Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

“The Irishman” Thread with Spoilers

“Ish terrif!” - Liza Minnelli

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 195January 8, 2020 8:34 PM

I think it might be the most boring film ever made.

by Anonymousreply 1November 27, 2019 8:15 PM

I enjoyed the movie. I'm actually surprised there isn't a longer thread on it. I will say, though, that the cheap blue contacts and CGI (or whatever digital voodoo they used to de-age de Niro) could have been better. At some points, de Niro wound up looking like Robbin WIlliams and even in the segments of him as a younger man, he still had that stiff, old man posture.

by Anonymousreply 2November 28, 2019 1:56 AM

[quote] I enjoyed the movie. I'm actually surprised there isn't a longer thread on it.

It's going to take a while for people to watch it. You can't expect most people watched it the very day it premiered when it's 3.5 hours long.

by Anonymousreply 3November 28, 2019 3:34 AM

The older Robert DeNiro gets, the more he looks like Grumpy Cat.

by Anonymousreply 4November 28, 2019 3:36 AM

have not seen the movie yet, but read the details of one of its characters, Jimmy Hoffa, his life and "disappearance". My first reaction is the Teamster union is run by mobster and maffia, everyone in the leadership came from some organized crime or was a member of maffia, and even as today their internal fight continues. I know the corruption is to be expected in labor unions, but seriously I have no idea that a union like Teamster has deep rooted mafia connection. I don't know how the movie addressed that or even addressed it at all, but if I am a union member, I won't be too thrilled to be associated with the organized crime.

by Anonymousreply 5November 28, 2019 4:04 AM

Turgid, slow.

A film about the Grim Reaper as a mobster. Did Anna Paquin even speak once?

I did love seeing Welker "I never fly without my lucky hat" White as Hoffa's wife.

by Anonymousreply 6November 28, 2019 4:08 AM

It’s a total dick flick but I’ll give it a chance. I’m going in blind, the only thing I know about Jimmy Hoffa is that he was a joke in Joan Rivers act! She used to say she worked in a club in the village where they passed around a hat and it came back with pieces of Jimmy Hoffa in it.

by Anonymousreply 7November 28, 2019 4:29 AM

Did anybody else think De Niro looked like Alec Baldwin?

by Anonymousreply 8November 28, 2019 4:41 AM

They look fabulous in that film. Did they have work done? Did Netflix pay?

by Anonymousreply 9November 28, 2019 4:45 AM

I'm halfway through it, and will finish it tomorrow. before going off to Thanksgiving dinner

I didn't expect to be so caught up in it, and I also didn't expect that Joe Pesci could give such a nicely understated performance. (He plays a mob boss who rarely raises his voice and who is genuinely kind towards children.) De Niro is doing the exact same thing he's done before in other Scorsese gangster movies. Pacino is trying to rein himself in more than usual, but he's still a bit too much.

It's usual for most of Scorsese's gangster movies to have only one interesting woman character in them, but in this movie so far none of the women are interesting at all.

by Anonymousreply 10November 28, 2019 6:59 AM

It had no business being 3 hours. They could have easily shaved off an hour and nobody would notice.

by Anonymousreply 11November 28, 2019 7:02 AM

3.5 hrs long? no wonder they "decide" to release it on netflix, the movie theaters won't like it, for each "Irishman", they could have two runs for movies like Frozen 2 and still have some time left, more ticket sales for the theaters.

by Anonymousreply 12November 28, 2019 7:21 AM

Very long slow burn which never quite combusts. Nonetheless all that talent makes the immersion worthwhile. So many resonances from Scorsese's oeuvre.

It's a film by an old man about old men. A very accomplished autumnal work. Poignant to that extent. Certainly I'd watch again, if not necessarily too soon.

by Anonymousreply 13November 28, 2019 7:22 AM

The film is critically acclaimed and Oscar bait. It will take home a shitton of awards.

by Anonymousreply 14November 28, 2019 1:40 PM

[quote] 3.5 hrs long? no wonder they "decide" to release it on netflix, the movie theaters won't like it, for each "Irishman", they could have two runs for movies like Frozen 2 and still have some time left, more ticket sales for the theaters.

It was in theaters already, idiot.

by Anonymousreply 15November 28, 2019 1:41 PM

DeNiro’s deaged face which is more like Will Sasso of MadTV doing Robert DeNiro than young DeNiro.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16November 28, 2019 3:53 PM

I sat through it yesterday, watched it at home (cause I'm in LA and it's in theaters as well). I was expecting to watch half yesterday then finish today but found myself wanting to finish it. Have to say I'm surprised but I really liked it. I was dreading another Marty Scorsese gangster flick but this one pulled me in. I am an elder gay but I knew little about Hoffa, I didn't even know he wasn't Italian.

I appreciate Scorsese but sometimes I've hated his work. If you are a fan you should see this one.

by Anonymousreply 17November 28, 2019 4:03 PM

I liked it the first time, when it was called "GoodFellas," and also the second time, when it was called "Casino."

by Anonymousreply 18November 28, 2019 4:03 PM

I never saw "Casino" so I was due.

by Anonymousreply 19November 28, 2019 4:04 PM

Could be seen as the end of a kind of trilogy, R18. Or quartet, if you count 'Mean Streets.' It'll be a box set yet.

by Anonymousreply 20November 28, 2019 4:44 PM

Hoffa was not Italian.

by Anonymousreply 21November 28, 2019 5:20 PM

[quote]3.5 hrs long? no wonder they "decide" to release it on netflix,

I wanted to see it at the Egyptian in L.A but each time I checked it was sold out. My friends had the same experience.

It went to Netflix because Netflix was the only one willing to front the money for this indulgent film. I stuck with it despite stopping and starting it a half dozen times. I'm glad I did. Pacino was great. It's the same "Hoo ah!" energy, but the film needed that kick. I agree with another poster that Pesci was also great.

[quote]Did Anna Paquin even speak once? Yes, finally in the last 30 minutes of the film.

by Anonymousreply 22November 28, 2019 5:27 PM

When I saw her as the grown version of Peggy standing in the doorway giving her father that look she always gave as a child I thought "Of course you get Anna Pacquin!" I also laughed out loud. Too perfect.

by Anonymousreply 23November 28, 2019 6:06 PM

I managed 20 minutes. Not for me, I'm afraid.

by Anonymousreply 24November 28, 2019 6:42 PM

Why is sitcom comic Ray Romano in this, he stands out as dead weight whenever he shows up put side to side with these other actors. He Is almost as distracting as the CGI makeovers.

by Anonymousreply 25November 28, 2019 11:24 PM

I tried to watch it. I got really boried. Crazy. Because I love Goodfellas, Casino, etc. And I agree why in the hell was Ray Romano in it.

by Anonymousreply 26November 28, 2019 11:39 PM

[quote] but I knew little about Hoffa, I didn't even know he wasn't Italian.

He was a Jew, hon. lol

by Anonymousreply 27November 28, 2019 11:44 PM

Bugsy was Jewish. Hoffa was German and Irish.

by Anonymousreply 28November 28, 2019 11:46 PM

I loved it! Al Pacino was fantastic, as was Pesci.

by Anonymousreply 29November 28, 2019 11:48 PM

There’s no plot. It just goes on and on and on.

by Anonymousreply 30November 29, 2019 1:29 AM

I liked it, but unlike some of Scorses's other films, I doubt I'll want to watch it repeatedly. The de-aging CGI was distracting, particularly as the actors still moved and sounded old. DeNiro's performance was fine and Pesci was amazing. I thought Pacino was doing his normal hoo-ha! performance. They should have gotten someone like Alec Baldwin for Jimmy Hoffa. Pacino was too small and too Italian-looking to play the bullheaded German-Irish Hoffa.

by Anonymousreply 31November 29, 2019 1:39 AM

It's fucking horrible. Why are more people not admitting it? Scorsese lost it decades ago, yet everyone is afraid to call him out on it.

by Anonymousreply 32November 29, 2019 3:46 AM

All I could think of was John Goodman doing De Niro on SNL.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 33November 29, 2019 4:44 AM

I think it was exactly 3 hours on Netflix. Maybe the .5 is the theater version?

