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

johnny_ultimate

Yeah, sorry, I'd completely reject any suggestion that there aren't any good films being made - there are so many good/great films being made I struggle to keep up with them, and trust me I watch a lot of new films!

Here's films released / screened in Ireland this year alone that I really liked (in kinda backwards chronological order):

Marriage Story
The Lighthouse
The Irishman
Knives Out
Beanpole
The Nighingale
I Lost My Body
Atlantics
The Last Black Man In San Francisco
Portrait of Lady on Fire
Manta Ray
Zombi Child
Monos
The Farewell
For Sama
Ready or Not
Pain and Glory
Holiday
Transit
Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood
Gaza
Knife + Heart
A Bread Factory (Parts One and Two)
Varda by Agnes
The Souvenir
Bait
Midsommar
In Fabric
Apollo 11
Damsel
Madeline's Madeline
Too Late to Die Young
Amazing Grace
John Wick 3
High Life
Booksmart
Vox Lux
Ash is the Purest White
Microhabitat
Long Day's Journey Into Night
Hotel By the River
3 Faces
Us
Under the Silver Lake (this one's divisive - I just came down on the pro side :pac:)
The Kindergarten Teacher
Donbass
High Flying Bird
An Elephant Sitting Still
Hanagatami
If Beale Street Could Talk
The Favourite

I mean, not every film there's going to be for everyone, but it's an outstanding selection for a single year - and I'm not even counting ones I was on the fence about or a couple of biggish ones I haven't had a chance to see yet.

Dots1982

Any film I watch and I like will usually have one or more of three ingredients

1- most importantly character or characters you care about whether they live or die, fail or succeed
2- a good script
3- good acting

Now you might have certain movies that are visually stunning or shot so well that they can score badly on those three ingredients but still be a good watch but they are exceptional.

The Irishman wasn’t bad on the three ingredients but it wasn’t great either.

Capajoma

I wonder what percentage of the detractors of this film are fans of the Marvel movies?

tylercheribini

Capajoma wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of the detractors of this film are fans of the Marvel movies?

Marty already regrets poking the bear ðŸ˜

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Capajoma wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of the detractors of this film are fans of the Marvel movies?

I’m not. I’m not sure I’ve seen any of the Marvel films. Was Joker part of that universe? If so, that’s the only one I’ve seen. Then again, I liked The Irishman well enough. Just wasn’t wowed by it and had problems with it. But what’s with you and others on this thread trying to place those who don’t agree with you on something into boxes? Why the need to characterise people like that? It’s odd. And kind of childish - “must find way to denigrate person with different opinion from me”. Put forth why you like something. People will agree or they won’t.

dePeatrick

Just watched it, far from impressed by any of it tbh.

Tony EH

NIMAN wrote: »

Question re: the freeze frames with the cause of deaths of the characters.

Were these deaths the lead character was meant to have been involved in, or just general details for our info?

It was just general info fro the most part. Some of those deaths happened when Sheeran was in jail and others when he was an OAP.

To be honest, it's hard to say if Sheeran even had anything to do with Hoffa's "disappearance" either. We've only his word to go on and he was hardly an honest broker.

Tony EH

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t know. I’ve been very disappointed with some of the lauded films of the last few years. One that immediately springs to mind is ‘Get Out’. But it’s far from the only one. It’s been a long time since I haven’t been disappointed by a film I saw.

'Get Out' was so overrated, it's not even funny. At best it was an OK flick with a mildly humorous slant. But that's it.

youcancallmeal

I really enjoyed it, the wife not so much as she kept asking could we watch the rest another night when there was still 2 hours left. I read the book "I heard you paint houses" so I had no trouble keeping up with the story but she said it was confusing in parts. I do hope it wins a few Oscars, it'll really shake up the industry when a practically direct to streaming movie is so successful

tylercheribini

Its a long, slow burner that takes its time like many of the epics of yester year. I suspect if the critics here of The Irishman were shown Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Deer Hunter etc they would find them equally tedious.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

Its a long, slow burner that takes its time like many of the epics of yester year. I suspect if the critics here of The Irishman were shown Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Deer Hunter etc they would find them equally tedious.

