The Irishman - Goodfellas meets the Uncanny Valley

Gordon Cole

Yep, he's dead
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
* It's really great! It's not as incredible as Goodfellas or Casino, but any reservations I had about it as a dull, overindulgent "Netflix movie" were completely unfounded.
* Unlike Goodfellas and Casino, the film has a quieter, more contemplative tone that can really only come from old guys looking back on their lives (Unforgiven, etc.). The Scorsese needle drops are there, but they aren't as noticeable this time. Jimmy Hoffa's death being absent of music or stylization really hammers the point home. Despite that, the movie didn't really drag despite the length.
* The de-aging is thankfully not a janky, uncanny valley nightmare a la Rogue One/Justice League. You can tell that shitloads of money went into getting the faces just right, even if it felt that they used Old De Niro's facial structure as the base for "Young" De Niro. But when it comes to aging up De Niro, it works wonders. Despite that you can tell whenever "Young" De Niro moves that it's still a man in his 70s playing the role, which technology can only do so much to fix.
* Speaking of, the acting: De Niro giving a shit is already enough to write home about, but Pesci playing a more low-key character and Pacino playing Jimmy Hoffa as if he were Pesci were also highlights. And I never thought I'd say this, but Ray Romano was entertaining too.
* Overall, I'd recommend this to most anyone, especially Scorsese fans. The length may seem like a turn-off, but it flies by if you let it.
 
Last edited:

Someone in a Tree

It's the ripple, not the sea that is happening
kiwifarms.net
* It's really great! It's not as incredible as Goodfellas or Casino, but any reservations I had about it as a dull, overindulgent "Netflix movie" were completely unfounded.
* Unlike Goodfellas and Casino, the film has a quieter, more contemplative tone that can really only come from old guys looking back on their lives (Unforgiven, etc.). The Scorsese needle drops are there, but they aren't as noticeable this time. Jimmy Hoffa's death being absent of music or stylization really hammers the point home. Despite that, the movie didn't really drag despite the length.
* The de-aging is thankfully not a janky, uncanny valley nightmare a la Rogue One/Justice League. You can tell that shitloads of money went into getting the faces just right, even if it felt that they used Old De Niro's facial structure as the base for "Young" De Niro. But when it comes to aging up De Niro, it works wonders. Despite that you can tell whenever "Young" De Niro moves that it's still a man in his 70s playing the role, which technology can only do so much to fix.
* Speaking of, the acting: De Niro giving a shit is already enough to write home about, but Pesci playing a more low-key character and Pacino playing Jimmy Hoffa as if he were Pesci were also highlights. And I never thought I'd say this, but Ray Romano was entertaining too.
* Overall, I'd recommend this to most anyone, especially Scorsese fans. The length may seem like a turn-off, but it flies by if you let it.
Is it true the movie runs 210 minutes?
 

Lensherr

kiwifarms.net
Just watched this on Wednesday. I started at 8 PM and me and my dad initially thought we'd only watch half of it or so, but it was so good that we stayed up until 11:30 to finish it. I almost fell asleep on my aunt and uncle's couch at Thanksgiving dinner, but it was totally worth it!

To elaborate a bit, I was absolutely ecstatic to see DeNiro and Pacino actually putting effort into their performances for the first time in what feels like an eternity. Pacino especially I believe deserves at least a nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

The CGI de-aging was jarring to me at first, but I got used to it after about an hour. I thought that they especially did a good job with Harvey Keitel's character, because I didn't notice it at all.

The film was also incredibly well-paced and was able to successfully hold my attention for the entirety of its 3.5 hour runtime.

It has a really solid structure as well. I love how it starts with Sheeran recounting his drive with Russell Bufalino on the way to the latter's cousin's daughter's wedding and as they drive by the place where the former two characters first met, the movie begins to tell its story in mostly chronological order with flash forwards to the aforementioned drive sprinkled throughout where you eventually find out that Russell is really driving Frank to the airport to take a place to Detroit where he'll kill Jimmy Hoffa. When it gets to that point, you understand why Russell wants Hoffa taken out.

