The Irishman (2019) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
2,739 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
chevallierjulien30 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The last 5 minutes of the movie explain everything. 2 things:

1- The photo of his daughter and Jimmy. These 2 persons are these ones that he loves the most. It reminds him how he lost them both. Frank killed his best friend and he lost his daughter after she understood he did it.

2- The door half open at 1 minute before the end. Jimmy used to let the door of his bedroom open because he trusted Frank. Frank broke the trust and as a result he could never talk to his daughter again. This door represent the trust, and show that trust must never be broken. Trust is even more important than love because without trust there can be no real love.

Great movie, great actors, congratulations Mr Scorsese.
1,670 out of 1,994 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's brilliant, but best to go in with as few expectations as possible
Jeremy_Urquhart8 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
When I love a movie as much as I loved The Irishman, I feel torn. On one hand, I want to review it and rave about it and try to convince others to see it. But then on the other hand, I realise that doing so could set expectations too high, which could then lead to some people getting disappointed (this happens a lot with horror movies that get hyped at film festivals and then rejected by disappointed wide audiences, like with The Witch, It Follows, and Hereditary).

So that leaves me in a tricky situation, and I'll compromise by praising the film as much as I can without overhyping, whilst also making vague comments that won't be specific enough to ruin what the film has to offer (because yes: it's a Scorsese film. He has an incredibly varied filmography when you break down just what he's made over the last half-century, and so you're never going to get exactly what you'd expect).

Okay, acting: phenomenal. Besides Goodfellas, Pesci's best performance ever. This is the best De Niro's been since Cape Fear. This is the best Al Pacino has been in at least three decades. These men are old, and all accomplished and wealthy enough to retire happily at this point, but thankfully they all agreed to not only star in this movie, but commit themselves 100%. No one's phoning it in here. While the supporting cast are uniformly solid, these three steal the show and I hope all get Oscar nominations come awards season.

Scorsese, to no one's surprise, directs brilliantly throughout, making every scene purposeful and captivating. The movie is long, but deservedly so. The various pay-offs towards the film's conclusion would not hit nearly as hard if the film didn't spend so long building character, suspense, and emotion.

As crude as it might sound, this movie- at about the halfway point- made me forget how badly I needed to use the theatre's restroom. At a certain point, I accepted that I couldn't miss a second, and leaving the room for even a moment was totally out of the question.

If you can see this at a cinema, and can handle three and a half hours without a toilet or snack break (no intermission!), then by all means, watch it on a big screen, because it's beautiful and ultimately the best way to experience a film of this scope and spectacle. But it'll be on Netflix soon, and perhaps some would prefer to watch it in the comfort of their own home, where snack/toilet breaks are possible.

Whatever you do, make sure you ultimately watch it. Films like this don't come around too often, and this is such a perfect swan-song for this talented group that I doubt we'll see these legends together again.

It's bittersweet, but if this is Scorsese's, De Niro's, Pacino's and Pesci's farewell to the crime genre, then it's an amazing note to go out on.
1,074 out of 1,441 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Last Of Its Kind
redcanofevil28 November 2019
I don't know where to start on this one other than thanking Netflix for being the only distributor to fund this movie so we could see Big screen legends take their last big swing. The set and screen is smaller than I liked it to be, it being released on a streaming site but it's better than never seeing it.

It's not a flawless movie and I wouldn't necessarily call it a masterpiece or something new and innovative. But for an old genre gangsta flick it's easily one of the best ones out there.

The plot is a lot like Godfather 2 from De Niros perspective but that's all there is. It is more grounded and far too subtle compared to Goodfellas. And that's a good thing considering the age of the lead actors in the movie. But that doesn't mean its dull, gray and dreary because it isn't. It is surprisingly humorous, has some very serious scenes and doesn't shy away from giving us a blast of nostalgia every now and then.

The cinematography is quite different from the usual modern movies we are accustomed to. It doesn't have an overabundance of Wes Anderson symmetric shots or Roger Deakins like Wide angle shots. The film was shot in a very old timey way with the camera pans and edits. The editing in the movie is great and the score is fitting. Technical aspects considered it isn't innovative or something jawdropping, but that was never supposed to be the main focus of the movie.

The main focus for me was absolutely the acting. And why wouldn't it be with a cast like this? Al Pacino and Robert De Niro for the 1st time on screen together since Heat. Joe Pesci and De Niro since Goodfellas. Joe Pesci coming out of retirement and Martin Scorsese directing all these legends on screen together! If this doesn't get you excited for this film then I'm afraid nothing will.

