Jump to content
rllmuk
grounded_dreams

The Irishman - Martin Scorsese, with Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino

Recommended Posts

Much as I love most classic Scorsese I don’t think he ever bettered Mean Streets. That film is so vibrant and real.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ZOK said:

Much as I love most classic Scorsese I don’t think he ever bettered Mean Streets. That film is so vibrant and real.

Tier 1
Mean Streets
Taxi Driver
Raging Bull
Goodfellas
After Hours
Wolf of Wall Street

Tier 2
Casino
The King of Comedy
Color of Money
The Last Temptation of Christ
Shutter Island (really underrated IMO)
The Irishman

Tier 3
The Departed
Age of Innocence
Alice doesn't live here anymore
Cape Fear
The Aviator
Bringing out the dead

That is some fucking career. Tier 3 is all strong 4 out of 5's. Tier 1 are simply masterpieces.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mansizerooster said:

The Departed is an absolute fucking cracker of a film. King of Comedy too.

 

Absolutely. Total 5/5's And they're not even his premium titles. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ZOK said:

Much as I love most classic Scorsese I don’t think he ever bettered Mean Streets. That film is so vibrant and real.

 

The scene where the young Robert De Niro first walks into the bar, all in slowed down time (over cranked camera? whatever you call it).  


Perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t believe I’ve still not seen After Hours.

 

As I’ve observed many times, The Departed is a film so appallingly dreadful in almost every regard that it should be hounded from all film lists on sight, but its pisspoor treatment of the incredible source material alone would probably require Scorsese serve jail time in a more harsh cultural climate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ZOK said:

I can’t believe I’ve still not seen After Hours.

 

As I’ve observed many times, The Departed is a film so appallingly dreadful in almost every regard that it should be hounded from all film lists on sight, but its pisspoor treatment of the incredible source material alone would probably require Scorsese serve jail time in a more harsh cultural climate.

 

The Departed is fucking amazing entertainment. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh don’t get me wrong, there are certainly a few laughs to be had from things like Ray Winstone’s accent, and the lumpen ‘RATS!!! GEDDIT?!?!?’ bit at the end.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ZOK said:

Oh don’t get me wrong, there are certainly a few laughs to be had from things like Ray Winstone’s accent, and the lumpen ‘RATS!!! GEDDIT?!?!?’ bit at the end.

 

It's hilarious from start to finish. Every scene is cranked right up for maximum testosterone and over the topness. And its glorious for it. Pure entertainment. I must have watched it a dozen times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to rewatch the departed because I fucking hated how stupid it was in comparison to the original. Even just little things like how he sent messages via Morse code was reworked for the idiot audience version.

I agree completely with @kerraig  's lists aside from the departed as it annoyed me so much but where's hugo? I probably preferred that to the departed to be honest and it's just a whole load of cinema fan service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, b00dles said:

I need to rewatch the departed because I fucking hated how stupid it was in comparison to the original. Even just little things like how he sent messages via Morse code was reworked for the idiot audience version.

I agree completely with @kerraig  's lists aside from the departed as it annoyed me so much but where's hugo? I probably preferred that to the departed to be honest and it's just a whole load of cinema fan service. 

 

I missed loads out. Hugo loses its way hugely half way through. And I didn't include Kundun, which is a film I worked on.

 

The Departed is best enjoyed not as a remake of the original but very much as its own ridiculous beast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched this in two parts over two days. I thoroughly enjoyed it and it was great to see that old Pesci/De Niro chemistry. Pesci was compelling and menacing, not a line of wasted dialogue.

Pacino was Pacino. 

I'll agree that the beat down by De Niro was weird

Spoiler

It reminded me of Kryton from red dwarf

That was the only part that took me out of the film.

The music was great, the CGI was fine and it was a great biopic. The sets were lavish (probably CGI) and every character seemed real.

