Straight Dope Message Board

[KarlGauss]

I saw it the day it was released on Netflix. Then I watched it again.

I think The Irishman is one of the great movies of all time. It is a film that moves on multiple levels, with intersecting themes that carry it to a profound conclusion.

On one level, you can watch it as Scorsese's homage to the genre (which, to a large extent, is his), or to its stars. DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino are playing themselves playing characters we already know. Characters whose fate, like that of the actors' themselves, like of all us, is fixed, their first breath signaling the excruciating wait for the inevitable last.

The acting in The Irishmen deserves a thread of its own. These are capstone performances by the best of their generation. Some will quibble that Pacino's Hoffa was not Hoffa. I would answer that he has created the Hoffa we'll remember. The movie is full of tragedies not the least of which is that one of Pacino, Pesci, and DeNiro will not be on stage to accept an Oscar. A smaller tragedy, but tragic nonetheless, is that Harvey Keitel, showing us genius in every second of his minute or two of screen time, will get no more than passing praise. In the company of brilliance, even the brightest can lose some lustre.

The Irishman is about how we become deaf to the pervasive evil and corruption that has been the soundtrack of our lives. About inquiries, obstruction, prevarication, and resignation. Scorsese's use of landmark political events is not simply to provide a chronology. It's to remind us what happened, what happens still, and what will happen next year.

But it's the many other levels that elevate The Irishmen to greatness. It is about the choices we make. The ones we regret and most especially about the ones we never took. It's about loyalty and the fluid morality we create to serve it. It's about sinning, atonement, and forgiveness (even if forgiveness is self-given). It's about family, whether tied together in blood or with blood; about the parents we have, the parents we choose, and the parents who choose us. And it is very much about mortality - that we all have a date with death is hardly a new observation but Scorsese reminds us that with every choice we make, we murder a possibility.

It is a magnificent film. 1

[KarlGauss]

Can't believe I misspelled the title in the OP. Please, if a kind mod could change it to 'The Irishman', I would be grateful. Thanks 2

[Chronos]

Fixed. 3

[ZonexandScout]

I would disagree about some of what you've written. I found it to be fomulaic and rather dull. Trite, in fact. The emphasis on Hoffa (no spoilers) seemed to me to be the result of someone (Scorsese, Pacino, whoever) wanting to make sure that Pacino had extra screen time. (One notable omission was that nobody brought up the fact that one of the conditions of Hoffa's pardon from Nixon was that he could not serve as an officer in the union. The legal battle over this is nowhere to be found.)

In the book on which the movie was based, there is a great deal of detail about how Frank started "painting houses" and his thoughts about his actions. This is all dealt with in a mini-montage of several shots in the movie, lasting a total of under a minute.

Overall, a huge disappointment to me. It is one of the few Scorsese movies that I have no desire to see again. 4

[Lamoral]

I have mixed feelings about it. There were parts of it that were absolutely riveting - not because of the drama but rather the lack of it, which created tension and suspense and a sense of unease that pervaded the whole movie. Al Pacino's acting performance was great - he managed to make Hoffa so obnoxious, arrogant, and annoying that *I* wanted to kill the guy! De Niro's was a little bit more dry and opaque; he was more of a figure that things happened around, rather than to, and the de-aging effect was a little strange and distracting at times. I think it was more effective on Pesci.

I wished Harvey Keitel had more screen time, but I realize his role was rather peripheral. It was cool though to recognize a ton of faces from The Sopranos.

It's definitely a Scorsese movie, cinematography and narrative wise. But it's not the "drugs and sex and glamor" kind of Scorsese, it was more bleak. Even the color palette was kind of grim.

(Have to run, more later) 5

[Bijou Drains]

I have watched the first half and it is boring. Maybe the 2nd half is better . I did not notice the CGI faces so they were very well done. 6

[SanDiegoTim]

Just watched it. I think it appropriate to view it not only for entertainment value, but also historical. It's just a film and it does not (legally) put to rest the Hoffa mystery. Those that may know, have taken the answer to their graves.

