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

tylercheribini

Smegging hell wrote: »

He has as much Irish ancestry as he does Italian.

Plenty of Irish-Americans look Italian and plenty of Italian-Americans look Irish, serious mixing due to shared religion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

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

Well, fair enough. It’s odd but you do you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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.

Sheeran wasn’t of fully Irish ancestry though. Very mixed, same as De Niro actually.

Dots1982

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sheeran wasn’t of fully Irish ancestry though. Very mixed, same as De Niro actually.

Frank Sheeran looks irish though. De Niro doesn’t. He looks like Jon Voight kind of.

tylercheribini

Dots1982 wrote: »

Frank Sheeran looks irish though. De Niro doesn’t. He looks like Jon Voight kind of.

Subjective, I can still a mixture in the real life Sheeran, not somebody I would see down me local anyway.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dots1982 wrote: »

Frank Sheeran looks irish though. De Niro doesn’t. He looks like Jon Voight kind of.

I guess. But my 100% Irish mama has on numerous occasions in her life had people come up to her and start speaking to her in Spanish and Italian because she’s olive-skinned with dark hair and brown eyes. We’re not that homogeneous looking.

I did find De Niro’s blue contacts distracting though.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I guess. But my 100% Irish mama has on numerous occasions in her life had people come up to her and start speaking to her in Spanish and Italian because she’s olive-skinned. We’re not that homogeneous looking.

Of course we arent, Celts from Salzburg, Vikings from Scandinavia, French and Anglo Normans, British etc, always been a melting point.

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Can we please lay off the little insults and condescending comments about people who did / didn’t like the film? It’s perfectly easy to express your own opinion about it without having to get a dig in at those who disagree. Thanks.

dougm1970

Homelander wrote: »

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.

gyp rosetti was great in that .. what was that ?..season 3 ?
that actor was good in the irishman too, similar type role...but we seen little of him

Venom

Watched this the other night and have to say the de-ageing looked amazing and really grabs you from the start. The movie itself was grand and worth watching overall but doesn't come close to the level of epic quality as Goodfellows and Casino do. I agree with the posters that mentioned some of the more action orientated scenes looked out of place due to the main characters moving like the old men they are but one thing that really jumped out at me was how all three of the main characters used little tiny spoons when eating ice cream and bowls of soup!

Tony EH

Can't say the the de-ageing bothered me too much either. There are some moments where 40 something De Niro seems a touch stiff, but I felt that the story was engaging enough so that it didn't matter.

Acting wise, I felt it was very good and think that Pesci, in particular, hasn't been as good in years. In fact, it's almost his film as far as I concerned. He commands the screen in a very understated, but forceful performance and his scenes at the end with De Niro in the prison were pitch perfect. His old man act and how he held himself was very well observed and completely convincing.

It's a very good film that doesn't feel at all like its running time. It'll be definitely one that I'll be watching again in a few years.

OmegaGene

Homelander wrote: »

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.

I would really like to see a spin off with Al Capone - Stephen graham but it seems that ship has sailed now it’s been so long

triggermortis

J Mysterio wrote: »

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.

Fully agree. I won't be re-watching this any time ever

tylercheribini

Tony EH wrote: »

Can't say the the de-ageing bothered me too much either. There are some moments where 40 something De Niro seems a touch stiff, but I felt that the story was engaging enough so that it didn't matter.

Acting wise, I felt it was very good and think that Pesci, in particular, hasn't been as good in years. In fact, it's almost his film as far as I concerned. He commands the screen in a very understated, but forceful performance and his scenes at the end with De Niro in the prison were pitch perfect. His old man act and how he held himself was very well observed and completely convincing.

It's a very good film that doesn't feel at all like its running time. It'll be definitely one that I'll be watching again in a few years.

I watched it weeks ago in the cinema so I am already looking forward to disecting it at home, great movie.

dePeatrick

J Mysterio wrote: »

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.

Add to that a soundtrack that is instantly forgettable.

Ardent

I wanted to love this movie, huge Scorcese fan, but it was only OK. 7/10 for me.

The actors were 20 years too old for these roles. It's been said before - the de-ageing, the comically bad store keeper scene, Frank's young girlfriend - it didn't work and was too unbelieveable .

The middle part of the movie was the best - primarily the relationship between Frank and Jimmy. The last 15-20 minutes was too ponderous, depressing and unnecessary.

De Niro dissappointed me most about this movie. It was old De Niro playing old De Niro. Towards the end, I was hoping for that real show of emotion from Frank that the movie desperately needed - it would have been a home run - but it never came. I don't think De Niro has that in his bag any more.

