Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Reggie W, Jul 31, 2018.
Yup. A worthless award from a corrupt organization.
Well, I've seen it twice now, once in a theater and once in my home theater streaming from Netflix. Honestly, I loved it but I will qualify that by saying I love period films and films that tell stories about historical figures. So, this film was right in my wheelhouse. Combine this with excellent performances from De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino and well...this was just a blast to watch.
Getting that out of the way, was it Scorsese's best or among his best? My answer is no but even lower level Scorsese is far better than most pictures and is far better than the majority of films released in the last 15 years. It's a great film if you hunger for stories for grown-ups that are not designed for 15 year old kids.
I don't want to say a lot about the film itself but I do want to address the de-aging CGI because this is what ballooned the budget and caused Paramount to pass this off to Netflix. The two big questions...
Does it work?
Well, yes and no for me. I think it worked well for the Pesci character not as well for De Niro and Pacino. This is likely because Pesci is much more static in the film. Usually sitting or speaking quietly while slowly moving around. Pacino and De Niro have a lot more to do and so all the movement and that they are much more animated characters I think hurt the effect. I understand that Scorsese and De Niro felt it was better and would have more dramatic impact if the same actors played the characters at all the different ages but in all honesty I am not sure I agree with that. It was nice seeing these guys all together and playing off each other but I think it would have made more sense to have a younger actor playing Sheeran in his scenes as a young soldier for example. Plus, obviously using younger actors rather than the CGI would have cost a lot less and perhaps kept this a Paramount picture with a full blown theatrical run. I also suspect that having to shoot with a bunch of CGI cameras along with the normal cameras probably cut down, more than a little, how dynamic and creative they could be with how they shot this. This was not shot like Goodfellas nor even more recent films like Wolf of Wall Street or Shutter Island.
Was it worth the extra cost?
I am going to say no. It was not. Yes, it allowed a lot more screen time for the three leads, which was nice, but in the end I honestly don't think that helped the film. It makes this picture an interesting and fun experiment but not one I want to see repeated. In the end I think it ends up hindering the film in a lot of ways.
Yes, I think if you want to see a movie about Hoffa and his impact, watch the DeVito film. I love DeVito's Hoffa and yes, Nicholson is fantastic in it. It is also a much more beautiful looking film than The Irishman. If you are only going to watch one, I think the DeVito picture is the better film and deserves a lot more attention. I'd honestly call Danny's film a classic. The Irishman is fun but lower level Scorsese. I'd agree too that I enjoy Nicholson as Hoffa more than Pacino but Al did put on quite a show and I think did a good job. Again, he is fun to watch but Nicholson really nails the Hoffa character.
Something odd, I thought, was as this began showing on Netflix it actually opened in more theaters near me. Did not expect that.
You are so WRONG. But there always has to be someone who will hate something because so many other people love it.
Who are you talking to?
The New York Post.
Picking up on a couple of points here:
- NY Post columnist Andrea Peyser's headline is amusing and entertaining but her column goes overboard in trying to take a contrarian stance. It frankly makes me wonder if she and her editors are going out of their way to slam a DeNiro movie to please core NY Post readers....
- The $160 million budget indeed represents a big gamble for Netflix. They're now in an arms race vs. Disney for streaming bragging-rights (emphasis on rights). With not only the traditional Disney and Pixar fare, but now Marvel and LucasFilm under their belt, Mouse House holds most of the cards.... while increasingly debt-burdened Netflix may be a ...... "House of Cards".......
I have to agree. This is exactly what I found myself appreciating as I watched in the theater. I couldn't help but feel general satisfaction I was watching a real movie by someone who knows how to make one. And one whose movies feel like they made them.
It was a big reason I got myself to a theater rather than simply waiting later for my couch.
Someone earlier in the thread said it was a good "made for TV film" or the like, and it got me thinking how little difference the experience is between watching technically excellent movies (even those made for the theater by the best, as in Irishman) on TV, and excellent television on TV. With bigger budgets for TV, effects and cinematography are practically Hollywood-level, episodes are any length (at least on streaming) plus many viewers watch in a home theater. It's little wonder the line has basically disappeared.
