criterionforum.org

I agree. You HAVE TO compare to the source. Blu Ray is not a thing by itself, it represents the film as it was premiered. So for most movies, you have commentary about the theatrical and how it looked and whether it is accurately produced here. Irishman was by and large a streaming release. It absolutely merits comparison to the streaming release to see how it compares and commentary with regards to it being a worthwhile purchase when most people have netflix.

Here you go for a source comparison. My own screenshot of the 4K WEBRip. It has non of Criterion's blotchiness (and expectedly, more detail). On a proper UHD, the film would look even better. But right now the WEBRip is the definitive version of the film.

Once I get a hold of the disc, I will post a screenshot taken the same exact way and that would give a better idea of the real differences.

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:50 pmBlu Ray is not a thing by itself, it represents the film as it was premiered.

Actually, it is, especially in regards to blockiness. Blockiness coming from the home video encode has a specific aspect that can be spotted on a BD (or even a UHD actually) and its related issues attributed to the correct reason (a sub-optimal encode). If the issue is not coming from the home video encode itself, it would mean it's baked in the professionnal intermediate result, ie for The Irishman its 4K DI. I have seen probably 1000+ BDs, and have only encountered ONCE a movie whose DI was showing blockiness to begin with (explaining why the subsequent BDs were also showing blockiness : An Elephant Sitting Still).

Remember also that Criterion didn't use a Netflix stream as a source and then adapt it to 1080p : they worked with an upstream less compressed file, most likely a 4K ProRes (I'd assume already converted SDR but sourced from the 4K DV DI), weighing several hundreds Gbs.

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:50 pmYou HAVE TO compare to the source.

How would you do that ? The Irishman 4K-finished source "weighs" several Terabytes and isn't available to the public. Even the largest least-compressed Netflix stream has compressed that by 99%. All we're achieving by comparing the largest 4K Netflix stream with the Criterion BD is comparing a 99% 4K compression with a different 99% 1080p compression. It's enough to see if there are exact common issues - which would mean there might be baked-in issues - but we're certainly not comparing to "the" source.

I saw The Irishman in a cinema, and I think I’d have noticed if it was merely a projected Blu-ray - compression that’s invisible at home can often be glaringly apparent when blown up to fill an entire auditorium.

tenia wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 am

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:50 pmBlu Ray is not a thing by itself, it represents the film as it was premiered.

Actually, it is, especially in regards to blockiness. Blockiness coming from the home video encode has a specific aspect that can be spotted on a BD (or even a UHD actually) and its related issues attributed to the correct reason (a sub-optimal encode). If the issue is not coming from the home video encode itself, it would mean it's baked in the professionnal intermediate result, ie for The Irishman its 4K DI. I have seen probably 1000+ BDs, and have only encountered ONCE a movie whose DI was showing blockiness to begin with (explaining why the subsequent BDs were also showing blockiness : An Elephant Sitting Still).

Remember also that Criterion didn't use a Netflix stream as a source and then adapt it to 1080p : they worked with an upstream less compressed file, most likely a 4K ProRes (I'd assume already converted SDR but sourced from the 4K DV DI), weighing several hundreds Gbs.

Nasir007 wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:50 pmYou HAVE TO compare to the source.

How would you do that ? The Irishman 4K-finished source "weighs" several Terabytes and isn't available to the public. Even the largest least-compressed Netflix stream has compressed that by 99%. All we're achieving by comparing the largest 4K Netflix stream with the Criterion BD is comparing a 99% 4K compression with a different 99% 1080p compression. It's enough to see if there are exact common issues - which would mean there might be baked-in issues - but we're certainly not comparing to "the" source.

I perhaps phrased what I was saying extremely poorly. I meant to say - were I a reviewer, I would compare video presentation to the prevailing format of mass public impression. Say I were reviewing a largely theatrical film, I would compare it to that. If I were reviewing a largely streaming film, I would compare it to that. So I was just supporting the notion that a direct comparison to the nextflix stream is vital as it exists and is readily available out there and it is the way most people would see the film. And beyond extras, streaming-debuted films on disc can place a burden on a potential buyer - if the buyer is only getting the disc for the video presentation and already has a streaming subscription. So whether the presentation on a disc is worthwhile compared to the stream is of interest.

