Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

BetterButter

The Irishman (2019)

Recommended Posts



Much, much better.  The de-aging looks dicey at times but I noticed it looks really good on Pacino.  Really looking forward to this.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I saw it in a theater, and was underwhelmed.  I just kept thinking he'd done it better in Goodfellas

It didn't strike me that it needed to be 3-1/2 hours long, but more that it could be 3-1/2 hours long because it's a Netflix movie.  And I'll note that I don't have a problem with super-long movies even in a theater--I am happy sitting still for four hours.

But I generally appreciate the results that come from constraints put on movies (like working around censorship in China or Iran), and The Irishman struck me as a movie without any constraints.  It could be argued that that's a good thing because it frees the director to do whatever he wants, but I don't always agree.

One critic said that the first 2-1/2 hours are clever and entertaining, and called the last half hour deeply moving.  And I agree with that.  But to me, the last part seemed like something tacked on to an imitation of Goodfellas, and unfortunately, The Irishman had worn out its welcome for me by that point.

And I gotta say that I didn't see anything particularly remarkable about De Niro's performance.  Maybe I've just seen too many of them, but it struck me as more of the same.  Which is always good, but not somehow remarkable here.

  • Love 7

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoyed this. We have an independent theater about ten minutes from my house and they show a lot of the movies that Netflix wants to qualify for Oscar season. I'm going to watch it again when it starts streaming but I had no problem watching in the theater. It held my attention the entire time so the length didn't bother me.

I thought the de-aging CGI was well done. Looking straight at De Niro and Pesci it was noticeable but not in a distracting way and was completely natural when they weren't looking straight at the camera. It's also used much less than all the reports made it out to be so there's no need for concern.

I still can't believe that: a) Scorsese had trouble getting funding to make this (due to, among other reasons, the de-aging) before Netflix opened their wallet and, b) that this is the first time he and Pacino worked together. Well they made up for that because it was clear that everyone was having a ball. Probably the only thing that could have made an obviously fun experience even better is if they'd found a way to include Leo. I loved, loved, loved seeing Al, Bob, Joe, and Harvey working together (again for the latter three) and all were great.

Marty's friendships with various actors and directors is well documented but my favorite of his industry relationships is with Thelma Schoonmaker. I have no doubt that every editor in Hollywood would crawl over broken glass to get to work with him but he doesn't hesitate to call her first for a new project. They've worked together for fifty years and they're both still at the top of their craft. It's lovely.

  • Love 7

Share this post


Link to post

I'm assuming that late '79 into '80 there was a mob war, because a lot of guys met their violent end in that time period.

Much like Unforgiven took all the romance out of the Western, this took a lot of the glamour out of mob flicks. It's a good place for Scorsese to leave it.

Great performances all around, nice to see DeNiro and Pacino in form and nice to Pesci back, period.

Edited by AimingforYoko
  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

It was...fine? Maybe 3/5 stars. To be fair, it's not a movie that I'd choose. It's totally the type of movie and cast my partner loves, though. 

This movie helped me realize a reason why mob movies don't hold my attention: I don't connect with the characters. I didn't really care about any of them, or what would happen to them. None of them were likeable or relateable to me. They didn't even feel complex in a "bad guy with layers" way. 

Why in the world did Frank take his daughter with him to watch that beat down? To show her he has her back? That really backfired! Imagine never feeling like you could take any slight or hurt to your Dad because you're terrified he'd beat the crap out of that person. I felt bad for his daughters and ex-wife. 

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was dreadful. Both in quality and well, full of dread. The Grim Reaper as a mobster.

De Niro was awful. Vacant for the most part. Not convincing as a 30 year old or as an Irishman. Really odd how bad he was.

Pacino much better. Actual acting going on. A supporting performance, not a star turn. I was rooting for Hoffa at the end. "Don't go in the house" I was yelling!

Pesci was great, truly great.

I did love seeing Welker White, the babysitter with the the lucky hat in Goodfellas, as Jo Hoffa.

When it was finally over, I went and watched Goodfellas as a palate cleanser.

