The Irishman: A Crushing Disappointment

[David Andrews]

2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I don't recall JFK being three and a half hours long, but I do remember at least one sequence that could have been left on the cutting room floor.

 

JFK theatrical version 3:09 running time,  Irishman 3:29.  Nobody stays for the end credits, so figure aprx. 3:00 vs. 3:20 dramatic story time.

[Ron Ecker]

1 minute ago, David Andrews said:

JFK theatrical version 3:09 running time,  Irishman 3:29.  Nobody stays for the end credits, so figure aprx. 3:00 vs. 3:20 dramatic story time.

Well, I watched JFK back before I had an enlarged prostate.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

If those are the nominations, it is really a bad year for pictures.

Has anyone seen The Report?

[David Andrews]

4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Well, I watched JFK back before I had an enlarged prostate.

 

 

I admit that I had to pause Irishman several times at home because of calls, snacks, etc.  That's why I want to see it again before I write anything about it.

[Greg Kooyman]

On 11/8/2019 at 8:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, yeah and I wished I had.

BTW, I do not read film reviews anymore for the simple fact that there are no reviewers worth reading.

As I noted in my review of Tarantino's joke of a movie about Tate/LaBianca, the whole institution of American film criticism collapsed a long time ago. Even Coppola admitted this in a candid moment.  He said the big film companies had bought off the newspapers through ads and other kinds of pressures. Kubrick even got a guy to change his review so it would be a better blurb for Full Metal Jacket. It said the film was the best war movie ever made. (I am sure Joe McBride understands this kind of pressure since it happened to him.)

That blurb was nuts. And Kubrick had to know it since he himself made a much better war movie decades earlier with Paths of Glory.

Once all this unethical influence set in, the real critics began to get marginalized.  And they slowly died out.  Its hard to believe, but at one time in this country we had Andrew Sarris, Dwight Macdonald, Vernon Young, Stanley Kauffmann, Pauline Kael, and John Simon all reviewing at the same time!  I read most of them and I then bought some of their books because I could actually learn something from them about art and history and aesthetics and acting.  What you have now is a corrupt practice with a bunch of hacks/flacks.  The only use for their writings is as bird cage liner.  And in my opinion, this has had an impact on the quality of product on the screen.

I finally decided to watch this movie on Netflix.  Even before Jim's wonderful review of this ludicrous film, I had seen the movie trailer and thought what a piece of junk.  I couldn't even bring myself to finish watching it.   The script writing is horrendous.  Forget the fact that Frank Sheeran's story is a fairytale, I could not bring myself to watch 3 aging actors try to pull off the impossible.. act as though they were in their 30's and 40's as this movie unfolded.  What was Scorsese thinking when he cast DeNiro in the leading role anyway?? Neither he nor Pacino can hide their distinct New York accents.  In my humble view, Jack Nicholson was outstanding as Jimmy Hoffa.  Not only does he nail it with Hoffa's mannerisms, his nasal Detroit accent was spot on.   (I liken it to a Chicago accent)  It is laughable that he couldn't find someone other than Al Pacino for that role in his movie.  

Jim's great review of Tarantino's movie about the Tate/LaBianca murders kept me away from the theaters also.   I agree 100% on Jim's view of Tarantino's movies..  my son, who is in college and an aspiring filmmaker has noted that Hollywood seems to have run out of real creativity.  I agree with his view and hope that he and others like him will find a way to turn that around.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Greg Kooyman

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Greg.  Just think, it was those actors who boosted the budget as high as it was.  Plus the deaging process, which I heard was into the millions.

I hope your son at least tries.  Hollywood needs as much help as it can get.

Edited December 9, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

An interesting take.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news/investigations/separating-fact-from-fiction-in-the-new-hoffa-movie-the-irishman

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If those are the nominations, it is really a bad year for pictures.

Has anyone seen The Report?

Yes. It was quite good, IMO. I don't know how accurate it was, but it was well-acted, provocative and surprisingly entertaining. I mean, it's essentially about a guy writing a report, which leads to his writing another report, which drags on for years and years. The question at heart is "Is the truth worth it? Even if the public is never told the truth?" 

