By reilo Go To PostPlenty of actors have talked about having stage fright and use acting as an outlet like that.True, but I didn't hear that brought up.
Must've happened somewhere after Bounty Law.
By Shanks D Zoro Go To PostOnly Hollywood can make the 3rd largest company in America an underdog against a cash stripped little Italian car company.
Ford isn’t the underdog in the movie and is 100% the villain against Shelby and Miles
A remainder that it's called Le Mans 66 almost everywhere else but Americans mostly don't know what Le Mans is and America vs anyone sells better.
By Apollo Go To PostFord isn’t the underdog in the movie and is 100% the villain against Shelby and MilesShanks likes to pretend he is Italian.
Shutter Island
An exercise in bravura genre filmmaking that is ultimately let down by the smoke and mirrors of its plotting. Scorsese is stretching every muscle and sinew to turn a bare bones story, far more impressed with its own cleverness than it is interested in being satisfying, into a schlocky, Hitchcockian thriller. His composure in composition is wonderful here; large swathes of the film which become bogged down in plotting and DiCaprio overcompensating in intensity are salvaged because of the imagery and sound that Scorsese is depicting. There’s a classical lilt to the film that is in stark contrast to the propulsive nature of ‘The Departed’; Scorsese makes all the right choices but its in service of a story that doesn’t deserve it. A good watch and a superb example of how a master filmmaker can raise something well above its level, but definitely lesser Scorsese.
Hugo
An odd one, this; ostensibly a children’s movie - with the biggest concession to this being Baron Cohen’s semi-villainous child catcher - but laced with darkness and more concerned with teaching film history than pandering to young audiences. It’s a delightful watch, and still the best film I’ve ever seen in 3D; even at home in 2D, Robert Richardson’s camera glides through impressively tactile sets, gorgeously realised and brought to life. Much like ‘Shutter Island’, Scorsese compensates for the limitations in storytelling (fewer here than in the former example) by bringing verve and energy to his direction. Curiously enough (or perhaps not at all, given the director), its weaknesses are apparent when it tries to be a children’s film, rather than just a whimsical way of telling the story of Georges Melies. By and large a really lovely watch, with some of the same delight on a filmmaking level that the ‘Paddington’ movies have.
The Wolf of Wall Street
I am in awe of what Scorsese and DiCaprio achieve in this movie. The blocking and camera work in every Stratton Oakmont scene alone is majestic enough to call this an absolute technical masterpiece. Add to that a career-best DiCaprio (at this point anyway; I very slightly prefer his work in OUATIH) putting in a preening, strutting, perma-child performance, completely lacking in vanity such are the physical contortions he makes and the absolute chasm of a human soul he inhabits; add to that some of the best comedy work of his career, culminating in that extraordinary lemmons scene; add to that a nigh-on-perfect supporting cast led by a devilish Jonah Hill; add to that a complete laceration of white collar capitalism, doing for Wall Street what ‘Goodfellas’ did for gangsters, and you have yourself a masterpiece.
Scorsese throws every extreme and revolting act of Belfort’s at his audience from minute one, wearing them down into a state of hysterical disbelief at his actions before the literal gutpunches start to fly and he is revealed as the monster he always was. The ending makes very clear that anyone who believes Scorsese is glorifying the work is woefully off the mark; there are very few filmmakers who have more contempt for the white American male than Martin Scorsese, and Jordan Belfort is the ultimate embodiment of that privilege, disdain for the law, selfishness, etcetera. My first viewing since its original cinema release, and its only grown in power; akin to Miller’s work with ‘Fury Road’, a septuagenarian film that shows everyone - this is how you fucking do it.
An exercise in bravura genre filmmaking that is ultimately let down by the smoke and mirrors of its plotting. Scorsese is stretching every muscle and sinew to turn a bare bones story, far more impressed with its own cleverness than it is interested in being satisfying, into a schlocky, Hitchcockian thriller. His composure in composition is wonderful here; large swathes of the film which become bogged down in plotting and DiCaprio overcompensating in intensity are salvaged because of the imagery and sound that Scorsese is depicting. There’s a classical lilt to the film that is in stark contrast to the propulsive nature of ‘The Departed’; Scorsese makes all the right choices but its in service of a story that doesn’t deserve it. A good watch and a superb example of how a master filmmaker can raise something well above its level, but definitely lesser Scorsese.
