The number of great names who took part in the creation of this tape can be dizzy. This picture, as they say, is large. I would even say it is something monumental. It all seems so large when you read the names of the participants of this action. Timekeeping, by the way, is also not inferior - before us a crime drama of three and a half hours. However, the director Martin Scorsese in the long tapes master. As in stories about the gangster era of the United States. And this film, I think, is nothing but a tribute to the era of gangsters of that time. Or maybe there was a time when Hollywood made films about this era.
We'll be told the story of Frank Sheeran. A man who goes from being an ordinary truck driver to becoming one of the most famous killers in his lifetime. I searched the information on the Internet a little bit and, frankly, I did not find a clear answer - whether it was real.
The plot of the picture can be called interesting, but there is one big but. For me personally. Despite the fact that Scorsese talked about the fact that this tape must be viewed from beginning to end completely and without breaking away to feel as much as possible, for me it was somewhat difficult. Here is a very calm and quiet plot based on a huge number of conversations, meetings, trips, facts about the characters, the appearance of characters, the disappearance of characters. Everything is calm and steady. And so sometimes, of course, it was boring. I wanted to have more of a sudden event. And I think the format of a miniseries, of this story, would have been much better.
The acting is amazing. However, the presence of De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and many others simply cannot be different. The golden line-up of gangster movies is back in business and it's great. Moreover, they cope with their tasks, as always, perfectly. However, trying to rejuvenate these wonderful actors, I think, ended in complete failure. And I'm really surprised by that. Knowing and seeing how they are now working with such tasks, what successes they are achieving, it seems that the people who took up this work simply deceived Martin Scorsese. I think it’s a total failure.
The message of the whole story seemed to me too simple and has been said many times, and not only Scorsese. If you do evil, it will come back. You do evil by justifying yourself by doing it for your family, you end your life all alone. I am not saying that this message is bad, but we have already heard and seen it hundreds of times.
Large, but long. Interesting, but slow.
It's as good as a well-tailored tuxedo. It's as good as a quality Cuban cigar. It is as good as an expensive cognac.
It is as good as an unbeaten jazz composition. It is good as a skillful and at the same time concise precious product.
It's as good as expensive men's cologne, with a tart, bitter aftertaste.
It is good because the hand of the master did not tremble when he made it. He's good because the master knew what he was doing. He's good because he hasn't cheated on himself. It is good because the master has made sure that the people and emotions they play are not hidden behind the mask of modern technology.
. . .
A dramatic and tragic saga, a confession about the world of crime, with the view of a realist artist, without flirting with the viewer. Deals with conscience, fear, animal fear. About death that awaits everyone, the logical end for everyone, the logical outcome that comes sooner or later for everyone. No romance. There is only death, which is overtaken by an awkward or deliberate movement beyond the line drawn not by you.
. . .
This work of cinematic art is worth spending 3.5 hours of your time on it.
Pretty boring movie. I lasted half an hour. And it's funny to watch an elderly Robert de Niro become a tough fighter, a killer. If he were younger, it would have been a big deal, but it would have been a two!
A beautiful film that looks in one breath is impossible to come off. Excellent work by everyone involved. One of the best films in this genre that I've seen is strictly to my taste, of course. I was born in 1988, if anything. I saw him say he was "outdated" in the comments. That's about that. It was easy for me to watch, generally in terms of performance, a film of rare quality.
The question is, why was this film made? Nostalgic about the time when crime was run by the mafia? I tried to look at this nudity, but as much as I waited for any thoughts, I did not wait. The main character - a stupid machine for "painting walls" - does not cause any interest or sympathy.
Martin Scorsese is an odious and respected director in cinematic circles, who can be praised for a huge number of past works: from the measured Taxi Driver (with the brightest benefit of young De Niro), the classic Nice Guys and the cult Casino to the pop (but not losing their charm with the brilliant secondary role of Wahlberg) The Departed and the hooligan Wolf of Wall Street. And now, enlisting the impressive financial support of Netflix, the master decided to remember his youth and remind the viewer of his past successes by shooting another, largely farewell, gangster epic The Irishman (The Irishman, 2019) - the first filmed on streaming, which was included in the shortlist of the Oscar-2019.
Why is it Netflix? It is obvious to declare yourself as a serious studio, working with serious directors and fully participating in the Oscar race. It seems that the bet is a win-win: a repetition of the path already successfully passed by talented filmmakers in the wrapper, which, it would seem, is impossible not to sell to the consumer.
And it seems even works - at least critics of the film do not sing serenades. For some centuries, the main Hollywood faces of the bygone era are gathered in one frame, pleasantly reminding the viewer alternately of such recognized masterpieces as “Good Guys” and “Casino”, and a huge timekeeping of the picture seems to hint that we are waiting for an opus of the scale of “The Godfather”, where every frame and every word in the dialogue is so important and verified that you absolutely cannot throw out the words from the song, otherwise all the meaning will be lost.