Anyhoo, r19, you HAVE to see Casino. Now THAT is a movie.

by Anonymousreply 34November 29, 2019 6:17 AM

Watched it in one sitting on Netflix. Was disappointed, just not the engrossing movie I was expecting. The CGI effects were NOT convincing at all. Even when DeNiro was supposed to be a young man, he looked middle-aged, so I was wondering why an old guy was driving a truck around and had such a young family. Some of the casting was definitely irritating, like the presence of Ray Romani's voice, where you're always waiting for him to clear his throat. And Jack Huston as Bobby Kennedy, that was a resounding NO. The film also did a lousy job of letting you know what year it was or how much time had passed, especially since the actor's faces all looked so artificial. And one of my big pet peeves: they used a mid-'70s Cadillac in what was supposed to be a scene set earlier. I guess they figure most people wouldn't know or care, but it takes me right out of the setting.

by Anonymousreply 35November 29, 2019 1:24 PM

I read the book the film is based on, Charles Brandt's I Heard You Paint Houses, which tells the story in a much clearer and more engrossing way. It goes into detail about his army experiences and how they changed him from a normal, somewhat hotheaded young man into a stone-cold killer. Highly recommended.

The story would have been better served by a 6-part miniseries with at least 2 actors playing the Sheeran at different ages.

by Anonymousreply 36November 29, 2019 1:54 PM

It's easily the most boring film of all time.

by Anonymousreply 37November 29, 2019 1:57 PM

For all of Scorcese's mouthing off against Marvel in defense of cinema, this movie is actually kind of a failure as cinema. There's no story, there's no stakes. There's no connection to the main character, he just "exists" on screen. I'm no fan of Marvel in general, but something like "Winter Soldier" is a superior piece of cinema to this.

As with Scorcese's other period films (The Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York, the Aviator) character and narrative have been sacrificed for a meandering journey through sumptuous set pieces.

by Anonymousreply 38November 29, 2019 2:22 PM

And yes the casting of Jack Huston as Bobby Kennedy was ridiculous. Was Jeffrey Donovan not available again?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39November 29, 2019 2:26 PM

The acting was solid. But seriously where were the editors? It’s very bloated and rambling at the end. The CGI and the budget it required was a complete waste. Their bodies look and move like old men no matter what you do to their faces. It would have been better to hire unknown, look-alike actors for the younger roles. Not fooling anyone! Talk about vanity, De Niro, Pesci and Pacino wanting the full 3 hours of acting to themselves! Ridiculous. The screenplay needs some serious work. Why the incredibly long and winding ending? It should have ended at Sheeran’s wife’s funeral. He was alone at the end- that was conveyed there. I did like Ray Romano in this. Thought he did a good job, Anna Paquin got the death stare down pat. They didn’t give her too many lines.

by Anonymousreply 40November 29, 2019 7:20 PM

Ray Romano is just getting the roles that would have went to the late Harold Ramis.

by Anonymousreply 41November 29, 2019 7:24 PM

[quote]It should have ended at Sheeran’s wife’s funeral. He was alone at the end- that was conveyed there.

Spoiler alert. Catholic boy that he is, Scorsese evidently wanted a religious point to be made at the end.

Pesci is wheeled to church soon before his death, chuckling to De Niro that he'll understand soon enough. In time we duly see a priest earnestly trying to evoke some sort of confession from De Niro - who distantly almost sort of wants to, but is too far gone.

In fact the priest's scene at the end was almost the only recognisably human moment in the film. Despite their empty lives as stone cold killers, Pesci and De Niro still at the end somehow hankered for Something Else. And Scorsese wanted us to know it.

by Anonymousreply 42November 29, 2019 7:51 PM

[quote]And one of my big pet peeves: they used a mid-'70s Cadillac in what was supposed to be a scene set earlier. I guess they figure most people wouldn't know or care, but it takes me right out of the setting.

For me it was the scene that was supposed to be in Jacksonville, Florida, but they had royal palms in the background. Those trees can't grow that far up north.

Also the meeting in the nicely restored South Beach Art Deco lounge. South Beach during that period was dilapidated and full of Jewish pensioners.

by Anonymousreply 43November 29, 2019 7:56 PM

I thought it was terrific. It will be a very worthy Best Picture nominee.

by Anonymousreply 44November 29, 2019 8:00 PM

I preferred the last third to the first two hours or so- I didn't feel the multiple episodes of mafia/union corruption history made me care more about the end point of the main characters. The de-aging technology was a waste of effort- all I could see was a de-wrinkling effect on the faces, but the general looseness on the eyes and lower part of the faces gave it away. The worst was the horrible hair coloring on DeNiro and Pacino- a ten year old with a bottle of Grecian Formula could do better.

I was very impressed by the production design. Could someone in the know give some insight about how much was a physical set and how much was digital? I had the same question about "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".

by Anonymousreply 45November 29, 2019 8:10 PM

I saw it today, it was okay but not great, and NOT exciting. It was slow and kind of quiet for a mob movie. I’m not sorry I watched it but there is zero chance of a rewatch.

by Anonymousreply 46November 30, 2019 12:15 AM

I don't understand where all these rave reviews are coming from. The movie was, at best, mediocre. Nostalgia for the Scorsese/Pesci/DeNiro/Pacino combo? Bought-and-paid for raves? It's a mystery.

by Anonymousreply 47November 30, 2019 1:13 AM

I think this could very possibly end up being one of those most-nominated-without-a-win films (current record is shared by The Turning Point and The Color Purple with 11 noms each, no wins). I can’t think of anything about this film that is demonstrably superlative.

by Anonymousreply 48November 30, 2019 1:43 AM

It was too slow.

by Anonymousreply 49November 30, 2019 2:02 AM

Al Pacino was distracting.-he looked too Italian. His hair wasn’t even correct Too much of the film was unnecessary. I really looked forward to this So disappointed.

by Anonymousreply 50November 30, 2019 2:11 AM

This film was a masterpiece.

by Anonymousreply 51November 30, 2019 5:19 AM

A masterpiece of mediocre CGI, you mean?

by Anonymousreply 52November 30, 2019 5:36 AM

Pesci calls De Niro kid twice maybe if you need glasses he could pass for 50 with this CGI. If Barbra Streisand did a movie like this she would have been crucified.

I wondered if Leo was attached to this movie. It might have worked better with good old age makeup but I assume De Niro owned the property.

by Anonymousreply 53November 30, 2019 7:40 AM

[quote]And one of my big pet peeves: they used a mid-'70s Cadillac in what was supposed to be a scene set earlier.

You sure they weren't in the right decade? It was hard to tell. After the movie on Netflix there was an extra where Scorsese, DeNiro, Pesce and Pacino talk about it. Scorsese was such a stickler for period accuracy, Pesce said they were doing a fight scene on "Raging Bull" and Scorsese called cut and called out that a guy in the stands had a watch that was period. He could that far away so something like a car would have to be accurate for him.

by Anonymousreply 54November 30, 2019 9:06 AM

Nah, I'm good.

by Anonymousreply 55November 30, 2019 9:07 AM

I've been watching it in a funny way. Not really paying close attention and repeating each half hour as I go along. It has a nice sound. It's leisurely. So far I'm impressed with the acting and especially Pacino, who never has worked for Scorcese before.

by Anonymousreply 56November 30, 2019 9:25 AM

Minor masterpiece. Loved every last minute of it. Was sad when it ended. Back up the awards truck for Marty, DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino.

by Anonymousreply 57November 30, 2019 9:28 AM

Also there are two sexy middle aged actors, so far: Sebastian Maniscalco (the standup comedian) and of course Bobby Cannavale.

by Anonymousreply 58November 30, 2019 9:36 AM

had a watch that wasn't period....sorry

by Anonymousreply 59November 30, 2019 9:38 AM

R42 Yes. Part of the films greatness comes from that coda. Since Mean Streets, one could see that Scorcese had a misplaced reverence for mob types and thugs. And often grappled with what it means to be a man.. He wanted to once and for all drive home the futility of having no real moral code. The daughter is the moral compass, and once she shuts Frank out, we watch him in a hell of his own making.