In that regard, it's very much a JFK conspiracy movie. 

[Ron Bulman]

Is it worth it?  Yes.  About the only thing that is. History is knowledge, preserving it Truthfully is a worthy endeavor.  Maybe all some of us can leave to future generations.   

[James DiEugenio]

No one should use the words history and truth in a sentence about this film.

I actually reviewed the book along with the film.

[David G. Healy]

WOW! With critics like this, who would want to produce any kind of documentary-drama these days.

Where would we be without Stone, his creative license, craftsmanship and marketing know-how? 

JFK the Movie made you think. Why most of you are here.

[Greg Kooyman]

13 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

WOW! With critics like this, who would want to produce any kind of documentary-drama these days.

Where would we be without Stone, his creative license, craftsmanship and marketing know-how? 

JFK the Movie made you think. Why most of you are here.

David,

I don't think The Irishman is anywhere near the type of film that JFK was.   I happen to like Martin Scorsese movies in general.. I just don't like this one for the reasons I mentioned above.  For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Casino and Goodfellas..both are based on historical facts with a poetic license for taken for dramatic effect.   What I dislike about this movie, is that the entire story itself has been discredited as fiction.  I don't think we can say the same is true for JFK.   While Oliver Stone added elements for dramatic effect, the basic story line was closer to fact than fiction.  

I agree that "JFK" made a whole new generation stop and think about what happened in this country in 1963.  However, I doubt seriously that The Irishman will have the same type of impact on audiences.   Just my two cents...  😉 

[Douglas Caddy]

From the article: “Here’s the way I look at movies,” Chuckie said, near the end of our conversation, after he had calmed down. “Hollywood could turn a monkey into a peanut. That’s their business. They don’t care about the truth. It’s entertainment. The guy who bought the ticket isn’t going to write a letter complaining about the truth if he is fascinated by the movie.”

Mr. Scorsese basically agrees. “I don’t really care about that,” he recently said when asked about the truth of his portrayal of Mr. Hoffa’s death. “The point is, it’s not about the facts.” For him, the film is about “the world” his characters inhabit and “the way they behave.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/the-irishman-movie-chuckie-obrien.html

[Ron Ecker]

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

From the article: “Here’s the way I look at movies,” Chuckie said, near the end of our conversation, after he had calmed down. “Hollywood could turn a monkey into a peanut. That’s their business. They don’t care about the truth. It’s entertainment. The guy who bought the ticket isn’t going to write a letter complaining about the truth if he is fascinated by the movie.”

Mr. Scorsese basically agrees. “I don’t really care about that,” he recently said when asked about the truth of his portrayal of Mr. Hoffa’s death. “The point is, it’s not about the facts.” For him, the film is about “the world” his characters inhabit and “the way they behave.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/the-irishman-movie-chuckie-obrien.html

Well, in another interview, which finds Scorsese ruminating on death, he sees the movie, according to the article, as about "the waning days of Sheeran's life, when he is left alone to contemplate the morality of his deeds." Scorsese says, "It's all about the final days. It's the last act."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/movies/martin-scorsese-irishman.html

IOW it takes three hours to get to what the movie is about. Poor Sheeran’s last days.

[David G. Healy]

41 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Well, in another interview, which finds Scorsese ruminating on death, he sees the movie, according to the article, as about "the waning days of Sheeran's life, when he is left alone to contemplate the morality of his deeds." Scorsese says, "It's all about the final days. It's the last act."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/movies/martin-scorsese-irishman.html

IOW it takes three hours to get to what the movie is about. Poor Sheeran’s last days.

Mr. Caddy's post hit the nail on the head. My estimation: Hollywood is NOT responsible determining the truth of any historical matter.

Why insist a bunch of old time actors, and a script writer who made their what, what appears to be their last killing, determine history? When we still have a ton of historians still asleep at the wheel? 

I say hurrah for keeping attention focused on the topic. NOT chastise a bunch of guys including the Director that heard and responded too the Executive Producer paymaster call...

Edited January 3, 2020 by David G. Healy