All that is to say, if I were the reviewer, I would have compared it to the streaming copy.

Movies like The Irishman are actually exceptions allowing to do "easy" A/B comparisons with the other prevailing mass format. There is almost no way to do a real accurate comparison of the BD with its theatrical equivalent (except if accessing the DCP file), so it's all only what you see on BD versus your memories of what you saw theatrically... providing you see it in theaters to begin with (in my personal case, I have never seen once before the utmost majority of the movies whose BDs I'm reviewing, especially since most of them are older than I am), and that it was a technically relevant theater.

And then again, there are many "markers" on a BD release that allow to spot whether the basis are properly covered or if there are specific issues, without having to try and do a comparison with something else.

So to go back on the original matter here, which is the BD compression, the chances the blockiness of the Criterion BD isn't solely coming from the BD encode are pretty much 0. Sure, it's always best to have the matter fully investigated, but really, just like the recent discussion about whether the Universal master supplied to Eureka for Five Graves to Cairo is 4K somewhere or not, the simplest answer is 99.99999% to be the right one. And in the case of The Irishman, it's just the typical crap compression from Pixelogic again.

I had a great time rewatching this one last night, the first time watching it on blu-ray. Because I knew what to expect, I was less distracted by the admittedly not-great de-aging effects and thus appreciated the performances more. I found the overall experience quite devastating.

One thing I noticed that I missed the first time around:

Spoiler

The movie, for awhile, has a Dunkirk-like structure, with two alternating timelines (one decades-spanning, the other condensed to a few days) heading toward the same moment (Hoffa's killing).

Pardon my fish if this has been discussed earlier, but I've a question that has bothered me every one of the half-dozen times I've watched this great film:

Spoiler

After Frank pops Jimmy (sorry, nerds -- SPOILER) and exits the house, I presume he returns to the car where Jimmy's son Chuckie awaits. What in hell is the logics here? Is Chuckie in on it? Is nothing said of Jimmy's absence? The only thing I can figure is they were gonna leave Jimmy at the meeting and come back for him; but that doesn't make sense either as Jimmy wanted Frank at the meeting too, and I can only assume Chuckie and Mr. Coke Bottles back in the car knew this too. Is Chuckie so dim that he wouldn't have the sense to ask where his old man is?

I know this scene (like much of the film) is conjecture, so it doesn't have to make perfect sense, but I cant figure it.

What am I missing?

Sternhalma Weinstein wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:56 am(sorry, nerds -- SPOILER)

Do not intentionally post a spoiler again

domino harvey wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:10 am

Sternhalma Weinstein wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:56 am(sorry, nerds -- SPOILER)

Do not intentionally post a spoiler again

Are you actually serious? A two-year-old movie about a 75-year-old historical fact and we have to act like Blu-ray.com posters who celebrate their own half-birthdays and keep track of the number of "sleeps" left until the next episode of their favorite comic book movie?

How dispiriting. Over the last 25 years I've read every scrap of content by Kael, Agee, Farber, Rosenbaum (but not Guildenstern), Hoberman, Sarris, Macdonald, et al, and I don't recall any of them stooping to the manchild depths of intellectual abstinence popularized by the likes of Harry Knowles. Didn't realize this was that sort of place.

But, I'll abide. Wouldn't want anyone to enjoy Citizen Kane any less because of its absolutely least interesting aspect.

PS Sorry I mentioned the dead fish

K

We don't need two twotecs in this thread

Sternhalma, if memory serves Frank says you could say Chuckie was in on it, but stupidly... I guess that’s part of the reason for the fish story?

But yeah, I’m not sure what the logic is either, other than he’s supposed to be dim? At least he knew enough to charge a guy who has a gun, when he has a knife you back away of course.