Electric Nitwit

Just finished this and I, too, was very underwhelmed. I'd been avoiding this thread until I saw it and have just read through the last few pages hoping to see glowing reports that may change my mind, but sadly not

I didn't notice the cgi or deaging much, it wasn't that. I think for me it was the script just not being strong enough

A couple of things that jarred me that I don't think I've seen mentioned (apologies if I'm repeating someone)...
...the constant use of characters watching TV news reports which explained the plot or context. That's just lazy writing
...the freeze frame on characters explaining their cause of death. Just jolts me out of the moment, it's something I expect from more tongue in cheek films

And it's been mentioned loads but it can't be overplayed how bad the shopkeeper scene is. It wasn't even necessary to the plot, should have been taken out

I'm really gutted, I was looking forward to this and in the end I took nothing from it. It's not that it's particularly bad, it's just very average. Considering the talent that's a real shame

p to the e

It's like when your grandad tries to play football

El Duda

For comparison ^

Interesting bit of trivia;

In order to make the De Niro stomp look authentic, Scorsese swapped Frank Vincent out and put a Badger in its place.

Homelander

threeball

p to the e wrote: »

It's like when your grandad tries to play football

This. Reminded me of the over 75s football episode of Father Ted.
Father Romeo Sensini

Dots1982

Sad to see from a director who brought such authentic physicality to scenes involving violence or arguments.

Randle P. McMurphy

It's an adult movie made by adults for adults. I wouldn't expect the kids to enjoy it.

J Mysterio

Homelander wrote: »

Haha, fantastic

Electric Nitwit

Randle P. McMurphy wrote: »

It's an adult movie made by adults for adults. I wouldn't expect the kids to enjoy it.

I love the irony of how childish that argument is

artvanderlay

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK-DzqqUUAUYyza?format=jpg&name=small

tylercheribini

artvanderlay wrote: »

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK-DzqqUUAUYyza?format=jpg&name=small

The what-age-people-were-supposed-to-be-when never entered my head once whilst watching the film, I generally suspend at least a modicum of disbelief, and go with the flow within reason watching any Hollywood film.

artvanderlay

tylercheribini wrote: »

The what-age-people-were-supposed-to-be-when never entered my head once whilst watching the film, I generally suspend at least a modicum of disbelief, and go with the flow within reason watching any Hollywood film.

Just having some fun. I did actually enjoy the movie when I saw it in the cinema a few weeks back, although my arse was numb after sitting for so long. It should have been a 2 hour movie really. The first hour was really good, then Pacino showed up and it started to drag, and the last hour was a total drag. In hindsight it's a good bad-movie, and there are quite a few funny things to take the piss out of :pac: I'm going to have fun with this for years, especially



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhnseX5unc


It's like De Niro is wearing a back brace! Hysterical. And I did suspend belief at the time, much like I do for most movies, but I can laugh at ropey effects

tylercheribini

artvanderlay wrote: »

Just having some fun. I did actually enjoy the movie when I saw it in the cinema a few weeks back, although my arse was numb after sitting for so long. It should have been a 2 hour movie really. The first hour was really good, then Pacino showed up and it started to drag, and the last hour was a total drag. In hindsight it's a good bad-movie, and there are quite a few funny things to take the piss out of :pac: I'm going to have fun with this for years, especially



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFhnseX5unc


It's like De Niro is wearing a back brace! Hysterical. And I did suspend belief at the time, much like I do for most movies, but I can laugh at ropey effects

Ill admit that scene is shockingly bad and the only reason I can think it stayed in the movie was it was a one take job,leaving it linger on a wide shot makes it all the worse too, at least cut to some close ups.

blinding

Watched it on Netflix .

A few old boys doing a movie as you would expect a few old boys to do it . Joe Pesci looked very old all the way through it . One or two scenes where I thought maybe they used somebody else's body that was too small for Pesci’s .

Too long, drawn out at the end . For most of the movie I saw only old men . Ok one bit when Sheeran was in the war looked like he was younger .

It doesn’t help that Sheeran was a big man and De Niro isn’t .

I think a movie about how Hoffa came from such humble beginnings to be one of the most powerful men in America may have made a better Movie .

How about ; The Long Rise of Jimmy Hoffa ; It really is a Great story in itself . Hoffa’s life story before his death and body disappearance is probably a Better Story . Hopefully some film maker will make that and do a better job than this film .