Thoughts on The Irishman?

[Lisa's voting Biden]

Just watched the movie on Netflix yesterday. Have you seen Martin Scorsese's newest film yet? I absolutely loved it.

[Trump Is A Maoist]

I posted a short spoiler-free review in the Oscars & Awards Season thread.

Basically, I view it as a very good film that deserves a lot of the praise, but there are several aspects that I think are being over-rated, that ARE very good but are not amazing and incredible. Some of those would be Pacino's performance, the cinematography, how the film delivers the message it's trying to deliver, and the entire film overall. I think major praise is fully deserved in regards to DeNiro, the de-aging special effects, and the pacing of this 3.5 hour film.

Some people are saying masterpiece, but I would give a score of "A minus" or possibly "A". I think I'll stick with "A minus".

[RI]

I thought it was fine, but not spectacular. Could've used some major cuts in the midsection. De Niro's character was incredibly bland and passive for big chunks of the film, which made it hard to care much for him until much later on. I also didn't buy him playing his younger self a good portion of the time because his old, out-of-shape body didn't match his de-aged face.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is anyone in the film actually Irish?

[Progressive Pessimist]

With it being three and a half hours long, and me being somewhat busier than usual these past few days, has led me to watch it in pieces. I am only an hour and fifteen minutes in, but so far it's succeeding at being a typical Scorcese gangster film. I am definitely getting the 'Casino' and 'Goodfellas' vibes, which is not a bad thing, even if it is a bit too familiar. It's hard to say too much since I'm only really a third of the way through it. I'll probably quote this post and add to it when I finish watching it...whenever that will be.

One thing that's notable, which I will say though, is the de-aging. 75% of the time, it is impressive and seamless in how they managed to make De Niro and Pesci look younger, but that other 25% of the time I feel like I am watching one of those Robert Zemeckis monstrosities. It has some of the better de-aging effects I have ever seen in a film, but no movie seems to have gotten it 100% to not be distracting at some points.

Speaking of aging though, maybe it's because we haven't seen him since his semi-retirement, but Joe Pesci has really aged. De Niro and Pacino have too, but since they still make appearances it isn't as jarring as seeing Pesci after so long.

[PSOL]

I think Al Pacino did an amazing job acting and that there were some cool events and gimmicks here and there, but the movie was far too long. It’s appearing like this film will be highly overrated as time goes on.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Okay, I finally finished watching it and I have to say...I was somewhat disappointed by it. Spoilers ahead, by the way. And in true Progressive Pessimist fashion, my thoughts may end up going on as long as this movie did.

I was enjoying the first hour and forty five minutes or so enough, especially once Jimmy Hoffa made his appearance. Being a well-known larger than life public figure, he was easily the most compelling part of the movie to me, even though he felt more like Al Pacino than Jimmy Hoffa.

But once the movie got to the point of Frank Sheeran's party, it came screeching to a halt. It reminded me of another Robert De Niro movie with a moment like that which I hated, 'The Deer Hunter' with its God damn 45 minute wedding scene where very little happens to move the story. I enjoyed this movie way more than 'The Deer Hunter,' which I actually kind of hate, but once Frank Sheeran's party started the movie became nothing but redundant conversations between a combination of Frank Sheeran, Jimmy Hoffa, and Russell Bufalino talking about pensions and loans and whatnot and how Hoffa pissed off the mafia and is going to get whacked if he doesn't stop. I get it! Something else happen! How many times do I need to see these three talk to each other about this? Oh, maybe they'll eat while they do it too, but it's the same thing happening! The dialogue wasn't even very snappy or exciting either. I was so happy when that 20 minute party scene changed to focusing back to the road trip, but then at the hotel Frank and Russell talk about the same thing again over continental breakfast! Sure, they made the actual plan to whack Hoffa this time, but still, the scene didn't need to be that long! I was really zoning out during this point in the film. Thankfully, when that was all over, and the deed finally happened, I snapped out of my boredom a bit, but it still wasn't nearly as engaging or engrossing as it could have been if it had the momentum that it did before. It also didn't help that, throughout the movie, the settings and colors are mostly dull and that the camerawork is fairly straightforward.

