|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 29, 2019 4:36:16 GMT
Lmao people need to stop trying to push this whole "this one awkward scene is indicative of integral problems to the entire film" thing. Yes this very distracting moment is a "flaw" with the film and you could also argue that it's another "flaw" with the film that it's super obvious when they use the Pacino stunt double in both of the fight scenes with Graham ... but also the sheer audacity of Scorsese and the actors even attempting to pull off this feat far outweighs the drawbacks. Just accept the imperfections, people.
And this guy's whole "I spent the rest of the movie thinking about how bad this scene is" is the biggest fucking bullshit I've ever seen. That can only possibly come from the toxic mindset of people who just watch movies to point out the flaws (or make up ones that aren't there) just to look cool on the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 29, 2019 4:37:34 GMT
That scene you posted is literally the only flaw, lol. The length and the pacing was problematic, and the entire de-aging thing couldn't disguise the actors physicality. When Pesci kept referring to DeNiro as "kid" in his uncanny valley disguise, it felt riduculous. I don't enjoy shitting on people's parade, and I think Marty is a genius, so there's no angle to this. I wanted and expected to be enthralled. But it worked on almost no level for me. As long as you enjoyed it, that's what matters I guess.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 29, 2019 4:40:40 GMT
Movies are subjective. If this one scene ruined it for you (or if it's endemic of the larger issue or whatever), that's fine. I hate Vertigo because I found the ending comical, and it ruined the entire thing for me (which I didn't even like very much in the first place). There is no point arguing over whether somebody is being honest in their critique or making shit up to score cool points.
What isn't subjective, though, and is basically a fact is that The Irishman has rave reviews from critics and very good scores from audiences. To deny that or argue otherwise is delusional. You can think a movie sucks and still acknowledge that the consensus has it as a great movie.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Nov 29, 2019 4:40:45 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. I'm truly baffled by the ecstatic response to this film, which I think might honestly be Scorsese's worst as a mature filmmaker. I mentioned this elsewhere, but it's like a much worse The Aviator crossed with an even wonkier and less focused Once Upon a Time In America. It has no idea what it's even trying to accomplish. This lipservice to themes about looking back and mortality and this and that etc. has no relation to my numbing experience of viewing the film moment to moment.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 29, 2019 4:41:50 GMT
I honestly kinda hate this and I think my biggest gripe with it is suggesting to end an "episode" right after the Hoffa assassination. An episode's ending is always going to be inherently imbued with significance and one of the key reasons the Hoffa killing scene works so well is in how abrupt it is, it's not lingered on and is treated with no greater significance than any other point in the film. Sure, I'm not gonna lie, I did spend parts of this film thinking about how it might operate as a miniseries ... and you could make an all-timer of an episode out of the stretch starting with the awards banquet and then getting into the whole Detroit sequence (this is just an all-time great stretch of cinema honestly) but you'd at least need to extend that to the wedding before cutting to black, soak in the aftermath a little more. Regardless, the film is a film and not meant to be viewed in deliberate segments like this so it's dumb to suggest that this is a "proper" way to watch it. If you have to pause I get it -- if you want to pause from the 2-hour mark onward I don't -- but translating it into an entirely different medium that it's not is a whole other thing that just feels wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 4:44:53 GMT
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. At the end of the day it really just depends how much it bothered the individual, I guess, I just know for me there are plenty of movies I love and would even consider masterpieces that have visual blunders like this, some that are even more obvious than the one we're talking about here. I don't even see how this scene is any more awkward than your average fight scene in a pre-60s movie (like the scuffle in Giant), which I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about. Could it have looked better? Sure. But is it this incendiary flaw? Nah, not for me at least.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2019 4:48:36 GMT