What a swansong for all three of the stars. I'll miss them.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, this long form doesn't work. Either split it into two parts and re-write the structure to make each work as an individual parts. Or cut your film down to 120-150 minutes.

 

De Niro doesn't work either. You can CGI out wrinkles, but he still looks, acts and moves like an old man. Takes you out of the movie when people react to him like a young tough. Pacino is particularly one-note and comedic.

 

It may be pointing out the obvious, but there's also a fetishism of criminality and lack of reflection in Scorcese's films that I find off-putting after absorbing dramas like The Sopranos. But then I've still got another 500 hours of the film to go, so maybe Scorcese has more to say in the third act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're making all those points without having finished the movie and casting aspersions on Scorsese's fetishisation of violence even though you've admitted that you haven't seen lots of his famous movies. Keep up those hot takes. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, b00dles said:

So you're making all those points without having finished the movie and casting aspersions on Scorsese's fetishisation of violence even though you've admitted that you haven't seen lots of his famous movies. Keep up those hot takes. 

 

Where did I say I haven't watched lots of Scorcese's famous movies? - I think you've confused me with Charliemouse.

 

And I've now just about finished the film... it's taking 20 minutes to settle on ending having wrapped up the plot a while back. Painfully long.

 

It didn't justify the runtime, but it wouldn't have been a great movie even at 2 hours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, grindmouse said:

Yeah, this long form doesn't work. Either split it into two parts and re-write the structure to make each work as an individual parts. Or cut your film down to 120-150 minutes.

 

De Niro doesn't work either. You can CGI out wrinkles, but he still looks, acts and moves like an old man. Takes you out of the movie when people react to him like a young tough. Pacino is particularly one-note and comedic.

 

It may be pointing out the obvious, but there's also a fetishism of criminality and lack of reflection in Scorcese's films that I find off-putting after absorbing dramas like The Sopranos. But then I've still got another 500 hours of the film to go, so maybe Scorcese has more to say in the third act.


By doesn't work you mean it's almost perfect? DeNiro gives a brilliantly nuanced performance as the stoically loyal henchman lacking any kind of agency. I've watched it 5 times now, and the weird crap fight with the shopkeeper aside it's absolutely belting film making. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ste Pickford said:

I do find it weird how much people struggle with films that don't fall into the standard 90-120 minute time length. There's nothing fundamental about this length from an artistic point of view.

 

Stage plays run for 3 hours but they have structured acts and an intermission.

 

Quote

 

It's a commercial convenience, and perhaps matches how long we can typically focus our attention on one thing without interruption. But there's no reason a film -  a single story told through moving pictures - can't work in 5 mins, 20 mins, 50 mins, 6 hours, 10 hours, etc., depending on the story, nor any law that you have to watch in a single sitting (outside of the cinema).

 

It's not ideal to leave it up the viewer when to drop and pick up the story. Long-form necessitates episodic structure. I also wouldn't use The Irishman as a counter to this because tons of people struggled with it's length. It's laborious for long stretches. Joe Pesci throwaway comments about how "Italian olives are the best", added little. The hit midway through could've been a climax set up by introducing the mini-antagonist earlier, to structure the first half of the story and split the drama into two parts.

 

Editing is becoming a lost artform.

 

Quote

We all happily watch 10-20 episode series, with multiple seasons, often with hours and hours of padding and retreading in the middle, because that format is considered OK.  Most of us will happily read books that take 10s or even 100s of hours to complete, over days or weeks of reading, to tell a story not much longer than a movie.  

 

Episodes and chapters curated in servings by the creator.

 

Quote

But if a movie is 200 minutes long, then every other person thinks it would be better if it was edited down.  Not every story is the same length.  Not every movie needs plot development every 5 minutes.

 

A film can be whatever the creator wants it to be, but there are optimal conditions of accepted consumer-friendly practice and then there is indulgence on the part of the creator. At some point it's diminishing returns and little justification for bloated run-times. Similar to why most albums are 45-60 minutes, as opposed to 8 hours.

