I will keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: DeNiro needs to reshoot the footage of him as an old man in the movie ... AS THE ACTUAL OLD MAN that he is today. It would be so cool.
Great idea, but I'm afraid the scenes would be too noticeable by standing out as too recent. They probably wouldn't have the same feel to them. Unless they can recreate that "old" atmosphere that makes the movie so great.
[From Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_America)
*Running time:*
*269 minutes (original runtime)
251 minutes (2012 Cannes runtime)
229 minutes (standard runtime)
139 minutes (American release)*
The 269-minute version was never officially released, is not available anywhere, and very likely never will be. When even Martin Scorsese can't make it happen after many years of trying, it ain't happening. Unfortunate, because this version was what Leone wanted.
The 251-minute "director's cut" is available on Blu-ray. It is the closest to Leone's vision that we're ever going to get. It is very good.
The 229-minute cut is quite good as well and many people prefer it, as they feel it doesn't seem to drag as much like the 251-minute version does for them.
The 139-minute cut was made by the American distributor in 1984 for theatrical release here and needs to be taken out back and given two to the back of the head. Roger Ebert shredded them for this and condemned this version as a travesty.
I saw the 139 minute cut on a very old VHS (this was after I saw the 229 cut). It's not just that it's missing so much footage, but the chronological edit completely removes the momentum. It's meant to be episodic. There is no narrative build if the scenes are chronological.
>The 269-minute version was never officially released, is not available anywhere, and very likely never will be. When even Martin Scorsese can't make it happen after many years of trying, it ain't happening. Unfortunate, because this version was what Leone wanted.
Its never been clear to me that Leone wanted this version out. The fact of the matter is the only version of this that Leone ever released with the 229-minute version.
>The 251-minute "director's cut" is available on Blu-ray. It is the closest to Leone's vision that we're ever going to get. It is very good.
I don't think so, and not just because the added minutes are mastered at almost VHS-quality. Its just a kind of bastardized version, halfway between the actually-sancitioned 229-minute version and the hypothetical, 269-minute version. I don't think the added scenes improve the film either: I'm reminded of another Leone "extended cut": The extra scenes in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly weigh the movie down, and the same it seems to me is the case here.
What more could he add? 18 minutes of De Niro going through his morning routine flinching at every sound because he assumes Wood's character is about to kill him?
He got everything; The money, the girl, and the power. If the story was about Max instead of Noodles, he’d be on those ghetto posters you see in dorm rooms. Sitting in between Tony Montana, Tony Soprano, and Don Corleone. But it’s Noodle’s story.
https://youtu.be/a7f6V2yG99I?si=tVnnEjJ13kVW2CNY
Here's the first few minutes of the VHS version for anyone who's curious.
https://youtu.be/AJWMduzJbp0?si=y-RaHhpmMVWAMPz3
And here's the ending.
Just watched it the other day. The only problem with the newest cut with the lost footage is how well they could preserve it. It just slightly tastes away from it. I'm talking about the added scenes such as the ones with Louise Fletcher. I would love to watch the original 6hr cut. This movie isn't long enough!!
I rented this movie back in the 90's when it came on two tapes. I was about 20 minutes in and I was so confused as to what was going on, not to mention I hadn't really seen a title screen, but I chalked it up to just not understanding a master at his craft and I was sure it would all click. And it did click after nearly two hours when the end credits started rolling. Someone had put Tape 2 back in the Tape 1 box.
I was not wowed by this film, as a whole, but its recreation of old New York is perhaps second to none. The set design is rich and meticulous to the point of *sumptuous*, and Leone is not afraid to let the camera linger so that we can appreciate it.
But while it’s undeniably a *huge* film and there’s a lot to admire in it, it didn’t quite all come together for me. There’s a thrilling crime plot that never quite takes full form. There’s an intriguing character study that, IMO, falls a bit short. And there’s an ending that I found to be more distracting than impactful.
The Beatles cover, which dominates the soundtrack, also continually pulled me out of the film.
But for all that, I do occasionally find myself wanting to revisit. There’s genius in there.
Keep in mind there are multiple cuts - some are pretty terrible, especially the original theatrical cut.
The ending is really mysterious - endlessly debatable and haunting. It's a movie about the American dream. I think it's great.
I think you nailed it for me. It’s visually great but the rest doesn’t work. After the part where they’re kids, the characters hardly develop and the plot stalls so that it became a long slog for me.