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. At the end of the day it really just depends how much it bothered the individual, I guess, I just know for me there are plenty of movies I love and would even consider masterpieces that have visual blunders like this, some that are even more obvious than the one we're talking about here. I don't even see how this scene is any more awkward than your average fight scene in a pre-60s movie (like the scuffle in Giant), which I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about. Could it have looked better? Sure. But is it this incendiary flaw? Nah, not for me at least. And that's perfectly fine. If it didn't distract you from the movie, that's good. There are very few films I would deem as "flawless," but that doesn't mean that a flawed film is a bad film; indeed, greatness can be borne out of the flaws. If people can overlook that scene or even appreciate it, then that's a good thing. What I do take umbrage with is the idea that this movie is somehow above criticism or reproach, or that its ambition or "audacity" can somehow outweigh any negatives to the point that any issues or flaws aren't worth discussion.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 29, 2019 4:57:37 GMT
I honestly kinda hate this and I think my biggest gripe with it is suggesting to end an "episode" right after the Hoffa assassination. An episode's ending is always going to be inherently imbued with significance and one of the key reasons the Hoffa killing scene works so well is in how abrupt it is, it's not lingered on and is treated with no greater significance than any other point in the film. Sure, I'm not gonna lie, I did spend parts of this film thinking about how it might operate as a miniseries ... and you could make an all-timer of an episode out of the stretch starting with the awards banquet and then getting into the whole Detroit sequence (this is just an all-time great stretch of cinema honestly) but you'd at least need to extend that to the wedding before cutting to black, soak in the aftermath a little more. Regardless, the film is a film and not meant to be viewed in deliberate segments like this so it's dumb to suggest that this is a "proper" way to watch it. If you have to pause I get it -- if you want to pause from the 2-hour mark onward I don't -- but translating it into an entirely different medium that it's not is a whole other thing that just feels wrong. I totally agree with what you say about the Hoffa assassination scene and I probably wouldn't watch the film this way personally, but I don't think this is meant to be a prescriptive method of watching it, just an option for people who don't have the time or endurance to watch a 3.5-hour movie in one sitting. To me, the film definitely hits a groove where I wouldn't want to pause
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Nov 29, 2019 4:58:18 GMT
Hot Take: I'd like to see the Harvey Scissorhands cut of this film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 4:59:31 GMT
At the end of the day it really just depends how much it bothered the individual, I guess, I just know for me there are plenty of movies I love and would even consider masterpieces that have visual blunders like this, some that are even more obvious than the one we're talking about here. I don't even see how this scene is any more awkward than your average fight scene in a pre-60s movie (like the scuffle in Giant), which I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about. Could it have looked better? Sure. But is it this incendiary flaw? Nah, not for me at least. What I do take umbrage with is the idea that this movie is somehow above criticism or reproach, or that its ambition or "audacity" can somehow outweigh any negatives to the point that any issues or flaws aren't worth discussion. I don't really disagree with what you're saying, but a lot of people are passionate enough about the film and feel it is an accomplished work to the extent that they do feel that way. As we both agree, a good deal of the all time great films have flaws that could potentially nag at some people, but it doesn't nag at us because of how much we ultimately love the film (or are so bowled over by its ambition that it's not enough to detract anything real from the experience, etc.), and I don't see how it's any different here for those who'd put The Irishman among their top tier favorites.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2019 5:01:13 GMT
I personally would never break up a film shorter than 4 hours. Of course people can watch stuff however they want, but The Irishman certainly feels like it was meant to be seen in one go.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 29, 2019 5:03:40 GMT
At the end of the day it really just depends how much it bothered the individual, I guess, I just know for me there are plenty of movies I love and would even consider masterpieces that have visual blunders like this, some that are even more obvious than the one we're talking about here. I don't even see how this scene is any more awkward than your average fight scene in a pre-60s movie (like the scuffle in Giant), which I don't think I've ever seen anyone complain about. Could it have looked better? Sure. But is it this incendiary flaw? Nah, not for me at least. And that's perfectly fine. If it didn't distract you from the movie, that's good. There are very few films I would deem as "flawless," but that doesn't mean that a flawed film is a bad film; indeed, greatness can be borne out of the flaws. If people can overlook that scene or even appreciate it, then that's a good thing. What I do take umbrage with is the idea that this movie is somehow above criticism or reproach, or that its ambition or "audacity" can somehow outweigh any negatives to the point that any issues or flaws aren't worth discussion. To clarify my stance, it’s not that I think these things aren’t worth discussing. I just think they’re not worth obsessing over in the face of the far broader, more significant things going on in this behemoth of a film. And I’m certainly not accusing you specifically of obsessing over it — but the guy in that tweet definitely seemed to be obsessing, and that to me was indicative of a fundamentally wrong way to look at movies.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 29, 2019 5:10:45 GMT
And that's perfectly fine. If it didn't distract you from the movie, that's good. There are very few films I would deem as "flawless," but that doesn't mean that a flawed film is a bad film; indeed, greatness can be borne out of the flaws. If people can overlook that scene or even appreciate it, then that's a good thing. What I do take umbrage with is the idea that this movie is somehow above criticism or reproach, or that its ambition or "audacity" can somehow outweigh any negatives to the point that any issues or flaws aren't worth discussion. To clarify my stance, it’s not that I think these things aren’t worth discussing. I just think they’re not worth obsessing over in the face of the far broader, more significant things going on in this behemoth of a film. And I’m certainly not accusing you specifically of obsessing over it — but the guy in that tweet definitely seemed to be obsessing, and that to me was indicative of a fundamentally wrong way to look at movies. But here's the thing: that scene did stick in my mind the entire time I was watching the rest of the film, and every time De Niro moved around like an old man, it hearkened back to how I felt in seeing that ludicrously staged moment. This isn't just a "Julianne Moore in Magnolia" moment, where I can just ignore her terrible acting when she's not on-screen because her character/presence doesn't affect the entire film. De Niro is front and center the entire movie, and it's a constant reminder that we aren't seeing a man in his youth or, primarily, middle age. We're seeing an old man pretending to be young, and when the entire point of being an actor is to convince us of his character and he fails at doing that, and the entire reason for using him in the first place was to use innovative CGI technology to de-age him, then the fault lies with Scorsese, who failed at doing the one thing that he set out to do with using that tech and that actor in the first place. Was the guy who tweeted that being glib in his statement? Sure. But he's also not wrong for feeling the way he does, and if he couldn't take the rest of the movie seriously because of that moment and decided to turn it into a humorous (YMMV) tweet to express it, that's perfectly understandable, and I don't think it's a fundamentally wrong way of looking at movies.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 29, 2019 5:22:28 GMT
To clarify my stance, it’s not that I think these things aren’t worth discussing. I just think they’re not worth obsessing over in the face of the far broader, more significant things going on in this behemoth of a film. And I’m certainly not accusing you specifically of obsessing over it — but the guy in that tweet definitely seemed to be obsessing, and that to me was indicative of a fundamentally wrong way to look at movies. But here's the thing: that scene did stick in my mind the entire time I was watching the rest of the film, and every time De Niro moved around like an old man, it hearkened back to how I felt in seeing that ludicrously staged moment. This isn't just a "Julianne Moore in Magnolia" moment, where I can just ignore her terrible acting when she's not on-screen because her character/presence doesn't affect the entire film. De Niro is front and center the entire movie, and it's a constant reminder that we aren't seeing a man in his youth or, primarily, middle age. We're seeing an old man pretending to be young, and when the entire point of being an actor is to convince us of his character and he fails at doing that, and the entire reason for using him in the first place was to use innovative CGI technology to de-age him, then the fault lies with Scorsese, who failed at doing the one thing that he set out to do with using that tech and that actor in the first place. Gotcha. In that case I certainly can’t argue that, but I do have to say that I did not personally notice De Niro’s movement in any other part of the movie. And I think it’s fair to say that to some extent you probably have to be looking for that sort of thing to notice it so much. Or maybe not. Different people are more perceptive of different things after all.
