I mean everyone in this film has made some great films....40-50 years ago. Why TF would we watch a 3.5 hour film to see Deniro, Pacino, and Pesci de-aged to look 25 instead of 75 (did they fool you---or anyone)? And a script they've all pretty much done 25 times before? Time for something new. This whole year of Oscar nominees is all same ole same ole.. Change my mind!
shareAt least it better than reboots of movies and 8th or 9th sequel to a hit movie. And more so, countless people love these guys and the director.
Disclaimer: I have not seen this yet so my comment was just a general statement.
"At least it better than reboots of movies and 8th or 9th sequel to a bit movie."...THATS NOT FACTUAL...THEIR ARE PLENTY OF REBOOTS AND SEQUELS BETTER AND OR MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THIS 3 AND A HALF HOUR CGI HISTORY LESSON THAT IS QUITE FRANKLY...NOT VERY GOOD.
shareMy point was that at least it wasn't a reboot or an umpteenth sequel. Which is a good thing in and of itself in this day of nothing but reboots, sequels and superhero movies. My comment isn't about how good of bad the movie is.
shareIn this day of nothing but reboots, sequels and superhero movies....THATS NOT TRUE EITHER...HYPERBOLE IS ANNOYING.
shareUh-huh ππ
sharePARASITE,ONCE UPON A TIME ,THIS BORING SLOG...."NOTHING BUT"...INCORRECT...YOU CAN THROW ALL THE GANG SIGNS YOU LIKE...DOESNT CHANGE YOUR HYPERBOLIC INACCURACIES.
shareI thought Once Upon a Time sucked. Even if I liked the actors and director which I don't. It was a reboot in that we've seen these actors and director doing pretty much the same junk many times before--the only twist is here they took a real incident and twisted it until it had nothing to do with reality.
shareLMAO....NO...NOT A REBOOT IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD...YOU DONT LIKE THE DIRECTOR OR THE ACTORS...SO YOUR OPINION WAS SET BEFORE YOU EVEN WATCHED IT....NICE.
shareNot true. I definitely gave it a chance and it was a fail for me. Maybe not to others. And I'm a huge '60s buff, so it had to be way off for me not to like it.
shareBecause itβs an actual work of quality, featuring some of the greatest actors ever, and directed by possibly the greatest American filmmaker, and there are still enough people alive who appreciate such things.
shareShhhh... don't talk sense. π€«π€«π€«π€«
shareYUP...THE GREATEST ACTORS EVER AND DIRECTOR...WHO ARE ALL PUSHING 80 NOW....ARE YOU PEOPLE DEFENDING THIS BOREDOM INDUCING TURD BASED ON YOUR INTEREST IN OLD MEN'S "TOP QUALITY" OR OUT OF LOVE AND RESPECT FOR THE OLD GUYS WHO HAVE ALL BEEN SOMUCH BETTER IN SO MANY OTHER FILMS OVER THE YEARS..AND WITHOUT THE NEED OF COMPUTER CARTOON FACE TRICKERY....THE IRISHMAN IS A GOOD FLICK,NOT GREAT...ITS LONG,BORINGAND UNCONVINCING...YOU CAN FEEL THE SENILITY IN THE PACING.
shareβπ» A perfect illustration of the brain-rotted split attention infants for whom The Irishman wasnβt made, all-caps and all.
Ok... Scozezee XD
https://media.giphy.com/media/JOWjrrUkPwo7VZeZdK/giphy-downsized-large.gif
Thatβs right, someone sounds very Scorsese-ish (as usual judging by his other posts). And it β s in the snobbish get-off-my-lawn kinda way, yes.
Broken record boomas who think the world should revolve around them being broken record boomas... zzzz.
To make money. Duh!
π