All posts by BS

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

Marriage Story (2019): The Messiness of Divorce

Leave a comment

Inspired in part by his own divorce, Noah Baumbach (Frances Ha) writes and directs the story of an artist couple at the end of their marriage. Charlie (Adam Driver; Paterson) is a play director and Nicole (Scarlett Johansson; Jojo Rabbit) is an actress in New York. They have a young son together, but, due to differences in long-term goals, have decided to divorce. There was no inciting incident, just a gradual diverging that has led to their current situation with no visible hostilities from either party.

While Baumbach gives both parents plenty of attention, he isn’t completely even-handed. It may be due to personal biases or due to Charlie being partly based on Baumbach himself, but the film places more blame on Nicole. Neither lead is a villain here as both husband and wife make mistakes, but Nicole escalates the situation by hiring a vicious divorce attorney named Nora (Laura Dern; Blue Velvet). They had initially agreed to using a mediator to keep lawyers out of the picture, but when Nicole violates that agreement it makes her initially appear like the aggressor. Charlie is served with divorce papers and, without representation of his own, is put in a vulnerable position as Nora threatens to take everything.

Nora is an utterly reprehensible character.

If nothing else, the film will make every viewer hate divorce attorneys. Charlie’s initial lawyer is an older man that gives him circular contradictory advice and seems partially defeated before even starting. When Charlie switches to a high-end option (Ray Liotta; Goodfellas), he is stuck with an effective but overly aggressive lawyer that curses with every breath about how Charlie is damaging his own position. As bad as Liotta’s character is, he is at least upfront with his hostility. Nora is an absolute abomination. Dern, who is normally immensely likable in all her roles, plays Nora as a slimy, two-faced villain that will politely screw you over while brandishing a fake smile. In both cases the lawyers end up costing tens of thousands of dollars to the detriment of the family. One character notes that they’re taking from their son’s college money to pay for legal fees.

After the lawyers become involved, Marriage Story is able to effectively show the emotional strain caused by the divorce. Charlie and Nicole’s divorce is initially completely amicable. They know they need to separate, but there is no bad blood until attorneys start making demands. Both threaten to claim spousal support, something neither originally wanted, and slander each other using inconsequential facts to portray the other as an irresponsible parent. This creates resentment between Charlie and Nicole and results in hurtful screaming matches where long buried thoughts surface as devastating insults. Every part of their arguing feels raw and unfiltered, like pent up frustration rather than dramatic dialogue. The legal maneuvering and the following emotional harm warps their priorities and causes them to fight for minor wins instead of creating the best situation for their family. By showing how Charlie and Nicole’s relationship is upended by the legal process, Baumbach succeeds in making Marriage Story a sensitive and realistic examination of the messiness of divorce.

4/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

Dark Waters (2019): Corporate Cruelty

Leave a comment

A newly promoted partner at a law firm for chemical companies, Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo; The Kids Are All Right), is asked by a friend of his grandmother to look into the cows that have died on his farm. Robert, a lawyer that defends chemical companies, has no interest until he visits the site and sees that over a hundred of the livestock have died. The farmer blames the local DuPont plant and as Robert starts to probe further he finds a growing pile of evidence that the company is knowingly dumping a hazardous chemical into the area, risking the health of the town and its people.

Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) is a strange choice for a director of this material, but he delivers strong results. He is known for anything from biopics featuring Barbie dolls or several actors (of both genders) playing the same character to throwbacks to 50s melodramas. A legal drama is yet another unexpected entry in a filmography that seems to only consist of surprises. As always he gets strong performances from his cast and is able to capture the trust and dependence a small town has on its main employer. DuPont provides jobs to many of the city’s residents and is a central part of their community with buildings and parks named after them. Even when the allegations arise against the company, the people are reluctant to doubt the hand that feeds them.

The numerous loopholes and roadblocks DuPont uses to defend their illicit actions are horrendous and demoralizing.

In many ways, Dark Waters is a more deliberate Erin Brockovich. Like in that film, Robert is fighting against a company for polluting drinking water, but Haynes take a more subtle approach. He focuses on the data gathering, as Robert combs through an entire room full of documents, and the convoluted steps it takes to hold a major corporation accountable. The case spans 20 years and Haynes does an excellent job depicting how draining the constant hurdles and setbacks can be. Ruffalo shows Robert to be increasingly frustrated and almost desperate. He sacrifices other clients, takes pay cuts, ignores his family, and develops health issues due to the stress of case. There is a period of waiting in the trial that is the only point where the drawn out engagement affects the pacing of the film, but even this slowdown appears reflective of the true events.

