The Irishman (2019)

To be clear from start where we stand, and since I'm not in the best writing mood and also I don't want to get too long, for me "The Irishman" compared to "Goodfellas" seemed like the new "Jumanji" vs. the old "Jumanji" (the new = the one of two years ago, because for the latest one I won't lose time anymore). Yeah, I know that the new "Jumanji" is ranked better than the old one (maybe I'm getting older, but... come on), exactly the way "The Irishman" got in a couple days to be considered by at least a part of the critics as the best of Scorsese. Really?...

So, I said I don't want to get long with this = if you want the full story, Wikipedia search for Jimmy Hoffa, union leader in the '70s in US with some mafia connections, and the unfortunate protagonist of one the most controversial disappearances ever, not solved by today. Unofficially, at 30 years after the event, an Irish guy from the close circle of Hoffa, Frank Sheeran, on his death bed makes a stunning confession - he killed Hoffa... and also Joe Gallo, another mobster who's killer's left unknown... and even other hits of the same type... and also transported weapons for the Bay of Pigs invasion. All these so cleverly put together, that he didn't get charged for any, and the FBI still has the case officially unsolved. It's an excellent subject for a best-seller, and now for a top grossing movie. I don't say that everything's fake, but still it looks too much like a fishing story, and the fish might not be that big.

But the movie, how is the movie.. well, even the new "Jumanji" is ok in some parts. "The Irishman" starts well, with a bit of a "Godfather" feeling that you don't meet nowadays anymore, but soon it starts to hit you with some not so nice stuff. The effects and/or make-up to rejuvenate De Niro didn't look more artificial since "J. Edgar". De Niro is more Italian than Irish, and as well as he gets his role played, it doesn't really completely belong there - in comparison is enough to look at Ray Stevenson in "Kill the Irishman", a much less pretentious movie some years ago, also set in the mob wars niche. Hoffa didn't have Italian roots as Pacino has, although here the contrast is not so big, but again, Jack Nicholson in "Hoffa" directed by Danny De Vito, which I've seen long long ago still stays in my mind as more credible. On the other hand, we have a comeback on screen after a very long break of Joe Pesci, which is indeed and undeniable made for the role he plays.

What's left to say - the movie is very long, and the ending even longer - I've never had this feeling of extra unnecessary lengths anywhere else except "LoTR: Return of the King" after the ring is melted, or in the latest "Avengers", after... well, I don't remember after what, completely forgettable. Even so, it's a movie to see. Until the end, the script is written sufficiently ok to keep you there. Technically: camera work, editing (minus the effects I was saying) is top class. And if that doesn't move you, at least for the fact that you don't get to see much often something in this genre that reaches a decent quality.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Run All Night (2015)

"Run All Night" is closing the trilogy. "Tak... oh no, sorry .. that's another trilogy .. how to call this one? .. "Liam Neeson for next Expendables!" by Jaume Collet-Serra: "Unknown", "Non-Stop" and "Run All Night". Three movies connected by: Liam Neeson as ultimate bad-ass, in a time limited context and including lots of bullets. "Unknown" was the predictable one, "Non-Stop" the "sci-fi", and "Run All Night" the cliche.

The story is ... "a classic tale": Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris) runs the Irish mafia of New York since 30 years ago. Jimmy Conlon (Liam Neeson), an old "brother in arms" and once the main hitman, is tolerated as senior member of the organization, being busy nowadays with drowning his bloody memories in alcohol. Both Irishmen have a son. Classic bit: The boss's son does something stupid - tries to expand the clan's business by integrating heroin traffic in the activity list. Classic bit: drugs are not an honest business for a respectable mafia clan so the father doesn't agree. Classic bit: The situation gets complicated and the old alcoholic hitman must put a bullet in the little mafia prince to save his own son. Classic bit: The old boss must get revenge ... obviously this including every possible cliche: "yes, it was my son's fault; yes, we've been friends since a lifetime; yes, your son has no blame; yes, I'm not sure I want to do this ... but .. tooth for a tooth". That's the rest of the movie, a night of chasing (as the title says) where Liam Neeson, miraculously awaken from his drunk state, manages somehow to keep his son alive, even if this seems to require the eyes of an olympic champion in target shooting or the unexplainable precision superiority of a rusty two-barrel shotgun against a laser guided weapon. More details, in the movie ... :)