If I’m not mistaken the real life Chuckie is the only person depicted in the movie who’s still alive. He or a relative contributed to a newspaper regarding his depiction in the movie. He wasn’t pleased.

As for your spoiler, I think it’s the way you presented it.

This is over a year old, but some guy redid a few minutes of The Irishman's de-aging effects using deepfake technology

DarkImbecile wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:23 pm Anyway, this is a film that is so dependent on its dialogue with Scorsese's own work and American history that I can't imagine coming to it with insufficient knowledge of either and having a positive reaction to it. Of all the mournful notes in the movie, perhaps the most unexpectedly emotional for me was Scorsese's treatment of the erosion of history and meaning over time, on both a global and personal level. He portrays the momentous, world-changing events that dominated these characters' lifetimes and much of his own work as the ephemeral, half-understood abstractions they are to the vast majority of people alive today; the murder of a president and a near miss with nuclear holocaust are roughly as meaningful to the young adults around Sheeran at the end of the film as the various now-obscure murders and disappearances that are more foregrounded in the narrative. It's not just the choices and actions that made up Sheeran's own immoral, wasted life that have lost any color and meaning they might have once had, but nearly all the once-shared experiences, values, fears, and concerns that are rapidly disappearing from living memory.

To the point that Scorsese's presentation of the gangsters in this film denies them even the vitality and mythology that comes with every other film in the genre's depiction of 'the glory days', I loved that he introduces nearly every side character with a description of their ultimate murder or life-ending prison sentence, undercutting them before they can even attempt to assert any larger significance or value beyond ending up bleeding out in a driveway or blown to pieces in front of a Philly rowhome.

Having revisited the film last night, and this thread today, this comment really resonates with what I think is so successful about the film. I'd been meaning to revisit this film for some time, as there have been moments since initially seeing it in theaters where I have been reminded of moments from it...but I finally got around to it last night.

Rather than being bored by the fact that Scorsese already has a film similar to this in Goodfellas, which covers some of the same territory, I found that familiarity with that film made this one so much more enjoyable. Scorsese is taking a similar world and telling it from a different perspective. Not just that of a "Good fella" vs. an enforcer, however, but also with the perspective of time, age, and distance. There is a beautiful minimalism to the film, in the character such as Salerno, having such a gigantic influence over the plot of the film despite being in 2-3 scenes at most. Sheeran never gets close to any of the characters except Russel, and the distance he retains with everyone over the course of the film is incredibly effective. Whereas Henry Hill can riff off the names and mistresses of everyone in his crew, never gets more than one or two conversation with any critical figure in the mob. These mob relationships are stripped of all of their humanity and reduced to the bare minimum, and Scorsese visiting that world again with this different perspective is very effective.

The other thing that really stuck out to me, and I concede this is probably mostly my own bias showing, is the way Scorsese romanticizes the mob in contrast to big business. In one of the final episodes of the Sopranos, there is a plot where the mobsters are trying to force a chain coffee store to start paying them for protection, and the manager insists he can't even access the safe money. Big business has neutered a way for mobsters to collect their money. Similarly, the last time I saw Casino, that was my read as De Niro eulogizes Las Vegas under mob rule at the end of the film. Sure, the things the mobsters are doing is awful, but isn't it a bit more romantic with them in charge than faceless corporations? I have a friend that thinks this is intentionally ironic on Scorsese's part, and he doesn't mean to valorize the mob lifestyle, but I'm personally not so sure it can't be both.

There's a similar tone that is consistent in The Irishman. Hoffa screams that "big business and the government are out to get these unions." As long as the mob can benefit from union power, unions seem pretty safe. And while it's certainly just statement of facts, note how many of these gangsters died in 1979-1981, the years of Ronald Regan (and therefore, the current state of big business') ascent. Throughout the film, Hoffa and the mob are able to use each other effectively. But the death of one ultimately signals the death of the other. The glory days of mob rule went hand in hand with the dominance of the Teamsters' union. From a contemporary perspective, the mob feels less present than it used to, and so are unions which are there to confer benefits and power to the working people against faceless corporations. And the rise of the mega-corporation has occurred during the downfall of both of these.

