Not as good as Goodfellas or Casino - The Irishman (2019) Discussion

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

It’s a slower burn and not nearly as violent. Casino is 3 hours but moves at a cracking pace and keeps you awake with several sudden burst of extreme violence, usually courtesy of Pesci, of course.

Scorsese can still make electric films, as we saw with Wolf Of Wallstreet, so I kinda liked the change of pace here. It was more like a Godfather flick.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 5 years ago

The thing is I love The Godfather so this worked for me

reply

[–] Kowalski (75523) 5 years ago

THATS VERY WELL PUT...IRISHMAN IS GOOD,BUT NOT THAT GOOD...ITS RACKING UP EXTRA POINTS BASED ON THE GOOD WILL OF THE OLD DUDES INVOLVED AND THEIR HUGE WONDERFUL CAREERS.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Well put. I totally agree and don't mind any accolades the movie gets. The cast has several legends in it.

reply

[–] GordonGartrelle (1267) 5 years ago

Goodfellas and Casino, although the story lines are pretty messed up, were fun movies with interesting characters.

The Irishman, Frank Sheeran, was just not that interesting of a character.
The supporting cast was just as non memorable.
(Just want to point out, I didn't hate the movie, I watched it in one sitting, I wasn't bored or distracted, but at the end, I just felt like, well okay. It will not be on anyone's re watch over and over again list.)

Side Note: I love Casino. If you haven't please watch the edited version of the movie. The words used to not say curse words is just hilarious.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

I bet it took months to edit Casino, LOL.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

I actually prefer it to those movies, and I do like both those films.

But I'm weird when it comes to Scorsese's filmography. My top choice is Silence, and I tend to rate Gangs of New York a lot higher than most other Scorsese fans.

reply

[–] JohnMcCock (136) 5 years ago

"My top choice is Silence"

It's odd, indeed. But well, each his own.

" I tend to rate Gangs of New York a lot higher than most other Scorsese fans."

I too (myself a Scorsese fan) rate that movie higher than most people. I ove that flick. It's a period movie and really put you back in time. However, I can see why not everyone likes it like us.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

Gangs is so underrated. The script is genius, the themes are incredible, the look and design is superlative, and the performances are great. Day-Lewis, yes, but Di Caprio and Diaz are both underrated in that movie so much.

reply

[–] JohnMcCock (136) 5 years ago

"but Di Caprio and Diaz are both underrated in that movie so much."

Nah, next to Day-Lewis, DiCaprio looked like a child trying to play a sport with older kids in the playground (acting wise).

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

Sure, that's one of Day-Lewis' best ever roles (so good he basically just did it again in There Will Be Blood). I just meant that people say things like, "DiCaprio was bad in Gangs," but I think he did a fine job. He's just not at the Day-Lewis level.

reply

[–] JohnMcCock (136) 5 years ago

"he basically just did it again in There Will Be Blood"

See, you are the second person telling me that! I personally didn't have this feeling, so I suppose I missed something? 😮

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

I was being a bit cheeky.

For me, it's...

-The accent is similar (not quite the same, but close).
-Moustache (again, not the same one, but it's still there on his face).
-The villainous nature of the two characters

So, no, it's not the same performance, but there are some similarities which make them close to me.

Maybe it's just that Day-Lewis usually goes so completely chameleon for each of his roles that it was odd just seeing him roll out something even ballpark to a previous role. Maybe it's that they were close on his filmography...?

They seem similar to me.

reply

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 5 years ago

I’ll never watch it again. Completely forgettable.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

Yes.

It's a once watch story that is an okay story trying to tell the facts about something that happened.

His other films are more like pornographic comedies that make you want to watch the violent scenes and crazy people because they are stimulating. This film is not stimulating.

reply

[–] JohnMcCock (136) 5 years ago

" I tend to rate Gangs of New York a lot higher than most other Scorsese fans."

So this is how you describe Scosese's films? Wow..

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

That was a good story.

It lacked the porno comedy elements and so it wasn't "fun" like his other films, but it was solid. I don't think it has much replay value his his other films but it was certainly good.

Daniel Day Lewis is always interesting in such roles.

reply

[–] JohnMcCock (136) 5 years ago

Wow, sorry man I didn't quote the right thing and just now realized. XD That was the quote of the poster I answered to just before you. XD That was fail..

Anyways, THIS is what I meant to quote:

"His other films are more like pornographic comedies that make you want to watch the violent scenes and crazy people because they are stimulating. This film is not stimulating."

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

Yes, his mobster films are like porn.

One definition of porn means the enjoyment of the exposure of something that should be looked at solemnly. A classic example is the Weather Channel that would show places getting smashed by storms. People would enjoy the smashing as exciting viewing.

So, a person's house explodes in a tornado and it's like....ohhhh! did you see that, wow...when that was everything meaningful to that person and maybe people, pets, etc died. But, the viewer only sees the explosion.

In his movies, people are making jokes while a their eyeballs pop out during torture. That and making psychopaths seem charming. It's porn.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 5 years ago

I’d take it over Mean Street and Raging Bull (I wasn’t a huge fan but I realize it’s a classic)

reply

[–] DaveBowman2001 (517) 5 years ago

Can't imagine it's anywhere near as good as those two or the Departed or even Black mass. Not sure I need to watch another rehash of this same old shit. Is it worth it?

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

If you like a mafia documentary, yes.

Marty is so good at that. Worth a watch.

It is about life and how we make decisions. Very good movie.

"I started painting houses"

Started clipping people. He came from the war so shooting people was not a big deal.

reply

[–] DaveBowman2001 (517) 5 years ago

Watched it tonight. Decent watch. Definitely not as good as the others, but not shabby. Kinda wish they just used new actors rather than retreads though.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Yeah, those guys are a bit long in the tooth.

reply

[–] DaveBowman2001 (517) 5 years ago

Plus most everyone seems/speaks "Italian" not Irish. Wasn't Henry Hill Irish too?

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

Well The Irishman had a lot of mafia guys in it so there is gonna be a lot of Italian. It's basically a MOB movie. Henry Hill's father was Irish but his mother was Italian and he grew up in an Italian neighborhood.

reply

[–] DaveBowman2001 (517) 5 years ago

Yes, but my point is Pesce/Deniro/Pacino are always typecast as Italian and I don't even think I heard any attempts at Irish accent.

reply

[–] BuckSwope (3511) 5 years ago

You may have a point there.

reply