I remember "Unknown" as a relatively mediocre movie. "Non-Stop" was more creative although not much better. About "Run All Night" ... unfortunately I've seen too many thrillers involving mafia, bullets & revenge to be easily impressed by something. We don't have anything original here. Overall it's a "watchable" movie, but that's all. On one hand it can be much worse (as in "John Wick"). On the other hand it can be much much better. If you want something original, check out "Contraband". And if you want something "old school" = the tale told here, then go for the masterpiece: "Road to Perdition" ;)

Rating: 3 out of 5 (barely ...)

A Bittersweet Life (2005)

Since I didn't manage to see much this week, I'm forced to resort again to older stuff. And from the more recently seen I don't have much choice - two mafia stories: "We Own the Night" made in U.S., without much to remark about it, and "A Bitersweet Life" from South Korea, which is even simpler as a subject .. but overall more powerful and more original. So I'll stick to the last of them getting back once more to the Asian cinema ...

As I said, the subject is simple. A trusted man from a Triad is asked by the group head to watch over his much younger girlfriend while he's out of town, for three days. With the order to deal with the problem if he catches her cheating or at least to notify him in order to "take measures". Obviously, after not too long, the guy in charge with the "mission" catches the subjects together. But, being struck by mercy (after beating badly before the young Don Juan) he decides to do nothing from what his chief asked if the two break the affair. Somehow the boss finds out, and as result the first punished is his own employee. How is punished, how escapes and what happens after .. I'd rather leave to the viewer to discover. Again, the subject is quite simple = classic revenge story. What gives it a plus as story are several nuances sufficiently out of common to look taken from a script by Terry Gilliam collaborating with Tarantino (other better example I can't get now) = escape from the grave, Russian arm dealers with an IQ inverse proportionally with the motherland surface, battle scenes a la Bruce Lee = 1 vs. 20, etc.

I can't say that I liked the movie story wise. I'd rather have had a different ending. But I have to appreciate pretty much of the rest: directing (Jee-Woon Kim), cinematography, score, etc. The main role (Byung-hun Lee) as well as acting and script-wise, sort of remembered me about Alain Delon in several movies from '60-'70. So, to conclude, overall is a pretty bitter movie and relatively rough. Depending on your mood you might like it or not, but in any case is sufficiently powerful not to be forgotten quickly.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Get the Gringo (2012)

... or how it's written on the poster "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" as an alternate title, is the last production starring Mel Gibson in a lead role. Some time ago I was thinking that this guy, considering the bunch of problems he managed to get into, pretty much finished his career. I'm not totally sure that I wasn't right, but what can I say is that the situation seems to play well for the quality of his last movies. Unfortunately not financially speaking I'm afraid. I think that the release for the current one was delayed with something close to one year and it's also limited if I'm right = in some places didn't manage to get into cinemas and went straight to pay-per-view. But, getting back to the actual movie ...

In brief, we have something that seems to be like a sort of "Payback 2" with a scent of "Lucky Number Slevin" and mixed with some others of the genre that I can't remember now - but more gruesome and more crazy. To summarize it, the guy on the poster is a thief who manages to steal quite an amount of cash from .. let's say "somebody" so I won't spoil anything .. from San Diego, California. For the general knowledge, in case it wasn't known already, San Diego is quite close to Mexico. Where the unlucky fellow, without having too many options, and chased by the local corrupt police, decides to plunge through the frontier border. After this, he's picked up by the neighbor local police, relieved of his stolen money and thrown without many questions in a sort of ad-hoc prison. To define ad-hoc prison: a surrounded guarded perimeter, without cells but with a local economy = from sleeping places rented by the perimeter mafia up to kiosks with cigarettes and cola, and others. In this context every resident has to earn his daily living somehow. What happens further ... well .. we have action, romance, some twists .. everything wrapped up by a story that's more original than lots of productions with a quintuple budget.

I won't say more of the story. In the end, the movie is quite far fetched, but it somehow manages not to surpass the limit = in the sense that pretty much every scene like: "come on (eyeroll), why ?" (= why the heck did it happened what I just saw in the previous second) can have a quick explanation. So there is a minimum degree of credibility in there. What I found a bit bothering, and I can't explain myself why, because I consider myself as having a pretty high level of tolerance, is the fact that is rated R and the scenes in this rating are plenty. Probably I just wasn't in the mood for something in this range, but getting over it the movie really deserves watching. Gibson makes a very good role, and it makes me feel sorry again that he's not really loved by the producers after the scandals he got into (apparently the Hollywood has a very big problem with dissociating between a guy's private life and what he does on screen). To get to a conclusion, the movie could have been better, but for one hour and thirty, although I start to repeat myself, the subject is sufficiently dense not to give you time to check your watch. Even if maybe the trailer doesn't suggest that ( but only the funny part ;) ).

Rating: 4 out of 5 ( a bit at the limit though .. :) )

The Long Good Friday (1980)

I've thought that after last's week experience, maybe I should find something better this time. The result is going back way to 1980 :) considering this is the most high rated movie I've had as an option to see these days. Well, what can I say after watching it ...

It's not a bad movie for sure, but I really think that I would have preferred something else ... Let me start with the subject before getting to the other stuff. We have here a mafia thriller that probably can be labeled as a British "Scarface" in a short form - meaning it doesn't start with the beginnings of the main character. Where the main character is Harold Shand, underworld crime boss in the 80's London, who just got back from New York accompanied by two men from the mafia across the ocean. Instead of having the time for successfully closing the important negotiation with his new partners he lands back home in the middle of something close to a war against him. First problem: nobody in the London "corporation" he leads knows who is the enemy that messes up the "quiet" life from the last 10 years = they seem to be the target of a bomb something like every 5 hours. The second problem: the lack of control on the whole mess doesn't give the best impression to the new US partners and the whole deal seems to be in peril to fail before it starts. The solution, which is also the main action line of the movie, is to find out fast who is the unseen enemy. I prefer not to say more, because already from some point onwards you are actually able to see in what direction the movie goes.

Besides the fact that the outcome is relatively predictable, I can't say that I observed other major issues. The only thing that personally I didn't like (well, maybe I've gone too soft lately, who knows ...) is that you have some scenes that go beyond a certain level getting a bit hard to watch. But ... if you consider "Scarface", "Goodfellas" or "Casino" that are pretty much in the same row with this movie, you can't say that it is something out of common for this genre or niche = each of these has its hard to swallow moments. Getting to the good parts, although this is an UK production with a considerably lower budget than the ones mentioned above, you can't feel this. To compensate, you get a sufficient amount of effects + the cinematography is quite nice. About the score, this may sound a bit outdated (so 80's), but for me was delightful - I really loved it. Anyway, what's the most important part to mention is the cast. This includes lots of important names from the British cinema, even if some of these have minor roles (e.g.: this is Pierce Brosnan's first movie .. without any spoken lines :) ). I'm not a big fan of Bob Hoskins who has the lead role here (accompanied by a 35 year old Hellen Mirren), but the way he handles his part is a sufficient reason to see the movie. I was telling something above about scenes that might be hard to watch ... the final one is a completely atypical scene and for me I think it's unique in how many movies I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot ...). Without disclosing too much it's a long scene, static - without any action, non-violent, but with all these it can be considered quite a hard scene especially psychologically speaking, more than from the simple visual perspective ... and the thing is that almost all this effect is given by the acting.

What can I say to wrap up this entry, is that I personally have a movie category about which I can say that I didn't like ( or better said enjoy ) when I've watched them, but nevertheless these are good movies. To be more precise, the feeling I got it's not so comforting to consider seeing these again sometimes, but as cinema work they deserve all the consideration. And "The Long Good Friday" for sure fits in this category ...

Rating: 4 out of 5