Speaking of acting my god do they act! Robert De Niro gives his best performance in his older age with this. Joaquin Phoenix was a top contender for best Actor Oscar and I agreed with that but after watching THE IRISHMAN everything changed. Robert De Niro basically steals his Oscar like a gangsta and gives the best performance of the year so far. Old Bobby here still giving top notch actors a run for their money and the guy is 76 years old!

When was the last time you saw Al Pacino give a really good performance? Well that's exactly what he does here and it feels so good to see him find his glory days. He is his usual shouty self but shines better when he tones it down and let expressions speak.

And boy have I missed Joe Pesci over the years and don't worry he's still intense as usual. And that's weird considering he is extremely toned down in this movie. If you're looking for a violent Joe Pesci like he was in Goodfellas you'll be disappointed. But if you're looking for an intimidating Pesci with a huge presence then you're in the right place.

Harvey Keitel is in the movie for a very short time but he did his job fantastically. Ray Romano was a surprising standout and I can't believe how he kept up on the same plane as some of these industry legends. He doesn't really have a bigger role and basically gets lost as the film progresses but he made the most of his screentime.

The film is 3hours and 30 minutes long but it never felt that long honestly. The first 2 hours went by a breeze but the 3rd hour was unapologetically slow. It felt a bit dragged on during the final hour and felt it was skipping ahead at the same time. it wasn't boring in any way but felt it could've been handled better. The CGI de-aging is so good that after a while you get confused how old the lead actors actually are. This is the best de-aging tech I've ever seen honestly.

Despite it being slow in the latter end it still is a fantastic film. It doesn't set out to do something different, it doesn't try to set it aside from the herd. Scorsese did what he does best and made the movie he wanted to make. Its more of a last big hurrah for these living legends than something out to be a flawless masterpiece. It will most likely be the last of its kind and also the last collaboration of Scorsese with these acting legends. Considering the time we are in this might as well be the last Scorsese film, it most definitely is the last Joe Pesci appearance in a movie and the last good mobster hit with genre legends like Al Pacino and De Niro. So enjoy it while you can and savor it. Remember this movie 10 years from now and rejoice that you were alive to witness something truly fantastic. THE IRISHMAN is a farewell for most of these legends and a loveletter to the genre. It's the last of its kind and it went out in true mobster style.
553 out of 756 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Latest entry in the Emperor's New Clothes Club
horrorgasm2 December 2019
You have to be absolutely out of your mind to legitimately think that this is Scorcese at his best and ignore all the flaws in this movie. Yes, I get it, he made a lot of great movies in his time, but this isn't one of them.

A scene early on with Deniro beating someone up sums up the movie pretty well. The random no-name actor getting beat up is the only one exhibiting any emotion, as Deniro's character and his daughter sleepwalk their way through the scene like most of the cast does through most other scenes. It can be a bit hard to tell though since the camera zooms out so far that you can hardly see their faces, probably in an effort to avoid using the piss poor de-aging effects during an "action" scene, but it doesn't much matter because it's still close enough that we can see Deniro noticeably physically struggling to get through the scene. It looks awful and its depressing to see Deniro like this and to realize that Scorcese thought this scene was ok like this (why would they not have just used a stand-in here?), and this is pretty much how the movie feels in general.

This is a very noticeably weak effort from Scorcese. Most of the characters are wooden and just seem bored to be there. Pesci and Deniro are shockingly lifeless here. Pacino seems to be the only one giving any effort, but even his performance only comes off like a pale imitation of his old self.

Again, the de-aging effects are very weak and it's pretty jarring to see the flashback version of Deniro's character be referred to as if he's a young man (Pesci even calls him KID), but still looks like he's about 50.

There are a ton of side characters introduced, most of which disappear immediately after their introductions and serve no real purpose. Likewise there are many vestigial scenes that serve no purpose to advance either plot or character.

The plot is of course your typical gangster fare that we've seen from Scorcese so many times already. Guy gets into a life of crime, rises in the ranks, gets rich and lives it up, and then everything comes crashing down because he and everyone else he knows are absolutely terrible people, blah blah blah, we've seen it all before, but you know, you take something more recent of his like The Wolf of Wall Street and even though it uses that same old formula it still manages to be interesting because the characters have such personality and style and they keep your eyes glued to the conflict even though you already know exactly where it's going.

Here? Not so much. The Irishman is an absolutely unremarkable mobster story with completely forgettable characters that don't seem at all interested in their roles and some production values and cinematography that the so-called king of cinema should be embarrassed to be associated with, and let me tell you, you people defending this weak excuse for a film aren't doing Scorcese or "cinema" any favors by blindly swallowing this crap and acting like it's the greatest thing you've ever seen. If you're so willing to suck down any product, no matter how bad, just because it has a big time famous name attached to it than you're really no better than the popcorn action movies and fans that you're so quick to condemn.

