Does it rationally piss anyone else off that Jim was in a Scorsese film?

[guest]

It is one of the worst A-level gangster films of all time. The acting performances from everyone in it are horrific enough that Norton's abysmal on screen presence is entirely unnoticed. DeNiro was worse than Norton. Also the movie is completely based on false information and lies. The author is like a mafia version of 'stolen valor' where he was never in the mob and just made everything up. Similar to the hilarious fairy tales of the Iceman Killer.

Norton being hired for a Netflix waste of time is nothing to be alarmed about. The alarm bells should be sounding that Scorsee is now in his late level George Lucas phase of making only dogshit films. The budget for the Irishman is rumored to be nearly $250million. A quarter of a billion dollars to produce a movie that is insignificant in every way. It made less than $1million in theaters worldwide and sold next to no copies on DVD or Bluray. Had to be some laundering going on there.

It took me three evenings to get through it, and not because it was long. I remember practically nothing about the film apart from bad things, and I'm one of those spergs who remembers dialogue word for word from a movie I like years later after seeing it once or twice. Goodfellas, King of Comedy and Casino are some of my favourite films, but the Irishman was bad.

 

[Podcast Fanatic]

The de-aging cgi sucked but I thought that film still had a lot of good stuff. They just should’ve hired younger lookalike actors for those early scenes. It would’ve shaved 100 million off the budget and they could’ve avoided doing it for Netflix. Jimmy was an objectively good casting choice with his standup background and striking resemblance to the late great Rickles. Sebastian M. made a much stronger acting impression in the movie though.

 

[guest]

It took me three evenings to get through it, and not because it was long. I remember practically nothing about the film apart from bad things, and I'm one of those spergs who remembers dialogue word for word from a movie I like years later after seeing it once or twice. Goodfellas, King of Comedy and Casino are some of my favourite films, but the Irishman was bad.

Hot take, casino not good, thought friends were nuts fuckin with me etc etc.

Goodfellas and Taxi Driver are good, I think that's it.

 

[LiberalPussy]

Wait, am I allowed to still like The Wolf of Wall Street or is that also considered late career Scorsese trash?

I still really enjoy watching Leo fuck around in that movie as Margot Robbie gets her titties out.

Margot Bobbie was much better before she got all uppity about being treated like the piece of ass she is. Shut up, you feminist cunt! You are an OBJECT that exists to pleasure men!

 

[lilconnorpeterson]

The movie was actually financed by that scammer who makes those Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis geezer teasers.

'Geezer Teasersâ Pay: How Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Bruce Willis Made Millions For a Few Days on Set

Disgraced producer Randall Emmett paid veteran stars crazy high fees for minimal work just to sell their appearance in foreign markets.

www.gq.com

The man who played Hollywood: Inside Randall Emmett's crumbling empire

The ex-fiance of reality star Lala Kent faces the collapse of his company amid a trail of lawsuits, civil fraud charges and allegations of abusive behavior.

www.latimes.com

Irishman producer denies claims he offered actresses movie roles in exchange for sex

A top producer on the hit movie The Irishman is facing allegations that he offered actresses movie roles in exchange for sex.

www.sundayworld.com

Do you have any insight into this past the articles? I read 2/3 (Ones behind a paywall) but I don't understand how the scam works and I'm pretty interested to be honest.

Does a guy like Bruce Willis get 1.5 million for 4 days work and the guy running things tell the money people that the movie is going to be great and be the next Die Hard only for it to be a completely shitty rushed movie?

Or is it a case where the movie people will say it's a film starring Bruce Willis swindling investors and moviegoers for their money only for them to turn up and see a few scenes of Bruce Willis whilst the movie is based around someone else entirely?

Something else altogether? Consider me confused.

 

[LingerLonger]

Do you have any insight into this past the articles? I read 2/3 (Ones behind a paywall) but I don't understand how the scam works and I'm pretty interested to be honest.

Does a guy like Bruce Willis get 1.5 million for 4 days work and the guy running things tell the money people that the movie is going to be great and be the next Die Hard only for it to be a completely shitty rushed movie?

