***** The Irishman *****
38,919 Views |
281 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by medwriter
interesting write up, though not sure i ultimately agree with him, particularly this thought:Brian Earl Spilner said:
https://variety.com/2019/film/columns/netflix-you-have-a-problem-the-irishman-is-too-good-martin-scorsese-1203353105/
i'm actually in that camp...i love going to movies and wish i could see the irishman in a theater. however, i think the author (and probably many film critics or others inclined to write about film) overestimates the "vastness" of that audience. i think that is somewhat backed up by the fact that scorsese had to go to netflix to make this film (or maybe at least this version of it).Quote:
But that's where the unalloyed filmmaking excitement of "The Irishman" could prove to be a fly in the ointment. Netflix has, in fact, made such a good movie that a vast audience of people a world of people are going to want to see it in movie theaters.
netflix is definitely going to have some challenges and problems going forward...i just don't think The Irishman (or Marriage Story for that matter) being too good is going to be one of them
Agree with you 100%. I love going to the movies when it's a film I want to see, but most of my friends just aren't interested in going. Everything is too convenient for them. I know a ton of people who are going to watch this on NF who would not have gone to the theater and possibly wouldn't have ever gotten around to watching it a year down the road when it finally got to streaming platforms the natural way.
obviously this wouldn't help with the academy awards and their BS rules, but if Netflix had a film that it really wanted to be on the big screen, couldn't they just release it a few weeks after launching on the site? seems like it'd be a win-win. netflix still launches new content for its subscribers, but also opens another potential revenue source for its subscribers who are willing to also buy a ticket to see it in theaters.
The market for this is silly small IMHO.jackie childs said:
obviously this wouldn't help with the academy awards and their BS rules, but if Netflix had a film that it really wanted to be on the big screen, couldn't they just release it a few weeks after launching on the site? seems like it'd be a win-win. netflix still launches new content for its subscribers, but also opens another potential revenue source for its subscribers who are willing to also buy a ticket to see it in theaters.
jackie childs said:
obviously this wouldn't help with the academy awards and their BS rules, but if Netflix had a film that it really wanted to be on the big screen, couldn't they just release it a few weeks after launching on the site? seems like it'd be a win-win. netflix still launches new content for its subscribers, but also opens another potential revenue source for its subscribers who are willing to also buy a ticket to see it in theaters.
Quite a few theater chains have "boycotted" Netflix's films. Netflix can't just release whatever they want, whenever they want, to theaters. The theaters have to agree to show their movies, and right now many of them aren't.
because the theaters are catering to the bigger film studios?TCTTS said:jackie childs said:
obviously this wouldn't help with the academy awards and their BS rules, but if Netflix had a film that it really wanted to be on the big screen, couldn't they just release it a few weeks after launching on the site? seems like it'd be a win-win. netflix still launches new content for its subscribers, but also opens another potential revenue source for its subscribers who are willing to also buy a ticket to see it in theaters.
Quite a few theater chains have "boycotted" Netflix's films. Netflix can't just release whatever they want, whenever they want, to theaters. The theaters have to agree to show their movies, and right now many of them aren't.
It's all about theatrical-to-streaming release windows. Most theaters don't play nice with distributors who rush to get their movies online just a few weeks after their theatrical debuts...
https://nofilmschool.com/netflix-the-irishman-release
Quote:
Major theater chains usually have a deal that insists on a 90-day window between the time a movie opens and is released to be viewed at home. Their digital release (think VOD) agreement says it can be 74 to 76 days. Obviously, both these numbers are way more than 26 days Netflix is waiting for The Irishman.
https://nofilmschool.com/netflix-the-irishman-release
no, i get that. from what i've heard, theaters get a very small piece of the gate in the initial release and it grows the longer the film has been out. so i can understand why a theater would be reluctant to help a movie that won't be in theaters long enough for them to make anything on it.TCTTS said:
It's all about theatrical-to-streaming release windows. Most theaters don't play nice with distributors who rush to get their movies online just a few weeks after their theatrical debuts...Quote:
Major theater chains usually have a deal that insists on a 90-day window between the time a movie opens and is released to be viewed at home. Their digital release (think VOD) agreement says it can be 74 to 76 days. Obviously, both these numbers are way more than 26 days Netflix is waiting for The Irishman.
https://nofilmschool.com/netflix-the-irishman-release
but if netflix came to them after the initial Netflix release, when the share of the gate would be more equitable, would the theater still refuse because of their initial stance?
and obviously i'm not talking about every Netflix movie...nobody cares about seeing Murder Mystery in a theater. but i would think there'd be some value to AMC or Cinemark for the rights to show The Irishman nationwide in theaters, even after it's launched on Netflix. maybe i'm wrong about that...