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post

I watched this at home over the long weekend.   I enjoyed it.  The CGI wasn't that noticable. but I could still see the almost 80 year old bodies in every scene.  It doesn't matter if the tech is there to de-age the actors when they still move like old men.  Overall, I liked it always glad to see Joe Pesci on my screen.

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post

Just finished watching this movie. Robert De Niro with his usual 2 facial expressions and Al Pacino with his numerous facelifts are, IMO, hopelessly miscast as Irish guys. Why can't Scorsese ever use people other than Italians and Harvey Keitel for roles.  I was interested for the Angelo Bruno and Teamsters 107 and South Philly connections. Movie was average. Not worthy of awards, but the academy voters will give their usual nods to these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I'm assuming that late '79 into '80 there was a mob war, because a lot of guys met their violent end in that time period.

Yes, when Atlantic City was opening to gambling, the wars started up. By rights, Philadelphia should have control of Atlantic City. I don't think the other bosses wanted Angelo Bruno to have it all.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

After watching this, I understand why some have described the main character as the Forrest Gump of organized crime.  But leaving aside the issue of historical veracity, I fail to see the point of this movie. It didn't cover any ground that hadn't been covered in Goodfellas or Casino (for that matter, I think it was Roger Ebert who said Casino was largely superfluous). One last hurrah for Scorsese-De Niro-Pesci, now with Pacino!, isn't a good enough reason.

Sometimes this felt like a mob movie for remedial students

You definitely don't want a silencer. You want to make a lot of noise to make the witnesses run away. No shit Frank. We've all seen The Godfather ("Yeah, I left it noisy. That way, it scares any pain-in-the-ass innocent bystanders away"). And we've all heard the stories about Kennedy, the Bay of Pigs, blah blah blah.

When we're told Allen Dorfman's fate, I don't think I should be thinking "Oh yeah, that's the guy Alan King played in Casino" (and could they have at least have reported the correct year of his death?)

And the de-aging didn't work, De Niro looked ridiculous standing over his newborn child when he was allegedly the same age as his wife.

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Constantinople said:

I fail to see the point of this movie. It didn't cover any ground that hadn't been covered in Goodfellas or Casino...

I got a lot out of the movie that wasn't old ground. I'll try to summarize.

Disclaimer: I'm taking on faith some of what the movie said about actual personages. But with that caveat...

I learned more about Jimmy Hoffa than I ever knew. I was already a young adult at the time of his disappearance, so I was well aware who he was. But I always just assumed he was a mobster himself. And that he somehow deserved his fate. I never knew that genuine passion for the welfare of the working man is what drove him. And a genuine, accurate perception of the forces arrayed against the working man.

I got more sense than I had before of the mobsters being real human beings. This is not the first time a movie has had as its thesis that "mobsters aren't monsters." But it went farther along those lines than movies I've seen before.

And it went farther in telling the story of how choices have consequences. Other movies have done an excellent job of portraying those consequences as "you'll get killed or end up in jail." This movie did more than other movies I've seen to portray the emotional consequences--alienation from family, loneliness, the isolation that comes when you're not able to tell a soul anything true about your life.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the movie was way too long, by at least an hour. Just because you have unlimited time doesn't mean you need to use it, Martin Scorsese. And he knocks the Marvel movies? Take a seat, dude.

I also didn't think the de-aging CGI was all that successful. When De Niro's character first meets Pesci's, how old is he (De Niro) supposed to be? Pesci calls him "kid," and I totally cracked up, because he looked 40, at least. Hardly a kid.

I realized I don't care what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. It's terrible for his family, of course, and I have genuine sympathy for them. But the man made deals with various devils. You don't stay president of a huge union otherwise. It's not surprising his end was violent. 

I agree with those who wrote that The Irishman doesn't break any new ground for Scorsese. He's done the gangster movies again and again. 

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post

8 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I got more sense than I had before of the mobsters being real human beings. This is not the first time a movie has had as its thesis that "mobsters aren't monsters." But it went farther along those lines than movies I've seen before.

And it went farther in telling the story of how choices have consequences. Other movies have done an excellent job of portraying those consequences as "you'll get killed or end up in jail." This movie did more than other movies I've seen to portray the emotional consequences--alienation from family, loneliness, the isolation that comes when you're not able to tell a soul anything true about your life.