I know this isn't the primary plot of the film. Scorsese is quite explicit that this film is about the passage of time and how one evaluates their own life while able to look back on it with full hindsight. But between The King Of Comedy, Wolf of Wall Street and The Irishman, we have some very beautiful critiques of the way our current society handles celebrity, fame, money, and big business. The people in his films are very effective representations of those critiques, and that's what's lingered in me the most since revisiting the film last night.

Drucker, thanks for posting. I’ve been contemplating revisiting this myself. When I first saw it I was nonplussed and felt it was overly long. But every now and then I would think about the film. Besides Scorsese deserves additional chances in changing initial reactions. Scorsese does indeed romanticizes the mobster and that life. I do think Coppola deserves the credit for romanticization of this genre with The Godfather. Scorsese’s first mob movie, Mean Streets, does not have that feel to it. Much more gritty and down and dirty.

FrauBlucher wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:32 pm Drucker, thanks for posting. I’ve been contemplating revisiting this myself. When I first saw it I was nonplussed and felt it was overly long. But every now and then I would think about the film. Besides Scorsese deserves additional chances in changing initial reactions. Scorsese does indeed romanticizes the mobster and that life. I do think Coppola deserves the credit for romanticization of this genre with The Godfather. Scorsese’s first mob movie, Mean Streets, does not have that feel to it. Much more gritty and down and dirty.

I dunno, if anything, I thought it romanticized Hoffa (a complex figure for whom I have much sympathy as he was trying to accomplish trade union advancement in hostile-as-hell-USA). But considering the Hollywood treatment usually reserved for "mid-century, fat dumb white guy union politics," it was quite welcome.

All the scenes of ugly, wrinkly and extremely violent mobsters doing grotesque shit thwarted any kind of romanticization, imho. Personally, I think it's a masterpiece. Which would give him three in the 21st century alone.

Scorsese has openly talked about his mortality in recent years and how the window for making films is shrinking due to his age. Paired with his previous narrative film Silence, I get the feeling Scorsese is tying up all loose ends. Both The Irishman and Silence feel like the work of someone looking back at their life and legacy, analyzing/criticizing it and saying the things that he probably wants to say or at least emphasize that wasn't as pronounced before. They're almost by design final testament films.

ford wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:38 pm

FrauBlucher wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:32 pm Drucker, thanks for posting. I’ve been contemplating revisiting this myself. When I first saw it I was nonplussed and felt it was overly long. But every now and then I would think about the film. Besides Scorsese deserves additional chances in changing initial reactions. Scorsese does indeed romanticizes the mobster and that life. I do think Coppola deserves the credit for romanticization of this genre with The Godfather. Scorsese’s first mob movie, Mean Streets, does not have that feel to it. Much more gritty and down and dirty.

I dunno, if anything, I thought it romanticized Hoffa (a complex figure for whom I have much sympathy as he was trying to accomplish trade union advancement in hostile-as-hell-USA).

I maintain that the film only works as well as it does because Pacino's Hoffa is being morphed to embody imperfect but ideal existential engagement with passion, awareness, and intent; contrasting with De Niro and all the other characters in this milieu as the (compromised, but that's part of the worldview) shining example of courageous 'participation' in life, moral failings and all, since the others can't even see peripherally at anything beyond the surface-level, spoon-fed, already-carved-out-for-them idea of their myopic agendas- exposed as fear-based and cowardly and pathetic and a lifestyle that's heavily de-romanticized. Any romanticization of Hoffa is implemented primarily for a self-consciously thematic rather than historically accurate purpose

therewillbeblus wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 9:00 pm

ford wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:38 pm

FrauBlucher wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:32 pm Drucker, thanks for posting. I’ve been contemplating revisiting this myself. When I first saw it I was nonplussed and felt it was overly long. But every now and then I would think about the film. Besides Scorsese deserves additional chances in changing initial reactions. Scorsese does indeed romanticizes the mobster and that life. I do think Coppola deserves the credit for romanticization of this genre with The Godfather. Scorsese’s first mob movie, Mean Streets, does not have that feel to it. Much more gritty and down and dirty.

I dunno, if anything, I thought it romanticized Hoffa (a complex figure for whom I have much sympathy as he was trying to accomplish trade union advancement in hostile-as-hell-USA).

I maintain that the film only works as well as it does because Pacino's Hoffa is being morphed to embody imperfect but ideal existential engagement with passion, awareness, and intent; contrasting with De Niro and all the other characters in this milieu as the (compromised, but that's part of the worldview) shining example of courageous 'participation' in life, moral failings and all, since the others can't even see peripherally at anything beyond the surface-level, spoon-fed, already-carved-out-for-them idea of their myopic agendas- exposed as fear-based and cowardly and pathetic and a lifestyle that's heavily de-romanticized. Any romanticization of Hoffa is implemented primarily for a self-consciously thematic rather than historically accurate purpose

Really wish it could've been Ray Liotta as Hoffa though.

By the way, related: "How the Teamsters pension disappeared more quickly under Wall Street than the mob"

hearthesilence wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:55 pm Scorsese has openly talked about his mortality in recent years and how the window for making films is shrinking due to his age. Paired with his previous narrative film Silence, I get the feeling Scorsese is tying up all loose ends. Both The Irishman and Silence feel like the work of someone looking back at their life and legacy, analyzing/criticizing it and saying the things that he probably wants to say or at least emphasize that wasn't as pronounced before. They're almost by design final testament films.

Strongly agree and well-said.

FrauBlucher wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:32 pm Drucker, thanks for posting. I’ve been contemplating revisiting this myself. When I first saw it I was nonplussed and felt it was overly long. But every now and then I would think about the film. Besides Scorsese deserves additional chances in changing initial reactions. Scorsese does indeed romanticizes the mobster and that life. I do think Coppola deserves the credit for romanticization of this genre with The Godfather. Scorsese’s first mob movie, Mean Streets, does not have that feel to it. Much more gritty and down and dirty.

My ex's mother is from Little Italy, raised there between 1954-1972ish, and her take on Mean Streets was that "this is what our life was like." There are characters in the film that are based on real people she knew, so in addition to loving the film, it always struck me as attempting to create a very honest look at that world and based on her anecdotes, I have to give it credit for succeeding.

I have to admit, there's a good chance Irishman has stuck with me due to the use of memes on Twitter which have kept it visible since its release. It works!

ford wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 9:56 pm

hearthesilence wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:55 pm Scorsese has openly talked about his mortality in recent years and how the window for making films is shrinking due to his age. Paired with his previous narrative film Silence, I get the feeling Scorsese is tying up all loose ends. Both The Irishman and Silence feel like the work of someone looking back at their life and legacy, analyzing/criticizing it and saying the things that he probably wants to say or at least emphasize that wasn't as pronounced before. They're almost by design final testament films.

Strongly agree and well-said.

Very much agree with this. As I started the new year by revisiting The Irishman. And if there is such thing as a tribute to ones own work this is it. Hearthesilence, your point really strikes me after realizing the scene where Russ and Frankie were in the prison together looking quite aged, but at peace with what lie ahead. And the fact he brought back all his old friends and a new one in Pacino which is striking that this is the first time they worked together, which could be one of those loose ends.

As for the film, I liked and appreciated more this time around. I still feel it's a bit longish. For me, it hits a lull when Jimmy Hoffa is introduced but picks up again after it returns to the mob and introduces the Kennedys plot line. All the performances were spot on, but can Pesci be any better than this. He was incredible. The de-aging didn't bother me as much as it did the first time around. There were still a few moments it didn't look right, but clearly forgivable.

I liked it enough that I'll pick up the blu during the flash sale. Just to watch all the supplements.

Honestly, the supplements were meh. The roundtable discussion and Making of are nice, but very light pieces, the kind you'd imagine that Netflix probably produced, not as thorough or exhaustive as Criterion can be at its best.