Jump to content
RumHam

The Irishman (I Hear You Tag Spoilers)

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mark Antony said:

idk casting a younger actor might’ve worked for the early parts but would’ve taken away from the last third.  

Why? Was the Godfather 2 diminished in any way by having the main character played by two different actors?

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Why? Was the Godfather 2 diminished in any way by having the main character played by two different actors?

Course not. Elderly Vito wasn’t in godfather two though.

But I’ve already commented that the de-aging didn’t bother me really and the joy of seeing all of the legends on the screen outweighed any wonkiness. Stand by that. 
Also not sure casting a younger actor who may not even end up looking like an elder Deniro or Pesci just cause he moves younger would be any less jarring. 

Edited by Mark Antony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark Antony said:

Course not. Elderly Vito wasn’t in godfather two though.

Yes, just realised that. But you know what I mean.

Anyway, what is more convincing, Chris Evans at the end of Endgame, or any of the de-aged old geezers in The Irishman?

The simple fact is, this piece of art was not as good as it could have been because of this issue.

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it’s like in tv shows like Vikings and Last Kingdom. You have actors starting off playing teenage characters that end up being 40-60 year olds.  And they never actually look that old or look as if they aged that much. Here it’s just the opposite. You may have to suspend disbelief but you’d have to do the same to think two separate actors were the same person.  
 

And yeah fair enough if it is a dealbreaker for you. Obviously the deaging is pretty polarizing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark Antony said:

it’s like in tv shows like Vikings and Last Kingdom. You have actors starting off playing teenage characters that end up being 40-60 year olds.  And they never actually look that old or look as if they aged that much. Here it’s just the opposite. You may have to suspend disbelief but you’d have to do the same to think two separate actors were the same person.  
 

And yeah fair enough if it is a dealbreaker for you. Obviously the deaging is pretty polarizing 

It's problematic whichever direction you do it. The godfather II example stands in that good casting of age appropriate actors works better. Although i know that can often be jarring too. At least more people get paid though - this deaging thing could create a bottleneck for new talent if big actors can extend their career and range of roles.

All that aside, the make-up etc wasn't the main cause of why the film didn't really work for me. It was more the pacing, cameo roles and a muted central protagonist that caused it to drag for me.

Share this post


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

And yeah fair enough if it is a dealbreaker for you. Obviously the deaging is pretty polarizing 

No, it's by no means a deal breaker for me. I still enjoyed it. It was great to see Joe Pesci on screen again, even if he did look, at all times, like a frail old man.

I just think I would have enjoyed it more if, during almost every scene, I wasn't yanked out of my suspension of disbelief by poor cgi and geriatric actors not even bothering to try and move like men half their age. The grocery beatdown scene was embarrassing.

 

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, red snow said:

It's problematic whichever direction you do it. The godfather II example stands in that good casting of age appropriate actors works better. Although i know that can often be jarring too. At least more people get paid though - this deaging thing could create a bottleneck for new talent if big actors can extend their career and range of roles.

All that aside, the make-up etc wasn't the main cause of why the film didn't really work for me. It was more the pacing, cameo roles and a muted central protagonist that caused it to drag for me.

You seem to want a different kind of film with a different focus than the film Scorsese wanted to make.

You are certainly allowed not to approve of the film as it is -- which is centering the looking back through a fictional entertainment upon lives of murderous violence and much other criminality by those who committed it, those who suffered it, and those who made a lot money and careers and fame out of pretending to be those characters, directing and producing and writing those films for fictional entertainment. 

However, criticizing its quality for centering this aged look-back, instead of that of glamourized virile young killers, as in the past entertainments, probably isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

It wasn’t a film pretending to be “young and deadly” though. The last hour makes that clear and to me justifies using elderly actors.

Absolutely. The line of the movie is the last thing DeNiro says. I paraphrase - Please keep the door open, I don't like it when it's closed. 

Share this post


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

 And yeah fair enough if it is a dealbreaker for you. Obviously the deaging is pretty polarizing 

I didn't even realize it was a thing until reading this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see the aging, deaging as a big issue. Only scene that bothered me was the grocery store beat down because it stood out like a sore thumb. Other than that it wasn't bad. The acting made up for it.

Share this post


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

You seem to want a different kind of film with a different focus than the film Scorsese wanted to make.

You are certainly allowed not to approve of the film as it is -- which is centering the looking back through a fictional entertainment upon lives of murderous violence and much other criminality by those who committed it, those who suffered it, and those who made a lot money and careers and fame out of pretending to be those characters, directing and producing and writing those films for fictional entertainment. 