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Nov 29, 2019 6:03:36 GMT
Best movie of the decade
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 29, 2019 9:54:39 GMT
I'd say this is better than Denzel's entire filmography. I'd say............you're right. If people are bothered with some of the technical aspects of The Irishman - ok, I mean hey I don't think the birds in The Birds look convincing but I freakin' love The Birds........and Goodfellas as great as it is I rate lower than The Irishman because to me Goodfellas has small things that bothered me far more (switching narration to Bracco I don't like or Liotta speaking into the camera). That's just how movies are - if something takes you out of it.......fair enough. But people are not yet fully seeing the place The Irishman holds in American film history - you have never had actors this age in a film this great or acclaimed and DeNiro especially has arguably the deepest filmography ever in amount for an American actor - it's a total triumph for him especially (Pacino and Pesci have their own triumphs here imo). No American actors at 76+ starred in a film like this and when I say "like this" - it's a film that is going to be in that Unforgiven, Fargo, NCFOM, TWBB level of acclaim pantheon - in DeNiro's case leading it for 3.5 hours. Brando, Lemmon, Newman, Hoffman, Nicholson, Hackman, Olivier, Duvall, Clift, even Wayne and Eastwood don't have this at 76 and I'm willing to bet that at 76 Hanks and Denzel and DDL etc won't either because they will retire (or stay retired)...... or die.....or not be so fortunate. Denzel, major actor but with a weak big actor filmography and DDL a more major actor with a great but limited filmography would both need something that goes against their entire career trajectories actually. The Irishman it seems to me goes very far beyond "who gives the best performance" in this movie or "who gets nominated or wins the Oscar for it". You can only make filmography up so much when you're older......and then you run out of road ...........and that really is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 29, 2019 11:57:07 GMT
I'd say this is better than Denzel's entire filmography. I'd say............you're right. If people are bothered with some of the technical aspects of The Irishman - ok, I mean hey I don't think the birds in The Birds look convincing but I freakin' love The Birds........and Goodfellas as great as it is I rate lower than The Irishman because to me Goodfellas has small things that bothered me far more (switching narration to Bracco I don't like or Liotta speaking into the camera). That's just how movies are - if something takes you out of it.......fair enough. But people are not yet fully seeing the place The Irishman holds in American film history - you have never had actors this age in a film this great or acclaimed and DeNiro especially has arguably the deepest filmography ever in amount for an American actor - it's a total triumph for him especially (Pacino and Pesci have their own triumphs here imo). No American actors at 76+ starred in a film like this and when I say "like this" - it's a film that is going to be in that Unforgiven, Fargo, NCFOM, TWBB level of acclaim pantheon - in DeNiro's case leading it for 3.5 hours. Brando, Lemmon, Newman, Hoffman, Nicholson, Hackman, Olivier, Duvall, Clift, even Wayne and Eastwood don't have this at 76 and I'm willing to bet that at 76 Hanks and Denzel and DDL etc won't either because they will retire (or stay retired)...... or die.....or not be so fortunate. Denzel, major actor but with a weak big actor filmography and DDL a more major actor with a great but limited filmography would both need something that goes against their entire career trajectories actually. The Irishman it seems to me goes very far beyond "who gives the best performance" in this movie or "who gets nominated or wins the Oscar for it". You can only make filmography up so much when you're older......and then you run out of road ...........and that really is what it is. The Irishman is a deeply, deeply average movie. We both know critics lie and/or are wrong a lot, and this movie is a perfect example of that. Put another director's name on it and all those flaws critics were quick to overlook would have likely been beaten over the head with it by them.You call critics out for being full of it all the time, when it suits yours purposes (ie Blackkkklansman).Time will unfold how much of an Emperor's new clothes this piece is. It'll be ugly and it's defenders will diminish by a lot. I'll be as right about this as I was in predicting Sean Penn's career downturn. The idea of this being rated anywhere near Goodfellas outside the circle jerk of this year's oscar season is beyond ridiculous to me. futuretrunks is right on this. If anything, this movie makes me appreciate how good American Gangster was. And I've always readily admitted that film's flaws. As a genre, the gangster film in America is moribund, and The Irishman only reiterates that
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 29, 2019 12:33:13 GMT