This is fantastic, mature filmmaking.

by Anonymousreply 60November 30, 2019 9:38 AM

if Scorsese weren't such a freek bout getting an Oscar, it would hve made a fab long tv series....but yea its tooo long as movie, and they cut too much still....

marty ur selfish

by Anonymousreply 61November 30, 2019 11:53 AM

Could not understand how a mob hit man was deserving of a huge public celebration for his contributions to society. I get that he was the leader of a local union, but the majority of the movie was dedicated to his unsavory associations and murders. Hit men were typically not accorded such honors.

Pacino was still way too Italian to be a credible Hoffa. Well, way too Pacino.

I might have dozed off at one point. Did Paquin's character ever have it out with her father, which might have added a little dramatic fire to the movie and her role? Or was it just the silent treatment? Seems like a poor choice, just to avoid confrontation.

by Anonymousreply 62November 30, 2019 1:56 PM

It’s funny that OP thinks you can spoil The Irishman. D’oh! It really happened, OP. Some of us are old enough to remember Jimmy Hoffa!

by Anonymousreply 63November 30, 2019 2:03 PM

Any gay rumors on Maniscalco? He was the only eye candy in the movie. Looks like he could be carrying a huge guido cazzo.

by Anonymousreply 64November 30, 2019 2:05 PM

I enjoyed it very much, though I agree it could have been half an hour shorter. I thought Pesci was especially good. I watched it on Netflix and don't feel I missed much by not seeing it in a theater. By coincidence, I saw The Godfather, Part II, on tv that afternoon. While they may be apples and oranges, I thought that Coppola has a more interesting vision, raising complex moral questions, whereas Scorcese is an excellent technician and a good storyteller, but there is not much depth to his narrative. But he sure casts actors well.

by Anonymousreply 65November 30, 2019 2:33 PM

I saw it in a movie theater about a month ago.

Let me start by saying 3.5 hours is a long time for a movie to run without an intermission, although I managed to stay awake during the whole thing.

The last third is better, and DeNiro & Pesci are excellent in old age, but but I can't recall a movie that moved so slowly & interminably as this.

By comparison, the 1970s movie "Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles" seemed like an action movie.

by Anonymousreply 66November 30, 2019 2:41 PM

I didn’t find the pacing slow at all. Some of you queens have no attention spans.

by Anonymousreply 67November 30, 2019 2:43 PM

[QUOTE] Anyhoo, R19, you HAVE to see Casino. Now THAT is a movie.

Agreed. How the hell has that person not seen Casino? While Irishman was good, Casino was a true masterpiece. Another lengthy Scorsese epic but you never knew as time flies, while The Irishman drags noticeably and has no real memorable dialogue. All of the attempts at Goodfellas/Casino dark humor fall flat. The only great thing about The Irishman is Joe Pesci’s masterful performance. It’s worth watching for that alone. He felt like the only actor who was born for his role.

by Anonymousreply 68November 30, 2019 2:54 PM

I am surprised no one hasn’t mentioned the British actor Stephen Graham who played Tony Provenzano. He was really brilliant and he had my two favorite scenes in the film. His body of work is amazing...he held his own with DeNiro and Pacino.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69November 30, 2019 3:20 PM

I noticed him right away, r69. I remembered his performance as Al Capone on Boardwalk Empire and knew he wouldn't disappoint.

by Anonymousreply 70November 30, 2019 4:08 PM

Referring to the almost-80-year-old Robert De Niro as "this kid" had me howling with laughter.

by Anonymousreply 71November 30, 2019 4:41 PM

There is a surreal impact that the old actors are playing younger and not pulling it off, but me not minding,

by Anonymousreply 72November 30, 2019 4:52 PM

Watched it last night. It was a total sausage fest and quite boring in many parts. I did like that they showed the mobsters aging and their declining power.

The CGI was awful. They cocked that up, big time.

My SIL kept thinking that there would be a subplot about the gangster buddies molesting his daughter, but that never panned out. There were several moments where we thought Frank would have that dilemma, but...

And it was never sufficiently explained what happened to the first wife. Did she get whacked?

by Anonymousreply 73November 30, 2019 5:08 PM

[quote]And it was never sufficiently explained what happened to the first wife. Did she get whacked?

She was there at Christmas later in years and told him they loved him.

by Anonymousreply 74November 30, 2019 5:19 PM

Spoilers if you haven’t seen it: A film about much more than crime and mafia etc. in fact incredible in its brutal juxtaposition of deep bonds stretching a man to a near break while being a father and husband and cold blooded killer. It all plays out in a haze of muted brutality and violence that builds and is reflected by the progressive alienation of the family and grind of slow justice. Of course he ends up alone and struggling to keep his dignity- but not so different from many people who outlive their peers and hurt their families. A brutal crime story that can resonate with “normal” people’s experience. I think it was brilliant.

by Anonymousreply 75November 30, 2019 5:25 PM

[quote] And it was never sufficiently explained what happened to the first wife. Did she get whacked?

No: he just divorced her for Irene, the second wife.

Women rarely get whacked by the mob if they can possibly help it. It goes against their ethos.

by Anonymousreply 76November 30, 2019 5:29 PM

Can we just take a moment and talk about how fucking funny R16's clip is?

by Anonymousreply 77November 30, 2019 5:39 PM

Watched it last night. Dozed off when Hoffa got out of jail and woke up at his funeral. Not knowing what they did to him really worked for me. All I needed was the death stare from Anna Paquin.

by Anonymousreply 78November 30, 2019 6:13 PM

No, Paquin's character never had any sort of confrontation with De Niro's character. Instead, they had a scene with a daughter who had never spoken before and who we were unsure of exactly who she was, since the other three daughters all looked alike and had no differentiating traits. This daughter has one of the only good scenes in the film in terms of writing, acting and saying exactly what needed to be said and said properly. However, the scene fails because it's unearned. We have no idea who this chick is because she's been a glorified extra throughout the movie. It should have been Paquin's scene and it wasn't. Therefore it was ultimately unsatisfying.

This is one of the MANY, MANY boneheaded decisions made in this complete flop of a movie.

by Anonymousreply 79November 30, 2019 6:46 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80November 30, 2019 6:51 PM

R79, thank you. If we are to care about Frank’s relationship with his daughters, it would help to give them more than a few seconds of collective screen time.

I’m assuming that his mob buddies were molesting the eldest daughter and she couldn’t tell anyone because it would put her father in danger?

by Anonymousreply 81November 30, 2019 7:43 PM

Jesus, there was no molestation plot, R81. She was the only daughter canny enough to know who her father was and what he did, and she knew exactly who Russell Bufalino was and what he was doing to her father and their family, and she silently hated him despite his efforts to charm her. The only one of her father's friends she liked was Hoffa because she thought he was helping people. As an adult at her father's testimonial dinner, she knew Hoffa was in trouble by the way the mobsters were looking at him. Once he disappeared, she knew what had happened, who had ordered it, and who had carried out the orders. That's why she cut her father off forever.

by Anonymousreply 82November 30, 2019 8:02 PM

[quote]there was no molestation plot

There wasn't, but like r81, I thought it was rather weird that Russ and Hoffa were so obsessed with getting that particular girl's approval. The other daughters never existed at all. It added nothing to show those scenes, whatever the reason was, since we rarely saw her character.

by Anonymousreply 83November 30, 2019 8:11 PM

I saw it in a theater and it DID NOT feel like 3.5 hours. I was engrossed throughout. I've even watched it on NetFlix a second time. I wish Scorsese had replaced the old stars with actual young actors for the main parts, even Pesci, who I think is very good here in an understated way. His loyalty to DeNiro and Pesci is admirable but if he'd used different actors for CASINO and this film, he wouldn't always get the GOODFELLAS comparisons. For instance, the British actor who plays Tony Provenzano, Stephen Graham is his name, is excellent so there are other good younger actors that Scorsese can get and he wouldn't need to use CGI to make DeNiro and Pacino look like wax mannequins to tell his story.

by Anonymousreply 84November 30, 2019 8:12 PM

I was also confused about the daughters. Was the Anna Paquin character (the daughters were so minor in the film that I don't recall any of their names) the same one who was 'shoved' by a storekeeper early in the picture? I mean the daughter who her father brought back to the market so she could watch him brutally stomp the shit out of the poor guy. I seemed to me that it was an older child, but the scene would make sense in terms of why the Anna Paquin character was revolted by her father.

