Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Irishman (Martin Scorsese, Robert Deniro, Joe Pesci, Harvey Keitel)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Irishman (Martin Scorsese, Robert Deniro, Joe Pesci, Harvey Keitel)

    Looks like this Scorsese project is finally moving forwards:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-martin-893113

    I didn't really like Gangs of New York too much. The Departed was okay, partially sabotaged by "Leo" and Nicholson was very OTT and hammy in that picture. But Wolf of Wall Street was amazing and I've heard good things about Hugo. I remain optimistic about this and it's nice to see a Scorsese flick that doesn't have "Leo" starring in it for once (excluding Wolf of Wall Street of course).
    "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

    Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

  • #2
    Will be worth a watch to see a last film with Scorcese's original cohorts before they all die, though I don't hold out much hope for a particularly good flick, Scorcese sold out art for an audience sometime during 90's I think (post Goodfella's success perhaps?)

    Comment


    • #3
      Scorsese was never really an art house director of some kind. The man just made great films that weren't schmaltzy pieces of shit and they reflected the sometimes harsh realities of life. You could say he "sold out" when he made Color of Money or directed the Bad music video.

      Casino is a great film and not typical Hollywood pablum. Casino is better than Goodfellas for me. As stated, Wolf of Wall Street was genuinely great. I have no interest in his other films he did with DiCaprio aside from Shutter Island.
      "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

      Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree with Alex. Scorsese was never arty, but he was definitely an auteur, in the sense that he had a distinct style of his own. One that's been immensly influential on younger directors as well. He made films that were masterpieces while at the same time attractive for a broad audience. Even Taxi Driver, which is probably one of Scorsese's most complex works, had massive mainstream appeal at the time, despite the controversial and morally ambigous subject matter. In later years of his career he has adopted a more pretentious BIG Hollywood style, which in my opinion really doesn't suit him at all. That's why The Wolf of Wall Street was such an amazing experience, because for the first time since Casino (which I also feel is one of his stronger films), you could actually tell it was a Martin Scorsese film you were watching. It oozes of his signature, and while some found it almost self-parodic (Scorsese doing a Scorsese film for a change), I welcomed it as a return to form for a director that had been completely irrelevant for 20 some years.

        Comment


        • #5
          Will this new one have the lame voiceover I wonder? Seems every one since Goodfellas has a cheesy voiceover/narration by the main character. He over-relies on this shtick.

          Comment


          • #6
            With that cast, I don't care what he does. Peschi's back....sold.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Alex K. View Post
              Casino is a great film and not typical Hollywood pablum. Casino is better than Goodfellas for me.
              Glad to see someone else thinks this way. Always preferred Casino. It could have been an hour longer and still hold interest.
              LA PASIÓN ESPAÑOL: THE EROTIC MELODRAMAS OF VICENTE ARANDA (1991-1999)

              Comment


              • #8
                To be fair, I did watch Casino before Goodfellas but I always thought Casino was the stronger of the two movies. I've seen Casino at least 50 times over the years.
                "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

                Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Alex K. View Post
                  To be fair, I did watch Casino before Goodfellas but I always thought Casino was the stronger of the two movies. I've seen Casino at least 50 times over the years.
                  I don't recall which one I saw first but I'm a big fan of both. I would say though that Casino has the edge in my book as well. Though probably I prefer Wolf Of Wall Street to either of them.
                  "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by enandalusiskhund View Post
                    In later years of his career he has adopted a more pretentious BIG Hollywood style, which in my opinion really doesn't suit him at all.
                    This change in style might be down to needing to satisfy his investors who fund the films and need to make certain returns. Though why he chooses to keep making watered down pap instead of just hanging up his directors hat is unclear, surely he doesn't need to keep working for the money?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Casino is better. Goodfellas suffers from Ray Liottas inability to act.

                      As for the "new and improved" Scoresese, I still like his work. Gangs was shit though, but overall he has found a style that works, and he was bound to expand from his mafia themed movies anyhow, and I feel he has made some really good films as of late. Perhaps the only 60+ year old director that has not turned to complete shit, to be quite honest.
                      "No presh from the Dresh!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mean Streets was very much in the arthouse tradition, as was Alice Doesn't Live Here and Taxi Driver. TD was a huge hit but shot on a very low budget and became a huge hit for the wrong reasons as far as Scorsese and his intentions. His films owe as much to the European tradition as the American tradition.

                        I do feel like he lost his way after Color of Money, the first film he said he made purely as a director for hire, with the plan to alternate studio films with his personal films but as we've seen it didn't work out that way and his films since have been much less intense and much more uneven.

                        But even his weaker films have some flashes of the old brillance and I would never count him out from producing a late period masterpiece.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Now this is certainly interesting, Why Netflix Will Release Martin Scorsese’s Next Film. No matter how it gets released, I want voiceovers, brutal violence, excessive use of the word "fuck" and all its variations and doo-wop on the soundtrack.
                          LA PASIÓN ESPAÑOL: THE EROTIC MELODRAMAS OF VICENTE ARANDA (1991-1999)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I just want to see one last traditional raw Marty movie.
                            "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

                            Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              http://www.indiewire.com/2017/11/iri...ls-1201897262/
                              "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

                              Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X