Hugo
An odd one, this; ostensibly a children’s movie - with the biggest concession to this being Baron Cohen’s semi-villainous child catcher - but laced with darkness and more concerned with teaching film history than pandering to young audiences. It’s a delightful watch, and still the best film I’ve ever seen in 3D; even at home in 2D, Robert Richardson’s camera glides through impressively tactile sets, gorgeously realised and brought to life. Much like ‘Shutter Island’, Scorsese compensates for the limitations in storytelling (fewer here than in the former example) by bringing verve and energy to his direction. Curiously enough (or perhaps not at all, given the director), its weaknesses are apparent when it tries to be a children’s film, rather than just a whimsical way of telling the story of Georges Melies. By and large a really lovely watch, with some of the same delight on a filmmaking level that the ‘Paddington’ movies have.
The Wolf of Wall Street
I am in awe of what Scorsese and DiCaprio achieve in this movie. The blocking and camera work in every Stratton Oakmont scene alone is majestic enough to call this an absolute technical masterpiece. Add to that a career-best DiCaprio (at this point anyway; I very slightly prefer his work in OUATIH) putting in a preening, strutting, perma-child performance, completely lacking in vanity such are the physical contortions he makes and the absolute chasm of a human soul he inhabits; add to that some of the best comedy work of his career, culminating in that extraordinary lemmons scene; add to that a nigh-on-perfect supporting cast led by a devilish Jonah Hill; add to that a complete laceration of white collar capitalism, doing for Wall Street what ‘Goodfellas’ did for gangsters, and you have yourself a masterpiece.
Scorsese throws every extreme and revolting act of Belfort’s at his audience from minute one, wearing them down into a state of hysterical disbelief at his actions before the literal gutpunches start to fly and he is revealed as the monster he always was. The ending makes very clear that anyone who believes Scorsese is glorifying the work is woefully off the mark; there are very few filmmakers who have more contempt for the white American male than Martin Scorsese, and Jordan Belfort is the ultimate embodiment of that privilege, disdain for the law, selfishness, etcetera. My first viewing since its original cinema release, and its only grown in power; akin to Miller’s work with ‘Fury Road’, a septuagenarian film that shows everyone - this is how you fucking do it.
By Apollo Go To PostFord isn’t the underdog in the movie and is 100% the villain against Shelby and Miles
Ah ok, all the trailers I have seen in Korea have had it cut to make it seem like an underdog story especially as Korea are going with Ford vs Ferrari.
I was finally able to watch The Irishman and man....all I can say is that Scorsese is the GOAT.
The whole cast is great and not a single minute is wasted.
The whole cast is great and not a single minute is wasted.
By Koko Go To PostI was finally able to watch The Irishman and man….all I can say is that Scorsese is the GOAT.Saving it for the weekend so i can write a lengthy n8 review
The whole cast is great and not a single minute is wasted.
Oh I'm sure there will be plenty of nerd culture 'journalists' making some clapback reviews about the irishman.
i'm seeing it tonight or tomorrow at the cinema.
the last time i walked away from the theater truly in awe of what i'd seen, was in 2011 after the tree of life.
the reviews are ridiculous and have me hyped to no end.
i'll be disappointed if it's merely sensational. it must be otherworldly.
the last time i walked away from the theater truly in awe of what i'd seen, was in 2011 after the tree of life.
the reviews are ridiculous and have me hyped to no end.
i'll be disappointed if it's merely sensational. it must be otherworldly.
Silence
I have always been largely a spiritual agnostic, mystified by the seeming coincidence of science just enough to believe that maybe there's something out there. But something I've never understood is religion. Why, I've asked myself as disease and death ravages the world, as bad people get rewarded and good people fall by the wayside, do people believe that that maybe-something out there has their best interests at heart, cares about them, loves them from a distance and yet lets them suffer regardless? It's difficult to truly understand why any one person feels the way they do, to have such staunch belief and faith in that unknown presence. But it's always fascinated me.
'Silence' poses questions like that throughout its nearly three-hour run time, but the great trick Martin Scorsese pulls off is that he doesn't answer it; or at least, not in the way you'd imagine. One of cinema's great religious filmmakers, Scorsese is astonishingly reserved here (in many ways, really; his typical whirling dervish camera work and pulsating rock soundtracks are replaced by ambience and almost unbearably still shots of unsettling violence, stripped of its glorification) in arguing either for or against the power and necessity of faith. True, both the Jesuit priests and the Japanese Christians find happiness and meaning in their worship, but they also suffer desperately as a direct result of it. There's a hilariously deadpan moment early on when a hawk flies by and Rodrigues ecstatically pronounces it to be a sign from God, the very moment that its flightpath draws the attention of two outsiders to their presence, sending them further on a path to their ultimate fate. If it was a sign from God, one wonders, what message was he trying to send?
