The Irishman

This film is super long. Too long to sit in the cinema for as fantastic as it looks. I ran out of snacks, I was so gripped I didn't go to the toilet which meant my bladder was bursting only adding to the tension.

This is pretty much the Avengers of the gangster movies where all of your favourite people are in one film written by the best writer and directed by the best director. Only Walken and Woods are missing.

Making de niro young kind of works and isn't as distracting as I thought and Pacino is fantastic. If you expect Pesci to be the nutjob he was in the other Scorsese movies then think again and this is no bad thing. Pesci is one of the best actors alive with a fantastic range and this movie proves it.

The Irishman is lovely to look at but for god sakes take a leak before you go or wait for its Netflix debut where you can watch it with whiskey and pause it for comfort breaks.

Classic Scorsese . De Niro is the best he's been for years . Pacino is really magnetic and charming . But for me, Joe Pesci is the standout. Quietly deadly, magnetic , loyal, complicated, its him that will get the Oscar . Saw it at the cinema ( sorry Netflix but I am not watching Scorsese at home ) and it was superb. Oh Anna Paquin is used quite cleverly as well. Good actress . Decent performance Go and see it at the cinema . You will remember the masters returning for one last ride

Some might hate it but here is a little bit of truth about the Irishman, against the 8s and the 9s and the 10s: It is a "Too long didn't read" kind of movie. What is the reason of this enormous more-than-three-hours runtime? Probably to enjoy as much as possible Pesci, Pacino and De Niro working together. But folks, this time has come and gone... Goodfellas, Casino etc. and anything Scorcese did is amazing. But getting mob-type genre back in play in 2020 needs a bit of a twist and taste for the different audiences. 3' 24" is outrageously long and slow even for the fanatics. I watched it on Netflix and it took 2 days to go through the movie. Very slow character development, which is absolutely not necessary, as we as audiences are already trained in this genre. If you don't like this mob-type genre and these actors, there is almost no chance you would watch this movie or you 'd drop it after half an hour. Only plus is the good acting of course and the great directing but...if you are new to this genre, start from the classics! 6/10

You have to be absolutely out of your mind to legitimately think that this is Scorcese at his best and ignore all the flaws in this movie. Yes, I get it, he made a lot of great movies in his time, but this isn't one of them.

A scene early on with Deniro beating someone up sums up the movie pretty well. The random no-name actor getting beat up is the only one exhibiting any emotion, as Deniro's character and his daughter sleepwalk their way through the scene like most of the cast does through most other scenes. It can be a bit hard to tell though since the camera zooms out so far that you can hardly see their faces, probably in an effort to avoid using the piss poor de-aging effects during an "action" scene, but it doesn't much matter because it's still close enough that we can see Deniro noticeably physically struggling to get through the scene. It looks awful and its depressing to see Deniro like this and to realize that Scorcese thought this scene was ok like this (why would they not have just used a stand-in here?), and this is pretty much how the movie feels in general.

This is a very noticeably weak effort from Scorcese. Most of the characters are wooden and just seem bored to be there. Pesci and Deniro are shockingly lifeless here. Pacino seems to be the only one giving any effort, but even his performance only comes off like a pale imitation of his old self.

Again, the de-aging effects are very weak and it's pretty jarring to see the flashback version of Deniro's character be referred to as if he's a young man (Pesci even calls him KID), but still looks like he's about 50.

There are a ton of side characters introduced, most of which disappear immediately after their introductions and serve no real purpose. Likewise there are many vestigial scenes that serve no purpose to advance either plot or character.

The plot is of course your typical gangster fare that we've seen from Scorcese so many times already. Guy gets into a life of crime, rises in the ranks, gets rich and lives it up, and then everything comes crashing down because he and everyone else he knows are absolutely terrible people, blah blah blah, we've seen it all before, but you know, you take something more recent of his like The Wolf of Wall Street and even though it uses that same old formula it still manages to be interesting because the characters have such personality and style and they keep your eyes glued to the conflict even though you already know exactly where it's going.

Here? Not so much. The Irishman is an absolutely unremarkable mobster story with completely forgettable characters that don't seem at all interested in their roles and some production values and cinematography that the so-called king of cinema should be embarrassed to be associated with, and let me tell you, you people defending this weak excuse for a film aren't doing Scorcese or "cinema" any favors by blindly swallowing this crap and acting like it's the greatest thing you've ever seen. If you're so willing to suck down any product, no matter how bad, just because it has a big time famous name attached to it than you're really no better than the popcorn action movies and fans that you're so quick to condemn.

As someone who's seen every Scorcese film before this, this is a 5/10 AT BEST and I will never pretend otherwise just because he did a lot of great films in the past.

Other reviewers at the top, when sorted by Helpfulness, have already covered much of what makes this film so exceptionally good. As such, and knowing that I have a tendency to sometimes exceed the number of allowed characters, I'd like to add just a couple of small things.

First, the sets and costuming were near perfection. Every SINGLE piece of clothing which the characters wore, down to cuff-links, handbags, hair pins and shoes were of the era. That kind of meticulous detail can only bode well for a film. If the creators care enough about the small details, imagine what they do with the big ones.

Secondly, in many films now, where there is a well-known and varied cast, you find that the screen time each devotes in comparison to the film run time, really leaves a little to be desired. That is not the case here. Almost every second of every scene is filled with one or more of these masterful actors, actually acting. Performing. Pulling you in to the world they are creating. All, without the need of heavy CGI or filler. As Hoffa might say: they get right down to brass tacks - and, pardon the pun, deliver.

DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci, Keitel. Enough said. Leave politics at the door, and enjoy.

Excellent film all around.