Yeah, I just can't see that ever happening. More than anything, it's basically just a huge beef between theater chains and Netflix. It's more of an "F you, we're a theater and we're not going to be in bed with someone who's business is keeping people on their couch" kind of thing.
gotcha. i really hope this doesn't all wind up resulting in the ultimate demise of theaters. it's kinda funny though, the theater i go most frequently has almost tried to create that "stay at home" atmosphere...smaller theaters with fewer (though considerably more comfortable) seats, expanded menus, full bar, etc.TCTTS said:
Yeah, I just can't see that ever happening. More than anything, it's basically just a huge beef between theater chains and Netflix. It's more of an "F you, we're a theater and we're not going to be in bed with someone who's business is keeping people on their couch" kind of thing.
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Joined:
May 17, 2004
Posts:
69,977
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure if my search function is screwed up, but nothing showing in Texas at all.ATM1876 said:
All theaters showing The Irishman:
http://www.theirishman-movie.com/
Man, that is a pretty sh*tty LA selection. Weird that Marriage Story is getting a release at The Landmark, but not this. Between that and the runtime, this might be an at-home Netflix viewing for me...
Nice.
That said, my local Landmark already has Marriage Story listed for the 6th, but no sign yet of The Irishman whatsoever, which obviously comes out five days earlier.
That said, my local Landmark already has Marriage Story listed for the 6th, but no sign yet of The Irishman whatsoever, which obviously comes out five days earlier.
Seeing this tonight. I don't think I've ever seen a three-and-a-half-hour movie in a theater before. I'm legit nervous, as I don't want to miss a second of new Scorsese, but there's absolutely no way I can last that long without a bathroom break. I at least have an isle seat, and this particular theater is the closest to the bathroom. Wondering if I should just stop drinking fluids now for the rest of the day...
ROTK?
Just looked it up and didn't know it was 3:20, so I guess I have. Though, that was 16 years and a younger bladder ago...
That's because the first ending starts at around 2:30, and then the movie continues to end for 50 minutes
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Man.
The Irishman is really, really, really good - because its Scorsese - but probably the first Scorsese in a decade or more that I likely won't watch twice. Again, it's amazing. But it's less of a film with a propulsive plot and more of a meditation on aging and the ridiculousness, futility, and pettiness of the mob and those who choose that life. Even though it's not really a "mob movie" per se. It's kind of hard to explain, as there's a huge union element as well - like, super-inside-baseball stuff that I didn't fully understand at times - but it's all tied together understandably enough and in a really interesting way. That, and the "plot" does start to come into focus in the second half, and especially in the riveting final act. It's just that even though it doesn't feel like three-and-half-hours at all (and I actually didn't have to use the bathroom once) there's a somewhat meandering quality about it that's like 90% character and 10% plot, which is all great, and all ultimately setup that's paid off wonderfully, but just fair warning on that front.
It also lacks the spark and life of a Goodfellas, The Departed, or The Wolf of Wall Street, but then again, that tone wouldn't be appropriate here. It's just that because it does lack the highs of those movies, it's not quite as "entertaining," and thus the lows aren't quite as poignant. Rather, they're just super depressing - which, again, is the point. But it's a very even keeled movie, despite the subject matter, one that doesn't offer the iconic diatribes or brutal hilarity of Scorsese past. That said, it is incredibly funny at times, and also incredibly fun seeing everyone and their dog pop up. It really does feel like Scorsese putting his final stamp on the genre and pulling out all the heavy hitters to make one last point on a subject he's had such a huge hand in depicting and dramatizing.
