Ugh.

Watched 45 minutes - boring!

Bailed. Couldn't see doing the entire 3 1/2 hours.

Long, yes, but I will watch it again. This seems to be more of a character study than anything. I don’t ever recall seeing DeNiro this vulnerable. Pacino was the highlight for me, though. Again, I’d watch again just to maybe get what I didn’t pick up at first. If you don’t like long and drawn out that’s one thing, but long and drawn out with this kind of talent I’m not quite understanding why you bailed so quickly.

Quoted from SAC Long, yes, but I will watch it again. This seems to be more of a character study than anything. I don’t ever recall seeing DeNiro this vulnerable. Pacino was the highlight for me, though. Again, I’d watch again just to maybe get what I didn’t pick up at first. If you don’t like long and drawn out that’s one thing, but long and drawn out with this kind of talent I’m not quite understanding why you bailed so quickly.

It was like I've seen this before vibe.  Yes - the cast is incredible.

Quoted from eldave1 It was like I've seen this before vibe.  Yes - the cast is incredible.

Fair point. For me, stylistically, this didn’t remind me of either Goodfellas or Casino, if that’s what you were referring to. It was much more subdued than those films, more nuanced, and I’m guessing that was intentional as this was told from DeNiro’s point of view, and he was an old man telling the story. Reflecting on his past. Anyway, definitely deserving of another viewing.

Robbie Robertson’s score was haunting.

3 1/2 hours?

That's a pass from me. It would have to be an absolute epic to get involved in that.

A long film? Yes. But not for Netflix. While this is a film and not a series, it seems odd to me that those with the service and binge upon series finds The Irishman not worthy to watch because of its length. The bigger question is does it feel slow?  My answer to that is no. Netflix is right platform for the film. Even though it had a brief, limited theatrical run to qualify for awards considerations, it would be troublesome for any studio to market and release. The film had a whopper of a budget, most of it going to CGI with the best de-aging effects to date.


I'm split on the film. I don't think it's a huge masterpiece everyone seems to make it out to be. One big plus storywise is in the latter half of the film, where the Hoffa murder splits apart  Frank's family and due to the nature of Frank's mob connected business, the majority of his friends are dead or dying, some of who, including Hoffa, he killed. (note: this is only according to the book and film; they also touch on JFK assassination theories, so...)

The three plus hours goes though decades; sometimes it's so jarring when Frank's daughters grow up  I didn't know who's who. Peggy (Anna Paquin) is the more focused, but I wasn't sure which daughter it was until her name was said. (although this may have been intentional; Frank's actions over the years alienate his kids from him)

There have been other (and even better) Gangster films which touch on similar ground. There was even a better film about Jimmy Hoffa (Hoffa, 1992) but this is Frank's story. And I'm sorry, his story the way he tells it  is fascinating, but it isn't compelling.

Quoted from eldave1 Ugh. Watched 45 minutes - boring! Bailed. Couldn't see doing the entire 3 1/2 hours.

That's exactly what I did.

I put it down to my mood. This film requires effort in a way, say, Wolf of Wall Street and Goodfellas didn't.

Curious to see how much of the avalanche of praise is reflexive. The truth will always come out in the wash.

Will come back to this, but should add that the Netflix small screen factor is probably no help. Netflix simply has to find a way to make big screen distribution work for them going forward, especially in light of the threats to its streaming business.

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley A long film? Yes. But not for Netflix. While this is a film and not a series, it seems odd to me that those with the service and binge upon series finds The Irishman not worthy to watch because of its length. The bigger question is does it feel slow?  My answer to that is no. Netflix is right platform for the film. Even though it had a brief, limited theatrical run to qualify for awards considerations, it would be troublesome for any studio to market and release. The film had a whopper of a budget, most of it going to CGI with the best de-aging effects to date. I'm split on the film. I don't think it's a huge masterpiece everyone seems to make it out to be. One big plus storywise is in the latter half of the film, where the Hoffa murder splits apart  Frank's family and due to the nature of Frank's mob connected business, the majority of his friends are dead or dying, some of who, including Hoffa, he killed. (note: this is only according to the book and film; they also touch on JFK assassination theories, so...) The three plus hours goes though decades; sometimes it's so jarring when Frank's daughters grow up  I didn't know who's who. Peggy (Anna Paquin) is the more focused, but I wasn't sure which daughter it was until her name was said. (although this may have been intentional; Frank's actions over the years alienate his kids from him) There have been other (and even better) Gangster films which touch on similar ground. There was even a better film about Jimmy Hoffa (Hoffa, 1992) but this is Frank's story. And I'm sorry, his story the way he tells it  is fascinating, but it isn't compelling.

Just to be clear, for me it wasn't the length oh, it was the pace. If I found it compelling I would have watched it as long as I could has stayed awake we're going back to it right away. I just found it plodding. But I am going to give it another chance.

Most of Scorsese's films have at least a bit of black humor (while others go over the top) due to the wild eccentricities of it's characters. That's what made them so quotable, the scenes so memorable, and timeless.

And even if this film was never meant to have that humor, it's what people come to expect I think and it ends up hurting the film. Obviously there's no need to go crazy with it, but just a pinch more woulda helped make it easier to watch.

The film is just so deadpan and monotone. And with its length, those factors are exaggerated.

Its not a terrible film, but I dont understand the acclaim.

Quoted from CameronD Most of Scorsese's films have at least a bit of black humor (while others go over the top) due to the wild eccentricities of it's characters. That's what made them so quotable, the scenes so memorable, and timeless. And even if this film was never meant to have that humor, it's what people come to expect I think and it ends up hurting the film. Obviously there's no need to go crazy with it, but just a pinch more woulda helped make it easier to watch. The film is just so deadpan and monotone. And with its length, those factors are exaggerated. Its not a terrible film, but I dont understand the acclaim.