Since the Paquin character barely speaks in the film, and there is virtually no interaction between the father and any of his daughters, it is hard to know what exactly led her to connect her father with the violence of the mob -- and also why no other family members took note of it.

by Anonymousreply 85November 30, 2019 8:24 PM

She was the daughter shoved by the grocer, and I suppose the point was seeing her father's violence in that scene, she could more easily connect the dots than her sisters.

The film was also trying to be realistic with not having her speak at the end. In real life, one of Sheeran's daughters cut him off and never spoke of him to anyone, and it was another daughter who agreed to be interviewed for the book. That daughter did say that they were afraid to go to their father with any little problems because they were afraid he would do something drastic and terrible. Which implies that all the daughters knew what he was, not just Peggy. Again, this is another reason why the story would have been better served as a limited-run series with several actors playing the leads at different stages of their lives. There would have been more time to flesh out the nuances.

In this age of streaming, people prefer more episodic storytelling. I even saw an article today which told you how to split the film into 4 approximately 45-minute 'episodes.' Scorsese might prefer people to watch the whole thing in one chunk, but that isn't modern viewing behavior.

by Anonymousreply 86November 30, 2019 8:31 PM

[QUOTE] His loyalty to DeNiro and Pesci is admirable but if he'd used different actors for CASINO and this film, he wouldn't always get the GOODFELLAS comparisons.

You wanted different actors for Casino? Are you insane? It was perfectly cast.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87November 30, 2019 8:33 PM

Jesse Plemons was wasted as Hoffa's stepson. He would have been a fantastic HOFFA.

by Anonymousreply 88November 30, 2019 8:36 PM

[quote]I did love seeing Welker "I never fly without my lucky hat" White as Hoffa's wife.

That's who that was. Thanks for reminding me. I knew she looked familiar but I couldn't place her.

by Anonymousreply 89November 30, 2019 8:56 PM

R69 - Yes! Graham also played a fantastic Al Capone in Boardwalk Empire. Hope we see more of him on the screen.

by Anonymousreply 90November 30, 2019 8:58 PM

[quote]Graham also played a fantastic Al Capone in Boardwalk Empire. Hope we see more of him on the screen.

He was wonderful in Channel 4's "The Virtues"; a gritty, rough drama about addiction and effects of child abuse. Graham said that Scorcese said that after "Gangs of New York" Scorcese told him he'd work with him again and kept the promise with Boardwalk Empire and The Irishman. He says Scorcese once again said he wanted to work with him again so here's hoping.

by Anonymousreply 91November 30, 2019 9:02 PM

I watched it with nostalgia that this may be one of the last films like this with Pacino, Pesci, and De Niro. I enjoyed the acting but felt like the movie could have been a bit shorter.

by Anonymousreply 92November 30, 2019 10:09 PM

[quote]There wasn't, but like [R81], I thought it was rather weird that Russ and Hoffa were so obsessed with getting that particular girl's approval. The other daughters never existed at all. It added nothing to show those scenes, whatever the reason was, since we rarely saw her character.

Respect, their lives all revolved around respect and they were frustrated this little girl wouldn't give them the time of day. And I think Paquin nailed it and had only one line but it was a very important question that she knew the answer to.

by Anonymousreply 93November 30, 2019 10:11 PM

I was rooting for Hoffa even though I knew he didn't stand a chance. Some nice cameos in this.

by Anonymousreply 94November 30, 2019 10:11 PM

I like how Ray Romano has gotten a chance to stretch himself

by Anonymousreply 95November 30, 2019 10:21 PM

I still would do Pacino. I watched the interview after the movie on Netflix and Al can still get it.

by Anonymousreply 96November 30, 2019 10:36 PM

[quote]I like how Ray Romano has gotten a chance to stretch himself

Yeah he did well.

Who’s Who in The Irishman: A Character Guide...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 97November 30, 2019 10:42 PM

R97 thank you for that. Very helpful.

by Anonymousreply 98November 30, 2019 11:49 PM

ROFL the real Irishman looked like he feel from the top of the Irish tree and hit every Irish branch on the way down. Obviously the film only got made because of DeNiro, but he could not pull off Irish at all. A real Irish actor would have given a better contrast of the main character not being part of the Italian gangsters’ world.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99November 30, 2019 11:55 PM

The should have used these two to play old and young Frank.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100December 1, 2019 12:00 AM

Do you know any working class Irish thugs of Sheeran's and previous generations? Just because the micks and the wops had their own mobs doesn't mean they couldn't associate or didn't have similarities.

by Anonymousreply 101December 1, 2019 12:05 AM

Ray Romano is a better actor than people give him credit for. Yes, he has *that* voice and it makes him seem like he's giving the same performance (vocally) in everything, but he's laid down a nice trail of work over the past decade, from Parenthood to Vinyl to The Big Sick, to Get Shorty and this year's Paddleton.

by Anonymousreply 102December 1, 2019 12:22 AM

I agree Ray Romano is terrific in this.

I also agree the film would have been better with different lead male actors.

by Anonymousreply 103December 1, 2019 12:27 AM

Finished watching it today. Really enjoyed it. Lavish epic, the design is fantastic. I thought the CGI make up was fine, even pretty good. All the acting was great but Joe Pesci was exceptional, like some quiet, powerful little reptile.

and yes, 3.30 hours is too long.

by Anonymousreply 104December 1, 2019 12:31 AM

Lots of fun visual and spoken references to older movies. DeNiro talking about the bathroom when he was about to do a hit was Godfather. Pacino sitting out by the lake reminded me of Michael's hit on Fredo in 2. Joe Pesci talks about "this fairy named Ferre," a character he played in JFK. The sweeping shot over the ocean while Melancholy Serenade is playing was the opening of The Jackie Gleason Show. I could go on and on...

by Anonymousreply 105December 1, 2019 12:38 AM

I enjoyed it, is de Niro up for an Oscar?

by Anonymousreply 106December 1, 2019 12:48 AM

Gee the nominations came out sometime ago R106 but we've all forgotten about them.

by Anonymousreply 107December 1, 2019 12:52 AM

Are the Ray Romano apologists family members or what? He was awful!

by Anonymousreply 108December 1, 2019 2:24 AM

I broke up watching it over two nights. While interesting, it seemed to just plod along with no real point, other than death. I didn't think the CGI was done badly and, if you watched the mini-documentary that came on afterward, you would see what a technological breakthrough this really is. I'm sure it will now be used in other movies, and will get better each time. Still, an hour or more could have been easily cut out of this film. It's stupid length will limit its appeal and awards.

by Anonymousreply 109December 1, 2019 2:31 AM

Michael Madsen would have been great casting for the older Sheeran.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 110December 1, 2019 2:48 AM

If Michael Madsen was Sheeran, this movie might not have even gotten made. The star power of Scorsese, De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and seeing the latter three on film together is what pushed Netflix to back this film. I love Michael Madsen but millions of people aren’t rushing to click “Play” if this movie is starring him, nor would it have commanded the attention and critical acclaim it’s getting.

by Anonymousreply 111December 1, 2019 2:57 AM

Even when they were meant to be young Pesci, De Niro and Pacino moved around like the old old men that they are.

by Anonymousreply 112December 1, 2019 3:03 AM

I'm sure DeNiro and Pesci and Pacino helped a lot with financing, but they were just too fucking old to play the roles. Also, had Scorsese cast more realistically and NOT insisted on spending millions on CGI that didn't really work, he wouldn't have needed such a large budget and might have secured the funding a decade ago on his name alone.

by Anonymousreply 113December 1, 2019 3:09 AM

The CGI worked fine and was part of what made the movie special. Seeing Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino on screen together is also a part of what made this movie special. Without them, it would just be another Netflix movie lost among the dozens they release every year that nobody talks about. Without the stars of the movie, this thread probably wouldn’t have even been created. I know I sure as hell wouldn’t have rushed to watch it.

by Anonymousreply 114December 1, 2019 3:20 AM

That's a hasty generalization: Because YOU liked the CGI and YOU wouldn't have watched it without DeNiro/Pesci/Pacino, the movie would have been lost in the holiday shuffle?