The film’s main theme is trust. In a frustrated retort, Robert explains that the people in control, governments and corporations, don’t protect people, the people have to protect themselves. The lawyers point out that when the environmental protection agency was first established, it relied on companies to self-report chemicals as hazardous, something they have little incentive to do. They joke about “self-regulation” because they know that companies will prioritize profits over people and even when DuPont is forced to appear in trial, they are able to work with local officials to place regulations that are favorable to them, even though they put people at risk. At its core, Haynes has created an in-depth warning about the dangers of minimal oversight and how corporate cruelty and greed will choose commerce over community if left unchecked.

4/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

The Report (2019): As Diligent and Thorough As Its Protagonist

Leave a comment

The Report is a procedural about the writing of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture led by Daniel Jones (Adam Driver; Paterson), a member of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (Annette Bening; The Kids Are All Right) staff. Directed and written by Scott Z. Burns, the writer of Contagion, the film uses a similarly methodical pace and approach to the material. Like Steven Soderbergh, who is also a producer on this film, Burns invests time in the minutiae of bureaucracy and is able to depict the gargantuan effort required to review millions of documents, create a 6,700 page report, and get it released without exhausting the audience’s patience.

Driver is perfect for the role of Jones. He has a cool demeanor and the commitment of a focused, tireless worker. He comments on how he used to be in a relationship, but the writing of the report didn’t allow enough time to maintain it. In his interactions with the CIA and senate staff, Driver emphasizes Jones’s persistence and later his emotional investment. As he faces more scrutiny, Driver’s responses become faster and more forceful and make it obvious the opposition’s arguments are fallacious. His immediate retorts show the depth of his knowledge and the passion he has for publishing the truth.

Driver shows Jones’s extreme attention to detail and commitment.

The depiction of torture is likely to cause some controversy. Burns does not sugarcoat any of the grisly aspects of how prisoners were treated. The chief antagonists are the self-proclaimed interrogation experts that developed the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT). These two come from military backgrounds but are revealed to have never participated in any type of interrogation. They act as contractors, instructing others to undress, beat, sleep deprive, and waterboard their detainees until they talk. Alongside them are several CIA staff that support their methods. The prevailing notion is to extract info and prevent future attacks “by any means necessary”. Burns shows how the fear created by 9/11 and the desire for some sense of justice morph into cruelty and how unchecked support of the CIA led to unspeakable acts, made easier by the fact that the detainees were foreigners.

The film places significant blame on those that cover up their mistakes. The CIA is shown going to great lengths to sell enhanced interrogation to the public. They have agents do interviews claiming that EIT directly led to the killing of Bin Laden, using their major success to justify their wrongdoings despite the fact that internal reviews showed that the techniques did not produce any unique information. As sick as the torture is, the degree to which an organization will protect its reputation above any moral responsibilty is perhaps the most loathsome aspect of the story.

Burns’s ultimate goal is not just an indictment of torture, but a reaffirmation of what are United States government is supposed to represent. Committing torture is a terrible mistake, but hiding its use from the public is an act of deception. Using rousing speeches from Benning and real life clips from Senator John McCain, Burns reinforces the importance of accountability, admitting to mistakes, and improving over time. He as created a detailed film about a difficult part of American history that is as diligent and through as its protagonist.

4/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019): Well-meaning, but Unnecessary

Leave a comment

A hotshot journalist equally praised and reviled for his writing, Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys; The Americans), is forced to do a fluff piece on a hero. Against his wishes, he is assigned to interview and profile Mr. Rogers (Tom Hanks; Forrest Gump), but soon realizes that Fred Rogers is no ordinary interview subject.

The most important question the film has to address is “Why does this need to exist?”. Last year Won’t You Be My Neighbor? released to incredible reviews and became the highest gross documentary biopic in the US. That film covered Rogers’s beliefs, motivations, methods, and featured many interviews with him and his closest collaborators. It was a profound look at the man and the ideas he lived by and communicated that didn’t ask for a continuation or rehash. The first instinct would be to label this new film as a quick cash-in on the affection towards Rogers shown by the documentary’s success. In some ways, this may be true, but director Marielle Heller (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and screenwriters Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster have taken an alternative route.

This is not a biopic of Mr. Rogers. It is about Lloyd’s deeply held hatred of his father, the effects it has had on his life, and how his viewpoints are changed by Mr. Rogers’s beliefs. Rhys plays Lloyd as an unfavorable stereotype of a reporter, overworked, somewhat sensationalist, and always bitter. He overacts occasionally with his crooked expressions, but Rhys does well in showing Lloyd to be a man frustrated and angry with life itself.

