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

Agent Coulson

That was a masterpiece.

Nobody does menace like Pesci.

There was only really one scene where I really noticed the de-aging and it really didn't take away from the scene either.

Awards all round as the cast were all on top form no phoning in for them in this one you could see it was a work of passion for them all.

titan18

I really wish there was an intermission for toilet /snack refill. Going to be long time in the cinema tonight

Agent Coulson

I didn't notice the 3 and half hours to be totally honest it flew by and never thought of a toilet break at all.


Just don't by a large drink

titan18

Agent Coulson wrote:

Just don't by a large drink

Too late

ronano

I'll try not to ramble, just out of the screening, it was fantastic from all the main actors and Scorsese's direction.

DeNiro's cold indifference to his actions as it all slowly catches up with him and all involved due to age and consequences of actions is just compelling to watch. You nearly forget how much you miss Pesci, gone is the hot headed intimidation of previous roles replaced with a quiet menace.

If anyone can see this in the cinema do, the run time on the couch with distractions would be irritating, the scope of Scorsese last mob film is one to be enjoyed on the big screen with decent sound.

A slight aside but scorsese has only a few bad films and even the weaker ones hold interest and are a decent watch (looking at you bringing out the dead). From the gangs of new york to the Irishman they've either been great or good, silence being a personal favourite.

Incase anyone is near Drogheda, I never rated the arc as decent. Their showing of the Irishman in screen 6 was fantastic. No dim/darker screens due to the 3d bs and perfect sound level. It made for probably the best film showing I've had outside of the lighthouse in Dublin.

JimmyCorkhill

How long is it in the cinema for? Have netflix but not sure I want to wait & if its that good, cinema is the only place for it

RickBlaine

I saw it today. Really loved it. It genuinely didn't feel like 3.5 hours because it is just such a joy watching Pacino, De Niro and Pesci at the top of their game. I've seen some bad 100 minute movies that felt a lot longer so it is all relative.

There is a phone call near the end of the movie that probably ranks in the top 10 moments of De Niro's career. It is incredible acting.

I think this would make an interesting companion piece with Unforgiven. In both movies, a seasoned director basically gives a retrospective on the genre for which they are most famous through the eyes of aging protagonists.

Relikk

py2006 wrote: »

Don't go see it in the Savoy. Very poor sound quality. I could hardly hear some of the dialogue and virtually none of the music at times.

Amazing acting. The de-aging is not distracting although they made De Niros eyes squinty at times.

I need to go see it again in a newer theatre with decent sound.

It's like it wasn't released to cinemas with multichannel audio. Seems like it was stereo only. The same happened in my local, but it was only really the Whispers character that I couldn't fully understand and only when his face wasn't shown and I couldn't read his lips.

This is an excellent movie, all the same. It felt like it was starting to drag once the final act started, but everything that preceded it was superb, whereas with something like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood where most scenes were ponderously overlong and really let most of the movie down, nearly all scenes in The Irishman were paced perfectly. The de-aging was noticeable in a few places, but it wasn't an issue for the majority of the scenes that used it.

Relikk

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

How long is it in the cinema for? Have netflix but not sure I want to wait & if its that good, cinema is the only place for it

It's in cinema's for at least a week here.

branie2

I have to say it was excellent.

titan18

Ya, I thought that was excellent. The de again did show really bad in one spot but for the most part wasn't really noticeable. I thought the 3 main guys were excellent and should have some awards coming to them, likewise Scorcese for making a film that long not seem that long. I think from the start of hour 2 on, it's absolutely magnificent.

Corvo

Felt nothing like 3.5 hours.

Masterpiece.

py2006

ronano wrote: »

Incase anyone is near Drogheda, I never rated the arc as decent. Their showing of the Irishman in screen 6 was fantastic. No dim/darker screens due to the 3d bs and perfect sound level. It made for probably the best film showing I've had outside of the lighthouse in Dublin.

I'd be tempted to drive to Drogheda if thats the case. I just couldn't hear some of the DeNiros narration etc.

It didn't stop my enjoyment of the movie but I really need to see it again with clear and louder audio.

ronano

py2006 wrote: »

I'd be tempted to drive to Drogheda if thats the case. I just couldn't hear some of the DeNiros narration etc.

It didn't stop my enjoyment of the movie but I really need to see it again with clear and louder audio.

The only thing I forgot to mention is the screen is on the smaller side. My only similar size reference point would be screen 15 in Cineworld

Beechwoodspark

There are gangster movies and there are Scorsese gangster movies.

Fantastic. Held my attention throughout. 3 main actors were great. Pesci shades it for best performance. An absolute epic. Some jaw dropping moments. Great soundtrack.

5 stars.

Bunny Colvin

I googled the runtime before the trailers started and I couldn't believe it was 3hr30mins. It didn't feel it though.

From the opening scene, you knew it was a Scorsese film. De Niro was excellent, as was Pesci. I thought Pacino was superb as Jimmy Hoffa. There's a very strong supporting cast and they all done a great job too. Loved the music as well.

Overall it's as good as it gets and a real throwback to the quality gangster films from decades ago. I'm looking forward to seeing it again on Netflix, a second viewing is needed.

On a side note, I'm getting a bit disillusioned with the cinema. A few teenagers ruined Joker for me by not shutting up. Last night was similar. Some idiot a few rows in front must have left his seat five or six times. Others were talking behind me and I saw the screens of a few phones light up. I love the cinema experience but you can't legislate for people. Maybe going on a quieter night is the answer.

tylercheribini

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

I googled the runtime before the trailers started and I couldn't believe it was 3hr30mins. It didn't feel it though.