Similarly, Scorsese doesn't truly make a judgement on who is the hero of the piece. Nominally, it's Garfield's Father Rodrigues, who has come to be the salvation and bringer of the Lord's gospel to an uncivilised land. But he dreams of being martyred, sees the Lord's face in his own reflection, takes his instructions directly from the voice of God if he is to bend his will even as he instructs others to do so. When he views Jesus, he can only imagine that he too will be asked one day to act as Jesus would act. And yet, when push comes to shove, he is too proud, too weak, too afraid and too alone, abandoned by his god, to do so - for he is only a man, and cannot be expected to act as Jesus would act. Similarly, the Japanese who have prohibited Christianity and commit unspeakable atrocities against its believers, are resolute in the face of colonists attempting to surreptitiously wash away their own way of life in favour of their own. The Japanese actors in the film, from the Inquisitor to the heartbreaking Kichijiro, are astounding, bringing grace and verisimilitude to the movie's breathtaking vistas.
All along, there is the silence. The indifference of any would-be creator who watches impassively as his creations bend and break upon his earth. Rodrigues suffers greatly with this silence, his narration implying he is a man in constant communication with his god, and when that communication goes unheard and unspoken, can only question every belief he's ever had. And yet, come film's end, he believes.
The thing that fascinates me most about religion - and about this film - is that fundamental belief that there is meaning to it all, that someone has a plan. Rodrigues and Ferreira, after decades and decades in the harsh, unforgiving world that they have attempted to control, after that world proves time and time again there is no place for their beliefs there, still speak of the Lord as if he is theirs, still go to their graves harnessing belief in a Christian god. The Japanese Christians, so terrified that God is witnessing and judging each act of theirs, refuse to step on the fumie, spit on the cross, just in case he sees. And in turn, the Inquisitors ask for the apostasy because, if there is a Christian god, he's watching.
It's that exploration of the unknown that Scorsese finds himself in, to far greater effect than in his previous religious films. 'The Last Temptation of Christ' and 'Kundun' are made with too much respect and reverence for their subjects; 'Silence' is the work of a man nearing his end who is beginning to question whether the subjects of his previous film have any meaning at all (in fact, it most closely resembles 'Bringing out the Dead', with its protagonist finding solace in salvation, meaning in martyrdom; what a curious double feature it would make!) It is a haunting, melancholy, powerful work, and has brought me to tears numerous times in my second watching of it. The moment where Rodrigues is faced with the fumie, the sound dropping completely, the voice addressing him in the most calm and measured of tones, is among the most powerful sequences I've ever seen in film.
I think I'd like to be a person of faith. To have that steadfast belief in something that they will come through, that they will make me see the light, that by following them I'll be delivered a near-rapturous experience. All along, through watching the twenty-four feature films he has made up until 'The Irishman', I have placed my faith in Martin Scorsese and been richly rewarded. He has reached his seventies with two bona-fide masterpieces, so different in every single element - texturally, aesthetically, aurally, atmospherically, et al - and yet they are tied together by one thread: their genius director. Only a Scorsese with 50 years of experience behind him can make a film so thrilling, explosive and daring as 'The Wolf of Wall Street'; and only the same man can make something so vital, brutal, probing, and thought-provoking as 'Silence'. It is, in my mind, his best work.
I have always been largely a spiritual agnostic, mystified by the seeming coincidence of science just enough to believe that maybe there's something out there. But something I've never understood is religion. Why, I've asked myself as disease and death ravages the world, as bad people get rewarded and good people fall by the wayside, do people believe that that maybe-something out there has their best interests at heart, cares about them, loves them from a distance and yet lets them suffer regardless? It's difficult to truly understand why any one person feels the way they do, to have such staunch belief and faith in that unknown presence. But it's always fascinated me.
