Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, I don't remember nearly as much backlash when Clint Eastwood gave an invisible President Obama a verbal tongue-lashing during the Republican National Convention.
In fact, Obama even said he was still a fan after the incident.
This is a mindset that doesn't seem restricted to any political stripe. I know both far left liberals and far right conservatives who behave this way.
I used to work with a lesbian who refused to see any Al Pacino movies because she considered Cruising (from 1980) homophobic. She refused to watch The Godfather because Al Pacino starred in a movie that disagreed with her politics.
I had a leftie college professor who refused to watch Clint Eastwood or Tom Selleck movies because of the actors' politics.
I have conservative family members who won't watch certain TV shows or movies because of the stars' politics.
It's dumb. They aren't hurting anybody but themselves. Pacino, Eastwood, Selleck, Colbert, etc., etc. aren't affected in the least by their self-righteous boycotts.
This is a mindset that doesn't seem restricted to any political stripe. I know both far left liberals and far right conservatives who behave this way.
I was referring to the general backlash, especially in the media, and not to people you or I may know individually. There's a certain person with a Twitter account who is far more sensitive to criticism than probably anyone in the history of Planet Earth and drives a narrative of persecution among his supporters, but I digress.
I was referring to the general backlash, especially in the media, and not to people you or I may know individually. There's a certain person with a Twitter account who is far more sensitive to criticism than probably anyone in the history of Planet Earth and drives a narrative of persecution among his supporters, but I digress.
IAn awful lot of CGI was used for a movie that didn't need a drop of it.
From what I've read, the movie is divided into three separate acts: we see a young De Niro, an older De Niro and then a really old De Niro on his death bed confessing his misdeeds. It sounds like the CGI was necessary unless they went out and got a younger actor (similar to what they did in the last Men In Black with Tommy Lee Jones). But who would want to see a movie starring De Niro in which he's missing for at least 1/3rd of it?
I'm watching it Netflix and love Scorsese movies. The CGI does not do much, the youngest they look is 60ish at best, I'm 53 and definitely look younger, and move quicker, then them. The CGI can't do anything about the way they move and they do move like older people.
Scorsese would have done better with a younger cast and digitally aging them then and older cast and making look younger.
Great story and once again, Scorsese captures the period like no one else.
Location: Lakewood NJ/Murrells Inlet SC/ N. Naples FL/Swainton NJ
4,033 posts, read 6,569,100 times
Reputation: 3541
Watched last night on Netflix. Started at 8 pm so, with a few pauses, it was almost midnight before the closing credits. Liked it. I thought the aging, while not perfect, was pretty darn good. I wonder how historical correct the plot was? I know that most, if not all of the characters were based on actual individuals. Am I correct?
Spoiler
One thing that bothers me was the use of Hoffa's son in luring him to the assassination? And why would he not cooperate in the investigation of his father's death?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.