This has been discussed before but a Scorsese film straddling that line gives it a different meaning, at least for me. What, then, would make Irishman worth going to the theater? I'd say the experience of watching the best in the viewing space for which the film was designed, and with an audience of strangers for the purpose of a shared experience. This promise is what makes theatrical movies great, and to my mind gives credence to the idea the best films (Oscar nominated ones) should be seen in the theater to compete for that value. Excellence in films includes that for me.
It ain't the same on TV.
Oh, and I'm not positive but rewatching on Netflix I believe the cropping was slightly different. It doesn't serve my point but I'm pretty sure I saw a little more frame in the theater.
I just finished watching.
The other day I watched the first five minutes to get a taste but tonight I had time to watch all of it.
I did have a break in the middle to talk to my wife on the phone but then went right back to it.
Watching it all in one sitting serves it to me and makes for a better watching experience.
Was definitely unsure if I was enjoying it for the first hour or so but continuing on I got into it more the longer I watched.
Not sure if that even makes sense.
When it was over it really didn’t seem like I just watched a movie for four hours including the phone break.
The only time that the de-aging was distracting was the first time Pesci was onscreen at the Stucky’s.
His head was the wrong size, too big.
It looked like one of those old jib jab videos of heads pasted onto bodies dancing around to some weird music track.
The last act was great.
From just before DeNiro gets on the plane it was brilliant.
I likely will never watch the entire movie again because it is really long but I will sample parts of it for sure.
I’d give it a 4/5 stars.
Oh I forgot it was fun seeing a few of the Philadelphia locals in the movie even though though weren’t real.
The scene when Sheeran beats up the guy in the corner store you see a street sign that says Allegheny Ave.
I’m not sure what neighborhood this was supposed to be but I grew up a block off Of Allegheny ave in the Kensington neighborhood of Philly.
The outside of the Latin Casino was a near perfect recreation of what it looked like.
Yes! Thank you! I thought I was the only one who noticed.
Looks like only 18% of Irishman viewers finish it in the first sitting:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... to-the-end
Count me part of the 82% ...
And that number is probably inflated, as it would include those who fell asleep during the film while it continued to play to the end.
Seeing as I saw it in the theaters I would have to be in that 18%.
On my first viewing in the theater I sat through the whole thing obviously. On my second viewing via Netflix I watched half of it early on Thanksgiving morning and then the other half late Thanksgiving night. I knew when I started watching in the morning I had time to watch half the film and then I figured I would watch the rest of it the following morning on Black Friday but I was so into the film when I got home in the evening once my wife had gone to sleep I put on the second half of the film.
As I was watching the film on Thanksgiving morning I got a text from a friend that was watching it for the first time that morning. He was raving about it and saying how sorry he was he did not go to the theater with me when I went. Also all day during Thanksgiving the picture was a topic of conversation, some people had seen it, others had not. Everyone at Thanksgiving dinner had watched it on Netflix. I think most of them watched it all the way through in one sitting because they overwhelmingly were impressed by it but I am sure, because you can, they were pausing it to go get food, take calls, go to the bathroom. I don't really like doing that because I like the entire flow of a picture to be unbroken, particularly on the first watch.
It’s coming back for a one week run next week at the Lafayette theater (seen in the film) in Suffern NY for anyone interested.
This is obviously the issue with this one. Having seen the film a couple times I honestly do wonder how they planned to do this and turn a profit or if they just did not care if they did.
To a great extent this is an old man's movie. It is a movie about an old man thinking back on a life of mistakes with a great deal of regret. It features a group of old actors and entirely feels like a film made by older people for older people. I'd be curious how younger people felt about this if they watched it.
This is certainly not the approach they use to making movies now. Nobody casts a group of over 70 actors to carry their picture. In some ways I think you could jokingly say this is your grandfather's Scorsese film.
I mean I enjoyed these aspects of the picture because we don't see this kind of filmmaking now nor will we see much of it going forward.
I can kind of understand how some people call this Scorsese's "greatest hits" because it does bring back, albeit a bit differently as it is told from an older man's perspective, things from his earlier films.
I do already feel like watching it again but I have a lot of stuff I am trying to get to and so probably won't for some time.