|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 30, 2019 3:46:17 GMT
What an ass. I am watching it tonight with the wife and never would have known Hoffa died ha ha. That ass ruined the Titanic for me too. Enjoy it. For me it was a clear 10/10, my second favorite Scorsese film after Raging Bull. Over time, it could take #1.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Nov 30, 2019 6:43:30 GMT
Did anyone get the Uncanny Valley feel from the movie?
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Nov 30, 2019 6:47:30 GMT
What an ass. I am watching it tonight with the wife and never would have known Hoffa died ha ha. That ass ruined the Titanic for me too. Enjoy it. For me it was a clear 10/10, my second favorite Scorsese film after Raging Bull. Over time, it could take #1. Not knocking your opinion. We all have different tastes. You liked it better than Goodfellas? Goodfellas and Raging Bull are my two favorite Scorcese flicks. Ever see 'Hoffa' with DeVito and Nicholson? In 'Hoffa' - we get the payoff at the end - and then the credits roll. Left me feeling like I got punched in the gut - perfection. This movie had the same effect on me; however 30-40 prior (i.e. the DeNiro/Pacino home scene) - then crawled to a slow death for the last act of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Nov 30, 2019 6:49:33 GMT
Did anyone get the Uncanny Valley feel from the movie? Are you stating that Pesci, DeNiro and Pacino looked like wax figures?
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 30, 2019 7:43:51 GMT
Enjoy it. For me it was a clear 10/10, my second favorite Scorsese film after Raging Bull. Over time, it could take #1. Not knocking your opinion. We all have different tastes. You liked it better than Goodfellas? Yes. Goodfellas is a really good, entertaining movie but I've always considered it a tad overrated. I also like Casino more than Goodfellas although I may be in the minority there.
|
|
|
Post by weststigersbob on Nov 30, 2019 10:42:14 GMT
5/10. Too long, overwrought, and a so-so story. If it wasn’t De Niro, Pesci, Scorsese etc etc, no one would be raving about it.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Nov 30, 2019 13:09:19 GMT
Not knocking your opinion. We all have different tastes. You liked it better than Goodfellas? Yes. Goodfellas is a really good, entertaining movie but I've always considered it a tad overrated. I also like Casino more than Goodfellas although I may be in the minority there. I actually prefer Casino to Goodfellas too. That movie is perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 30, 2019 15:17:52 GMT
Yes. Goodfellas is a really good, entertaining movie but I've always considered it a tad overrated. I also like Casino more than Goodfellas although I may be in the minority there. I actually prefer Casino to Goodfellas too. That movie is perfection. Both of them piss all over ‘The Irishman’. This movie would have worked a lot better if it were made 30 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by tristramshandy on Nov 30, 2019 16:13:53 GMT
Did anyone get the Uncanny Valley feel from the movie? Are you stating that Pesci, DeNiro and Pacino looked like wax figures? I haven't watched it yet - - I'm wondering if some people ended up paying too much attention to the special effects rather than the story.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 30, 2019 16:18:25 GMT
Are you stating that Pesci, DeNiro and Pacino looked like wax figures? I haven't watched it yet - - I'm wondering if some people ended up paying too much attention to the special effects rather than the story. Some people ended up paying more attention to their phones than the story.
|
|
|
Post by Pangolin on Dec 2, 2019 11:04:17 GMT
I really don't understand what's so special about these three actors.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Dec 2, 2019 16:35:03 GMT
So I watched it on Saturday and I've had some time to gather my thoughts on it. Just my opinion, any person who watches a movie of this length with this much packed into it needs to properly digest what they just saw. If the credits roll and you immediately chime in with a Loved It or Hated It response, then you're doing the movie an injustice. It's kind of the same reason why I'm not a fan of binge watching shows for first time views, you lose the sense of caring about the character and when something really dramatic happens, you immediately defuse your reaction by starting the next episode. Hogwash viewing. Anyway...
For me, I found my mind wandering back to the movie fairly steadily during the past 36 hours. This is a film about the true weight of guilt, of the virtue of standing by principles, or the emptiness that results from not standing by anything. This is really well demonstrated by the contrasting arcs of Frank and Jimmy, as Frank openly says that he basically goes where the wind takes him, while Jimmy was willing to die for what he believed was right. Jimmy was loved by his family, and even Frank's daughter, while Frank was a shell of a human being who ended up dying alone and forgotten, a man with no legacy.