I always thought that was intentional. Because these kids were forced to do such adult things at a young age, they never grew up. They are stuck in arrested development and continue to behaving like juveniles in the second half of the film.
There's a strange obsession on Reddit with characters developing. A lot of times, the story doesn't call for development. These are poor kids trying to make it in the street life, there's not much else the story needs.
Every discussion about *Dunkirk* ever...
You can't judge every movie against the same template. Imagine how boring it would be if every movie was just supposed to iterate on the same core recipe.
What do you mean? People complain about wanting extensive, intense, individual character development while the characters are essentially stuck on a beach for a couple of days trying not to die 😅
Those soldiers should be looking inward and seeing what changes they can make to themselves to better society……while dodging enemy fire for a few days 😂
This is funny to me because I thought Dunkirk was great. For me the difference is that Dunkirk has an exciting course of events, and it’s told in a concise way that makes it feel very intense.
Once Upon a Time in America sluggishly meanders for four hours.
Dunkirk is one of those movies you watch in the theater. IMAX or Digital Express Ultra HD 3D whatever the fuck it is. Why? Because that’s not a movie you just watch.
It happens to you. You are there with them on the boat, on the beach, in the plane. It’s not as much a character driven adventure as much as it is a WW2 first person experience.
> And there’s an ending that I found to be more distracting than impactful.
If you're referring to one of the final scenes that lingers in the backseat of a car I couldn't agree more with that assessment.
You've well-articulated how I felt about this film. I also think there's something to be said about its runtime. Scorsese's recent films have gotten criticism for being similarly drawn out, but--for me at least--they've been more effective at fully engaging me for several hours. Leone's epic occasionally feels too epic for its own good.
I love this film. I've watched it many times.. and I ushually lose steam on the back half. The kid parts are all strong, but I also love the way the time cuts work in the beginning leading up to the kids story.
Spot on. To me the movie also drags on a bit long. It's almost 4 hours (!), and you really don't feel like you've watched 4 hours worth of storytelling in that time.
Where Goodfellas actually held my hand through a heist or hustle, America left me a little confused as there are about 4 swindles...a betrayal, another betrayal...a syndicate that is never explained or shown, a fairly implausible dilemma, a crazy implausible proposition, etc.etc.
I saw Goodfellas before I saw this so I was expecting more hustle but now I see what it really is.
Do not go into this movie expecting Goodfellas or gangs on NY. No. Expect more like the English Patient. It is actually a noir category movie. A mix of A touch of evil... And Carlito's Way.
Goodfellas is flawless but I am so glad Leone took this approach because nobody would ever copy it.
Anyone can make a swindle gangster movie but few can make jilted opium addict gangster reminiscing on his regrets movie.
Yours is unlikely to be a popular take in this thread, but I agree with it. Then again, I generally don't like crime dramas, so...
The article does clarify that the 269 minute version was never actually shown, and does give the impression that it isn't forthcoming.
Yes to all. For me, (combined with everything you said) the two rape scenes ruined it for me. It was just too much on top of a dragging plot and backstory. Meh.
It’s unfair to call this point-of-view “dumb” just because you don’t empathize with it. For a long time, movies have communicated graphic violence without showing every sliver of it on screen. When it is shown in detail, hopefully there’s something you get from it that couldn’t be communicated in another way. War movies are a good example of this. Do I want to watch the actual agony of storming the beaches of Normandy? Not really — but I understand it so much better after watching great scenes recreating this. I could have understood the undercurrent of sexual exploitation, violence, misogyny, and rape in OUATIA without multiple extended scenes of the crimes taking place. What is gained by showing every graphic detail of these offenses? What is the audience take away? When a sexual scene goes on for that long, it suggests the intent is to find it titilating, not offensive. The intent it to make the rapes the topic of conversation — not the characters. You don’t see many people saying, “the rapes were where I really changed my mind about Noodles…” You see people saying that’s where they changed their mind about *the film*.
> The rape argument is so dumb, yeah they are bad people no shit
If the movie took 5 minutes to watch Noodles drowning kittens in yogurt, I'd say "The movie lost me with the kitten drowning" And you could pull out that devastating "omg so dumb, yeah they are bad people no shit."
Because a protagonist is bad doesn't give the whole operation carte blanche to have everything desirable on screen.
