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

paw patrol · 10-12-2019 9:18pm

decent film and story but casting was sh1te.

The guys were too old for the parts and it showed.

there was a scene where DeNiro beat up the shopkeeper . it was that bad it could have been straight out of Austin Powers. He could hardly lift his leg.
Should have cast younger men to play the guys when younger.

threeball · 10-12-2019 9:21pm

Slydice wrote: »

Seems watching the full movie in one go might not be the done thing..

‘The Irishman’ Is a Netflix Hit, Even If Few Make It to the End
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/-the-irishman-is-a-netflix-hit-even-if-few-make-it-to-the-end

I must have a google at how to split it.

I think it has more to do with how poor all three movies were rather than lack of attention. El Camino was made just so a Breaking Bad could be made. It was a nothing movie. No real purpose or direction.
The Irishman is similar in that it seems to exist just because it was a good idea to get the gang together even though the content was terrible. No pace, the dialogue was hum drum, the characters were very unrelatable, not very interesting and hard to care whether they appeared for the rest of the movie or disappeared.

I'd watch Goodfellas 5 nights in a row, the departed too. I doubt I'll ever watch this movie again.

peddlelies · 10-12-2019 9:23pm

On the topic of getting distracted, maybe I just found the movie excruciatingly boring in parts and it's something I would rarely ever do. Ye're not professional film critics lads even though I guess some of you would like to think you are, there's a somewhat popular opinion out there that the movie is boring in parts and overly long. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

tylercheribini · 10-12-2019 9:29pm

peddlelies wrote: »

On the topic of getting distracted, maybe I just found the movie excruciatingly boring in parts and it's something I would rarely ever do. Ye're not professional film critics lads even though I guess some of you would like to think you are, there's a somewhat popular opinion out there that the movie is boring in parts and overly long. Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

Sorry I had you minimised.

Homelander · 10-12-2019 9:58pm

I completely understand people finding it boring or slow. You either appreciate the way the film is made, or you don't. No different to loads of other films in the genre or similar genres. But using your phone, or browsing the web while watching, kinda is hard to accept. Either watch it or don't, surely. Noone is claiming to be a film critic here.

peddlelies · 10-12-2019 10:08pm

Homelander wrote: »

I completely understand people finding it boring or slow. You either appreciate the way the film is made, or you don't. No different to loads of other films in the genre or similar genres. But using your phone, or browsing the web while watching, kinda is hard to accept. Either watch it or don't, surely. Noone is claiming to be a film critic here.

Just to be clear, I didn't minimise the film although at times I wanted to. I'm a huge Scorsese fan, only last night I re-watched the wolf of wall street. I felt like there was sections of the movie that were mind numbingly boring with questionable editing, and De Niro's character up until Hoffa's downfall was underwhelming and very undeveloped.

I think it's a pretty good movie, but given the hype and cast, for me, personally it was a letdown and I wouldn't recommend it as a must see to anyone.

Tony EH · 10-12-2019 10:13pm

py2006 wrote: »

A lot of nit picking in this thread. It's as if people like to go against the general consensus just for the sake of it. Oh let me pick out a scene I didn't like, therefore the movie is awful and I know better etc etc

Class acting, a joy to see these legends all together (sadly most likely the last time), and a welcome change from the crap we see of late.

People are welcome to like or dislike any movie. Nobody has to like anything.

However, I do think there's a lot of bollocks being talked regarding this film and too many people are using one scene to damn the whole thing. If that kind of benchmark was applied universally, there would be a long, long, list of films considered "crap" by a great many people indeed.

Does 'The Irishman' have flaws? Of course it does. But show me the film that doesn't. Many of my best loved films that I revisit on a regular basis have flaws.

I very much enjoyed the picture. It's an adult story, well told, and it does have the extra charm of seeing these veterans have one more go around the block too.

But, I don't think it's a film for everyone.

johnny_ultimate · 10-12-2019 11:41pm

I think I’m stating the obvious here, but the film defiantly isn’t Goodfellas or Wolf of Wall Street - and that’s what makes it stand out so memorably for me.

