of how sparingly it shows them together. Instead, Scorsese capitalizes upon the chemistry between these two men to often heartwarming effects. This isn't them intellectually squaring-off over coffee; it's the two of them sitting around in hotel rooms in their silk pajamas as they shoot shit and make fun of Italians. Pacino is a behemoth as Hoffa, watchably loud and delectably hilarious -- and yet the most striking moments might be those intimate ones between just he and De Niro, sharing a laugh. But by the end, Sheeran's friendships are gone. The family he neglected for so long has totally slipped away. He is left utterly alone. De Niro, in his most profoundly internalized top form, conveys so much sorrow with his eyes alone that we don't need some grand outburst of emotion to understand, to see, to feel the guilt and the regret. He is left in the most terrifying solitude imaginable. The film's final shot is a stroke of pure genius. When the credits started rolling, I slowly began to weep. Much like a lifetime, this saga passes you by, and it's over just like that. It's key to note the presentation of violence in this film in contrast to much of Scorsese's past work. Contrary to what some criticism has expressed, Scorsese has never been one to glamorize violence; but he has, famously, often invigorated it with energy, giving it an almost showman like quality. But in The Irishman, there's no beating Billy Batts to death to the tune of "Atlantis" -- the killings are quick, sudden, and viscerally cruel and bloody and totally indifferent in a way these moments in Scorsese's films normally aren't. The restraint in showing the violence is just as remarkable -- something that an early montage of discarding guns into the river showcases beautifully. Because, why remember all those specific things after so much time? What's the significance of every life you took? What's the significance of your own? I don't know. Right now, I just want an ice cream sundae. One of the best reviews I've read anywhere. Made me appreciate the movie more .
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Nov 28, 2019 17:01:06 GMT
Rewatch puts this for me no lower than a 9/10. I don't agree with some of my initial review - for one, the Pesci perf is not just good, he's brilliant here. Look at the Angelo Bruno scene and how much Pesci adds without saying a single word in the whole scene. And his last scene ("Is that the good grape juice?") still has a magic to it where you don't know if you're about to laugh or cry. Also at the end of that scene he speaks a little Italian to De Niro, and for anyone interested, he says, "Eat the bread. My son, eat.” Few other things I didn't realize on first watch - How the second shot of the movie is the Hoffa shooting - it's quick and cuts right to the wedding invitation Hoffa tells Pro in prison "It is what it is" - that quote comes back later of course How Sheeran/Buff are staying at a Howard Johnson's with a sign that says "28 Flavors" when the decision is made to off Hoffa Has a movie ever used food better? The obvious: Ice cream, steaks - from the early De Niro scenes getting into favor with Skinny, and later Pacino wrath-chomping at Appreciation night...... to the less obvious: Peggy denying Russ's offer of candy, Hoffa handing out omelettes to everyone while jury tampering, and that hot dog sizzled in beer ("Spill a little beer along the way" like Hoffa says earlier - ironic bc he's a teetotal) ...... wow, almost forgot the bread and wine, too.... and on a personal note: In the Still of the Night was my grandparents wedding song so it holds a lot of meaning in my family already and makes the movie strike that much deeper for me.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Nov 28, 2019 18:05:47 GMT
I stand by my criticism of the Peggy subplot. Seriously, how many times do they cut to Peggy staring disapprovingly at her dad throughout the years? That was the whole character! It got to be comical and undercut what should've been a more clearly defined human being. It has nothing to do with exposition. But again I look forward to a rewatch and I might feel differently on a second viewing. The entire movie is set inside De Niro's memories. He never noticed his daughter, he never noticed his family, all he remembers are her disapproving glances without understanding that the moment he abused that grocer is when he lost her forever. She's a silent, brooding character because she's afraid of her father, afraid of what he might do if she speaks up, she understands what he is and she wants no part of it. Paquin plays the character beautifully, her silence towards him never feels less than remarkably expressive of a guilt that he is incapable of feeling. It's a tremendous performance by her and she's given the most important line of dialog in the entire film. Also I feel like if you're referring to that as