I do think that this movie is Martin Scorsese coming to terms with his, his actor's,  and as an extension his characters' mortality.**  The last act of this movie is breathtaking.  By the end of the film Frank has either outlived or alienated everyone he has ever cared about.  That scene in the bank was brutal but understandable.  The scenes with the priest where Frank has the opportunity to tell someone about the burden he carries,  but he is ultimately unable.  Absolution is there only if Frank asks.  A better theologian than me could have a field day with this section of the movie.  

**Given the ages of Marty, Bob, Joe, Al, and Harvey, I can see why Martin indulged the way he did with this movie.  Joe Pesci came out if retirement for this role.  The odds are very likely that this was the best script to get the band back together and add Al Pacino that was ever going to appear.   While I still prefer Goodfellas over the Irishman, I do think this is a worthy movie and I will rewatch this eventually. 

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2019 at 2:12 PM, MrsR said:

I thought it was dreadful. Both in quality and well, full of dread. The Grim Reaper as a mobster.

De Niro was awful. Vacant for the most part. Not convincing as a 30 year old or as an Irishman. Really odd how bad he was.

Pacino much better. Actual acting going on. A supporting performance, not a star turn. I was rooting for Hoffa at the end. "Don't go in the house" I was yelling!

Pesci was great, truly great.

I did love seeing Welker White, the babysitter with the the lucky hat in Goodfellas, as Jo Hoffa.

When it was finally over, I went and watched Goodfellas as a palate cleanser.

I have to start by admitting that I fell asleep, so I may have lost some of the narrative impact of the ending, but the accolades this film has garnered (something like 96% fresh on RottenTomatoes?) baffles me.  My husband felt the same way.  Pesci was about the only watchable element for me.  De Niro seemed to have one facial expression throughout.  Pacino bordered on caricature.  When Scorsese went into slo-mo during the wedding scene, I exclaimed "because the pace wasn't glacial enough already?"  

On 12/1/2019 at 4:00 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I watched this at home over the long weekend.   I enjoyed it.  The CGI wasn't that noticable. but I could still see the almost 80 year old bodies in every scene.  It doesn't matter if the tech is there to de-age the actors when they still move like old men.  Overall, I liked it always glad to see Joe Pesci on my screen.

I didn't realize it was CGI until reading up afterwards.  I assumed it was failed make-up jobs.  As you say, the actors moved like men of their ages, which is to say, old.  De Niro in particular took me out of the "reality" of this movie from the get-go.  I know what he looked like as a 30-year-old, and this wasn't it.

14 hours ago, Constantinople said:

When we're told Allen Dorfman's fate, I don't think I should be thinking "Oh yeah, that's the guy Alan King played in Casino" (and could they have at least have reported the correct year of his death?)

And the de-aging didn't work, De Niro looked ridiculous standing over his newborn child when he was allegedly the same age as his wife.

My husband also remarked about Alan King!  It's been too long since I've seen Casino for me to have made the connection.  Again, couldn't agree more about the de-aging.

  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

I very much enjoyed the movie.  It's not as good as Goodfellas but it's great to see Scorsese and company do a movie like this again and hopefully it won't be for the last time.  Scorsese is still good for about three great movies a decade.  He continues to enhance his reputation as a filmmaker unlike Steven Spielberg, whose filmography has been most forgettable these past two decades.

The acting is a highlight and Pacino is GREAT (and funny) as Hoffa.  The meeting with Pro in Miami and Frank trying to warn him for the lat time were standouts.  Pesci was great too and it was cool to see him play a role he wouldn't have played in the 80s or 90s.  By that I mean a mobster who isn't an out-of-control lunatic but a much quieter character.  DeNiro was good too but it's Pacino and Pesci who are the standouts.  I was glad they got to work together and it is hard to believe Pacino and Scorsese have never worked together.  Some great nonverbal acting scenes too like the group reaction to the Kennedy assassination.  Nice seeing actors like Ray Romano and Harvey Keitel popping up in this too.

I admit, seeing Frank as an old man was not what I wanted to see.  But those last scenes were actually really effective and compelling.

