Yes, @Navaronegun got it! lt is indeed The Offence. l was a bit surprised not to see this movie mentioned in the topic dedicated to Sean Connery’s death, so consider this my homage to the man.
lt is one of the numerous collaborations between Sean Connery and Sidney Lumet. They had already worked together on The Hill (a Navaronegun-movie©) and The Anderson Tapes, and would continue their collaboration one year after The Offence with Murder on the Orient Express and finally Family Business in 1989 (which l haven’t seen). lt is based upon a stage play, which clearly shows about halfway through the movie.
lt was an attempt by Connery to break his image, and the least l can say is that he wasn’t interested in half measures! lt is a hard movie and he doesn’t exactly play a nice character. Apparently, he deemed these efforts to break his James Bond image insufficient, as he went all-in in his next film, Zardoz.
The movie has an interested structure: its second part is basically built around three confrontations between Johnson (Connery) and three other characters (shown in the 20, 40 and 60); they all put together a terrific job, even if it sometimes feel a bit theatrical. lt may also be my favourite among all Connery’s performances.
The 80:
The 100:
The more l drink, the more sober l get, @Navaronegun!
One of my favorite films, and certainly one of my favorites by Lumet and with Connery, respectively. The suspect punched in the mouth during interrogation in the 40 almost did it, but the shot of Connery from the rear talking with his wife finally nailed it for me.
Fantastic performances by Trevor Howard and Ian Bannen as well. Gloomy and atmospheric, but very intense film. Lumet “gets” cops.
New frame AM East Coast time.
Buckaroo
2645
Agreed. l would also add Vivien Merchant to the list. lt may not be the most spectacular one, but the sequence with Johnson and his wife is a cruel one, and one that felt very realistic to me.
The same could be said about Peckinpah and alcoholics: Peckinpah “gets” drunk.
This Twenty cannot remember.
Buckaroo
2648
Don’t forget your shoes, Russell.
So after viewing this the first time last year, and walking away basically unimpressed I re-viewed this again last week, hoping my opinion would change. It didn’t.
Its competent. There are some really great set-piece scenes (“What kind of fish?”). There are some great minor performances (Keitel, Ray Romano, Steven Graham, Jesse Plemons). And Pesci is fantastic in a subdued performance. And as a period piece, its impeccable.
But it’s a slog. Pacino is completely miscast and basically Dunka-cino’s it through the film. The “de-aging” thing was a mistake with DeNiro as we see a 30 year old younger Sheeran who looks and acts like a 59 year old man in the 50s scenes. And regarding the source material, Scorsese just takes author Brandt’s word for it rather than subverting things a bit like he did with Wiseguy, recognizing that Hill’s account was somewhat self-serving. All in all for me, this boiled down to a mildly entertaining and mightily boring in stretches turgid, self-indulgent vanity project. I won’t feel compelled to see it again.
Note: after re-viewing it I saw Goodfellas again for maybe the 67th time and was just riveted.
There are many, many frames…
The Forty:
The Sixty:
The Eighty:
The Hundred:
The One-Twenty:
The One-Forty:
The One-Sixty:
The One-Eighty:
The Two-Hundred:
“I’m saying, to the best of my recollection, I must recall on my memory, I cannot remember, @ahoythematey.”
I appreciate that Scorsese tried a whole movies worth of de-aging on incredibly iconic actors, but kind of agree that it didn’t really stick the landing, especially when you see it combined with their Old Man Movement™️ (it’s a real thing!).
I should have a frame up in the PM CST. Sorry for the delay, I’m stuck at work for awhile today :/
Skipper
2651
We had a long thread on it. Good summary. I’d uptick it from competent to, “good.” But I can’t help feeling I do that because I felt like I was watching greatness -historically- of amazing actors that I may never see on the screen together again. They may be gone tomorrow as old as some of them are. And I enjoyed it because, damn they are amazing. Despite de-aging and some miscasting, I wanted them in it. I want to go back 30 years and cast them together with AGING, not de-aging. Because, wow what a cast, sets, filming, and direction. It’s too long, but it’s an epic and we knew that going in. How do you cover the life and times of a mob guy without the life and times?
At any rate, I’ll shut up now. I feel like an old man tearing up describing favorite things. That’s what the movie was. Not really a movie of greatness, more like a collection of favorite things packaged up that way.
MrTibbs
2652
I adored the movie, but there was a Tweet earlier this year from an MSNBC producer (since deleted for some reason) that gave me a good chuckle for how accurate it was.
80% of Scorsese movies
doo wop music plays shoo bob shoo bob
VOICE OVER: In the old neighborhood things had a way of gettin done
3 hours of transition shots of people loading things on trucks punctuated by violence
Actor in old makeup: we didn’t know how good we had it
Yeah, the thread was an uncritical love-letter. People like what they like because they do, and that’s fine. But the editing was subpar too (forgot to mention that). As time passes I think a lotta people will look back and say “I lauded a mediocre competent film as “excellent” and “a triumph “ far above its real deserved laurels in 2019 bc memberberries and nostalgia for what the director and actors did 25+ years prior.”
Skipper
2654
I don’t doubt for a second that will be the case. It’s still hard to say goodbye to a thing, be it period mob films, actors that frequent them, etc. 20 years from now I’ll be hard pressed to remember the movie. The Godfather, Goodfellas, etc, no chance I’ll forget them.
CraigM
2655
I agree with all the above.
Not having the kind of attachment to Scorcese films some have (I’ve seen some, but his best came out from before I was born to about 6) so I never felt high on this film. It was ok, but I got bored and it was late so I turned it off for the night a little over 2 hours in.
I never did go back and finish it.
MrTibbs
2656
Eh, I’m confident that despite its flaws I’ll continue to love it. I do believe, however, that it only really works in the context of the director’s oeuvre and the demise of the gangster genre. Scorsese’s films aren’t exactly strangers to continuity errors and sloppy transitions, but its never really impacted how I appreciate them. That said, I understand the sentiment as I was baffled by the reception to Mendes’ turgid 1917.
l loved it, but the problem is l did even before having actually watched it. l think The lrishman was a rather unique case of a movie that doesn’t exist on its own, that is constantly evoking Goodfellas and Casino. l think it basically exists because these old fellas felt they could go for a final lap, that they could end on a high note. And many of us were probably ready to forgive all of his flaws because of that.
Regarding the editing, that wasn’t my problem with the film. It was more that they were a bunch of face reaction/face reaction edits. I found it uninteresting. Below par.
One thing I did love without reservation was the running bit where Scorsese would splash on the screen all the button-synopsis of grisly deaths for these the big players in the unions/mob, and then slip this one in as well:
This new 20:20 is not a fan of tourists:
Oh god. It’s on the tip of my tongue and it’s gonna kill me when someone else gets it.
Here’s the 4040, maybe it’ll help:
Seems like a movie that could appear on RLM’s BOTW…