a "subplot" then you likely should check it out again. It's the first or second most significant emotional core of the film and it's woven in throughout in minute, subtle strategical moves. It's beautifully handled imo. I'll defend myself with the caveat that I'm about to contradict myself in the following paragraph: Subplot is obviously the wrong word. As noted in my previous review (where I gave the film a 9 btw), it's the importance of this relationship that makes her character feel weirdly undernourished. Yes, the film exists within Frank's head and the fact that she's so empty is a testament to the fact that he never knew her or truly cared about her or his family and thus the movie intentionally neglects to focus on them (this is the same thing with the kids in The Wolf of Wall Street, a choice that I loved). This would be totally understandable, again, if not for the fact that the movie treats her as a moral compass and nothing more, but then uses this utterly imbalanced relationship as the basis for the emotional core of the film. She has a lot of screentime at both ages, and stares reproachfully at her dad. That's it. I'm not saying we needed a 20 minute monologue fleshing her out. I'm not asking that the film switch over to her perspective, that'd be ridiculous. I'm just saying maybe a scene or two between her and Hoffa to more clearly delineate their cute relationship (and if you say that wouldn't work because it's set in Frank's head, then explain the scene with Hoffa and Tony in jail), and make her one line of dialogue land with even more weight. Wouldn't we care more about the dissolution of Frank's relationship with Peggy if we knew the slightest thing about Peggy? Seriously, two or three more sentences would've sufficed, just so it wouldn't feel so distracting to see an Oscar winning actor floating around in the background with zero material. Now having said all of that, I must also say that I watched the film again last night (loved it even more), and this aspect also didn't bug me nearly as much, and I don't think it's the major flaw of the script that I had previously thought it was. The fact that this all comes from Frank's perspective is EXTREMELY important. For example, I hated it six years ago when Wolf was criticized for its lack of moral center. Jordan's the narrator, why would the movie EVER focus on his victims when he didn't?? The Peggy thing here just felt more awkward to me, and I think it's more in the execution. 1) There's a lot of staring. Too much. 2) If the role was cast by an unknown I don't think it would've bugged me as much.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 28, 2019 18:17:43 GMT
And how about that long talk with Hoffa himself during the Appreciation Night? "It's what it is..." - when he sees that Hoffa is not going to back down, it really is heartbreaking, the look on his face, the attempts to persuade him, to insist with no avail. De Niro is goddamn fantastic in the film. The thing with the scene I mentioned (and his subsequent conversation with Hoffa) is that I think that's when Sheeran fully realized how powerless he is and that he was just a lowly pawn. Deep down, he never really expected Hoffa to "listen" and was already coming to terms with the fact that he was going to have to stand idly by as Hoffa was killed.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 28, 2019 18:47:36 GMT
I also gotta add, for as much of a devastating existential spiral that this sent me down, I was watching basically the entire thing with a big dumb grin on my face. It was almost surreal getting to watch a new movie like this in 2019. I was overwhelmingly elated.
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Nov 28, 2019 19:39:29 GMT
Yeah, this was masterful. Took me a whole day to watch, but that was more a case of me having unexpected shit to do rather than any issues with pacing or length (though it is long, to be sure). Thing is, I can't think of a single scene that I could pick out and cut from the movie - everything feels in some way integral and adds layer upon layer to what is truly a gangster epic. Zaillian's script is rich in a novelistic fashion, while Scorsese's direction is both full of energy and effectively subdued. The three leads are of course exceptional, with all three of them probably landing in my top 10 performances of the year so far - flipping back and forth on Pacino or Pesci for MVP, but that's arbitrary. Everyone else in this sprawling ensemble gives their best as well.
Issues are minor but they would be that while I found the character of Peggy's lack of dialogue effectively subtle at times, and Paquin's little tics and facial expressions remarkable, I do think they should have expanded on her character just a little more since she was so important thematically. Also, the film was a little lacking visually, though that's more of a nitpick.