In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, Frank would have ostentatiously proclaimed that he has nothing, and would have cried in the waning moments of the film. Not here though. Starting with the "phone call scene," everything is done with carefully crafted storytelling, with character notes, with expressions. It's really a master class in building character. The only time Frank really even acknowledges anything is during his confession scene where he says "who makes a phone call like that?" Really powerfully done, from the call itself to the end of the movie.
I'm not a particular fan of Pacino or DeNiro, beyond enjoying their earlier films as being the awesome pieces that they are, but Pesci is the real standout in this one. DeNiro is great here, Pacino is fine, but Pesci steals the show. I was worried beforehand that this was going to be something of a Tommy deVito/Nicki san Torro impression, but it was the opposite of that. Russell was a character firmly in control, who commanded the respect of others with a very lowkey sense of authority. The entire sequence of when Russell sends Frank to Detroit, you can just feel the balance of power shifting between the two of them from the second they start eating breakfast together.
I'm seeing a lot of criticisms towards Anna Paquin's Peggy character, whether it be she was underutilized, or the idiotic criticism of her not having any lines. Good filmmakers can tell a story with no, or limited, dialogue and shitty filmmakers make Star Wars prequels. The fact that we know nothing about Peggy and we really never hear her speak is how you illustrate the estrangement between the two characters. When she finally does say something, it's asking her father "Why?" and it cuts like a knife, right through his facade of lies and self-justification for everything he's done. I've read a bunch of articles criticizing this aspect of the movie and to me, that just shows that whoever is writing that didn't understand what was happening.
Lastly, I know a lot of people had an issue with the de-aging. It was a little strange at first but within 30 minutes, I stopped noticing it.
Just some quick thoughts I had to get off my chest. More to come!
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 3, 2019 0:56:16 GMT
Excellent post, klaw. I agree wholeheartedly that this film deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction. I too have been thinking back to it a lot over the past week - particularly the final act which some others have described as a weak point. On the contrary, I think it's a sequence that elevates the film from already great to sublime. And the full weight of guilt accumulated over a lifetime is an element that works today because it was made by Scorsese, De Niro et al in 2019 as opposed to 30 years ago. They themselves are looking back and meditating on the crime genre they've had such a huge part of, just as much as Frank is reflecting on his past sins. That's what makes The Irishman a far more thoughtful, mature film than Scorsese's past crime flicks, for me.
I can't help but think (and this may construed as patronizing) that some people went into this expecting something very different. They wanted more cool, iconic gangster action; smooth talking mobsters insulting each other and getting whacked. In short, they wanted Goodfellas again.
I keep going back to this sequence as something that makes the film truly special. At the beginning of this thread it was asked "how many different ways can Scorsese make a mobster movie?" Well, that whole final act distinguishes this one from the others. It's a reflection on the entire genre through the prism of a mobster and his memory, his life, his consequences, similar to how Raging Bull wasn't about boxing, but about a man who happened to be a boxer.
It's hard not to get extremely irritated by reactions like this. People don't give a thought to the point of a character like this; they don't consider for a second whether there might just be a reason for how she's presented. They just blithely and superficially notice that she doesn't have lines and immediately react with outrage because their own criteria for a "strong female character" hasn't been satisfied. (Of course, if she did say more and was more of a focus, people would still end up being annoyed by her. "Why are they spending so much time on the daughter? I don't care about this.")
The only time this was noticeably bad, and I've seen this criticism elsewhere too, was that one scene with De Niro beating up the shopkeeper. Good thing it was shot from a distance because, despite the face, he couldn't help but move like a 70 year old man. Still, it's one very short scene in a 3 and a half hour movie, so not a big deal.
I have to concur. He was a world apart from the other characters we've seen Pesci portray. He stole the screen whenever he appeared. Plus, I know I didn't explicitly mention De Niro in my earlier post (it's pretty much a given that he'll be great in a movie) but the more I think about it the more poignant De Niro's portrayal is for me.
I watch some movies and forget them 2 minutes after they end. This one, however, lives long in the memory and I think time will cement it as one of Scorsese's very best.
|
|
|
Post by tommyrockarolla on Dec 6, 2019 19:50:34 GMT
I Liked both these reviews. This movie was brilliant. And while the CGI was a little distracting in the early scene where Frank was driving the truck? I got used to it soon enough.