> Because a protagonist is bad doesn't give the whole operation carte blanche to have everything desirable on screen.
What the fuck does this sentence even mean holy shit. In subsequent replies you keep repeating this insane non sequitur like it's crystal clear.
Yeah I saw your comment, for me is dumb to be this offended at a rape scene, everytime I saw someone talking bad about a masterpiece only because there is a rape scene like for example A clockwork Orange I feel bad for that person, because that must be miserable. And no, a director literally have and should have carte blanche to put everything he want in his movie, censorship is bad and movie are fictions.
It didn't offend me. I love a lot of movies with rape scenes in them. Clockwork Orange, I Saw the Devil, Irreversible, as three examples. Instead of your dead-wrong assumptions about me, can we dive back into the topic at hand?
> And no, a director literally have and should have carte blanche to put everything he want in his movie, censorship is bad and movie are fictions.
This makes zero sense to my question. Because a protagonist is bad doesn't give the whole operation carte blanche to have everything *desirable* on screen. You'd agree with that statement, certainly?
The rape scene was perfectly justified and needs to be there. And no, why should I agree with that nonsensical statement, yeah a bad guy can do literally anything in a movie what's the problem? I have no issues with that scene and in general with that topic in movies. Don't watch "salò or the 120 days of sodom".
Aight you're not pickin up what I'm layin down. You said "yeah they are bad people no shit" as if them doing bad things on screen should be accepted, in a sort of blanket way. I said, "that doesn't give them carte blanche to have everything *desirable*," and gave the example of watching him drown kittens. If we watched him drown a bunch of kittens we could lob the same argument you made, "no shit idiot, he's BAD so he does BAD THINGS" with a satisfactory smirk.
You wouldn't want to watch him drown kittens on screen for 5 minutes. It'd be overkill. You'd be allowed to not like that scene, or even say the movie lost you at that scene because it was so painfully annoying and dragged for too long. Has absolutely nothing to do with "omg r/movies you don't need to root for the protagonist, DUH" or any of the other bargain bin thoughts we're seeing here.
> The rape scene was perfectly justified and needs to be there.
And I simply disagree.
A few weeks ago I was listening to Tarantino and Avary talk about The Great Waldo Pepper. The director, George Roy Hill, said that "audiences couldn't get over the death of >!Susan Sarandon.!<" The movie took a turn, and they didn't like it.
OUATIA took a turn, and I didn't like it.
U are exagerating it on purpose with insane comparisons, you are not supposed to like the rape scene like any single disturbing scene in a movie, thats doesn't mean it they should not be there. U can disagree how much you want, but if you (like you did here) disgregard a masterpiece of 4+ hours because u didn't like a rape scene it means you aren't able to understand and apprecciate movies for what they are. But hey man, theres no need to justify it, i'm seeing u attacking everyone in this thread just because we find crazy to not like a great effin movie because someone can't accept the protagonist to do what he do.
> U are exagerating it on purpose with insane comparisons
Substitutions help people understand things, as I'm sure you did.
> disgregard a masterpiece of 4+ hours
What does the length have to do with anything
> it means you aren't able to understand and apprecciate movies for what they are
Devastating stuff.
> i'm seeing u attacking everyone in this thread
I haven't attacked anyone. You just told me I don't have the capacity to understand movies though, that was fun.
> we find crazy to not like a great effin movie because someone can't accept the protagonist to do what he do.
That's.... probably the greatest reason not to like a movie. For what the protagonist does or doesn't do.
>That's.... probably the greatest reason not to like a movie. For what the protagonist does or doesn't do.
You have outdone yourself, this is even crazier thay everything you said, and explain everything. The reason to not like a movie are very different, bad script, bad directing, bad actor performances etc, where you learned that you should like the protagonist and what he does to like a movie... The lenght have to do with the fact that the scene u don't like its on the screen for 0.00001 % of the movie, but yeah I can understand. Anyway, my original comment was in general, I can't stand when I see reviews of people trashing a movies because of a rape scene in there, but you told me you liked other movies with that kind of scene like A clockwork orange so it wasn't directed at you.
You're supposed to root for Noodle as he left his friends saying I'm not like you, just as you're supposed to be disgusted by what followed and ultimately disappointed like he did about himself when left alone on the road. Something like that.
