[stlrman]

I believe  this was up for 6 Golden Globes , and I think it won a few.
I saw this has a 97% critics on RT .
I plan on watching on my home theater, when I can notch out 3 and 1/2 hours .
It is steaming on Netflix.
Who has seen this ?  What say you?

[Emil]

Three and a half freakin' hours?
FUGGEDABOUTIT

60 effin' minutes too long IMHO

It was ok

[aldcoll]

I was shocked it got nominated for anything.  WAYYYYYY to slow and Longgggggg.

I was asked about it from someone a couple days after I watched it and I couldn't recall the plot or anything. 

And yet the age reversal CGI was flawless.  In another year with the AI and CGI you should be able to crated you own movie.

Alan

[Stu Pitt]

I really liked it. Sure, it was long. And it wasn’t fast paced. But I was interested the entire time.

Then again, I watched about 2/3 of it one night, and the rest the following morning. I would’ve watched it in its entirety, but it got way too late. I guess I’m getting old.

[WGH]

I was shocked it got nominated for anything.  WAYYYYYY to slow and Longgggggg.

Perhaps you would be better entertained by a Marvel movie, the Irishman is cinema.

Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html?searchResultPosition=1

I loved it, don't let the curmudgeons sway you. The Irishman pulls you in and the film feels more like 2 hours went by than 3-1/2 hours.

[jtcf]

I thought it was excellent.It really drew me in and made me think about and understand the personalitys.I watched it in one evening with a break in the middle.

[dwmaggie]

My girlfriend and I watched it.  Well done, with a lot of fine character development.  Good film, good plot.

[mcgsxr]

I felt it was good, but not great.

Was too long for sure.  And with the jumping around in the timeline and using CGI that still left me thinking they always looked old... I had to watch the cars to figure out what era we were in.

There was lots I really liked.  And some I was left thinking could have been left out.

Worth a watch.

[wushuliu]

It was excellent.
And let's take a moment to appreciate that DeNiro and Pacino finally starred in a movie together with material that matched their talents (Heat doesn't count as they only had 2 scenes together). I never thought it would happen.

[Rob Babcock]

I thought it was excellent except for the horrible de-aging CGI.  Totally creepy, uncanny-valley stuff.  De Niro particularly looked like a dead, doll-eyed golem in the digitally animated scenes.  But the acting and story were fine if not exactly ground breaking.

[wushuliu]

I thought it was excellent except for the horrible de-aging CGI.  Totally creepy, uncanny-valley stuff.  De Niro particularly looked like a dead, doll-eyed golem in the digitally animated scenes.  But the acting and story were fine if not exactly ground breaking.

I thought the CGI looked really good. I think they looked like how their characters were supposed to look - and for DeNiro, his character was kind of a dead, doll-eyed golem.

[Stu Pitt]

I thought it was excellent except for the horrible de-aging CGI.  Totally creepy, uncanny-valley stuff.  De Niro particularly looked like a dead, doll-eyed golem in the digitally animated scenes.  But the acting and story were fine if not exactly ground breaking.

I thought the CGI visually was great. Only problem was they still moved like old men, which CGI can’t fix. That aspect wasn’t horrible and didn’t detract me from the story, but I thought it a few times. Funny thing is I read the same thing in a few reviews afterwards. I watched the “conversation” or whatever Netflix called it with the three of them and Scorsese, and they talked about how Scorsese had to remind them about their posture and general movements.

[jMelvin]

I would have preferred either a film of shorter duration or a mini-series fleshing out aspects of the book which weren't explored deeply enough for my taste. While a lot of folks were excited with De Niro and Pacino finally working together, I was disappointed in Scorsese's pick for the Sheeran role. Frank Sheeran was a 6'4" Irish thug of a guy who didn't look at all like a "made" guy ala DeNiro. Neither de-aging nor camera trickery convinced me De Niro was the imposing/intimidating/scary man who was Frank Sheeran (i.e., the beating of the butcher scene comes to mind). A younger actor who looked the part would have been more effective IMO.

One important point in the book largely overlooked in the film was Sheeran, being Irish, was not welcomed by the rank & file. Mr. Bufalino protected him and elevated his position as time went on to the displeasure of many. (That appreciation banquet for Sheeran happened after many years.)

Meanwhile, Scorsese is a brilliant director and De Niro is a brilliant actor so what do I know!! And Pacino is well, Pacino! I just thought younger actors would have been a better choice. I'm not sure who I would have liked for the Hoffa role but for the Sheeran role maybe Liev Schreiber. I dunno. Overall, I was disappointed in the film.

[fredgarvin]

I thought it a good movie but doesn't quite grip or interest as well as Goodfellas or Casino. But those are top tier films after all. We enjoyed it And found the video work with the characters interesting, definitely nothing to complain about other than DeNiro, especially, moved like an old man. The film tells a good story and didn't seem too long to me, sitting at home. I doubt I would rewatch it though as I have with some of Scorsese's other films.

Sheeran claimed in his book that he killed Joey Gallo and so the movie depicts that, but the story as written at the time is interesting, as told here in the NYTimes article back then-

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/03/archives/story-of-joe-gallos-murder-5-in-colombo-gang-implicated-informant.html

[Norman Tracy]

My vote five-stars double thumbs up.

With the director and cast and my love of a good gangster film &/or film noir it was a forgone conclusion I would lap it up like a kitten on milk. Given that love of the genre the length and pacing was not a problem, I saw it as taking the time to develop character's and story. I took great joy in seeing those performances given the space to develop. I had forgotten CGI is used to modify age of the characters, not being distracted looking for that artifice it did not effect my ability to suspend disbelief and sink into the story being told.

Perhaps I am not being critical enough, however given the horrid current state of Hollywood churning out comic book movies and sequels I relished The Irishman as a reminder of what cinema as an art form (rather than profit center) can accomplish.

[Markwatkiss]

It was great to see Joe Pesci again.Such a talented actor.

[wushuliu]

It was great to see Joe Pesci again.Such a talented actor.

Hear hear. I have to remind myself he was the goofball sidekick in the Lethal Weapon movies. So good.

[jMelvin]

It was great to see Joe Pesci again.Such a talented actor.

He was terrific. My Cousin Vinny was my all-time favorite of his.

[smargo]

enough with pacino and pesci and deniro playing mob figures - its all been done before and much better

you see the film didnt win one oscar for anything

[rockadanny]

enough with pacino and pesci and deniro playing mob figures - its all been done before and much better

+1
Really fellas ... put it to rest.