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

tylercheribini · 29-11-2019 1:04am

Arghus wrote: »

I don't want to rag on the movie too much, because, overall I think it is one of the best of the year, but I did notice little bits of sloppiness like that throughout, particularly in the first hour and a half - cuts or edits that didn't quite match or looked rushed, for instance, when we have the flashback of him shooting the Germans I don't think the gunshot sounds and bullet impacts are synced up perfectly - it wasn't a deal breaker, but there was enough for me to be noticeable. Which I found surprising because Scorcese's films are usually very well edited and Thelma Schoonmaker was at the helm for this as well.

It's obviously a double in a Hoffa wig for that scene in the prison, which I was also a bit surprised by, surprised by its obviousness. I guess you have to expect this, given the age of the actor, but I still found it strange they didn't make the deception more artful.

It's not a particularly violent film, but I thought there was something quite bloodless and artificial to the violence portrayed on screen. It didn't feel real - and the bloodshed in Scorcese films always feels meaty and tough.

For a film that supposedly cost over 150 million to make, I felt that it didn't always look it.

I think the whole point of the film is it isnt a particularly violent film, very conscious stylistic decision on Scorsese's part.

Arghus · 29-11-2019 1:43am

tylercheribini wrote: »

I think the whole point of the film is it isnt a particularly violent film, very conscious stylistic decision on Scorsese's part.

What I'm getting at isn't the amount of violence in the film, more a case of the violence that is in it having a weightless or fakey quality to it, which is at odds with how it is usually portrayed in Scorcese films. Like that scene where he beats the store keeper or the CGI blood when he shoots Whispers.

dougm1970 · 29-11-2019 2:09am

Arghus wrote: »

What I'm getting at isn't the amount of violence in the film, more a case of the violence that is in it having a weightless or fakey quality to it, which is at odds with how it is usually portrayed in Scorcese films. Like that scene where he beats the store keeper or the CGI blood when he shoots Whispers.

the other whispers

Arghus · 29-11-2019 2:23am

dougm1970 wrote: »

the other whispers

Yeah, the good Whispers.

Kirby · 29-11-2019 8:52am

Yamanoto wrote: »

In comparing it to other densely plotted, atmospheric & often unevenly paced period pieces like LA Confidential, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or even The Road to Perdition, I don't think there's enough about The Irishman to merit the amount of hyperbole it's generating.

There's naturally a tonne of affection for those actor's and director, but I think there's more than an element of emperor's new clothes about the (over) reaction to this whole endeavour.

Good to see Pesci back for sure, but the understated nature of many of the performances stems from the fact the script doesn't demand much from the actors. It plods and meanders along, sparkling all too seldomly, before retreating back into the ordinary.

It all reminds me of music critics gushing over the latest release from icons like Bowie, Neil Young or Bob Dylan. There may be odd flashes of inspired brilliance, but it's a very long way off the quality of work produced at their creative peaks, many moons ago.

I wasn't expecting Raging Bull and I wasn't expecting Goodfellas. I was however expecting better than this.

Road to Perdition is a much better film than this.

Frankly, I was hugely disappointed. I have liked everything scorsese has done up til now but this fell flat for me. I kept waiting for it to kick into gear. For it to grab me. For something unpredictable to happen......and it never came. It's slow and plodding in many places....and at 3 and a half hours is far too long.

The characters may be based on real people but they were dull on screen and I found it hard to care about any of them. The cinematography felt really lackluster too. People have mentioned the wonky editing of certain scenes and I agree it doesn't FEEL like a 150 million dollar movie. Did the entire budget just go into the cast and the de-aging tech?

If scorsese is sorry for glamorizing the life and this is his attempt to rectify that than fair enough. He succeeds. But has he forgotten films are supposed to entertain as well? Because this doesn't succeed in that. Frankly, I was bored. Is this really the same man who directed The Departed, Wolf of Wallstreet, Casino, Goodfellas, etc? It sure doesn't feel like it. I guess he's nearly 80 at this stage. Maybe he's lost his touch.

It's not awful but i'm serioiusly confused when I hear people call it the best film of the year.

humberklog · 29-11-2019 3:53pm

This movie fell flat for me from the start...and there was still over 3 hours to go. I stuck with it 'til the end which was more than the other two people I watched it with.

The grocery fight scene was pretty analogous for the rest of the movie. The storytelling was too ambitious for the director, the editor and actors at this stage in their lives.

I was reminded of the football match in Father Ted.
Or Cocoon with guns.