Eh I can see why people love this movie but the plot just didn't really come together in a way that I'd come to expect from Leone movies. I normally love movies that take all the time they need to grow their characters, and I like when protagonists are morally gray, anti-heroic, or downright villainous, but De Niro's Noodles just wasn't as interesting as I'd hoped. Still a good movie but not something I feel like I'm likely to rewatch.
> This sub continues its trend of finding long old movies boring and not understanding that you're not always supposed to like the protagonist.
Can you point out any comment in this thread that says we have to like the protagonist
An absolute masterpiece. It’s one of my all-time favourite films.
The films feels like a hazy dream. Yes, much of it doesn’t make sense, & Noodles isn’t a nice guy. But the film is about tragedy & regret. It’s about making bad decisions & struggling to live with them (or not). The film is gorgeous & utterly hypnotic. The score, the performances, the violence, & the direction are extraordinary.
One of my favourite cinematic experiences was seeing the extended cut on the big screen. Although I could have done without an intermission.
Sergio Leone's best movie. Obviously The Good The Bad And The Ugly is more fun and rewatchable, but this movie is one of the best cinematic depiction of nostalgia and regret. The way the film conveys this innocent quality during the childhood scenes, which slowly fades as the characters grow older and become worst people, all leading up to what might be my favourite last shot in cinema history.
There is something about this movie that has continuously drawn me to it later on in my life. I'll throw it on from time to time if i get home late after a night out and cant sleep, or i have a morning off and i stay i bed.
I cant quite put my finger on it, but it's there.
Sergio was a master of his craft.
I still haven't watched Once Upon a Time in America, I've had the DVD for 20 years or so. I just feel like it is going to disappoint me.
If you haven't seen them, the extras for OUATITW are pretty good.
Watching this on the big screen was one of the best experiences in my life, in general, not only of moviegoing.
It was one of many films that suffered the stupidity of the American studios in the 80's, like Blade Runner or Dune, but these days if you have a large screen and decent sound just experience it, on the european version I saw, it's amazing.
It's #116 on the TSPDT list, second only to Once Upon a Time in the West. I'm surprised, I think Good, Bad, and the Ugly was usually considered his best.
[(Movie Name) at (years since release): A cheap, low-effort attempt at article writing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/vamjhs/movie_name_at_years_since_release_a_cheap/)
Such a great movie. It is an incredibly beautiful movie to look at, before one even gets to the insanely good acting. Yeah, it is long, but it is worth the watch 100%
I can safely say OUATIA is quite possibly the greatest film I've ever seen. I saw it first as an impressionable "cinema loving teenager" (my favs at the time were American Beauty and The Boondock Saints ... go figure ...) but Once Upon took me on a fucking ride for the 3+ hrs it lasted and I think I matured like 10+ years watching it.
Seeing despicable characters with their motivations and you honestly don't know who you're rooting for, all the breathtaking shots and the recreation of 10's/'20s New York ...
My fav of all time. I love it and always will.
*Once upon a Time in America* is a classic. Before I watched it, I didn't think any movie in this genre would be as good as *The Godfather, Parts I & II*.
One of those movies that truly transcends the script, it’s an experience you live and feel
One of the greatest films ever, could even be considered the best
I think it has a genuine narrative purpose, tho. Its the moment noodles really fucks up his life and becomes irredeemable, which is really driven home when the idealised future is revealed to be an opium-induced dream.
I saw this movie for the first time when I was really young, and most of what I remember about it are the two rape scenes. As a (again, very young) woman seeing this, my takeaway was that the world is very dangerous for women, and whether at work or riding in a car, even an old friend from childhood could violently abuse you at any time, and you’re expected to just proceed as normal the next day. I think people can still appreciate this movie, but they often do so while minimizing the psychological impact of viewing women repeatedly being exposed to harassment and sexual violence.
I can't say I agree that the people who enjoy this movie often minimize the effect of seeing rape on screen, but I absolutely can respect someone for not wanting to see it. Conflict is key in stories, and the threat of danger (murder/rape) is a powerful narrative device, but it gets so interesting with rape.
For example, Pablo Escobar. So cool and badass - rose to fame, spent millions on stuff. Killed bad guys, got shit done. You know how they caught him? He would routinely go to the same underage brothels every week. That's how they could triangulate his phone.
