Current Events > The Irishman is better than all eleven MCU movies I have seen.

(+) Yeah! (+)

And is most certainly cinema. Just want to let everyone know this.

It is a monumental achievement and a perfect way for Scorsese to sendoff the gangster picture. The final hour was so replete with dread that I felt sick. It was horrifying and ultimately incredibly sad. Lives wasted for nothing.

You should see it in a theater if you can!
---

No one is interested in the newest film by King Marty Scorsese?

smh.
---

Well duh.

More generally: I saw it last weekend and really enjoyed it.

Think people are butthurt cause he shit on marvel, so theyre boycotting your topic
---

R1masher posted...

Think people are butthurt cause he shit on marvel, so theyre boycotting your topic

Why would anyone be upset about the biggest, most popular movies on the planet not being liked by one filmmaker?

Malfunction posted...

Well duh.

More generally: I saw it last weekend and really enjoyed it.

Glad to see we have a champion of the theatrical release in our midst!
---

Kind of obvious, but still decent bait

---

If you've seen one MCU movie you've seen them all.

Prime time bump
---

B A L D l N G

---

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.
---

Zithers posted...

No one is interested in the newest film by King Marty Scorsese?

No

---

It's three and a half hours though... do they give you an intermission in the theater?

Was there ever any doubt
---

most marvel fans aren"t smart enough to sit through a scorsece film

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Lmao
---

Honestly though id like to see discussion about this movie that doesnt mention the mcu.
---

coh posted...

If you've seen one MCU movie you've seen them all.

I wonder how many gangsta movies Scorsese has made.
---

FuneralFroth posted...

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Lmao

Hello, alt of a poster who's likely suspended because they only contribute to discussions in such manner. Your well-thought-out retort has been noted and disregarded.
---

fusespliff posted...

FuneralFroth posted...

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Lmao

Hello, alt of a poster who's likely suspended because they only contribute to discussions in such manner. Your well-thought-out retort has been noted and disregarded.

---

oh word?

---

Got Disney+, looked at all the Marvel movies, and went meh, didn't really want to re-watch any of them, started watching Gargoyles and X-Men 90s TV show instead.

I don't doubt it, but that's not saying much.
---

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.
---

Purely posted...

It's three and a half hours though... do they give you an intermission in the theater?

There is no intermission. I managed to not have to pee. Sat in third row and didn't notice anyone from first two rows get up. Guy next to me had to go with about 20 minutes left though. Brutal. Almost made it.
---

008Zulu posted...

coh posted...

If you've seen one MCU movie you've seen them all.

I wonder how many gangsta movies Scorsese has made.

Mean Streets in 74. Then waited sixteen years until he made Goodfellas in 90. Five years later he made Casino. Eleven years after that he made The Departed. Thirteen years later he got The Irishman.

Dunno why everyone acts like he makes a ton of gangster movies. He's made more documentaries, actually.

It also helps that Goodfellas and The Departed and The Irishman are nothing alike.
---

honestly gangster/mafia films are all the same. i really couldn't give a shit about any of them

all the characters are unrelatable and their blatant evil is supposed to made OK by having a magnanimous personality that all the other characters are afraid of or loyal too because he's "So bad ass"

FighterStreet2 posted...

honestly gangster/mafia films are all the same. i really couldn't give a shit about any of them

all the characters are unrelatable and their blatant evil is supposed to made OK by having a magnanimous personality that all the other characters are afraid of or loyal too because he's "So bad ass"

If you watch Goodfellas and think the movie is about how cool it is to be in the mob then you aren't very good at watching movies.

And The Irishman is the final nail in the coffin to anyone who thinks depiction = endorsement in Scorsese's mob movies, because it is an absolute condemnation of the evil these men do.
---

Zithers posted...

Mean Streets in 74. Then waited sixteen years until he made Goodfellas in 90. Five years later he made Casino. Eleven years after that he made The Departed. Thirteen years later he got The Irishman.

You literally forgot one of his other gangster movies that has it blantantly in the title.

I am of course referring to Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

---

Zithers posted...

FighterStreet2 posted...

honestly gangster/mafia films are all the same. i really couldn't give a shit about any of them

all the characters are unrelatable and their blatant evil is supposed to made OK by having a magnanimous personality that all the other characters are afraid of or loyal too because he's "So bad ass"

If you watch Goodfellas and think the movie is about how cool it is to be in the mob then you aren't very good at watching movies.