Are you assuming that people haven’t seen those films?

doubledown

tylercheribini wrote: »

Its a long, slow burner that takes its time like many of the epics of yester year. I suspect if the critics here of The Irishman were shown Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zhivago, The Deer Hunter etc they would find them equally tedious.

You have just named three of my favourite films of all time. A also love 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and The Godfather - all films which are slowly paced with lengthy running times.

I am also a massive Scorsese / De Niro fan, ever since the day I saw Goodfellas in the cinema and then straight after bought a VHS of Taxi Driver and watched it that same evening.

And I was extremely disappointed in The Irishman. The film never got going for me at all and completely failed to engage me on any emotional level. The de-aging effects were incredibly poor and distracting. De Niro's character had about as much depth and empathy as Paul Vitti from Analyze That. Pacino was, well, Pacino (modern-day Pacino, that is). It was good to see Pesci again but frankly the most convincing performance by far was from Stephen Graham as Tony Pro.

I have seen all of Scorsese's films multiple times, but I would struggle to sit through this again.

Film is subjective and to each their own and all that but frankly anyone giving this five stars or hailing it as masterpiece frankly needs their head examined.

I saw it in the cinema, by the way.

Homelander

Also with all the Sopranos talk, while I really like The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire is probably my favorite TV show ever. It waned a little towards the end, but the first 3 seasons are electric, pure class and hard as nails. A lot of the cast of the Irishman are in it - Stephen Graham is incredible as Al Capone.

It's one I cannot wait to rewatch in a few years.

yourdeadwright

I find in this day and age its detrimental for a movie to be highly anticipated ,
in the times we live its cool to find problems with movies , its almost like if people go against the general publics opinion of a movie it makes them a movie snob and better the others,

In my opinion The Irishman is one of the best movie in recent times, as usual Scorsese has crafted a beautiful movie ,

In the world we live in with everything at click of a button im not surprised some people are calling it " slow paced " , Its perfectly paced for the movie it is,

Again because of the time we live if this movie came out with no anticipation and without the big name of Scorsese people would rave about it ,

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Are you assuming that people haven’t seen those films?

Nope, merely that they would/do dislike them equally/more than The Irishman.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

Nope, merely that they would/do dislike them equally/more than The Irishman.

So again, with putting people in boxes. Very strange.

Me? I’ve never seen Lawrence Of Arabia but I love the other two.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So again, with putting people in boxes. Very strange.

As my quote appears in a box. 😊 For what its worth there were just as many disparagers on the thread of the excellent Joker, its de rigueur.

J Mysterio

doubledown wrote: »

You have just named three of my favourite films of all time. A also love 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and The Godfather - all films which are slowly paced with lengthy running times.

I am also a massive Scorsese / De Niro fan, ever since the day I saw Goodfellas in the cinema and then straight after bought a VHS of Taxi Driver and watched it that same evening.

And I was extremely disappointed in The Irishman. The film never got going for me at all and completely failed to engage me on any emotional level. The de-aging effects were incredibly poor and distracting. De Niro's character had about as much depth and empathy as Paul Vitti from Analyze That. Pacino was, well, Pacino (modern-day Pacino, that is). It was good to see Pesci again but frankly the most convincing performance by far was from Stephen Graham as Tony Pro.

I have seen all of Scorsese's films multiple times, but I would struggle to sit through this again.

Film is subjective and to each their own and all that but frankly anyone giving this five stars or hailing it as masterpiece frankly needs their head examined.

I saw it in the cinema, by the way.

Fully agree with this on all points. There is some sort of annoying condescension from people with regard to this film where they seem to imply that if you didnt like it, you are deficient in some way or lack the appropriate critical faculties or film knowledge.