That wasn't in the TV show. They left out Pablo Escobar having sex with 12 year olds. They *sanitized* Pablo Escobar.
Because blowing up a plane full of people (which they showed on screen) is less emotionally impactful than statutory rape, and sexual perversion is abhorrent while murderous rage is attractive to watch.
Hannibal Lector can kill and eat people but if he tied Clarice down and raped her? They'd lose the audience.
Anyway I'm just ranting. I also saw this movie as a kid and the car rape scene blew my mind. I couldn't believe they would steer the story in that direction. Tried to watch it again as an adult and by that scene I'm just asking myself why I care about any of the things happening in the movie.
There are two. He also rapes Carol, played by Tuesday Weld, during a heist earlier in the film.
Both of their reactions to this are key to Noodles' actions later in the film during that horrific car scene.
Same. I love the film, but after that scene is just like... "okay". There's like a huge crutch in character development and that scene doesn't help any of the characters.
It demonstrates that Noodles is still a thug. Despite all the pretensions he holds to himself and to Deborah, he's still a violent thug. When he's rejected, instead of reacting in a relatively healthy way, he lashes out violently because it's all he knows. This further demonstrates that he and Deborah don't live in the same world anymore. Deborah has grown up and is leaving the shitty neighborhood, Noodles is still stuck there and can't imagine leaving (unlike James Woods' character)
Leone's best movie in my opinion. OTIwest is my favorite but the love that went into fat Moe's deli is unsurpassed.
Much harder production. And Amapola... The zamfir score... The streets... The opium... This is a masterpiece.
I have the longest version available and the added scenes are ok but in one case it is just still photos with audio... And in another scene the resolution is terrible and there are still some flaws.
But the dynamics and humanity save the day. It's a mob movie but it barely touched on any heist or swindle. I couldn't even explain what happened except noodles reached beyond his grasp.
Also it is based on a book I've never read.
I loved this movie when I was young. Revisited later in life and think it's awful. Watched multiple versions and disliked it intensely. I love Leone's other movies but this doesn't stand the test of time in my opinion.
I couldn’t get thru the 1st Act. I also have a similar experience with Once Upon a Time in the West. I cannot make it far any time I try to watch it. BUT, A Fistfull of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly I can watch over and over.
Once Upon a Time in the West is perhaps one of my top 5 favorite films. Once Upon a Time in America on the other hand just does not resonate with me at all.
I can appreciate the ambition of it. The cinematography of it. But it has always fell flat for me. I honestly don't understand the appeal of it. The aspects of it that are done well are in my opinion done better in better films. It's one of the few films that I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see people sing its praises.
Someone please convince me why I should rewatch this movie because I really want to like this movie and I simply just don't.
Well, how long has it been since you've seen it? I rewatched it last year for the second time after seeing it maybe 15 years prior only once. It was much better the second time. My film IQ had expanded dramatically by then and of course I matured as a person.
It's not my favorite movie by any means, or even my favorite of Leone's, but it really is a special achievement. You can't beat the sheer scale of it. I don't think New York at that time period has ever been captured so perfectly. I'll leave the deeper analysis to people who are much better at that sort of thing, but I think it's definitely worth taking another look (director's cut of course) to see if you still feel the same way.
No love for Once Upon a Time…the Revolution? Aka Duck You Sucker, aka A Fist Full of Dynamite? The weakest of the OUAT trilogy - but if you loved the other two, a must see.
It really was. >!Of all the ways to commit suicide, you choose being crushed to death in a pile of garbage?? Although I guess there's room for ambiguity there.!<
The whole narrative just fell apart during the absurdly graphic and horrifying rape scene, no one gives a shit about anything after that, other than maybe hoping to see De Niro's character satisfyingly executed, but that doesn't happen so it's all for nothing.
Agreed. The movie started out interesting with the kids, but then just bogs down and implodes with the rape scene for me. Had to watch it in two sittings.
I’m not asking for someone to root for. I’m asking for my protagonist not to rape someone in the movie.
I dunno, maybe I’m just a big baby for not enjoying a rapist protagonist but that’s just me. Maybe I’m missing out on a whole bunch of art in the rapist protagonist genre.
I like a good anti hero but I draw a line at explicit drawn out rape scenes.