I wasn't impressed with the de-aging.  It got better as it went on but the Frank character looked much too old, save for the the brief flashback to the war.  Plus, you can't hide the fact that DeNiro is a 70-year-old man when he starts walking.

Good lord, you cast Anna Paquin to play the daughter so that she could just stare the whole time and say nothing?  What a waste.  I get her issues with her father and Russell but not the Hoffa love.  Hoffa was no different than her father and the men he associated himself with.

Edited by benteen
  • Love 5

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely loathe it when people try too hard to compare movies like if this doesnt live up to The Godfather or Goodfellas (arguably the two best mob movies ever made) the movie sucks.  Of course it isn’t going to live up to those movies for a lot of reasons.   But I would also not call this movie bad either.    I enjoyed all the performances and the story itself was well told.   I think my major issue was thSt I didn’t really connect to anyone like I should have.    I honestly have the same problem with a lot of historical dramas though.   Like The Crown.   I should like it but I can’t connect to anyone because for me the drama isn’t really there.   

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post

Wow.  I am truly shocked at all the hate and bad reviews.  I FLOVED it.  I read a lot about it before seeing it, so I knew that it was not a classic mob movie, so that is not what I was expecting.  The comparisons to Goodfellas and Casino kinda baffle me.  It was never meant to be either of those and it's unfair to compare it to them.  I appreciated this more than those because it delved more into the personal losses Frank had because of his lifestyle/involvement.  He lost his daughter for the rest of his life.  He lost his best friend and his family.  And none of those were ever replaced.

When I first saw Pacino I was like "he's not even close to Hoffa", but after a few scenes, I no longer saw Pacino, I saw Jimmy, which imo is the sign of a great actor.  I thought all 3 of the bigs were great.  Pesci really got me when he kept trying to get the daughter to like him, but she took to Hoffa instead.  Pesci was actually kinda creepy to me with all those scenes.

  • Love 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2019 at 9:39 AM, Constantinople said:

It didn't cover any ground that hadn't been covered in Goodfellas or Casino (for that matter, I think it was Roger Ebert who said Casino was largely superfluous).

Ebert gave Casino a four-star review (which is online) and chose it as the fifth-best film of 1995.  I doubt he ever called it superfluous. 

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

This movie is a sweet kiss goodbye on both cheeks by Scorsese, DeNiro,Pesci & Pachino to all of us who have watched the "mob" movies ( Godfather(s), Goodfellas, Casino, Scarface) over the years.

I think for most of them this will be their final film.

I appreciate it and would have watched it even if it had it been 6 +hrs run time.

  • Love 9

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Ebert gave Casino a four-star review (which is online) and chose it as the fifth-best film of 1995.  I doubt he ever called it superfluous. 

I really enjoyed Casino except I think the movie was drowned in narration.  Nonstop narration.  The Irisman handled the narration much better.

Share this post


Link to post

Casino is one I should see a second time. I don't remember much about it beyond its being "Scorseseian" and having that surprising performance by Sharon Stone. It didn't grab me immediately as Mean StreetsTaxi DriverThe Last WaltzGoodfellas, and The Age of Innocence had. Neither did Raging Bull, but that is great filmmaking by all the standard metrics, and something I'd recommend anyone see. It's just that after three viewings, I've given up on being able to love it. I don't need protagonists to be likable, but failing that, I need them to be fascinating, and Jake LaMotta as he's given to us in the film is less than that. Mileage may vary.  

Oh, topic. I didn't find The Irishman too long, boring, or unnecessary, and the de-aging was impressive enough that I don't think I'd have been focused on it at all if it had not been such a talking point in advance (and if these actors were less well known). It's still a process being perfected, so it's interesting to consider the good and bad ways it might change things going forward, now that it has had this conspicuous showcase.  

I understand a temptation to view this as Goodfellas without the vitality and the excitement of people getting away with things; but in its scope, its chronological layout, and its measured, elegiac approach, it reminded me more of Leone's Once Upon a Time in America. I loved De Niro's watchful restraint (his performance in the phone call to the widow Hoffa was his best scene) and Pesci's cast-against-type shrewdness, and I found Pacino a riveting Hoffa, conceived as a man too stubborn even for a world of stubborn people.