It was a Martin Scorsese mob movie. People would have watched it.

by Anonymousreply 115December 1, 2019 3:23 AM

Martin Scorsese got attached to the project because he wanted to make the film with Robert De Niro. You remove De Niro and you can remove Scorsese as well. De Niro was the force behind this film. He convinced everyone else to get on board.

by Anonymousreply 116December 1, 2019 3:26 AM

Was anyone else distracted by the continual use of (mostly instantly recognizable) pop tunes in the background during the film? I was surprised at the end when Robbie Robertson is credited as providing the original score. I wonder if Marty realized the de-aging CGI wasn’t working so he threw a lot of vintage tunes underneath as insurance.

by Anonymousreply 117December 1, 2019 3:33 AM

[quote] They should have gotten someone like Alec Baldwin for Jimmy Hoffa. Pacino was too small and too Italian-looking to play the bullheaded German-Irish Hoffa.

Martin Sheen would've been a *slightly* better choice than Pacino to play Hoffa; at least he kinda looks like him. But like everyone else in the movie, he would've been 20 years too old for the part.

Agree that Pesci was great in this. If anyone from this movie deserves an Oscar, it's him.

by Anonymousreply 118December 1, 2019 3:37 AM

It's a shame Lilo Brancato fucked up his life and career so badly. He really does look quite a bit like DeNiro and could have been an option for the younger Sheeran.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 119December 1, 2019 3:39 AM

It looked like a Deniro vanity vehicle to me. He was not believable in any of the shots where he was supposed to be young. Like a poster above stated, they all moved like old men. When Bobby was stepping on the guys hand, he looked like he was about to fall. It is like he wanted the experience of appearing younger than he really was.

It reminded me of one of the marvel movies where RDJ was portrayed as a teen version of himself.

by Anonymousreply 120December 1, 2019 3:44 AM

At least the RDJ clip was only a couple of minutes, though. Scene after scene of the de-aging effect was just distracting.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 121December 1, 2019 3:54 AM

Worked a hell of a lot better on Samuel L Jackson and Clark Gregg in Captain Marvel. Didn't work here one bit.

by Anonymousreply 122December 1, 2019 4:03 AM

i have never been interested in any "mob" movies like godfather etc., but I really enjoyed this. Watched it on Netflix while we were cooking Thanksgiving dinner so that we could pause - I would never have sat through this in the theater. It was fun to see the different names from the mob back the in the 60s and 70s , when I saw them it brought back memories of hearing them on the tv news

by Anonymousreply 123December 1, 2019 4:48 AM

I thought that it was a fine film, not coming close to Scorsese's career highs, but not awful.

However, I realized that I just don't care about Robert De Niro as an actor anymore, I don't think he's compelling or interesting to watch and hasn't been for a long time. Joe Pesci was a nice surprise, he did a great job. I hope to see him in another film or two before he retires for good. Even though Al Pacino chewed the hell out of the scenery, I didn't hate his performance. Unlike De Niro, at least Pacino still seems to enjoy acting.

by Anonymousreply 124December 1, 2019 5:02 AM

Since we KNOW what the younger DeNiro actually looks like, from Mean Streets on, it was distracting to see the CGI version of his face, a little too bland and silly putty-ish and not exactly DeNiro...

by Anonymousreply 125December 1, 2019 5:16 AM

The last scene should have been the call to Hoffa’s wife. The last 40 minutes were pure self indulgence on Scorsese’s part.

by Anonymousreply 126December 1, 2019 5:21 AM

R124, I agree. Maybe I watched this too soon after watching “Raging Bull” (which didn’t hold up, IMO), but I felt like I was watching DeNiro pull his usual faces and make his usual physical gestures. His persona is just too strong. His Irish or Jewish just comes off as pure Goombah.

by Anonymousreply 127December 1, 2019 12:33 PM

What R79 said. Nailed it. Who the fuck was she? Oh, it was difficult being the daughter of a hit man.....but DeNutto: “I just wanted to protect you...”

Too many holes in this movie as explained in many posts.

This was a giant payday and Ego Circle Jerk for Scorsese and his comrades.

by Anonymousreply 128December 1, 2019 1:06 PM

[quote]The CGI worked fine and was part of what made the movie special.

Oh, my sides! 😂

Marty may look down on the Avengers movies, but at least they had less distracting CGI than this bloated mess.

by Anonymousreply 129December 1, 2019 4:34 PM

I thought the CGI was a massive fail. Deniro never looked like a young man, which he was supposed to be when driving a truck and raising a young family.

by Anonymousreply 130December 1, 2019 5:11 PM

I made it half way thru, then its boring, too damn long and not any fun floozy broads in it, too much Prozac and 'keep my man dick hard pills' in this one.

the men look taxidermy ed.

by Anonymousreply 131December 1, 2019 6:15 PM

Joe Pesci was great. Surprised Harvey Keitel didn't have a bigger part but I watched it for Pacino/DeNiro/Pesci in a Scorsese film. Wonder what the viewership will be over the holiday weekend? I didn't think it was as good as Casino and Goodfellas but I enjoyed it.

by Anonymousreply 132December 1, 2019 8:21 PM

They should have gotten Charles Grodin in there (haha I'm watching Midnight Run right now)

by Anonymousreply 133December 1, 2019 8:43 PM

If they weren’t going to properly flesh out the subplot of his glowering daughters, they should have left them out entirely. There was more about Jo Hoffa than any of the Sheerans.

by Anonymousreply 134December 2, 2019 9:30 PM

Actually, given Hoffa's personality, Graham would have made a great Hoffa. And yeah, I like Michael Madsen we used to know from years ago as The Irishman. As I understand it, he is a broken wreck, an alcoholic with a lot of issues. I don't think he's worked in along time.

Pacino and De Niro are brilliant, no argument there, but totally wrong for the parts. This movie belongs to Joe Pesci. He was brilliant. Ray Romano made a good mob lawyer. Bobby Cannavale, Harvey Keitel were nothing more than cameos. But I get it. Scorcese was having a reunion. Anna Pacquin was like a singular Greek Chorus, floating silently through the narrative watching, knowing, seeing all.

Over Thanksgiving we talked about the era, and my uncle and my mother both said Hoffa was a very powerful guy who did a lot of good and a lot of bad. He was the most decent of the corrupt union guys. Stereotypical Union Boss.Organizing the Truckers, and fighting the other union's goons from the AFL-CIO, organizing the Teamsters Union, and succeeding was huge back in the 50's & 60's. The fact that the truckers got a decent salary, healthcare and pensions was groundbreaking. Hoffa did that for them and they loved him and stayed loyal to him.

But he also needed the cooperation and the help of the mobsters to use as a club against management. The management types were scared of Hoffa, and he definitely didn't do a good enough job with the corrupt guys running the various locals. Local mobsters were parasites feeding off them. Hoffa's big mistake is that he thought he could control the mafia. Obviously he couldn't. They owned Fitzsimmons. But the federal government also was scared of Hoffa because he was way too powerful. He could literally shut down our country. Everything would stop. When corporate bastards rant and rave about labor unions being evil, they love to trot guys like Hoffa out to make their point.

Now as to the actual story, I have a problem. The Irishman was a driver and a hit man. They obviously liked him and trusted him enough to reward him over the years. But I think it's human nature to inflate your own importance. There's no way the killing of Hoffa went down the way they portrayed it. Jimmy Hoffa was not a dummy and he definitely understood how the Mafia operated. He would have never got in that car.

Now OTOH, it is believable because yes they had to send someone he would trust. And having Hoffa give Frank an award at his testimonial dinner was perfect. It cemented the image of them being close. So from the mafia's point of view, he'd be the perfect choice to kill Hoffa. I believe Hoffa was shot then cremated. It makes sense.

But getting him to trust enough, that he'd willingly get in that car just seemed too contrived to me. I guess seeing Frank and Chuckie would have done it. It still seems weak, IMO. Because according to the book, Chuckie was angry at Hoffa, and was plotting with his enemies, and they were estranged, not close any more. Hoffa knew Tony Pro waspissed about his pesion and hated Hoffa in general. And then there's Frank, who always was closer to Russell than to anyone. so, mafia owned and a known hitman. Frank had carried the message from Russell that they wanted him gone. Dead. So maybe Hoffa was in denial, as we saw at his party,...until he saw them all in the car together.

by Anonymousreply 135December 8, 2019 1:41 PM

Plan on watching it in 4 parts throughout the month of December. Snoozefest

by Anonymousreply 136December 8, 2019 1:43 PM

I wanted to like it, but it was boring. It would have been better if they had gotten age-appropriate actors to play the young characters. There's no reason to but De Niro and Pacino and the awful Joe Pesci in every fucking gangster movie.

by Anonymousreply 137December 8, 2019 1:51 PM

Here's an early review I found when I Googled did the Irishman kill Hoffa. Lots of stuff came up. Bottom line is that anyone who spent any time around Sheeran over the years, found a lot of his tales laughable. No one believes he was involved. Someone even referred to him as "Forrest Gump" and said The Irishman is Scorcese's "homage" to Stone's JFK. De Niro and Scorcese said, "it's just a story."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 138December 8, 2019 2:32 PM

I watched the whole thing last night at home - only gave myself one short intermission! It's certainly slow in parts though I wouldn't say I was bored. Scorsese has confidence in his pacing and his visual flair remains mostly intact. There were a few too many repetitive scenes of the three principles having variations on the same conversation, but in a sense that worked because I started to feel Frank's plight of watching a disaster in slow motion but not quite having the power or mental capabilities to head it off.

Pesci and Pacino can both still bring the charisma and I thought the Hoffa character in particular was well-written, though Pacino was definitely too old and didn't really look the part. Pesci subverted expectations with a restrained performance that makes me hope he still has a performance or two in him -- maybe even not in a mobster movie!

I do think DeNiro's lost a step or two as an actor, he was a bit of a void but maybe that fits the character. I have to agree that the de-aging technology didn't really work for me, hearing him called "kid" was ridiculous and took me out of the action. But it got less distracting as the movie went on and the characters got older. I also agree with previous posters that the stuff with Frank's daughters was poorly handled and in general women were a bit too ignored.

Not a masterpiece, and I doubt I'll ever watch it again, but a solid late entry in Scorsese's filmography.

by Anonymousreply 139December 8, 2019 2:49 PM

One thing is for sure. The way the Mafia was known to operate, if they put a hit out on someone, the people who did the hit would be hit. Especially if it was someone high profile and famous. So that's one reason not to believe Sheeran actually killed Hoffa. Who ever did it, they'd be dead. Chuckie O'Brien and Sheeran l grew old died of natural causes.

by Anonymousreply 140December 8, 2019 3:01 PM

Anna and Harvey = Piano reunion

by Anonymousreply 141December 8, 2019 3:28 PM

The book version of the story goes into more detail and makes the Hoffa hit more plausible. However, the one part of the book I didn't buy was Sheeran's involvement in the Kennedy assassination.

by Anonymousreply 142December 8, 2019 4:05 PM

It is kinda amazing we have never really found out where Hoffa went. I can see the Amelia Earhart mystery, she flew off into the wild blue yonder, she could have been anywhere, but Hoffa just disappears and no one really knows.

by Anonymousreply 143December 8, 2019 4:25 PM

R143, it’s pretty easy to make dead bodies disappear.

by Anonymousreply 144December 8, 2019 4:26 PM

What's odd is that most high-profile mob hits leave the body to be found. Why make Hoffa disappear? It's almost like they were trying to further hurt the family further with the mystery.

by Anonymousreply 145December 8, 2019 4:45 PM

[quote] The way the Mafia was known to operate, if they put a hit out on someone, the people who did the hit would be hit.

I've never heard that before. If that were true, no one would ever be willing to put a hit on someone.

by Anonymousreply 146December 8, 2019 4:52 PM

If there's a body, there is evidence. And with someone as well known and as popular as he was you better believe the FBI would leave no stone unturned to find out who did it. If there is no body, there is less evidence. All they ever found was one of Jimmy Hoffa's hairs on the seat of the car Chuckie drove.

I definitely believe he was shot and cremated. I also get how it was very likely someone he would trust. That's kind of how the Mafia was allegedly operating. There's something poetically neat about the Scorcese interpretation. Something almost operatic about it. Maybe the word I'm going for is Shakespearean. Yeah.

But again...I just don't see Hoffa getting into that car and going t o some unknown address "in Detroit" and leaving his car, his autonomy sitting out front of a restaurant, and especially not letting his wife know. He was nervous enough that he called her on the phone while he was waiting. So he had to have some kind of feeling. He hated Tony Pro and never trusted him. And everyone knew how violent and evil Tony Pro was.

OK. Let's do a Red Team analysis (not political) of why we don't think it happened the way The Irishman said. Anyone?.....

by Anonymousreply 147December 8, 2019 5:00 PM

Is it possible he was killed at the restaurant? @;30 on a weekday afternoon it might have been pretty empty. It wasn't in some commercial area with high rise office buildings. I've seen pictures. It was like a roadhouse set up. So maybe he went into the restaurant to take a leak, and they walked him out back, shot him and carried him to the crematorium. Or took him out back, whacked him in the head disabled him, put him in a car then took him somewhere and shot him. You know, interestingly, in Sheeran's version there was no torture. No one burned him alive or threw acid on him, or pushed his eyes out. No strangulation. Just two neat shots in the back of the head. Makes you wonder. Because TOny Pro would've wanted to kick hisass out of sheer anger.

by Anonymousreply 148December 8, 2019 5:05 PM

[quote]It's almost like they were trying to further hurt the family further with the mystery.

A hurt De Niro had to foster when shamed into calling Hoffa's widow - a status which she was not aware of, but he was, having created it.

Thus he was forced in this wretched call to say she had to hold out hope, a hope he more than anyone knew was futile.

De Niro hasn't won over-much praise for his work in TI, but this full-face fake-concern call and reaction to her justified fear was remarkable and memorable. There he was, doing his mendacious best for his daughter and Hoffa's widow, but looking and sounding like a total moral and human wreck. Very few could sustain and pull off that scene of abject inarticulacy so believably.

by Anonymousreply 149December 8, 2019 5:09 PM

[quot]it’s pretty easy to make dead bodies disappear.

Talking about squealing. Someone, somewhere in trouble could have told and put into witness protection. Wonder where the being buried in the cement under the Meadowlands in Jersey started? Heard that all my life in the NY area.

by Anonymousreply 150December 8, 2019 5:41 PM

I always heard he was under Giants stadium.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 151December 8, 2019 6:16 PM

The meeting was being presented as a sitdown, with Frank's participation as Jimmy's back-up worked out in advance. In that case, getting into the car might have made more sense. Also, his own foster son was driving the car, which would have helped further.

by Anonymousreply 152December 8, 2019 6:18 PM

Yeah, but Hoffa wanted it out in public, and the restaurant was a public place, but private enough or maybe not so crowded that they couldn't talk. Hoffa knew they were out for blood. Sheeran told him at his party. He told him again, several times in phone calls. Hoffa knew things were dangerous. There were so many risks involved for him in taking this meeting, that he wanted it to be in a public place, and Sheeran even agreed to come in and meet him by 2:00 PM because Jimmy was so anxious.

Now. From Hoffa's point of view, supposed Tony Pro had showed up before Sheeran arrived? Jimmy would have been exposed. He wanted Sheeran there for moral support, but also because his presence signalled approval for Hoffa from Russell Buffalino. Also, remember, although it might not be in the movie, it was either in the book, or I read it: Chuckie O'Brien and Jimmy had not spoken in over a year or more because Chuckie was pissed off at him, (Chuckie was infantile and petty, not a nice guy) and was allied with guys in the union who had historically been working against Jimmy Hoffa.

