I want to love The Irishman so bad, but it's so much worse than Casino and Goodfellas. The actors are all visibly aged and tired in the scenes when they're supposed to be young and vibrant with CGI goo on their faces. It's such a long film but it feels like so little happens in it because it has no kinetic energy. The final parts of the film are excellent but the journey getting to the 3rd act is so weak in my opinion compared to his other two gangster movies that start off so vibrant but then end with a brutal downfall. The Irishman on the other hand is never vibrant, the gangster life never looks compelling, so the downfall just doesn’t land. You always hear people compliment the last 30 mins but no one ever comments on the previous 3 hours, because it’s so dull.
Yep. It sucked shit stained balls.
>>221173227I think they've all done enough.can we get something new?https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pov0MKuyJfg&ra=m
>>221173227Marty felt guilty over all the accusations that he was glorifying crime with his movies so he swung way too hard in the opposite direction by deliberately making The Irishman boring.
>>221173313wtf is this
>>2211732273rd act is kino, just some old miserable farts remembering the past as they die
>>221173227I like the whole thing, the mob has a more midwestern film here. I just can't help but think most people do in fact want movies to glamorize the mob. Whenever film shows it for what it is, people get annoyed. People say OUATIA is boring for the same reason. It is just a filtering as far as I am concerned.
>>221173227This was a great movie aside from the CGI and the infamous scene with De Niro kicking the guy. It shows how mobsters actually end up, dying alone and forgotten. Pretty depressing especially in the third act.
>>221173227I like it but it's flawed, and I don't just mean the CGI and so on.(Sidebar: they used CGI to de-age old actors to play middle-aged characters, but then they also used traditional make-up to age a middle-aged actor to play a old character. (Domenick What's-his-face as Fat Tony.) Why?)It's two contradictory films at the same time, which is the deeper problem. (Neither of which, btw, is intended to glamourise gangster life. He already did that with Casino and Goodfellas, and was clearly trying something different.)Film #1 is a simple Crime Doesn't Pay story, albeit with far greater emphasis on the Not Paying portion of it - hence the last half hour. Guy becomes gangster, guy has to betray his best friend, guy gains nothing and goes regretful to his grave. I never saw The Informer but I imagine it's probably similar.Film #2 is a complex revisionist history (albeit a mainstream one) of post-WW2 America, as told by an idiot who witnessed everything important but didn't understand what he was seeing. It's Forrest Gump for people who think the Mafia killed Kennedy.Fundamental problem: three and a half hours is much too long for film #1, and not long enough for film #2. If you're focused on film #1, you're bored; if you're focused on film #2, unless you're a Mafia obsessive, you're probably confused, because they have to rush through everything and you don't know what's happening.Despite all that it's a very good film, well-written, acted, directed, etc, has memorable moments and a rich and creamy subtext. If you can forgive it its trespasses there's much to enjoy. 8/10.
>>221173227Its just boomers clinging to fame selling a power fantasy to some old farts who might watch it. A bit like that astronaut movie with Eastwood and Lee Jones. You can already imagine the usual burger old fart in his shit sunglasses and cap looking at the screen saying "ahah ah... ah... they still got it! Just like me!". He really doesnt but you get the picture.
>>221173227I'm right there with you, op.
Goodfellas meets Forrest Gump
It seemed much truer to life than both of those, the door properly shut on worthless gangsters.
>>221176090Okay and that only happens at the end. What about the rest of the movie which was forgettable and lifeless