From the opening scene, you knew it was a Scorsese film. De Niro was excellent, as was Pesci. I thought Pacino was superb as Jimmy Hoffa. There's a very strong supporting cast and they all done a great job too. Loved the music as well.

Overall it's as good as it gets and a real throwback to the quality gangster films from decades ago. I'm looking forward to seeing it again on Netflix, a second viewing is needed.

On a side note, I'm getting a bit disillusioned with the cinema. A few teenagers ruined Joker for me by not shutting up. Last night was similar. Some idiot a few rows in front must have left his seat five or six times. Others were talking behind me and I saw the screens of a few phones light up. I love the cinema experience but you can't legislate for people. Maybe going on a quieter night is the answer.

I never go on weekends to avoid the cattle,early midweek shows are usually grand,also at the risk of sounding snobbish, IFI/Lighthouse audiences certainly are more appreciative shall we say of whats going on on screen.

santana75

Saw this tonight and I couldnt believe how poor it was. The wolf of wallstreet was on tv the other night so i decided to watch a few minutes of that before bed. Ended up watching the whole thing, couldnt take my eyes off it. This on the other hand was just flat and dull. It lacked something, it was lifeless and had none of the vitality wolf of wallstreet had. It had a pacing issue from the get go and some scenes fell painfully dead. I dont like to say these things because I love scorcese's films. This though was just not good.

Yamanoto

I found myself greatly underwhelmed, unfortunately.

The running time wasn't the issue, moreso that the whole thing just plodded along with little zip and no momentum. For me, it lacked menace, jeopardy and intrigue. There was no real ambiguity in the narrative and accordingly no surprises along the way.

Worth a watch at home, as it's not visually interesting enough to merit a trip to the cinema.

The Nal

Really enjoyed it. An acting masterclass. Shot beautifully aswell. Quite funny in parts.

I want to see it again but yeah it'll be nice to have a pause button.

johnny_ultimate

I’d suggest that a lack of ‘zip’ is sort of the point here, certainly in the second half. It’s defiantly not Goodfellas or the like - it’s an altogether slower, more somber film. I think that’s reflected in both the characters and the general pace of the film. Now I definitely thought it had plenty of intrigue at times, and Pacino in particular injected energy whenever he was on screen. But these people are weary, somewhat disillusioned and, most of all, old. I don’t think the film’s in any way boring or anything, but I do feel it’s unhurried, stately and a little mundane on purpose in ways your Casinos or Wolf of Wall Streets aren’t.

Beechwoodspark

Agree with the above point

Wolf of Wall Street and goodfellas (to an extent) was about getting rich quick and fcuk the consequences.

This one drops the pretence and holds up their violent lives to the light.

All those freeze frames that list the various gruesome ways they died are there for a reason.

Martin Tyler AgueroooOO

Well done to Netflix for giving Scorsese the backing and freedom to make the film he wanted. I don't think they are getting enough credit for what they have done for this film. I agree with what the majority are saying it is a masterpiece.

barrier86

Saw it Friday and I thought it was brilliant. Peschi was excellent I thought.

tylercheribini

Yamanoto wrote: »

I found myself greatly underwhelmed, unfortunately.

The running time wasn't the issue, moreso that the whole thing just plodded along with little zip and no momentum. For me, it lacked menace, jeopardy and intrigue. There was no real ambiguity in the narrative and accordingly no surprises along the way.

Worth a watch at home, as it's not visually interesting enough to merit a trip to the cinema.

Imagine how farcical this film would have been if Scorsese decided to make Goodfellas 2.0 as if 30 years hadnt passed since then. A taste of how ridiculous this film would have been was the grocery shop scene depicting an entirely unconvincing beating of the shopkeeper at the hands of a creaking DeNiro. Other than that brief misstep the film struck just the right tone and pacing, form is content.

Yamanoto

To be clear, I'm not comparing The Irishman to Scorsese's most celebrated films.

As a standalone piece of work, for me, it meandered along flatly in a one-note fashion, without ever really engaging me. It may be sombre, reflective and even melancholy at times, but it didn't elicit an emotional response and I didn't find myself connected to or rooting for any particular character on screen.

Performances were understated in the main, which suited the picture, though Pacino teetered on the brink of hammy on occasion.

The Nal

Yamanoto wrote: »

Pacino teetered on the brink of hammy on occasion.

He did go a bit Big Boy in one scene.

Mad_maxx

santana75 wrote: »

Saw this tonight and I couldnt believe how poor it was. The wolf of wallstreet was on tv the other night so i decided to watch a few minutes of that before bed. Ended up watching the whole thing, couldnt take my eyes off it. This on the other hand was just flat and dull. It lacked something, it was lifeless and had none of the vitality wolf of wallstreet had. It had a pacing issue from the get go and some scenes fell painfully dead. I dont like to say these things because I love scorcese's films. This though was just not good.

Wolf of Wall st is possibly the worst movie of the past ten years , gangs of new york is the worst movie of the previous decade with The Departed a close second

ErnestBorgnine

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Wolf of Wall st is possibly the worst movie of the past ten years , gangs of new york is the worst movie of the previous decade with The Departed a close second

I'd agree they're a couple of Scorsese's less interesting efforts, but the overall point is slightly hyperbolic.

PressRun

Read something that said this movie is essentially a vehicle in which Scorcese is reflecting on his own legacy within the gangster movie genre and a kind of reckoning with the glamorisation of violence in the genre? Would anyone here agree with that?
Am very interested in seeing it. Going to try and go this week.