2,061 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Marwood on Nov 13, 2019 22:00:29 GMT
Has anyone else on here seen this yet before it goes in Netflix in a week or so?
I saw it at the Prince Charles Cinema on Saturday at the rather ungodly hour of ten past eleven in the morning, mainly because I didn’t want to spend the whole afternoon in a cinema, or end up trying to get home at midnight : I liked it (and unlike the buffoon say next to me in the front row, didn’t fall asleep once) but didn’t think it was quite the masterpiece some reviews have made it out to be.
I thought it was far too long, at some point after two and a half hours or do, I began to lose all concept of time, God knows how the people who go to the Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter all-nighters advertised in the cinema cope with being in a cinema for evrn linger than this went on for : there are loads of characters introduced who only get a couple of lines who don’t really bring anything to the plot (Harvey Keitel, Bobby Cannavale and the bloke with the alcohol soaked watermelon, I’m looking at you in particular), and some of the scenes are self-indulgent to say the least: the discussion about the fish left on the back seat of a car, and the many (many) shots of Al Pacino eating an ice-cream springing to mind, and the expensive de-aging effects are hit and miss (the younger De Niro had the look of a creepily lighted Bo Selecta mask about him at times)
But there is good stuff on offer here, both Joe Pesci and Al Pacino are excellent in this (Pesci a lot more restrained than Goodfellas or Casino, and Pacino the best he’s been in anything in years), it’s just a shame it seems such a slog at times - I’m glad I’ve seen it, but unlike some reviewers, I’m quite happy to wait a considerable length of time to see it again.
|
|
213 posts
|
Post by peelee on Nov 14, 2019 1:09:51 GMT
I saw it last weekend and enjoyed it a lot. The odd scene could have been trimmed a bit, yet I enjoyed the filmmakers' preparedness to let some droll scenes play out especially with such talented and certain not-often-seen actors on display. The structure was clever, given what it had to do for such a story, and the writing excellent. I've got Netflix and will watch this film once or twice again, but wanted to take the opportunity to see it on the big screen first. Repeat viewings will make that financially worth my while.
Whereas seeing stage play On Bear Ridge recently at the Royal Court, I must have slept through half of its 82 minute length. Buffoonery had nothing to do with my slumber. And I saw Judy recently on the cinema screen and its 118 minutes dragged because 20-30 minutes of them should have been cut or something of substance or energy put in their place. The Irishman ran for three hours at least and I savoured everything about it from opening shots to classy musicians Robbie Robertson and Van Morrison performing so well over what became the closing credits.
This film by Martin Scorsese, and Tarantino's wonderful Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, have been the best things I've seen on cinema screens in recent months and I look forward to opportunities to watch them again.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Nov 14, 2019 9:46:03 GMT
At 3½ hours could be seen as a slog especially in a crowded cinema, because of this treated myself to a matinee sofa at the Everyman, King’s Cross.
In hindsight the length was an irreverence and the time flew by as the story unfolded, momentum was lost in sometimes but not sure whether that was me or the film.
Performance of De Niro, Pacino and Pesci were excellent and the de-aging effects initially slightly weird soon faded as I got engrossed in the film.
After investing so much time getting to know Frank, in the end was he remorseful, did he make peace with himself, losing connection with one of his daughters seemed to be the only casualty/regret, a low level/profile psychopath who found his niche, most probably the real if not glamorous portrayal of a true mobster unlike those we usually meet in the movies.
After some internet research, it does not take too much artistic licence to extrapolate the story from the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 10:12:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Nov 22, 2019 1:56:46 GMT
I really enjoyed this today (actually I suppose it was yesterday now.- why am I still awake?). I didn't think it felt anywhere close to 3 and a half hours although it obviously feels long. The CGI is jarring at first but once the film focuses mostly on the characters being middle-aged to the older end of the spectrum it's a lot less noticeable. I did notice some inconsistencies between shots that were a little distracting and I was surprised weren't caught by the editors but it was mostly little things that would be hard to avoid (in one shot De Niro puts on a coat and the collar is up at the back but when it switched to a shot from behind the collar was down or how Pacino basically just swirls around his ice cream whenever he is eating it because obviously he can't eat loads of ice cream across multiple takes - these are obviously such minute issues but they were noticeable enough to take me out of the film). I've not watched many gangster movies, in fact I think I've only watched one being The Godfather Part 1, and I've only watched 2 Scorsese movies as far as I know (Taxi Driver and King of Comedy) but this is clearly such a love letter or perhaps better put a goodbye to the mobster genre that it's evident even to me. It also seems like a really unique take on this type of film in that it's more about what's left afterwards rather than the glory at the time while it's happening. All these inconsequential characters that you meet are given these snapshots that explain their tragic ends and Frank is left alone in a care home with a family who resents him and a world that has moved on and forgotten his exploits - ultimately this world of murder and betrayal was all for nothing and his most regrettable act lost him everything and yet he was still so stuck in his ways or still too proud that he was unable to come clean on everything that happened. I'll definitely have to return to this but probably not before watching the rest of Scorsese's filmography and other mob movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Nov 22, 2019 13:52:12 GMT
Well this was bloody marvellous. Actually, do you know the word that came to mind once I'd watched it? Class. Absolute class from the first frame to the last. Didn't feel anything close to three hours and change, such is the magnetic screen presence of the three leads. Lovely to see Pesci back onscreen and in a much more restrained performance. But once again it was De Niro and more specifically his eyes, it seems almost glib to say it but his acting is so good you forget you're watching a performance, the tiniest flicker across his face saying so much. Also if pushed I would say that in the great pantheon of Scorsese mob movies I'd put this near the top. Better than Casino but not quite at the heady heights of Goodfellas. Oh and as for the de-aging tech, I forgot about it almost instantly, which must have said somethin for how involved I was in the story.
|
|
