Film The Irishman | Martin Scorsese | 2019

SteveJ said:
As Mr M suggested, with the right casting there's no need for CGI or the like:

27CB7F0F00000578-0-The_kid_stays_in_the_picture_Chris_Serrone_left_-m-14_1429560552606.jpg
Click to expand...

It also doesn't really help his argument about the merits of "true cinema" when he doesn't have enough faith in the classical in-camera methods of filmmaking, to not spend a fortune on sketchy modern gimmick technology, to the ultimate detriment of the project (or at least its durability) purely so he could make a sprawling life story epic with a cast entirely comprised of his 70+ year old mates....

...And then promote it by shitting on the popcorn entertainment du jour of modern youth!... Eh... However valid, still a bit wanky. Ok boomer.
 
Mockney said:
It also doesn't really help his argument about the merits of "true cinema" when he doesn't have enough faith in the classical in-camera methods of filmmaking, to not spend a fortune on sketchy modern gimmick technology, to the ultimate detriment of the project (or at least its durability) purely so he could make a sprawling life story epic with a cast entirely comprised of his 70+ year old mates....

...And then promote it by shitting on the popcorn entertainment du jour of modern youth!... Eh... However valid, still a bit wanky. Ok boomer.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Genuinely pretty sure the film would've been a whole hour shorter if it's leads had been 20 years younger.
 
Christ, surely they don't move that slowly?!? ;)
 
I sat down to watch this last night then saw the running time. FFS!

Does it have a scene where a bloke walks into a bar to a Rolling Stones song and the camera follows him passing all kinds of characters having a good time?
 
SteveJ said:
Christ, surely they don't move that slowly?!? ;)
Click to expand...

The bits where the (hardly spring chicken) 46 year old Stephen Graham turn up feel like they're in fast forward purely because he can walk across a room and sit down without it necessitating an entire reel of film.

There's one bit where he lunges at Al Pacino and tackles him to the ground and I was genuinely quite worried for both Al, and his wig...
 
Mockney said:
There's one bit where he lunges at Al Pacino and tackles him to the ground and I was genuinely quite worried for both Al, and his wig...
Click to expand...
Goodfellas II: Morrie's Revenge.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
As for the rewatch value, I feel there's a lot of films considered classics nowadays that haven't aged well (I recently re-watched Temple of Doom which looks so bad), but I guess for certain films, the cheesy look can work in its favour to an extent (which wouldn't apply here), and it also depends on what people define as a "classic".
Click to expand...

I mean, I love Temple of Doom, but it's definitely considered the worst Indy film by the culture at large.... Mainly for it's racism tbf, but it's still not nearly as lionised as it's brethren (Crystal Skull aside, which doesn't really exist, well all just imagined it)
 
This very well might be me trying to justify every aspect of the film because i loved it, but i kind of felt that part of the film's power is that you always know they're old men. So I'm willing to overlook the dodginess of the CGI in moments because it fed that affect.

Even in the beginning, the seeds of their fate are apparent behind the facade of their youth. If you cast younger actors, those early moments of violence have a power they clearly don't have in the film as it is. De Niro looks pathetic beating that grocer up and that works because it's the pivotal moment his daughter recognises him for who he is, and his fate as a lonely old man is sealed. There's no hint of celebrating his masculine vigour in being able to beat someone up. It's a gangster film which always makes you aware of the futility of the codes, conventions, and power plays of this mafia world, a world that is meaningless to us now.

Having said that, I'm fully willing to admit there might be some working back from my enjoyment of the film to reach that reading.

Honestly, i thought it was better than Goodfellas. This was proper Scorsese at the peak of this experience and judgement.
 
Some of you are overlooking the quality of the film to pick on the de-ageing?
Sure, I was a bit worried about DeNiro when he was beating up the grocer but still, it was a very enjoyable film.
 
Grinner said:
I sat down to watch this last night then saw the running time. FFS!

Does it have a scene where a bloke walks into a bar to a Rolling Stones song and the camera follows him passing all kinds of characters having a good time?
Click to expand...

It’s not a Scorsese gangster flick without Gimme Shelter:

 
Really enjoyed it but it was 45 minutes too long I think. And the de aging in the first hour was quite off putting at times.
 
Are there people who don't know who Jimmy Hoffa was ? :confused:
 
Mockney said:
It also doesn't really help his argument about the merits of "true cinema" when he doesn't have enough faith in the classical in-camera methods of filmmaking, to not spend a fortune on sketchy modern gimmick technology, to the ultimate detriment of the project (or at least its durability) purely so he could make a sprawling life story epic with a cast entirely comprised of his 70+ year old mates....

...And then promote it by shitting on the popcorn entertainment du jour of modern youth!... Eh... However valid, still a bit wanky. Ok boomer.
Click to expand...