Ultimately, this is an exceptional piece of work from all involved that ranks amongst Scorsese's very best and one of the best of the year (second for me, behind Parasite as of now). Definitely due a re-watch, hopefully in one sitting, and I have a feeling I'll be dwelling on it a lot in the meantime. 9.5/10
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Nov 28, 2019 21:25:46 GMT
Even better on the second viewing. Mob life is brutally deconstructed. No glamour, no cocaine, no sex, barely any joy. There’s no excitement to be gained from the violence. It’s too petty and pathetic to root for it. Scorsese’s movies are often more energetic than this, but the subdued tone The Irishman goes for works perfectly.
Thelma Schoonmaker’s editing is incredible. She keeps the film going at a solid pace without ever forcing flashiness into the story to keep the audience’s attention. Robert De Niro and Al Pacino haven’t been this good in decades. If they retired from acting after this, it would be the perfect swan song. Joe Pesci is also wonderful and very against type from his usual criminal roles. The film is darkly humorous but never in a way that makes things feel inconsequential. The use of text when various characters are introduced is a hilarious running gag.
Also, clearly some people don’t agree but I thought Anna Paquin was great in this. Sometimes silence speaks volumes.
Those last 45 minutes wrecked me.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 28, 2019 22:09:07 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. I fully expect the usual suspects to be out for my blood as well, because this was a crushing, crushing disappointment. I didn't think it was possible, but Scorsese actually made a gangster film I don"t think I'll ever watch more than once. Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Casino....I've never met a Scorsese gangster film I didn't absolutely adore. Till now. Deathly dull for the first 90 minutes, and an extremely derivative screenplay. All the de-aged actors move and feel like old men, even when they are supposed to be young or middle aged. Pacino at least livens up the proceedings by being Pacino (he never once disappears into the actual real life Jimmy Hoffa), but it still feels like his schtick. Good, but far from the best of him. Pesci stood out by manifesting a sense of quiet menace virtually opposite to his work in previous Scorsese mob movied, and I wish Stephen Graham had a bigger role, because he was doing something of note. DeNiro gave a recessive, often boring performance that he would have absolutely crushed 20-25 years ago. He's so lacking in energy these days, that even his voice-over is sleepy. It's a big role, and he has some moments in the last hour of the film, but it's just not enough. Scorsese throws every trick he knows in the book to try and make this thing pop, in futility. The movie is constantly bumping 50's and 60's billboard chart hits. You get the tracking camera shots and all the angles you expect from Scorsese. But it's not enough. I agree that it felt rote from the great director. The star of this film for me is the production design. Phenomenal attention to detail, and you can see where all the money went into recreating these time periods. I'm genuinely shocked at how little I liked this film, because for me Scorsese is the master of this milieu. I take zero pleasure in disliking it, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Nov 28, 2019 22:12:36 GMT
So the was some kind of low key epic in the very best sense of those words. It really was a masterwork of structure and pacing. I never found myself clock watching once during the whole thing, which is hugely impressive for a 200 minute film. It was flat out great or brilliant in most individual regards, but I can't highlight enough how much I admire how well drawn the whole thing was.
This was a stunning character piece, which didn't glamorise its almost top to bottom ensemble of villains. Now, I enjoy a good gangster flick as much as most, but they typically have such a hard on for their protagonists, who are typically shit stains on the face of humanity, that it can be hard not to laugh at them. This film is grim and honest about how unpleasant these people were. I deserves some major kudos for that.
The interplay between the three leading men is fantastic. Sure a lot of it is there on the page, but I don't think this is an all-time great in terms of its script, which to be fair is very good indeed, but De Niro, Pesci and Pacino take some fine writing and using some of the finest acting of their careers, elevate this film in the realm of the greats.
The highest praise I can throw at it is that it constantly reminded me of The Godfather Part II, and few films come much better than that. I'm finding it hard to not give this film a 10, so why bother...I just do.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 28, 2019 22:19:37 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. I fully expect the usual suspects to be out for my blood as well, because this was a crushing, crushing disappointment. I didn't think it was possible, but Scorsese actually made a gangster film I don"t think I'll ever watch more than once. Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Casino....I've never met a Scorsese gangster film I didn't absolutely adore. Till now. Deathly dull for the first 90 minutes, and an extremely derivative screenplay. All the de-aged actors move and feel like old men, even when they are supposed to be young or middle aged. Pacino at least livens up the proceedings by being Pacino (he never once disappears into the actual real life Jimmy Hoffa), but it still feels like his schtick. Good, but far from the best of him. Pesci stood out by manifesting a sense of quiet menace virtually opposite to his work in previous Scorsese mob movied, and I wish Stephen Graham had a bigger role, because he was doing something of note. DeNiro gave a recessive, often boring performance that he would have absolutely crushed 20-25 years ago. He's so lacking in energy these days, that even his voice-over is sleepy. It's a big role, and he has some moments in the last hour of the film, but it's just not enough. Scorsese throws every trick he knows in the book to try and make this thing pop, in futility. The movie is constantly bumping 50's and 60's billboard chart hits. You get the tracking camera shots and all the angles you expect from Scorsese. But it's not enough. I agree that it felt rote from the great director. The star of this film for me is the production design. Phenomenal attention to detail, and you can see where all the money went into recreating these time periods. I'm genuinely shocked at how little I liked this film, because for me Scorsese is the master of this milieu. I take zero pleasure in disliking it, but it is what it is. What really frustrates me is how staid the whole thing is, both in flow and in aesthetic. It's easily one of Scorsese's most visually unappealing movies, and I don't really think that the costumes or production design stand out, which is a shame. Also, something I didn't mention on my first review: what the fuck was up with Domenick Lombardozzi's makeup? You're gonna go through all this effort to cast geriatric actors and de-age them, and then use really bad old-age makeup on an actor in his forties despite never showing him as a young man? What's the point of that?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 28, 2019 22:24:25 GMT
So the was some kind of low key epic in the very best sense of those words. It really was a masterwork of structure and pacing. I never found myself clock watching once during the whole thing, which is hugely impressive for a 200 minute film. It was flat out great or brilliant in most individual regards, but I can't highlight enough how much I admire how well drawn the whole thing was. I mentioned this in my review of the film but I only have seen it twice on the big screen - not yet on Netflix - there is a point in this film and I'm not exactly sure where it starts, where it goes from one GOAT classic scene to another - one after another - and you almost can't believe it - both times I experienced this in the theater, it's this slow and then fast gradation from a great movie to an overwhelmingly great one.......it's breathtaking in this stretch to the end and of course seamlessly put together - directed, edited, thematically.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 28, 2019 22:26:37 GMT
I fully expect the usual suspects to be out for my blood as well, because this was a crushing, crushing disappointment. I didn't think it was possible, but Scorsese actually made a gangster film I don"t think I'll ever watch more than once. Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Casino....I've never met a Scorsese gangster film I didn't absolutely adore. Till now. Deathly dull for the first 90 minutes, and an extremely derivative screenplay. All the de-aged actors move and feel like old men, even when they are supposed to be young or middle aged. Pacino at least livens up the proceedings by being Pacino (he never once disappears into the actual real life Jimmy Hoffa), but it still feels like his schtick. Good, but far from the best of him. Pesci stood out by manifesting a sense of quiet menace virtually opposite to his work in previous Scorsese mob movied, and I wish Stephen Graham had a bigger role, because he was doing something of note. DeNiro gave a recessive, often boring performance that he would have absolutely crushed 20-25 years ago. He's so lacking in energy these days, that even his voice-over is sleepy. It's a big role, and he has some moments in the last hour of the film, but it's just not enough. Scorsese throws every trick he knows in the book to try and make this thing pop, in futility. The movie is constantly bumping 50's and 60's billboard chart hits. You get the tracking camera shots and all the angles you expect from Scorsese. But it's not enough. I agree that it felt rote from the great director. The star of this film for me is the production design. Phenomenal attention to detail, and you can see where all the money went into recreating these time periods. I'm genuinely shocked at how little I liked this film, because for me Scorsese is the master of this milieu. I take zero pleasure in disliking it, but it is what it is. Also, something I didn't mention on my first review: what the fuck was up with Domenick Lombardozzi's makeup? You're gonna go through all this effort to cast geriatric actors and de-age them, and then use really bad old-age makeup on an actor in his forties despite never showing him as a young man? What's the point of that? That was awful and distracting, and I didn't get it either.I didn't even know Lombardozzi was supposed to be in the movie, but like 30 seconds into watching him, I was like "what the fuck is Herc from The Wire doing in this riduculous old man make-up"?