However, in fact it is not, and it does not work. The fact that the film, for all its indisputably visual beauty (let’s omit the moment with the “rejuvenation” of the characters, about this later), unreasonably delayed, the first thought visits already in the first twenty minutes of the tape, when the aging De Niro changes the punched wheel on his oil car. Scorsese tries to identify his story with “Forrest Gump” or “False temptation” in the part relating to an entire era from the history of America, by analogy with these projects making his characters not only witnesses, but also participants in key historical events of the US history of the last century. And if this is in principle to observe and interesting, then in general, the author inflates the timing out of the blue: drawn-out scenes, losing the semantic thread of dialogue, empty episodes, the absence of which the film would not make any weather, as well as the presence. Therefore, after the first hour of screen action, the picture begins to tire, but there are still two and a half hours ahead! In addition, the integrity of the narrative is lost, when the picture jumps from the gangster drama to the judicial one, it generally pretends to be a tragicomedy or a self-made militant (in combat scenes, old De Niro in a young “mask”, but senile movements and gait, to put it mildly, is not convincing). From such an attempt to juggle genres, attention is scattered, and the meaning of what is happening is lost.
Not only can Scorsese for some reason not concentrate the audience’s attention on his story, so what happens in the frame looks pretentious and sometimes comical. Robert De Niro, Honored Artist with a capital letter, appears either a rejuvenated or aged version of himself (despite the fact that no special effects can hide the real age of the actor), and in fact, the viewer sees not the favorite of the public, but his mask, pasted on the actor. The hero’s facial expressions are lame in almost all episodes, the actor cannot reliably play his already silent hero for purely technical reasons, and his appearance itself becomes one big reference to the unsuccessful domestic experience in Vysotsky, or resembles Jeff Bridges in the second Tron (or rather, his “young” double). Slightly better things are with Pacino, who in some scenes “gives fire”, but in his case, the authors cost a ton of makeup, not the achievements of digital technology. However, the same Al Pacino without makeup looked much better and brighter in the recent “House of Gucci”, where in his secondary image paired with Jeremy Irons literally outplayed the entire main cast. The long-awaited reunion of De Niro and Pacino in one shot came out sluggish and unconvincing - not in the example of the legendary scene of dialogue between two titans in a cafe in the exemplary thriller of Michael Mann (where both, due to their age, were much more convincing in the action). Joe Pesci is not much better than Robert, but worse than Al. Harvey Keitel also pleased with his cameo, at least in terms of participation in the project. I can also say nothing bad about Anna Paquin, who does not lose her attractiveness over the years, who appears literally in one single episode, but plays it brilliantly.
In general, it turned out not a bad experiment on the topic, visually beautiful, but not technically perfect, which is the heap of its “technical” part prevents actors to put their soul into it. It is better to take The Irishman as an exercise by Scorsese on a favorite topic, because if he returned to draw the final line in his favorite genre, then it turned out to be rather unsuccessful. Always remember the last word.
Very boring at first glance. But there is a pair ' but' Although the film is a complete fiction, it is based on real historical events and characters. For greater realism, fragments of the news documentary chronicles of past years are inserted, which is flashed mainly on televisions in the film. The background here will be clearer only to Native Americans who lived in North America for half a century before the release of the film.
There are many historical events flashing here, the death of a previously famous person is also historical. But the rest is fiction. This is stated by the actors themselves, and the director in a miniature documentary interview (also available on Netflix).
The movie is absolutely boring. But there's something about him. It is interesting and even funny to look at old actors, who were slightly rejuvenated with the help of computer graphics. It may be interesting to look at old-school cars, some way of life from the past. Otherwise, the viewer is quite a passing film. The development of the plot is not really so entertaining to watch. I couldn’t resist reading a Wikipedia page about Jimmy Hoffa. So for me, the story of the film became a little clearer in advance, although the ending, thanks to historical facts, I was already able to determine for myself in advance what can be both a minus and a plus for a moviegoer.
Cruelty
It's a cruel movie sometimes. When a bandit/gangster/mafia goes to work and does it, ' paints houses' he is deprived of everything human to the remnant of his conscience even. There's nothing in it. It is like a snake, acting in a tense situation instinctively, just ' biting ' bullet victim to death, perhaps doing and many ' bites ' making sure for sure and with cruelty that the target will die / dead. The killer instinct turns the character to us with a completely different, unpleasant side. And the snake can look cute until it opens its mouth, going to sting you. Perhaps if we had never seen or met a snake, we would not have been afraid even before the bite. It is like the Indians who first met the colonizers of Europe, which is not peace and freedom brought to the North American and other continents. First there were wars. At first, the strong killed the weak.
Before us is a good movie, which introduces us to ' snakes ' of this world. We recognize the gangsters, we look at them like in a zoo from a safe distance and behind the screen. They won't get us here, they won't hurt us. And we'll know them. Next time we meet, God willing. God forbid they sting.
I never understood why I couldn't watch it, but something was wrong. It's all unnatural and dreary. All the actors are kind of dumb. It didn't come. Although I couldn't put my hand up. Not exactly shit, though.
'They've shot down the president of the country, they're gonna kill the union president.'