I did like the scenes with Pesci and Keitel but all in all I found it very, very saggy.

tylercheribini · 29-11-2019 6:18pm

The fact this film has proven so divisive here further evidences its greatness.

Rjd2 · 29-11-2019 6:33pm

Road to perdition and LA Confidential are stunning films and much more worthwhile than this bloated supposed epic.

The de aging is hugely distracting for many reasons, for something so long you need to immerse yourself in this world believe the characters, fear loath etc.

With De Niro in this role that was near impossible because I was so familiar with past elite roles from De Niro where he is terrifying most notably Goodfellas where he is very intimidating. Never does he exude any sort of menace especially the abysmal grocery scene where his age is so obvious.

What makes it more obvious a few regulars from Boardwalk Empire notably Graham show up briefly and totally overshadow the pensioners.

Pacino also as Hoffa is little better and also lumbers as man near 80 would.
With the bizarre de aging it was always tricky to figure out where we were in their lives something which is also a huge no-no.

Also for something that cost so much as a visual experience was never blown away either.
It’s hugely disappointing as Marty is an icon and so many actors here have stared in some of my fav films over last few decades but this overlong and sadly gimmicky film really is not the send-off I was hoping for.

Yamanoto · 29-11-2019 7:59pm

Kirby wrote: »

Road to Perdition is a much better film than this.

Great looking movie too.

Paul Newman had that air of authentic menace about him also, which was, to me anyways, completely lacking among the lead actors in The Irishman.

Homelander · 30-11-2019 9:37am

A genuinely good movie, loved it, tremendous acting and it didn't feel too long to me personally.

However the CGI de-aging is awful in spots. I mean DeNiro is meant to be in his 20's in some scenes, 30's in others, 40's, and so on - yet never once looks a day under 50, despite the film heavily treating him like a young man. Very much compounded by things like Joe Pesci calling him "kid", that scene outside the grocery....awful, awful stuff.

I understand the use of de-aging CGI, and it's worked well in other films like Captain Marvel (or in CA: Civil War), but The Irishman was in sore need of body doubles here, at a loss as to why they didn't take that approach for a lot of the wider movement shots. I actually thought it worked a little better on Pacino despite him being almost 80, it was far more blatantly obvious with DeNiro overall. But overall, it's light years removed from the convincing results achieved in Marvel films with Kurt Russell, Robert Downey Junior, Samuel L. Jackson, etc. Everyone just looks like old men playing young men, there's no convincing sense of youth whatsoever.

Also disappointed in the use of very poor CGI blood. The scene were DeNiro clips

Sal

looks like it's out of a cheap YouTube video. Again, just strikes me as a very strange choice, there is so little violence in the overall context of the film that it would've be tenfold more effective to just use squibs and prosthetics, there was very little impact from it here compared to Scorcese's past films.

Don't get me wrong, it's a very decent film, and I'm delighted for Scorcese, DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci to be able to book end their careers with something of this calibre. I just feel like a few fairly simple changes would've made it a true masterpiece.

J Mysterio · 30-11-2019 10:44pm

Genuinely confused as to how this film has gotten such fantastic ratings, from critics and the public. It's almost as if people feel they have to like it. Don't get it, not a good film.

Heckler · 30-11-2019 11:36pm

About an hour in. Was ok until Hoffas scene in the board room. I thought I was watching a QTE from the PC game Mafia 2002. Horrific.

tylercheribini · 30-11-2019 11:53pm

Great film.

StringerBell · 01-12-2019 12:26am

J Mysterio wrote: »

Genuinely confused as to how this film has gotten such fantastic ratings, from critics and the public. It's almost as if people feel they have to like it. Don't get it, not a good film.

You don't get how your subjective opinion on a piece of performance art differs from other people's subjective opinion on a piece of performance art?

For real like?

Burty330 · 01-12-2019 12:52am

Its awful. DeNrio's body with Frank's head beating up that shop keeper dejected me from the movie completely , it was so bad. They should have got real actors cos its too distracting looking at cgi de-aged faces - makes you lose focus of the plot as well.

An overall experience of banality is what i took away from the film. Its like it has no soul. Casino for example seemed bursting full of life in comparison

tylercheribini · 01-12-2019 1:55am

Burty330 wrote: »

Its awful. DeNrio's body with Frank's head beating up that shop keeper dejected me from the movie completely , it was so bad. They should have got real actors cos its too distracting looking at cgi de-aged faces - makes you lose focus of the plot as well.