Not to sound at all condescending, because people are entitled to their own tastes, but?
I found this movie to be far more profound in it's statements on lives lived different ways, betrayal, and yes, not standing up for anything.
While I can never feel sorry for a cold blooded murderer, you almost have to pity Frank. He was so delusional.
He so thought he was his own man, yet? Did whatever the next guy told him to. An empty vessel.
I thought it was a very nice touch where, towards the end? Frank still imagines he's some sort of stand up guy keeping secrets for people long gone. He never got past 1975.
Great character study. I thought the slow burn ending hit home nicely.
This was a very mature movie about the human condition. I don't think Scorsese could have completely told this story 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Dec 6, 2019 20:00:05 GMT
I absolutely adored the film. Yes it is long, yes it does not have much action, and yes some of the CGI looked strange, but the writing and acting were a 10/10. One thing I love about Scorsese's films is his attention to detail. He completely brings you into that world. This is why I loved Casino so much. I felt it a better film than Goodfellas. In Casino, Scorsese takes you into the entire world of Vegas at that time. You get every detail and all of the bad and good. There is no glamour nor spectacle, it is just an accurate a fascinating tale of that world. I felt the same watching this. Scorsese brilliantly lets his characters develop and lets the world take focus. He does not need to explain it or shoehorn things in. He lets the writing and his pacing do the talking and it works. Some would fine this long or slow, but I never wanted this movie to end. I loved Pesci's character, but I still think Robert steals the show. Every facial expression and tone in his voice let me know exactly what the character was thinking. It was really like this with everyone though. Every line and every character had a purpose, no matter how small the role. I feel like I knew these characters personally by the end of the movie and I was invested in the story. What more could you ask for? I also love how his movies have a sort of epic feel to them. This movie is just shot like a classic. Side note, the CGI did not bother me at all. I actually thought they did a good job minus the store scene.
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Dec 6, 2019 20:14:10 GMT
I've already forgotten about it.
Decent flick that I thoroughly enjoyed - but off the top of my head better gangster movies -
Hoffa State of Grace Millers Crossing Goodfellas Carlito's Way Donnie Brasco 10th and Wolf Amongst Friends
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Dec 6, 2019 20:33:57 GMT
I'll give you folks this though - it was better than the Godfather movies. Last 1/2 hour was just as slow though
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Dec 6, 2019 20:39:30 GMT
So I watched it on Saturday and I've had some time to gather my thoughts on it. Just my opinion, any person who watches a movie of this length with this much packed into it needs to properly digest what they just saw. If the credits roll and you immediately chime in with a Loved It or Hated It response, then you're doing the movie an injustice. It's kind of the same reason why I'm not a fan of binge watching shows for first time views, you lose the sense of caring about the character and when something really dramatic happens, you immediately diffuse your reaction by starting the next episode. Hogwash viewing. Anyway... For me, I found my mind wandering back to the movie fairly steadily during the past 36 hours. This is a film about the true weight of guilt, of the virtue of standing by principles, or the emptiness that results from not standing by anything. This is really well demonstrated by the contrasting arcs of Frank and Jimmy, as Frank openly says that he basically goes where the wind takes him, while Jimmy was willing to die for what he believed was right. Jimmy was loved by his family, and even Frank's daughter, while Frank was a shell of a human being who ended up dying alone and forgotten, a man with no legacy. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, Frank would have ostentatiously proclaimed that he has nothing, and would have cried in the waning moments of the film. Not here though. Starting with the "phone call scene," everything is done with carefully crafted storytelling, with character notes, with expressions. It's really a master class in building character. The only time Frank really even acknowledges anything is during his confession scene where he says "who makes a phone call like that?" Really powerfully done, from the call itself to the end of the movie. I'm not a particular fan of Pacino or DeNiro, beyond enjoying their earlier films as being the awesome pieces that they are, but Pesci is the real standout in this one. DeNiro is great here, Pacino is fine, but Pesci steals the show. I was worried beforehand that this was going to be something of a Tommy deVito/Nicki san Torro impression, but it was the opposite of that. Russell was a character firmly in control, who commanded the respect of others with a very lowkey sense of authority. The entire sequence of when Russell sends Frank to Detroit, you can just feel the balance of power shifting between the two of them from the second they start eating breakfast together. I'm seeing a lot of criticisms towards Anna Paquin's Peggy character, whether it be she was underutilized, or the idiotic criticism of her not having any lines. Good filmmakers can tell a story with no, or limited, dialogue and shitty filmmakers make Star Wars prequels. The fact that we know nothing about Peggy and we really never hear her speak is how you illustrate the estrangement between the two characters. When she finally does say something, it's asking her father "Why?" and it cuts like a knife, right through his facade of lies and self-justification for everything he's done. I've read a bunch of articles criticizing this aspect of the movie and to me, that just shows that whoever is writing that didn't understand what was happening. Lastly, I know a lot of people had an issue with the de-aging. It was a little strange at first but within 30 minutes, I stopped noticing it. Just some quick thoughts I had to get off my chest. More to come! very nice. thank you. any good cooking scenes?
