MovieChat Forums > The Irishman (2019) Discussion > Just had my 2nd Cinema Viewing...It Is A...

Just had my 2nd Cinema Viewing...It Is A Masterpiece

posted 4 years ago by GenoWashingline (810)
13 replies | jump to latest

Wow.

When I had my first viewing in the Cinema, I kind of felt a bit trapped in my seat as I did not want to miss anything, and I think that was to my level of enjoyment / interests slight detriment.

In 2nd viewing... I can confirm this is one of Scrocese's best movies.

To me, the best ever Gangster movies were Goodfellas and Once Upon A Time In America...

This feels like a combination of both, and is, I think, their equal.

Thank You Mr Scorcese.

Xxx

[–] illnagas (457) 4 years ago

I agree. I wasn’t disappointed at all. Maybe deniros best work in years. Scorsese still has it.

I’m
Also a huge fan of goodfellas and Once Upon A Time. How was this a combination of those? Interesting point I’m just curious.

Saw it last night and couldn’t go straight home, I had to think about this movie.

[–] TruMovieFan (1965) 4 years ago

I did a silly thing and started it and only made it about a third or so through......

I think I'll re-start the viewing to go all the way through, but could you too elaborate on why you think it is such a masterpiece?

With the part I have seen, I'm not as overwhelmed. It is not new ground for any of these people and De Niro is just "mugging" his way through so far and while the film looks well, it looks too well.

[–] Windsaar (320) 4 years ago

People say it's a masterpiece because Scorsese directed Pesci, Pachino and De Niro in the same movie.

It has very, very little to do with the actual content of the movie/story.
Had it been the exact same flick with a different director, it wouldn't be considered a masterpiece.
Just sayin..

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 4 years ago

"People say it's a masterpiece because Scorsese directed Pesci, Pachino and De Niro in the same movie.

It has very, very little to do with the actual content of the movie/story.
Had it been the exact same flick with a different director, it wouldn't be considered a masterpiece.
Just sayin.."

Wow, this is such a pretentious and inaccurate statement...

[–] Windsaar (320) 4 years ago

It's not pretentious at all. Not by definition, anyway. Unless you have a separate definition than the rest of the world?

It could be inaccurate. That, of course, is a matter of opinion though.

I stand by my comment. It's considered a "masterpiece" because of the director and actors. The movie could have been about any subject/story (with the same cast/crew) and people would have the same reviews. "Masterpiece this. Masterpiece that".

OR on the other hand...had it been a different director, all we would hear about is how the movie is too long, or somewhat boring at parts.

Not commenting to impress by pretending to have more culture or talent than I do (ie: "pretentiousness")
Just simply stating a glaringly obvious fact.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 4 years ago

It's pretentious in the regard that you seem to say that every single viewer consider the movie a "masterpiece " just because of the director and the actors. This is bullshit, because I don't love every single Scorsese's movies, even those with De Niro. But The Irishman had this Scorsese's signature for having this insane energy which makes a 3 and half hours movie seem like a 2 hours one. He is really good at that.

Of course it isn't the only amazing thing about it: the editing, the acting and the dialogues are all stimulating. Once again, we get interesting facts, and all the fiction is there to make it a more interesting movie. Of course, the nostalgia of seeing Scorsese working again with Pesci and De Niro HELPS, but it's far from being all there is.

So no, even if there might be some viewers who fit you description, it's far from being everyone like you seem to see. Here again, I might have understood you wrong, I don't know. It's simply the feeling I got from your comment.

[–] Windsaar (320) 4 years ago

OP called it a masterpiece, (which is a common sentiment) and I commented from there.

Don't recall ever typing that everyone considers it a masterpiece. Just said that "people do". Nowhere does that indicate that EVERYONE does.

That aside, that IS the reason people are so into it. Not my fault or doing, I'm just a simple observer.

IIRC people originally started the Oscar buzz approximately 5 months ago (give or take). Before the movie had even seen the light of day.

I'm of the opinion that you should reserve your opinion on a movie until AFTER viewing it.

I don't hate the film. I don't even dislike it. I'm simply stating that if it weren't for Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci and Pachino, people wouldn't consider it a masterpiece. Especially BEFORE the first official trailer was released.
(Not counting the two teasers that preceded the official trailer).

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 4 years ago

« Don't recall ever typing that everyone considers it a masterpiece. Just said that "people do". Nowhere does that indicate that EVERYONE does. »

This is not what I said. I said that your statement seemed to imply that every people who call it a masterpiece do it simply because it’s Scorsese working with Pesci, Pacino and De Niro. I say that in my case, at least, it’s wrong. I don’t remember calling it a masterpiece before seeing it.

« I'm simply stating that if it weren't for Scorsese, De Niro, Pesci and Pachino, people wouldn't consider it a masterpiece. »

Here again, I disagree. It helps, sure, but I would have loved it just as much if other actors were there. This is me, so I can say with 100% certainty that your statement does not apply to at least one person.

« IIRC people originally started the Oscar buzz approximately 5 months ago (give or take). Before the movie had even seen the light of day.

[...]

Especially BEFORE the first official trailer was released.
(Not counting the two teasers that preceded the official trailer).»

Okay, yes, I give you that if this actually happened (I just haven’t witnessed it myself, not calling you a liar or anything), I see who your statement concerns.

[–] maximmm (3034) 4 years ago

I'd go further by saying that this film felt derivative - like something we've seen before. Then again, one could say that about a few mafia films by Scorsese. The first ones felt like masterpieces, sure, but the ones that followed them were.... well, copies of sorts.

[–] Windsaar (320) 4 years ago

I agree. While I enjoyed the movie immensely, there wasn't really anything new brought to the table.

Except that God-awful "de-aging technology". Young Sheeran looked old AF.
His attack on the grocer looked almost slow-mo, as 76 year old De Niro isn't as agile as the young man he was portraying. Looked like he was about to break a hip.

**MINOR SPOILERS**

The grocer could have just walk at a brisk pace to lose him or struck him back. He probably would have one-punched him to death, though lol.

[–] ebhaynz (3525) 4 years ago

Many of Scorsese's movies take awhile to absorb..but once they do, you're hooked!

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 4 years ago

Same for some Tarantino's movies! And I agree... even though I had a solid hard on on The Irishman from the beginning!!

[–] looper007 (1126) 4 years ago

For me it's Scorsese's best film since Casino for me, I really enjoyed his films after that and think Wolf of Wall Street and The Departed are the best from that period, also Bringing out The Dead is a lost gem. But The Irishman really was a masterpiece, best performance from De Niro in a while and didn't drag at all at 3hrs 30mins. Joe Pesci was great, a totally different type of role to his psycho turns in other Scorsese gangster movies (also love the nod to the character he played in JFK). Al Pacino was a lot of fun as Hoffa. Harvey Keital was wasted a bit as was Anna Paquin. But overall I can't complain much, I loved it.

I could see a Oscar for Best film and Best supporting actor for sure.