Surely, you're joking. This is not a gangster movie, but a piece of American history told through the lens of organized crime. While not quite Good Fellas / Casino, I think Marty does a great job in depicting the relationships of the characters while perhaps falling short on the action. There's too much history to pack in on a 3 hour movie, but he does justice to the Hoffa-Bufalino-Sheeran triangle and gives you a taste of unions entanglement with organized crime and its tangential connection with politics.

Anyhoo... Marvel movies are shit regardless.
 
So I've just watched this...weird one to judge. I'm not quite sure why the ratings seem to be so high because it's actually not that good IMO. It feels like a last time gathering between Pacino, De Niro and Pesci rather than a serious attempt at creating a classic. But perhaps that was never Scorsese's intention, I don't know.

The movie has zero rewatchability appeal compared to a movie like Goodfellas which I could watch any day, anywhere. It's slow but not in a good way. It lacks the slickness, stylishness, wit, whatever you wanna call it. It also doesn't help that they didn't use younger actors because you can tell Pacino, De Niro etc can't move properly anymore because they're old. That scene where De Niro kicks the guy on the ground for example...just didn't cut it for me. It lacked punch.

It's a decent movie to watch one time, but it's clearly not at the same level as Scorsese's best movies. And it doesn't really feel like an epic. Something was lacking, it didn't feel grandiose.

For what it's worth, I liked Pesci the most in this movie.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Yes, same as there are people who don’t really know who Escobar (the guy in Narcos) was.

Not everyone is old.
Click to expand...


You don't have to be old to know names especially Escobar . Anyone who has ever taken any drug should know who Escobar is especially . Disrespectful not too.

I wasn't around when Nicky Barnes was running things but he was still a huge hero to me .

As for Hoffa everyone should at least know he disappeared if nothing else .

Sad world if people don't know who Hoffa was but do know who Tony Stark is
 
VorZakone said:
It's a decent movie to watch one time, but it's clearly not at the same level as Scorsese's best movies. And it doesn't really feel like an epic. Something was lacking, it didn't feel grandiose.

For what it's worth, I liked Pesci the most in this movie.
Click to expand...
Isn't that sort of the whole point of the film though?
 
Seemed a bit self indulgent at times. CGI or not, they still and had the facial expressions and moved like old people, which was a bit bizarre.
 
Suedesi said:
Surely, you're joking. This is not a gangster movie, but a piece of American history told through the lens of organized crime. While not quite Good Fellas / Casino, I think Marty does a great job in depicting the relationships of the characters while perhaps falling short on the action. There's too much history to pack in on a 3 hour movie, but he does justice to the Hoffa-Bufalino-Sheeran triangle and gives you a taste of unions entanglement with organized crime and its tangential connection with politics.

Anyhoo... Marvel movies are shit regardless.
Click to expand...

About which part?

I agree it's not a gangster movie. In fact one of my favourite things about it is that it shuns the unfeeling secular attitude of Marty's usual gangster/arsehole biopic fare, in favour of a very poignant and meditative epilogue about the consequences of such a life.. All that shit is really great!

What I'm saying is that the first hour (which is easily the least interesting of the 3 anyway) will prove a lot less re-watchable and subsequently a lot less iconic to future generations, by virtue of him using some really iffy and needless CGI gimmick, to excuse allowing his too-old mates to play roles he would've unquestionably cast age-appropriately 20 years ago, by using the same kind of needless, modern technology ultimately responsible for the over-saturation of FX laden superhero blockbusters he claims to be so against!....

The irony being the supposedly groundbreaking technology used to terrible effect on this film, is significantly inferior to the version Marvel first used on Downey Jr a full 4 years ago!
 
utdalltheway said:
Some of you are overlooking the quality of the film to pick on the de-ageing?
Sure, I was a bit worried about DeNiro when he was beating up the grocer but still, it was a very enjoyable film.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's a really good, and occasionally masterful flick. But it's also the kind of film that lives in it's details, and tries to justify it's excessive length by claiming to be a uniquely immersive and justifiably indulgent character study... and as such, it's unreasonable to demand we dismiss the dodgy de-aging and it's effect on the first full hour of the movie, when it's a very reasonable contributing factor to it falling slightly short of the greatness it's aiming for.

Imagine Godfather II with a deaged Brando in De Niro's place. Or the beginning of Goodfellas with a SnapChat filtered Ray Liotta pretending to be a teenager. Or the watch scene in Pulp Fiction, but with Bruce Willis deepfaked onto the baby from Look Whose Talking.

