The Irishman

I suppose:

Good Fellas
Good Fellas in Vegas (Casino)
Godfather I, II, III
Scarface
Carlito's Way
Once Upon a Time in America
The Death Collector
8 Heads in a Duffel Bag
Donnie Brasco
A Bronx Tale
[...]

The possible mob plot permutations for these guys are becoming exhausted IMO. {shrug} For instance, I no longer see Pesci as a new character, but as "Tommy DeVito"...

LOL. For me or Iroquois?

For the tweet just before.

I'm guessing you're using an adblocker that's blocking the JavaScript that embeds it so it looks like I'm just posting the fire emojis.

It's different enough when it comes to the unions and the old gangster thing (which is touched upon in some of those titles but not explored quite as thoroughly as it is here). If anything, this movie reminded me that Pesci can do more than just be Tommy DeVito.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Yeah, there's a nice meta expectation thing going on where, by having Pesci play a very calm, collected, in-control character, it creates a lot of tension simply because we expect that particular actor to play a different kind of character.

Ok. But that kind of thing doesn't always work either. For instance, IMO, Dustin Hoffman was entirely the wrong guy to play in Billy Bathgate. The entire movie seemed off because of it. If that's some kind of beneficial meta-tension, then sobeit, but it ruined the movie for me. He's just not edgy enough somehow.

__________________
Rules:

When women have a poet, they want a cowboy.
When they have a cowboy, they want a poet.
They'll say "I don't care if he's a poet or cowboy, so long as he's a nice guy. But oh, I'm so attracted to that bad guy over there."

Understand this last part, and you'll get them all.

For sure, it can backfire, too. It's not guaranteed to work.

I might rewatch the film sometime, I'd say it's an easier rewatch than Raging Bull, at least for me.

Watched this again the other day, not sure why, just felt compelled to. Still think it's extremely good. I'm not sure it's kinetic enough to be as watchable as Scorsese's other great films, but I really appreciate how melancholic it is. I appreciate that Marty completely sold out to make the point he was making a little more subtly in his previous gangster films. It feels like the last one he'll ever make: an extra emphasis on the end result of that lifestyle on an individual level, but also its passing from society at large.

I also appreciate the degree to which he still finds, after all these years, little flairs and bits of style to tuck away into otherwise straightforward scenes, like Frank's voiceover suddenly turning into a direct address once the camera gets him face to face. Marty could be forgiven for phoning some of this stuff in, and I kind of expect that's what this would be in the lead up to the release, but I'm very happy to have been wrong.

And my goodness, some of the acting in those scenes, those scenes where nobody explicitly says what's happening, or what's going to happen, but everybody knows anyway.



I'll never love it or compulsively watch it the way I love and watch Casino, and it'll never be talked about half as much as Goodfellas, but it's an excellent film, and I think it's wonderful that he found a little corner of the genre he nearly owns that he hadn't painted all the way to the edge in, and filled it in before he hangs it up.

Oh, and I barely thought about the de-aging stuff at all the second time. I never hated it and it never really took me out of the film the first time (though I thought about it a lot then), and it might as well have been non-existent on the rewatch.

Mostly agree with this, although I tend to return to different Scorseses than your cited favourites. But not sure I understand the sellout comment?

Yeah I have weird tastes as far as Scorsese is concerned. Casino is my favorite and I think much more of The Departed than most.

I mean "sell out" as in "go all out for" and not in the pejorative sense of "compromise artistic vision for money" sense, if that's the issue.

I owe Casino a rewatch as I found the last third a bit trying, but it's been a few years. The Departed held up very nicely with a rewatch last year, which was the first time I'd seen it since high school I think.

Ah ok, that makes more sense. I think the closest Marty got to actually selling out is Boxcar Bertha, but I think even that has some decent style. And that was him trying to learn how to make movies under Corman so "selling out" probably isn't an accurate term. I also found a fair amount of his personal touch in The Color of Money and Cape Fear, which I think are far from the sellout assignments they're sometimes cited as.

Yeah, it is long, but then so is The Irishman. Casino is just emotionally exhausting. But I love that it's kind of the middle ground between the pure fun and action of most of Goodfellas and the somber meditation of The Irishman. Like smack dab in the middle, almost like he made the three films as a gradation from one into the other (there's even an "you're not really one of us and we never quite forget it" throughline to all three. Hill is just half-Italian, Rothstein is Jewish (and they mention it a lot), and then of course Frank.

Anyway, the thing that I love best about Casino is its immersive depiction of a dysfunctional relationship. There's a lot of very perceptive stuff in there about how people in those situations think, and convince themselves of things.

Yeah, while I enjoyed it the first time through, it's just too crazy (especially since I didn't see Infernal Affairs until later) to keep up with and appreciate. It's fun but it's bonkers. The second (and third, and fourth...it became one of those films I just put on for no reason) viewing, it's easier to step back and see the machinations clearly, and how they flow from one another. Other than a certain on-the-pointy-nose shot at the end, of course.

Yeah, with Casino, now that I know how the third act goes (constant shouting matches between De Niro and Stone), I might be able to gel to it better. But yeesh, that was a rough final stretch (intentionally so).


I'd dreaded revisiting The Departed as it had been derided as a mid-2000s film bro classic (roughly on the level of The Boondock Saints in some circles) and I wasn't sure how much I trusted my teenage opinion. But I think the movie is, among other things, really good at using its cast. Like Leo's occasionally obvious acting and Damon's dweebishness become integral to their characters. I mean, if you cast Mark Wahlberg and not only get a very good peformance out of him but also let him manage to steal the movie from a bunch of heavyweights, it's safe to say you know how to use your actors.

I love Casino too...it has enormous rewatch appeal, whenever I run into it channel surfing, I always stop and watch it.

Just rewatches this recently and it’s even better the second time around. Pacino owns the screen each time he is on. He embodies Hoffa.

John-y come lately, but finally got a copy of this from criterion this week and watched yesterday. The De-aging thing didn't bother me very much, De Niro's blue eyes I found more distracting during the beginning. Definitely a slow burn. Would definitely watch again.

The Irishman is an excellent film that is sure to delight fans of gangster movies and classic Scorsese. Its stellar cast brings the story to life, with De Niro and Pacino delivering exceptional performances. The film also features a strong supporting cast, including Ray Romano, Anna Paquin, and Bobby Cannavale.

The Irishman is a slow-burn drama that is more about the characters and their actions than about the plot. While the story does have its share of action and suspense, it is ultimately a character driven story that is a meditation on loyalty, honor, and regret.

The Irishman is an outstanding film that is full of great performances and a powerful story. It is a must-see for fans of Scorsese and for anyone who enjoys a good gangster movie. Highly recommended.