Hoffa had to know that. So suddenly seeing Chuckie driving? What a surprise. Who told Chuckie Jimmy was even having a meeting? Not his wife. Certainly not Sheeran. And he shows up with Tony Pro's guy in the car? Fishy for real. Also, Hoffa was under the impression he was meeting Tony Pro and Giacalone in person, at the Restaurant, not having to go to some house in Detroit. This was a tell. if they weren't there it was for a reason.

The other thing of note. It was 2:30- 3:40. Hoffa had a real major thing about being late. The Irishman knew that. As far as Hoffa was concerned, based on long established habit, Sheeran was supposed to call him if he was delayed. That was another tell. So the scenario as portrayed in this movie didn't seem authentic to me. Hoffa was definitely at the Red Fox. He was definitely supposed to meet Tony Pro and Giacalone there. He was seen there. His car was found there. But I think he was either forcibly taken then killed in Detroit and some murder house, and cremated, , or killed very near by...and cremated.He's dust. Gone. No. Evidence.

by Anonymousreply 153December 8, 2019 7:49 PM

In the book version, it said that Chuckie and Sheeran's presence was supposed to calm Jimmy's suspicions. Chuckie was driving Tony Pro's son's car, which was supposed to be another sign to Jimmy that Tony Pro was coming to the meeting as planned. Also, the reason given for them being late and moving the meeting was that, supposedly, they told Jimmy that Bufalino had decided to be at the meeting and was waiting for them at the house. As the book explained it, Bufalino was old-school and wouldn't have had a meeting at an unknown arena like the Red Fox.

I'm not saying this is what actually happened, but the book does go to quite a lot of trouble to explain why Jimmy got in the car. The excerpt I've pasted below goes into the psychology a bit more.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 154December 8, 2019 8:13 PM

R13:

[quote]Very long slow burn which never quite combusts. Nonetheless all that talent makes the immersion worthwhile. So many resonances from Scorsese's oeuvre.

[quote]It's a film by an old man about old men. A very accomplished autumnal work. Poignant to that extent. Certainly I'd watch again, if not necessarily too soon.

Completely agree. It’s become my favorite of De Niro and Pacino’s pairings (though I still think “Righteous Kill” is severely underrated).

As you put it, “it’s an autumnal work” with a fantastic all-star cast in the twilight of their years playing sweeping, tragic, instantly iconic characters.

It reminded me of a mix between “Goodfellas”, “A Bronx Tale” and “Once Upon a Time in America”.

De Niro and Pacino bring real warmth and feeling to the relationship between their characters. This is the best they’ve been together and individually in a while.

Pesci nearly steals the movie and should be given front-runner status for Best Supporting Actor. A perfect bookend performance to his work in “Goodfellas” for which he also won.

I totally understood the choice to keep Anna Paquin’s character silent. That was the barrier between the two: a knowing, almost accusatory silence.

I laughed, I cried, I loved it.

by Anonymousreply 155December 8, 2019 8:24 PM

TOO BAD THIS MOVIE IS A HOAX!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 156December 8, 2019 9:06 PM

[quote]I always heard he was under Giants stadium.

Giant Stadium at The Meadowlands, same thing.

by Anonymousreply 157December 8, 2019 10:05 PM

God, I’m enjoying this freakin’ film

“A fairy named Ferry”.

LMAO!

by Anonymousreply 158December 8, 2019 11:31 PM

R156 that article was amazing. They blew the author and Sheeran out of the water.

by Anonymousreply 159December 9, 2019 12:09 AM

What they did with the movie, was offer us a plausible theory of what happened. Except as you think about it, anyone who knows anything at all about the mafia, or that time or Hoffa knows it's bullshit. And the Joey Gallo thing was what really destroyed alll Sheeran's cred. Because that one was so very easy to debunk.

by Anonymousreply 160December 9, 2019 12:13 AM

How the hell are they calling Sheeran’s theory a hoax? You have to be able to prove a hoax wrong. Go ahead and let them tell us what happened to Jimmy Hoffa—oh that’s right, none of these know-it-alls can. They have nothing to offer except more theories. Frank Sheeran gave us the clearest and most believable picture yet of what could’ve happened to that man.

by Anonymousreply 161December 9, 2019 1:47 AM

R135, Michael Madsen had a small role in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and he didn't look like a broken down, alcoholic wreck...

by Anonymousreply 162December 9, 2019 4:47 AM

R161 Sheeran out and out lied about shit in the damned book he collaborated on. And that author was a joke. It would have been pretty easy to verify his assertions. He didn't kill crazy Joey Gallo. And he very likely did not kill Hoffa. In point of fact, he probably was not nearly as close to Hoffa as he wants you to believe. Russell Bufalino used him as an errand boy and a sometime fixer. I doubt he killed many, if any, mobsters. It's just implausible. He probably saw a lot and knew a lot of people in a superficial way, and he had some stories to tell and a lot of embellishing.

I believe Hoffa was shot and killed at Tony Pro's request, and Fitzsimmons and the people who owned Fitzsimmons were glad about it. I believe Hoffa was probably cremated. No evidence. But do I believe Sheeran killed him? No. And I honestly believe that who ever did kill him died shortly after. Like maybe the same day.

by Anonymousreply 163December 10, 2019 3:44 AM

This has been a great thread and I hate to ruin it, but....

Anybody else see a lot of trump in Hoffa’s addresses to the ranks?

by Anonymousreply 164December 10, 2019 12:56 PM

The film is more fun if you see Sheeran as a kind of mobster Forrest Gump, with no particular basis in fact.

by Anonymousreply 165December 10, 2019 2:03 PM

R164 a better film would have addressed the historical parallels between Hoffa and Trump but Scorcese has such goddmamn reverence for his mobworld father figures.

by Anonymousreply 166December 10, 2019 2:13 PM

Hoffa was not like Trump. he backed his bluster up. Plus Trump is a phony while Hoffa backed his shit up. He really did help a lot of people, millions of families, and he earned the loyalty of the regular members. The truck drivers didn't put up with empty promises or guys who didn't deliver. Back in the 40's and 50's truckers lives were shit. Hoffa changed all that. And the Teamsters took a lot of pride from their image as tough, reliable hard workers. He gave them their props.

Was he tough? Shit. He was a truck driver not an accountant. He was charismatic and effective in his world. Trump is an asshole and even many of the people who support him think he is. Trump brags a lot, but he's a grade A proven liar. He doesn't care about other people or about helping to improve the lives of ordinary people.

Of course Hoffa was corrupt. He actually reflected the world in which he functioned. The people he had to deal with. He was very pragmatic. Organized crime was always trying to profit from, and insinuate themselves into labor unions. Especially to control the pension funds. And Labor unions were always fighting one another, competing for who controlled which unions. The AFL-CIO wanted to organize the Truck drivers and failed.

The Teamsters were independent. And they were powerful. That speech Pacino made at the beginning was the mantra: "What ever you have, it came to you on a truck." So the Teamsters were the biggest enchilada and everyone was going to want a piece. And once Hoffa was able to get his Nationwide Master Contract Agreement together, he scared the shit out of the federal government. Because he was in a position to call for a general strike, a nation wide strike, and that would literally cripple the whole country. Hoffa had power.

He was blue collar, but smart and tough and he had power. He never would have been successful if he had not delivered for his members. Frankly I feel like what Hoffa achieved was pretty remarkable. And most of the time, while he collaborated with organized crime, he really kept them at bay, limiting their involvement. They were like a cancer and when Fitzsimmons took over he rolled over for the Mafia. He was weak, and he was nasty, and he literally gave away the store.

by Anonymousreply 167December 10, 2019 2:33 PM

I want to add that unions were always a dirty business. Labor history is filled with Factory owners and powerful old guys like Henry Ford hiring thugs to break the unions and beat guys up and intimidate them. Read about the Battle of the Overpass and the Ford Rouge plant.Managers, factory owners,corporate goons and leg breakers were how the Corporate world tried to block stop and break unions all the time.

by Anonymousreply 168December 10, 2019 2:37 PM

As I was watching it, I kept remembering Scorsese's recent remarks about cinema and Marvel films. I thought how right he was, how good his handling was, how good cinema can be, what is good film acting, a good screenplay, good cinematography to express the mood, good editing to play on time, to build time, how to film and cut a conversation. That this was exactly what he was talking about.