This is the main expression that Hanks inexplicably uses throughout the film.

Hanks, as Rogers, is an adequate but imperfect fit. There is no denying that Hanks simply does not look anything like Mr. Rogers. To compensate, Hanks uses the same strange expression throughout the film. He is permanently squinting, despite the fact the Rogers doesn’t appear that way in interviews or on his show. It can be distracting but Hanks does his best. He speaks with a more folksy delivery, like an elderly person talking to their grandchildren, than Rogers did which can make him appear almost out of touch than rather than deliberate in his method of communication. Yet, his values are clear and his obliviousness to Lloyd’s reporting needs show how his presence could change someone, even someone as hardened as Lloyd. Hanks doesn’t have the needed physicality but he works as a vehicle for Rogers’s message.

The film is most subversive in how it compares Lloyd to Rogers. Heller doesn’t just contrast their personalities, she emphasizes how similar they may actually be. Rogers gives Lloyd advice on coping with his emotional problems, but through his actions it becomes apparent that Rogers himself is likely dealing with his own issues as he seems to be following the same advice. This a striking assertion and prevents Rogers from becoming a saint-like figure. That his kindness is an achievable goal is the film’s true, and most important, message. It still feels unnecessary given the existence of the documentary, but A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood offers a different perspective on the philosophy and impact of Mr. Rogers.

3/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

American Factory (2019): A Glimpse into the Future of Blue-collar Jobs in America

Leave a comment

For decades American businesses have been investing in China to manufacture goods at a significantly reduced cost compared to their domestic counterparts, cutting thousands of American jobs but improving profit margins. American Factory explores the inverse scenario. With China’s growing economy and surplus capital available, a Chinese company named Fuyao decides to open up a US-based manufacturing site in Dayton, Ohio, taking over a closed GM plant. The impact of new jobs on the hurting local economy is exciting for everyone involved, but the blessing has its own complications. Filmmakers Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert filmed the entire process of opening the plant under Fuyao’s banner and the following results. They had previously documented this same area in The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant, so the team was deeply familiar with the subject.

As expected, there is a major culture shock. The large number of Chinese staff brought to help manage the plant and train the new employees don’t all speak English and many have never been to the US before. They have a completely different standard for employee performance and a different way of communicating. Watching the cultural training sessions is an insightful look at how another culture perceives Americans and the causes of their general behaviors. Similarly, the American staff, many of whom came from union backgrounds, have their own expectations for how they will work and be treated. There are moments of prejudice on both sides, but the companionships that form are touching. The Chinese team is away from home, without increased pay, in a foreign land and some of the American workers offer to introduce them to local pastimes. The cases of mutual appreciation and shared knowledge between the Chinese and American staff present a bright view of a global workforce and are the film’s warmest moments.

The bonds that overcome cultural differences are a joy to watch.

But the film doesn’t shy away from difficult truths about American manufacturing. While thousands of new jobs in the plant is an unquestionably wonderful boon to the city, the new jobs are not the same as their predecessors. One employee notes that she used to make $29 an hour at GM but now makes only $13 an hour. As a mother, she can no longer afford to buy immediate needs for her kids and has to budget extremely carefully to scrape by. Another worker laments that after losing her job at GM she has fallen out of middle class. The new jobs don’t offer the same pay or benefits and it leaves her trapped in a lower financial stratum.

As the management team continues to push for profitability, it also becomes clear that human workers in the US are not the future. Management notes that workers in China are able to produce more for less, so automation, using robotic arms to manipulate the product, is planned to replace many of the new jobs. It may sound callous, but a manager speaking to the chairman points to a section and states that the Americans are too slow so his goal is to replace workers with machines to improve profits.

Bognar and Reichert deserve enormous credit for the unjudgmental view they present. Cold capitalism, political rhetoric, and individual livelihoods are all treated with equal care. Their goal is show the realities, positive and negative, of foreign investment in US manufacturing and they do so with keen observations and empathy for all involved.

4/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

Earthquake Bird (2019): Subdued Thriller

Leave a comment

Based on a best-selling novel, Earthquake Bird is the story of a translator living in Japan and the series of relationships she forms. Lucy Fly (Alicia Vikander; The Light Between Oceans) is a Swedish woman who translates English films that begins a romance with Teiji (Naoki Kobayashi; Tatara Samurai) after he takes a photo of her walking by. Their relationship progresses naturally, but is changed when Lucy is asked to help an American that has recently moved to Tokyo, Lily (Riley Keough; Mad Max: Fury Road). Lily begins to tag along on their outings leading to jealousy and potentially worse when Lily goes missing.