Overall, I'd go as far as to say that this is another Scorsese masterpiece and would give it a 9 or a 9.5 out of 10.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hog On Ice

DapperShark

kiwifarms.net
I liked it, a masterfully crafted film with a fantastic cast that was really giving it their all, Joe Pesci especially is the fucking G.O.A.T and I loved seeing him back in action, despite this I didn't think it had anything all that meaningful to say and it kinda just felt like generic Italian Mafia film no.789490 to me.

Also I was really weirded out when it was pointed out to me that this is the first time Al Pacino has been in a Martin Scorsese film.
 

Ahriman

Vivere Militare Est.
kiwifarms.net
Just finished it. Pretty good movie and I agree with the assessment; it felt like "Goodfellas + Unforgiven".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miang

Miang

kiwifarms.net
I watched the whole thing yesterday afternoon and loved it. De Niro is excellent but it's Pesci and Pacino that were truly outstanding. Pesci plays the exact opposite of the character he's most known for, and bleeds power and presence throughout the film. He's been retired for 20 years and yet he's still a magnificent physical actor. There's at least one scene where his character has to essentially tell De Niro, without words, to kill a rival gangster who's crossed the line. And Pesci gives him a look that should have people around them evacuating the building. As for Pacino, he's as magnetic as Jimmy Hoffa is supposed to be and should get at least a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

The last 30 minutes is...I saw a comment that calls it "existentially disturbing" and that seems about right. People have repeatedly accused Scorsese of glorifying organized crime in his movies but you don't leave The Irishman feeling anything but mortified. It does seem to go on for too long, but without spoiling the ending, I almost feel like "going on for too long" is, for once, the point.

Really can't recommend this movie enough.
 

Chive Turkey

kiwifarms.net
Having watched it yesterday, I liked it but I have to say it wasn't without its flaws either.

+Acting was suberb. De Niro was good, and it's refreshing to see Pesci play a subtle, neutral character and Pacino give a shit and playing an actual character instead of his usual 'GREAT ASS' act.
+Great casting. A lot of memorable minor characters like in most Scorsese films, and it's fun to see a lot
+the de-aging worked surprisingly well, you could reliably tell how old the characters were supposed to be at any stage in the movie. De Niro's blue eyes were the only noticeably bad thing, its so distracting at times that I asked myself why they bothered with it.

The film's biggest drawback is its scope. It tries to do a lot of things simultaneously, meaning it ends up feeling a lot more bloated and less focused than Goodfelkas or Casino were. The movie doesn't seem to want to decide if it wants to be a historical crime narrative or more of a character study, which are elements the other two movies managed to meld together without issues. This leads to some problems:
-Some elements feel quite underdeveloped. The 'CRIME DOES NOT PAY' conclusion rings a bit hollow because we never really see Sheeran living it up with the spoils of crime. His abandonment by his daughters feels flat as well, because it's so focused on Peggy. The others seem perfectly content, so we need a scene at the end in which one of them bluntly says 'oh no, we were all terrified of you as well', which hadn't been established at all. I feel the moral of the story could've been helped by more focus on Frank's family life (beyond Peggy, that part was hammered a bit too much imo) , but that would've detracted from the main narrative, which was excessive as it was.
-There's quite some scenes which feel like unnecessary filler in a movie that's already excessively long. Shortening some key aspects of the movie is always debatable, but there's certainly scenes which weren't necessary for the plot. The Joe Gallo plot and the Bugs and Three-fingers hits for example really don't add anything to the main plot, and I suspect they were added because otherwise you'd barely have any mob hits in this movie about a mob hitman.
-The segues and time skips mess a bit with the flow of the movie. Nothing terrible, but Scorsese handled this better in his older movies

All in all, it's a good movie that's hampered a bit by overambition. One of Scorsese's weaker movies, but certainly better than 90% of films released now and definitely worth your time.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino