The resources of this movie came out very early, I haven't watched it all the time, and now I choose to watch it because it didn't win an award, and I want to see why it didn't win an award.
The movie is more than 3 hours long, but it took me a total of 1 or 2 hours to understand the background of its story. Based on the understanding of the total of 5 or 6 hours, I think it is the reason why it is not in the golden ball. There may be the following types (I will not mention the common reasons such as the director's bad popularity):
1. The authenticity of the "story" is not solid enough.
I was watching De Niro's performance before and after killing Jimmy and thought to check the documentation (available online), because I knew the movie was based on Frank's dictation, and De Niro's performance here, Makes me think the dictator himself is suspected of putting gold in his face. And how does the movie's content introduction define Frank as a person? - A liar and killer.
Fix a "story" whose authenticity is not solid enough on the screen, and think about the consequences yourself.
2. The looseness of the running account narrative.
Although "The Godfather" has a long time span, it has a distinct and complete story from beginning to end. Compared with "The Irishman", "The Irishman" is more like a documentary. People's auxiliary functions are in a hurry, and there are no less than 20 or 30 such characters. Of course, the likes of Skinner Razor can still impress audiences with knives, forks and steaks, and the rest of the movie will be forgotten along with their deeds.
Documentaries are naturally not afraid of running account narratives, but smart movies still need to tell stories well, otherwise the understanding of the operation of the gang will become as superficial as a dinner party chat. Just the involvement of President Kennedy and the gang is worth elaborating to deduce a very attractive paragraph. Is it really good that TV news broadcasts the words of the bosses and hints at the end? The US imperial audience is not lacking in this common sense.
3. The strong part of the story focuses on the emotional drama.
Many viewers may have been drowsy by the running account narrative in the first half, and failed to make it to the strong second half of the story - Frank kills Jimmy. But in this story, I think the writers and directors got the point wrong, and they made another nondescript emotional highlight in a documentary-style film with a bland narrative of stage gang history.
How good Jimmy was to Frank, how embarrassed Frank was when he was ordered to kill Jimmy, how conflicted he was when he had to call Jimmy's wife to comfort him after killing Jimmy, and how sad he was when his daughter was left out.
Frank, does your mother know you're an Irishman with such an injustice? I thought it would be Scots.
The film here just needs to be consistent with the bland narrative, I don’t need to know what the dilemma is, and I don’t even care who’s twilight is bleak. Universal is also bleak, and it won’t appear extra heavy because of the gang.
Of course, this film still deserves 4 stars overall, the costumes are very beautiful, the script is tricky, the photography is very particular, every actor including the group is very serious, but unfortunately aging is really impossible to resist, as long as there is a good It is more appropriate to use middle-aged actors to act.
View more about The Irishman reviews