Now, we can differ on whether it is his best work or not. I haven't thought about it. I don't do that sort of ranking much. But I liked the film very much.

by Anonymousreply 169December 10, 2019 3:33 PM

[Quote] I want to add that unions were always a dirty business.

Sad but true. It's really because business is a dirty business.

Sad that they felt the only way to fight back was the mob. Or the mob were the ones who stepped up and offered protection.

Union thugs get the bad rap and get put away. Banksters and white collar criminals get away with it because they pay the lawmakers to make laws that favor them.

Now unions have been decimated. The 1% is riding roughshod over labor. There is no countervailing power.

Unions need not be dirty. Nor do corporations. But for that we need good governance. And that's where I despair.

by Anonymousreply 170December 10, 2019 4:00 PM

I think unions became much more respectable,and free of corruption once they were established. But there was a lot of resentment by the UAW for example, against the Teamsters. They felt the Teamsters' rough combative image gave them a bad name.

by Anonymousreply 171December 10, 2019 4:05 PM

I wonder if labor will ever produce another Hoffa. The fact is, the left and the Democratic Party has lost the working class.

by Anonymousreply 172December 10, 2019 4:27 PM

Hoffa and Trump did though have in common an unbalanced obsessive hatred for particular Democrat Presidents.

by Anonymousreply 173December 10, 2019 5:08 PM

R173 That's the thing about charismatic leadership, usually derided as a third world phenom. But it's really proving to be the natural denouement of capitalism. Is this the withering of the state?

by Anonymousreply 174December 10, 2019 5:14 PM

Well, you know, it's pretty ironic that Joe Kennedy used the mafia to get his son elected, then his son screws up the Bay of Pigs invasion, enlists the Mafia to assassinate Castro...repeatedly they failed, and Bobby goes after organized crime and corruption targeting Hoffa...and remember the other unions AFSCME, IBEW, UAW, AFL-CIO, etc were all solidly in the Democratic camp and the AFL-CIO and the UAW really wanted to crush the Teamsters leadership so they could take them over. I may not agree with Hoffa, or condone his tactics, but stepping back and looking at it from an historical perspective, I can certainly understand why he hated the Kennedys. They earned it.

by Anonymousreply 175December 10, 2019 5:17 PM

I love how smart we are!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 176December 10, 2019 5:20 PM

[Quote] enlists the Mafia to assassinate Castro...repeatedly they failed, and Bobby goes after organized crime and corruption targeting Hoffa...

There's something missing here. Your narrative jumps.

by Anonymousreply 177December 10, 2019 5:54 PM

What I don't understand is why Robert Kennedy went after the Mafia so hard, knowing what his family owed to them. Was it some kind of fuck-you to Joe?

by Anonymousreply 178December 10, 2019 6:00 PM

R178 Probably to stop the Mafia from calling in their debts. Once the POTUS, Jack realized what it means to be the POTUS.

by Anonymousreply 179December 10, 2019 6:03 PM

Then he was very short-sighted, given his own political ambitions. Also, there's a real arrogance there, thinking that powerful organized criminals wouldn't come back on them.

by Anonymousreply 180December 10, 2019 6:56 PM

"Now Bobby Kennedy is just another lawyer"

by Anonymousreply 181December 10, 2019 7:00 PM

What I couldn't figure out was why JFK screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion. If we'd overthrown Castro early, in 1961, no missile crisis, mob's happy, and probably no assassination. And back when Bobby was a staff attorney for the Mc Clellan Committee, Hoffa testified against racketeers. I think Bobby went hard on the mob to get back at Hoover, who was a Nixon man, and for decades J.Edgar Hoover denied organized crime existed.

But he went after Hoffa too, and maybe it was because he thought he was helping the Big Labor backers who always supported the Dems. Bobby felt Hoffa embodied everything evil about the collaboration of unions and mobsters. I remember reading about Bobby, where someone said he was a "world class hater." If he was your enemy there were no gray areas. No room for negotiation. Not good for a career politician. Bobby only saw "good Guys" and "Bad Guys."

by Anonymousreply 182December 10, 2019 9:17 PM

With all its nominations the Irishman is bound to walk away with some awards but IMO it doesn't deserve any of them. It definitely is not Scorese's best work. It was entertaining. I enjoyed seeing the actors working together, but the only person who deserves a nod is Joe Pesci. He was a revelation. So good.

by Anonymousreply 183December 11, 2019 1:34 AM

This movie was so boring I can't even bring myself to read this while thread.

by Anonymousreply 184December 12, 2019 1:49 AM

Why is someone going on and on about how great Pesci is ? Sure he was but Brad Pitt’s is the one that will be well-remembered.

by Anonymousreply 185December 12, 2019 8:10 AM

Pitt is more popular than Scorcese and Pesci as far as voters. I mean they "love" Scorcese, and De Niro, andPacino, but with Brad Pitt it's more personal. Martin Scorcese and his clique seem more isolated. Brad has a lot of friends, he's more social. He also produces a lot of good movies that hire a lot of actors.

by Anonymousreply 186December 12, 2019 12:41 PM

Pesci's role was basically one of an old man sitting in rooms, talking and reacting. His nuances and range within those limitations were notably brilliant.

Pitt's role had much of that, equally well-done, but also more physical action. The range of the role was broader, and he did it all to great memorable effect.

If they face off, Pitt will probably win.

by Anonymousreply 187December 12, 2019 12:56 PM

Also, all the people in Hollywood who hate Pitt's ex-wife are going to really enjoy giving the husband she tried to vilify a major award. Don't discount the fuck-you factor.

by Anonymousreply 188December 12, 2019 1:08 PM

[QUOTE] Pesci's role was basically one of an old man sitting in rooms, talking and reacting. His nuances and range within those limitations were notably brilliant.

So like damn near every award that’s given out? I don’t see too many action stars racking up Golden Globes and Oscars. You just described every role that won Meryl Streep an award.

by Anonymousreply 189December 12, 2019 1:20 PM

Bobby had the worst Irish Curse ever. Made him quite the bitch.

by Anonymousreply 190December 12, 2019 1:26 PM

This movie was made by the over the hill gang. Scorcese and pals refuse to believe they are way way way past their prime. Scorcese tried and failed to script this movie like his big winner Goodfellas. Scorcese needs to get his cataracts removed, couldn't he see these actors were to old, the movie to long? These actors with the exception of Pesci keep phoning their roles in. Want to see De Niro in a superb role in a long movie, watch Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time In America.

by Anonymousreply 191December 12, 2019 1:41 PM

The film does have the air of old men trying to hog all the glory using a template that no longer works. The Irishman should have been a six-part miniseries, and DeNiro and Pesci should have played the older Sheeran and Bufalino in the equivalent of 2 of those episodes, going by total screentime (they probably would have appeared in more than 2 episodes, allowing for flashbacks and such). Hoffa was only in his early 60s when he disappeared, and the film mostly concentrates on his livewire years of the 1950s and 1960s, so he should have been played by a brawny, potato-faced middle-aged actor who could have done the final part of the role in aging makeup. Pacino was all wrong for the part in terms of age, physicality, and energy.

I've read the book, and there's an interesting story in there, whether or not it's true. But Scorsese didn't do right by it. He just didn't.

by Anonymousreply 192December 12, 2019 2:25 PM

I couldn't take more than 45mins. Deathly boring.

by Anonymousreply 193January 8, 2020 9:22 AM

I was shocked to learn Pacino will be 80 this year. Time is going so fast.

by Anonymousreply 194January 8, 2020 7:05 PM

[quote] couldn't he see these actors were to old, the movie to long?

Oh, dear!

by Anonymousreply 195January 8, 2020 8:34 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!