criterionforum.org

Yeah...five theaters in L.A. and New York for a week for Oscar consideration.

And no Blu-Ray release after, of course, leaving a gap in my Scorsese collection.

I'm sure that once they find out about your Scorsese collection, they'll reconsider

Monterey Jack wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:04 pm Yeah...five theaters in L.A. and New York for a week for Oscar consideration.

And no Blu-Ray release after, of course, leaving a gap in my Scorsese collection.

As long as you're still paying your Netflix every month, I'm sure there's no moral reason why you couldn't burn your own copy with customer artwork and put it up on the shelf. Or, considering it originated with paramount, maybe it will get the Cloverfield Paradox treatment.

Or to put it another way Jack...”go home and get your fucking shinebox.”

Not for nuthin’ - I gotta think this gets a wide release. As far as a physical copy, I’m surprised anything is put out there anymore.

It's hard to fathom this picture couldn't get a wide release through a major studio. A Scorsese gangster movie with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino would've been a sure bet in the early-mid 2000's to get green lighted by a Paramount or Warner Brothers.


This is case 700 of studios abandoning the projects they once developed for themselves.

Dead or Deader wrote:It's hard to fathom this picture couldn't get a wide release through a major studio. A Scorsese gangster movie with Robert De Niro and Al Pacino would've been a sure bet in the early-mid 2000's to get green lighted by a Paramount or Warner Brothers.


This is case 700 of studios abandoning the projects they once developed for themselves.

Nah Netflix outbid them and is willing to give scoresese whatever he wants budget wise, whereas the big studios would have probably capped him at 50-75 million.

Plus, let's face it, De Niro and Pacino together are not the potential box office draw now they might have been 15 years ago. Putting aside trends, their movies have largely been on television or in indies, or foreign markets, etc, etc. Plus the last time they were in something together, Righteous Kill, was so bad the interest in seeing them in something like this had largely gone.

I still think this has tons of potential largely because it's that wild card of Pacino and Scorsese working together for the first time, not to mention the possibility of Pacino on screen with Pesci and Keitel.

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:46 amI still think this has tons of potential largely because it's that wild card of Pacino and Scorsese working together for the first time, not to mention the possibility of Pacino on screen with Pesci and Keitel.

It always amazes me when I hear this little trivia nugget that Pacino and Scorsese have never worked together, till now.

I'm very much hoping that it's not just a sentimental get together that has the feel of an old timers game.

Well Scorsese's last few films didn't feel like someone past his prime, so I feel in safe hands

dda1996a wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:43 pm Well Scorsese's last few films didn't feel like someone past his prime, so I feel in safe hands

It's confirmed, dda1996a is Al Pacino!

dda1996a wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:43 pm Well Scorsese's last few films didn't feel like someone past his prime, so I feel in safe hands

Hugo (2011) and Silence (2016) were Scorsese's best narrative features of the past 20 years by a good margin, IMHO, so he's still capable of making really good (maybe even great) films. This one could be disastrous or fairly interesting. I think I mentioned it earlier, but I think Scorsese understands how simultaneously convincing and unconvincing "de-aging" VFX can be. The Brechtian result could produce a fascinating work, but we'll have to wait and see.

I wholeheartedly agree about Hugo and Silence. Especially Silence, it was great. I was talking less about Scorsese and more about his cast. Plus, hopefully it’s a mobster movie that won’t turn into an unintentional parody of all his other mobster films.

LOL @ skipping over his actual best film

Jesus, I can't tell you how many times I defended that film against everyone I know who hated it, and I don't even think it's that good. I'm fatigued just thinking about those arguments again.

The Wolf of Wall Street is pitched at such a specific wavelength that I could see it being tortuous if you can't get with it, but for me it's his masterwork. But I'm also not as big a Scorsese booster as most

No, the arguments were more about Belfort, or rather what the movie did for him and his ilk (i.e. generally the people responsible for the financial crisis and the lasting, ongoing repercussions). These weren't necessarily cinephiles I was arguing with, filmmaking wasn't the main issue.

No offense to what may have been nice people, but anyone who gets fixated on stuff like that is probably exhausting to interact with in general

It's definitely positioned alongside stuff like Fight Club, The Dark Knight, and American Psycho as films that appeal in the complete wrong way to a certain subset of people - certainly doesn't impact its quality, though

You could lump Goodfellas and especially Taxi Driver in there as well. I mean, especially Taxi Driver. I have no doubt plenty of the incels and men's rights jerks have Travis Bickle posters on their lonely walls.

domino harvey wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:25 pm No offense to what may have been nice people, but anyone who gets fixated on stuff like that is probably exhausting to interact with in general

Two of them report on finance, so it was understandable - it's their world and it hits a raw nerve.

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:32 pm It's definitely positioned alongside stuff like Fight Club, The Dark Knight, and American Psycho as films that appeal in the complete wrong way to a certain subset of people - certainly doesn't impact its quality, though

In the most bluntly manner, films that appeal to that subset of people who say dude and brah.

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:37 pm You could lump Goodfellas and especially Taxi Driver in there as well. I mean, especially Taxi Driver. I have no doubt plenty of the incels and men's rights jerks have Travis Bickle posters on their lonely walls.

I mean let's not forget that John Hinkley Jr thought shooting Reagan would win Jodie Foster's heart because of this movie.

But not understanding films is commonplace now. When R. Lee Ermey died earlier this year the US Army Twitter Page advertised Full Metal Jacket as pro war. It took my breath away.

To be fair Kubrick viewed it as pro-war.

Sam Fuller dismissed Full Metal Jacket as "another goddamn recruiting film" even though philosophically you'd think they'd be on the same page. I don't agree with Fuller's take, but I wouldn't be too dismissive of it either.