The silence of the Anna Paquin character worked; when she did deliver those seven words, it was like a fissure opening. Scorsese had been involved in the post-production ordeals of Lonergan's Margaret, so he certainly had heard her talk a lot and was impressed with her. The role of Peggy in the story is to watch from the periphery and to see right through while keeping her own counsel, and both Paquin and the child actress bring strong presences to what they're given. This is a real person about whom little is known, and in a film that delves into some enduring mysteries, she is one that remains. 

I'm not sure this will break into my best-of-Scorsese list, but I do think it's one of the best movies of 2019 and deserving of its general acclaim. 

Edited by Simon Boccanegra
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

The silence of the Anna Paquin character worked; when she did deliver those seven words, it was like a fissure opening. Scorsese had been involved in the post-production ordeals of Lonergan's Margaret, so he certainly had heard her talk a lot and was impressed with her. The role of Peggy in the story is to watch from the periphery and to see right through while keeping her own counsel, and both Paquin and the child actress bring strong presences to what they're given. This is a real person about whom little is known, and in a film that delves into some enduring mysteries, she is one that remains. 

Anna Paquin did a fantastic job with her silent role.  Her looks and body language telegraphed everything I needed in her scenes, and so did the actress playing young Peggy.  I am not surprised to see Anna killing it in a silent role since her first acting job was on Jane Campion's the Piano.  

I was also impressed with what Welker White did with her small role as Jo Hoffa.  I felt her dread as she was starting her station wagon after being fired.  

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post

Critics' Choice Award nominations:

Best Picture

Best Actor – Robert De Niro

Best Supporting Actor – Al Pacino

Best Supporting Actor – Joe Pesci

Best Director – Martin Scorsese

Best Acting Ensemble

Best Adapted Screenplay – Steven Zaillian

Best Cinematography – Rodrigo Prieto

Best Production Design – Bob Shaw, Regina Graves

Best Editing – Thelma Schoonmaker

Best Costume Design – Sandy Powell, Christopher Peterson

Best Hair and Makeup

Best Visual Effects

Best Score – Robbie Robertson

Share this post


Link to post

SAG nominations:
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Al Pacino
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Joe Pesci
Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

Edited by ElectricBoogaloo

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2019 at 9:15 AM, benteen said:

Pesci was great too and it was cool to see him play a role he wouldn't have played in the 80s or 90s.  By that I mean a mobster who isn't an out-of-control lunatic but a much quieter character. 

That really was how Russell Bufalino was IRL.  For about 10 years I lived right by him and had NO idea!

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

Delighted for Pesci and the award nominations. I’m not crazy on Pacino at the best of times so his nominations are meh to me. I’m disappointed for De Niro though as he carried the movie for me so I was expecting more award love for him given the other three got it. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just watched this movie on Netflix, and I didn’t hate it, but I did find it “actively irritating” and the only reason that I am glad I watched it was to see Joe Pesci’s award-worthy performance.

At the very end, when DeNiro was so tight-lipped with the priest and the FBI agents and even his nurse to some extent, I thought that there was some meaning waiting to be revealed and that there would be some explanation for what made him so talkative at the beginning of the film, i.e., when he was talking to an unseen listener and being so chatty with someone (which turned into his narration of the film).  Then when the listener was never revealed, I was wondering if I had missed some deep symbolism, like he was imagining the whole conversation in the moments before death or something.  But after I googled, I guess that he was supposed to have just been talking to the author on which the book is based?  I didn’t know about the book or that DeNiro was playing a real person going into this.  Maybe that is on me for not googling before watching the film. 

More generally, I wasn’t sure why the story was being told from his perspective.  This person was a sociopath (maybe the war messed him up, maybe he was always like this).  Not that a lead needs to be sympathetic, but he wasn’t an extraordinarily compelling villain, either.  One might imagine being torn between Hoffa and Russell would be anguishing, but I didn’t get that sense; he wasn’t sorry for any of the people he killed; he seemed compelled to try to control the one daughter who wouldn’t talk to him, but it wasn’t regret.