As someone who's seen every Scorcese film before this, this is a 5/10 AT BEST and I will never pretend otherwise just because he did a lot of great films in the past.
239 out of 353 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Scorsese format still works decades later.
aGlassofCinema_com28 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I was able to attend the NYC premiere this afternoon. Now that I've gotten over the shock of seeing so many celebrities, I'm able to happily to say that this movie, while being quite long, deserves to be remembered as one of Scorsese's great films.

The Irishman reminds me a bit of Tarantino's recent hit Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, both because it's a period piece and also because you need to know a little history to understand the direction of the narrative. The movie, while following Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) as the titular character, revolves around Teamsters union boss James Riddle Hoffa (played with intense and hilarious fervor by Al Pacino). Fortunately Frank goes to great lengths to narrate the story for the audience and provides a healthy dose of context for those of us not from the Kennedy era. The main thing you need to know going in is that Jimmy Hoffa had mob ties, and that he vanished in 1975 and was presumed murdered by mob bosses for being "uncooperative".

The movie unfolds over four acts, told over several decades by Frank Sheeran. In act one, Frank is introduced as a WWII veteran who is stuck driving food delivery trucks in and around Philadelphia. He has the bright idea to steal some of the steaks that he's delivering, and sell them to local mobster Felix "Skinny Razor" DiTullio (Bobby Cannavale). Eventually his brazen willingness to break the law catches the eye of Italian mob boss Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci), who happens to be a mobster on a national level. His calm demeanor is both comical yet terrifying. A soon to be classic line encompasses Bufalino perfectly: "You might be demonstrating a failure to show appreciation." Under his mentorship, Frank becomes a ruthless action man for the italian mob and explains with rather entertaining dispassion how he does his job properly. In act two, Russell introduces Frank to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), the outspoken and fearless president of the National Teamsters Union. Their relationship grows and Hoffa becomes Frank's second mentor. Together they use intimidation and bribery to gain influence until the election of John Kennedy, who subsequently appoints his brother Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General and immediately goes after Hoffa.

The first two and a half hours are the most fun, and in particular the end of act three is some of the most tense and dramatic storytelling that I have had the pleasure of seeing in recent memory. At a dinner celebration for Frank (who eventually becomes a Teamster boss himself), tensions between Hoffa, Bufalino and the other mobsters reaches a breaking point, and the decision is made to make Hoffa disappear. But in a gut wrenching twist, Frank is the one tasked to do the job. In a beautiful display of cinematography over a thirty-minute buildup, Scorsese forces the viewer to the edge of their seats with the dread of what's about to happen. Robert De Niro's performance in these moments is master class; the inner conflict is all the more apparent thanks all of the time we spent watching Frank being raised by Bufalino and Hoffa in equal measure. I plan to watch this part of the film again, probably with a notepad.

Getting away from the plot a bit, the movie is actually surprisingly funny. In one particular scene, someone insults an older Bufalino at a dinner reception. He and Frank exchange glances, and the frame suddenly cuts to a hotel bed covered in guns. Frank then narrates with excess detail and hilarious dispassion the ideal weapon for a public assassination. Moments like these are littered throughout the film and keep it from getting too bogged down in it's violence. It's impressive how quickly jokes fly, given the disproportionate amount of people getting shot point blank in the head. But anyone who has seen Scorsese's Goodfellas or The Departed will feel right at home.

The heart of the movie is definitely Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. De Niro was de-aged with apparently exorbitantly priced CGI, as he is supposed to be younger than both Pacino and Pesci. While it's fairly obvious, I was never too distracted to not enjoy what was unfolding onscreen. Plus he's kind of made a career of holding one scowling facial expression, so that probably was a little easier to edit. Al Pacino is a riot as Hoffa, and is certainly one of the most arrogant, over-the-top characters that Pacino has played in awhile. Pesci as Bufalino is chilling, and it's fun to seem him as the boss in this gangster movie after being a junior-level mobster in Goodfellas so many years ago. The mentorship between De Niro's character and both Pacino and Pesci is amazingly entertaining.

The only thing keeping me from calling this movie perfect is it's length. Three hours and (almost) thirty minutes is a very long time, and while occurring infrequently the movie does drag a bit. This is most apparent in the fourth act where Frank introspects during his final years, and attempts to achieve reconciliation for all the murders he's committed. It doesn't really offer any closure or seem necessary to wrapping up the narrative.

Ultimately that doesn't even come close to making me not recommend seeing The Irishman. There's a reason Martin Scorsese will forever be known for his gangster movies. Combining comedy, violence, brotherhood and drama, he has created a formula that continues to work. The fact that he continues to make excellent movies at 76 years old blows my mind. Well done.
516 out of 796 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I love Scorsese and all the great mobster flicks, but this one is OVERRATED...
keelhaul-808562 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I love all the films of this genre-- Casino, Once Upon a Time in America, Goodfellas, Godfather, Mean Streets, Scarface, The Departed, Carlito's Way, Taxi Driver, etc. Scorsese makes some awesome epics, and I like a wide variety of other directors and their films in this vein. However, I find the hype and the hooplah around this one to fall a bit flat. I am sure I will receive some hate for this opinion, but this movie is nowhere near the level of Goodfellas or Scarface.

1) The Run Time= I am fine with a 3.5 hour movie, but it needs to be great enough to fill that amount of time. I mean, at least 60-75% of it should be amazing. This movie is WAY TOO LONG for no reason. I can think of about 5 scenes that could be cut or condensed that did nothing to further the plot.

2) The Aging and De-Aging of Actors= This was actually very distracting from the movie, and made me laugh in several scenes. Was this really NECESSARY? It seemed cheap and corny, and it really takes away from the movie instead of helping it. Wouldn't it be better to just get younger actors to play the really young scenes of DeNiro, Pesci, Pacino, etc??? No one is buying the age of these guys, even with CGI technology and effects. It ruined the belief of the moment.

3) Pesci looked 139 years old throughout the movie, even in scenes where he is supposed to be young.

4) Harvey Keitel's talent and presence was greatly wasted, as I barely remember anything that he did or said.

5) The Women= the ladies are mentioned at the start of the film by name, and then become completely irrelevant to anything that goes on for 3 hours. They were extremely underdeveloped. This was one thing that complimented Goodfellas well- Ray Liotta's wife was always in the mix, or screwing something up, or threatening to kill him, etc.

6) Lack of Suspense or Action= This movie became very run-of-the-mill boring after an hour or so. Nothing surprised me, nothing was exciting, and the action is so neutered and far between that I forgot I was watching a gangster flick. I can still remember Pesci stabbing a guy in the throat with a pen in Casino, or Scarface's last stand, or the beatings given out in Goodfellas. This movie barely had ANY MEMORABLE SCENES that stand out. The only great ones were a couple of really quick and realistic shootings of guys on the street or in an eatery by DeNiro.

7) Pacino as Hoffa= He doesn't even resemble Hoffa at all, and neither do other people portraying certain characters. Robert Kennedy comes to mind as well.

This is a decent movie, with great production values, classic actors, a legendary director, and nostalgic music with a great soundtrack. However, I just think a 8 or 9 rating is BS for this project. EVERYONE IS SIMPLY SAYING WHAT THEY ARE TOLD TO SAY, just like every other overhyped movie or author or artist. It is a good movie, but far from a masterpiece, or Scorsese's crowning achievement, despite what everyone says.

Scarface, Goodfellas, Godfather, Departed= all light years beyond this movie, and with a shorter run time. This film needed to be tightened up and given some better scenes. It is interesting, but overbloated and overhyped due to the cast and director-- which can do no wrong in the minds of the average critic or average joe.
371 out of 572 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good but also boring
pedroborges-9088130 May 2020
Great acting, very good cinematography and we all know that Scorsese is a amazing director, but the movie is very long, and feels very long, a lot of great movies are very long and they are great, like Lawrence of Arabia and Schindler's List for example, they are classics and in my opinion The Irishman is not going to enter in this category.

Also the de-aging CGI is not convincing, and why putting those contact lens in De Niro eyes, when Scorsese made The Aviator he didn't put contact lens on Dicaprio, in Casino, De Niro didn't look anything like the character he was playing, it was unnecessary, probably Netflix fault.

The most positive point of the film was Joe Pesci performance, he is very contained but can also show that he is a very dangerous person, very different than the roles he played in others Scorsese's films, which are also great, and some other movies he starred during his career.