Back in the early 2010s, there were rumors that the great and irreplaceable Martin Scorsese was eyeing the production of his new gangster drama, based on the book by Charles Brandt ' I Heard You Paint Houses' who, in turn, took an exclusive interview with the authoritative representative ' Old Mafia' Frank Sheeran nicknamed ' The Irishman' who is in a nursing home, and once was part of a powerful criminal group called ' Buffalino's family, led by Russell'. The heyday of the criminal society was directly related to the activities of Russell Bufalino and his henchman & #39; The Irishman & #39; who not only carried out the tasks of the mafia boss, but also was a staff killer of the group. But the main fact that distinguishes 'The Bufalino Family' is their connection with the influential trade union leader Jimmy Hoffa, whose authority at one time equaled that of the president. But once Jimmy Hoffa disappeared without a trace and around this mysterious disappearance there were many rumors, myths, speculations and legends. And perhaps it is Frank Sheeran’s revelations at the end of his life that reveal this mystery.
Scorsese is known all over the world, a decent number of his works are included in all sorts of official and nominal lists of the best cinematic works. But his greatest fame came after several gangster tapes: 'Evil Streets' (1973), 'Good Guys' (1990) and 'Casino' (1995) are forever recorded as the best pages in the chronicle of cinema. Scorsese created a special format of the criminal genre, conditionally filled with a kind of romance of the Italian-American mafia, thus revealing the features of gangster ascents to power and money. And, in principle, everyone understands why this topic always excites the imagination of Scorsese, forcing him to create masterpieces of cinema, because ethnically Scorsese himself is Italian-American. And now it's time to tell the story of Frank Sheeran, stretching over several decades.
Scorsese for filming ' The Irishman' convened his ' old gang', and two names stand out especially - this is Robert De Niro, who directly embodied the image of ' The Irishman' and Joe Pesci, who at the end of the last century announced his retirement, but for the role of Russell Bufalino agreed to the persuasion of the director, who practically created his name in cinema. The picture develops in several time layers, which gives a three-dimensional understanding of who the guys in expensive suits and their henchmen with pistols behind their belts were. Almost we see the entire period of Frank Sheeran's formation as one of the most important members of the Mafia & #39; Family & #39; - from his petty crimes in the form of meat theft, and then more serious and terrible errands, because Sheeran never thought about when it was time to get weapons. A separate storyline is about Frank's relationship with Jimmy Hoffa, when Sheeran was placed as a mafia watcher near a union leader. By the way, another celebrity was invited to the role of Hoffa - for the first time Al Pacino himself played Scose. And I must say that not only the director is related to Italian-Americans, but all the main characters are of Italian origin.
'The Irishman' is a long but exciting biopic, which for the most part has a dialogue basis, but the scenes of cruelty, sire, murder, filmed very briefly, while not casting fake blood. Scorsese decided against the background of Sheeran’s life to tell the story of the United States during the time of Kennedy and Hoffa and, almost inexplicably, to let the world know who was behind the most high-profile crimes in the political world. He said it somehow even casually, but thereby made it clear that the mafia will never give up their interests, even if in their way there is such an influential person as the President. Thus, a monumental work with many plot branches and many characters is obtained, but confusion is unlikely to arise, since Scorsese always knew how to correctly place accents in his films, besides, this is the only way to convey all the intricacies formed from the mafia’s ties with politicians and vice versa.
You can not ignore the beautiful performance of the main actors of the film. And let them ' rejuvenated' with the help of special technologies, it is noticeable that they did not lose their best qualities. And although in some scenes Robert De Niro, who starred in Scorsese so many times, looked somewhat constrained in movement, perhaps because of his venerable age, but the professionalism has not disappeared and the role of Sheeran is one of the best in recent times in one of the most outstanding actors of all time. But, admittedly, in some cases, the expressive play of Al Pacino in the image of Jimmy Hoffa overshadowed the efforts of De Niro (at the same time, I do not in any way implore the merits of the latter). And it becomes clear that because of his temper and principled desire to live and rule, Hoffa managed to cross the road and his life was long ago in great danger. And many admire the play of Joe Pesci, he in some unhurried manner embodied the image of Russell Bufalino, who, as they say, personally ruled the script ' The Godfather' (1972) and only after that the epochal gangster saga went into production.
For fans of the movie about the mafia ' The Irishman' will be a balm for the soul, because it has not been on the screens for a long time so strong, wide, voluminous genre film. In addition, he was shot by a true master of gangster dramas, and the cast makes you shudder from the general authority. But subjectively admit that in the list of the best works of Scorsese I ' The Irishman' will not include, although he was one of the favorites of all conceivable and unthinkable film awards, but if I were offered to review in the near future ' Irishman' or, say, ' Casino', I would choose the latter. But under any circumstances, Scorsese remains Scorsese and never lowers his high bar, to which many are very far away. So, watch served, if someone has not seen ' The Irishman', it is definitely worth watching.
8 out of 10
The film “The Irishman” is based on the biographical book by Charles Brandt “I heard you paint houses” (which in gangster language meant a man who deals with contract murders) and tells about the life of Frank Sheeran, nicknamed “The Irishman”. Frank is a veteran of the Vietnam War, a trucker who, after getting acquainted with the authority of the gangster world Russell Bufalino, becomes a killer. The criminal family receives constant “financial assistance” from the American trade union leader Jimmy Hoffa. Frank, known for diligence in business, is sent to Hoffa, to supervise and perform some tasks.