Interestingly, and of no particular value, back in the mid/late 1960's I knew Joseph Glimco. He ran Teamsters Local 777 in Chicago. Bo Deitl portrayed him in the film. 7

[DCnDC]

Dang, the Goodfellas got old! While I appreciate them not trying to pass someone else off as young De Niro, no amount of CGI can cover up the fact that the man is in his mid-70s. No matter how smooth they make his skin look, he's still got that "old man hunch" and he just moves like an old man.

Now, of course I realize, what else are they gonna do? But still, it was somewhat distracting. I kept having to try and figure out what time period we were supposed to be in by the set and props, because the actor's faces weren't a lot of help. 8

[KidCharlemagne]

I've only watched about 30 minutes so far but I'll say this: They may have de-aged DeNiro's face, but they sure as heol didn't de-age his body and movement. The scene where he

SPOILER:

stomps on the grocery store owner's hand for pushing around his daughter

is just too ridiculous looking. 9

[ZonexandScout]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

I've only watched about 30 minutes so far but I'll say this: They may have de-aged DeNiro's face, but they sure as heol didn't de-age his body and movement. The scene where he

....is just too ridiculous looking.

(Edited to remove spoiler.)

Second. I mentioned this specific scene to my wife as being an example of using a very bad take. (Or, an example of needing to use a stunt double and blocking the scene so you don't see their face.) Lo and behold...I read a review of the film on the BBC news website that evening and the reviewer also singled out this scene as being a very bad choice on the director's part. 10

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

I've only watched about 30 minutes so far but I'll say this: They may have de-aged DeNiro's face, but they sure as heol didn't de-age his body and movement. The scene where he

SPOILER:

stomps on the grocery store owner's hand for pushing around his daughter

is just too ridiculous looking.

Yeah, I was actually confused during that scene because it didn't look violent at all. 11

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

I've only watched about 30 minutes so far but I'll say this: They may have de-aged DeNiro's face, but they sure as heol didn't de-age his body and movement.

That just took me out of the movie over and over again. Hell, even the face de-aging doesn't look good; he might not look 70, but he sure as shit doesn't look like anyone who could be called "young man."

But he clearly moves like an old man. There is no hiding that. Humans see that; you cannot fool the mind that way.

The movie is just crappy. It's the same movie Scorsese has made before, with mostly the same people. Casting DeNiro was just a terrible decision, and I've seen Goodfellas, Casino, and all the rest before. It is far, far too long and does nothing new. 12

[GreenWyvern]

It's interesting that the people here who say they didn't like the movie are going against a strong general consensus of both critics and public.

Current ratings:

Rotten Tomatoes

Critics 96% (328 reviews)
Audience 86% (918 reviews)

IMDb

8.4 (73,358 ratings)

Metacritic

Critics 94% - 54 positive reviews, no mixed or negative reviews
Users 85% - 308 positive, 25 mixed, 28 negative

The film is almost certain to win several Oscars.

Of course there is no arguing about taste, but I'm wondering if most of the arguing here is perhaps more about arguing for the sake of arguing than the merits of the movie. 13

[monstro]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

It's interesting that the people here who say they didn't like the movie are going against a strong general consensus of both critics and public.

Current ratings:

Rotten Tomatoes

Critics 96% (328 reviews)
Audience 86% (918 reviews)

IMDb

8.4 (73,358 ratings)

Metacritic

Critics 94% - 54 positive reviews, no mixed or negative reviews
Users 85% - 308 positive, 25 mixed, 28 negative

The film is almost certain to win several Oscars.

Of course there is no arguing about taste, but I'm wondering if most of the arguing here is perhaps more about arguing for the sake of arguing than the merits of the movie.

I actually don't see anyone (except you) arguing anything. I see people posting their opinions about things they liked and didn't like about the movie. We are all just trading opinions here. Not having a debate.

By the way, appealing to the bandwagon isn't going to convince anyone to reconsider their own feelings about something. 90% of people may love watermelon, but that matters not one bit about how I feel about watermelon (I think it is the fruit form of hate).

While the movie had some great performances and a compelling enough story line, I still haven't gone back to finish the last 20 minutes. So I'd say it was about 20 minutes too long. I don't know why this opinion should raise anyone's eyebrows, given the fact that the movie does have an unconventionally long duration. And honestly, I don't really care that 94% of critics do not agree with me on this point. Why should I?

But obviously YMMV. 14

[Brayne Ded]

I haven't seen the movie, but from the comments here it looks as if it either a monumentally boring film to those who don't know the references and don't know the (now aging) stars, and and on the other a tribute to all the mob movies, played by the same old crew, and showing their stuff. Well, I'll see it one day, but 3.5 hours requires some serious stamina.

I suppose that the director chose to CGI the characters to look younger becuse we all know what they looked like when young because they got famous early on. I have not seen how well it worked, but I can only say that it is very rare for someone to be able to play someone much older than yourself without something looking wrong. And rejuvenating from 70 to 30? Too much of a jump. You can do it in the opposite direction, up to a point, but you get thicker and heavier with age and you don't have the same fluidity of movement. (Said he, creaking painfully.) I think you really do need wetware actors to play younger people. If you know the actor, you immediately say: "Ha, he didn't look like that when he was young!"

I notice that many adverts use CGI. Sometimes the faces are either CGI or heavily edited human. Either way I find it creepy and impersonal, but then nobody asked me. The same goes for adding dead actors to films with CGI. Yes, Gladiator and Oliver Reed. They do say that the living and the dead should never try to meet, and I think they have a point. 15

[Dinsdale]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

...
Of course there is no arguing about taste, but I'm wondering if most of the arguing here is perhaps more about arguing for the sake of arguing than the merits of the movie.

Wonder away. I watch movies primarily for entertainment (which can take several forms.) To use one comparison, I found Goodfellas entertaining, and have watched it several times. I could not say the same about The Irishman. And personally, I was not as bothered by the CGI as some were. 16

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

Of course there is no arguing about taste, but I'm wondering if most of the arguing here is perhaps more about arguing for the sake of arguing than the merits of the movie.

I'm not a populist, and fact someone else thinks it's a great movie doesn 't mean I have to.

As long as we're accusing others of not presently honest arguments, I really think a lot of the over-the-top praise for the movies is unthinking and reflexive; the assumption that, well, it's a Scorsese movie with guys like Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, so it must be great. 17

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by RickJay

. . I really think a lot of the over-the-top praise for the movies is unthinking and reflexive;

FTR, I was thinking when I saw the movie and even more after I watched it. 18

[KidCharlemagne]

Someone else take a look at 1:03:15 when Pacino is behind his desk yelling about some guy selling his insurance to his "fuck'n father's locals." Pacino pauses because he clearly can't remember his line (even though they edited to make it look like he was so angry that he couldn't speak). He even looks up and smiles to the guy across the desk. How they thought that was the take to use is beyond me. I can't think of a worse editing choice in the history of decent cinema. 19

[Bijou Drains]

2nd half was a little better but overall not very good. Very slow and too long. I really prefer the Godfather, Sopranos and Goodfellas . 20

[Dinsdale]

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains

2nd half was a little better but overall not very good. Very slow and too long. I really prefer the Godfather, Sopranos and Goodfellas .

Maybe you did it right by taking it in two bites. My wife and I thought the first half (or maybe first 3d) enjoyable, but MAN did it turn into a long 3.5 hrs! Come to think of it, it probably woulda made 2 decent movies: 1 strictly about the mob and the 2d centered around Hoffa.

I guess I'm too much of a stortytelling philistine, but I like my stories a little more linear. With some of the scenes, I had a hard time figuring out whether they were supposed to have occurred before or after other scenes, so the result was, I gave up trying to figure it out.

Another problem I have with some "period" films, I had a hard time telling some of the women apart. 21

[kayaker]

I knew nothing about the movie, I just decided to watch it the other day. I loved it. At one point I realized I'd been watching it for a couple of hours and was surprised when I looked and saw I had over an hour to go. But I loved it and will watch it again. 22

[Bijou Drains]

Scorsese went on a rant against Marvel type movies. But he did not seem to have problem using Marvel type CGI. 23

[Son of a Rich]

The de-aging wasn't bad, but I thought it laughable that Pesci would, in the course of helping De Niro with his truck, would call him "kid". 24

[ExTank]

I was impressed with Pesci's subdued, nuanced performance. Not his usual role, but damned if he didn't nail it.

Kind of makes me wonder what other acting goodness we might have been treated to if Hollywood wasn't so quick to typecast. 25

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by ExTank

I was impressed with Pesci's subdued, nuanced performance. Not his usual role, but damned if he didn't nail it.