Looks like we never going to have a great movie with De Niro and Pacino playing two real old guys with a lot of screen time together, and i'm not saying that a lot of screen time together is necessarily better, for example in Righteous Kill they also have a lot screen time, but that movie was bad, in Heat they have only one scene together, two if you counting their confront in the end, but that famous scene in Heat was extremely well written, acted and with perfect timing, but this is for another review.
156 out of 233 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Weak by any standard but by Scorsese it's very
CarsonTrent27 November 2019
Sadly a sub-par effort from one of my all time favorite directors. The story is weak (by Scorsese standard) and overly stretched. I can understand the appeal to revisit his trademark Italian gangster genre one more time, but this one feels unnecessary. The also trademark Scorsese humor is in-existent (except for the painting walls bit). De Niro looks disoriented, in the worst physical (hunched over almost the whole movie) and acting shape ever and out of place. Not very surprising, either. He spent the better part of the last 15 to 20 years doing mock impressions of himself which after the novelty faded ended him up in a series of quite dubious productions. That's a very long time to lower the bar and obviously takes its toll.

The De-aging technique is unconvincing when the actors move. Their faces look animated, fake. There is little and uninspired music. Keitel looks fantastic but is underused. Pacino kinda overacts on occasion. Pesci looks fantastic and is in top form acting-wise but he's also in a supporting role (he's the best part of the movie) so he doesn't have a big impact on the movie. Romano is in top form but his part is also small.

The movie is slow, linear, extremely long, predictable (how often have we seen the Hoffa story on screen? a superior version starring Nicholson comes to mind) and dull. There isn't much going on action-wise. A lot of innuendo and he said they said, but aside some quite dull hit-jobs where de Niro is supposed to be in his prime but moves like a 75 year old the story is quite static. The dialog is stale. Stunts are weak to say the least (Pacino's double excessively hiding his face when he hits the floor in a fight and obviously wearing a wig and body padding, and the store owner more than obviously throwing himself through the window of the store while De Niro clumsily mimics hitting him around come to mind, rendering those scenes borderline laughable). Colors, interiors, costumes are all in shades of beige. Camera work is rigid. Plus the Hoffa story is old news to begin with, there are so many insane things going on right now and would translate better to the screen in 2019. The edgy fast paced crazy energy of the more recent Wolf of Wall Street (not to mention his earlier masterpieces Casino, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets or Goodfellas etc) seems that of a different director.

All in all the weakest film in Scorsese's portfolio and not above a 6 stars out of 10 by any standard (I'm inclined to be lenient mainly because he managed to bring Pesci out of retirement for this. But by Scorsese standard it's well below that). It's more of a self-indulgent piece of nostalgia best left unmentioned when it's all said and done. And I'm hopeful that Marty will surprise us with more of his best work in the future and we can sweep this one under the rug.
1,291 out of 2,100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Long, boring and disappointing
theojhyman13 October 2019
While this is De Niro's best performance in years, and it's great to see Pesci back on screen, this film is strangely subdued and slow, and not half as entertaining or engrossing as either Goodfellas or Casino were. Unfortunately, this films seems to reflect a Scorsese who is aging, or perhaps the fault lies with the freedom that Netflix gave him, when a lot of editing could have been done to tighten this film up. Even if you're watching this on Netflix in say 3 x 70 minute sessions, not much really happens in this time to make it compelling enough to want to stay till the end. It's a strange film because it bares the distinct marks and style of a Scorsese film but is nowhere near as memorable as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or The Departed (and perhaps Di Caprio and Damon would have been a better fit, rather than de-aging the actors via CGI). It could also be that the script just isn't as good as most of his previous films. I can't recommend this to many of my friends as I know they simply won't sit through this, unless they are hardcore De Niro or Scorsese fans.
1,343 out of 2,198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Grossly Overhyped
bbraddock-498962 December 2019
If your one of those people thinking about getting Netflix just so you can see this dinosaur, please don't. Watching Robert DeNero in this film is almost sad. He plays the part of a guy in his prime, but the CGI face doesn't work. It looks animated at times and his body moves like a very old man ... even for DeNero's age of mid 70's. The grocery sceen where DeNero beats up the store owner is just embarrassing to watch. Joe Pesci comes out of retirement for this one and shines. He has a stare that burns a hole through you. Al Pacino as the flamboyant Jimmy Hoffa works well. Harvey's Keitel in a small mob boss roll is solid too. But the editing is not together ... the movis drags ... and the fellas in the film unfortunately are just too old to pull this off convincingly. It's too bad this wasn't made 25 years ago, it would have probably worked. Grossly overhyped epic that is passed its prime, in more than one way. Would never waste 3.5 hrs watching again. If your hoping for the next Goodfellas, you've come to the wrong place.
539 out of 870 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oh god De Niro's phone call oh god!
TarekEl-Sherbeny22 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"What kind of a man makes a phone call like that!" It Happened! I've watched it! Quite simply, The Best Film of the Year! No, of the Last 3 Years! The hype is real, set your expectations as high as you can possibly reach!

Let me tell you something, I'm 25 years old and I didn't really got the chance to live the era of Masterpieces, I didn't see Raging Bull/Goodfellas/Dog Day Afternoon at its time, I didn't experience how its like to watch the best actors of all time in their fully artistic command. The first time I've watched Raging Bull I truly envied those people who lived in the 80s, I was always wishing if time can just go back and see De Niro's rage or hear Pacino's Attica once in a theater! But guess what, It happened!

This is the end of the era! The summation of Scorsese/De Niro/Pesci/ Pacino career, a final statement by masters! Robert De Niro is EXPLOSIVE! Pacino/Pesci are unexpectedly MARVELOUS! Zaillian's screenplay is on point, you can't go wrong with him. A 3.5 hour film without a single dragging minute, a poem of friendship, betrayal, regret and time!
558 out of 921 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
DeNiro beating up diner guy is where it goes bad
twistedr28 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The movie stars bold, we get some nice action, a somewhat of a storytelling and trying to ignore weird looking CGI on DeNiro's face.

But what happens later, oh man.....

When i saw this 76 year old men "beating up" the guy in diner for touching his daughter, with moves like grandpa, clumsy and unnatural i left my pink glasses and really started to pay attention to details.

Aside from Pacino's acting, and best CGI looking effect as far as i'm concerned, the movie after 1,5 hrs becomes dull and stretched.

Would have been much much much better to have had youngsters for half of the movie so it doesn't ruin the experience afterwards as we're looking to the same faces that's supposed to tell a story of a 30 years timeline and so.

And i could have lived with that if it wasn't the bad screenplay....

I was so anxious to see a movie with all my favorite actors and got to the conclusion that in life it's better to go down in grace than disgraced.
456 out of 758 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing by Scorsese standards
rizzaxc10 November 2019
First off, let me set this straight that I'm not repeled by long or slow films. However, The Irishman is at the very least 30-40 minutes too long, and the suspense sometimes is killed off by characters dragging the scene too much. The biggest offender would be the second last arc which I'm not gonna spoil.

Secondly, for such a slow film you'd expect the pay off to be worth it, but it isn't. The message of the film is revealed very early on, and it's very obvious where this particular plot line is going to. These 2 factors (slow pace and obvious plotline) make the film feels particularly unrewarding to me.

Third is the lack of the 'wow' factor, which is disappointing for such a godlike cast and crew. There is not a single memorable scene or line that stands out for me, despite the actors all doing a phenomenal job. And no, I don't really mind the CGI, even though it's not the best thing since sliced bread. The music is not memorable either, even though it can be an artistic choice to make the film feels more grounded and unglamorous.

So where does this leave us? Personally I don't think this is a bad film, but it feels disappointing with such a big roster. Don't expect this to be the film to watch with friends over, as it's pretty (unneccessarily) lengthy and the undertone is meant to be a heavy one.
623 out of 1,059 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
No wide cinema release? I understand why.
zeki-428 November 2019
Watching the wax museum version of De Niro for more than three hours wasn't the blast I hoped for. The CGI is not there yet. Dead eyes. Very distracting.

Al Pacino pretty much tries to play Al Pacino, De Niro his usual bitter self, but nice to see wax-Pesci, who was the most believable character. He completely outshines wax-De Niro here.

Oh, and by the way, Scorsese: there were no twin towers in the late 60's.

I can rewatch 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino' over and over again. I will not be returning to 'The Irishman'
421 out of 715 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gangster Avengers born for Netflix
sn3z29 September 2019
This film is super long. Too long to sit in the cinema for as fantastic as it looks. I ran out of snacks, I was so gripped I didn't go to the toilet which meant my bladder was bursting only adding to the tension.

This is pretty much the Avengers of the gangster movies where all of your favourite people are in one film written by the best writer and directed by the best director. Only Walken and Woods are missing.

Making de niro young kind of works and isn't as distracting as I thought and Pacino is fantastic. If you expect Pesci to be the nutjob he was in the other Scorsese movies then think again and this is no bad thing. Pesci is one of the best actors alive with a fantastic range and this movie proves it.