Speaking of the cast, Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa is the stand out for sure. He'll no doubt be nominated for Best Supporting Actor and might likely even be the frontrunner. I of course knew the name Jimmy Hoffa before this, and knew a bit about the lore/mystery surrounding his disappearance. But gun to my head I would have told you he was some kind of mob figure, not THE union president back in the day. Though, again, those lines are VERY blurred in this movie. Still, his story, and all the sh*t he had a hand in, was incredibly fascinating for someone like me who knew next to nothing about him going in. De Niro's Frank Sheeran - who's the lead - too, felt kind of like the Forrest Gump of mobsters/teamsters in that sense, as Hoffa's right-hand-man. Their relationship is the heart of the movie, and it goes to places both story-wise and emotionally that I wasn't expecting at all. I could see De Niro being nominated as well, as he's as solid as ever, but there's one scene, in particular, toward the end that's the best acting I've seen him do in 20 years or more.
Overall, I don't really know quite what else to say or think yet. It's a big, rich, epic, guy's guy drama; a real "dad" movie in the best possible way. And Scorsese is one of those directors who's beyond reproach. You trust him completely and there's obviously not a single frame I'd touch. It's perfect... it just might not be quite the Scorsese you're expecting, considering the genre. In that sense, I'll be very curious to hear what everyone else thinks.
The Irishman is really, really, really good - because its Scorsese - but probably the first Scorsese in a decade or more that I likely won't watch twice. Again, it's amazing. But it's less of a film with a propulsive plot and more of a meditation on aging and the ridiculousness, futility, and pettiness of the mob and those who choose that life. Even though it's not really a "mob movie" per se. It's kind of hard to explain, as there's a huge union element as well - like, super-inside-baseball stuff that I didn't fully understand at times - but it's all tied together understandably enough and in a really interesting way. That, and the "plot" does start to come into focus in the second half, and especially in the riveting final act. It's just that even though it doesn't feel like three-and-half-hours at all (and I actually didn't have to use the bathroom once) there's a somewhat meandering quality about it that's like 90% character and 10% plot, which is all great, and all ultimately setup that's paid off wonderfully, but just fair warning on that front.
It also lacks the spark and life of a Goodfellas, The Departed, or The Wolf of Wall Street, but then again, that tone wouldn't be appropriate here. It's just that because it does lack the highs of those movies, it's not quite as "entertaining," and thus the lows aren't quite as poignant. Rather, they're just super depressing - which, again, is the point. But it's a very even keeled movie, despite the subject matter, one that doesn't offer the iconic diatribes or brutal hilarity of Scorsese past. That said, it is incredibly funny at times, and also incredibly fun seeing everyone and their dog pop up. It really does feel like Scorsese putting his final stamp on the genre and pulling out all the heavy hitters to make one last point on a subject he's had such a huge hand in depicting and dramatizing.
Speaking of the cast, Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa is the stand out for sure. He'll no doubt be nominated for Best Supporting Actor and might likely even be the frontrunner. I of course knew the name Jimmy Hoffa before this, and knew a bit about the lore/mystery surrounding his disappearance. But gun to my head I would have told you he was some kind of mob figure, not THE union president back in the day. Though, again, those lines are VERY blurred in this movie. Still, his story, and all the sh*t he had a hand in, was incredibly fascinating for someone like me who knew next to nothing about him going in. De Niro's Frank Sheeran - who's the lead - too, felt kind of like the Forrest Gump of mobsters/teamsters in that sense, as Hoffa's right-hand-man. Their relationship is the heart of the movie, and it goes to places both story-wise and emotionally that I wasn't expecting at all. I could see De Niro being nominated as well, as he's as solid as ever, but there's one scene, in particular, toward the end that's the best acting I've seen him do in 20 years or more.
Overall, I don't really know quite what else to say or think yet. It's a big, rich, epic, guy's guy drama; a real "dad" movie in the best possible way. And Scorsese is one of those directors who's beyond reproach. You trust him completely and there's obviously not a single frame I'd touch. It's perfect... it just might not be quite the Scorsese you're expecting, considering the genre. In that sense, I'll be very curious to hear what everyone else thinks.
TCTTS said:
Man.