Or all of those films, but with actual 70 years old in all the roles!... Raging Bull, but it's De Niro NOW, digitally reinserted into every scene so the last 3 minutes look legit.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
Not at all. It's a really good, and occasionally masterful flick. But it's also the kind of film that lives in it's details, and tries to justify it's excessive length by claiming to be a uniquely immersive and justifiably indulgent character study... and as such, it's unreasonable to demand we dismiss the dodgy de-aging and it's effect on the first full hour of the movie, when it's a very reasonable contributing factor to it falling slightly short of the greatness it's aiming for.

Imagine Godfather II with a deaged Brando in De Niro's place. Or the beginning of Goodfellas with a SnapChat filtered Ray Liotta pretending to be a teenager. Or the watch scene in Pulp Fiction, but with Bruce Willis deepfaked onto the baby from Look Whose Talking.

Or all of those films, but with actual 70 years old in all the roles!... Raging Bull, but it's De Niro NOW, digitally reinserted into every scene so the last 3 minutes look legit.
Click to expand...
Plus it's way easier to do multiple timelines and age younger actors. Just look at Mahershala Ali in True Detective.

I think Scorsese was just desperate to get those actors back together for one more big flick.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Isn't that sort of the whole point of the film though?
Click to expand...
I think I understand what you're hinting at. I know the movie wasn't trying to portray Sheeran's life in a glorious way. But that's not my point. The movie just didn't feel like a grand epic. It felt like a TV miniseries.

Once Upon a Time In America by Leone was also bleak, unglamourizing etc, but it felt like an epic.
 
I think there’s some great scenes, but as a movie as a whole it fell short for me.
 
Shark said:
I think there’s some great scenes, but as a movie as a whole it fell short for me.
Click to expand...
I liked the scenes where they talk in indirect ways, knowing that the other person will understand the meaning. I don't know if there's a term for that kind of dialogue but it's something you don't often see in modern movies.
 
CGI is least of the issues here. This film drags for a good 40 minutes longer than it should have been. Usually Scorsese movies are entertaining even if long duration but this could have ended swiftly after the most important scene.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Plus it's way easier to do multiple timelines and age younger actors. Just look at Mahershala Ali in True Detective.

I think Scorsese was just desperate to get those actors back together for one more big flick.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it was... And tbf, no ones gonna complain much about that. De Niro and Pacino are fantastic in what is unquestionably the best stretch of the movie. Even though Al Pacino's wig isn't even in the top 15 most realistic syrups he's been pretending are real since 1997.

However I do think there's a slightly better version of this film with 40/50ish actors in the lead roles...
 
Mockney you keep putting the use of CGI in parallel to Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel pics, as if it somehow invalidates his point or makes him a hypocrite. But I really don't understand why as his criticism of Marvel related more to the lack of emotional investment, of risk, portrayed on screen, something that is definitely not lacking here.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Mockney you keep putting the use of CGI in parallel to Scorsese's comments regarding Marvel pics, as if it somehow invalidates his point or makes him a hypocrite. But I really don't understand why as his criticism of Marvel related more to the lack of emotional investment, of risk, portrayed on screen, something that is definitely not lacking here.
Click to expand...

I mean, mainly 'cos it makes my rants seem a bit more coherent, to be perfectly honest..

Though I do genuinely think there's a kernel of valid criticism in the notion that Marty has somewhat undermined his own film by insisting on making a full third of it with ideally unsuitable actors, purely because a technological gimmick, ironically pioneered most prominently by Marvel, existed to do so.... I mean...at the very least it's something worth commenting on?

And I find the insistence that we blindly ignore just how jarring a whole hour of this film is, a mere month from release, as if it isn't going to become a significant issue for it's durability in 2, 3, 4 or 5 years time, let alone 10 or 20 or 30, a little odd.

It's a very good film, but there's a lot about it that will prevent it being considered a classic, IMO. The fact that everyone in it looks viable to be knocked over by a strong wind being one of them.
 
Thought it was great, De-Aging or not, De Niro, Pacino and Pesci are all in great form. The phone call scene was really well done.

Considering some of the garbage RDN has been in over the last 20 years ("Robert De Niro, used to be ... An actor" - Doug Stanhope) I was surprised he carries this off as well as he did.
 
Watched it last night and was really looking forward to it after reading posts on here and reviews.

I must be missing something because I thought it was fairly disappointing in all senses of the word.

nothing against the de-aging tech, really impressive but it didn’t work for me. RDN’s performance and narration lacked any sort of energy and almost bored me.

Joe Pesci was good admittedly and Pacino was ok too but my feeling throughout the whole film was that Scorsese just shoehorned those 3 into it for the sake of it. I genuinely think it would have been a better film with 3 slightly younger and physically sharper actors.

I’ll probably give it another watch at some point but it really missed the target with me and I’m a huge Scorsese fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.