Not as “fun” as Goodfellas or Casino in that 20 years from now bros are going to be repeating lines with glee from the movie. It also moves at a more somber pace than those two with way less music.
Great performances by Robert Deniro and Joe Pesci of course but Al Pacino is off the charts as Jimmy Hoffa.
Was not distracted by the aging effects.
I read the book the movie is based on so I knew exactly what was going to happen next but most of the audience was audibly shocked by some of the violent scenes.
I disagree about Pacino. He was completely unbelievable as Hoffa. Hoffa was a rough tough bluecollar type. Pacino is a loudmouthed toupeed attention whore.DeNiro would have been much better and believable as Hoffa. He looks old but he still looks tough and intimidating.
Pesci was very good and understated as a mob boss.
DeNiro still brilliant at 75 and carried the film.
I felt like Netflix cheaped out on the film. Gone was a music budget that helped make Goodfellas and Casino so good. There was little action. Mostly the film is conversation and exposition through conversation.
Study the history of the period. Historical figures and events fly by and those who arent aware of the backstory could easily get lost in this 210 minute film.
Remember that the narrator is unreliable.
Its really not necessary to see this in a theater. As mentioned earlier, there is little action.
Those are fair comments except the movie cost $140 million to make so I can’t say anyone “cheaped out”!
Pacino was definitely buffoonish (he kinda reminded me of Silvio on Sopranos) but it was so over the top I was thoroughly entertained.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not because it’s not fun, but because it will have no cultural impact. Taxi Driver wasn’t fun, but everybody, even those who haven’t seen it, know “You talkin’ to me?”.
Netflix turned it into a glorified made-for-TV movie by denying it a decent wide theatrical release, and there’s SO much stuff on TV to watch it’ll get lost. It may or may not have been popular/made money with a wide release, but we’ll never know. We can assume it is a “box office bomb” since it cost so much to make and is playing in so few theaters, but Netflix, unlike all the major and most of the indie studios, won’t release the numbers. People are bitching about Disney while letting Netflix get away with murder.
The whole movie screamed, “It’s time to let younger actors step up and do their thing.” Goodfellas was Ray Liotta and Joe Pesci energy. Wife and girlfriend energy were strong, too, to bring something else to the movie depicting the life of some men.
Now, with The Irishman, we cling to scraps, with old guys who are too old to bring energy to the movie, or so old that they prevent the writing freedom that would enable it. In the end, it was a nice, boring homage to some guys who were too old to bring it anymore. It suffered because of them or was written down several levels for them.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I think the movie definitely suffered from using the same actors to depict the same characters over decades. DeNiro, Pesci, and Pacino would have been fine playing the characters at their own ages, or close to it. But for me, having them play much younger men through CGI just didn’t work well. What would Godfather II have been like if the technology had been available then and Brando had played Vito as a younger man as well? Surely there are younger actors who could have handled the role. The movie wanted to feature three iconic actors as much as possible, but I don’t think this was the best way to tell a dynamic story.
I started watching it and I thought De Niro was excellent, as usual, but the story was kind of dragging, and it was my only day off of the week, it was late and I was tired so I dozed off. I awoke seven hours later and the movie was still on and there was still an hour and half left, so I bailed.
I may try to catch up on it again. When I woke up in the middle I saw Pacino’s Hoffa and I at least thought that he was acting this time, not just doing Pacino doing someone else as he seems to have done lately.
I didn’t understand any of that scene. What was the point of tricking Hoffa into thinking he was meeting with Tony? What exactly was Frank and that other guy doing in Hoffa’s house before Chuckie came to pick them up, and why did they take Hoffa back there?
IRL Chuckie O’Brian was a suspected accomplice according to the FBI. He at least was driving Tony Giacalone’s car around, who was supposed to be meeting Hoffa. The story about the fish was true as well. O’Brian claimed he had to deliver a frozen salmon that morning and that was why he took the car to a car wash later. Sheeran said he drove the car but was unaware Hoffa was to be killed.
It wasn’t Hoffa’s house, but one they obtained in order to lure him there in promise of a meeting kill him out of sight. The other two guys besides Frank and Bugs were there to dispose of the body after Sheeran did the deed.
It wasn’t Hoffa’s house, but one they obtained in order to lure him there in promise of a meeting to kill him out of sight. The other two guys besides Frank and Bugs were there to dispose of the body after Sheeran did the deed.
I thought that Pacino did a good job acting, in particular in not playing another version of himself, but the person he was portraying was not Hoffa but some other creation. I recall Hoffa from the 1960s and 1970s and he wasn’t like Pacino’s portrayal.
I liked it.
De-aging is in its early days. The results were mixed. I thought Joe Pesci was done well, Al Pacino was ok and De Niro varied almost scenery ti scene.
In retrospect they should have for the younger scenes, especially the more athletic ones gone with at stand in with a younger version of the actors faces added.
But they weren’t (shown as being) there when Sheeran killed Hoffa. Seemed unnecessarily complex, to have them there, then gone, then come back to dispose of the body.
And what was Bugs cutting on the foyer floor? Looked like linoleum. I assume to wrap the body in?
I thought the movie did a poor job WRT Chuckie’s involvement as well. Just about all they showed him do before was stick up for Hoffa in the ctrm. If so loyal, why did he help kill Hoffa? If an unwitting accomplice, why not mentioned later?
Oh - I guess they didn’t want the movie to run too long!
WRT to chuckie and also the daughters, I don’t think this was a regular movie. It was a mini series trying to tell a lot of information in a short time frame. I agree they forgot to make chuckies story coherent. It was a big deal to have his kid driving to the murder scene.
And the aging, flashing back, de aging, applied to a whole family of three girls(?) in and out, up and down, it’s confusing. The little girl we saw become disillusioned is maybe the grown up woman giving that look?
I’m in my late 50s so I’m not too, too far removed from these guys. But it did seems as though 4 old Hollywood types said "heh, lets all go to the studio, and have one final good old time hanging out. And oh by the way we’ll film it too!
It didn’t have much energy. And Pachino didn’t see a scene that he couldn’t chew his way though. My last issue is not matter what one thought about the age CGI, they certainly could change how they moved. And they moved as if they were old men. Took me (and my wife) out of the flashback scenes.
I found the flashback within a flackback to be…weird. Not bad but disorienting. One moment we see Frank in the nursing home. He takes us back to the time when he and Russ were setting out on the road trip with their wives. They pull over for smokes and notice the gas station. And then we are taken on another flashback journey.
It kinda reminded me of Inception. But unlike Inception, it didn’t serve a clear purpose. Why not start the story at the gas station scene?
Is it because Frank is old, and old people are given to starting one story and then going off on a tandem with another story?