Furthermore, I wasn't particularly interested in Frank Sheeran through most of the movie. Yeah, he's another guy in over his head after getting involved with the mafia, but what else was there to him? I didn't care about his relationship with his daughters. Him cheating on his wife with another woman was barely a factor, I forgot that he was even a hit-man as the movie went on, and they hit you over the head at the end regarding him aging and being remorseful. His relationship with Russell Bufalino and Jimmy Hoffa was intriguing at least. It detailed an interesting aspect of gangster life that isn't seen too often-being caught between dual loyalties. being a gangster is far from appealing in this movie! This was made all the better by seeing our three prominent Italian-American lead actors all playing excellently off of each other. Sure, they didn't feel any different from De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci acting like themselves; but they are all so much fun to watch that it didn't bother me, as is often the case with these three. Though it is sad to see them all so old. Every other actor in the film was almost incidental though. Those three are truly what carry this film. There was a lot made about Harvey Keitel reuniting with De Niro too, but he barely mattered to the story. As did Bobby Cannavale, a great character actor, who deserved a meatier part in my view.

 Also there was a lot of casting of other prominent people like Action Bronson, Jim Norton, Ray Romano, Sebastian Maniscalco, and Bo Dietl (who is an awful human being and needs to stop being given roles by Scorcese. It worked when he was playing himself in 'The Wolf of Wall Street,' but here he was completely unnecessary and his role could have been played by anyone else). It was pretty neat to see most of them in the movie, but Scorcese always seems to like to cast unconventional people in small or supporting roles. There really is a Romanossance going on lately.

So, I've been kind of harsh on this movie, but I still liked it overall. I was hoping that it would live up to the hype and be Scorcese's best movie of this decade, however that recognition still belongs to 'The Wolf of Wall Street,' which I actually criticized for similar reasons of having unnecessary scenes that just made the movie feel bloated. Those scenes were usually at least funny or had a woman taking her clothes off, or something though, not just old men talking about things that were already established. This did not need to be as long as it was. A good 30  to 45 minutes could have been shaved off of it. Hell, apparently according to the IMDB trivia on this film, it is the longest mainstream studio movie to be released in twenty years! It's longer than 'The Return of the King!' 'The Irishman' sort of undermines Scorcese's comments about Marvel movies. 'Avengers Endgame' earned its run-time and I have felt more emotion out of it and other Marvel movies than I did out of this film. It may be controversial to say, but f*** it! Art is subjective.

'The Irishman' probably could have worked better as a miniseries or something where more aspects of this story could be fleshed out and justify its running time more. Beyond the length, I also find it very hard to recommend especially since its content in being about Sheeran's alleged role in the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa may be too convoluted and dry for some who aren't as interested in that part of history that someone like myself would be. I almost wish the focus of this movie was on Hoffa. A more focused biopic about Hoffa directed by Scorcese would probably be fantastic...and hopefully at least 45 minutes shorter. But then again, we did already have the Oliver Stone movie with jack Nicholson. I guess focusing on Sheeran adds a different perspective to the Hoffa story. Though it was still somewhat bereft of tension due to that, we know that Sheeran lives since he is our unreliable narrator. Speaking of which, I kind of wish that there was a brief, small message before the credits where they mention how Sheeran's story is unsubstantiated by DNA evidence. The FBI apparently tried to use DNA testing to test Sheeran's claims with ambiguous results. I worry that some people will watch the movie and see it as fact that Sheeran killed Hoffa and the mystery around his disappearance was solved, when in reality it isn't, even as it is a possibility.

I'm someone who does have the attention span for long, slow movies, by the way. 'Blade Runner 2049' is 2 hours and 40 minutes, and is among my favorite movies of this decade. Sometimes I actually prefer slow-burn movies. A movie's length only bothers me when I feel like it's unnecessary or doesn't pay off very well, and both of those are the case here for me.

Among all of Scorcese's movies this one probably ranks towards the middle in my opinion. It is overrated to me like some of his other movies: namely 'Raging Bull,''Taxi Driver,' and 'The Aviator.' I actually liked it more than those three. But I didn't hate it like I did with 'Hugo' and 'Shutter Island.' Scorcese deserves a ton of the praise he gets as a director, but f*** those two movies! I'll say it! I absolutely loathe them!

Of the three other movies he directed with a similar formula, nothing holds a candle to 'Goodfellas,' which is actually one of my favorite movies of all time (see, I'm not a Scorcese hater!). As mentioned before, I didn't like it as much as 'The Wolf of Wall Street,' but its subject matter, while still familiar, was more amusing than the plot of 'Casino,' which is another film of his that I like but don't love. So of those it ranks in third.

I'm glad I saw it, but it is not going to be among my top ten favorite movies of this year, when I get around to catching up with most of 2019's films.