The Irishman is a deeply, deeply average movie. We both know critics lie and/or are wrong a lot, and this movie is a perfect example of that. Put another director's name on it and all those flaws critics were quick to overlook would have likely been beaten over the head with it by then. You call critics out for being full of it all the time, when it suits yours purposes (ie Blackkkklansman).Time will unfold how much of an Emperor's new clothes this piece is. It'll be ugly and it's defenders will diminish by a lot. I'll be as right about this as I was in predicting Sean Penn's career downturn. If anything, this movie makes me appreciate how good American Gangster was. And I've always readily admitted that film's flaws. This is always a losing proposition - betting on the future perceptions of a film overall - you can only bet on your future perceptions. Many movies stature decline over the years but they never turn out the way you would claim them here - American Beauty (for one example) isn't a negative for Kevin Spacey and Sam Mendes and despite my personal POV, Blackkklansman isn't one for Spike Lee........at a certain point you have to see outside yourself. I saw American Gangster one week before it opened at a big premiere - and trust me, when it ended no one there in a huge auditorium felt it was more than what it was for its supporters or critics - no one used the word masterpiece then or now - it was always lesser or an equal thing to Donnie Brasco, Once Upon A Time in America, The Departed, Scarface, Casino .......unlike all of those films except maybe The Departed and I'd say more than that in general even - The Irishman is going have a far bigger footprint ...........10 Oscar nods (easy, even with one or 2 the 3 actors missing), win some, win a bunch of contemporary awards upon release etc. It's just a different beast ...........you can have your POV that's ok........but it's bigger than just yours and mine even. Also just stop giving yourself so much credit for Sean Penn's career downturn also, you don't go around saying you were wrong about Casey Affleck not winning the Oscar or a million other things etc. right? Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes your the bug, it happens to everyone and everyone can do that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 29, 2019 12:54:27 GMT
The Irishman is a deeply, deeply average movie. We both know critics lie and/or are wrong a lot, and this movie is a perfect example of that. Put another director's name on it and all those flaws critics were quick to overlook would have likely been beaten over the head with it by then. You call critics out for being full of it all the time, when it suits yours purposes (ie Blackkkklansman).Time will unfold how much of an Emperor's new clothes this piece is. It'll be ugly and it's defenders will diminish by a lot. I'll be as right about this as I was in predicting Sean Penn's career downturn. If anything, this movie makes me appreciate how good American Gangster was. And I've always readily admitted that film's flaws. This is always a losing proposition - betting on the future perceptions of a film overall - you can only bet on your future perceptions. Many movies stature decline over the years but they never turn out the way you would claim them here - American Beauty (for one example) isn't a negative for Kevin Spacey and Sam Mendes and despite my personal POV, Blackkklansman isn't one for Spike Lee........at a certain point you have to see outside yourself. I saw American Gangster one week before it opened at a big premiere - and trust me, when it ended no one there in a huge auditorium felt it was more than what it was for it's supporters or critics - no one used the word masterpiece then or now - it was always lesser or an equal thing to Donnie Brasco, Once Upon A Time in America, The Departed, Scarface, Casino .......unlike all of those films except maybe The Departed and I'd say more than that in general even - The Irishman is going have a far bigger footprint ...........10 Oscar nods (easy, even with one or 2 the 3 actors missing), win some, win a bunch of contemporary awards upon release etc. It's just a different beast ...........you can have your POV that's ok........but it's bigger than just yours and mine even. Also just stop giving yourself so much credit for Sean Penn's career downturn also, you don't go around saying you were wrong about Casey Affleck not winning the Oscar or a million other things etc. right? Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes your the bug, it happens to everyone and everyone can do that stuff. I'm not the messiah. I've been wrong about things (with screenshots to prove it ). But I've been right about a lot as well(I predicted Johnny Depp's downturn as well, when he was pretty much a God you weren't allowed to criticise in the mid-2000's. I called just how much Tom Hanks had severe issues with getting recognised by the Academy before it became a thing to acknowledge). I'm as confident in The Irishman falling into "what the hell were they thinking" mid-tier Scorsese irrelevance as I was in any of the things I previously called right. One of the reasons some people are so obsessed with my POV when I'm just another anonymous dude on the internet, is that I've often taken unpopular positions and called it correct. And I'm betting the house on this currently unpopular position. But in the short term, you are probably right. It'll get a lot of Oscars nods and be seen as an awards season behemoth. But by god, this thing will age badly. It'll never be rated within a million miles of Goodfellas outside this circle jerk season.Time will tell who is right.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Nov 29, 2019 12:59:58 GMT