The Irishman is really, really, really good - because its Scorsese - but probably the first Scorsese in a decade or more that I'm sure I won't ever watch twice. Again, it's amazing. But it's less of a film with a propulsive plot and more of a meditation on aging and the ridiculousness, futility, and pettiness of the mob and those who choose that life. Even though it's not really a "mob movie" per se. It's kind of hard to explain, as there's a huge union element as well - like, super-inside-baseball stuff that I didn't fully understand at times - but it's all tied together understandably enough and in a really interesting way. That, and the "plot" does start to come into focus in the second half, and especially in the riveting final act. It's just that even though it doesn't feel like three-and-half-hours at all (and I actually didn't have to use the bathroom once) there's a somewhat meandering quality about it that's like 90% character and 10% plot, which is all great, and all ultimately setup that's paid off wonderfully, but just fair warning on that front.
It also lacks the spark and life of a Goodfellas, The Departed, or The Wolf of Wall Street, but then again, that tone wouldn't be appropriate here. It's just that because it does lack the highs of those movies, it's not quite as "entertaining," and thus the lows aren't quite as poignant. Rather, they're just super depressing - which, again, is the point. But it's a very even keeled movie, despite the subject matter, one that doesn't offer the iconic diatribes or brutal hilarity of Scorsese past. That said, it is incredibly funny at times, and also incredibly fun seeing everyone and their dog pop up. It really does feel like Scorsese putting his final stamp on the genre and pulling out all the heavy hitters to make one last point on a subject he's had such a huge hand in depicting and dramatizing.
Speaking of the cast, Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa is the stand out for sure. He'll no doubt be nominated for Best Supporting Actor and might likely even be the frontrunner. I of course knew the name Jimmy Hoffa before this, and knew a bit about the lore/mystery surrounding his disappearance. But gun to my head I would have told you he was some kind of mob figure, not THE union president back in the day. Though, again, those lines are VERY blurred in this movie. Still, his story , and all the sh*t he had a hand in, was incredibly fascinating for someone like me who knew next to nothing about him going in. De Niro's Frank Sheeran - who's the lead - too, felt kind of like the Forrest Gump of mobsters/teamsters in that sense, as Hoffa's right-hand-man. Their relationship is the heart of the movie, and it goes to places both plot-wise and emotionally that I wasn't expecting at all. I could see De Niro being nominated as well, as he's as solid as ever, but there's one scene, in particular, toward the end that's the best acting I've seen him do in 20 years or more.
Overall, I don't really know quite what else to say or think yet. It's a big, rich, epic, guy's guy drama. A real "dad" movie in the best possible way. And Scorsese is one of those directors who's beyond reproach. You trust him completely and there's obviously not a single frame I'd touch. It's perfect... it just might not be quite the Scorsese you're expecting, considering the genre. In that sense, I'll be very curious to hear what everyone else t
hinks.
This sounds like Scorsese in less Goodfellas/Wolf of Wall Street mode and more of the Silence/Last Temptation of Christ arena which sounds fantastic. The guy is an absolute master, and I expected no less. It just pisses me off that most likely I'm going to see this on Netflix and not on the big screen like this film obviously deserves.
On another note, as much as I love Marvel and big franchise filmmaking in general, I totally see why Marty criticizes these kinds of films. The fact that possibly our greatest living filmmaker has to go to freaking Netflix to get this kind of film made because it doesn't have shallow franchise potential is a travesty.
I'm looking forward to this now (on Netflix with bathroom breaks).
The initial media report I read just described Deniro's character as a truck driver who gets caught up with the mob or something bland like that, and I wasn't sure how interested I'd be. Now that I've gone down the wikipedia rabbit hole on Frank Sheeran and his mob history, I'm interested in his Forrest Gump story. I think I solved the JFK assassination for the 10th or 20th time last night and finally know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
I knew Hoffa was supposed to have mob ties, but I'd never read about Sheeran allegedly hitting Teamsters rivals and people that got in Hoffa's way.
The initial media report I read just described Deniro's character as a truck driver who gets caught up with the mob or something bland like that, and I wasn't sure how interested I'd be. Now that I've gone down the wikipedia rabbit hole on Frank Sheeran and his mob history, I'm interested in his Forrest Gump story. I think I solved the JFK assassination for the 10th or 20th time last night and finally know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
I knew Hoffa was supposed to have mob ties, but I'd never read about Sheeran allegedly hitting Teamsters rivals and people that got in Hoffa's way.
Body By Fisher said:
I'm looking forward to this now (on Netflix with bathroom breaks).
The initial media report I read just described Deniro's character as a truck driver who gets caught up with the mob or something bland like that, and I wasn't sure how interested I'd be. Now that I've gone down the wikipedia rabbit hole on Frank Sheeran and his mob history, I'm interested in his Forrest Gump story. I think I solved the JFK assassination for the 10th or 20th time last night and finally know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
I knew Hoffa was supposed to have mob ties, but I'd never read about Sheeran allegedly hitting Teamsters rivals and people that got in Hoffa's way.
They definitely hint at the JKF stuff and it's super interesting.
This is one of those movies where I need an article or discussion that really breaks down all the political connections and the "Forrest Gump"-ness of it all. It's a decent amount to track, and unless you're a student of history or were alive then, it's somewhat of a challenge to understand exactly what's happening at times. For instance, I of course know *of* the Cuba situation in the early sixties, but I don't really know the mechanics and motivations behind it, and a little more knowledge of the situation definitely would have helped during one particular sequence.
That said, ultimately, I'd recommend going into this as fresh as possible and then reading up after. The surprises are worth the slight confusion at times.
It's not quite a Silence-level meditation, though. I don't want to give the wrong impression. It's hard to describe, but this is much "faster" paced. There's just not a traditional plot. It's more about simply following De Niro's character as he gets further ingrained with these mob and union guys, rising through the ranks, etc. But he nor the movie has an overarching, plot-centric "goal," and there's really nothing blatantly apparent that's driving him, as opposed to Henry Hill in Goodfellas or Jordan Belfort The Wolf of Wall Street. Which isn't a complaint at all. In fact, it's pretty great how all the character stuff, and all the mob/union stuff, eventually snaps into focus and reaches an incredibly compelling boiling point, in only a way that Scorsese pull off.
The de-aging effects are noticeable, and kind of bad, for maybe the first two or three scenes in which they're used. Then they either got better or I stopped caring, but either way, yeah, I was worried too, but ultimately wasn't bothered at all for the next three hours. That's not to say they're "good" effects, you just get used to it really quick. It's hard to explain. Just know that I'm annoyed by that kind of stuff more than anyone, but wasn't bothered in the least here for whatever reasons. I think a big part of it is that the story is all over the various timelines, constantly jumping around. It's not like "old version" timeline / "young version" timeline. It skips around so much that sometimes you're not quite sure when you are, and thus aren't looking for the effect, if that makes sense.
no theaters in houston. pretty lame
Great to hear. Glad you got to see it at the Egyptian, too (that's the last "big" theater in LA I've still never been to).
Hahaha. I do not do well with subpar air conditioning, so I might have to wait until Netflix really gets that place in gear. But yeah, it could be fun to have a "Netflix theater" going forward to watch stuff like this. I'm at The Landmark so much that I could stand to mix it up a bit more.
That said, slightly off topic, but when you're at The Landmark for Marriage Story, the theater literally just bought / took over the entire space to the left, where the furniture store used to be, and basically turned it into a museum "experience" for whatever big movie is currently playing. Right now it's this massive setup for Marriage Story that looks incredibly cool. I didn't get a chance to go through it last week, but will next week when I'm back in town. I definitely want to hear your impressions, but it already took what was my favorite theater and turned into something unparalleled. I've never seen anything like it. Best theater bar (they started selling Shiner!), best popcorn in LA, and now this. I love that place so much.
That said, slightly off topic, but when you're at The Landmark for Marriage Story, the theater literally just bought / took over the entire space to the left, where the furniture store used to be, and basically turned it into a museum "experience" for whatever big movie is currently playing. Right now it's this massive setup for Marriage Story that looks incredibly cool. I didn't get a chance to go through it last week, but will next week when I'm back in town. I definitely want to hear your impressions, but it already took what was my favorite theater and turned into something unparalleled. I've never seen anything like it. Best theater bar (they started selling Shiner!), best popcorn in LA, and now this. I love that place so much.
ArmyAg1997
I am retiring from texags until aggie football makes the playoffs.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
234
tremble
2025 Draper (UT) Corner Canyon WR Jerome Myles signs with Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
138
WestAustinAg
I am retiring from texags until aggie football makes the playoffs.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
119