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

Dots1982

Do those that like the movie think it’s better than say .. Donnie Brasco?

buried

See, one of the other reasons I think that this is a brilliant piece of work, and the reason he wanted to use all the auld lads for all the scenes is that, and this is only my opinion I have from watching it, is that I think as Scorsese has gotten older he is somewhat slightly guilty of making all the previous Gangster movies and somewhat glamourising the culture of the whole violent gangster culture. 'Mean Streets' 'Goodfellas' 'Casino' all these quick fire stylistic gangster movies that sing about killers as if they are loud showboaty entertainment pieces. The last hour of this film I really, really got that impression. It was so cool. I don't know if that what he was trying to say but it really seemed like that to me and made that impression and feeling on me which is what all true art should do. I found that fascinating.

Dots1982

buried wrote: »

See, one of the other reasons I think that this is a brilliant piece of work, and the reason he wanted to use all the auld lads for all the scenes is that, and this is only my opinion I have from watching it, is that I think as Scorsese has gotten older he is somewhat slightly guilty of making all the previous Gangster movies and somewhat glamourising the culture of the whole violent gangster culture. 'Mean Streets' 'Goodfellas' 'Casino' all these quick fire stylistic gangster movies that sing about killers as if they are loud showboaty entertainment pieces. The last hour of this film I really, really got that impression. It was so cool. I don't know if that what he was trying to say but it really seemed like that to me and made that impression and feeling on me which is what all true art should do. I found that fascinating.

I think he was trying to say that.

alchemist33

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.

To illustrate this point, Frank got a gala dinner arranged for him, and I asked myself "Why?" It just seemed to come out of the blue when he'd been portrayed only as a poor husband and father, and a competent assassin.

Which was how I felt about the film as a whole - competent - but not compelling except for about half an hour leading up to the Hoffa hit.

buried

Dots1982 wrote: »

I think he was trying to say that.

But that's so cool though, no? I mean that's real art. I think its genius to do that at a time when mainstream cinema has so little to say except noise and effects that don't stimulate your own mindset on how you are viewing the art. To figure something out for yourself without being roared at that this is the message. Its so cool and so very welcome in this day and age.

Dots1982

buried wrote: »

But that's so cool though, no? I mean that's real art. I think its genius to do that at a time when mainstream cinema has so little to say except noise and effects that don't stimulate your own mindset on how you are viewing the art. To figure something out for yourself without being roared at that this is the message. Its so cool and so very welcome in this day and age.

It didn’t make that big an impression on me to be honest. If he could have done it while making a movie the equal of a Goodfellas Or Casino then that would have been brilliant.

It wasn’t subtle either. When it kept giving little on-screen one liners about how each new mob character met their demise it was fairly obvious what Marty was doing.

buried

Dots1982 wrote: »

It didn’t make that big an impression on me to be honest. If he could have done it while making a movie the equal of a Goodfellas Or Casino then that would have been brilliant.

It wasn’t subtle either. When it kept giving little on-screen one liners about how each new mob character met their demise it was fairly obvious what Marty was doing.

Yeah, I dunno, I've made that same argument to my film going mates who love his other films and hate this and they are looking at me like I've 48 heads.

Its a pity you don't like it but that's fair enough. I've watched it 4 times now already and will watch it again the weekend. I love it. Have a netflix account but will buy it on blu-ray whenever that happens anyways. This is his masterpiece for me.

Made me want to watch all of Boardwalk Empire too which I will definitely get to over Christmas.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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

pixelburp wrote: »

...


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.

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

I actually thought I was asking a stupid question and I missed something obvious :pac:

I know it wasn't the main daughter he was speaking to but there was a second daughter who he was briefly speaking to at the end. Was it her? We know it wasn't the FBI agents at the end either. Was he rambling to anyone who would listen? After a bit of googling, the film doesn't tell us for sure.

buried

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually thought I was asking a stupid question and I missed something obvious :pac:

I know it wasn't the main daughter he was speaking to but there was a second daughter who he was briefly speaking to at the end. Was it her? We know it wasn't the FBI agents at the end either. Was he rambling to anyone who would listen? After a bit of googling, the film doesn't tell us for sure.

