Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Crushing Disappointment of The Irishman

  1. Default The Crushing Disappointment of The Irishman

    A 210 minute dud of a movie that tells tall ales about key events in post WW 2 American history.

    Although I did not mention it, DeNiro was told about the serious problems with the book and Sheeran's story. He and Scorsese went forward with it anyway.

    As you can read below, they shouldn't have.

    https://kennedysandking.com/articles...u-paint-houses

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    A 210 minute dud of a movie that tells tall ales about key events in post WW 2 American history.

    Although I did not mention it, DeNiro was told about the serious problems with the book and Sheeran's story. He and Scorsese went forward with it anyway.

    As you can read below, they shouldn't have.

    https://kennedysandking.com/articles...u-paint-houses

    I haven't seen the film yet but have read the book, which is patently false. One thing that
    strikes me about the media reception for THE IRISHMAN is that most reviewers give the movie
    an easy pass on whether or not Sheeran actually whacked Hoffa, as if that is irrelevant to its
    quality, yet express anxiety (albeit muted out of respect for Scorsese) over the JFK conspiracy aspects of the story
    being included in the film at all (vide Anthony Lane's review in The New Yorker). That shows an obvious double standard and how the
    JFK assassination, like 9/11, remains a third rail for the MSM. And of course they
    have nothing intelligent to say about the JFK assassination. An Oliver Stone film
    would not get a pass on anything political from reviewers. Film companies
    would not let him make his films on Bush & Noriega, the MLK assassination, and the
    My Lai Massacre, among other subjects.

  3. Default

    Listen: in The Best Years of Our Lives, Harold Russell, the WW II vet who played the wounded soldier with no hands, didn't lose his hands in combat as the character did, but lost them in a munitions handling accident at a stateside military base. In Goodfellas, the lead character, Henry Hill, was not in real life the eyes-wide-shut innocent portrayed by Ray Liotta, but a lowlife scumbag. And Spartacus was likely not a toothy, high-cheekboned blonde guy with a mullet, as Kirk Douglas incarnated him. He probably died in battle and was not poignantly crucified by the Romans. It's only a movie. No young people are going to pay to see the last CGI hurrah of the Over-the-Hill Gang, so history will not be irretrievably corrupted.
    Last edited by David Andrews; 11-09-2019 at 03:28 AM.

  4. Default

    I think what Joe is trying to say is this: Why is it that when Oliver Stone makes a movie about the JFK case he gets murdered?

    Even though his film is much more factual than this movie and the book its based upon.

    Yet, very few reviewers and writers point out the absolute idiocy of the Brandt book, or the idea that Bufalino and his buds could have done what happened to JFK.

    And IMO, what Brandt did with the Hoffa killing was just as bad.

    DeNiro met with Dan Moldea before the film got greenlighted. Moldea told him all the problems with the Brandt book. They did it anyway.

  5. Default

    [QUOTE=Jim DiEugenio;126289]I think what Joe is trying to say is this: Why is it that when Oliver Stone makes a movie about the JFK case he gets murdered?

    Even though his film is much more factual than this movie and the book its based upon.

    [...]

    Oliver knew exactly what was the matter with his script/film JFK. And cared not, thank god! I don't recall anyone asking Stone to create a "historical accurate" piece. Impossible at the very least. No difference re the Irishman.

    If DiNiro stars in it, give it a go, you'll learn something.

    Stone put together a pretty good cast of characters in JFK the movie. They certainly created an info firestorm. Look what happened. The Irishman will not equal JFK in interest but it opens dialog.

    Let the documentarians worry about the "facts." I like a good story, I'll sort it out myself later, if I so choose!

  6. Default

    David:

    Oliver Stone issued an accompanying Book of the Film with his movie.

    It was ignored.

    On Nightline, Forrest Sawyer said that Oliver did the following:

    1. He made up Jim Garrison's summation to the jury at the Shaw trial.

    2. That there was nothing like the scene where Ferrie breaks down at the hotel room Ivon got for him.

    3. That there was such meeting between Garrison and Mr. X.




    Number one is simply wrong. Garrison did do one of the summations at the Shaw trial. And all Sawyer had to do was open up Kirkwood's lousy book American Grotesque.

    Number two is also wrong. This scene did happen, but it was with Lou Ivon, not Garrison.

    Number three is a legitimate use of dramatic license. Garrison and Prouty did exchange ideas on the JFK case, but it was after not before the Shaw trial.

    I could go on and on. But there is a double standard when it comes to Oliver Stone. The Brandt book and Sheeran are really poor sources to base a film upon both the JFK and the Hoffa murders.

    Oliver had much better sources he used for the film JFK. In fact, I would argue that is the reason he got ambushed. And I will make that argument in Dallas at CAPA next week.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    David:

    Oliver Stone issued an accompanying Book of the Film with his movie.

    It was ignored.
    [...]

    Oliver had much better sources he used for the film JFK. In fact, I would argue that is the reason he got ambushed. And I will make that argument in Dallas at CAPA next week.

    Jim, please publish your argument on your website after your presentation. Not traveling much these days... --Thanks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •