Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 03:08:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Irishman (new Scorsese film feat. De Niro, Pacino, Pesci)

Started by Blinder Data, October 16, 2019, 03:57:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Blinder Data

Trailer: https://youtu.be/WHXxVmeGQUc

Apparently no one's made a thread for this yet? But it's a new Scorsese gangster film about Jimmy HOFFA featuring Pacino AND De Niro AND Pesci who's come out of retirement just for this film ERMAGHAD!!!!1111

I am excited but also a little cautious that this could end up less than the sum of its parts, even though I thought Silence was good, even very good.

Anyway, early reviews seem positive. My chief concerns are the length (3 and half hours long!) and the use of de-aging CGI. Normally I'd definitely see this on the big screen like a proper film fan, but it might be tailor made to be digested in 2-3 chunks on Netflix. Surely there'll at least be an intermission at the cinema?

Netflix release date is 27 November btw


lipsink

It's got 5 stars from both The Guardian and Empire. But dunno if that means anything. I'm cautiously optimistic. Though the de-aging looks a bit distracting combined with maybe one too many old wrinkly heavyweights who haven't done anything decent for years.

Bad Ambassador

I'm not sure if the inclusion or absence of an intermission at screenings would be more surprising.

Mr Banlon

Quote from: lipsink on October 16, 2019, 04:46:30 PM
It's got 5 stars from both The Guardian and Empire. But dunno if that means anything. I'm cautiously optimistic. Though the de-aging looks a bit distracting combined with maybe one too many old wrinkly heavyweights who haven't done anything decent for years.
Frank Sheeran was 54 in 1975. Robert Deniro is 76
Jimmy Hoffa was 62 in 1975. Al Pacino is 79
Way too old for the parts, even if people did look older back then.

lipsink


Glebe

It's getting great reviews (with some suggesting it's Scorsese's best in decades!), and apparently the weird CGI eyes aren't actually that big a deal. Anyway, I hope to see it in a cinema.

kngen

Quote from: Mr Banlon on October 16, 2019, 05:18:45 PM
Frank Sheeran was 54 in 1975. Robert Deniro is 76
Jimmy Hoffa was 62 in 1975. Al Pacino is 79
Way too old for the parts, even if people did look older back then.

Joe Pesci was 47 when he played Tommy De Vito in his early 20s in Goodfellas. Time is a flat circle for Marty, evidently.

weekender

Looks interesting.  Might controversially decide to watch it before I make a judgement.

Mr Banlon

Quote from: kngen on October 16, 2019, 06:36:51 PM
Joe Pesci was 47 when he played Tommy De Vito in his early 20s in Goodfellas. Time is a flat circle for Marty, evidently.
Tommy DeSimone was also 6'2", built like a brick shithouse and had a tash.

NJ Uncut

Hope it shows near me. Never seen one of his films in the cinema

Few (like Vue) boycotting Netflix though.

Noodle Lizard

I've only just got round to watching the trailer for this and I'm reluctant to say it but ... this'll be shit, I reckon.

I hope not, but judging by the dull writer, dull source material and the horrible "Netflix movie" look of the thing ... I think Netflix are banking on "we'll throw $100m or so at Scorsese and get 'something' with three classic Italian American actors" more than anything else. I know that it's apparently been in the works a lot longer than that but ... I'm not sure. The idea of a film like this costing a reported $200m is laughable, honestly.

The YouTube comments imply that the "epic" casting alone is enough for some people, but here's the thing: Joe Pesci rightly retired, and Pacino and De Niro especially haven't been arsed for the past two decades at least. I'd argue Scorsese hasn't either, with the exception of Silence, which seemed to be a properly personal effort from him. But here we are with another by-the-numbers story of someone "entering a life of crime", Netflix swinging their dick all the while. Three and a half fucking hours as well. I dunno. Hope I'm wrong, but it's hard to get excited about.

Urinal Cake

People blame SJWs for ruining media discourse but they are nothing compared to Disney-Marvel fanboys.

Noodle Lizard

One comment somewhere said something to the effect of: "SCORSESE'S VERSION OF EXPENDABLES, TAKE ALL MY MONEY"

I dunno. Scorsese's version of The Expendables. Is that a good thing, now?

mr. logic

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on November 05, 2019, 09:29:18 PM
I've only just got round to watching the trailer for this and I'm reluctant to say it but ... this'll be shit, I reckon.

I hope not, but judging by the dull writer, dull source material and the horrible "Netflix movie" look of the thing ... I think Netflix are banking on "we'll throw $100m or so at Scorsese and get 'something' with three classic Italian American actors" more than anything else. I know that it's apparently been in the works a lot longer than that but ... I'm not sure. The idea of a film like this costing a reported $200m is laughable, honestly.

