I'd like to know Scorsese's reasoning for making this film, but I think I already know the answer. Nostalgia can be a nice thing. But this feels like a depressing attempt at "getting the band back together" when the members are old and stale. Not to mention a plot that hasn't been new for 30 years at LEAST.

De Niro might be de-aged for the majority, but his bent posture says otherwise. Why not allow the cast to portray characters of their own age? To say the CGI is unconvincing here would be an understatement. I don't know how they dragged poor Pesci into this, but even as a supporting character he pulls his weight. Pacino might be overdoing it, but perhaps that was an attempt to fill in the blanks of De Niro's performance.

I was surprised to see Scorsese leave some much-loved ingredients out here. Where was the clever dialogue, the tension, the drama, the skillfull camera-work? Were any of the characters written with emotion in mind, because I don't recall seeing any of them express it.

Forgetting about the plot (there's not much to mention, anyway) if this had been a film centred around the characters at their true, older age, it may have made more sense. Perhaps it would have symbolised the end of an era for Scorsese, or reflected his own aging process. If nothing else, it would have worked far better than having a 76 year play someone in their "prime". It may have even been a good movie.

Hopefully we see something better from Scorsese in the future and can forget any of this ever happened.