Another Scorcese Classic. The Last In A Trilogy? Let's Take A Look At The Legacy.

Rating: 8/10 (2 January 2020)

There's no denying that Martin Scorcese has made a lot of good films. You'd have to be a pompous windbag to say otherwise; looking at you, Peter Greenaway. That being said, to date he's only made three truly great films, in my opinion, and The Irishman is one of them. Taxi driver is a very good film, but it's also very raw, idealistic, and in so many ways, more of a reactionary statement piece, than an example of supreme storytelling. Travis Bickle is a bit of a caricature, and as such, the plot develops in a very contrived way. In short, Taxi Driver, Cape Fear, Shutter Island, The Departed, etc. are all good films, but I have major problems with all of them. The Irishman, I have very few major problems with. Again, good vs. great.
You may disagree, but to my opinion, Goodfellas is by far Scorcese's signature work. This is where he found the winning formula in biography crime dramas. All three of his entries in this genre are tight, concise, strongly character driven, and led by a masterful down to earth realism, which never feels the need to delve into over-the-top gross-out scenes, and no other living director has been able to achieve the same level of greatness in this sub-genre. In short, films like The Irishman are what he was put on this earth to make. After Goodfellas came Casino, my personal favorite in the trilogy, and very underappreciated, in my opinion. The Irishman may in fact be my second favorite Scorcese movie to date.
I really enjoy the corporate side of these dramas, and for that reason, Goodfellas just never resonated with me. Objectively speaking however, I have to say Goodfellas is probably the better movie. The pacing was just so on point, and you have far more standout scenes. If I have to crown a winner of the three, it has to be Casino, and I say this while trying to remain objective. It was by far, the more dynamic movie with Sharon Stone's character, Lester Diamond, Don Rickles, Joe Pesci the classic Italian mafioso hothead, and the country locals: so many conflicting powers and unique characters all battling over the same terrain and wealth. It was just so much the perfect cast and perfect landscape for an almost perfect film. That being said, how does the Irishman measure up?
A lot of people have said the Irishman is too slow paced, and the truth is, yes, the first hour of the movie does drag. When the movie really comes to life is when we're introduced to Jimmy Hoffa. Al Pacino by far steals the show, and manages to create the more compelling character of the cast. He worked a lot on the accent and mannerisms of the character, to the point where yes, you're still watching classic yelling bellicose Pacino, but it's an undeniably distinct character you've never seen before, who's so subtly nuanced in a way that conveys both a level of humility and meekness in the same breath as being hugely arrogant and bombastic. It's a truly brilliant performance which I think is what largely sells the movie, and is one of many major components that elevates The Irishman from coming across as a swansong from an aging director looking for one last major hit.
The question now is how do the other actors measure up? Joe Pesci's portrayal is well handled and well honed, in a way that you would only expect from a veteran actor; however, the first hour of the film, the reason why it drags, I think comes down to the fact that none of the characters up until Al Pacino's character, were compelling enough to be the driving force of the film. To my opinion, and this may be controversial, but I think Robert Deniro was hugely miscast in this film, and yeah I get it, Scorcese badly wanted to put together the legacy cast, and the title character was the most logical role if Deniro was going to be in this film, but to my opinion, to a small extent he's really not the actor that he once was; there was no need to highlight it, i.e. he would have been GREAT in a supporting role, and the title role called for someone a lot more brooding.
When I think of an actor like Lawrence Tierney, just as one preliminary example, THAT'S exactly who "the Irishman" was meant to be. I mean come on, who honestly really takes Deniro for being Irish? "Ayyy wadaya want? I'm Irish, badabing badaboom." Granted it's not QUITE on the level of Christopher Lee as Fu Manchu, but I can't deny that it was glaring enough to take me out of the movie more than a few times. That's a problem, and I say all of this in the context of having seen Deniro convincingly pull off being a subtle-spoken Jew in "Casino." Al Pacino worked a lot on his character to give him a middle America feel, whereas Deniro came across as a generic Guido gangster; it's as simple as that, a comparison that's both convenient and valuable. Most of all, you want to feel like there's something more on the other side of this deeply brooding character, something to build your anticipation during the first part of the film, but it just isn't there.
Another solution might have been to expand on Pesci's character during the first part of the film, and give him a couple scenes where he can really shine, rather than remain the mysterious power figure with an underdeveloped backstory. Again, it's a great movie, but ultimately I think the criticisms of the first part of the film being too slow-paced have some objective truth behind them. The titular character is just not as compelling as he could have been. You've also got to say that maybe Scorcese overestimated the power of anti aging technology just a bit, and the better route to take might have been to cast Deniro as old Sheeran and bring in another actor to play young Sheeran.
In the end though, when things get going, and you find yourself deeply immersed into the politics of the thing, here it very clearly becomes a true contender in Scorcese's body of work, with many standout scenes, all involving Jimmy Hoffa, aside from the fish scene, which in and of itself was brilliant. Keep in mind, all my criticisms thus far involve comparing Scorcese with Scorcese, which honestly boils down to a lot of nit picking for the sake of conversation. If this was the movie of a young new director, I'd be reviewing it in a much different context. I definitely thought the movie was great, more than just a swansong, which was my biggest fear coming into this. The question now is, will there be another? I don't think so, and I don't think there needs to be. This is it, and it's as close to the ultimate gangster movie that Scorcese always wanted to make. There was Goodfellas which was new and fresh; Casino, which presented a slight evolution, and now the Irishman which presents a bit of a de-evolution back to Goodfellas without feeling fresh.
Yes, the movie does feel stale to a degree, largely because of the legacy cast. That's not necessarily a detractor to a new audience, it just signifies a lack off separation between the past and present, and to a greater extent, a lack of evolution. This indeed was a major concern that Joe Pesci had going into this, the main reason why it was actually a bit difficult to finally get him to agree to do it, and yeah I have to say that his concerns were somewhat justified. Would it have felt stale if a new actor was brought in to play young Sheeran, similar to casting fresh-faced Ray Liotta as the starring character in Goodfellas? I think there's a good chance not, and ultimately this would have been the bolder move to take. Again, I can't stress enough how bringing in actors like Sharon Stone, Don Rickles and James woods helped give the film "Casino," such a unique feel.
More than anything, what "The Irishman" represents is a re-enactment and medley of everything that worked in the past, and worked well. Either way, regardless of all the "what ifs" and "could haves" that you can bring up, Deniro is back, starring in a classic gangster role, and you're still glad to see him, even if he feels a little out of place. It's a good screenplay, and overall well put together, but it is well over three hours long, and in the end, movies this long always run the risk of becoming tedious midway through. In my opinion, Pacino deserves an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor here, as a large part of the film's sustainability for a broader audience through those three hours, rests largely on the shoulders of his performance.
Personally I don't get that held up over the subtleties of an actor's performance. Everything I've spoken to in this regard boils down to what I view as either missed opportunities or resounding successes. All it comes down to is the difference between good and great, and there's simply no point in reviewing a Scorcese film unless you're ready to put the film to the test in defining both those terms with elements of the film itself. The Irishman, the ultimate gangster movie with the ultimate gangster cast is not perfect, but it is by far, more great than good.