“The Irishman” is a tightly shot down film of the old classic model of cinema. Events here develop slowly, the author tries to hook and show the viewer every detail concerning the main idea of the narrative. It is also noteworthy that there are no non-traditional sexual relations imposed by modern trends, inappropriate racial advantage of the oppressed side or the feminization of characters. Everything is sustained in the scripting needs, which allowed the director to fully implement his ideas.
More recently, Martin Scorsese criticized the genre of comics in cinema, its dominance and permanent expansion. As a result, he presented his own film in the form in which he would like to see cinema as such - as art, as painstaking work on the script, directing, acting. The main roles of “The Irishman” Scorsese takes, has already become a classic, the trinity of gangster cinema: Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci.
The actors in “The Irishman” play masterfully, convincingly, perfectly getting used to their once familiar roles. However, age makes it clear. Even rejuvenated with special graphic technology, the main actors look tired and old for gangster remaking. Of course, each of them, be it Pesci, Pacino or De Niro, would be perfectly suited to the role of some sitting on the spot and decisive “Godfather”, but not youthful “regime” or impulsive careerists. In this regard, Joe Pesci most successfully fit into the role, just the same and representing himself as one of the authoritative heads of the mafia.
The very title of Scorsese's film is misleading. What contributed to the advertising campaign of the picture. The Irishman was expected for the most part to be a heroic adventure – in the traditional sense – the rise and fall of the main character, the hitman. But the director tries to cover an entire historical era, including the unions, the president, the prosecutor and the ubiquitous all-powerful but “right” mafia. Because of this, the viewer can get lost in the plot, especially if he is not familiar with the historical correspondence. Although this decision of Martin Scorsese is understandable and justified by the plot, where in one of the final scenes the main character understands that the generation is replaced with idols and what used to seem important goes into the past with him, and what really has timeless value remains valuable and, unfortunately, often not even acquired.
“The Irishman” is not quite entertaining and focused on a narrow audience. First, those who grew up on gangster movies or familiar with the subject, secondly, those who appreciate deep, elegantly made paintings, and thirdly, those for whom the story of Kennedy and Hoffa is still a former reality, not just a small part of a forgotten story.
What was interesting to watch in the 90s and 00s, now not catchy. Yes, amazing actors, a wonderful director, it seems not bad, but after watching the film, postponed the viewing for later. Then he never came. It's too long.
In 2019, thanks to Netflix, Scorsese’s project was born, which he hatched several times and for which no studio wanted to allocate almost $ 150 million in budget. It is a pity, of course, that the picture only limited release was shown in cinemas in several countries, but it is better than none.
The film is a biography of Frank Sheeran, nicknamed “The Irishman” (Robert De Niro), who went from a trucker to a gunster-killer, working for the mafia and for the union.
And this time, Scorsese filmed what was not expected of him. Namely, a leisurely drama-confession, about a gangster on the verge of death, living his last days alone in a nursing home. All his friends and “colleagues” have long been dead, and the family turned away from him for the rest of his life. Although of course the film was fondled by critics and viewers, and even received 10 Oscar nominations, some viewers who were waiting for a dynamic story in the spirit of “Good Guys” and “Casino” were puzzled. Even despite the fact that Scorsese again assembled the old guard in the person of Robert DeNiro and Joe Pesci, who has not been filmed anywhere for quite a long time. First of all, the film differs from its predecessors in that there is no romanticization of gangster life in The Irishman and shows the natural result of that. Here is how Sheeran progresses up the career ladder, rising higher in the gangster hierarchy, doing a wet job for Russell Buffalino, and also showing how he distances himself from his family, especially from Peggy’s daughter, whom he seems never to be close to, because the girl was clearly afraid of her father, and treated with great complacency Jimma Hoffa (Al Pacino), the head of the union, who was her uncle.
The main controversial moment of the film is technical, namely rejuvenated with the help of graphics by De Niro, Pesci and Pacino, who played their characters both in youth and in older age. Repeatedly felt the effect of the “sinister valley” from De Niro with a “young” face and still senile movements. You can see that they invested a lot in this technology, but it looked little better than Deepfake.
With such a cast (Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, Harvey Keitel, Ray Romano, Bobby Cannavale, Anna Paquin, Stephen Graham) there can be no claims to acting. They all played 100 percent.
I don’t know how, but personally I’ve never been bored in 3.5 hours of screen time, despite the rather slow narrative. All this thanks to a strong script and direction, which is why the film goes in a confident rhythm, albeit slow, without sagging anywhere along the course of the narrative.
This is the magic of “The Irishman” – Scorsese shot a much more mature gangster movie, where there is no place for excessive gloss and romanticization of gang life, where it is honestly and fairly shown that gangsters almost do not have happy endings: gangsters are either killed in their prime, or they die of cancer in prison or a nursing home, abandoned by everyone and filled with regrets.
Despite the fact that the film has been waiting for a very long time, and, even with a fairly decent timekeeping, it looks harmonious and does not drive into sadness, nevertheless, I cannot say that I am satisfied.
In the film there is a raid 'Good guys', but because of the screening only on the streaming platform, I thought the movie lost its charm. Great cast, they are all harmonious, they believe them, but what did they bring to the film? Amorphous Joe Pesci, no De Niro, with terrible makeup. An obscure and small role of Harvey Keitel, which would be played by anyone, although it was supposed to be the new Vito Carleone Marlon Brando. Yes, Steve Graham shines brighter than all these stars in the frame!
Even old Al has been playing himself for 20 years (coach, lawyer, detective, writer, head of the union - all the same). No Serpico or Carleone. Maybe this is what Scorsese was trying to achieve - harmony and evenness of acting, or maybe specially written roles for actors, but I would like more. Brightness. Life. The rest is smooth, good, professional.
To understand what the film is about, you do not need to know much about the history of the US 50-70s of the 20th century, or watch a dozen movies about gangsters. . .
Will the film become a cult movie? Definitely not. Worth watching? Definitely.
8 out of 10
Scored one point for the selection of actors, entourage and directing. .
A masterpiece? A world epic from the world of cinema? Let's try to figure it out.
The Irishman, a film by one of the most important directors of all time, Martin Scorsese, presents us with a full, three-and-a-half-hour aesthetic delight. During this time, the film evokes a whole palette of emotions, here you have a beautiful concise humor, and continuous tension, and of course deep drama. The film will not leave any viewer without an emotional load, which is one of the most important indicators of a good movie.
The plot advances with slow, well-calibrated steps, allowing the viewer to plunge into all the aesthetics of that time, the beauty of New York and gangster showdowns. To the above, the narrative is conducted from different timelines, which ultimately allows you to create a complete story.
Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci, this is not the first time these old men have appeared on the same tap. They did a great job with their characters. Genius played. I want to note the chic scenery and costumes, an incomparable soundtrack, a complete immersion in the era of gangster vicissitudes.
Walking through the plot, Martin shows the viewer all the futility of the “coolness” and “importance” of the personality. There is always someone who, in case of needlessness, will “paint” the walls of your house. Underneath all this deep philosophy lies one thought – time cannot be returned, as well as the love of people close to you.
To sum up, I can say one thing, if you're a film lover, these three and a half hours will pass for you unnoticed and you will be satisfied with this picture.
Epic saga about gangsters, or Fantastic Gangsters and where they live
Most often, the opinions of critics and ordinary viewers do not agree. Opinions are not always diametrically opposed, but the reasons for this are obvious - critics know the theory of the cinematography well and are well versed in what the film should catch and what not.
For example, according to critics, this film has a great cast. And that's a fact. However, the viewer will say - De Niro even with a young face moves like an old man, so there is not a plus, but a minus.
According to critics, 3.5 hours is a great timekeeping for the epic gangster saga. The viewer will say - for 3.5 hours in the Lord of the Rings or in the Aviator there were much more interesting and memorable events.
According to critics, the film brilliantly conveys the atmosphere of demonstrative time periods. According to viewers, playing with color is not enough - the trucks of the 50s in the 50s were not yet rusty.
In fact, there's a lot to complain about. The lack of character development. The sedentary dynamics of the plot. On the insufficiently deep disclosure of some fairly important characters, such as Peggy, the daughter of the main character.
I love watching movies in one go and try to set aside time in advance, but I’ve mastered this epic saga in four sets. I watched the first hour with my wife in the home theater, the second hour on the road on a laptop, and the last one and a half in the office, in two calls, on a smartphone, with headphones.
But I still looked and did not regret the time spent.
The atmosphere is well and deeply conveyed. Characters are not flat and yet revealed. The soundtrack is great. The picture is nice. As for the unchanging characters... Several epochs have changed. And that's important. So, having read more about gangsters, having studied the issue in depth, I personally clarified a lot for myself. The last chapter of the film quite well puts all the dots on 'i', therefore, in my opinion, the film justified itself.
Watch this movie if you want to:
- Immerse yourself in the atmosphere of another era
- A look at Al Pacino's daring again.
- Enjoy the feuds of the powerful old men.
Don’t watch this movie if you don’t see it.
- Sluggish dynamics
- Too much attention to small things
- At the same time, not enough colorful murders and explosions (this is Netflix)
- Excessively long timekeeping
'The Irishman' is Martin Scorsese's dream film. For many decades he wanted to make a story based on the book ' I heard you paint houses'. And finally, he succeeded. An expensive and long gangster movie. It is a pity that I could not see such a creation in the cinema.
Okay. The movie is great. Of course, this is not the best creation of the master. A lot of people will definitely not like it. Calm, slow, meditative. 3.5 hours is not enough at a time. I think it's a gourmet movie. Not in the sense that it cannot be understood by an ordinary person. The plot is banal and clear. And in the understanding of Scorsese himself, the vision of the criminal genre, the life of the characters. There is no need to look for something clever, complex. It is important to immerse yourself in the world of the protagonist and listen. Listen with your eyes.
There was not a single subsidence in the entire film. Great atmosphere. Great characters. This is Robert De Niro’s best role in twenty years. I was surprised by the role of Joe Pesci. It was the first time I saw his character so calm. And Al Pacino. His benefit, outshone everyone. It's a pity he didn't win an Oscar for this role (Brad Pitt clearly deserved it for his life, and he's got a good role, but Pacino was cooler). I want to mention the relationship between parents and children in the film. In particular, the main character and one of his daughters, Peggy. In fact, a small conversation between them was once, and then a couple of words. All the time they only spoke with their eyes. It's really cool. And her question 'Why?' means something completely different than what we heard.
There is only one significant disadvantage. Graphics. Character rejuvenation. I understand that Scorsese wanted actors to play themselves all the time. But it wasn't really great. Well, I don't believe that De Niro in the film is young and he's 25-30 years old. The body of that old man and in quick scenes to look ridiculous. At first, it caused dissonance. Then I used to. In the same cult ' Nice Guys' the heroes of Liotta and Pesha are also twenty with pennies, and they do not look at this age. Scorsese seems to be guilty of this.
I doubt 'The Irishman' will eventually become a cult film. He doesn't need it. It's the director's personal film. He wanted to take it down, tell it. Scorsese did it. I can’t put a dozen below, although I understand that the film is not perfect.
10 out of 10
The film is very worthy. It’s definitely worth watching, and especially if you know you’ve lived a good, if not the best, piece of your life. And here it is very fitting and this hell timekeeping - it gives you a full sense of the scale set by the director - before you the whole life of a person - not from the beginning, as he grew up, grew up, or youth, but there is his conscious, ' Adult', the choice of the way, becoming on it, the result achieved for him + and -, somewhere repentance (and it is very precisely dosed - a call at confession) and ' the culmination of life.
And how cool show the actors of their characters from self-confident De Niro with Alpacino, to the classic images of Tonny or Leo from Lethal Weapon - they play let us feel? how life goes, its course is visible in & #39; shrimping' movements and posture, despite makeup and decent post-processing, and it gives its charm to this film - the truth of the story itself and the message - as when you listen to the memories of old people.
But I would have mastered such a movie in my 20-25 - rather yes, but probably not so deeply understood.
Measured, exceptionally leisurely, the imposing "Irishman" tells of life, or of a substantial part of it, consistently, calmly and thoroughly, in such detail as if, if you miss any small fact, the whole picture will fall apart and have no value. These memories are imbued with the nostalgia of old age for the past, inevitable in the later years, no matter what the path trodden: hard or easy, righteous or sinful, happy or filled with grief.
An invariable part of the film-memories is an indication of the fate of each - without exception - person met by the main character on his way, and in each, each case the result is the same. But incomparably more, these results indicate the existence in today’s Frank – the Irishman, the luckiest of the many people around him in his life, or perhaps the most unhappy, because it is he who draws a line and puts an end. He came to the finish line alone; always surrounded by people in life, in the face of inevitable death, he finds himself in inevitable loneliness, his long life his punishment, on the edge of the grave he finds himself with nothing and no one. In modern life, he looks like a stranger, an alien, accidentally thrown from the past by an alien whose only concern is to go back, to disappear into nothingness.
Frank’s life—his real life—begins with a small misdemeanor, when he literally walks off a simple road in the name of a better life. It is not even this misdemeanor that makes Frank, but his subsequent impunity, which creates the deceptive impression that the way of life he leads is not a crime, but only a way of life. It is noteworthy that in the formation of Frank, peculiar moral principles play a role, such as loyalty to one’s word, inability to betray and denounce. These principles may be the product of logical inventions, but they follow the hero in life, and closer to the film's end, it is the need to break them against one hero for the sake of their inviolability against another that is a serious test for Frank. Chosen consciously or close to the heart, but moral principles make the protagonist as he is.
As for the main character, it is also true that this is always the life of the second person. No matter how old Frank was, no matter what position he held, he always remained second to someone, consciously second, consciously led and obedient. Perhaps this role has saved him from many of the dangers that haunt leaders, and this story is the story of a pawn, however cruel it may be to say it, but it is this angle of view that provides the most objective view of any event.
There was a lot in this life, and it wasn’t just the mafia, it was a lot of politics and social activities. The Irishman equates all these areas of life. Here politics is inevitably associated with crime, murder, dirt, which was taken for granted by everyone. In front of us on the screen as if the real rulers of America, in whose hands any politicians are puppets, and any decision is coordinated with the mafia. This makes the screen USA a truly mafia state, however, confronting this essence with periodic acts of defiance, in which real history is mixed with artistic fiction.
The remarkable role of the union, perverse, turned upside down. The trade union shown on the screen did anything but defend the interests of the workers, but enjoyed their popularity at the expense of ordinary populism. The union here is equal to a mafia group, a gang, maybe where there is a place for any crime, be it theft or murder. The trade union as such stands out only because it has influence by nature, which makes it especially valuable.
It is hardly possible to perceive negatively those characters that we see on the screen: they are shown too peaceful, not angry, not crazy. Their activities do not leave an imprint on their image. Mafiosi do not like alcohol, but ice cream, they can be sentimental, love their children, show no interest in pure cruelty, viewing crimes only as a method of solving problems. Scorsese is interesting to show them people, without the usual stamps, without the use of strictly black paint. In the film there are no unambiguous characters “in a white coat”, the mafia is confronted by a conditional FBI, not specific people. The mafia cannot be beaten, but it can lose.
“The Irishman” is decorated in soft muted colors, behind the scenes sounds retro music, and the events themselves, albeit full of action, slowly. This is a film-biography, even if fictional, and in it, as in any life, there are many characters whose names are not always even possible to remember, and plot twists are often difficult to track. “The Irishman” would suit the format of a mini-series, since watching it is still tedious, for all its indisputable merits.
The play of Robert de Niro and Al Pacino is impeccable, these actors are able to convey with one glance, one breath, a gesture as many feelings, thoughts, words as others could not in an endless monologue. They do not break down on excessive emotionality, there are no bright tantrums, there is more composure and play on semitones. Heroes are real, they are alive, they are people, not mannequins, not dolls. Good or bad, but people who are capable of making mistakes, capable of wishing good in the crimes of ordinary life, having attachments and having a kind of honesty.
“The Irishman” is not for everyone, it is for patient spectators, for those who like to enjoy the picture, atmosphere, music – all this is a lot. It is for those who care about acting, who likes to follow intrigues and conspiracies. It's for the attentive. There are no entertaining fights, killings dry, fast, inexpressive, humor exclusively episodic. There's no deliberate morality here. It is a story-exposition, gradual, consistent, one that seeks its reader-viewer, making its way through crowds of strangers. This is a serious movie, it does not entertain, it takes time, energy and emotions. It is for the viewer who makes a conscious choice about watching it.
8 out of 10
I'm ambiguous about the creativity of Scorsese. Long timekeeping, a large number of storylines, dialogues that do not really touch the plot. Are they pros or cons? In his films, Martin shows life as it is, sometimes boring, but cruel and intriguing. I really like the atmosphere in the films of this director, a lot of effort is devoted to detail, atmospheric music and revealing characters (but not in this film).
Scorsese has his own distinct style and one more thing that is a must – a strong protagonist who leads the plot. Often his voiceover tells us the details of the picture: The Wolf of Wall Street, The Aviator, Nice Guys, The Departed (he managed to create two such characters), Mad Bull - all these films confirm this. Scorsese takes on the main roles only charismatic and multifaceted actors who can play anything. But De Niro doesn’t have to play, he’s just in the frame and living his role. There is a feeling that shows himself as he is in life. That's why Scorsese loves him. But I didn’t believe this role. Yes, the director tried to repeat the success of his criminal masterpieces, to create the same atmosphere, but people are not eternal. I simply could not imagine that 70-year-old & #39; painter & #39; will be able to turn criminal cases and shoot one after another. Even the new technology of rejuvenation did not help.
The film is based on the book 'I heard you paint houses' written from Frank Sheeran's own stories. At the center of the story is Frank himself, his boss Russell Bufalino and union leader Jimmy Hoffa, played by Al Pacino. The whole story is built around them.
Martin Scorsese decided to give us a full carte blanche, built this movie according to his favorite scheme and in my opinion this movie did not quite succeed. I agree, this is a tribute to the great gangsters of Hollywood. People will watch this movie with the idea of seeing their latest crime story. But the movie looks very hard, the plot literally crawls, not develops. I was very worried that I was aware of the real age of the actors and the roles they were going to play. The script was specially written for the famous trinity and, of course, where you could give action and drive, there were only dialogue and languid views. In my opinion, only Al Pacino managed the role, halfway through the film I was almost asleep, although I tried my best to keep myself in the ranks. Very lucky that he appeared and a little stirred up this fuss.
You won’t see the development of the characters in this movie, it’s one of the Irishman’s serious problems, if not the most. The only thing you will see is a change of status from 'live' to 'dead' and a brief description of death. All characters remain the same until the end of the 3.5-hour movie. There is no change in their image.
Praise the main actors can only be that professionalism, they did their best and gave their all. Everyone should. But the director only for the idea and desire to make a movie with such a long time interval. But, to my great regret, the era is passing (or gone 20 years ago), and it is necessary to perpetuate the people who made this era famous. This is an unusual, controversial film.
' Everyone is dead, Mr. Sheeran. It's over. No one left & #39;
The author gives us the opportunity to think about old age, about loneliness and dig into ourselves well. These actors decided to conduct it this way, but how will you conduct it?
I cannot condemn these brilliant people with a squeak and for trying to bet.
6 out of 10
As in the spirit of Scorsese’s favorite genre, for his new work, a non-sour gangster war of the most influential business clans has unfolded, who want to break the jackpot fatter and move the Netflix family, which is rapidly gaining weight, recently replenishing it exclusively with world-caliber cartridges. It is not for nothing that Martin chose cooperation with the streaming giant, who gives the masters real creative freedom and a sufficient amount of funds, while the mastodons of the industry nervously look at the scoreboard of calculators, tormenting their brains with constant mathematical calculations. It was on Netflix that the creative duo of Scorsese and Oscar-winning screenwriter Stephen Zaillian was able to unfold their vision of the novel ' I heard you paint houses' for 3 and a half hours using expensive CGI technology and with the involvement of such world stars as Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.