The Irishman is lovely to look at but for god sakes take a leak before you go or wait for its Netflix debut where you can watch it with whiskey and pause it for comfort breaks.
488 out of 845 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Review the Movie, not the Director
stephen-6247 November 2019
Peoples are losing their minds over the sainted director, forgetting the movie. Sure, it's well made, fascinating history. But it's second nature for De Niro, and Pacino overreaches at times. The third reel is repetitive over the decline of the De Niro character. Would be a better movie at 2hr 30. In fact, I thought it had ended about then, but it meandered on another hour.
390 out of 679 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a mess of a movie
okaikat28 November 2019
I cannot fathom two things: how this movie cost so much to produce, and why they wasted so much money doing so. This movie like watching a documentary about a political campaign that never ends. Seriously, save yourself 3 hours of the most boring and monotonous mash up ever. There is virtually no action or incentive to keep watching. It's 90% people talking at tables with lines like "Who said that?! oh he said that?!" or "Ok, well you talk to him Frank!" and then Frank talks to him, and then Frank talks to the other guys, and then Frank talks to him, and rinse and repeat. Occasionally a few seconds are spared for shooting someone in the head and then that's it. You are constantly left searching for a reason to keep watching, but it never comes.

The acting is not even that good either. With the exception of De Niro and Joe Pesci, it seemed a little awkward. Al Pacino walks, talks and acts funny. They may have de-aged faces but the postures are very out of sync with their ages for almost all the actors. There was a scene where De Niro beats up a grocery guy that looked more like a rehearsal rather than an actual scene. I'm shocked they let it pass. I only laughed at one scene that had to do with ears and that's it (which is why I give this 2 stars instead of 1).

I also gotta say that the ending was so anti-climactic and long-winded that after the movie I seriously sat there for a moment and contemplated why I wasted all this time on this hyped up monstrosity. Everyone claiming this is a masterpiece is either paid to say so or are saying so because of all the fancy names attached to this title. Or maybe they think they're being hip acting like this was worth a damn, I don't know. What I do know is that this is a complete disaster of a film and a waste of your valuable time.
663 out of 1,173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just amazing
g_cotterell13 October 2019
Classic Scorsese . De Niro is the best he's been for years . Pacino is really magnetic and charming . But for me, Joe Pesci is the standout. Quietly deadly, magnetic , loyal, complicated, its him that will get the Oscar . Saw it at the cinema ( sorry Netflix but I am not watching Scorsese at home ) and it was superb. Oh Anna Paquin is used quite cleverly as well. Good actress . Decent performance Go and see it at the cinema . You will remember the masters returning for one last ride
363 out of 636 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
3 and half hours that would been better used....
sergew18 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I love Scorsese's films, but this was one, is just one too many. It lacked tight editing, scenes lingered far too long to make artistic points. The technology of that allowed the actors to be made younger was not impressive given the actors could not move as if they were younger. The one scene that made this point, was when De Niro's character roughs up a corner grocer for shoving his daughter. The scene is difficult to watch given De Niro seemed to struggle as much with his own lack of mobility to carry off the fight scene realistically despite having the willing and compliant younger actor. Al Pacino's character looked nothing like Hoffa. Yes the acting was good in general, but the story was just too drawn out and slow and the characters were just not that interesting to hold your attention. As a man of 58, the hardest fact is recognizing the increasing limitation as we age, this movie opens with De Niro's character in an assisted care facility. It is where this movie should have stayed. The Actors and Directors are all legends, but this movie only took away from some of their carrier luster.
706 out of 1,273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
red-0077028 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Few years took for this film to arrive, Don't Believe tha Hype, this ain't no classic. Slow burn, with the last part sending me to sleep. Actors old made to look young and young-ish actor made to look old, De Niros dodgy contact lenses, also the way he beats up the greengrocer that was comical, looked like a 90 year old man dishing out a lame beating, notice his foot stamp with the opposite foot an nothing being under it hahahaa, Stephen Graham's accent dodgy. Years for this pffftttt.
355 out of 636 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Long, dull, uneventful
evan_harvey15 November 2019
Remember Bugsy Malone? That gangster film where all the characters were kids?

Well, The Irishman is a gangster film where all the characters are geriatrics. At the start of the film, De Niro's CGI youthened character still looked like he's 50. They all do. They're old, fat, hunched, liver-spotted killers, even when they're supposedly young(er). It's weird.

The film just drags on and on and never really gets going. The plot is disjointed and never really tells a story or builds a narrative. Unlike Scorsese's classics like Casino or Goodfellas, this film really struggles to develop a story worth watching.

3.5 hours. $160M budget. Good Lord. At least this rubbish will be 'free' on Netflix soon. There's a reason no one else wanted it - it wasn't going to make any money at the cinema. Even the $13 you pay for Netflix is too much for this film.
637 out of 1,167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Love this movie
h-5783916 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
"The Irishman" runs for three and a half hours, with an epic story that spans time and features many characters. Its main story revolves around frank, who becomes a gangster killer. Through frank's lens, we revisit the Kennedy era in the United States, and the Mafia and political dynamics of that era.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Badda Bing! ... Badda BUST!
Ed-Shullivan23 November 2019
Is it just me, or is Robert DeNiro once again portraying the mindless and aging FBI honcho Robert Mueller from SNL fame in this lengthy biographical film????? He sure runs like a 76 year old man so why no stunt double for DeNiro?