The YouTube comments imply that the "epic" casting alone is enough for some people, but here's the thing: Joe Pesci rightly retired, and Pacino and De Niro especially haven't been arsed for the past two decades at least. I'd argue Scorsese hasn't either, with the exception of Silence, which seemed to be a properly personal effort from him. But here we are with another by-the-numbers story of someone "entering a life of crime", Netflix swinging their dick all the while. Three and a half fucking hours as well. I dunno. Hope I'm wrong, but it's hard to get excited about.

Tend to agree. I found the book it's based on deathly dull.

phantom_power

It is getting almost unanimous "back on form" reviews, saying it has no right to be as good as it is, and fully justifying the long running time. Scorcese, De Niro. Pesci and Pacino all on top form. From the sounds of it, it is almost like an Unforgiven for mob films

NJ Uncut

I think it'll be boss. Sounds heavy and grounded and even if it ploughs the same furrow as we've seen from Scorsese before it's a furrow I enjoy wallowing in. And it could be the last time.

Seeing it in a cinema though, hmm... The Netflix boycott by Vue and all that is in full effect so the opportunities are a bit scarce. It's playing in a few places though.

Might go see it in the Everyman in Liverpool. Also might not... depends, depends. The running length is actually what is making me hesitant. I want to drink, see, and perhaps making the cinema boycott's point is the stark fact I could watch it at home on a massive screen with my friends Jack Daniels and Mary Jane and miss not a second of it.

bgmnts

Its got Ray Romano in it who I like in everything bar his shit sitcom. I'm down.

phantom_power

Quote from: bgmnts on November 08, 2019, 02:15:27 PM
Its got Ray Romano in it who I like in everything bar his shit sitcom. I'm down.

And Bobby Carnivale, Anna Paquin, Stephen Graham, Jesse Plemons and Keitel. It must be the most filled-with-great-actors films of all time, AND Jim Norton as Don Rickles

Billy

Saw it at the Prince Charles Cinema today and bloody loved it. Not all the de-aging works - the first scene between Younger De Niro and Younger Pesci looks like it's out of a Pixar movie, and it messed with my sense of time somewhat seeing Pacino/De Niro looking like their 'Heat' selves in something set in the early 60s. But the more the film goes on the less the CGI gets and things get really good in the second half especially. I was worried about the running time but the 3.5 hours passed quickly with no obvious signs of padding, and it got a deserved round of applause from the 50-odd of us in the screen on a Friday afternoon.

The toilet scrum after the credits, though, geez...

peanutbutter

Quote from: Billy on November 08, 2019, 10:44:23 PM
Saw it at the Prince Charles Cinema today and bloody loved it. Not all the de-aging works - the first scene between Younger De Niro and Younger Pesci looks like it's out of a Pixar movie, and it messed with my sense of time somewhat seeing Pacino/De Niro looking like their 'Heat' selves in something set in the early 60s. But the more the film goes on the less the CGI gets and things get really good in the second half especially. I was worried about the running time but the 3.5 hours passed quickly with no obvious signs of padding, and it got a deserved round of applause from the 50-odd of us in the screen on a Friday afternoon.

The toilet scrum after the credits, though, geez...
PCC's toilet situation is way better than it used to be though, isn't it?

Noodle Lizard

Ah fuck, I mean - reading some of the reviews, it probably is worth at least something of a fuck after all. I'll preemptively beg forgiveness for my assumptions based on everything else about it other than the 'it' itself. I'll definitely be watching, so my fingers are crossed.

NJ Uncut

Quote from: Billy on November 08, 2019, 10:44:23 PM
Saw it at the Prince Charles Cinema today and bloody loved it. Not all the de-aging works - the first scene between Younger De Niro and Younger Pesci looks like it's out of a Pixar movie, and it messed with my sense of time somewhat seeing Pacino/De Niro looking like their 'Heat' selves in something set in the early 60s. But the more the film goes on the less the CGI gets and things get really good in the second half especially. I was worried about the running time but the 3.5 hours passed quickly with no obvious signs of padding, and it got a deserved round of applause from the 50-odd of us in the screen on a Friday afternoon.

The toilet scrum after the credits, though, geez...

Ace, cheers for this. Makes me a bit keener to get off arse and see it

Almost happy the de-aging didn't quite come off as amazing, really. I just have a fear it'll be overused and hence misused, like, oooh, almost anything else new in any medium. As long as it isn't actively worsening the film I think I'll have a high tolerance for it, and it's good here that it has a specific, plot-suitable purpose

No obvious padding, though? 3 and a half hours whizzing by? Round of a applause at a screen? Oh it bodes well! It bodes indeed!

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on November 05, 2019, 09:29:18 PM
I've only just got round to watching the trailer for this and I'm reluctant to say it but ... this'll be shit, I reckon.