Kind of makes me wonder what other acting goodness we might have been treated to if Hollywood wasn't so quick to typecast.

I thought he was great too. DeNiro and Pacino just aren't good here. I've always thought they were both overrated and critics mistook intensity for acting chops. 26

[What the .... ?!?!]

Did Steven VanZandt have any lines and was that his voice singing as Jerry Vale? I was surprised that he got the credit that he did (one of the first dozen or so that appeared). 27

[monstro]

I thought it was OK. I haven't watched the last 20 minutes, but I'm not thinking they will make a difference.

Granted I have poor facial recognition abilities, but I didn't know that was Al Pacino until I came to this thread. I was actually going to find out what that actor's name was on Google and then appoint him the poor man's Al Pacino. I thought his acting was terrific, don't get me wrong. But with his hair styled that way and his face not so gaunt, I didn't know who he was. I was able to spot Harvey Keitel right away, and he was on the screen for just five minutes!

What is it with Robert DeNiro playing an Irish guy who is in the mob but not really? I love Bobby, but come on now. And get out of here having a 77-year-old guy playing the part of a 30-something year-old. If it had been anyone besides De Niro doing that, I would have bailed out after the first 10 minutes.

I appreciated the history lesson about Jimmy Hoffa, even if all the facts weren't presented. I used to do research in the Hackensack Meadowlands (where the Giants Stadium is), and people would always tell me to look out for his body while I was slogging around in the marsh. I knew he was the Teamsters president with connections to the mob, but that's all I knew.

I enjoyed the more subdued Joe Pesci. Much respect for Russ! 28

[KarlGauss]

Interesting to me that many people were taken out of the movie by the CGI. I didn't really notice it much and when I did, it didn't matter to me. I was just strung along by the characters themselves.

I am beginning to think it helps to enjoy the movie if you're long-in-the-tooth yourself. For me, Scorsese's finished something he started building almost 50 years ago and I feel like I was along for the ride. And, of course, if you were old enough to see Mean Streets when it came out, you've got plenty of things to reflect on, yourself. 29

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Different strokes, I guess. I thought it was an absolute masterpiece.

Every performance - Pesci's in particular - was right as rain. I will single out just one: watch DeNiro's face during the uncomfortable car ride near the end with Pacino. He's been in a series of stupid comedies of late that made me forget what a master performer he is. These scenes of which I speak are understated and powerful.

Scorcese enjoyed the luxury of a long running time (I guess this is why is was a Netflix release?), and let the camera and scenes linger a hair or two longer than we are accustomed to. Some may consider this a negative, but I believe it added a realism that Hollywood seems afraid of these days, what with the half-second jump cuts and shaky cams that so often permeate the screen. I enjoyed every minute, beginning to end. Hell, he could have made a 10-episode mini-series out of the material and I'd be all aboard.

Genre-wise, I'm not quite ready to elevate "The Irishman" above the first two Godfathers, but I wouldn't be shy about mentioning it in the same breath as "GoodFellas". 30

[Loach]

I didn’t read any other posts to avoid a hint of spoilers. I was about to put it on and then I saw the run time. I’ll have to psych myself up for it. 31

[minlokwat]

Originally Posted by KarlGauss

Interesting to me that many people were taken out of the movie by the CGI. I didn't really notice it much and when I did, it didn't matter to me.

I guess it depends on how well it is done. In this case, I found a blue-eyed De Niro a constant distraction.

And overall I found the movie a solid "meh". And that dénouement went on way too long.

My $0.02. 32

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by minlokwat

I guess it depends on how well it is done. In this case, I found a blue-eyed De Niro a constant distraction.

And overall I found the movie a solid "meh". And that dénouement went on way too long.

My $0.02.

Wtf was the point of the blue eyes? I found it incredibly distracting too. 33

[Son of a Rich]

Yeah, it's got a long run time, but that's why God made pause buttons. I'm wondering how old De Niro was supposed to be when he first met Pesci at the gas station. The de-aging effects were pretty good overall, but Pesci calling him "kid" was a little ludicrous. 34

[Bijou Drains]

Pacino had a few scenes with his typical overacting. 35

[Chefguy]

It was okay, but parts of it really could have used better editing. I think it was a mistake to use the older actors as their younger selves. It just didn't work. While they can use tricks to make them look younger, the eyes don't lie, nor does the movement of an aging body.

Did anybody else notice Hoffa's wife? She was the drug mule in Goodfellas. 36

[singular1]

I sure wish I could’ve seen the movie Karl saw. Because the Irishman I just watched was one really long cliche of dull... I couldn’t even finish it. It wasn’t worth it. 37

[Bijou Drains]

this August article says Sheeran made up a lot of the stuff in the book and movie

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/th...tory-lies.html

publisher responds to the article above and the article author responds to publisher

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/th...l-tonelli.html 38

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Different strokes, I guess. I thought it was an absolute masterpiece.

Every performance - Pesci's in particular - was right as rain. I will single out just one: watch DeNiro's face during the uncomfortable car ride near the end with Pacino. He's been in a series of stupid comedies of late that made me forget what a master performer he is. These scenes of which I speak are understated and powerful.

Scorcese enjoyed the luxury of a long running time (I guess this is why is was a Netflix release?), and let the camera and scenes linger a hair or two longer than we are accustomed to. Some may consider this a negative, but I believe it added a realism that Hollywood seems afraid of these days, what with the half-second jump cuts and shaky cams that so often permeate the screen. I enjoyed every minute, beginning to end. Hell, he could have made a 10-episode mini-series out of the material and I'd be all aboard.

Genre-wise, I'm not quite ready to elevate "The Irishman" above the first two Godfathers, but I wouldn't be shy about mentioning it in the same breath as "GoodFellas".

I rather enjoyed it, overall. I do agree that the CGI young mains still moved like old men, about the only fix for that would have been to CGI the young mains faces onto a body double for the action scenes. I did really enjoy the slower paced lack of real blood guts and gore that many mob/crime pictures end up being. The lack of scary jump scenes was also nice. mrAru called it more of a mockumentary in his opinion [we both were growing up in the 60s/early 70s when the later action took place] 39

[drad dog]

I noticed that Scorcese went for a different feel on some of this. There are more moments of sponteneity on this than I ever saw in his work. He let them riff. I don't think I ever saw that before in his stuff.

OTOH the grocery store scene could have been cut: It was the same old "Italian father vendetta" porn scene you see in all the gangster flicks. And when it happened it blew the whole conceit of a young deniro out of the water. Deniro looks small in the movie. 40

[GreenWyvern]

Originally Posted by drad dog

OTOH the grocery store scene could have been cut: It was the same old "Italian father vendetta" porn scene you see in all the gangster flicks. And when it happened it blew the whole conceit of a young deniro out of the water. Deniro looks small in the movie.

I'm surprised you would think that. That scene was vital. It was the point where Peggy's feelings towards her father changed.

Far from protecting his daughters, his act of violence destroyed his relationship with his daughters, Peggy in particular. After that, they felt they couldn't go to him with any problem, they couldn't trust him not to overreact and do something terrible, they feared him rather than loving him. 41

[GreenWyvern]

Missed edit window:

And, of course, he wasn't an 'Italian father', but an Irish father.

It amazes me how many people focus on trivia like the CGI, and miss the powerful story and subtle details of the movie. 42

[monstro]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

Missed edit window:

And, of course, he wasn't an 'Italian father', but an Irish father.

It amazes me how many people focus on trivia like the CGI, and miss the powerful story and subtle details of the movie.

Do you think The Godfather II would have been as good if Marlon Brando had tried to pass himself off as a 20-year-old?

Because I don't think it would have been as good, even with CGI. And personally, I liked that Robert De Niro was able to shine in the role of Vito. It was a role that launched his career.

Seeing him playing whatever age he was trying to play in this film made me instantly think about all the younger actors who would love to be the next "De Niro." But they can't now because of CGI and an audience who sees such things as "trivial".

What amazes me are people who think CGI and casting choices are "trivia" rather than artistic choices that should be subjected to criticism just like any other artistic choice. All of it is fair game for scrutiny, IMHO. I understand that people can be taken out of a film for stupid reasons, but I don't think it's stupid to think like they should have done something differently to make Robert De Niro more believable as a "kid". Like, when he was beating up the storekeeper he really did move like how you'd expect a 76-year-old guy to move. That scene would have worked better with a body double, IMHO. 43

[GreenWyvern]

Originally Posted by monstro

What amazes me are people who think CGI and casting choices are "trivia" rather than artistic choices that should be subjected to criticism just like any other artistic choice.

The casting choices are not trivia. The cast were exceptional. It would be difficult to get that quality of acting with less experienced and capable actors. 44

[GreenWyvern]

I think the people who disliked the movie are making a category mistake.

They are taking it to be a standard gangster movie, when in fact it's a lot closer to an art movie.

It's subverting the whole idea of a gangster movie - a mockumentary, as aruvqan says - and commenting on things like the nature of society, the nature of evil, the emptiness and meaninglessness of a life badly lived. All those freeze frames telling you the fate of various characters ('so-and-so, died 19__, shot eight times in his kitchen') are there for a reason.

What we should be seeing throughout the movie is the stupidity, the silliness, the petty egos, the bad decisions. The focus is on mortality and aging, the passage of time. The young female doctor at the end who has never even heard of Jimmy Hoffa underlines the total futility and pointlessness of everything that happened. 45

[Dinsdale]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

I think the people who disliked the movie are making a category mistake.

They are taking it to be a standard gangster movie, when in fact it's a lot closer to an art movie.

...

Hmm - I was looking for it to be an enjoyable movie - which it ceased to be a coupla hours in. 46

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

I think the people who disliked the movie are making a category mistake.

They are taking it to be a standard gangster movie, when in fact it's a lot closer to an art movie.

It's subverting the whole idea of a gangster movie - a mockumentary, as aruvqan says - and commenting on things like the nature of society, the nature of evil, the emptiness and meaninglessness of a life badly lived. All those freeze frames telling you the fate of various characters ('so-and-so, died 19__, shot eight times in his kitchen') are there for a reason.

What we should be seeing throughout the movie is the stupidity, the silliness, the petty egos, the bad decisions. The focus is on mortality and aging, the passage of time. The young female doctor at the end who has never even heard of Jimmy Hoffa underlines the total futility and pointlessness of everything that happened.

You mean Goodfellas? I think everyone is taking it as a Martin Scorcese movie basically. He's been doing this stuff for a while. This is not a fresh new take on anything, except for the improvy talk. He is all about control. 47

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

. . . The focus is on mortality and aging, the passage of time. The young female doctor at the end who has never even heard of Jimmy Hoffa underlines the total futility and pointlessness of everything that happened.

Nailed it. 48

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

... The focus is on mortality and aging, the passage of time. ...

The three and a half hours that passed while watching it and how much we aged?

I readily admit I've never been a fan of the genre so likely missed some of the references made to Scorcese's other mob works.

But really three and half hours to make the profound statement that we get old and what was important to us during our lives may not be remembered by those who follow us?

Acted well enough. The CGI did not bother me or take me out. The fantasy aspect of this one mobster being like Forrest Gump, everywhere from Bay of Pigs to killing Hoffa? Suspension of disbelief works fine. It is not real history. Something worth seeing as an intellectual exercise in the art form of making movies by a master of the craft. But a movie like this works for me based on how much it can make me feel about the characters and the relationships as they go along. The love between Russ and Frank? Just didn't feel it. It left me as cold as the fish must have been when first put in the back of that car. It maybe didn't stink as bad but "profound conclusion"? I didn't see one in this movie. 49

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by GreenWyvern

I'm surprised you would think that. That scene was vital. It was the point where Peggy's feelings towards her father changed.

Far from protecting his daughters, his act of violence destroyed his relationship with his daughters, Peggy in particular. After that, they felt they couldn't go to him with any problem, they couldn't trust him not to overreact and do something terrible, they feared him rather than loving him.

Hm. It seemed like a cliche and I just went "here we go again." How many times have we seen that in the sopranos, the godfather, the bronx tale, on and on. The father has his kid insulted and .... It is like porno to me, on the exploitative side.

How it affects the daughter I have to admit i didn't consider but is it really a new wrinkle? All mafia stories have that kind of goo in them. I'm a little jaded by now but aren't we all? It's a long history of this stuff. Yes the little girl has a killer for a dad.

Then when it happens he looks like a little old man. It might have not had the impact it could have is all I'm saying. 50