The plot of the picture introduces the viewer to Frank Sheeran, nicknamed 'The Irishman' and tells the story of his ascent to the highest positions of the Bufalino crime family.
In recent years, Martin Scorsese has shifted from signature gangster sagas to stories of thieving financiers and the search for God. However, the picture with which the director returned in 2019 is undoubtedly not only a return to its origins, but also a truly revolutionary work both in terms of technology, including timekeeping and CGI, and the fact of cooperation with Netflix, emphasizing that the old industry is living out its last days, giving way to major network players. And besides all the above, 'The Irishman' is perhaps the most thoughtful gangster film of the director, dissecting and analyzing in more detail the world of American crime, its connections and impact on the surrounding economic and political processes. The bandit romance and dashing shootouts gave way to a darker atmosphere of the Italian-American criminal world, recreated by the director with attention to all details. In 'The Irishman' Scorsese builds an incomparable setting of gangster America of the middle of the last century with the love of Woody Allen, endlessly nostalgic for New York, and for three and a half hours savors every minute of this era. And despite the dripping dynamics in the third act and such a cumbersome timekeeping, ' The Irishman' does not let you get bored, and the acting of the already legendary caste adds additional colors to the picture.
Pros: Production, script, acting, soundtrack.
Cons: In some places, the felt bulkiness of timing and CGI rejuvenation technology, which just ironed out De Niro’s face, which in no way returned the actor to the precious years of his youth, but to the picture of greater plausibility.
"I heard you paint houses" is the main slogan of Martin Scorsese's new work. The film adaptation of the life of Frank Sheeran, a truck driver turned professional mafia hitman. One of Netflix’s most ambitious projects. 10 Oscar nominations, but no wins. Cult star cast. Impressive timing. Controversy among critics and viewers. What else can be said about the new creation of the great Scorsese?
“The Irishman” is a kind of epilogue of a genre and an entire era. The story, which began in "Evil Streets" and "Taxi Driver", continued in "Good Guys" and "Casino", came to its logical conclusion. Gangster theme in cinema has exhausted itself completely. Much has been said, much has been shown, and it is unlikely that in the near future you can come up with something fundamentally new. "The Irishman" is the final note, the culmination of the director's many years of reasoning.
The picture turned out to be quite strong, but it needs to be understood, comprehended for yourself and it is desirable to know the features of Martin Scorsese’s work. The film is much deeper than just the life story of mafia hitman Frank Sheeran. Here is the problem of the “lost generation”, and Scorsese’s favorite confrontation between the individual and society, and the classic theme of friendship, honor and loyalty, and the complex relationship between parents and children, and the question of loneliness and the meaning of human existence itself. Martin Scorsese doesn't have empty, passing films. Each of his works is a variety of allusions, ideas and reasoning. The Irishman was no exception.
Play of actors - on a level. Many criticized Scorsese for taking old men to play young enough characters. But the point is that better than Robert De Niro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci, these roles would not have played, perhaps, no one. If you’ve seen Nice Guys and Casino, you’ll understand. And The Irishman is the end of a golden era for actors of this level. There will be no more De Niro, Al Pacino, Pesci, Liotta. Of course, there will be new stars who will become idols of millions, but it will be something completely different.
The soundtrack is chic and gives the film a special atmosphere.
Duration - long, as much as three and a half hours. But this story could hardly have been told in less time.
On the one hand, the film is magnificent, everything in the spirit of Scorsese, and again to see the old guard (Peshi, De Niro, Pacino) together is a special pleasure. But on the other hand , after the picture there is some sediment - too heavy and serious questions raises the director, questions that I and every reader of this post to think too early, and probably not worth it. I'm talking about the last 30 minutes of the movie.
“The Irishman” is another masterpiece from Martin Scorsese, which is definitely worth paying attention to. But the film is not for everyone, as well as all the work of this brilliant director.
9 out of 10
Not because it’s boring, but because it’s over three hours.
Mixed feelings, full of gamma of impressions.
Initially, this topic, after all the wound I saw, was no longer interesting to me, I understood that it was simply impossible to create something new, fresh here. But not to see the Oscar-winning work of the great Scorsese with a completely unrealistic stellar composition was impossible.
The first impression is a disappointment.
You cannot enter the same river twice. Especially three times, four times.
Just a set of stamps, a series of self-citations ...
Yet it is easier for the young to portray the old than for the old, the young. Sometimes it's just a sad sight.
And when De Niro with an senile gait on stiff legs goes to mutuse a ham-seller into the store, it is impossible to look at it without a smile.
And then I realize I'm an idiot. After all, it is a parody, it is a self-parody, and great artists have the right to do it!
And now I’m enjoying this absolutely incredible level of acting from Pesci, Al Pacino, De Niro – it’s fantastic!
This is where the incredible happens!
I find myself no longer perceiving the film as a parody, and I'm really into the story. And it doesn’t matter to me that in every fragment, in every sentence, there is a shadow of Bad Boys, Casino, Godfather, Once Upon a Time in America, Scarface, Carlito’s Way... And how these old people are organic in the depiction of their heroes in adulthood, from a very old age. I don’t think young people can play like that.
In short, I liked the movie quite unexpectedly for myself!
I recommend it.