Yep - and in a sense if was kind of like watching a mash-up of all his previous films - of course without the characters that POP - like Nicholson's role in the departed.

I just need to see if it’s boring for the same people who didn’t praise Once Upon A Time.

And yep. Not gonna see this one.

Somewhere I read, If you have insomnia this is the perfect movie for you. You will be asleep within 30 minutes.  However, I will not go that far.

Not going to write a thesis on this film but... Martin Scorsese had made some very good ones in this genre.  However, this isn't one.  JMHO.  If you have seen Goodfellas or Casino, then you have pretty much seen The Irishman.  Just a slightly different story.  I suppose it's told well but still at  a whopping 209 minutes it's just tremendously too long and boring.  No real surprises.  The constant facial CGI didn't help.  Liked most of Marty's films, but this ranks near the bottom for me.

That being said, I hope it’s not a swan song for Pesci, Pacino and De Nero.

Quoted from eldave1 It was like I've seen this before vibe.  Yes - the cast is incredible.

This is exactly how I felt the entire time as I broke it up into three sittings to watch.

I know so much about this   topic because I love documentaries on this genre but at the same time seeing these figures in action makes it more enjoyable even when knowing the outcome.

Kill The Irishman which I thought was the same story was infinitely better knowing the backstory and all.

I watched one on the real sopranos and on wire tap they were comparing themselves to the actors pretty much ratting on themselves haha

I was fortunate enough to catch this on the big screen in Japan as it showed for a week here before going to Netflix which I don't have.

I loved it. A real surprise for me, very different to his other gangster films. Gone is the exuberance and bravura of those earlier works, replaced with a much more sombre, ruminative tone. It feels like a summation, a reckoning. The last act in particular is masterful.

I think people's mileage will vary depending on their interest in the subject matter, others will go into it expecting Goodfellas 2, and others will simply be bored by its deliberate pacing and that's all fair enough.

I think De Niro is vulnerable but also not really. His character is very understated and evinces that stiff upper lip demeanour which defined men of his ilk during that era. He's a war veteran, he's seen some nasty shit, its going to take a LOT to faze him. I longed for a full break down scene where he really came to terms with what he'd done but that's not the character, or the real person, I assume. And this is the point, this is the primary reason he ends up so alone and alienated from the world by the end,

Yes, as someone already said, the score is amazing, particularly the piece that's played during one of the last montages. The repeated harmonica refrain which gradually peters out to a guttural groan. Perfect.

All in all I really enjoyed it. While I kind of expected it to have the same energy as Scorsese's other gangster films at first, I really came to appreciate the constrained direction and performances. The pace and long running time felt almost necessary in order for the last act to work as well as it did.

The deaging effects were a problem for me, though. DeNiro's face, his body, the way he walked - I thought it was all very distracting. Same goes for the unnecessary, blue contact lenses.

I also wasn't as invested in the father/daughter storyline as I wanted to be... I get why she doesn't have that much dialogue, but it was really hard for me to care about their relationship, since it was so one-note.

One thing that never fails to brighten my day, however, is the sound of Al Pacino yelling at other people...

Quoted from Dan_P One thing that never fails to brighten my day, however, is the sound of Al Pacino yelling at other people...

That one scene of Pacino yelling at his guys in his office is hysterical!

Quoted from SAC That one scene of Pacino yelling at his guys in his office is hysterical!

Loved it! ;D

Yeah, I loved the back and forths between Pacino and Stephen Graham too. The latter more than holds his own during those exchanges.

Caught this over the weekend. It's a grower. Not as bombastic, fast-paced, or even interesting as a lot of the Scorsese films it's been compared to (Goodfellas, etc.), but I did enjoy it. I'd even say there're a good number of quotable/rewatchable scenes throughout that you'd hope for in a Scorsese film. I know; I've already rewatched them on YouTube.

Al Pacino was the standout for me. I'm not even a huge fan and this might just be my favorite performance from him. I'm glad the film went out of its way to point out that kids nowadays (i.e. me) don't know much about Jimmy Hoffa. That's true for me at least, and now I have to wonder if he really was that much of a badass (at his peril, it seems). The meeting scene with him and Steven Graham was just gold.

I also loved Joe Pesci's performance. I'd even go so far as to say it's against type. Very measured and even tender. Not how I'm used to seeing him.

Really, everyone was great. Even randos like Ray Romano, who I don't usually enjoy. I suppose I'm glossing over de Niro here, but his acting just goes without saying these days. It's an understated performance, regardless. Definitely not the crowd pleasure, I wouldn't expect. I still came away from this thinking it's basically a Jimmy Hoffa movie.

Best scene in the film involves a fish. Not like any other scene, tonally. Even Tarantino-esque. Totally caught me off guard. It's a classic for me now though. Love it!

Length wasn't as bad as I was afraid it would be. It's an ask, though, and probably not necessary. Still, I was surprised how much I enjoyed this. Relieved, even.

I watched it through in a single sitting, and overall, I was entertained, but let's be serious here.

This is too long...WAY TOO LONG.  This is dull for the most part, and although I was sure the finale would hit hard, for me, it never really did.

For what this could and should have been, considering the talent and money involved, this is a letdown for me, but it definitely has its moments and performances are top notch.

Grade - C

Quoted from Dreamscale I watched it through in a single sitting, and overall, I was entertained, but let's be serious here. This is too long...WAY TOO LONG.  This is dull for the most part, and although I was sure the finale would hit hard, for me, it never really did. For what this could and should have been, considering the talent and money involved, this is a letdown for me, but it definitely has its moments and performances are top notch. Grade - C

Concur.  Way too long