We obviously don’t come down on the side of the protagonists of those other films by the end (they are, after all, terrible people who do terrible things), but Scorsese’s perspective is to embrace and aestheticise the hedonism (at least until it comes crashing down). They’re cocaine rushes of a film - full of lively imagery, restless editing and banging music choices. They’re outrageously ‘enjoyable’ films, hence they go down easy.

The Irishman almost sets out to be the opposite. Everything about it is more muted, even the action and music. If GF and WoWS adopt a youthful point of view, for me the point of The Irishman is to tell that sort of story from an elderly point of view - not looking back at the glory days, but instead reminiscing in a more mournful, melancholic fashion. Again, this is baked into everything from the sedate pacing to the muted colour palette.

Personally though I’m not one for frequent rewatches of anything (a select few all time favourites aside), and there’s a long list of films I absolutely adore that I can’t see myself rewatching for another decade or two (if ever). That’s because they’re slow, challenging films. I don’t think The Irishman fits into that category necessarily - I do think it has pulpy pleasures and a lot of compelling storytelling. But it’s absolutely a world away from earlier Scorsese mob films in many respects, and not because these guys have lost their touch or anything. It doesn’t replace the Scorsese classics, but it does something equally valuable: it complicates and expands on them by letting us see that sort of story through a different lens and style of cinematic language.

11-12-2019 12:08pm

Was he talking to his daughter the whole time in the old folks home?

pixelburp · 11-12-2019 12:14pm

Tony EH wrote: »

People are welcome to like or dislike any movie. Nobody has to like anything.

However, I do think there's a lot of bollocks being talked regarding this film and too many people are using one scene to damn the whole thing. If that kind of benchmark was applied universally, there would be a long, long, list of films considered "crap" by a great many people indeed.

To be fair, if you're talking about the Grocery scene, people use it because it was emblematic of a broader problem of the film, one that persisted throughout its running time. It has acted as a convenient shorthand for all the little moments that betrayed the obvious septuagenarians being passed off as middle-aged men. Myself, I never could shake that feeling, never quite bought into the physicality being presented.

Deleted User wrote: »

Was he talking to his daughter the whole time in the old folks home?

Good question: we know Maggie had distanced herself from him, so it wasn't her. Maybe it was the other, or just a 4th wall break by a man a little bit doddery in the first place.

tylercheribini · 11-12-2019 12:52pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I think I’m stating the obvious here, but the film defiantly isn’t Goodfellas or Wolf of Wall Street - and that’s what makes it stand out so memorably for me.

We obviously don’t come down on the side of the protagonists of those other films by the end (they are, after all, terrible people who do terrible things), but Scorsese’s perspective is to embrace and aestheticise the hedonism (at least until it comes crashing down). They’re cocaine rushes of a film - full of lively imagery, restless editing and banging music choices. They’re outrageously ‘enjoyable’ films, hence they go down easy.

The Irishman almost sets out to be the opposite. Everything about it is more muted, even the action and music. If GF and WoWS adopt a youthful point of view, for me the point of The Irishman is to tell that sort of story from an elderly point of view - not looking back at the glory days, but instead reminiscing in a more mournful, melancholic fashion. Again, this is baked into everything from the sedate pacing to the muted colour palette.

Personally though I’m not one for frequent rewatches of anything (a select few all time favourites aside), and there’s a long list of films I absolutely adore that I can’t see myself rewatching for another decade or two (if ever). That’s because they’re slow, challenging films. I don’t think The Irishman fits into that category necessarily - I do think it has pulpy pleasures and a lot of compelling storytelling. But it’s absolutely a world away from earlier Scorsese mob films in many respects, and not because these guys have lost their touch or anything. It doesn’t replace the Scorsese classics, but it does something equally valuable: it complicates and expands on them by letting us see that sort of story through a different lens and style of cinematic language.

"But we wanted Goodfellas with almost 80 year olds!!!", they screamed.