And The Irishman is the final nail in the coffin to anyone who thinks depiction = endorsement in Scorsese's mob movies, because it is an absolute condemnation of the evil these men do.

I never said Goodfellas is about how good it is to be in the mob. Goodfellas is entertaining for the reasons i listed.

metallica846 posted...

Zithers posted...

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

Ughhhhh you are so right. Super hero movies should be using practical effects! Just make a realistic Hulk suit with the ability for him to jump really high and far. Superman shots? Easy as fuck. Just string the actor to the SR-71 and dangle him behind the plane!

Dr. Strange actor will need to learn how to create portals through space though, so work on that. Spiderman is an easy one too. Radioactive spiders.

Just make the movies 100% animation like The Incredibles, which is by far the best superhero movie, since it isn't hindered by real life. The characters unleash their powers at full strength and it doesn't look out of place since everything is already animated.

Because intertwining CGI and live-action is ugly as fuck. Hideous digital garbage.
---

I thought it wasn't on Netflix yet.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

I thought it wasn't on Netflix yet.

It isn't. Hits Netflix on the 27th.
---

Kastrada posted...

Zithers posted...

Mean Streets in 74. Then waited sixteen years until he made Goodfellas in 90. Five years later he made Casino. Eleven years after that he made The Departed. Thirteen years later he got The Irishman.

You literally forgot one of his other gangster movies that has it blantantly in the title.

I am of course referring to Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore

We also can't forget about the incredibly violent and psychopathic murderers of New York, New York.
---

Zithers posted...

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

As someone who likes movies, I couldn't care less if something was practical or CGI. I only care if it's done well. Is it disappointing that practical VFX are used less each day? Sure, creativity thrives under limitations. But CGI is definitely a form of art which has thrived under limitations as well. Watch some Corridor Crew vids and be amazed at what VFX CGI artists have accomplished and in what creative ways they had to do it. There are a ton of non spectacle movies that have CGI in them you haven't ever noticed. Hell, I'm willing to bet the very movie you're wanking over uses CGI at points.

And yeah, seeing Avengers or Star Wars on a giant screen is a vastly different experience. You're not getting a very different experience from watching DiCaprio walking in Boston with the Dropkick Murphies playing on a big screen as opposed to your own TV.
---

Well year, The Irishman is actually made for adults.
---

I'm not interested in Marvel movies, and I'm also not interested in gangster movies made be a curmudgeon.

fusespliff posted...

Zithers posted...

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

As someone who likes movies, I couldn't care less if something was practical or CGI. I only care if it's done well. Is it disappointing that practical VFX are used less each day? Sure, creativity thrives under limitations. But CGI is definitely a form of art which has thrived under limitations as well. Watch some Corridor Crew vids and be amazed at what VFX CGI artists have accomplished and in what creative ways they had to do it. There are a ton of non spectacle movies that have CGI in them you haven't ever noticed. Hell, I'm willing to bet the very movie you're wanking over uses CGI at points.

And yeah, seeing Avengers or Star Wars on a giant screen is a vastly different experience. You're not getting a very different experience from watching DiCaprio walking in Boston with the Dropkick Murphies playing on a big screen as opposed to your own TV.

Yes, The Irishman uses plenty of CGI, considering they de-age the actors. But they aren't surrounded by fully CGI characters or living within CGI environs like many spectacle movies which, I reiterate, are quite ugly!

Meanwhile a movie shot by Rodrigo Prieto or Bob Richardson is often one of the best looking movies of the year and you're gonna watch it half-assed at home while playing around on your phone!
---

Zithers posted...

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

I love how you're saying Star Wars, Mission Impossible, Mad Max, and John Wick are the only films still using practical effects. cute.

I can think of a billion reasons why Marvel doesnt care about TC's hatred of their movies.
---

bobbaaay posted...

Zithers posted...

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

I love how you're saying Star Wars, Mission Impossible, Mad Max, and John Wick are the only films still using practical effects. cute.

Good ones, at least, since they hire people who know a thing or two about filmmaking.
---

Zithers posted...

fusespliff posted...

Zithers posted...

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

As someone who likes movies, I couldn't care less if something was practical or CGI. I only care if it's done well. Is it disappointing that practical VFX are used less each day? Sure, creativity thrives under limitations. But CGI is definitely a form of art which has thrived under limitations as well. Watch some Corridor Crew vids and be amazed at what VFX CGI artists have accomplished and in what creative ways they had to do it. There are a ton of non spectacle movies that have CGI in them you haven't ever noticed. Hell, I'm willing to bet the very movie you're wanking over uses CGI at points.