 

This applies to series too: Breaking Bad and Sopranos are both excellent but in terms of their overall story you could probably lose a good third of it and not detract one iota from the experience, but that's partly an issue with writing to a quota in yearly chunks, and matters less over the course of a TV show which can be absorbed over weeks and months. For specific examples, the first and 6A seasons of the Sopranos are largely irrelevant. I remember catching an old episode of Breaking Bad after the show had ended, it was when Hank had beaten Jessie and the show was squeezing a ton of heightened drama from it, the dialogue was overwrought and written as though this was a major, narrative-changing event: but in the grand scheme of things it was a forgettable speed bump.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ste Pickford said:

I do find it weird how much people struggle with films that don't fall into the standard 90-120 minute time length. There's nothing fundamental about this length from an artistic point of view. It's a commercial convenience, and perhaps matches how long we can typically focus our attention on one thing without interruption. But there's no reason a film -  a single story told through moving pictures - can't work in 5 mins, 20 mins, 50 mins, 6 hours, 10 hours, etc., depending on the story, nor any law that you have to watch in a single sitting (outside of the cinema).

 

We all happily watch 10-20 episode series, with multiple seasons, often with hours and hours of padding and retreading in the middle, because that format is considered OK.  Most of us will happily read books that take 10s or even 100s of hours to complete, over days or weeks of reading, to tell a story not much longer than a movie.  


But if a movie is 200 minutes long, then every other person thinks it would be better if it was edited down.  Not every story is the same length.  Not every movie needs plot development every 5 minutes.


Believe that Networks are studying this trend very closely. Hence Atlanta and The F***ing end of the World have such swift runtimes.

People will watch three episodes in a row, but wont go into a 2 hour movie.

We've all fucked our brains up

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shows are structured completely different and are far more plot-driven than films though. It’s apples and oranges, different narrative mediums. 3,5 hours has always been a very long runtime for a film too. 
 

I didn’t think that the relatively thin plot and themes of the film justified the runtime either. There were a lot of meandering scenes, not contributing anything really worthwhile to the whole or repeating a point already made before, often multiple times (which is a problem I have with a few other of Scorsese’s films). It’s entertaining enough but really could lose some fat. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/12/2019 at 00:13, kerraig UK said:

Tier 1
Mean Streets
Taxi Driver
Raging Bull
Goodfellas
After Hours
Wolf of Wall Street

Tier 2
Casino
The King of Comedy
Color of Money
The Last Temptation of Christ
Shutter Island (really underrated IMO)
The Irishman

Tier 3
The Departed
Age of Innocence
Alice doesn't live here anymore
Cape Fear
The Aviator
Bringing out the dead

That is some fucking career. Tier 3 is all strong 4 out of 5's. Tier 1 are simply masterpieces.


 

Think you forgot The last waltz in that tier one there..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enioyed this, watched over two sittings. It never dragged that way.

Spoiler

It felt like a bit like a scorcese/de Niro greatest hits until the epilogue-like final half an hour with de Niro in his old age elevated the film by cementing its theme. Pesci's restrained performance stood out. I wish scorcese would hold back a bit with his protracted slo-mo sequences. They worked in wolf of Wall Street but in a 3.5 hour film they were unnecessary. I'm glad in a way that I waited to watch this on Netflix, I think I would have lost patience at the cinema. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kerraig UK said:


Believe that Networks are studying this trend very closely. Hence Atlanta and The F***ing end of the World have such swift runtimes.

People will watch three episodes in a row, but wont go into a 2 hour movie.

We've all fucked our brains up

 

For my part, I rarely have the time to sit and watch a 3 hour film these days.  I'd love it to be different.  

 

For The Irishman, I was really looking forward to it but knew we I'd have to watch it in two sittings.  It didn't grab my wife and in the first hour and half.  Neither of us would have mind finishing watching it but it really didn't seem any more than retread of themes that have been explored to death.  We could be missing out.  And now we're in the 60% that didn't make it to the end. :(

 

I really don't want to be a data point!  Maybe I should have left the TV running! I like long films that I like!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kerraig UK said:


Believe that Networks are studying this trend very closely. Hence Atlanta and The F***ing end of the World have such swift runtimes.

People will watch three episodes in a row, but wont go into a 2 hour movie.

We've all fucked our brains up

 

The End of the F***ing World is a Channel 4 show and a dark comedy - it's common for British series to run for 6 or 7 episodes at 30mins. Is there any evidence this was some network reaction to an ebbing attention span? I expect Atlanta is 30 minutes because the producers wanted it to be 30 minutes. I don't think any of the episodes would benefit from an extra 10 minutes.

 

But it's not really fucked up for people to think in an evening... shall I invest half an hour in this show, and if it's good I'll keep going, or if I don't fancy it I can switch to something else. That's no different from reading a chapter of a book.

 

2 hour movies are still the standard, they may be struggling on streaming services, I don't know the data, but I'd suggest it isn't people fucking their brains up, which makes them struggle with a 4 hour Scorcese movie. Nor is it "weird". Ste is wrong (no offence!) to equate long-form cinema experience with episodic ones -  and the way you can tell he's wrong is to check he has 10 pos', whilst my well-reasoned counter-argument has 5 negs, which confirms you're using using the forum 'rllmuk'. :coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kerraig UK said:


Believe that Networks are studying this trend very closely. Hence Atlanta and The F***ing end of the World have such swift runtimes.

People will watch three episodes in a row, but wont go into a 2 hour movie.

We've all fucked our brains up

 

I'm guilty of it myself as well.  There was a film we watched on iPlayer a few weeks ago, and it was 55 mins long.  I can't remember the name of it now, but it was a really nice little film, made by the BBC.  However, when we were browsing for something to watch I was really confused by the running time. It was in the 'films' section, but it was 55 mins long.  Was this a mistake? Was it an episode from a series tagged incorrectly?  How can it be a film if it's that length?  I nearly skipped past it because it seemed so wrong.

 

I think it would be interesting if people like Netflix, and the BBC etc., started making films of more varied lengths depending on the material, as streaming frees them from the need to fit into convenient cinema showing slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ste Pickford said:

 

I'm guilty of it myself as well.  There was a film we watched on iPlayer a few weeks ago, and it was 55 mins long.  I can't remember the name of it now, but it was a really nice little film, made by the BBC.  However, when we were browsing for something to watch I was really confused by the running time. It was in the 'films' section, but it was 55 mins long.  Was this a mistake? Was it an episode from a series tagged incorrectly?  How can it be a film if it's that length?  I nearly skipped past it because it seemed so wrong.

 

I think it would be interesting if people like Netflix, and the BBC etc., started making films of more varied lengths depending on the material, as streaming frees them from the need to fit into convenient cinema showing slots.

 tech is overtaking evolution. Our brain is just an organ. Its just a couple of kilos of jelly. But its being attacked by a thousand supercomputers who all have algorithms that can react in a nanosecond and recondition themselves to be what they need to be to get your attention again and make sure you subscribe.

Its what I've been screaming about for years. But its inevitable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually watched the full 3.5 hours in one sitting over the holidays.

 

I enjoyed it a lot, but it felt almost like a mob-themed Forrest Gump at times, the Jimmy Hoffa stuff is the main through line, but did they really need to have the main character take part in the Bay of Pigs and every other event of the era? I definitely think there's some stuff that could have been slimmed down or cut.

 

Overall, I think it's one of Scorsese’s better works, he really likes having fun showing the career of crime, and then fast-forwarding over the bit where they get their comeuppance, as if the Necessary stuff isn't as fun to direct as comedians ad-libbing or whatever - this actually has a prolonged denouement that felt rather personal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.