Tony EH · 11-12-2019 1:44pm

pixelburp wrote: »

To be fair, if you're talking about the Grocery scene, people use it because it was emblematic of a broader problem of the film, one that persisted throughout its running time. It has acted as a convenient shorthand for all the little moments that betrayed the obvious septuagenarians being passed off as middle-aged men. Myself, I never could shake that feeling, never quite bought into the physicality being presented.

My point is a lot of people are picking out that one scene to damn the whole film, which if that criteria was applied on a broad spectrum, there'd be a list as long as your arm of good movies that would suddenly become bad ones.

As far as the rest of the film's use of CGI is concerned, most of the time I found it fine and as a one time animator myself, I began not to even notice. There are several scenes here and there that stand out and with a little more judicious cutting here and there may have improved the flow some what. But, I was never taken out of the story.

Now, I didn't get to see 'The Irishman' in the cinema, so maybe in that arena, I'd be more harsh on it. But at home, it was relatively ok.

It remains a curious choice on behalf Scorsese to go down the de-ageing path in any case.

Tony EH · 11-12-2019 2:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Was he talking to his daughter the whole time in the old folks home?

I don't think Peggy ever spoke to him again after 1975.

He had other daughters though. But there's no focus on them in the film.

artvanderlay · 11-12-2019 11:21pm

A major problem is that Frank was not a charismatic, charming or even entertaining psychopath like the ones in Goodfellas and Casino. He was boring as hell, and I didn't care about him or his relationship with his daughter. If Scorsese glamourised the mafia lifestyle in previous movies, he definitely went the other way here. Fair enough, it that was Scorsese's intention, but this was nowhere near as entertaining as Scorsese's classic mafia movies. I didn't expect it to be, but it's still disappointing. Actually apart from a handful of his movies, Scorsese has made an awful lot of boring ****e, so this is another one for that list

Dots1982 · 11-12-2019 11:32pm

artvanderlay wrote: »

A major problem is that Frank was not a charismatic, charming or even entertaining psychopath like the ones in Goodfellas and Casino. He was boring as hell, and I didn't care about him or his relationship with his daughter. If Scorsese glamourised the mafia lifestyle in previous movies, he definitely went the other way here. Fair enough, it that was Scorsese's intention, but this was nowhere near as entertaining as Scorsese's classic mafia movies. I didn't expect it to be, but it's still disappointing. Actually apart from a handful of his movies, Scorsese has made an awful lot of boring ****e, so this is another one for that list

It’s strange that Scorsese didn’t spot that the main character wasn’t likeable or interesting. It’s hard anytime to make a good movie, it’s really bloody hard when your main character is a bit meh. It’s a pretty fundamental part of making an appealing film or telling a story.

Has any critic addressed this flaw?

artvanderlay · 11-12-2019 11:34pm

Dots1982 wrote: »

It’s strange that Scorsese didn’t spot that the main character wasn’t likeable or interesting. It’s hard anytime to make a good movie, it’s really bloody hard when your main character is a bit meh. It’s a pretty fundamental part of making an appealing film or telling a story.

Has any critic addressed this flaw?

Nah, they are probably so far up Marty's ring-piece that they can't see the movie from there! :pac:

pixelburp · 11-12-2019 11:38pm

My theory would be the thinking was that Frank would merely act as the satellite to the other, more interesting characters. Cos I agree and there's no doubt, DeNiros character had no agency whatsoever, devoid of soul even before he was even sucked into the gravity well of crime; but equally he was something of a captive audience to Pesci and Pacino's more captivating, magnetic personalities. Maybe that was the point, cos there was little enough to glean. I'd shudder to even call Sheehan a protagonist, cos he was a passive observer of events, not a creator of them

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 11-12-2019 11:43pm

tylercheribini wrote: »

Im amazed how many people here consider Wolf Of Wall Street a masterpiece here over The Irishman, an enjoyable romp but pretty self indulgent and vacous all the same.

After watching The Irishman, The Wolf Of Wall Street is still my favourite post-Goodfellas Scorsese film. I found it stronger overall. Like I said earlier in the thread, there’s no scene in The Irishman anywhere near as compelling as the scene between Belfort and the FBI agent on the boat.

Subject matter doesn’t have to be serious or worthy for a film to be top drawer.

Dots1982 · 11-12-2019 11:44pm

pixelburp wrote: »

My theory would be the thinking was that Frank would merely act as the satellite to the other, more interesting characters. Cos I agree and there's no doubt, DeNiros character had no agency whatsoever, devoid of soul even before he was even sucked into the gravity well of crime; but equally he was something of a captive audience to Pesci and Pacino's more captivating, magnetic personalities. Maybe that was the point, cos there was little enough to glean. I'd shudder to even call Sheehan a protagonist, cos he was a passive observer of events, not a creator of them

Possibly, Scorsese is so good at developing character, the early part of Goodfellas with young Henry is perfect to making us understand and like the character. Even Gangs of NY and Wolf of Wall Street was good at this. The Departed wasn’t I thought but that might just be me and they definitely tried to humanize the characters.

The Irishman didn’t try, he was just a guy who followed orders and ... that was kind of it. No police hazard, no moral hazard until he had to off Hoffa and that was too late.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 11-12-2019 11:50pm

Tony EH wrote: »

People are welcome to like or dislike any movie. Nobody has to like anything.

However, I do think there's a lot of bollocks being talked regarding this film and too many people are using one scene to damn the whole thing. If that kind of benchmark was applied universally, there would be a long, long, list of films considered "crap" by a great many people indeed.

Does 'The Irishman' have flaws? Of course it does. But show me the film that doesn't. Many of my best loved films that I revisit on a regular basis have flaws.

I very much enjoyed the picture. It's an adult story, well told, and it does have the extra charm of seeing these veterans have one more go around the block too.

But, I don't think it's a film for everyone.

Well, for me, it was many subpar scenes. I don’t even know what scene you are talking about, to be honest.

And there are flawless films out there or as good as.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 11-12-2019 11:56pm

artvanderlay wrote: »

A major problem is that Frank was not a charismatic, charming or even entertaining psychopath like the ones in Goodfellas and Casino. He was boring as hell, and I didn't care about him or his relationship with his daughter. If Scorsese glamourised the mafia lifestyle in previous movies, he definitely went the other way here. Fair enough, it that was Scorsese's intention, but this was nowhere near as entertaining as Scorsese's classic mafia movies. I didn't expect it to be, but it's still disappointing. Actually apart from a handful of his movies, Scorsese has made an awful lot of boring ****e, so this is another one for that list

Dots1982 wrote: »

It’s strange that Scorsese didn’t spot that the main character wasn’t likeable or interesting. It’s hard anytime to make a good movie, it’s really bloody hard when your main character is a bit meh. It’s a pretty fundamental part of making an appealing film or telling a story.

Has any critic addressed this flaw?

Yes, thank you. Nobody is expecting Goodfellas 2.0. But any film needs its protagonist to be in some way interesting and Sheeran just wasn’t.

Bobby Baccala · 12-12-2019 12:07am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

After watching The Irishman, The Wolf Of Wall Street is still my favourite post-Goodfellas Scorsese film.

Obviously never seen The Departed so..

buried · 12-12-2019 12:16am

People that are in here complaining that Scorsese "didnt humanise the lead character" are missing the entire point of the film

Scorsese was portraying Sheeran exactly as he was

A total out and out psychopathic killer

Sheeran is not a hero

pixelburp · 12-12-2019 12:20am

buried wrote: »

People that are in here complaining that Scorsese "didnt humanise the lead character" are missing the entire point of the film

Scorsese was portraying Sheeran exactly as he was

A total out and out psychopathic killer

Sheeran is not a hero

Didn't want a hero, but a lead character with agency, purpose or some semblance of character would have been a start. Magnetic villains are still worth watching in the lead, we've see that enough with "Peak TV". Even psychopaths have to put up a pretence of normalcy, yet even the domestic scenes were inert.