Foreign films set in Japan often focus on its eccentricities, but director Wash Westmoreland (Colette) is interested in the escape it provides. Lucy and Lily talk about how, as foreigners, they receive extra attention that can be addicting in comparison with their home countries. With Lucy we see that she views Japan as a sanctuary. A place where no one knows her and, since the film is set in the 80s, a place where she can remain cutoff if she wants to. Lily approaches Japan from a similar angle. She wants a fresh start in a place with different customs, different rules, and hopefully a different life. This view of life as a migrant is a unique portrayal of Japan and sheds light on Lucy and Lily’s personalities.

The love triangle never reaches its potential.

Vikander is excellent as the reserved Lucy Fly. Lucy is a victim of trauma and has faced personal tragedy that she blames herself for and has led a restricted life. She left her homeland to distance herself from her past, but also uses the enormity of Tokyo to distance herself from others. She is emotionally closed-off and reluctant to form new bonds which Vikander conveys through subtle hesitation and controlled expressions. She rarely emotes and it serves to show afraid she is to reveal herself, even if it is just a simple smile. This makes her strange courtship with Teiji, which begins with an awkward ramen meal, uncommon because she rarely expresses herself in the time they spend together. Instead, we see longing form in her eyes and witness her insecurities grow as she develops feelings for him. Lucy is not a typical protagonist, but Vikander’s nuanced performance makes her a compelling one.

Despite the strength of the lead actress, the film struggles to create its mystery. Westmoreland uses the same cold exterior that Lucy displays for the tone of the film to limited success. The plot progression is slow and there is a noticeable emptiness to the film. Even the busy streets of Tokyo often seem sparsely populated and it gives the impression that the direction is missing some much needed energy. Lily, as the more outgoing American, initially appears like she will be this spark, but even her role is muted. Keough gives a much more carefree performance that contrasts well with Vikander but she is still fairly subdued. Even in the film’s climactic moments, it does not break its placid exterior. The lack of energy behind Earthquake Bird’s central mystery makes it a mostly subdued thriller and weakens the impact of the intriguing love-triangle and Vikander’s refined performance.

3/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

In Fabric (2019): Killer Clothes

Leave a comment

In Fabric is the story of a killer dress – literally. Somewhere in England, Sheila Woodchapel (Marianne Jean-Baptiste; Without a Trace), a divorced mom, eyes a striking red dress on sale at a local department store and, after speaking with the strange staff, she decides to buy it for an upcoming date. Later in the film, the dress is worn by a soon-to-be-married appliance mechanic named Reg Speaks (Leo Bill; 28 Days Later) as a joke for his bachelor party. In both cases the dress interferes with their sanity and has a devastating impact on their lives.

Director Peter Strickland (Berberian Sound Studio) attempts an eerie tone that doesn’t culminate in anything. The film’s style is a mix of giallo and David Lynch that seems intriguing at first. The visuals, the film’s strongest component, are filled with the searing reds and greens from the giallo genre and the acting would easily fit into most of Lynch’s films. The department store workers speak as if from another reality with flowery, verbose descriptions of clothing and an unnatural cadence. They, with their powdery white makeup, are practically an entire team of lesser Mystery Men from Lost Highway. Their dialect implies some ulterior motive, but what that motive is or how it relates to the Sheila or Reg is never explained or made meaningful. It’s hinted that it may be the dress itself, somehow sentient, that is behind the tormenting of its wearers, but its purpose is also unexplored.

The store staff ultimately adds very little to the film.

The first half, focused on Sheila, is by far the stronger story. Jean-Baptiste is sympathetic as a mom providing for her adult son, but also lonely after her divorce and her simple goal of looking sharp and meeting someone is very relatable. She works as a bank teller and reports to a pair of middle managers that appear to be Strickland’s attempt at satire of convoluted corporate procedures. These two repeatedly call in Sheila for minor transgressions, like the use an informal greeting, and have an interesting dynamic as they finish each other’s sentences but feel like they were pulled out of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil rather than this film. After the narrative changes protagonists, it loses most of the minor interest it had created. When Reg enters the film, he encounters many of the same issues Sheila had with the dress in the same exact way. His section adds little to what has been shown as the film essentially repeats itself with the dress targeting a new victim.

