The Irishman

The_Soulful_Mr_T

Finally saw this much anticipated (for me) movie on a big screen yesterday.

It is no, by any stretch of the imagination, the "masterpiece" that some critics have called it. Plus there is no good reason that I could see for it to be 3+ hours long. Strong editing would have made it a better, 2+ hour movie. It's superficial story telling and doesn't engage the viewer with backstory, motivation, character growth, changes or family dynamics, Considering the length of the film, he doesn't spend enough time building character, suspense, and emotion. Superficial. Not like Goodfellas or the Godfather do. And women continue to be minor and insignificant parts of his stories.

Despite what reviewers say, it takes no stance on morality. It accepts the evil that these men do at face value. No one repents. No one regrets. No one changes or grows or learns. 

But I loved it! and I'm looking forward to seeing it again, perhaps on Netflix. I love the way Scorsese films crowd and party scenes. The way he highlights ethnicity. And more.

The make up and special facial effects are a bit disorienting at times but pretty interesting. The whole intro about Frank the meat trucker is a bit superfluous.

The acting is pretty great across the board. So much fun seeing DeNiro, Pacino and Pesci together. Joe Pesci is terrific. So great to see him back on the screen. He is subtly deadly, magnetic, loyal, complicated. Underplayed at times. This role might get him an Oscar .Pacino is great as is DeNiro although the DeNiro role is less dynamic and interesting as drawn than the others.

It's also fun to spot actors that you don't expect to see. Like Ray Romano. And Dascha Polanco from Orange is the New Black, Steve Van Zant as Jerry vale, and Bo Dietl.

Your thoughts?


ETA: we saw the film at a big-screen theater in Philadelphia and a fight broke out in the seats when the film began. What a wild scene. Lesson learned? Don't talk during the film. Somebody might go nuts on you. The theater operators gave everybody fee passes to the theater to compensate us for the inconvenience. 


drummerboy

Haven't seen it yet but can't wait to do so. 


Formerlyjerseyjack

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:

Finally saw this much anticipated (for me) movie on a big screen yesterday.

It is no, by any stretch of the imagination, the "masterpiece" that some critics have called it. Plus there is no good reason that I could see for it to be 3+ hours long. Strong editing would have made it a better, 2+ hour movie. It's superficial story telling and doesn't engage the viewer with backstory, motivation, character growth, changes or family dynamics, Considering the length of the film, he doesn't spend enough time building character, suspense, and emotion. Superficial. Not like Goodfellas or the Godfather do. And women continue to be minor and insignificant parts of his stories.

Despite what reviewers say, it takes no stance on morality. It accepts the evil that these men do at face value. No one repents. No one regrets. No one changes or grows or learns. 

But I loved it! and I'm looking forward to seeing it again, perhaps on Netflix. I love the way Scorsese films crowd and party scenes. The way he highlights ethnicity. And more.

The make up and special facial effects are a bit disorienting at times but pretty interesting. The whole intro about Frank the meat trucker is a bit superfluous.

The acting is pretty great across the board. So much fun seeing DeNiro, Pacino and Pesci together. Joe Pesci is terrific. So great to see him back on the screen. He is subtly deadly, magnetic, loyal, complicated. Underplayed at times. This role might get him an Oscar .Pacino is great as is DeNiro although the DeNiro role is less dynamic and interesting as drawn than the others.

It's also fun to spot actors that you don't expect to see. Like Ray Romano. And Dascha Polanco from Orange is the New Black, Steve Van Zant as Jerry vale, and Bo Dietl.

Your thoughts?

ETA: we saw the film at a big-screen theater in Philadelphia and a fight broke out in the seats when the film began. What a wild scene. Lesson learned? Don't talk during the film. Somebody might go nuts on you. The theater operators gave everybody fee passes to the theater to compensate us for the inconvenience. 

 Damn. I miss all the good stuff. The fight would'a been more fun than the movie... and no extra charge.


yahooyahoo

When I read how long the movie is that was a red flag.  There is no reason for a movie to be almost 3 1/2 hours long.

There are a couple of local actors in the movie:
Stephanie Kurtzuba and Tess Price.


drummerboy

And no novel should be more than 350 pages.