'Silence' poses questions like that throughout its nearly three-hour run time, but the great trick Martin Scorsese pulls off is that he doesn't answer it; or at least, not in the way you'd imagine. One of cinema's great religious filmmakers, Scorsese is astonishingly reserved here (in many ways, really; his typical whirling dervish camera work and pulsating rock soundtracks are replaced by ambience and almost unbearably still shots of unsettling violence, stripped of its glorification) in arguing either for or against the power and necessity of faith. True, both the Jesuit priests and the Japanese Christians find happiness and meaning in their worship, but they also suffer desperately as a direct result of it. There's a hilariously deadpan moment early on when a hawk flies by and Rodrigues ecstatically pronounces it to be a sign from God, the very moment that its flightpath draws the attention of two outsiders to their presence, sending them further on a path to their ultimate fate. If it was a sign from God, one wonders, what message was he trying to send?
Similarly, Scorsese doesn't truly make a judgement on who is the hero of the piece. Nominally, it's Garfield's Father Rodrigues, who has come to be the salvation and bringer of the Lord's gospel to an uncivilised land. But he dreams of being martyred, sees the Lord's face in his own reflection, takes his instructions directly from the voice of God if he is to bend his will even as he instructs others to do so. When he views Jesus, he can only imagine that he too will be asked one day to act as Jesus would act. And yet, when push comes to shove, he is too proud, too weak, too afraid and too alone, abandoned by his god, to do so - for he is only a man, and cannot be expected to act as Jesus would act. Similarly, the Japanese who have prohibited Christianity and commit unspeakable atrocities against its believers, are resolute in the face of colonists attempting to surreptitiously wash away their own way of life in favour of their own. The Japanese actors in the film, from the Inquisitor to the heartbreaking Kichijiro, are astounding, bringing grace and verisimilitude to the movie's breathtaking vistas.
All along, there is the silence. The indifference of any would-be creator who watches impassively as his creations bend and break upon his earth. Rodrigues suffers greatly with this silence, his narration implying he is a man in constant communication with his god, and when that communication goes unheard and unspoken, can only question every belief he's ever had. And yet, come film's end, he believes.
The thing that fascinates me most about religion - and about this film - is that fundamental belief that there is meaning to it all, that someone has a plan. Rodrigues and Ferreira, after decades and decades in the harsh, unforgiving world that they have attempted to control, after that world proves time and time again there is no place for their beliefs there, still speak of the Lord as if he is theirs, still go to their graves harnessing belief in a Christian god. The Japanese Christians, so terrified that God is witnessing and judging each act of theirs, refuse to step on the fumie, spit on the cross, just in case he sees. And in turn, the Inquisitors ask for the apostasy because, if there is a Christian god, he's watching.
It's that exploration of the unknown that Scorsese finds himself in, to far greater effect than in his previous religious films. 'The Last Temptation of Christ' and 'Kundun' are made with too much respect and reverence for their subjects; 'Silence' is the work of a man nearing his end who is beginning to question whether the subjects of his previous film have any meaning at all (in fact, it most closely resembles 'Bringing out the Dead', with its protagonist finding solace in salvation, meaning in martyrdom; what a curious double feature it would make!) It is a haunting, melancholy, powerful work, and has brought me to tears numerous times in my second watching of it. The moment where Rodrigues is faced with the fumie, the sound dropping completely, the voice addressing him in the most calm and measured of tones, is among the most powerful sequences I've ever seen in film.
I think I'd like to be a person of faith. To have that steadfast belief in something that they will come through, that they will make me see the light, that by following them I'll be delivered a near-rapturous experience. All along, through watching the twenty-four feature films he has made up until 'The Irishman', I have placed my faith in Martin Scorsese and been richly rewarded. He has reached his seventies with two bona-fide masterpieces, so different in every single element - texturally, aesthetically, aurally, atmospherically, et al - and yet they are tied together by one thread: their genius director. Only a Scorsese with 50 years of experience behind him can make a film so thrilling, explosive and daring as 'The Wolf of Wall Street'; and only the same man can make something so vital, brutal, probing, and thought-provoking as 'Silence'. It is, in my mind, his best work.
By n8 dogg Go To PostSilence
I have placed my faith in Martin Scorsese and been richly rewarded.
Absolutely not having it.
Going into the Irishman then...
