The best bit of its long three-and-a-half hours comes when it doesn’t force you onto Netflix’s “WATCH SOMETHING ELSE NOW” screen until the credits have actually finished.
I’ve read reviews that complain that The Irishman is too long and too slow compared to the gangster films of Scorsese’s prime. Where were the operatic character introductions, the sudden explosions of violence? But I think that was the point. This is Scorsese putting the gangster film to rest, dramatizing not the violence and glory of the gangster life, but the slow decay of all meaning that life provided. It’s framed as the reminiscences of an old man, and last half hour puts the whole film in perspective: eventually everyone is incarcerated, loses their teeth, is forgotten and dies. By using Deniro, Pesci and Pacino throughout the whole film Scorsese couldn’t have said it any louder - for that reason the de-aging effects are justified, as distracting and flawed as they are. This is a meditation on aging and death. Scorsese and his old guard of collaborators are nearing their end, and I think that scares him. Deniro’s character ends up alone and scared. He didn’t want to be buried in the ground, didn’t want the door closed in the nursing home. Scorsese is staring down the same destination. Devastating.
Slow and subtle is how I would describe this one. The first act is Scorcese's signature "how-I-came-to-be" montage/plot but it turns into a very personal and almost intimate look into the protagonist's life in the third act, which surprised me. Themes of human mortality and loneliness are explored and it's something you don't see in a lot of crime-mob films. Violence isn't too over-the-top (which is something you normally see in mob movies) but I wish Scorcese went the traditional route and used squibs, blood bags, etc. The 3-D blood was very obvious and really took me out of the moment.
Overall, I liked this one. Hits all the marks you would expect in a Scorcese film while adding a few themes that make this movie unique among films of the genre.
If Goodfellas was a classic modern recipe, The Irishman is the microwave dinner version. Scorsese ends up trying to make the same film and proves he may in fact be past his prime. The film rambles on in great detail for 2.5 hours as a dry, historical narrative with little to no purpose set to an occasional baby boomer tune, and then attempts to spurt out a platitude or two at the end of the film. It feels flat, boring and generally undercooked - like a microwave dinner. De Niro and Pacino are fine, but generally nothing special. Pesci on the other hand has moments of brilliance.
Overall, The Irishman may as well have been called “Oldfellas”.
I think at this point in his career, critics are too scared to criticise Scorsese.
This movies is too long, slow and just a mistake to de-age the characters as it's weird to see them with youngish faces when they still move like old men :D
If Scorsese had heavily condensed the first couple of acts this could've been a much more powerful piece. I found it a little droll until Frank Sheeran becomes friends with Hoffa. That's when the story finds its focus. That's when I became invested emotionally & couldn't take my eyes off the narrative before me. And then there's the final acf; which I must say was nearly worth the long wait. The futility of a life; especially a life wasted on wrongdoing, wherein everyone who you placed so much importance upon are now gone; & all you're left with is alienation & a heavy conscience as you await your end. A telling powerful shot & De Niro's final line are lasting.
It's not perfect, that's indisputable. And if this were a much younger Scorsese someone would've had him cut out the unnecessary fat that is the first half of this film; but I can forgive it strictly on the basis of that last sequence. At the very least it's not the Wolf of Wall Street hedonist extravaganza that really said nothing substantial at all. This film has a heart, though a heavy one, in spite of all its technical & structural flaws, & it'll stick with me.[/spoiler]
As in, i feel like a kid stuck at my grandfathers house, surrounded by his friends telling stories to each other of the old days. It's long and boring. I get it, it's an interesting story, but it's not told in an interesting way. Normally, in movies with such a long runtime, it fills that time with character development, plot, or tension building. Here, it just seems long because all the characters are old and slow. Even when they are suppose to be playing younger versions of themselves, it still feels old and slow. Even the score and choice in music feels slow. This really couldve been edited down to a still lengthy 150 minutes without losing any of the plot or mode. So many characters come in and out so fast, it couldve been easier to combine them here and there or at least given them more distinct costuming to tell everyone apart. There are only so many short, slick haired, glasses wearing Italians that i can keep track of. Maybe this feels different on the big screen.
Also, as good as the CGI is in this film, i still never believed Robert DeNiro was playing a 30 year old that all the other characters kept calling "kid" for the first half of the movie.