I hope not, but judging by the dull writer, dull source material and the horrible "Netflix movie" look of the thing ... I think Netflix are banking on "we'll throw $100m or so at Scorsese and get 'something' with three classic Italian American actors" more than anything else. I know that it's apparently been in the works a lot longer than that but ... I'm not sure. The idea of a film like this costing a reported $200m is laughable, honestly.

The YouTube comments imply that the "epic" casting alone is enough for some people, but here's the thing: Joe Pesci rightly retired, and Pacino and De Niro especially haven't been arsed for the past two decades at least. I'd argue Scorsese hasn't either, with the exception of Silence, which seemed to be a properly personal effort from him. But here we are with another by-the-numbers story of someone "entering a life of crime", Netflix swinging their dick all the while. Three and a half fucking hours as well. I dunno. Hope I'm wrong, but it's hard to get excited about.
Quote from: weekender on October 16, 2019, 07:48:44 PM
Might controversially decide to watch it before I make a judgement.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on November 05, 2019, 09:29:18 PM
I've only just got round to watching the trailer for this and I'm reluctant to say it but ... this'll be shit, I reckon.

I hope not, but judging by the dull writer, dull source material and the horrible "Netflix movie" look of the thing ... I think Netflix are banking on "we'll throw $100m or so at Scorsese and get 'something' with three classic Italian American actors" more than anything else. I know that it's apparently been in the works a lot longer than that but ... I'm not sure. The idea of a film like this costing a reported $200m is laughable, honestly.

The YouTube comments imply that the "epic" casting alone is enough for some people, but here's the thing: Joe Pesci rightly retired, and Pacino and De Niro especially haven't been arsed for the past two decades at least. I'd argue Scorsese hasn't either, with the exception of Silence, which seemed to be a properly personal effort from him. But here we are with another by-the-numbers story of someone "entering a life of crime", Netflix swinging their dick all the while. Three and a half fucking hours as well. I dunno. Hope I'm wrong, but it's hard to get excited about.

I know it's a forum for opinions and all that and I sometimes feel like the most cynical man in the world but you really do leave me in the shade. How in the fuck do you even get out of bed in the morning? What motivates you? Why are you involved in the film industry? One thing where I leave my cynicism at the door despite myself is films. One thing that suckers me in despite having watched my fair share of mediocrity is films. If a film gets 90 odd percent from critics and audiences I tend to think hmmmm, maybe there's something in that.

I dunno, fair play to you, if I had your cold cynical eye for every single film that ever comes out I reckon I'd have done myself in by now.

I think this looks great and it's actually exciting me. A return to form for a load of old farts, great. And Scorcese is known to make man films, gangster films, it's what he does. People complain he can't write women characters but that's like complaining Ronald McDonald doesn't host a chat show, it's not his area.

Honestly, if I only liked 2% of the films I ever saw I wouldn't bother.

chveik

Noodle Lizard is right, you don't have to settle for the shite the entertainment industry wants to feed you.

there are others reasons to get out of bed in the morning than cinema btw.

Funcrusher

Scorcese has been producing utter cinematic mince for decades now. It's hardly being a hardcore cynic about the entire cinematic world to expect his latest effort to not be very good.

Twit 2

Yeah, but NL does talk like that about most films, even really good ones.

Quote from: checkoutgirl on November 09, 2019, 06:49:29 PM
People complain he can't write women characters but that's like complaining Ronald McDonald doesn't host a chat show, it's not his area.

I hear this complaint a lot, and what people don't seem to know is that Scorsese, for the most part, does not write his own material. So he's not really a writer, but even allowing for that, the renderings of female characters in Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Age of Innocence are great, and though it's true that his films predominantly feature male leads, the female co-lead is rarely ornamental, see Lorraine Bracco in Goodfellas, Barbara Seagull in Last Temptation, Liza Minnelli in New York, New York etc.

I think that much of the flak that Scorsese gets online is based on a large portion of (younger) people having only seen Wolf of Wall Street and maybe half of Goodfellas on TV.

oy vey

Super flick (but not perfect). First hour flawless. Middle a little saggy but lots going on to keep you going. Last act slow pathos. De-aging is fine. Paquin lack of lines issue is a load of hot air - her character was exactly what was needed. Scorsese's movie is about mostly male characters. Go figure. People who conjure up problems to wag their finger about should shove said finger up their arse.

Every scene with De Niro and Pesci together is a delight. Pesci can be restrained and still retain a "don't fuck with me" attitude. He's a genius - my favourite. Pacino goes a little over the top in places but is otherwise solid. Excellent supporting characters with no dead wood. Great music choices, fine camera work, punchy dialog. Scorsese scores. Go see it you stuttering prick.