However, criticizing its quality for centering this aged look-back, instead of that of glamourized virile young killers, as in the past entertainments, probably isn't.

The thing is I'm not criticizing it for any of those reasons you list, so I feel the need to correct and clarify as I have no problem at all with films about old-age. I just find it hard to think the film was primarily about an old man - it was about his whole adult life, the majority of which wasn't centred around him being an infirm old man.  I just found it very slow in places. I found De niros character to be a muted protagonist at whatever age he was supposed to be and if I'm not fully on board with the character carrying the film my enjoyment is going to be lessened. That was scorsese's choice, it didn't work for me. I thought Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa was excellent.

I really enjoyed "the mule" which is a film with an old protagonist. The difference there is that the film is about an old man and doesn't spend any time looking back on his former life other than the glimpses we see from how his family react to him in the present. He does shady things, the pacing is quite laid back and there is zero action but I enjoyed the hell out of it. To me that was a film about old-age and realising that you've made life choices that probably weren't worth it. The Irishman had that in the last act but I didn't feel as if that's what the film was about. No doubt Scorsese had no intention of making a film like "the mule", I wasn't expecting him to, but based on his most recent films like "shutter island", "silence" and "wolf of wall street" and him returning to the genre he's arguably best known for I was underwhelmed (and I admit to my expectations probably being too high). The thing is there's still enough to enjoy and appreciate from a "weak" scorsese film to make it worth watching and I've listed the elements I did enjoy. I also like that the film is distinctive from his other films - I'd much rather Scorsese try something different even if it doesn't win me over because it means he remains an interesting film-maker and he's in a position where he can afford to experiment and make whatever he feels like. His next film might bowl me over.

The casting/age-bending choices are creative choices that don't work for me and that has absolutely nothing to do with the focus, story, plot, structure and direction of the film. Unless Scorsese wanting to make a film with his frequent collaborative actors was his "vision" irrespective of how they fit the characters in the story he wanted to tell - in which case I guess I am at odds with the film. But I don't think it was, it's more of an aesthetic choice like choosing to do a film in colour vs black and white or having subtitles instead of everyone conveniently speaking english. It can enhance or distract but it ultimately doesn't matter to me if the story and characters engage me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, red snow said:

To be honest I thought it was a lot weaker than his recent efforts, Shutter island, Wolf of Wall Street and Silence - Nevermind his gangster films. 

2 of those films were boring as hell for me, the third, WofWS, was entertaining but just not that memorable for me. Whereas this film will join the pantheon of mob stories/films that I tend to remember for years and years. 

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Was it Godfather level good for me, nope. But it certainly was league's better than Shutter fucking Island ffs, at least for the majority of fans of this genre. As I say it's all in the eye of the beholder. 

Shutter fucking Island?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

2 of those films were boring as hell for me, the third, WofWS, was entertaining but just not that memorable for me. Whereas this film will join the pantheon of mob stories/films that I tend to remember for years and years. 

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Was it Godfather level good for me, nope. But it certainly was league's better than Shutter fucking Island ffs, at least for the majority of fans of this genre. As I say it's all in the eye of the beholder. 

Shutter fucking Island?

 

Agree that Irishman>>>Shutter Island, but I love TWoWS (you have to at least admit the lemons scene was plenty memorable :lol:), and I liked Silence a lot, even if I don’t have much desire to revisit it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mark Antony said:

“They wouldn’t dare”

I can't tell you how much i appreciate seeing DeNiro and Pacino on screen together for hours. 

Share this post


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

2 of those films were boring as hell for me, the third, WofWS, was entertaining but just not that memorable for me. Whereas this film will join the pantheon of mob stories/films that I tend to remember for years and years. 

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Was it Godfather level good for me, nope. But it certainly was league's better than Shutter fucking Island ffs, at least for the majority of fans of this genre. As I say it's all in the eye of the beholder. 

Shutter fucking Island?

 

Definitely and i think that's what's great about Scorsese's work - everyone can have their own legitimate favourite because his films are so varied. There aren't that many directors you can say that about. 

It reminds me of musicians like Radiohead, you can argue over which is the best but you'd be unwise not to listen ro everything by them at least once.

1 hour ago, Relic said:

"It's what it is."

Perfect summary :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, red snow said:

Definitely and i think that's what's great about Scorsese's work - everyone can have their own legitimate favourite because his films are so varied. There aren't that many directors you can say that about. 

For sure. Imo the greatest director ever and his filmography is so versatile. 
I also loved Shutter Island. Best Leo movie of 2010 :D 

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

×