Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 4,366
|
Post by Archie on Nov 29, 2019 20:58:42 GMT
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.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 4,366
|
Post by Archie on Nov 29, 2019 21:08:23 GMT
I can't stop thinking about De Niro here. The emotional complexity and nuance he portrays largely with facial expressions was incredible. Also, the Hoffa hit is one of the finest examples of slow building tension I have ever witnessed in a film with Pacino's last line in particular leaving a devastating impact. Fucking masterpiece.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Nov 29, 2019 21:32:45 GMT
I can't stop thinking about De Niro here. The emotional complexity and nuance he portrays largely with facial expressions was incredible. Preach! I thought he was brilliant the first watch... but on re-watch... this might be his best performance since The King of Comedy. Maybe I'm huffing the movie's glue a little too hardcore at the moment, but maybe not... The breadth of his facial expressions considering the de-aging is nothing short of remarkable. Fucking lmao @ anyone considering this a "vfx performance." And of course the devastating last half hour elevates the performance to a whole new level. Pacino/Pesci give performances for the ages, and it really is a three-headed beast, but at the same time... it's De Niro's movie for me.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 29, 2019 21:41:06 GMT
I can't stop thinking about De Niro here. The emotional complexity and nuance he portrays largely with facial expressions was incredible. Preach! I thought he was brilliant the first watch... but on re-watch... this might be his best performance since The King of Comedy. Maybe I'm huffing the movie's glue a little too hardcore at the moment, but maybe not... The breadth of his facial expressions considering the de-aging is nothing short of remarkable. Fucking lmao @ anyone considering this a "vfx performance." And of course the devastating last half hour elevates the performance to a whole new level. Pacino/Pesci give performances for the ages, and it really is a three-headed beast, but at the same time... it's De Niro's movie for me. Yeah, for some reason I didn't quite expect (or, better to say, wasn't quite prepared) for this but De Niro was the one to give my absolute favorite performance in the movie, if I had to pick one. It really doesn't seem quite like any performance he's given before in its overall effect.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 505
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Nov 30, 2019 2:06:46 GMT
The movie does work as a great, slow burning, paced novelistic epic but I also can't swallow that any other name behind it (especially a relative newcomer) just won't get these levels of raves and that's what I hate. This career-halo effect so obvious in all the enthralled reactions. I found the movie great in its own terms while also aware of its flaws but I really was surprised after watching it as it didn't match all the acclaim I'd read of before, to be honest :shrug:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2019 4:13:00 GMT
but I also can't swallow that any other name behind it (especially a relative newcomer) just won't get these levels of raves and that's what I hate. This career-halo effect so obvious in all the enthralled reactions. I really hate this perspective as it suggests a lot of film fans are either dishonest or total sheep - both pretty insulting - and the argument also is nonsensical because this film was made by Scorsese, not some random “newcomer”. That’s...why the movie is what it is. I used to see this a lot with Lynch, the whole “duhhh anyone makin a weird movie you guys would love it”, which is so absurdly cynical and mean spirited that it’s really awkward when you step back and think about it.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Nov 30, 2019 5:48:07 GMT
I liked this a lot. The first hour or so wasn't great, with some awkward scenes and too much voiceover, but the film slowed down after that and turned into an interesting and gripping character study. I think the build-up to Hoffa's assassination might be one of the best sequences in Scorsese's career. De Niro, Pacino and Pesci are all fantastic in their roles. This is probably Scorsese's strongest film of the crime genre behind Goodfellas, because it's much more interested in the relationship between the characters than any gangster machinations, so it carries an emotional impact that very few genre films manage to achieve. It's definitely not without it's flaws, but it's a very interesting piece of filmmaking, that I consider to be among the director's top 10.
|
|
Savager
Junior Member
Posts: 430
Likes: 508
|
Post by Savager on Nov 30, 2019 7:04:59 GMT
Since I contributed to this thread veering off-topic, I'll try to steer it back.
What did everyone think of Ray Romano's performance?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 30, 2019 7:23:51 GMT
Since I contributed to this thread veering off-topic, I'll try to steer it back. What did everyone think of Ray Romano's performance? He was really good, but I can't even remember him much outside of the scene in the trailer with De Niro and a couple of short monologues in court.
|
|
|
Post by Longtallsally on Nov 30, 2019 10:39:38 GMT
I’m eventually seeing it tomorrow, the very last showing where I live.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 30, 2019 13:45:29 GMT
Since I contributed to this thread veering off-topic, I'll try to steer it back. What did everyone think of Ray Romano's performance? He was fine but didn't have much to work with. He has a couple of very short speeches in the court room and the scene with De Niro shown in the trailer. Other than that, he's present in many scenes throughout the movie but with very little or no talk.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Nov 30, 2019 13:56:26 GMT
Stephen Graham was flat out great in this. His scenes with Al are some of the films highlight.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 30, 2019 14:24:24 GMT
Saw it yesterday for the second time on the big screen. After having "digested" what I saw the first time, I had the chance to notice more things and details. The performances, mostly.
Remains a 9-9.5/10 for me. One of Marty's best. Definitely needed some clipping and tightening, though. Or else it would have been perfect. It contains some really memorable lines and scenes (De Niro's phone call, the appreciation night, the whole Detroid scene...).
