Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 100
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Babylon
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by buttahflake View Post
    Boring as fuck, no one will ever re-watch this like Goodfellas, Casino and such. What a waste of time.
    Actually, after watching it and the after discussion, I do want to watch again. More and more it is amazing to have 4 such skilled filmmakers really be the center of the story across the years. It is almost theatrical in that. Out side from the big 3, every other actor is a bit player. It really is a tour de force, even with Pacinos over the top bluster.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    10,545
    I want to watch it again. Thought it was great, slow, deliberate and built everyone up as much as they needed to. The narration of a lonely man in the home, the attempt to see his daughter in the bank, all great.

    There are some articles online on how to break it into a mini-series, which I agree with.



    What kind of fish?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    15,124

    New Scorsese movie with Deniro, Pacino, and Pesci, coming soon

    Forgettable. Hard to wrap around 80 y/o playing 30y/o. MS directing makes it easy to watch.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greater Drictor Wydaho
    Posts
    4,820
    I didn't care much for it. I thought it sort of meandered around. I thought it was self-indulgently long. I didn't enjoy Deniro's mumbling, old man narration. I dont think the Sheeran character had much depth. I think having actors pushing 80 years old trying to play men in their 30s and 40s was so unconvincing that it broke the fourth wall. But most of all, I don't understand why Scorsese made a film full of outright lies.

    The most egregious...Crazy Joe Gallo was shot at Umberto's Clam House because his crew was in an ongoing war with the rest of the Profaci/Colombo family. Pretty much everyone in the Colombos had assumed that Gallo had orchestrated the assassination of the family boss and Gallo was a marked man. It had NOTHING to do with something he said to Russell Buffalino. Plus, there were witnesses at Umberto's. Gallo was publicly murdered by a squad of Colombo shooters, not an old fat lone gunman. That's just a fact. It's well known mob history. To suggest that Sheeran did it is just fucking stupid unless Scorsese is actually trying to retcon all his mob films as being little more than lies told by aging mobsters looking to cash in. One of the great things about Goodfellas is the more you watch it, the more you understand that Henry Hill is an unreliable narrator. Henry always remembers everything in a light most favorable to himself. But, he is recounting actual events that he experienced as an associate in Paul Vario's Lucchese crew. There's a lot of truth in the story. The Irishman, however, really pushed the limits of having an unreliable narrator and pushed it way too far. I want a mob film that gives you a peek behind the curtains into a secret society. I'm not interested in a bunch of bullshit. This film...wtf...It's like Sheeran is the Forrest Gump of the mob. Bleh.
    Last edited by neckdeep; 12-05-2019 at 04:30 PM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    502
    Self-indulgently long is a good way to describe it. Kinda sick of Deniro’s and Pacino’s same old same old. Thought Pesci was great.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Walpole NH
    Posts
    8,066

    New Scorsese movie with Deniro, Pacino, and Pesci, coming soon

    The scene where Deniro is beating on the grocery keeper, who pushed his daughter, might be one of the worst scenes I’ve ever seen. Took me right of the whole thing. Deniro looked so old and feeble. Movie is just not very good.
    crab in my shoe mouth

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,870
    It was just an unforgettable film. It melded right into many of the other mediocre mobster movies and given the cast, it felt like many of them.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Babylon
    Posts
    10,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Peruvian View Post
    It was just an unforgettable film. It melded right into many of the other mediocre mobster movies and given the cast, it felt like many of them.
    You keep using that word, I do not think that word means what you think it means


    I think the unreliable narrator is a key to the whole story,

    I will see what it is like on second viewing

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    30,475
    I fell asleep about 40 minutes in.

    Not sure I'll bother trying again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,022
    I liked it. We watched The Irishman last weekend, then The Godfather and Godfather Part II this week. The Irishman is far from Scorsese's best work, but to my eye it's a good bit better than those two Oscar Best Picture winners.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Truckee, CA
    Posts
    5,930
    What I'm finding interesting is that the bulk of the negative reviews I'm hearing about the film are coming from folks who streamed it at home. I would be interested to know how big everyody's TV screens are at home. I liked the film. But I went out of my way to see it in the theaters on a BIG screen. I felt it flowed pretty well and I was engaged by the acting, but I am 99.9% sure that I wouldn't have been able to sit through the entire film in one sitting had I watched it at home on my 47" screen. I really feel that there is a difference between seeing a film in a theater and seeing it at home. And while The Irishman isn't a grand visual epic like, say, 2001: A Space Oddity or Walkabout or Lawrence of Arabia, I tend to think that it might suffer a bit from being watched at home...
    "Man, we killin' elephants in the back yard..."

    http://www.blizzardsportusa.com/

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,962

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    13,022
    Quote Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
    What I'm finding interesting is that the bulk of the negative reviews I'm hearing about the film are coming from folks who streamed it at home.
    FWIW, most movie critics are loving it.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    5,248
    Quote Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
    What I'm finding interesting is that the bulk of the negative reviews I'm hearing about the film are coming from folks who streamed it at home. I would be interested to know how big everyody's TV screens are at home. I liked the film. But I went out of my way to see it in the theaters on a BIG screen. I felt it flowed pretty well and I was engaged by the acting, but I am 99.9% sure that I wouldn't have been able to sit through the entire film in one sitting had I watched it at home on my 47" screen. I really feel that there is a difference between seeing a film in a theater and seeing it at home. And while The Irishman isn't a grand visual epic like, say, 2001: A Space Oddity or Walkabout or Lawrence of Arabia, I tend to think that it might suffer a bit from being watched at home...
    I watched it at home, took me 3 attempts to finish over about a week and I still really liked it.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Truckee, CA
    Posts
    5,930
    Quote Originally Posted by GeezerSteve View Post
    FWIW, most movie critics are loving it.
    Willing to bet that most movie critics more than likely watched it at a theater, which goes to my original point: the bulk of the negative reviews I am seeing are coming from streamers.



    Quote Originally Posted by AK47bp View Post
    I watched it at home, took me 3 attempts to finish over about a week and I still really liked it.
    This is what I am hearing from quite a few of my friends and co-workers: that it took them several days to watch it. I dunno, but I can't break up a movie into a few days and have the same reaction that I would if I were to watch it in one sitting. But that's me.
    There is something immersive about seeing a movie in the theaters.
    It's akin to how you hear people talk about picking a designated place to study when you are in college, a place away from your dorm room or house, where all you do is study. Or if you work from home you should have a dedicated office as opposed to working in your bedroom or kitchen; places where other activities occur.
    I find that going to a theater puts me in the mind to be fully committed to watching the film.
    When I watch a film at home there's too many distractions: getting up to go to the bathroom; "Oh, I want a snack" and then pausing the film to get some food; the phone ringing (I leave my phone in the car when I go to the cinema); friends stopping by; ambient noise from outside; the list goes on...
    Now if I had a dedicated theater room in my house, that would be a different story!
    "Man, we killin' elephants in the back yard..."

    http://www.blizzardsportusa.com/

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lake Wallenpaupack, PA
    Posts
    814

    New Scorsese movie with Deniro, Pacino, and Pesci, coming soon

    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    I fell asleep about 40 minutes in.

    Not sure I'll bother trying again.
    Same....I fell asleep about halfway in.....that’s a sign that I had better things to do.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,962
    Then again I’m a union driver in Michigan...so the subject matter appeals.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,954
    Watched it at home. Thought it was great.

    Yeah, the de-aging wasn't the best. And yeah, the grocery store beating looked like an 80 year old that looked like a 30 year old trying to move like an 80 year old can't. It's not a perfect movie, but it kept me interested the whole time. The wife even stayed awake for like 2/3 of it, which is impressive.

    Pesci was fantastic. Deniro was fine. Pacino left a bit to be desired, but had a few good scenes (mostly where he had to tone it down a bit).

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Truckee, CA
    Posts
    5,930
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    ...It's not a perfect movie, but it kept me interested the whole time...
    ^THIS!

    Nicely put Toast. I continually appreciate how you can take an idea which I spent a 1000 words conveying and reduce it into one neat and succinct sentence. I may have to hire you as an editor...



    For those interested in reading my 1000 words rambling about The Irishman: https://spencesez.blogspot.com/2019/...lm-review.html
    "Man, we killin' elephants in the back yard..."

    http://www.blizzardsportusa.com/

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    8,954
    Ha! I like the 1000 word versions. All kinds of notes on stuff that I probably missed, and references to semi obscure stuff that I should watch.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    5,870
    I watched it on a iPhone screen, but it was only 6” from my face so it was like being at an IMAX theater.


  22. #72
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    37,530
    So this was a docudrama, but, a really good docudrama.

    Pacino will always be Pacino.

    How can one movie have so many producers? What do all of those people do? Lunch?

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Truckee, CA
    Posts
    5,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    ...Pacino will always be Pacino...
    And DeNiro will always be DeNiro.

    But Joseph Frank Pesci will always appeal to the youts...
    "Man, we killin' elephants in the back yard..."

    http://www.blizzardsportusa.com/

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    37,530
    Pesci was awesome. Best supporting actor.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Big in Japan
    Posts
    37,530
    I listened to Louis CK interviewed by Marc Maron a while ago, before Louis's life blew up, and he was basically promoting Harold and Pete, his ten episode web TV series, which is really good, but, super dark. It used to be on CK's website, but, maybe HULU now. Louis asked Pesci to play the bartender role, and of course, he refused. Alan Alda eventually took the role, and he was awesome. But, I would love to be a fly on the wall and watch the encounter between CK and Pesci, because CK just drove out to his house in Jersey and knocked on the door. CK said he was nice, and helped him write the character. So, if you ever watch that series, there's a little Pesci in the Alan Alda character.

    Let's do some livin'
    After, we die

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •