MovieChat Forums > The Irishman (2019) Discussion > an unpopular opinion...it is not good.

an unpopular opinion...it is not good.


If "Goodfellas" and "Casino" are Martin Scorsese’s Godfather 1 and 2, "The Irishman" is his Godfather 3.

reply

The Irishman is better than either Goodfellas or Casino.

reply

WOW...NO.

reply

Agreed. As awesome as those films are, I much prefer The Irishman in almost every way.

reply

I'd say no - primarily because I saw those films earlier - and this film felt like a rehash of those films in many ways. It's very possible that had this film come out prior to those films, we'd be saying that this film is his masterpiece and not vice versa. The point being.... there's a reason why some films are called classics and others are not. There's also a reason why earlier films of the same kind tend to get better scores than the later films. When something feels like a derivative of previous work, it no longer contains the same element of surprise or drama - mostly because the viewer has already seen a similar film before, so the element of amazement and surprise is gone. I do wish Scorsese was brave to venture into other film genres. Spielberg has tackled various film genres, and he made quite an impression as a director because of it - and because of the quality of those films. Scorsese is doing the same thing for which he's criticizing the superhero films (rightfully so, but.... why not lead by example?).

reply

For everyone here, you have said nothing.

You have to explain why it is not good and why it is better than other films like it.

Those are called "well thought out opinions" and create this thing call "discussion" lol.

Good Fellas and Casino were faster paced, wittier, and funnier. They were more entertaining. This film was slow and verged on boring, but was more realistic and less snappy.

reply

So to me it seems like Mean Streets is Godfather I, Goodfellas is Godfather II, and Casino is Godfather III. The Irishman isn't even in the same conversation.

reply

None of Scorsese's gangster films are in the same level as The Godfather or The Godfather: Part II. Goodfellas and Casino are a little better than The Godfather: Part III. I enjoyed Mean Streets more than The Irishman; it belongs in the The Godfather Part III level.

First, the movie was way too long and the scenes became repetitious when we get to the 60s. It doesn't make much sense of how Jimmy Hoffa became so powerful just because he had connections to the crime family and became their financier. Robert De Niro does a good job of playing the neutral and even tempered Irishman who rose to power throughout all this. He seems to have a good relationship with his family except for the youngest daughter, Peggy. She is smitten by Jimmy Hoffa's charisma, but she doesn't see his darker side. Aside from Sheehan and control over the teamsters' pension, I do not see how Hoffa can get away with not working with the organization as Anthony "Tony Pro" Provenzano does. I mean I get the differences between the two teamsters men, but Hoffa should have his own men besides Sheehan if he is to stand up to the mob bosses, Tony Salerno, and Tony Pro. I suppose he does, but we do not get enough screen time with Hoffa and his men to get the feeling he has power even though he went to prison and has gotten out. At the end, we find Sheehan didn't really have a close relationship with his daughters. They knew he would overreact. Only Peggy was more sensitive and couldn't stay with him. Not much sense to this movie to explain their vision of history.

reply

So, I wasn't necessarily saying that any of Scorsese's films were the same quality-wise as the Godfather trilogy, just that if you are trying to map his gangster films to that the trilogy, the way that makes the most sense is their order of release. Having said that, though, I do think Goodfellas is qualitatively on par with either The Godfather or The Godfather Part II, and that both Mean Streets and Casino are relatively on par with The Godfather Part III, with Mean Streets slightly better than either. When released, Mean Streets did not generate significant critical acclaim, but has since come to be viewed as foundational to the crime genre, which is why Ebert included it in his list of "Great Movies" and both Casino and The Godfather Part III, though more technically polished than Mean Streets, seem to me to lack both its impact and underlying thematic strength.

As far as The Irishman, for me its greatness is primarily undermined by the weakness of the CGI, mostly as it relates to De Niro, as, for instance, the script was not edited to reflect that De Niro did not look like a "kid," De Niro and Pacino both moved, and looked, like elderly men despite supposedly being much younger, and the centrally important father-son dynamic between Frank and Russell was greatly weakened by the fact that it was in no way visually convincing. I realize this is a minority opinion, with some even asserting that those who hold it are so-called trolls, but it seems obvious to me that Scorsese opted for nostalgia over reality and I don't think audiences should have to suspend their disbelief to such an extent. (If, for example, it is acceptable for De Niro in his 70s to portray a mob enforcer in his 30s, why not a heavyweight boxing contender in his 30s, which on its face seems ridiculous to most people, but I would argue is relatively similar to what Scorsese tried to accomplish here).

reply

I was going by the OP in my comments as well as to yours.

Now that you bring it up, the de-aging of the stars was hit and miss. Some of it was noticeable, clumsy, and laughable; it was worse than too much makeup. It appeared to me that way. Maybe they overdid this to the extent that we never get the real stars even in their old age. I didn't try to pick out the bad CGI parts, but I'm sure some youtuber will.

I think Scorsese was trying to explain his version of alternate history. This is to get people talking again about what happened in the 60s. I'm watching 60s films now and this movie doesn't do them any favors. Even JFK by Oliver Stone is better at alternate history.

reply