And of course the best acting I've seen from these guys in about 20 years!!
Next one will be on Netflix in a few months I guess.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 30, 2019 14:29:19 GMT
Saw it yesterday for the second time on the big screen. After having "digested" what I saw the first time, I had the chance to notice more things and details. The performances, mostly. Remains a 9-9.5/10 for me. One of Marty's best. Definitely needed some clipping and tightening, though. Or else it would have been perfect. It contains some really memorable lines and scenes (De Niro's phone call, the appreciation night, the whole Detroid scene...). And of course the best acting I've seen from these guys in about 20 years!! Next one will be on Netflix in a few months I guess. Whew this is good to hear right now.........I was getting worried, I heard there was a negative reaction from 12 years olds on Twitter to it.......
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 30, 2019 14:35:58 GMT
Saw it yesterday for the second time on the big screen. After having "digested" what I saw the first time, I had the chance to notice more things and details. The performances, mostly. Remains a 9-9.5/10 for me. One of Marty's best. Definitely needed some clipping and tightening, though. Or else it would have been perfect. It contains some really memorable lines and scenes (De Niro's phone call, the appreciation night, the whole Detroid scene...). And of course the best acting I've seen from these guys in about 20 years!! Next one will be on Netflix in a few months I guess. Whew this is good to hear right now.........I was getting worried, I heard there was a negative reaction from 12 years olds on Twitter to it....... Tbh, a young couple sitting next to me didn't seem to care that much for the movie and spent most of the time kissing and talking. Maybe they posted a review on twitter after the showing...
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 30, 2019 16:59:39 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’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. What a painfully woeful take!! DeNiro is MAGNIFICENT, easily his best work since "Awakenings" and probably better than your favorite performances from this year (lol, just a guess I feel safe making). Zaillian's script was a MASTERWORK, one of the best in years and even more brilliant than the one he won an Oscar. And spare me the "wanted to be wrong" bit. You REEEEALLY wanted to be against this, because being a contrarian guarantees a more meaningful role in this discussion. Congratulations!! You couldn't appreciate the #1 greatest American film of the last 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 30, 2019 17:00:28 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. What a painfully EMBARASSING take!! DeNiro is MAGNIFICENT, easily his best work since "Awakenings" and probably better than your favorite performances from this year. Zaillian's script was a MASTERWORK, one of the best in years and even more brilliant than the one he won an Oscar. And spare me the "wanted to be wrong" bit. You REEEEALLY wanted to be against this, because being a contrarian guarantees being the center of attention. Congratulations!! You couldn't appreciate the #1 greatest American film of the last 4 years. Okay.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 4,366
|
Post by Archie on Nov 30, 2019 17:15:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 30, 2019 17:22:44 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. DeNiro is better here than 90% of Denzel's recent overrated work!! Denzel wishes he could say so much with so little. DeNiro OWNS Denzel!!
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 30, 2019 17:45:48 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. 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. Time will tell you were a nauseatingly arrogant & pompous windbag troll with a laughably unjustified overconfidence in his pathologically contrarian opinions that shows his disability at appreciating or understanding great cinema. You have shit taste, little doggie. End of story, no more complicated than that. That's why you make all these "time will tell" revolting prophecies is because you are INSECURE about your lack of tastes. It's like a little boy who doesn't get why he can't enjoy the amusement park ride as much as them. "waaah! why don't I like it?? when I'm old, they'll say I was right!" PATHETIC!!
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 30, 2019 17:55:15 GMT
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 Aww scruddypuppy!! The insecurity emanating from your little pathologically contrarian opinion is so pathetic I almost feel sorry for you. Sound like Trump. "Time will tell I was the least corrupt, least impeached, least hated, most beloved and totally non-racist President EVER!!" Here's the harsh reality, pup: 35 years from now, THE IRISHMAN will STILL be seen as a MASTERPIECE that's very close to GOODFELLAS-level brilliance. Your grandchildren's kids will be asking them to put it on when they get tired of hearing stories about what an unlikable smug prick their grandfather was.
|
|
|
Post by alexanderblanchett on Nov 30, 2019 19:02:37 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. oh yeah that was a "Typo" it wouldn't win in Original but in adapted for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Dec 1, 2019 0:56:29 GMT
Back to the good stuff --
Anyone check out that bonus roundtable on Netflix, The Irishman: In Conversation .... 23min, Scorsese De Niro Pacino Pesci playfully talking about the project and their careers. I love this, them asking each other questions - like Pesci asking Scorsese if he thinks he's a better filmmaker now. Could've watched that for five hours....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 1, 2019 1:46:55 GMT
Back to the good stuff -- Anyone check out that bonus roundtable on Netflix, The Irishman: In Conversation .... 23min, Scorsese De Niro Pacino Pesci playfully talking about the project and their careers. I love this, them asking each other questions - like Pesci asking Scorsese if he thinks he's a better filmmaker now. Could've watched that for five hours.... The only possible way that roundtable could have been better was if Anna Paquin was sitting with them and every time she tried to talk they would interrupt her.......
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 1, 2019 2:26:39 GMT
People complaining about Paquin not having many lines are so ridiculous. THAT IS LITERALLY THE POINT. He alienated his daughter so much that she won’t talk to him.
Scorsese has gotten many women nominations and wins over the years.
|
|