POOR
24. Boxcar Bertha
OKAY
23. Kundun
PRETTY GOOD
22. Who's That Knocking at My Door
21. The Color of Money
20. Shutter Island
19. Gangs of New York
GOOD
18. New York New York
17. The Last Temptation of Christ
16. Cape Fear
VERY GOOD
15. Hugo
14. Mean Streets
13. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
EXCELLENT
12. The Departed
11. After Hours
10. Casino
9. The Age of Innocence
8. Bringing out the Dead
7. The Aviator
MASTERPIECE
6. The Wolf of Wall Street
5. Taxi Driver
4. Raging Bull
3. Goodfellas
2. The King of Comedy
1. Silence
POOR
24. Boxcar Bertha
OKAY
23. Kundun
PRETTY GOOD
22. Who's That Knocking at My Door
21. The Color of Money
20. Shutter Island
19. Gangs of New York
GOOD
18. New York New York
17. The Last Temptation of Christ
16. Cape Fear
VERY GOOD
15. Hugo
14. Mean Streets
13. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
EXCELLENT
12. The Departed
11. After Hours
10. Casino
9. The Age of Innocence
8. Bringing out the Dead
7. The Aviator
MASTERPIECE
6. The Wolf of Wall Street
5. Taxi Driver
4. Raging Bull
3. Goodfellas
2. The King of Comedy
1. Silence
Man, Gangs of New York was so boring. You can pretty much get everything there is to get out of it by looking up the DDL clips on youtube
By data Go To PostMan, Gangs of New York was so boring. You can pretty much get everything there is to get out of it by looking up the DDL clips on youtube
I think the production design, sets, scale of it all is great. Good blu-ray watch.
Is that Bladerunner sequel worth watching? I got it when it came out and never got around to watching it.
Jesus the Irishman is long af. Good thing it’s on Netflix because there’s no way I could watch this in one sitting. Almost 4 hours.
Feels like it could have been a 3-4 part miniseries
Feels like it could have been a 3-4 part miniseries
By HoboVapes Go To PostIs that Bladerunner sequel worth watching? I got it when it came out and never got around to watching it.Yeah, better than the original imo.
Echoed. Second one is actually interesting. First one looks pretty and has all the concepts and does barely anything with it.
By Apollo Go To PostBan these peoplefacts
Ford v Ferrari was magic. I think that was my favorite Bale performance. All charm.
In retrospect, the American marketing for this movie sucks. Ford and his executives were cunts and Ferrari is barely a presence, a Maguffin device at best.
In retrospect, the American marketing for this movie sucks. Ford and his executives were cunts and Ferrari is barely a presence, a Maguffin device at best.
By /sy Go To PostI think the Irishman cemented Tarantino>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ScorseseStick to Kingdom Hearts
By /sy Go To PostI think the Irishman cemented Tarantino>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Scorsesedon't hurt em....
By /sy Go To PostI think the Irishman cemented Tarantino>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ScorseseLay off the drugs Sy.
Irishman was the best film I've seen in the past few years. Scorsese did everything wonderfully.
The only problem I have is that the good CG work on Pesci and DeNiro's face was contrasted by their body language.
that scene where "40" year old deniro beat up the grocery store dude was legit awful. should have just used a stunt double. Can't believe he let that make the final cut.
irishman was a good movie but by the end, it just felt like another scorsese mob movie, a worse version of goodfellas/casino/wolf of wallstreet.....good god they could have edited it down some too.
Joe Pesci was phenomenal though. Best performance I've seen since Moonlight.
Makes me like once upon a time in hollywood more in hindsight.
irishman was a good movie but by the end, it just felt like another scorsese mob movie, a worse version of goodfellas/casino/wolf of wallstreet.....good god they could have edited it down some too.
Joe Pesci was phenomenal though. Best performance I've seen since Moonlight.
Makes me like once upon a time in hollywood more in hindsight.
By /sy Go To Postthat scene where "40" year old deniro beat up the grocery store dude was legit awful. should have just used a stunt double. Can't believe he let that make the final cut.
irishman was a good movie but by the end, it just felt like another scorsese mob movie, a worse version of goodfellas/casino/wolf of wallstreet…..good god they could have edited it down some too.
Joe Pesci was phenomenal though.
Makes me like once upon a time in hollywood more in hindsight.
another scorsese mob movie like wolf of wall street
lol
Oh Pacino...
I’ve always wanted to ask you about this. There’s an anecdote you used to tell about acting. You were in Boston performing for a very perceptive pair of eyes, and—
Pacino: Oh, yeah. Oh, my God. [to De Niro] You know that story? At the end of the play, there were these eyes on me. I went, “Who is this?” You know, “Is this gonna be my true love?” I see them again during the curtain call. I couldn’t believe this. There was such focus. So when the lights came up, I turned to the right, and there they were, two Seeing Eye dogs.
De Niro: Really?! [laughing]
Pacino: I said, “That’s the theater.”