That character addressed Sheeran as "dad" so it definitely was one of the daughters

"we couldn't go to you dad for protection in case of what you might do" or something like that is what she said

buried

buried wrote: »

That character addressed Sheeran as "dad" so it definitely was one of the daughters

"we couldn't go to you dad for protection in case of what you might do" or something like that is what she said

Well, yes, in that specific scene, it is his other daughter. But Sheeran is talking to the audience throughout. Is it the daughter the whole time? It's not just a voice over unlike in Goodfellas. You literally see him in the old folks home talking so it's implied he is regaling the story to a person. Unless he's just rambling to himself.

buried

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, yes, in that specific scene, it is his other daughter. But Sheeran is talking to the audience throughout. Is it the daughter the whole time? It's not just a voice over unlike in Goodfellas. You literally see him in the old folks home talking so it's implied he is regaling the story to a person. Unless he's just rambling to himself.

I dunno, you'd have to show me the exact scene or timestamp you're on about, if its the scene with the lady with the long blonde hair in the house, then that's the daughter. In the old folks home it seemed to me like he was talking to the author of the book who interviewed him for the book

buried

buried wrote: »

I dunno, you'd have to show me the exact scene or timestamp you're on about, if its the scene with the lady with the long blonde hair in the house, then that's the daughter. In the old folks home it seemed to me like he was talking to the author of the book who interviewed him for the book

Was there an author interviewing him? I must have missed that

buried

Deleted User wrote: »

Was there an author interviewing him? I must have missed that

The film is based on a book called "I Heard You Paint Houses" by Charles Brandt.
Brandt interviewed the real Frank Sheeran in his old age, so the monologues you hear from De Niro as Sheeran in the old folks home are a direct callback to the interview Brandt conducted for the book.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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

No, you’re the one missing the point. I didn’t like Jordan Belfort in TWOWS. He wasn’t particularly humanised. But I was interested to watch him. Frank Sheeran wasn’t interesting to watch.

blinding

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.

Johnny Depp was totally unconvincing as a gangster .

He also was not convincing as John Dillinger in another movie . To make the same mistake twice with Depp wasn’t clever .

The Irish man was so forgettable I pretty much have already forgotten it . Perhaps thats why I digress .

The Irishman perhaps could have been called the ‘ Retire-ment Movie '

Tony EH

alchemist33 wrote: »

To illustrate this point, Frank got a gala dinner arranged for him, and I asked myself "Why?" It just seemed to come out of the blue when he'd been portrayed only as a poor husband and father, and a competent assassin.

Hoffa had become suspicious and distrustful of other Union leaders (especially Frank Fitzsimmons) and he is also not able to take part personally in any Teamsters activity, after his release from prison as part of his pardon. So he installs Frank (who was acting as muscle for Hoffa up to that point) to do his work by proxy. Part of the pomp and circumstance is gala dinners and whatnot.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually thought I was asking a stupid question and I missed something obvious :pac:

I know it wasn't the main daughter he was speaking to but there was a second daughter who he was briefly speaking to at the end. Was it her? We know it wasn't the FBI agents at the end either. Was he rambling to anyone who would listen? After a bit of googling, the film doesn't tell us for sure.

I don't think so. I think he's just speaking to the audience. Maybe it's the guy who wrote the book?

I don't really think it matters all that much though.

To me it was kinda like Henry Hill directly addressing the camera at the end of 'Goodfellas'.

buried

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, you’re the one missing the point. I didn’t like Jordan Belfort in TWOWS. He wasn’t particularly humanised. But I was interested to watch him. Frank Sheeran wasn’t interesting to watch.

But what has Jordan Belfort or the wolf of wall street got to do with this? You are talking about a completely different style of film with completely different character styles and underlying artistic message.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

buried wrote: »

But what has Jordan Belfort or the wolf of wall street got to do with this? You are talking about a completely different style of film with completely different character styles and underlying artistic message.

It’s a comparison. I was pointing out an unsympathetic character who is still watchable. A character doesn’t have to be a hero (your own parameter there - “Sheeran is not a hero”). They do however have to be interesting. That’s a minimum requirement for any character in a film and, for me, Sheeran wasn’t that.