It's not all bad. We get great performances from everyone. Especially DeNiro who even though he doesnt look young, he plays the aging character with timely precision. Pacino is as energetic as ever and Pesci is back to playing the boss that he always is. The rest of the cast do a good job of walking that thin line between believably real people and mobster movie stock-characters, keeping the scenes real but still engaging when talking.
All in all, i will call it a good movie, just one that is stretched a little too thin for it's own good. And because of that, it's the weakest of this years Oscar contenders, at least for anything beside's DeNiro's acting.
Impeccable and deceptively simple film making from Martin Scorsese in The Irishman ensures that despite its length, the film is never tedious (except perhaps in the epilogue) and if each scene isn't strictly necessary to the plot, it does help inform the three main characters played by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino (this is his FIRST collaboration with Scorsese, do I have that right?!) and their relationships. And make no mistake, this is portrait more than narrative, and an actor's showcase more than it is a director's (again, that's because it's deceptively simple). As a disputed version of what happened to union leader Jimmy Hoffa through the eyes of his friend, mobbed up Frank Sheeran, it's engrossing, but only really because of those performances, and the texture we get from them through the novelistic approach. A few words on the "CG as make-up" used to track the characters through various ages in this. While I thought young DeNiro looked a little strange (but not in the way these things usually do, because I thought it MIGHT be make-up), generally the aging was pretty amazing. I had to look at pictures of Pesci afterwards to find out how old he actually looked. In other words, it's pretty seamless. Because all gangster films are kind of the same to me, and these particular guys are certainly not on their first go, I was not as wowed as some, I admit, but I do respect the film more than I love it.
one of the modern masterpieces. scorsese has roots in now forgotten 70s style narrative/pacing and cinema will have lost one of its dying breed of last real genius directors when he's gone.
cherish this movie, cause it would be his last gem.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 22
badblokebob
The best bit of its long three-and-a-half hours comes when it doesn’t force you onto Netflix’s “WATCH SOMETHING ELSE NOW” screen until the credits have actually finished.Innovative.
jmars
I’ve read reviews that complain that The Irishman is too long and too slow compared to the gangster films of Scorsese’s prime. Where were the operatic character introductions, the sudden explosions of violence? But I think that was the point. This is Scorsese putting the gangster film to rest, dramatizing not the violence and glory of the gangster life, but the slow decay of all meaning that life provided. It’s framed as the reminiscences of an old man, and last half hour puts the whole film in perspective: eventually everyone is incarcerated, loses their teeth, is forgotten and dies. By using Deniro, Pesci and Pacino throughout the whole film Scorsese couldn’t have said it any louder - for that reason the de-aging effects are justified, as distracting and flawed as they are. This is a meditation on aging and death. Scorsese and his old guard of collaborators are nearing their end, and I think that scares him. Deniro’s character ends up alone and scared. He didn’t want to be buried in the ground, didn’t want the door closed in the nursing home. Scorsese is staring down the same destination. Devastating.KaphAein
“Do me a favour, don't shut the door all the way, I don't like that. Just leave it open a little bit."God damn! that was soul crushing...
Withnail33
Slow and subtle is how I would describe this one. The first act is Scorcese's signature "how-I-came-to-be" montage/plot but it turns into a very personal and almost intimate look into the protagonist's life in the third act, which surprised me. Themes of human mortality and loneliness are explored and it's something you don't see in a lot of crime-mob films. Violence isn't too over-the-top (which is something you normally see in mob movies) but I wish Scorcese went the traditional route and used squibs, blood bags, etc. The 3-D blood was very obvious and really took me out of the moment.Overall, I liked this one. Hits all the marks you would expect in a Scorcese film while adding a few themes that make this movie unique among films of the genre.
frankqb
If Goodfellas was a classic modern recipe, The Irishman is the microwave dinner version. Scorsese ends up trying to make the same film and proves he may in fact be past his prime. The film rambles on in great detail for 2.5 hours as a dry, historical narrative with little to no purpose set to an occasional baby boomer tune, and then attempts to spurt out a platitude or two at the end of the film. It feels flat, boring and generally undercooked - like a microwave dinner. De Niro and Pacino are fine, but generally nothing special. Pesci on the other hand has moments of brilliance.Overall, The Irishman may as well have been called “Oldfellas”.
3 stars out of 5
chunkylefunga
I think at this point in his career, critics are too scared to criticise Scorsese.This movies is too long, slow and just a mistake to de-age the characters as it's weird to see them with youngish faces when they still move like old men :D
tweet_tweet
I found it to be an overlong, average movie. I can't understand all the rave reviews.baraka92
A fun and violent but ultimately sad ride that ends on a soul crushing note. Time comes for everything and everyone.And people complaining about Anna Paquin's lack of dialogue missed the point.
LiquidSplitter
If Scorsese had heavily condensed the first couple of acts this could've been a much more powerful piece. I found it a little droll until Frank Sheeran becomes friends with Hoffa. That's when the story finds its focus. That's when I became invested emotionally & couldn't take my eyes off the narrative before me. And then there's the final acf; which I must say was nearly worth the long wait. The futility of a life; especially a life wasted on wrongdoing, wherein everyone who you placed so much importance upon are now gone; & all you're left with is alienation & a heavy conscience as you await your end. A telling powerful shot & De Niro's final line are lasting.It's not perfect, that's indisputable. And if this were a much younger Scorsese someone would've had him cut out the unnecessary fat that is the first half of this film; but I can forgive it strictly on the basis of that last sequence. At the very least it's not the Wolf of Wall Street hedonist extravaganza that really said nothing substantial at all. This film has a heart, though a heavy one, in spite of all its technical & structural flaws, & it'll stick with me.[/spoiler]
Linkmaster89
Too long. Like slow food. But great.nowhereman136
This movie makes me feel like a kid again.As in, i feel like a kid stuck at my grandfathers house, surrounded by his friends telling stories to each other of the old days. It's long and boring. I get it, it's an interesting story, but it's not told in an interesting way. Normally, in movies with such a long runtime, it fills that time with character development, plot, or tension building. Here, it just seems long because all the characters are old and slow. Even when they are suppose to be playing younger versions of themselves, it still feels old and slow. Even the score and choice in music feels slow. This really couldve been edited down to a still lengthy 150 minutes without losing any of the plot or mode. So many characters come in and out so fast, it couldve been easier to combine them here and there or at least given them more distinct costuming to tell everyone apart. There are only so many short, slick haired, glasses wearing Italians that i can keep track of. Maybe this feels different on the big screen.
Also, as good as the CGI is in this film, i still never believed Robert DeNiro was playing a 30 year old that all the other characters kept calling "kid" for the first half of the movie.
It's not all bad. We get great performances from everyone. Especially DeNiro who even though he doesnt look young, he plays the aging character with timely precision. Pacino is as energetic as ever and Pesci is back to playing the boss that he always is. The rest of the cast do a good job of walking that thin line between believably real people and mobster movie stock-characters, keeping the scenes real but still engaging when talking.
All in all, i will call it a good movie, just one that is stretched a little too thin for it's own good. And because of that, it's the weakest of this years Oscar contenders, at least for anything beside's DeNiro's acting.
6/10
Siskoid
Impeccable and deceptively simple film making from Martin Scorsese in The Irishman ensures that despite its length, the film is never tedious (except perhaps in the epilogue) and if each scene isn't strictly necessary to the plot, it does help inform the three main characters played by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino (this is his FIRST collaboration with Scorsese, do I have that right?!) and their relationships. And make no mistake, this is portrait more than narrative, and an actor's showcase more than it is a director's (again, that's because it's deceptively simple). As a disputed version of what happened to union leader Jimmy Hoffa through the eyes of his friend, mobbed up Frank Sheeran, it's engrossing, but only really because of those performances, and the texture we get from them through the novelistic approach. A few words on the "CG as make-up" used to track the characters through various ages in this. While I thought young DeNiro looked a little strange (but not in the way these things usually do, because I thought it MIGHT be make-up), generally the aging was pretty amazing. I had to look at pictures of Pesci afterwards to find out how old he actually looked. In other words, it's pretty seamless. Because all gangster films are kind of the same to me, and these particular guys are certainly not on their first go, I was not as wowed as some, I admit, but I do respect the film more than I love it.ROHITH VUJJINI
It's what it is.DATA EXPUNGED 69
It's what it is.deckard.
one of the modern masterpieces. scorsese has roots in now forgotten 70s style narrative/pacing and cinema will have lost one of its dying breed of last real genius directors when he's gone.cherish this movie, cause it would be his last gem.
Showing items 1 – 15 of 22