A beautifully filmed, outstandingly presented and powerfully resonant masterpiece of an epic...

Rating: 9/10 (4 December 2019)

'The Irishman': Martin Scorsese directing a three-hour plus biographical-gangster epic starring Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci with an abundance of supporting roles including Harvey Keitel, Anna Paquin, Ray Romano and many, many more. It wouldn't be far from the truth to say that I was hyped as anything to watch this movie. And I was truly not disappointed. If anything, I was rewarded.
Despite it's hefty run time, the movie never feels slow. Now, the first half of the second half is a bit uneven in the sense that it's time jumping montages aren't too clear and make the movie feel a little bit sprawling, but it never for a second seems to drag or feel boring. In fact, it's as brilliantly entertaining as anything. The lengthy duration is needed for the emotional weight and to introduce, build on and develop the complex relationships between its characters, and even then, you barely feel the run time thanks to how explosively fun this movie makes itself. Every scene is packed with either information, tension, comedy or character-development, and it never feels like a chore. The dialogue of the screenplay, first-off, is amazing. It feels real and gritty, but also stylised and epic. I don't know how Steven Zaillian managed to pull that off, but he did. Scorsese's direction is constantly electric, packed with energy when it needs energy, and melodrama when it needs melodrama. He knows exactly what to show the audience to bring suspense in later scenes, while also knowing what not to show the audience to keep the mystery. The lush production design cannot be understated either.
Another point that adds to the entertainment value, is of course the cast. This is probably my personal favourite DeNiro performance I have ever seen, and that's saying something. His character isn't one with too much emotion, but you can feel what he's feeling and think what he's thinking even when his character's face is blank-slated and his character's mouth is silent. You can fully comprehend the complex emotions of their characters without a single expression or a single word. I don't know how, but both those guys manage to do it. Pacino and Pesci are undoubtedly great as well. DeNiro is full of bleak emotion, Pacino is full of energy, and Pesci is full of mystery. Anna Paquin's character doesn't have too much to say in this movie, but her character's presence is strongly felt throughout thanks to the immediate sympathy we feel for her character, played both as Paquin as an adult, and Lucy Gallina as a child. And her character might just turn out to be the most resonant of all.
The cast brings me on to a commonly discussed aspect of the film: the CGI de-ageing. You can sometimes tell when the CGI has been used (particularly in the eyes), but honestly, it's never distracting. It just looks like a super high-quality video-game and if anything- it's good.
Now onto the flaws. I talked a bit about how the narrative sprawls about a little bit during the start of the second act, and that's the only real flaw I have, but there's many VERY small, VERY picky flaws that I think I should so for the sake of the review. Thelma Schoonmaker is, of-course, legendary for her editing, and the editing in this film is great, both in the smaller, tighter scenes, and the sprawling, time-jumping montages. It's not only perfectly timed, but also rich with subtext. But there are just two choices she made that I didn't fully agree with. There are many instances in the movie where characters discreetly attempt to hear other's conversations, but there's no change in camera angles to signify them doing so, and I didn't understand why. It was most probably intentional, knowing she has the capability to change conversation scenes, but I don't know why. The second choice is a VERY picky one, but I'll say it anyway. The character of Hoffa has, understandably, a lot of build-up, and it pays off tremendously thanks to Pacino's performance, which always feels enthusiastically charismatic and larger-than-life as it should be, but the first shot we get of him could have used more build up. It just feels so casual. Sure it's with an immediate close-up, but as it's on a phone scene with DeNiro's character, I just think it should have taken it's time to reveal the character, like maybe hear a few of his words first, to keep us anticipating, then BOOM- showing Pacino for the first time. I guess it was to give it an element of surprise? That's probably why. But that's about it, really. There's one more REALLY picky nitpick I have, but this time, about the cinematography. It's fantastic, both visually and artistically, but, without trying to give too much away, there was one thing I wish could have been added: There's a scene where two characters are talking about how much trouble another character is getting into, while he's on the other side of a railing. This was a great opportunity to use put the camera right behind the railing, and make it appear as if the character was caged, or barred, to symbolise his troubles. Scorsese has done this many times before, but I don't know why this particular shot wasn't shot this way. Maybe to make it seem like the character is free in his own sense and doesn't know how much trouble he is getting into? I don't know. I hope so.
Now these flaws are REALLY, REALLY picky, and I'm sorry. But I still gave this film 4.5/5 stars for a reason. Now I would have probably only given 4 stars (still good) if it wasn't for one thing: the third act of the film. The third act of this film is probably my favourite of any film I have ever seen in my whole life. It lasts just over an hour and is a complete redemption of any flaw, big or small this movie may have. It starts off with a gripping conversation that changes everything we ever thought about how this film would go, and then, Scorsese enters a roughly 20-minute long sequence that's easily one of the most suspenseful, heart-pounding and intense sequence ever put on film. Instantly classic. It shifts between silence, thought and a conversation about fish, and it ends with an absolute bang. By the, the plot is practically over. Yet there is still around 40 minutes of the movie left. It is like an epilogue to tie up all the loose ends and give an emotional closure, and I would go as far as to say that the epilogue wasn't a conclusion to the film. Rather: every second of the film lead up to this gigantic epilogue. It is in this epilogue that we see the main philosophy, the main moral compass, and the main theme that this movie was exploring. It's genuinely one of the most profoundly poignant and emotionally resonant end I have ever seen. And the sad ending lingers on for a long, long time. Now this is the not the kind of sad that makes you want to cry- it's the kind of sad that makes you sit completely still in silence, and just think, as all the complexities of the movie are allowed to wash over you. And that feeling is only added thanks to one of the best closing shots in film history, that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Truly amazing cinematography shown here.
It really is a beautifully made masterpiece with a profound moral message, and it's honestly one of my favourite films ever.
CONCLUSION:
'The Irishman' is genuinely a beautifully filmed, outstandingly presented and powerfully resonant masterpiece of an epic from Martin Scorsese and an explosive all-star ensemble cast, with two and half hours of truly extraordinary development of its many full-fleshed characters and their relationships that bridges and builds up to an hour-long third act which masterfully contains an overwhelming amount of tension that then explodes into a sombre, melancholy and deeply emotional epilogue that easily redeems the film of it's small flaws with an ending that lingers on in the transfixed minds of the audience long after the credits roll.