This is always a losing proposition - betting on the future perceptions of a film overall - you can only bet on your future perceptions. Many movies stature decline over the years but they never turn out the way you would claim them here - American Beauty (for one example) isn't a negative for Kevin Spacey and Sam Mendes and despite my personal POV, Blackkklansman isn't one for Spike Lee........at a certain point you have to see outside yourself. I saw American Gangster one week before it opened at a big premiere - and trust me, when it ended no one there in a huge auditorium felt it was more than what it was for it's supporters or critics - no one used the word masterpiece then or now - it was always lesser or an equal thing to Donnie Brasco, Once Upon A Time in America, The Departed, Scarface, Casino .......unlike all of those films except maybe The Departed and I'd say more than that in general even - The Irishman is going have a far bigger footprint ...........10 Oscar nods (easy, even with one or 2 the 3 actors missing), win some, win a bunch of contemporary awards upon release etc. It's just a different beast ...........you can have your POV that's ok........but it's bigger than just yours and mine even. Also just stop giving yourself so much credit for Sean Penn's career downturn also, you don't go around saying you were wrong about Casey Affleck not winning the Oscar or a million other things etc. right? Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes your the bug, it happens to everyone and everyone can do that stuff. I'm not the messiah....but you're a very naughty boy.
Sorry, I had to.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 29, 2019 13:03:01 GMT
I honestly kinda hate this and I think my biggest gripe with it is suggesting to end an "episode" right after the Hoffa assassination. An episode's ending is always going to be inherently imbued with significance and one of the key reasons the Hoffa killing scene works so well is in how abrupt it is, it's not lingered on and is treated with no greater significance than any other point in the film. Sure, I'm not gonna lie, I did spend parts of this film thinking about how it might operate as a miniseries ... and you could make an all-timer of an episode out of the stretch starting with the awards banquet and then getting into the whole Detroit sequence (this is just an all-time great stretch of cinema honestly) but you'd at least need to extend that to the wedding before cutting to black, soak in the aftermath a little more. Regardless, the film is a film and not meant to be viewed in deliberate segments like this so it's dumb to suggest that this is a "proper" way to watch it. If you have to pause I get it -- if you want to pause from the 2-hour mark onward I don't -- but translating it into an entirely different medium that it's not is a whole other thing that just feels wrong. Imo it should be watched in one sitting and (if possible) with no pauses at all. (difficult, I know) But that suggested third episode should cut when De Niro gets in that plane. Makes for a shorter episode (and thus, a bigger last one) with a great cliffhanger. Of course I think you can't stop watching this film from the moment Hoffa gets out of jail. It simply doesn't let you go!
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 29, 2019 14:00:16 GMT
One of this years true diamonds and Martin Scorsese's return to his roots and to the genre he is best at: The gangster genre. Also funnily his first collaboration with Al Pacino and his reunion with Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci. This 3,5 hour epic really convinces and you hardly ever feel the long hours and running time, it is always exciting, there is always something to tell and never drags. The first hour is a bit slower compared to the second and third because it take s a long time to introduce the characters and it is good and effective that it takes that time. Robert De Niro was great and it is a shame he hardly ever gets fantastic material like that anymore. Really a fantastic performance and prove that he still makes a great leading man. Sometimes the performance was a bit monotone but especially in the last third he really shows off his brilliance. Fantastic to see Joe Pesci back, even if it is just this once for this film. He never lost his charisma and it was nice to see him in such a more "calmer" role. Fantastic as well. Al Pacino was a bit too Al Pacino for me... he was great, dont get me wrong. But playing Jimmy Hoffa I hoped that Pacino ignores a bit Pacino. Still that trio truly makes the film. We have also a good appearance by Harvey Keitel, tho his character deserved more work and Ray Romano. The direction and screenplay were among the two best of the year. Also the de-aging worked for me and I think the negativity of that is overrated. Really one of the best of the year.