Or songs longer than 3 minutes.

Or...


annielou

Just watched. I disagree that there was no regret expressed by the main character, if you paid attention to the last 10 or 15 minutes. Getting to those last few minutes, however, was often tedious. Scorsese also likes to sometimes elevate obscure and dubious characters in his films. As much as I loved and love “Raging Bull”, I was like: why Jake LaMotta? He seemingly had no redeeming qualities as a person or as a boxer. Is that the point? If so, why? Watched the extra footage as well, which was a conversation with the three main actors and Scorsese. They spent a lot of time discussing the reverse aging effects, and how difficult it is to match the body movements. In the case of DeNiro,anyway, I found it to be very distracting. Like watching the guy in Grand Theft Auto games. Lastly, great soundtrack and location shots, Sebastian Maniscalco sparkled as Crazy Joe Gallo, and , again, based on the last few minutes, maybe a morality tale after all.


lord_pabulum

It is a piece of work that mixes history and myth. I stayed with it in one go. I liked it, but some gumba might not like it  'cause it goes to long...


drummerboy

lord_pabulum said:

It is a piece of work that mixes history and myth. I stayed with it in one go. I liked it, but some gumba might not like it  'cause it goes to long...

 gumba?

scuse me?


yahooyahoo

I finished watching the movie. It took a couple of sittings and I fell asleep a few times.

That said, it was pretty good.  It could have been shorter.  The CGI to make them look younger was a little weird, sometimes it seemed like their speaking was off with the lip movement.  Also, when De Niro's chararcter was younger it looked like they were stuffing his shirts and jackets to make him bigger/bulkier, it was not natural looking.

I did enjoy going back and looking up the history and bios of the all the characters.

De Niro's character did or tried to show remorse at the end but he didn't really know how to do it.  


ina

I am really tired of movies where the women are ciphers: girlfriends, wives, daughters, waitresses. I literally can't imagine a world without women, yet male directors are comfortable creating them. 


Soul_29

As I said elsewhere: I can't decide what was a bigger waste of 3+ hours: The Jets game or The Irishman.


drummerboy

ina said:

I am really tired of movies where the women are ciphers: girlfriends, wives, daughters, waitresses. I literally can't imagine a world without women, yet male directors are comfortable creating them. 

 to be fair, I think depicting the world of Hoffa and the mob during the 50's and 60's as dominated by men is probably pretty accurate. Sometime it's what it is.


vermontgolfer

Soul_29 said:

As I said elsewhere: I can't decide what was a bigger waste of 3+ hours: The Jets game or The Irishman.

 Being a Giants fan, I would vote for the Jets game


The_Soulful_Mr_T

vermontgolfer said:

Soul_29 said:

As I said elsewhere: I can't decide what was a bigger waste of 3+ hours: The Jets game or The Irishman.

 Being a Giants fan, I would vote for the Jets game

 Are you saying that a Giants game is NOT a waste if time? (I'm a Giants fan, too, but, c'mon....)


vermontgolfer

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:

 Are you saying that a Giants game is NOT a waste if time? (I'm a Giants fan, too, but, c'mon....)

 I didn’t say that


lanky

yahooyahoo said:

I finished watching the movie. It took a couple of sittings and I fell asleep a few times.

That said, it was pretty good.  It could have been shorter.  The CGI to make them look younger was a little weird, sometimes it seemed like their speaking was off with the lip movement.  Also, when De Niro's chararcter was younger it looked like they were stuffing his shirts and jackets to make him bigger/bulkier, it was not natural looking.

I did enjoy going back and looking up the history and bios of the all the characters.

De Niro's character did or tried to show remorse at the end but he didn't really know how to do it.  

 Agree about the "younger" DeNiro - his face might have looked younger, but he moved like a 70 year old man.  Scorsese should have made better choices - simply have younger actors play the younger roles...


annielou

Yes. Just like DeNiro played a younger version of Marlon Brando


lanky

annielou said:

Yes. Just like DeNiro played a younger version of Marlon Brando

 I was going to add "imagine Brando playing young Vito Corleone rather than Deniro..." but held back - you read my mind...




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.