Well, no. This was not a good film, despite everything it seemingly had going for it: great director, great cast, a story Scorcese always wanted to tell.

I declare this a watershed moment in showcasing the limitations of CGI. A CGI disaster. It was also badly edited, badly paced and with characters with little depth or charm. It was over long and - frankly - quite flat and boring.

tylercheribini

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fully agree with this on all points. There is some sort of annyoing condescension from people with regard to this film where they seem to imply that if you didnt like it, you are deficient in some way or lack the appropriate critical faculties or film knowledge.

Well, no. This was not a good film, despite everything it seemingly had going for it: great director, great cast, a story Scorcese always wanted to tell.

I declare this a watershed moment in showcasing the limitatiins of CGI. A CGI disaster. It was also badly edited, badly paced and with characters with little depth or charm. It was over long and - frankly - quite flat and boring.

Critics clearly wanted the chutzpah of a Goodfellas/Casino 2.0 only with septuagenarians, all things considered I think the movie was as good as it could have been.

mikhail

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Are you assuming that people haven’t seen those films?

The internet is largely powered by people's willingness to assign moral failings to people they've never met to excuse themselves from having to defend their opinions.

Dots1982

tylercheribini wrote: »

Critics clearly wanted the chutzpah of a Goodfellas/Casino 2.0 only with septuagenarians, all things considered I think the movie was as good as it could have been.

Well that’s about it really. It’s a solid movie that deficient to some of Scorsese’s work in every single way.

How the fcuk it costed 150 million to make it is incredible.

tylercheribini

Dots1982 wrote: »

Well that’s about it really. It’s a solid movie that deficient to some of Scorsese’s work in every single way.

How the fcuk it costed 150 million to make it is incredible.

Would have needed a much younger cast for something along those lines, I commend Scorsese for not doing a shameless rehash of his previous efforts. Dea-ging tech was a fair chunk of budget.

J Mysterio

tylercheribini wrote: »

Would have needed a much younger cast for something along those lines, I commend Scorsese for not doing a shameless rehash of his previous efforts. Dea-ging tech was a fair chunk of budget.

A 'shameless rehash' of an absolute classic would be preferable to this wet blanket.

Dots1982

tylercheribini wrote: »

Dea-ging tech was a fair chunk of budget.

And that tech had no wow factor at all. Was completely unconvincing.

Plus De Niro looks about as Irish as Javier Bardem. He might have got away with it in Goodfellas because of his charisma and the film was so good but it’s seems a miscast in this context.

tylercheribini

mikhail wrote: »

The internet is largely powered by people's willingness to assign moral failings to people they've never met to excuse themselves from having to defend their opinions.

Think I read that on a jax wall once, incredibly profound.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

My favourite post-Goodfellas Scorsese film is The Wolf Of Wall Street. I consider it a modern classic and that was a film whose running time went unnoticed by me. There was no scene in The Irishman that gripped me like the scene between Belfort and the FBI agent on the boat in TWOWS.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

Critics clearly wanted the chutzpah of a Goodfellas/Casino 2.0 only with septuagenarians, all things considered I think the movie was as good as it could have been.

Nah, I just wanted a film where I felt invested in the characters. No rehash of past glories required for that.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nah, I just wanted a film where I felt invested in the characters. No rehash of past glories required for that.

The more people hate it,the more it reinforces my love of the film.

J Mysterio

tylercheribini wrote: »

The more people hate it,the more it reinforces my love of the film.

That's a strange failing of yours.

Smegging hell

Dots1982 wrote: »

And that tech had no wow factor at all. Was completely unconvincing.

Plus De Niro looks about as Irish as Javier Bardem. He might have got away with it in Goodfellas because of his charisma and the film was so good but it’s seems a miscast in this context.

He has as much Irish ancestry as he does Italian.