I wouldn't call the gangster/mob genre one of my favorites. The genre certainly is one of the most respected and has a place in film history, thanks in particular to the three leads here and Scorsese, but was there really a need for this?

I've always respected Scorsese's work even if he isn't one of my favorites. His films have hit the whole spectrum for me from 2/3's all the way to a 9 (no perfect scores IMO), but for the most part has made his fascination with gangster films clear. With "The Irishman" we can tell how much Scorsese loves the mob genre and this film is like an ode, and a slow-ugly reflection of this director's past and views on violence and the vast array of characters he has brought to the screen. Has old age changed Scorsese? It seems like many of their craft, he has gained wisdom and particular nuance to what we have seen time and time again on the big screen. We've seen the quiet but dutiful hitman take out person after person with no remorse (although in this there is something even more cold about it), and we've seen biopics that show the smorgasbord of events that changed history forever. Here we see examples of both-nothing to write home about, but they are here. Particularly the former, when we get some sort of payoff toward the final act, and see the main character reach for forgiveness in what he's done (another Scorsese trademark).

Potentially the best part of any of his films is his fascination with forgiveness, redemption, salvation and religious purpose with his main characters and it is probably the only highlight in "The Irishman". At what cost did Sheehan's actions pay off? What did his daughters think? Where did he and his friends end up? What was he made to do against his own personal desires? But then, there isn't enough focused on this part. If Scorsese had stuck this part of the character arc out, the film would have been much better off.

Now the acting. There is the trifecta here everyone is talking about. The three old men turn in ok performances, in particular Joe Pesci who has a subtle sophistication and menace to his character that harkens back to his roles in "Goodfellas" and "Casino". Al Pacino is manic, flawed and energetic as Hoffa, while DeNiro is honestly the weak link as the lead role the title of the film suggests. Overall nothing new, and nothing great.

Downsides of this film would be the 3.5 hour runtime (although length didn't actually bother me). I would imagine that it turns most people off to invest that much time, but they most likely will with the names attached to this production. My other critique would be the pacing of the final act as I felt it was rushed (believe it or not). I wanted to see more of Frank's struggle with redemption as that became the most powerful part of the film (Catholic guilt and forgiveness, etc.). The acting is meh, and there isn't much behind the direction except for the competency of making a movie. Once again (my unpopular opinion) that Scorsese doesn't offer much and that his past success makes him an overrated household name. Oh, and that CGI on Bobby D? Pretty bad. No way he can sell the physicality of a spry 30-something even with the attempt of changing how his face looks.