Dots1982 · 12-12-2019 12:25am

buried wrote: »

People that are in here complaining that Scorsese "didnt humanise the lead character" are missing the entire point of the film

Scorsese was portraying Sheeran exactly as he was

A total out and out psychopathic killer

Sheeran is not a hero

That’s fine, he wasn’t an interesting character either. If that’s the point then fine but it’s very limiting to establishing a good narrative.

Throw in sloppiness in the editing room, expensive and unconvincing de-aging technology, too old of a cast, Strange things in the narrative like Chuckie not pursuing Frank when Hoffa disappears and you have a string of problems for me.

I didn’t hate the movie Or think it was overlong, it was fine. I just struggled to see past the flaws as the story was so unappealing.

buried · 12-12-2019 12:26am

pixelburp wrote: »

Didn't want a hero, but a lead character with agency, purpose or some semblance of character would have been a start. Magnetic villains are still worth watching in the lead, we've see that enough with "Peak TV". Even psychopaths have to put up a pretence of normalcy, yet even the domestic scenes were inert.

But that's the entire point of the film I think Scorsese brilliantly made, the likes of Sheeran and Russ Bufalino were these totally boring looking, everyday characters but they were engulfed with total cold blooded psychopathic characteristics.
It's brilliant actually because that's how most actual real villians, mobsters, psychopaths actually are. They catch everyone else completely off gaurd.
Even themselves, that's what the whole end sequence is about.
Everybody should watch it again and keep that in mind.
Its brilliant.

buried · 12-12-2019 12:28am

Dots1982 wrote: »

That’s fine, he wasn’t an interesting character either. If that’s the point then fine but it’s very limiting to establishing a good narrative.

Throw in sloppiness in the editing room, expensive and unconvincing de-aging technology, too old of a cast, Strange things in the narrative like Chuckie not pursuing Frank when Hoffa disappears and you have a string of problems for me.

I didn’t hate the movie Or think it was overlong, it was fine. I just struggled to see past the flaws as the story was so unappealing.

I think you should watch it again bearing in mind the points I made above.
But if you didn't dig it that's fine too. I just think people are missing the very brilliant artistic point Scorsese is making in this brilliant work.

Dots1982 · 12-12-2019 12:30am

buried wrote: »

But that's the entire point of the film I think Scorsese brilliantly made, the likes of Sheeran and Russ Bufalino were these totally boring looking, everyday characters but they were engulfed with total cold blooded psychopathic characteristics.
It's brilliant actually because that's how most actual real villians, mobsters, psychopaths actually are. They catch everyone else completely off gaurd.
Even themselves, that's what the whole end sequence is about.
Everybody should watch it again and keep that in mind.
Its brilliant.

Black Mass came out 3 or 4 years ago and has the exact same point I thought. Most gangsters are unglamorous, boring and joyless. Thought Black Mass was probably a better movie in my opinion.

buried · 12-12-2019 12:33am

Dots1982 wrote: »

Black Mass came out 3 or 4 years ago and has the exact same point I thought. Most gangsters are unglamorous, boring and joyless. Thought Black Mass was probably a better movie in my opinion.

Oh right, cool, I didn't like Black Mass myself but only gave it the one viewing, actually own it here on blu-ray but I will watch it again over the holiday after you said that.
You should do the same with 'The Irishman' Dots. See how we both get on!

Dots1982 · 12-12-2019 12:40am

buried wrote: »

Oh right, cool, I didn't like Black Mass myself but only gave it the one viewing, actually own it here on blu-ray but I will watch it again over the holiday after you said that.
You should do the same with 'The Irishman' Dots. See how we both get on!

Black mass isn’t great by any matter of means. But with the FBI and the congressman brother it has a more interesting narrative for the lead character. It also is a good looking movie I thought. They also portray the horror of murder better than the Irishman. The Irishman with its constant unchanging Jill Dando style killing. They do go OTT on Johnny Depp’s eye lenses though in Black Mass.

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

Comments