Nominations for:
Best Picture Best Director: Martin Scorsese* Best Actor in a Leading Role: Robert De Niro Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Joe Pesci Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Al Pacino Best Original Screenplay* Best Editing Best Make-Up* Best Ensemble*
Rating: 9/10
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Nov 29, 2019 16:04:21 GMT
One of this years true diamonds and Martin Scorsese's return to his roots and to the genre he is best at: The gangster genre. Also funnily his first collaboration with Al Pacino and his reunion with Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci. This 3,5 hour epic really convinces and you hardly ever feel the long hours and running time, it is always exciting, there is always something to tell and never drags. The first hour is a bit slower compared to the second and third because it take s a long time to introduce the characters and it is good and effective that it takes that time. Robert De Niro was great and it is a shame he hardly ever gets fantastic material like that anymore. Really a fantastic performance and prove that he still makes a great leading man. Sometimes the performance was a bit monotone but especially in the last third he really shows off his brilliance. Fantastic to see Joe Pesci back, even if it is just this once for this film. He never lost his charisma and it was nice to see him in such a more "calmer" role. Fantastic as well. Al Pacino was a bit too Al Pacino for me... he was great, dont get me wrong. But playing Jimmy Hoffa I hoped that Pacino ignores a bit Pacino. Still that trio truly makes the film. We have also a good appearance by Harvey Keitel, tho his character deserved more work and Ray Romano. The direction and screenplay were among the two best of the year. Also the de-aging worked for me and I think the negativity of that is overrated. Really one of the best of the year. Nominations for: Best PictureBest Director: Martin Scorsese*Best Actor in a Leading Role: Robert De NiroBest Actor in a Supporting Role: Joe PesciBest Actor in a Supporting Role: Al Pacino Best Original Screenplay* Best Editing Best Make-Up* Best Ensemble*
Rating: 9/10It's adapted.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,631
Likes: 4,338
|
Post by Archie on Nov 29, 2019 16:42:16 GMT
Utterly devastating. Mercilessly bleak and unrelenting. Slow, elegant, and poetic.
A marvel in every possible use of the term. Take a bow, Scorsese.
|
|
|
Post by Weaver Addict on Nov 29, 2019 20:01:41 GMT
I think the film's impact is probably strongest when viewed in one sitting, but those who prefer not to might be interested in this: I saw that on twitter earlier! Netflix was the right platform for this movie, and maybe it would have been better off as a mini-series. Critics are in the tank for this movie, but a lot of the social media reactions I've seen from viewers have been pretty brutal. I think it would have lost money as a cinema release at the budget level Scorsese required, so I can see why no traditional studio would front up the cash. It'll be fascinating to see how this movie plays with voters. LOL! I actually watched it in 2 parts - some on Thursday before heading out to thanksgiving dinner and just finished up this morning. I could never watch something like this in a theatre as I tend to want to get up and take a break. I just cant sit that long so thank god it was available on Netflix. I liked it enough. Loved DeNiro in this, Pacino was good but it was Pecsi and Graham who really held my attention. Also, Graham going to toe to toe with Pacino were the highlights. Poor Paquin in a thankless role. Why couldn't they have given her more interaction with DeNiro except for that why? scene. She got to dance with Pacino so thats something she can tell her kids. I had no issues with the deaging and frankly, I loved seeing a blue eyed DeNiro. swoon. Not Good Fellas or Casino GREAT but an enjoyable 3 plus hours to spend my time.
|
|