Scorsese’s “underlying artistic message” didn’t work for me. He was going for ruminative, I think, but it just came across dreary and unfocused. A director can have a vision but that doesn’t mean they’ll achieve it.

threeball

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s a comparison. I was pointing out an unsympathetic character who is still watchable. A character doesn’t have to be a hero (your own parameter there - “Sheeran is not a hero”). They do however have to be interesting. That’s a minimum requirement for any character in a film and, for me, Sheeran wasn’t that.

Scorsese’s “underlying artistic message” didn’t work for me. He was going for ruminative, I think, but it just came across dreary and unfocused. A director can have a vision but that doesn’t mean they’ll achieve it.

If this wasn't directed by Scorcese but by another director. I think the whole world would be saying how the director got it so wrong with so much talent at his disposal, just look what Scorcese got out of them in the past.

buried

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s a comparison. I was pointing out an unsympathetic character who is still watchable. A character doesn’t have to be a hero (your own parameter there - “Sheeran is not a hero”). They do however have to be interesting. That’s a minimum requirement for any character in a film and, for me, Sheeran wasn’t that.

Scorsese’s “underlying artistic message” didn’t work for me. He was going for ruminative, I think, but it just came across dreary and unfocused. A director can have a vision but that doesn’t mean they’ll achieve it.

But thats not a fair comparison though is it? You may as well be trying to compare apples to oranges. One character is a drug addled maniac in a quickfire half cartoonish satirical showcase about the pursuit of cash, the other character is a everyday normal broken down trucker in a historical look at the mob and its influence on matters of a entire country.
You didn't like it and that's fair enough but not every single lead character has to be designed the same way at the behest of the audience.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

buried wrote: »

But thats not a fair comparison though is it? You may as well be trying to compare apples to oranges. One character is a drug addled maniac in a quickfire half cartoonish satirical showcase about the pursuit of cash, the other character is a everyday normal broken down trucker in a historical look at the mob and its influence on matters of a entire country.
You didn't like it and that's fair enough but not every single lead character has to be designed the same way at the behest of the audience.

Right, let’s forget the comparison. Frank Sheeran isn’t a compelling character and the film is plodding and dreary.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

threeball wrote: »

If this wasn't directed by Scorcese but by another director. I think the whole world would be saying how the director got it so wrong with so much talent at his disposal, just look what Scorcese got out of them in the past.

Absolutely.

Henry Ford III

I enjoyed it.

tylercheribini

Critics of the film wanted 79 year old Pacino playing Sheeran whilst channeling the mania of Tony Montana.

Wombatman

Formulaic borefest. Seen it all before. The casting was grand, bar De Niro, who did his best to be fair to him. Acting was pretty good for the most part.

Pointless movie apart from it being a vehicle for the old boys club. Might have worked better as a mini-series or something, but then the Oscars world be off the table don’t you know.

As one reviewer said “More Auldfellas than Goodfellas”.

What was going on with De Niro’s eyes? Found it disconcerting

5/10

tylercheribini

tylercheribini wrote: »

Critics of the film wanted 79 year old Pacino playing Sheeran whilst channeling the mania of Tony Montana.

I wanted the youthful interpretations to be somewhat youthful. It didn't work for me. It didn't ruin the film but it certainly took away.

How old is Deniro supposed to be when he first meets Pesci? 50? 40?

El Duda

Lots of people spouting their opinions off as if they're matter of fact. Films are subjective.

pixelburp

El Duda wrote: »

Lots of people spouting their opinions off as if they're matter of fact. Films are subjective.

Can we just assume that everyone here is reasoned and mature enough to know this? Even if posts are tetchy or forceful, I think most here know that yes, film is subjective.

Rikand

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I enjoyed it.

I also enjoyed it. Thought Pacino was excellent. It was the perfect role for him. Allowed him to expound to his hearts content which is what Pacino loves doing. Taking centre stage and command of the room.

Pesci was brilliant as I expected him to be. Hes brilliant in everything!

De Niro was grand.

The thing that I think that didnt work for the film is that the psychopath was the main character. That's what I think works so well with goodfellas. Pesci was the nut job beside the main guy ray liotta who was the redeemable character. It dulls it when the psycho is the main guy because there's nothing redeemable about him.