|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Nov 26, 2019 16:41:51 GMT
Who's seen it?
Who loved it?
What did you think about the CGI?
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Nov 26, 2019 16:45:30 GMT
I didn't really notice the CGI much. Just in the early scenes - where De Niro's driving the truck or at the desk with whatsisface, something done with the eyes. It wasn't a distraction, thankfully.
I thought the film was absolutely wonderful. I want to see it again soon.
I've got a couple of reservations but I'll hold back until I see what others say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 12:39:43 GMT
Didn't see the overdone ending, with the clover covered super leprechaun swooping in to save the day....Hell of a twist, Marty !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2019 13:57:26 GMT
What John says about CGI. Saw it yesterday. It was good.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Nov 29, 2019 23:29:04 GMT
Fuck's sake - is that it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 17:16:39 GMT
Fuck's sake - is that it? So, I think it was interesting for a Scorsese movie. I've heard comments from people that it never seemed to end, but I thought the arc of the movie was perfectly appropriate. Scorsese was bound to the biography in some ways, but I thought he provided enough of his own touches. I didn't think Pacino was a great pick for Hoffa from a physical resemblance. I think Keitel would have been a better pick. and I think Keitel's more visceral presence would have better served the doggedness and conflict Hoffa had to contend with serving two masters - the union and the mob. The line about DeNiro's character being a painter was alluded to enough times, but I didn't see the connection about him being thrust into his situation and his experience in battle as really being brought out in any inner conflict. He seemed to just go along for the ride and did what he was asked to do. How's that?
|
|
Sneelock
god
there's a difference, you know...
Posts: 8,431
|
Post by Sneelock on Dec 3, 2019 20:10:42 GMT
Fuck's sake - is that it? somebody needed to watch a movie for a class so I kicked the can down the road - maybe next weekend. I must say, I really didn't mind watching "Do the Right Thing" again. it's aged in a really interesting way.
|
|
nolamike
star
Old Fart At Play
Posts: 874
|
Post by nolamike on Dec 4, 2019 15:06:53 GMT
Fuck's sake - is that it? So, I think it was interesting for a Scorsese movie. I've heard comments from people that it never seemed to end, but I thought the arc of the movie was perfectly appropriate. Scorsese was bound to the biography in some ways, but I thought he provided enough of his own touches. I didn't think Pacino was a great pick for Hoffa from a physical resemblance. I think Keitel would have been a better pick. and I think Keitel's more visceral presence would have better served the doggedness and conflict Hoffa had to contend with serving two masters - the union and the mob. The line about DeNiro's character being a painter was alluded to enough times, but I didn't see the connection about him being thrust into his situation and his experience in battle as really being brought out in any inner conflict. He seemed to just go along for the ride and did what he was asked to do. How's that? I haven't seen it yet, but I did read a really interesting piece saying that a movie about the making of this would be far more interesting than the finished product itself - the fact that DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci, and Scorsese have all worked together over the years, making legendary movies, but are now all in their late 70s, and likely don't have many more movies left in them, meaning this could be the last one on which any of them collaborate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 17:10:20 GMT
So, I think it was interesting for a Scorsese movie. I've heard comments from people that it never seemed to end, but I thought the arc of the movie was perfectly appropriate. Scorsese was bound to the biography in some ways, but I thought he provided enough of his own touches. I didn't think Pacino was a great pick for Hoffa from a physical resemblance. I think Keitel would have been a better pick. and I think Keitel's more visceral presence would have better served the doggedness and conflict Hoffa had to contend with serving two masters - the union and the mob. The line about DeNiro's character being a painter was alluded to enough times, but I didn't see the connection about him being thrust into his situation and his experience in battle as really being brought out in any inner conflict. He seemed to just go along for the ride and did what he was asked to do. How's that? I haven't seen it yet, but I did read a really interesting piece saying that a movie about the making of this would be far more interesting than the finished product itself - the fact that DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci, and Scorsese have all worked together over the years, making legendary movies, but are now all in their late 70s, and likely don't have many more movies left in them, meaning this could be the last one on which any of them collaborate. Well, the making of Fitzcarraldo was way better than that movie too.
|
|
|
Post by fonz on Dec 9, 2019 19:38:49 GMT
I enjoyed it. Pacino miscast.
The CGI was ok, but they didn’t do anything to youngify the way these old fucks shuffled around. When de Niro and Pesci get their cocks out and touch each other, intimately, I thought ‘Hang on. That’s not in the book!’
I’ll watch it again soon with my wife. To be sure.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Dec 12, 2019 1:44:33 GMT
Netflix have a nice little 20-odd minute thing up now, featuring Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci and Pacino. It's well worth a watch, they're just chatting about the film over drinks around a table - you know the kind of thing. Scorsese very much dominates, De Niro grins and nods, Pesci doesn't do a whole lot more, and Pacino is inquisitive, charming and - well, if he's not the coolest 79-year-old in the world, I don't know who is.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,745
|
Post by rayge on Dec 13, 2019 9:35:09 GMT
Pacino is inquisitive, charming and - well, if he's not the coolest 79-year-old in the world, I don't know who is. Just give me 8 years...
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 14, 2019 15:10:46 GMT
I happened to watch Raging Bull two days before I saw this one. It was an interesting juxtaposition.
I was never actually a huge fan of Bull. I always thought that it looked beautiful, but it was hard to see what it all amounted to. But this time I was struck by the bible verse at the end. Poking around a little bit online, I learned that Scorsese was in a pretty bad way during the filming, almost succumbing to drugs and general self destruction. So that bible quote about being made to see - I think he was saying that LaMotta’s self-destruction helped him to see his own. It made me see Raging Bull as a very personal redemption story.
That’s what I took in to watching The Irishman - and it was striking how much the newer film touches on the same issues. Thinking specifically of the last 20 minutes, what the film ends with is a guy going over his life - but refusing to feel any remorse for his actions. But then it ends on a hopeful note, when he asks the young priest to “leave the door open.”
Over the years I’ve read a lot about Scorsese’s Catholicism - but I’ve never felt it as viscerally. Not even via Last Temptation of Christ. It really seems to me the The Irishman is a career-summing work, tying together the most prevalent threads running through all of his work.
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Aug 23, 2020 12:12:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2020 14:36:36 GMT
It really seems to me the The Irishman is a career-summing work, tying together the most prevalent threads running through all of his work. Another way of putting that might be going over old ground. It adds nothing to the Scorsese filmography in my view.
|
|