An overall experience of banality is what i took away from the film. Its like it has no soul. Casino for example seemed bursting full of life in comparison

I absolutely loved it.

threeball · 01-12-2019 8:36am

3hrs hours of my life I'll never get back. I've never been so disappointed in a movie. It was like a geriatric goodfellas where everything is slowed down to a snail's pace. The wit and dialogue removed, the characters are dull and boring, the soundtrack is mostly bland and every scene is dragged out for the sake of being dragged out.
It was a shame to get this cast together and waste it. It mostly made me feel sad knowing that their time is over and we likely won't see gangster movies of the quality of goodfellas or the godfather again. Those characters are gone or nearing the end.

Sugarlumps · 01-12-2019 10:04am

Big name actors, big name director, big let down. In a constant state of alzheimer's & purgatory, never ending scenes about focking nothing.

Dots1982 · 01-12-2019 10:11am

StringerBell wrote: »

You don't get how your subjective opinion on a piece of performance art differs from other people's subjective opinion on a piece of performance art?

For real like?

The critic on newstalk called it a masterpiece twice on Friday when it wasn’t even being reviewed.....a masterpiece....by the director of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull... I’m thoroughly baffled if she just use the word absentmindedly or does she actually think this movie is better than Goodfellas.

How the fcuk could you think this is better than Goodfellas?

Outkast_IRE · 01-12-2019 10:18am

Good film , but about 1hr too long. In dire need of a sharp editor to trim the fat and banality out of it.

threeball · 01-12-2019 10:38am

Dots1982 wrote: »

The critic on newstalk called it a masterpiece twice on Friday when it wasn’t even being reviewed.....a masterpiece....by the director of Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull... I’m thoroughly baffled if she just use the word absentmindedly or does she actually think this movie is better than Goodfellas.

How the fcuk could you think this is better than Goodfellas?

Because she's a useless reviewer. She fawns over the most inane crap ever. If it's likely to be a flop she's all over it calling it a masterpiece. The public just can't see the "art" as well as she can

threeball · 01-12-2019 10:42am

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Good film , but about 1hr too long. In dire need of a sharp editor to trim the fat and banality out of it.

I thought it was all fat and banality so there would be very little left. The only scene in the entire film that got my interest was the car scene about the fish in the car. Felt like had menace and it could go any way and there was far too little of those.

Unearthly · 01-12-2019 10:49am

I'm surprised at the mostly negative opinion of the film on here. I thought it was brilliant. One of the best films of the year.

Sad Professor · 01-12-2019 11:02am

Anyone else notice the film's opening title is "I Heard You Paint Houses", not "The Irishman" (which only appears in the end credits). Interesting that Netflix let Scorsese do that. I guess they don't care what he calls it as long as they can sell it as "The Irishman".

Anyway I really liked it, especially the second half, but as others have said it's way too long. I'm not sure tighter editing would have helped though. A tighter script was needed but with Netflix throwing money at him I can't blame Scorsese for indulging himself.

Stan27 · 01-12-2019 11:53am

Loved goodfellas and the departed, not fond of this. Very slow was hard to keep interested.

BaZmO* · 01-12-2019 3:34pm

I really enojoyed it. Loved Pesci's understated acting throughout. Although I would definitely concur with the general opinion that the grocery store scene was a let down and really showed up the limits of using the de-ageing unless you get the body doubles sorted properly.

I was also really surprised that the editing was really bad in places. Not in loads of places, just in enough places to make you do a double-take. Not what you'd expect from such a high profile film. I initially put it down to a streaming issue.

On the subject of de-ageing, did anybody else think DeNiro looked like Data from Star Trek? Especially with the weird eyes.

5705e1164a8394aace6018e27d20d237.jpg?itok=scntSBpz

5705e1164a8394aace6018e27d20d237.jpg?itok=scntSBpz

tylercheribini · 01-12-2019 3:42pm

Im surprised people think the editing was sloppy in this and not Scorsese's other works, he has never cared much for continuity. Just one example of this is in Goodfellas where Paulies cigar in his hand dissapear and reappear between cuts.

BaZmO* · 01-12-2019 3:43pm

tylercheribini wrote: »

Im surprised people think the editing was sloppy in this and not Scorsese's other works, he has never cared much for continuity. Just one example of this is in Goodfellas where Paulies cigar in his hand dissapear and reappear between cuts.

I was more talking about editing rather than continuity issues.

tylercheribini · 01-12-2019 3:45pm

BaZmO* wrote: »

I was more talking about editing rather than continuity issues.

Im curious as to what constitutes "bad"editing if its not continuity based?

Drumpot · 01-12-2019 5:00pm

I really enjoyed that, such a good movie, probably my favorite this year.

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

Comments