The Irishman

Three hours and a half — may it is made for the provocation. But the face of the character De Niro on the fourth hour of the picture accidentally (Li) expressed the tired of the film that had accumulated this side of the screen. At this all the same movie as talking to bartenders about drinks, — beverage. Not say that totally say that uninteresting. "The cumulative effect of parts", which was generated from viewer's words Scorsese, accident (s) included in itself, fatigue.

More about the cons. A lot of characters. Many timlines. Yes, they are only three, but they and timline that tend to move, and move different dynamics and have different impacts on the characters. More precisely on their age. Or rather to influence. More precisely, at least have to affect the appearance of age (the arch that they still as a bagel). And coupled with intentional (this time just by chance!) feature of the film that the actors have played some of their ages — it becomes difficult for perception. It is the additional weight of the film, especially when there are still here these all sorts of trade unions: first, second, roofing, transport; cell three-digit numbers, in different cities. I wanted to put on pause at least a little googling that is this cell. Intuitively, of course, it is clear that it is like  nothing on the film is not affect. But everyone has a different threshold of unimportance. And for a better perception of the world want to know these mechanisms.

The less presents textilenet effect your of course gave. Maybe that's it? Three the timeline, striving for the climax. A cumulative effect. Yeah.

About the film. All done well there. In addition to rejuvenation. No, stocks graphics, which many complain, no. But it's not enough. In youth character simply does not believe it. Like De Niro in stage "of their youth" went on the truck 50 years. And is with God knows (and does not matter) from nowhere to the young wife. And then it turns out that we want to show the development of character, character years thirty, returned from the war. But we still don't know. Because and here, seemingly, the timeline number one is, and at some point becomes the beginning of the timeline number two, we AsParallel shown to this. Showed the scene as characters walking and De Niro cute indulge in some nostalgic memories: "Oh, but I remember our first meeting at this filling — Oh really. this, that so a coincidence!". Yes. But the actors are there: the character Hiking — okay, older. Character De Nero — almost (that word may be crossed out) same. And all old people. That whether life, whether the film. It so the plan. And what they there vnutriporovogo time has passed — how much? Ten years? Twenty? Hell if I know. What is clear is that De Niro everywhere under one of the other De Niro, very old man, the author-narrator in the nursing home. In short uncomfortable. And again, these of the cell. 299. 368. The trade unions. Here it! He became someone in the Union. Or in the cell. Most important! This is the dramatic scene is something like giving power and responsibility from the character to al Pacino to character De Niro. It seems that now the story will be released on a new level, because the main character goes on a new level and will solve the problems of the new level. And.. don't feel this weight. Because showed only one scene where he this position is not noble took a bribe. Apparently, in the last scenes of the last timeline on his coffin with the seller to bargain. All. Character De Niro after, apparently, a major destination also continued to "paint the walls" (to the end of the film the phrase takes on a banal hackneyed ottenok), i.e., the President of the cell or something there — continued to murder. A bit illogical: there, damn, a mafia Pantheon, why have a lot of things to prove to the wolf to do a chore? It also not like:"gene deer decided to see how running it Department shows how to handle the broom". We are talking now not about the murder plot [spoiler] and about an ordinary murder, for example, the character of glasses. Someone will say that the events of the film based on a true story. For God's sake, but let it from a different angle, open that can this character like to shoot or rather — he at some moment of doubt in their actions. But it is not. Therefore, arch (arches?) — bagel. A good or bad — each decides for himself. Well even the jury for the awarding of statuettes. So that the weight in dramatic scenes a little. But the film is not bad. Look under the old fashion can. And lots of ice — to melt he can be long. Three and a half hours, man. The case when happy, wondering what this movie captions certainly not ten, at least fifteen minutes.

7 of 10

In my humble opinion, the genre of gangster movies have a long-dead genre. And released yesterday on Netflix "Irish" hammered the last nail in the lid of its coffin. Such a big nail. Gvozdische.

Scorsese, of course, well done. Not just like but and PR. His controversial statements on kinokomedii he has attracted considerable attention of a wider audience to his last painting. Even the pages about the comics were loudly celebrating the release of "the Irish", although it would seem the festivities should be in the public like "AUE" and"Life Thieves".

Romanticizing of the gangster lifestyle, of course, "Irishman" is present, but rather a tribute to the genre in the rest the film screams that anything good in this life. Luxury, hot women, mountains of cash, gang violence — all is present but somewhere frame. On the foreground shows an ordinary work routine and a lot of unhappy people that are so well as and "honest" workaholic't regret time.

Time is generally the main feature of "the Irish". Inside the movie is not many do not little 30, we living with the main characters of the story, until our local beat March of three and a half hours of duration. For this time we look at the lives of three completely different bandits in the performance of De Niro, al Pacino and Joe Pesci, which give probably his best acting. Grandparents can, che is there more to say.

Could almost all the grandfather the whole picture. Scorsese — professional big N, and that means and the camera work, and scenery signature "tricks" work as necessary. Even references to the classic gangsta movies brought. With the rejuvenation was so yourself, well, okay, you can get used.

However, there have  'Irish', when all advantages one large, at least for me, a minus. The ending. It is caused no experiences, no "catharsis", no surprise. But I calm myself that this is the idea of the Director. Show a calm, measured finale in which the main surprise — its predictability.

Priority question arising in relation to  the"Irish" Martin Scorsese only one — and was it worth it? This question can be asked directly in several ways — financial, aesthetic and, most importantly, in the context of a creative way of the great Director. It is worth remembering that a great friend of Scorsese and part-time another great Director — Francis Ford Coppola on later years made a similar attempt to revive its greatness and at the same time to draw a line under one of the top franchises in all of movie history. Despite the fact that movie rating the Godfather III will give odds to many great films of the year, but objectively configured the viewer is clear that the last part of the trilogy — essentially a large, poorly streamlined Samosata, though it does not contradict the fact that it brilliant. The second big friend of Signor Scorsese — Steven Spielberg is, perhaps, also took not the best decision in his career, holding the staging of the fourth adventure of Indiana Jones. However, the example of the companions Scorsese not scared he began to its most monumental gangster canvas for three a half hour duration encompassing a history of relations between the gangsters, and policy the early fifties up to the present day.

It is worth to mention that this picture the one hand, it is appropriate to consider in the context of legendary gangster trilogy Goodfellas — Casino — Irish the other, catches the eye detachment of the film from the other that explains not only the fact that since the Casino has passed the quarter of a century, but and tectonic shifts in ideology and the worldview of the Director. For first, consider the film in line with the other works, then becomes clear how much "Irish" was required for full sweep this kynoselen.

So, the visual style and the manner of presentation of this film are very very close to previous gangster films. The movement of the camera, the quieter scenes of dialogue, a sharp cut, subtly filmed murder at lively music of jazz, even direct quotes (de Niro, publicly beating the butcher, offended his daughter — this, of course, a reference to the famous scene with ray Liottas of the "Goodfellas") — this film begins as would wrapping the viewer in warm convenience familiar and beautiful cinepresa. The reception runs smoothly — this manner of shooting has long become a textbook, but all attempts to blindly copy ended in the best case, the lack of the viewer's negative reaction. Here Scorsese makes it clear that the original style — something unique and unique fingerprint. Made all impeccably therefore there is nothing else like to fully trust in the film. But then the Director and got the audience a few surprises.

The moment when the audience at the analogy with the previous films, waiting for the next phase of the ties of history, a sharp jump of the dynamics of the narrative, Scorsese decides to do otherwise — about half of the movie possible effect slows down (in the end does stop, vividly showing the time itself, which kills much better than any of the mafia, working a maximum of pure and severe). In contrast past projects for Scorsese, it was important to show the interaction of the characters in the prism of a certain system, why the storyline with furious speed rushed towards each other, bringing the inevitable collapse in "the Irishman" directed actually only interested in the characters themselves and their individuality. If this comparison be correct, the Irish — is something as close as possible to the second Godfather and far from third. Seems he the Director was aware that the resemblance is therefore insisted on the participation of Al Pacino, from which neither never worked. In fact, this film is totally intimate, almost not sealed existential gangster drama in which only one thing is important — the destiny of man (In this respect, even the slogan of the film — "his story changed history"). The General ideological background of the film tells the story of the existential choice is very similar to one that had to make a Michael Corleone.

For its representation was required so many meters of film and nearly a hundred sixty million dollars. For the sake of this in one place, gathered one of the best Directors and the most powerful artists of the twentieth century. "Irish" — it is a monument to the gangster movie, but not dynamic, outrageous or as neither was spectacular crime genre of today (Scorsese could easily remove is), but aesthetically pleasing, understandable more intuitively and sensuously, deeply tragic and fatal past movie (love which the Director is indescribable — see his "the History of Italian cinema"). Scorsese has made a shrewd move and understanding what a mistake Coppola made the opposite — loaded colorful, bright, vibrant world of "Goodfellas" and"Casino" on the depths of the ocean "Silence", while Coppola, by contrast, decided to bring his masterpiece to crush of modernity.

Thus "Irish" — it is natural, with art an ideological point of view impeccable finale of "boardwalk Empire", once created by Scorsese and Co. Some kind of radical ethical revaluation and the last final touch to a beautiful, perfect with the aesthetic side of the paintings. Of course, someone will take a look at I have a different angle and say that the Director is not just managed to catch the old spirit and to create something as brilliant as old movies. But should pay attention at least on the tempo of the film and to be able to feel unhurried, measured, calm atmosphere, to feel the full power and the greatness of this film. Scorsese here like sage Marcus Aurelius, who in the midst of war calmly records of eternal truth, knowing that perhaps it is his last words. And these truths are both simple — nothing is more important than personality and her actions. A Quartet of great actors De Nero — Hiking — Pacino — Keitel clearly her produce, creating a powerful semantic field between the characters, each of which resembles a faceted diamond, then pleasing to the eye, then the blinding, soaking in the same time completely unreadable.

Thus on the question — "and was it worth it", we can answer the following — applied to  the"Irish" the question is not is legitimate. Should have the great honor of the great Director and to thank what he allowed some sophisticated spectators in three hours and a half to get back in magic seems like forever dead in the world great movie. "Irish" — it is brilliant management project, held in against all the laws of modern cinema. This film is seen as a harbinger of the storm — while the movie theaters are transformed into the total attraction, this movie migrates to the field of multimedia. In this mediocrity country, you can explicitly create an unprofitable project, created despite all the tastes of the masses, to spend hundreds of millions and to do something incredibly important in cultural, aesthetic and ethical aspect of the whole history of cinema. However, only those movies of her and change.