Films can be obtuse and open-ended, but In Fabric fails to create and maintain emotional investment. At times, it appears to be a horror movie about a cursed garment, but the changing characters and lack of background prevent the viewer from being engaged with the horror. There isn’t a human slasher villain, only a literal piece of cloth. This is a gigantic hurdle for Strickland to overcome to create any fear in the audience and he, unfortunately, is unable to. There seem to be moments of satire aimed at consumerism, characters constantly talk about sales, or potentially materialism, the store staff is aroused by their mannequins, but these are at the periphery. Its vivid colors and attempts at a surreal tone are not enough to compensate for In Fabric’s lack of emotional connection and tension in its horror premise.

2/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

Richard Jewell (2019): Media Frenzy

Leave a comment

In an age of pivotal news breaking every moment, the story of Richard Jewell may not be known to younger audiences, but it is one relevant to our modern times. Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser; I, Tonya) is a former police officer now working security at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. He asks the local police to call in an unidentified package when he spots a discarded backpack only to discover a live bomb in the bag. He works to evacuate people from the area before the bomb explodes, saving many lives, and is an immediate hero for his actions until public opinion starts to change. A local paper reports that he was being investigated as a suspect in the bombing, a routine part of the FBI’s process, and he soon becomes the media’s villain.

The film boasts a strong cast with Hauser up to the task of playing the maligned, but well-meaning lead. He shows Jewell’s naïve trust of authority and his true devotion to justice, but also how this can negatively impact others when he is too adherent to the letter of the law. Jewell is shown as a simple man whose main goal in life is to be one of the good guys which makes the sudden shift in public opinion all the more hurtful. By his side is Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) as his lawyer, who seems to have carved out a niche for himself playing these types of roles. Rockwell is straightforward and sharp, unafraid to tell Jewell what mistakes he is making or to tell off the authorities when needed.

Rockwell, as the lawyer, provides some much needed support to Jewell’s family.

The main antagonists become the media and law enforcement. Jon Hamm (Mad Men) plays the FBI agent that leaks Jewell’s name and becomes fixated on convicting him. He seems selfish and willfully oblivious as he ignores facts and relies on unproven hunches to continue the investigation. The brunt of the blame for Jewell’s ordeal is placed on Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde; TRON: Legacy), the local reporter that first lists Jewell as a suspect. The real-life Scruggs has passed away so there is no way to know how realistic her portrayal is, but Wilde does her no favors. Scruggs is shown as a mean, slimy, immoral reporter that will sleep with people for info just so she can get a story with little regard for its consequences or veracity.

While the film is right to indict the press and police in Jewell’s living nightmare, the story plays this too safe. The legal battle that ensues as Jewell is brought in by the FBI and his trusting nature is taken advantage of to trick him into implicating himself is appropriately infuriating and Hauser and Rockwell are likable leads. The issue is that the film doesn’t attempt to grasp the full picture of what caused the situation. It never addresses the public’s role in feeding the media’s focus on Jewell over other possible suspects and the ease many felt with stereotyping Jewell based on his background. This is a noticeable but not debilitating omission that would have made for a much more complex, challenging film. As it stands, Richard Jewell is a safe, but effective drama about the damaging impact of a media frenzy.

3/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

Dolemite is My Name (2019): Stylish Underdog Story

Leave a comment

As the story of a surprise hit film, Dolemite is My Name, is itself a surprise success. The story follows Rudy Ray Moore (Eddie Murphy; Coming to America) who, at the start of the film, is a failed singer working in an LA record store. He works part-time as a comedian, but is limited to introducing acts rather than performing due to his poorly received material. After hearing the ranting of a local homeless man, he decides to use his stories as the basis for his own comedy act which launches an unlikely career in show business and the production of Dolemite, a blaxpoitation classic.

Rudy is a true dreamer. He is his own biggest cheerleader who, despite constant rejection, perseveres in his pursuit of becoming an entertainer. He seems fully confident in all his abilities from singing to comedy to acting even as he fails in front of crowds. Rudy is willing to reshape himself to be accepted as he forms the Dolemite character to impress. His source material, recording homeless men talk in exchange for buying them liquor, is morally questionable as he profits off people in dire straits without adequately compensating them, but his performances are a huge hit. He tells stories that seem like Aesop’s fables where every other word is a profanity or vulgarity. Some will find the clever wordplay entertaining, but the sheer obscenity of the language will turn others off.

Snipes’s disapproving expressions are hilarious.