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Nov 28, 2019 22:34:16 GMT
On this Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for the 95% of people on here that have good taste.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 29, 2019 3:52:58 GMT
I think the film's impact is probably strongest when viewed in one sitting, but those who aren't able to do so (or prefer not to) might be interested in this:
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Nov 29, 2019 4:13:48 GMT
I'd say this is better than Denzel's entire filmography.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 29, 2019 4:15:54 GMT
The delusional propaganda artist is at it again.
The Irishman is rated: 8.6/10 on IMDb with 35,000 votes 4.37/5 by audiences on RT with 865 votes
It doesn't matter what your imaginary friends are telling you. "It is what it is."
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 29, 2019 4:19:03 GMT
I'd say this is better than Denzel's entire filmography. If you say so. I think the movie isn't very good, and it's getting an easy pass from the critical establishment because it's Scorsese, and fair enough. He's earned it. But this movie will not survive the halo effect. I think even a lot of critics who went with the flow will turn on it after the season is done. So, so many flaws. Like this ridiculous scene.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Nov 29, 2019 4:23:25 GMT
That scene you posted is literally the only flaw, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 4:27:09 GMT
I'd say this is better than Denzel's entire filmography. Like this ridiculous scene The scene isn't amazingly well done or anything but with this mindset Vertigo is deeply flawed because the cop falling off the roof at the beginning looks goofy. Or Twin Peaks: The Return is a mess because of the scene where the guy in the office gets assassinated. Etc. etc. etc. I really don't get people acting like this 30 second thing is a death knell to this 209 minute film.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 29, 2019 4:29:44 GMT
it's getting an easy pass from the critical establishment because it's Scorsese Getting an easy pass? It has critics creaming over it with arguably the best reviews of the year for an English-language movie. And you can't say it's "because it's Scorsese" because it has better reviews than any Scorsese movie in nearly 30 years. Fact: Critics are raving this movie. Fact: Audience scores are really good. To claim otherwise is delusional.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2019 4:32:46 GMT
Like this ridiculous scene The scene isn't amazingly well done or anything but with this mindset Vertigo is deeply flawed because the cop falling off the roof at the beginning looks goofy. Or Twin Peaks: The Return is a mess because of the scene where the guy in the office gets assassinated. Etc. etc. etc. I really don't get people acting like this 30 second thing is a death knell to this 209 minute film. It’s not ruinous to the entire film by itself, but De Niro moves like this the entire fucking movie, and it’s distracting when the whole conceit of the movie is that it takes place over half a century, and it's so blatant that you wonder why the hell Scorsese shot it the way he did when that was the end result. To your other examples, the Vertigo scene never distracted me for some reason and while the Twin Peaks assassination scene is hilarious in how fake that head was, it's also a series where the visuals have an off-kilter kitschy vibe to it, to a point it feels almost deliberate. But this particular scene, in a movie that cops to a somber realism, just sticks out like a sore thumb, and it's endemic of the larger issue which I outlined elsewhere.
|
|