Or is it a case where the movie people will say it's a film starring Bruce Willis swindling investors and moviegoers for their money only for them to turn up and see a few scenes of Bruce Willis whilst the movie is based around someone else entirely?

Something else altogether? Consider me confused.

You make a movie. You produce it for $100million. Yet only $25million is actually spent on the movie. The rest is itemized for various aspects of production like renting trailers, paying producers, computer equipment, marketing. The extra money is paid out to companies that are not actually building or doing anything. They just take in dirty money from stolen taxes or drug cartels and wash it. That money is paid out to 'producers' who actually produce nothing but still get a credit and look like they have a legitimate business. As these 'producers' are just cartel heads or corrupt government officials.

So say you are a drug cartel and need to launder $100million and the banks are too risky. You pay these movie producers $100million in cash up front. They spend $25million making their film and still have $75million left over. They then put the other $75million into production companies that are owned by the cartel. Those production companies cash the money out and now it looks like legitimate income and not drug income. And from those production companies you can also buy stuff like real estate, cars, televisions, computers so it looks like you are spending the cash on something related to making a movie. Your cartel spends $100million of dirty money and receives $75million back in clean money that you can use for whatever. And if people investigate you can show them a movie that was made with big name actors so it looks legitimate. Leonardo DiCaprio literally was using funds stolen from the Malaysian government to finance his movies and launder money through them.

This only breaks down when the government audits these movie production companies and demands to know where the financing came from. And they see that the money is coming from stole Malaysian government funds or from cartels or the Mossad or whatever. Netflix is rumored to have an entire division that just produces stuff with laundered money.

 

[Chive Turkey]

The de-aging cgi sucked but I thought that film still had a lot of good stuff. They just should’ve hired younger lookalike actors for those early scenes. It would’ve shaved 100 million off the budget and they could’ve avoided doing it for Netflix. Jimmy was an objectively good casting choice with his standup background and striking resemblance to the late great Rickles. Sebastian M. made a much stronger acting impression in the movie though.

I didn't completely hate the movie but I got very little out of it. I didn't mind Pacino and Pesci, most of the other performances were good. Even if I'm being charitable though I can't ignore the fact that the whole thing just felt confused and lackluster. The hitman story had to make room for Hoffa but also a general commentary on the mafia of the time, which is awkward because the main character isn't actually in the mafia. Also some family drama stuff tacked on which is almost comically underdeveloped. Way too many balls in the air.

Goodfellas, Casino and WOWS worked well because they kept the focus where it needed to be and everything emanated from there organically. Tight progression in importance from protagonist to secondary characters to tertiary ones and using them to establish a sense of atmosphere. The Irishman places them all out of order, the characters who would normally be steering the narrative are way too often relegated to being passive observers. Passive observers to people and events whose identity or relevance to the audience isn't well established.

Or is it a case where the movie people will say it's a film starring Bruce Willis swindling investors and moviegoers for their money only for them to turn up and see a few scenes of Bruce Willis whilst the movie is based around someone else entirely?

Mostly this. 90% of the tiny budget goes to a handful of scenes featuring a washed-up big name actor as the draw, the movie is then cobbled together with the remaining funds and is nearly always borderline unwatchable. Film makes a decent return anyway because the total cost was still very low, rinse and repeat.

This applies to the larger majority of obvious Z-movies that guys like the Geezer Teaser churn out as their standard hustle. It's the ones they put out that do have big budgets and A-listers behind them that have more interesting and lurid origin stories.

 

[BonnieMcFarlaneMe2]

ive never even watched it. right up there with the sopranos movie.

You’re not missing anything, the only good part of the Sopranos movie is the intro where Christopher talks and a few scenes with Livia and Chris’s fawtha. Never saw the Irishman.

 

[guest]

the only good part of the Sopranos movie is the intro where Christopher talks

That's the only scene I saw and it was shit lol.

"Yep that's me. You're probably wondering how I got into this situation. Well it all started with Tony soprano..."