|
|
|
Post by screamingtreefrogs on Dec 6, 2019 20:42:42 GMT
very nice. thank you. any good cooking scenes? there's a scene in a diner/restaurant/what have you kitchen where Pesci is whipping something up talking to DeNiro
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Dec 7, 2019 4:10:45 GMT
So I watched it on Saturday and I've had some time to gather my thoughts on it. Just my opinion, any person who watches a movie of this length with this much packed into it needs to properly digest what they just saw. If the credits roll and you immediately chime in with a Loved It or Hated It response, then you're doing the movie an injustice. It's kind of the same reason why I'm not a fan of binge watching shows for first time views, you lose the sense of caring about the character and when something really dramatic happens, you immediately diffuse your reaction by starting the next episode. Hogwash viewing. Anyway... For me, I found my mind wandering back to the movie fairly steadily during the past 36 hours. This is a film about the true weight of guilt, of the virtue of standing by principles, or the emptiness that results from not standing by anything. This is really well demonstrated by the contrasting arcs of Frank and Jimmy, as Frank openly says that he basically goes where the wind takes him, while Jimmy was willing to die for what he believed was right. Jimmy was loved by his family, and even Frank's daughter, while Frank was a shell of a human being who ended up dying alone and forgotten, a man with no legacy. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker, Frank would have ostentatiously proclaimed that he has nothing, and would have cried in the waning moments of the film. Not here though. Starting with the "phone call scene," everything is done with carefully crafted storytelling, with character notes, with expressions. It's really a master class in building character. The only time Frank really even acknowledges anything is during his confession scene where he says "who makes a phone call like that?" Really powerfully done, from the call itself to the end of the movie. I'm not a particular fan of Pacino or DeNiro, beyond enjoying their earlier films as being the awesome pieces that they are, but Pesci is the real standout in this one. DeNiro is great here, Pacino is fine, but Pesci steals the show. I was worried beforehand that this was going to be something of a Tommy deVito/Nicki san Torro impression, but it was the opposite of that. Russell was a character firmly in control, who commanded the respect of others with a very lowkey sense of authority. The entire sequence of when Russell sends Frank to Detroit, you can just feel the balance of power shifting between the two of them from the second they start eating breakfast together. I'm seeing a lot of criticisms towards Anna Paquin's Peggy character, whether it be she was underutilized, or the idiotic criticism of her not having any lines. Good filmmakers can tell a story with no, or limited, dialogue and shitty filmmakers make Star Wars prequels. The fact that we know nothing about Peggy and we really never hear her speak is how you illustrate the estrangement between the two characters. When she finally does say something, it's asking her father "Why?" and it cuts like a knife, right through his facade of lies and self-justification for everything he's done. I've read a bunch of articles criticizing this aspect of the movie and to me, that just shows that whoever is writing that didn't understand what was happening. Lastly, I know a lot of people had an issue with the de-aging. It was a little strange at first but within 30 minutes, I stopped noticing it. Just some quick thoughts I had to get off my chest. More to come! very nice. thank you. any good cooking scenes? Heh, come over here, kid, learn something. You never know, you might have to cook for twenty guys someday. You see, you start out with a little bit of oil. Then you fry some garlic. Then you throw in some tomatoes, tomato paste, you fry it; ya make sure it doesn't stick. You get it to a boil, you shove in all your sausage and your meatballs, eh?... and a little bit of wine... and a little bit of sugar... and that's my trick.
|
|