Pacino isn't playing Jimmy Hoffa. Every time he opens his loud mouth, Al Pacino is just playing himself. In fact a VERY OLD looking 79 year old over-the-hill version of Al Pacino. Sad. Terribly sad. Jimmy Hoffa is rolling over in his grave or he is breaking through 20 tons of concrete to stop a has been like Pacino ruin his reputation.

Mrs. Shullivan and I were anticipating another long awaited Martin Scorsese 1960's-1970's period masterpiece crime film, but instead what we disappointedly sat through was an over-hyped, (too) lengthy quasi biography on just one of the many here say storylines on the 1975 sudden and mysterious disappearance of former union Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa.

This film version of the missing Jimmy Hoffa focuses on three main characters, Hoffa played by Al Pacino, mob boss Russell Bufalino played by Joe Pesci, and the underling stuck in the middle of Hoffa and Bufalino, teamster labour leader Frank Sheeran, played by Robert DeNiro.

THE GOOD: Make no mistake, without actor Joe Pesci's strong but silent type mobster boss performance this film would have been most likely rated nothing more than a Grade B film with more than half of the finished product still sitting on the cutting room floor. Unlike the previous Scorsese directed mob films where Joe Pesci plays a raging out of control mobster maniac, in this biographical film Pesci plays a silent, very controlled, smart and resourceful mobster fixer who doesn't say much, but when he does, you better listen. I felt Pesci's strong performance and especially his one-on-one interactions with his underling Frank Sheeran kept the flame from going out on this otherwise forgettable and over rated film. Pesci played a similar role (crime boss) in the 1993 film, one of my all time favorite crime films, "A Bronx Tale", which also co-starred Robert DeNiro and Chazz Palminteri.

THE BAD: Why did Scorsese have the now 76 year old DeNiro and the now 79 year old Pacino play their respective characters Frank Sheeran (DeNiro) and Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) from their early days in the 1960's through to the year Sheeran actually died of cancer in 2003? The film would have transitioned much better through the five (5) decades of this biographical story line if two different actors had played a younger version of Frank Sheeran and Jimmy Hoffa. Off the top of my head I could see Milo Ventimiglia playing the younger Frank Sheeran and Michael Chiklis playing the younger Jimmy Hoffa during the 1960's scenes and then transitioning to the (past their freshness date) Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino playing the much older versions of their characters.

THE UGLY: The film it's way too loooooong and boring. I understand that NetFlix has to fill in 24 hours per day for their millions of subscribers but to just fill in with extended and continuous chatty scenes that were just wasted minutes as were the smoke breaks alongside the highways and motels, ENOUGH ALREADY!

Sadly, I rate it a dismal 2 out of 10. Badda Bing! Badda BUST!
280 out of 513 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A marmite film
cwbolt18 November 2019
Clearly you either think this film is a masterpiece, or an overlong slow-moving indulgence. I am afraid I am in the second camp. Having rewatched the Godfather recently, perhaps my expectations were too high. No way is it in the same league.
314 out of 581 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The emperor has no clothes.
ReadingFilm20 November 2019
The CGI faces create a soulless effect. It never feels like a real film, just a digital recreation where computerized characters are pretending to be DeNiro, Pacino and Pesci. They basically robbed us of the reunion by experimenting with a technique that fails so badly we know never to do that. The tragedy is this was not a time to experiment. They hang the entire picture on the believability of the de-aging, and it doesn't work for a second. It's egregious, bizarre, and will age horribly for the simple reason it's not registering as acting because computer programmers are doing the acting via mouseclicks. For Marty, a purest of cinema, to have this little respect for the purity of performance marks this as hypocrisy how he trashes blockbuster film. This is the theme park ride. This is a greatest hits tour through his oeuvre. This is uncanny directorial valley. I'm certain in 2050, you would get these old actors recreated exactly like this. That is our soulless future. Why rush to it? And the sad thing is, the cast were all there, and we will never get to see what they did. Clearly everyone is in denial and reviewing Scorsese's other works and pretending the emperor's wardrobe is just wonderful. When critics talk about the last half hour being a conscientious meditative coda on the gangster epic? Well sure, because they finally showed him acting. And it's not just that the CGI sinks the film, it's that it calls the entire thing into question and demands every other area perfect to make up for it, and can you honestly say the script and story is matching the perception of these rave reviews?
348 out of 648 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed