The Irishman

[/dev/null]

On 12/19/2019 at 2:49 PM, Max Fischer said:

• DeNiro was way too old for the role. Laughably old. MS should have used a younger actor and aged him. "Beating up" the grocer was almost a turn-off. Overall, it just didn't work for me. 

 

21 minutes ago, Boca BIlls said:

I am glad I'm not the only one that saw that.

 

You guys aren't the only ones who saw that.  It's one of those things alot of people saw but didn't feel comfortable saying.

 

DeNiro is an incredible actor and did an amazing job in The Irishman. 

 

But he was miscast and there were better options

Edited January 1, 2020 by /dev/null

[Turk71]

  Tired retread amalgamation  of nine other gangster movies, with absurd flashbacks of old actors playing young guys. 3 1/2 hours? WTF were they thinking?

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, Turk71 said:

  Tired retread amalgamation  of nine other gangster movies, with absurd flashbacks of old actors playing young guys. 3 1/2 hours? WTF were they thinking?

$$$

[Dante]

On 12/31/2019 at 6:55 PM, Turk71 said:

  Tired retread amalgamation  of nine other gangster movies, with absurd flashbacks of old actors playing young guys. 3 1/2 hours? WTF were they thinking?

Lots of tired retreads in movies the last couple decades

[Royale with Cheese]

I loved it.

I started it at like 10:30 thinking I’ll get half of it in and then finish the next day.  I didn’t want to stop watching.

 

I loved Pesci in this movie.  

[Teddy KGB]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I loved it.

I started it at like 10:30 thinking I’ll get half of it in and then finish the next day.  I didn’t want to stop watching.

 

I loved Pesci in this movie.  

Same.    It’s not perfect but I loved parts of it. 
 

The wife smoking in the car scene and the scene where Deniro walks out of the meeting where Hoffa was scolding everyone was awesome.  

[Johnny Hammersticks]

It was okay.  That’s all I got.  

[Koko78]

Netflix has a pretty interesting 23-minute video of DeNiro, Pesci, Pacino, and Scorsese chatting about the movie and how it all came together.

 

Worth the watch, just to get some insight into the process of making it.

[Sweats]

Watched it twice........wasn't sure if i liked it the first time, so i watched it again.

 

Yep, didn't like it.

[Tierlifer]

Great movie. Didn’t feel as long as it was. Also If you include the credits at the end it’s more like 3:17 long. The CGI to make them look younger was tremendously well done and didn’t take anything away from me enjoying it at all. 

[Gordio]

18 hours ago, Sweats said:

Watched it twice........wasn't sure if i liked it the first time, so i watched it again.

 

Yep, didn't like it.

 

 

It was just the opposite for me.  Watched it the first time, wasn't crazy about.  I should state I watched it the first time Saturday night around 3am when I couldn't fall asleep.  I was dozing in & out of it.  Decided to give it another chance the next weekend coincidently in the middle of the night when I couldn't fall asleep again & payed more attention to it & liked it much more.  I am not saying I am going to put it up there with GF or Casino but I thought it was decent.  

[NoHuddleKelly12]

Finally had the time to devote to this, and overall thought it was a good movie. As others have noted upthread, it still won't dethrone GFs as the standard in the mob movie genre for me (Godfather of course is the orig. classic, but I still prefer watching Goodfellas more), but definitely don't regret the time I spent watching it. Great performance from Pesci, almost didn't know he had it in him to act with such gravitas in this role, imho.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 12/19/2019 at 2:49 PM, Max Fischer said:

I'm a huge Scorsese fan but I thought the Irishman was blah. SPOILERS

 

• DeNiro was way too old for the role. Laughably old. MS should have used a younger actor and aged him. "Beating up" the grocer was almost a turn-off. Overall, it just didn't work for me. 
• The cinematography was great: sets, customs, music, etc. 
• Very happy to have Joe Pesci back.  He was outstanding, every look said volumes.  
• I was concerned Pacino would ham it up, which he did, but his Hoffa was appropriate. A larger-than-life character. 
• My biggest complaint: The story is not at all historically accurate.  Yes, it's based on Frank Sheeran's book, but Sheeran was a con artist or a pathetic old man looking for attention. Sheeran was indeed a labor boss, but a small-time guy who would have been lost to history if not for his claim to be an assassin. His stories have been debunked by nearly every historian, FBI agent, mobster and witnesses. Unfortunately, MS turned him into the Forest Gump of the labor-mafia world. At every turn Frank was there. Even Pesci's character, while a substantial mafia boss, had much less to do with Hoffa. 
• A MUCH better story would have been about Hoffa and his relationship to the Mafia. He could have intertwined the teamster's and mafia's history, with both literally and figuratively killing each other off in the mid-70s. Turn it into a six-hour miniseries, explore many other characters, the time period, etc. 
• Anyway, I looked forward to The Irishman for months and I don't need to see it again. Instead, I'll watch Goodfellas, Casino and the Departed a few dozen more times. 

 

Good summary though you were harder on it than me.

 

Deniro appeared about 90 in the grocer scene.  Oldest he looked in the film imo. He also had these weird bent baby arms while laying the boots to the guy.  With his young daughter off to the side, I was wondering if I missed a scene transition and he was a beloved grandpa defending his grandaughter. 
 

Very, very off putting. 

[Canadian Bills Fan]

On 1/5/2020 at 3:49 PM, Sweats said:

Watched it twice........wasn't sure if i liked it the first time, so i watched it again.

 

Yep, didn't like it.

 

 

My God man...how much free time do you have?

[Max Fischer]

14 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Good summary though you were harder on it than me.

 

Deniro appeared about 90 in the grocer scene.  Oldest he looked in the film imo. He also had these weird bent baby arms while laying the boots to the guy.  With his young daughter off to the side, I was wondering if I missed a scene transition and he was a beloved grandpa defending his grandaughter. 
 

Very, very off putting. 

 

I'm curious how many viewers care about historical accuracy in movies/TV. I understand that some things are changed to provide story flow and even the use of material not "disproven" but I have a real problem with blatently "changing history."  

 

This was my problem with Inglorious Bastards. It was enjoyable up until they killed Hitler and his key general staff in the theater.  That's an extreme case and could be chalked up to creating Hollywood fantasy but it's just not necessary and contributes to historical illiteracy. There are countless story plots without completely changing history. 

 

Likewise, it wasn't necessary for Scorsese to use Frank Sheeran's fantastical book when there are so many as-good storylines that are very true.  Even in Goodfellas, where they changed the names and never really pretended it was "history," did not take nearly as many liberties with what actually happened. 

 

There are so many examples of movies lazily changing verifiable facts, I just don't get it. One last example, and almost no viewer will care, is the "The King" on Netflix. It's the "historical" account of Henry V's rise and defeat of the French at Agincourt.  A sort of side-by-side with Shakespeare's "Henry V."   Shakespeare didn't have much trouble making historical changes to make a good story but he relied on biased accounts (which, for the most part, were the only ones readily available) and was not shy about promoting Tudor propaganda to entertain the masses. However, in "The King," modern filmmakers made made unnecessary changes to history to drive the story, namely the fate of Henry's brother (who was himself an important figure after Henry's death) and the French Dauphin, neither of which would make any difference but they do it anyway.  

 

End of rant.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Max Fischer said:

 

I'm curious how many viewers care about historical accuracy in movies/TV. I understand that some things are changed to provide story flow and even the use of material not "disproven" but I have a real problem with blatently "changing history."  

 

This was my problem with Inglorious Bastards. It was enjoyable up until they killed Hitler and his key general staff in the theater.  That's an extreme case and could be chalked up to creating Hollywood fantasy but it's just not necessary and contributes to historical illiteracy. There are countless story plots without completely changing history. 

 

Likewise, it wasn't necessary for Scorsese to use Frank Sheeran's fantastical book when there are so many as-good storylines that are very true.  Even in Goodfellas, where they changed the names and never really pretended it was "history," did not take nearly as many liberties with what actually happened. 

 

There are so many examples of movies lazily changing verifiable facts, I just don't get it. One last example, and almost no viewer will care, is the "The King" on Netflix. It's the "historical" account of Henry V's rise and defeat of the French at Agincourt.  A sort of side-by-side with Shakespeare's "Henry V."   Shakespeare didn't have much trouble making historical changes to make a good story but he relied on biased accounts (which, for the most part, were the only ones readily available) and was not shy about promoting Tudor propaganda to entertain the masses. However, in "The King," modern filmmakers made made unnecessary changes to history to drive the story, namely the fate of Henry's brother (who was himself an important figure after Henry's death) and the French Dauphin, neither of which would make any difference but they do it anyway.  

 

End of rant.

 

 

Well sir, this would apparently qualify as a "hot button" issue for you. 

 

Personally, I appreciate a well told story told from an accurate perspective.  I recall watching JFK, walking out and thinking "Holy Cow Tommy Lee Jones killed Kennedy!!!". Frank Nitti being tossed off the roof in "Untouchables" warmed my heart, yet it was disappointing to learn it never happened.  

 

I'm sort of ambivalent about it these days simply because I have rationalized that since I have no real idea what the actual dialogue would have been in an historically accurate film, who got angry, who delivered a thunderous and emotionally charged speech to an audience, it's all sort of fantasy anyway. 

 

Best I can say is after watching The Irishman is that i researched the players a bit and learned something I didn't know before. I watch most movies as a 2 hour escape from reality, though I watch far less than I used to. 

 

Have a good day! 

[/dev/null]

Chuckie O'Brien, who called himself Jimmy Hoffa's foster son, dead at age 86

O'Brien was portrayed in The Irishman by actor Jesse Plemons (Todd from Breaking Bad)

 

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/02/13/chuckie-obrien-jimmy-hoffa-foster-son/4756652002/

[Troll Toll]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:27 AM, Max Fischer said:

 

I'm curious how many viewers care about historical accuracy in movies/TV. I understand that some things are changed to provide story flow and even the use of material not "disproven" but I have a real problem with blatently "changing history."  

 

This was my problem with Inglorious Bastards. It was enjoyable up until they killed Hitler and his key general staff in the theater.  That's an extreme case and could be chalked up to creating Hollywood fantasy but it's just not necessary and contributes to historical illiteracy. There are countless story plots without completely changing history. 

 

Likewise, it wasn't necessary for Scorsese to use Frank Sheeran's fantastical book when there are so many as-good storylines that are very true.  Even in Goodfellas, where they changed the names and never really pretended it was "history," did not take nearly as many liberties with what actually happened. 

 

There are so many examples of movies lazily changing verifiable facts, I just don't get it. One last example, and almost no viewer will care, is the "The King" on Netflix. It's the "historical" account of Henry V's rise and defeat of the French at Agincourt.  A sort of side-by-side with Shakespeare's "Henry V."   Shakespeare didn't have much trouble making historical changes to make a good story but he relied on biased accounts (which, for the most part, were the only ones readily available) and was not shy about promoting Tudor propaganda to entertain the masses. However, in "The King," modern filmmakers made made unnecessary changes to history to drive the story, namely the fate of Henry's brother (who was himself an important figure after Henry's death) and the French Dauphin, neither of which would make any difference but they do it anyway.  

 

End of rant.

 

 

With the Tarantino flick, I enjoyed that part when I first watched it because I wasn’t expecting it at all (I expected the plan to fall apart). Since that time, with films like Django, I’ve come to despise the social justice motivation behind the alterations and the embarrassing pandering to the “victim” class. I will say, if I watch a movie I’m unfamiliar with from a historical perspective, I tend to be disappointed afterwards when I find out where the filmmaker misled me. 
 

Related question: How do you feel about filmmakers changing details from fictional books they are based on?

[Max Fischer]

14 hours ago, Troll Toll said:

With the Tarantino flick, I enjoyed that part when I first watched it because I wasn’t expecting it at all (I expected the plan to fall apart). Since that time, with films like Django, I’ve come to despise the social justice motivation behind the alterations and the embarrassing pandering to the “victim” class. I will say, if I watch a movie I’m unfamiliar with from a historical perspective, I tend to be disappointed afterwards when I find out where the filmmaker misled me. 
 

Related question: How do you feel about filmmakers changing details from fictional books they are based on?

There are quite a few lazy movies that insert “social justice” motivations (JFK - no basis in fact) or conservative porn (The Patriot - ugh, the worst, Gods and Generals - just terrible) because they can’t help themselves. These filmmakers blatantly change history for no good reason than to rewrite history.  That’s inexcusable.  Often minor changes are made for story flow but most are done out of laziness when the history is more compelling than the re-write. 
 

As for fictional sources, I don’t get too worked as sometimes the movie is better than the book. However, that’s not often the case. For the most part, I think most changes are made to adapt to a two-hour movie but not as excusable for a miniseries. Screen adaptions are difficult but it takes skill. 
 

The recent War and Peace miniseries took a fraction of the story lines but was able to capture the spirit if the book. While the TV series  of the Passage would skip parts and still get bogged down in detail. The best adaption I’ve seen is the miniseries Lonesome Dove. It’s a 850 page book but it felt like they didn’t miss a scene or cut a character. Demonstrated a book could be done faithfully without missing a beat.  The recent Sharp Objects was as good as the book.