To me, DeNiro never looked less than 50 years old.  That is still impressive from a technical perspective because the man is 76, but from a storytelling perspective, it didn’t work.  I agree with the person upthread who said that they lol’d when Pesci called him “kid”.  I was like:  DeNiro looks like he had grandkids!

  • Love 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2019 at 6:12 PM, lonestar said:

Just finished watching this movie. Robert De Niro with his usual 2 facial expressions and Al Pacino with his numerous facelifts are, IMO, hopelessly miscast as Irish guys. Why can't Scorsese ever use people other than Italians and Harvey Keitel for roles.  I was interested for the Angelo Bruno and Teamsters 107 and South Philly connections. Movie was average. Not worthy of awards, but the academy voters will give their usual nods to these guys.

Well, De Niro is barely Italian except for his surname. His dad was Italian and Irish and his mom was of Dutch, French, German, and English ancestry, so that barely qualifies him as Italian, imo.

We saw it last night and if I had realized it was 3.5 hours long, would not have started watching at 10 p.m. The first 2 hours or so captured my attention but after that my attention was waning. My dad was a member of the Teamsters union and Hoffa was huge while I was growing up, so that part interested me.  When my attention lagged, I started to Google and imagine my surprise when I found out that Jimmy Hoffa was NOT Italian. All my life I thought he was; to me Hoffa sounded like an Italian name.  He was German-American.

Pesci and Pacino were both nominated for the Golden Globes Best Supporting Actor in a film. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

My dad was a member of the Teamsters union and Hoffa was huge while I was growing up, so that part interested me. 

My father was actually a member of the 107 from the 50s to 1980 and we are from Philly, so I was familiar and interested in the story. I still remember the night Angelo Bruno was murdered, we were leaving A Chorus Line in center city.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/3/2019 at 9:15 AM, benteen said:

Good lord, you cast Anna Paquin to play the daughter so that she could just stare the whole time and say nothing?  What a waste.  I get her issues with her father and Russell but not the Hoffa love.  Hoffa was no different than her father and the men he associated himself with.

Agreed. I don't get how Peggy was ok with Hoffa but was skittish with her dad and Russ.  

The end scene reminded me of the last scene of Godfather 3 - where Corleone dies alone. 

Other than that, it was a mob movie, like all other mob movies.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

I saw the movie in a theater with a giant screen, and I don't remember even noticing the de-aging.  The only mention I'd heard of it was on The Graham Norton Show, and I think it just went to the recesses of my brain.

But speaking of brain, that may be part of it because I do fine recognizing people, but always wondered what would happen if someone I knew went missing and there was no photo so the cops wanted to draw a composite photo.  "My dad?  Well, he has dark hair and dark eyes, and he doesn't wear glasses.  Or maybe he does."  Shoot--I once gave my brother a shaving mirror to mount in the shower, and he said, "I have a beard."

And, the prevalence of plastic surgery among actors makes all of them look a little weird to me.  So I think the de-aged people just looked like they'd had some work done at some point.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

BAFTA nominations:

Best Film
Director - Martin Scorcese
Adapted Screenplay - Steven Zaillian
Supporting Actor - Al Pacino
Supporting Actor - Joe Pesci
Cinematography - Rodrigo Prieto
Editing - Thelma Schoonmaker
Production Design - Bob Shaw, Regina Graves
Costume Design - Christopher Peterson, Sandy Powell
Special Visual Effects - Leandro Estebecorena, Stephane Grabli, Pablo Helman

Share this post


Link to post

Oscar nominations!

Performance by an actor in a supporting role - Al Pacino

Performance by an actor in a supporting role - Joe Pesci

Achievement in cinematography - Rodrigo Prieto

Achievement in costume design - Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson

Achievement in directing - Martin Scorsese

Achievement in film editing - Thelma Schoonmaker

Best motion picture of the year - Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal, and Emma Tillinger Koskoff, Producers

Achievement in production design - Bob Shaw and Regina Graves

Achievement in visual effects - Pablo Helman, Leandro Estebecorena, Nelson Sepulveda-Fauser and Stephane Grabli

Adapted screenplay - Steven Zaillian

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size