It’s the shift to Rudy’s film career that makes the film. Unsatisfied with his album success, Rudy tries to star in a movie only to produce and finance it himself when turned down by movie studios due to his race, age, and body type. At this point, the film brings in a colorful cast of characters led by Lady Reed (Da’Vine Joy Rudolph; People of Earth), Rudy’s comedy associate and co-lead in his movie, and D’Urville Martin (Wesley Snipes; Blade), the movie’s director and only actor with any notable experience. These two spice up the film with Martin believing himself to be too good for the material and Lady being completely supportive and excited about the opportunity.

In its best moments, Dolemite is My Name resembles the tone of The Disaster Artist. It’s a story of misfits and outcasts on a seemingly impossible journey to make something high-quality despite their lack of resources. This tireless optimism is infectious as the film positions Rudy as the ultimate underdog, risking everything for his dream of making a feature that caters to a neglected audience, people like him. Eddie Murphy is at his best here and mixes Rudy’s ambition with kindness. He gets frustrated, but ultimately he believes in his friends and the gentle conversations he has with Lady about their own insecurities are touching. All of this wrapped in an aesthetic that would make the Dolemite character proud. Director Craig Brewer (Hustle & Flow) literally pimps out his film with flamboyant outfits, glittering colors, and a fun, fast pace.  As larger than life as the Dolemite character was, Eddie Murphy and team have done an incredible job bringing the film’s production down to earth and showcasing the spirit and conviction that earned its classic status.

4/5 stars.

2019, Recent Reviews, Reviews

The Irishman (2019): Crime and Consequence

Leave a comment

The Irishman is Martin Scorsese’s longest film and a fitting maturation of the topics, themes, and genre he has developed over his vast and accomplished career. The film stars Robert De Niro (Heat) as Frank Sheeran, an Irishman who worked closely with the Italian mafia. He becomes a trusted confidant of Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci; Goodfellas) and later union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino; Heat).

Running three and a half hours, the film pulls out every trick available to keep the audience interested. It employs multiple framing narratives, from Sheeran in an assisted living facility, to Sheeran late in life, to the chronological events of his involvement in the mafia, to prevent the story from growing stale and, to Scorsese’s credit, it mostly works. There is a period later in the film, before a critical action must be completed, that it starts to drag as we wait for the inevitable, but overall the lengthy runtime seems appropriate given the decades of story covered. Digital de-aging is used on the main cast, now in their late-70s, to distinguish the numerous time periods and the technology is effective in making the actors appear different, but not to the necessary degree. De Niro appears younger in early sections, but he never appears young and while the aging process is noticeable, it is strange to see that Sheeran never seems much younger than 50.

The Irishman strikes a noticeably different tone than much of Scorsese’s other crime movies. While there is a rise and fall of criminals, the way their lifestyle is portrayed is unique. Unlike Goodfellas or The Wolf of Wall Street, Sheeran’s acceptance and growth within the mafia isn’t, even momentarily, glorified. He seems to be financially stable, but the film doesn’t have the exorbitant displays of wealth, like drug-filled parties on yachts, we would expect. Crucially, extra effort is taken to reinforce the short-lived nature of their successes and the long-term consequences of their crimes. As each new gangster is introduced, a title card lists their age and cause of death, almost always showing a brutal act and brief life expectancy. The tone falls closer to Silence, Scorsese’s story of migrant priests in feudal Japan, with the actions onscreen being fueled by duty rather than greed.

As usual, the period details are perfect.

This change is most evident in De Niro’s performance. He may be the lead character but, unlike Henry Hill or Jordan Belfort, he is not the driving force of the plot. Early on he explains that after serving in the military, he learned to take orders and follow direction without much thought for their consequences or morality. He never seems enticed by crime as much as he is a dutiful cog in the gears of a criminal organization which allows for the supporting cast, Pesci and Pacino, to provide most of the dramatic moments.

The film offers Al Pacino many chances to deliver the kind of performance he has become notorious for. His Hoffa is an overconfident asshole that is always in the middle of a condescending rant against someone and Pacino appears to be relishing the opportunity to deliver numerous verbal beatdowns. His energy provides a welcome contrast to Sheeran’s reserved nature and effectively steals the majority of the film. The Irishman is less about Sheeran’s individual life and more him caught in the pull of Hoffa’s ambitions and the complications that arise due to their connection to mafia. With this unique, more austere tone, Scorsese has created a crime epic with a charismatic cast and a moral compass that grounds the violence onscreen in somber consequences.

4/5 stars.