MovieChat Forums > The Irishman (2019) Discussion > The one thing that prevented this movie ...

The one thing that prevented this movie from being a masterpiece was....

posted 4 years ago by [deleted]
13 replies | jump to latest

....the de-aging cgi. It was a failed experiment. At times, it took me out of the movie, the cgi faces (and the body movements that didn't match the supposed age) were a little too distracting and unconvincing. Using both younger and older actors (instead of just geriatrics for the whole movie) would've been the correct thing to do. I like this movie a lot, but Scorsese made the wrong call to go with cgi instead of using younger actors.

"What's the problem, kid?" "You're back in business, kid" "You know how strong I made you?...You know how strong?....You're my kid" Pesci said these lines to De Niro in the movie....and they're both the same age! It's ridiculous that we're supposed to believe that Pesci was some sort of father figure to De Niro. Too far fetched to be taken seriously. I thought Scorsese's movies were about conveying realism. Well, those scenes were completely unrealistic, it took me out of the movie.

Pesci's age was fine and convincing for his role in the movie. My issue is mainly with De Niro (76 years old) and Pacino (79 years old), these guys were too old and the cgi de-aging was not convincing or believable in any of the scenes with younger Frank Sheeran and younger Jimmy Hoffa. Luckily (and thankfully), these guys are great actors (both are acting legends) and it didn't ruin the movie....but, it was the one thing that prevented this movie from being a masterpiece.

[–] maximmm (3032) 4 years ago

Scorsese should have used younger, lesser known actors. Instead, he went for nostalgia and sure thing, thereby ending up with a pretty flawed product. And I think he ran out of money at some point, due to a few sloppy scenes, which I'm sure he would have re-shot if he had the funds (a very big chunk of the funds went into the de-aging tech).

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Scorsese made a big mistake. The de-aging cgi was a huge letdown and a huge waste of money. I would've preferred the use of younger, lesser known actors.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I agree. Watching De Niro when de-aged took me outta the movie at times. Its like he was mostly a video game character with what I imagine to be PlayStation 5 graphics.

Also because of the point you stated above, De Niro's bright blue eyes kept distracting me throughout the movie and they looked fake.

Did the real Sheeran have bright blue eyes or something?

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

This movie relied too much on the use of unrealistic looking cgi.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 4 years ago

I can see where that would be distracting, but it never slowed me down. Not for too long, anyway. I'd still call this baby a masterpiece!

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

So, you're telling me you had no problem with Pesci being a some kinda father figure to De Niro in the movie? You thought their relationship (with the use of some unrealistic looking cgi) was believable? In your mind, that is acceptable movie making and worthy of being called
a masterpiece? It's a decent movie, no doubt....is it a masterpiece?....No.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 4 years ago

No problems.

I thought the performances and the direction allowed me the suspension of disbelief that the CGI didn't always grant. I thought that it was actually mostly effective, too, at giving me the leeway to buy the world.

Acceptable? No. That is hardly expressive enough of the astounding film here.

I believe this is a masterpiece. I'm not saying flawless, I'm not saying that the CGI de-aging wasn't one of those flaws, but with the epic, powerful, artistically wonderful rest of the film, it didn't really matter to me.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Sure, if I'm willing to ignore my issues with the de-aging cgi, then this movie has a lot going for it. It's a real Oscar contender, especially with the performances by Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. I can definitely see Pesci winning another Oscar for best supporting actor (he won for his role in Goodfellas).

[–] TruMovieFan (1965) 4 years ago

Isn't it something? I mean when it comes to Scorsese's resistance to use younger actors. One great example of how that really would have told the story better would have been to mimic what was done in Gangster No. 1. In that flick, Malcolm McDowell's aged character is portrayed by Paul Bettany in the early years and it worked out great.

And to me, little miscues really create viewing issues that a lot of people have a hard time overlooking when forming a full reaction to a film like this - like the beating of the grocery clerk. After seeing that, to me, it just reinforced that this was just a movie. I think if Scorsese would have filmed that scene differently, it would have had a larger impact on the rest of the flick. It's kind of like when you are watching a movie and you see a boom mike in the shot - it's like a glass of cold water thrown in the face where one goes, "oh, that's right, this is just a movie."

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Exactly, why did Scorsese favor an unconvincing cgi experiment and refuse to use younger actors? I really want to know the answer to that question. Gangster No.1 is good example. Another good example of a great movie that used a younger actor for the early years was The Godfather 2.

Where was the realism in that scene with De Niro beating up the grocery clerk? De Niro's age and the de-aging cgi interfered greatly in this fight scene. With that in mind, I'm really surprised that Scorsese didn't film that scene with more imaginative thinking (other camera angles/close ups and better fight choreography) and more creative awareness to detail and realism. It's like they didn't even try or want to make that scene realistic for the viewers. There was a scene in The Departed when DiCaprio beats up a couple of guys in a grocery store, it was done right, it was filmed in a very convincing and realistic manner. Scorsese knows how to film believable and brutal fight scenes....but, for whatever reason, he failed do that with the beating of the grocery clerk.

[–] sut6432 (2830) 4 years ago

I thought it was a little distracting at first, mostly because I know how old the actors are, but once I got into the movie it didn't bother me one bit.

Incredible film, and well worth the wait to see Joe Pesci back with DeNiro and Scorsese, and so happy I was able to see Pacino in a Scorsese film before it was all said and done.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I completely agree with every word in your second sentence. It was still an incredible movie despite the De Niro and Pacino (especially De Niro's) cgi nonsense.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

De Niro was the worst. Sure you can de-age his face digitally, but you can't de-age his movements and demeanor. He was hunched over like an old man, his head bobbled and the scene where he beat up the grocery store owner was completely ridiculous.

Honestly, Scorsese should have used his fetish actors to play old men and use younger actors for the main roles.