Era uma Vez na América

My title sums up the film, albeit cliche, the film is a masterpiece. The story of a gang's rise from the prohibition years to the 60s. The film's main 2 character's are the focus of the picture. Without trying to spoil it, the film addresses 3 distinct eras in their lives.

The film explores the heart, Noodles soul. A man struggling with himself, someone who plays evil acts, a man who sees the pure in his childhood sweetheart. A man never at peace.

The film is directed by Leone, a master of his art. I'm a huge fan of his work. Each of his films got better and better, and Once Upon A time In America was a picture which had all the experience which he achieved in the 60s. It's almost a gift to himself.

The film's locations are stunning, authentic and dirty.

The screenplay is excellent, but the direction makes the film. Maybe one or two characters were underwritten, but it seems that the director wanted us to talk about the picture, discuss the possible loose ends, make up our own minds. Leone's methodical pacing is stunning.

The acting is tremendous, can't praise James Woods and Robert De Niro enough, awesome!

The photography is beautiful, it lacks colour giving it a gritty look, perfection!

Morricone delivers another masterpiece, his score adds further depth and backups the director's story.

See it wide-screen, this film is a stunning piece of cinema. Leone, you were the master!

Because there is an even longer director's cut and a short 130 minute version which was the version initially released in America, and is incomprehensible.

The film traces the lives of four Jewish gangsters from a New York City ghetto through 60 years of 20th century history in an odd way. It focuses on three time periods - 1920 when the gang is in their teens, 1932-1933 as prohibition ends, and 1968 when Noodles (Robert DeNiro) returns to New York as an old man after he gets a letter saying his true identity has been uncovered. Noodles has been living with regret this past 35 years, because he feels responsible for his gang having been killed by the police back in 1933. He wonders if someone is planning to settle an old score with him.

The Godfather this is not. There are no family ties binding any of these characters together, and they are extremely unlikeable and only vaguely characterized. Only Noodles is humanized even a little bit, and then he ruins that by turning out to be a rapist as well as covering the requisite thief/murderer territory that comes with being a gangster.

What does it do right? The cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli captures the gritty vibrancy of New York's Lower East Side, the glitz of the Prohibition era, and the melancholic decay of the 1960s. There is great attention to period detail, from costumes to production design, immersing the viewer in each era. Then there is that memorable score. As for the acting, De Niro shows the versatility that he always does, and James Woods as Noodles' best friend and gangster ally Max plays the part as ambitious and cunning. Plus Woods always injects just a little bit of crazy int his performances.

What did it do wrong? Leone's last film has the same problem with editing that Scorsese has had with his later films. It's just too long and has lots of side stories about union bosses and strikes that add nothing to the narrative. Finally, there are a total of two rapes in this film, with one of them actually being played for laughs. Leone did this in "Duck You Sucker" and caused me to lose all sympathy for Rod Steiger's character as a result. Does Leone not get how such crimes are received in the United States?

Overall this film actually transcends the gangster genre. It's not about family or the gangster lifestyle. It's about the passing of time, guilt/regret, memory, friendship and growing old. It's also just as much a mystery as it is a mafia movie, as there is much debate as to whether or not anything that happens in the 1968 segment is even real or is it a heroin induced dream of Noodles as he tries to forget his part in the death of his friends by getting doped up in an opium den. I'd say - You decide. It could go either way.

Sergio Leone's films are all love letters to America, the American dreams of an Italian who grew up at the movies, who apprenticed with Wyler, and Aldrich, signed himself Bob Robertson, and gave us Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, Charles Bronson as we know them. Sadly, America didn't always repay the compliment. Leone's were "spaghetti westerns", money makers to be sure, but deemed disrespectful of the great tradition of Ford, Walsh and Hathaway. Many critics and Holllywood insiders called his earlier Eastwood films cynical and violent bottom-line commercial exploitation. By the time that they caught on to Leone's genuine popular appeal, the director had already moved on. And, his Once Upon a Time in the West was damned as pretentious, bloated, self-indulgent: an art film disguised as a Western, the Heaven's Gate of its day. That film's canny blend of pop appeal and pure cinematic genius gradually dawned on the powers that be (or were), and helped give rise to the renaissance of American filmmaking in the early seventies. It is worth noting that The Godfather could have been made by Leone, had he chosen. Leone had been pitching a gangster film that would encompass generations, for a generation or two, himself. Rather than do the Puzo version finally thrown back at him, he waited an eternity, and finally realized this, his last finished project. That ellipse of a decade or so between conception and completed movie is paralleled in the film, itself, by Robert De Niro's ("Noodles'") opium dream of the American twentieth century, its promises, and betrayals. Naturally, Leone was betrayed, once again, himself, by America, and this truly amazing film, with its densely multi-layered, overlapping flashback structure was butchered upon its release, becoming a linear-plotted sub-Godfather knockoff in the process. Luckily, the critics had grown up enough in the meantime to finally get a glimmering of what Leone was up to, and demand restitution. Very few saw it properly in theaters, but the video version respects the director's intentions, more or less. Ironically, Leone had foreseen television screen aspect ratios as determining home viewing of the future, and abbreviated his usual wide screen format for this movie, so this most troubled last project was the first released on video to most properly resemble the true cinematic experience. For diehard fans of the Eastwood westerns impatient with this at first, watch those movies till you want and need more. This will eventually get to you. For art film fanatics who don't get the earlier Leones, travel in the reverse direction, and you will be pleasantly surprised. This is the movie that Leone spent a decade conceiving. It will deliver for decades of viewing to come.

Oh, how to feel about this movie?

I was mostly riveted by it, let's get that out of the way. It's gorgeous to look at with those Sergio Leone compositions, and gorgeous to listen to with that Ennio Morricone score. Like so many of Leone's films, it has a plaintive, nostalgic glow to it that makes you ache emotionally without even knowing exactly what you're aching for.

And there's where I get conflicted with this movie. The character created by Robert De Niro is a repulsive human being. He murders, he rapes. The film cannot be forgiven for the way it handles rape. In one instance, the woman treats it like it was a naughty prank and comes back to fondle the rapist and his buddies in a scene played for laughs. In the other instance, the film at least has the decency to make it seem like something traumatic to the woman, but that woman is Elizabeth McGovern, who reappears later in the film and acts like she's full of regret over the relationship she and De Niro were denied, despite the fact that that relationship consisted almost entirely of him just stalking her and then taking her against her will in the back of a car when she tells him she's leaving for California to become an actress. We follow Robert De Niro both as a young man and as an older man looking back ruefully on his life, but we don't sense that he regrets any of the things he actually did. He just regrets what he lost. It's like he's sad that his days of murdering and raping without consequence are over, and that elegiac Sergio Leone tone left me wondering, what exactly are we supposed to be feeling nostalgic about?

So I guess I understand both people who think this movie is something great and those who think it's reprehensible. I guess it's proof that things can be many things at once.

Grade: A.

Noodles returns to the New York of his youth in response to an invitation to come and meet. His return is his first for half his life having fled New York to avoid being killed for ratting out his gangster friends. His return is mysterious and he doesn't know why he has been summoned. His return sparks memories of his childhood and adulthood growing up in the area with his friends and eventual business partners.

A three and a half hour movie may not be everyone's idea of fun. On the other hand, many people who see a running time over 180 minutes immediately assume it is an epic that must be `the greatest film ever made'. In this case the time is worth the effort, even if it a little luxurious and overlong. The plot is too sweeping to go into detail, encompassing 30 years in the main part and a further 30 by way of suggestion. Basically it comes down to Noodles memories of his life when he was growing up, up till the point we find him now, as an old man with little but those memories. As a story this is moving and involving. There are maybe too many lingering shots of Noodles staring into the distance but these don't feel as lazy as they have in other films.

Noodles past and the misery of him now is involving enough, but the main thread is Noodle's past, both childhood and adulthood in crime and love. The sheer detail that must be covered is well done. The film not only includes many major events but also minor things like the scene where the boy is tempted to eat a cream cake! This mix is very rewarding and makes it feel a lot more detailed than it actually is. The story is a real feel of several generations of crime and is very involving.

The cast make the film and hold the attention during the scenes that are longer than they should be etc. De Niro convinces as youth and bitter old man and holds the eye easily as both. Woods is much better than usual even if his character is the same. McGovern is good considering she has a minor role, but as an `old woman' she looks the same as she was when she was young. Actors like Williams, Aiello, Forsythe, Hayden etc easily fill out the gangster etc roles without falling into cliché or caricature. Just as rewarding are the child actors who carry the first hour of the film. Not only do they actually look like the actors in question, but they also do a very good job. There are some bum notes but they do mange the innocence of youth with the emotional basis for the rest of the film.

The direction is excellent – both gritty streets but with an affectionate slant of Noodles' memories. The direction is made almost perfect by the use of Ennio Morricone's score. It is at once haunting but slightly warming and `Debra's theme' has become one of my favourite tunes. The overall effect is one of a rich tapestry that eventually weaves into a very personal epic of regret and loss.

An excellent film that deserves to be recognised as both one of the great crime epics but also a personal and moving film.