And yeah, seeing Avengers or Star Wars on a giant screen is a vastly different experience. You're not getting a very different experience from watching DiCaprio walking in Boston with the Dropkick Murphies playing on a big screen as opposed to your own TV.

Yes, The Irishman uses plenty of CGI, considering they de-age the actors. But they aren't surrounded by fully CGI characters or living within CGI environs like many spectacle movies which, I reiterate, are quite ugly!

Meanwhile a movie shot by Rodrigo Prieto or Bob Richardson is often one of the best looking movies of the year and you're gonna watch it half-assed at home while playing around on your phone!

So we've reached the part where we start assuming shit. I only play around on my phone when waiting for somebody/something. Anything I want to watch/read has my full attention. Yes, I'll watch movies that are 90% talking heads from the comfort of my own home instead of paying 20$ in order to gain some elitist cred.
You refuse to see the art in anything but what old, jaded men tell you is art. We're done here.
---

:gettleman:
---

fusespliff posted...

Zithers posted...

fusespliff posted...

Zithers posted...

fusespliff posted...

Nah, I pay to see spectacles in the theater. 99.9% of comedy, drama, thriller, horror,... are better watched in the comfort of my own home. I really don't see the point of spending money to see giant talking heads.

Yeah, Martin Scorsese doesn't know how to frame a beautiful image that deserves to be seen on the big screen... can't believe people want to see "spectacle" which is like, almost all green screen and CGI. Not only in the movies but period. That shit is so UGLY. Star Wars and Mission Impossible are the only spectacle movies to get away with it since they do practical stuff whenever possible... also Mad Max and John Wick.

As someone who likes movies, I couldn't care less if something was practical or CGI. I only care if it's done well. Is it disappointing that practical VFX are used less each day? Sure, creativity thrives under limitations. But CGI is definitely a form of art which has thrived under limitations as well. Watch some Corridor Crew vids and be amazed at what VFX CGI artists have accomplished and in what creative ways they had to do it. There are a ton of non spectacle movies that have CGI in them you haven't ever noticed. Hell, I'm willing to bet the very movie you're wanking over uses CGI at points.

And yeah, seeing Avengers or Star Wars on a giant screen is a vastly different experience. You're not getting a very different experience from watching DiCaprio walking in Boston with the Dropkick Murphies playing on a big screen as opposed to your own TV.

Yes, The Irishman uses plenty of CGI, considering they de-age the actors. But they aren't surrounded by fully CGI characters or living within CGI environs like many spectacle movies which, I reiterate, are quite ugly!

Meanwhile a movie shot by Rodrigo Prieto or Bob Richardson is often one of the best looking movies of the year and you're gonna watch it half-assed at home while playing around on your phone!

So we've reached the part where we start assuming shit. I only play around on my phone when waiting for somebody/something. Anything I want to watch/read has my full attention. Yes, I'll watch movies that are 90% talking heads from the comfort of my own home instead of paying 20$ in order to gain some elitist cred.
You refuse to see the art in anything but what old, jaded men tell you is art. We're done here.

It's okay, you can admit that you don't appreciate good cinematography. I mean, you basically are doing that right now.

I also don't have any old, jaded men telling me what's art. Weird assumption to make!
---

FighterStreet2 posted...

honestly gangster/mafia films are all the same. i really couldn't give a shit about any of them

all the characters are unrelatable and their blatant evil is supposed to made OK by having a magnanimous personality that all the other characters are afraid of or loyal too because he's "So bad ass"

goodfellas and Miller's Crossing
are gangster films that came out in 1990
they're basically the same film if you ignore everything else

---

Mean Streets is also not a typical gangster movie as we think of them. It's more a study of a few hoods while the usual elements of the genre are largely absent
---

Zithers posted...

Good ones, at least, since they hire people who know a thing or two about filmmaking.

This is among the top 5 most wienery posts I've seen on CE in my ten years
Let me guess -- you're too "cultured" and "intellectual" to watch horror or shock films, because you're too busy watching big budget gangster movies and blockbusters while feigning refinement? Because you're obviously not looking there if you think the only good practical effects are being done by Star Wars and Mission Impossible (lol?) movies