Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Posted 06 December 2019 - 12:59 AM
Pretty epic. Still processing, but it was pretty awesome. The de-aging stuff was decent, but threw me off a little given that I've seen movies with a young DeNero. It was like, young face, but still old man body language.
Pesci actually impressed the most, he was known for being so animated in other roles, seeing him be the subdued one was spooky because you knew he was still being a sociopath under the surface.
Think I need to rewatch Casino and Good Fellas now.
- Odine +1 this
Posted 06 December 2019 - 01:51 AM
But I loved it. I agree the de-aging stuff didn't really work too well. They still had old man weight as well as old man body language. When De Nero was young, he was wiry and athletic. Here he was still of the same build as an old man just with smooth skin. But that is my only complaint really.
Posted 06 December 2019 - 05:41 AM
The de-aging didn't bother me too much since they weren't meant to be in their early 20/30's but middle/later aged men anyway, so a bit easier to pull off. But De Nero didn't hold up anywhere near as well as Pacino and Pesci in that regard.
Aside from that though it was amazing - I didn't realise how much I missed seeing Pesci on screen until I saw this.
Posted 06 December 2019 - 08:31 AM
I watched it last week, I liked it a lot.
Something about it seemed almost subdued compared to other Scorsese movies. His stuff on this same biographical or epic scale has seemed more kinetic or fast paced, it was a bit of a change up to see this purposefully take its time a lot of places. I think that slow burn worked well for the most part, but if this was something that I couldn't have split into two different nights, I think I would have gotten a little agitated by the long running time.
That's really the only knock I have against it though. The tech worked great and made those scenes in their younger days believable enough. That slow pace does work well in terms of making you kind of live with the characters and have the same thoughts in your head that they probably are, especially De Niro's character. That scene in the car where they're just awkwardly talking about a dead fish is probably the most tense scene I've ever seen with the most ridiculous dialogue.
I'm glad we live in an age where somebody with deep pocketbooks and no F's to give like Netflix can make this happen. This movie probably wouldn't have been possible even as recently as five years ago.
Posted 06 December 2019 - 10:38 AM
Thought it was good. Thought it could have been just as good if it were 30, 45, 60 minutes shorter. Key scene that epitomized that for me was when Frank and Hoffa are talking to the side during Frank's ceremony/party. The scene goes on for what felt like 5 minutes when about 90 seconds probably would have done the trick.
It was good! I'm glad I watched it. But I did find myself laughing a couple of times like "holy **** why did this movie need to be 3.5 hours?"
Posted 06 December 2019 - 05:46 PM
Posted 06 December 2019 - 07:46 PM
I thought it was great. Pesci probably was the best performance but the movie definitely needed Pacino's energy as Hoffa. It's a much different movie than Marty's other gangster epics. It doesn't glamorize that life at all.
People complaining about it being 3.5 hours and then this weekend will binge some tv show for 9 hours straight tomorrow.