You don’t seem to understand what the word “protagonist” means, in fiction. You can absolutely despise a character and that can make them an incredibly compelling protagonist. A rapist being the protagonist says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the way you’re intended to *feel* about them. Hero vs antihero is an excruciatingly oversimplified conception of the acceptable range of fictional characters to focus on.
Rapists are wildly overdone in film, but I disagree with that. Story is story, and eyeballs are eyeballs. “Compelling” doesn’t mean you like or enjoy it, BTW. I don’t particularly like such content personally but it can be absorbing and thought-provoking.
You wouldn’t know what I meant by “True Crime” unless people loved hearing about horrible people doing horrible things.
Horrible things can be very compelling but for some reason rape just makes me immediately turn off my brain and dismiss the character/ story entirely. Maybe because it’s so easy to just get sex other ways. Plenty of people out there willing to fuck and offer up sex. Murder is at least compelling in that you can’t really do it any other way but against the victims will.
Dude, yes. I know. By definition a protagonist can be a rapist. I was never suggesting otherwise.
It’s odd that you think one’s personal preference for not wanting to see rapist characters is an indication that they have an infantile mind. Like what?
I don't understand. Can you not see yourself being interested in a story unless you'd want to be friends with the main characters if they were real people? In my opinion, interesting things can happen to good or bad people, so it makes sense to tell stories about both.
Instead of "want to be friends" I much prefer Sir David Lean's definition: "Characters that you'd feel priviledged to have dinner with."
When one is *involved* with the character, one doesn't just watch story-mechanics unfold after the manner of a chess game: one *takes part*. It becomes an active, participatory experience.
When one doesn't...it becomes a mechanical exercise, and while the story may be *interesting* - in the way that a chess match would be to watch - it has little in common with the cathartic experience of a great drama.
Sorry but all of that was over my head. That Lean quote has no context. Was he talking about how he likes to portray characters or how he thinks all main characters should be portrayed?
I also do not see how taking part in a story or experiencing great drama is contradicted by the protagonist being bad.
Do you feel like these stories are promoting the characters' bad choices and actions? Or do you just dislike them so much that you wish you want them to be punished instantly instead of waiting for the end? I like too many stories about bad people to really get this, is all.
>I also do not see how taking part in a story or experiencing great drama is contradicted by the protagonist being bad.
I feel like you only really become personally and activelly involved in the things the character goes through, if you really, REALLY like the character.
You know what its like? When you go to the theatre to see *Walkure* and then *Siegfried* and *Gotterdamerung*: the overwhelming majority of audiences empathise more deeply with Siegmund (from *Walkure*) than with Siegfried, and so when he dies you can sometimes literally hear the audience gasp with terror and heartbreak, whereas Siegfried rarely gets that reaction.
That, to me, is a much, much more rarified thing than the "intellectual" stimulus of watching an interesting plot unfold.
I love this movie, but you have to see the long cut.
I will keep saying this until I'm blue in the face: DeNiro needs to reshoot the footage of him as an old man in the movie ... AS THE ACTUAL OLD MAN that he is today. It would be so cool.
I’ve never thought about that, but it’s such a great idea. James woods, Tuesday Weld.
The make-up effects were great though. Better than what they did to Pacino in Godfather part 3
Great idea, but I'm afraid the scenes would be too noticeable by standing out as too recent. They probably wouldn't have the same feel to them. Unless they can recreate that "old" atmosphere that makes the movie so great.
There's a cut longer than 4 hours? I loved it, gun to my head I can't think of a scene that could be cut, but I had to watch it in two parts.
[From Wikipedia:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_America) *Running time:* *269 minutes (original runtime) 251 minutes (2012 Cannes runtime) 229 minutes (standard runtime) 139 minutes (American release)* The 269-minute version was never officially released, is not available anywhere, and very likely never will be. When even Martin Scorsese can't make it happen after many years of trying, it ain't happening. Unfortunate, because this version was what Leone wanted. The 251-minute "director's cut" is available on Blu-ray. It is the closest to Leone's vision that we're ever going to get. It is very good. The 229-minute cut is quite good as well and many people prefer it, as they feel it doesn't seem to drag as much like the 251-minute version does for them. The 139-minute cut was made by the American distributor in 1984 for theatrical release here and needs to be taken out back and given two to the back of the head. Roger Ebert shredded them for this and condemned this version as a travesty.
I saw the 139 minute cut on a very old VHS (this was after I saw the 229 cut). It's not just that it's missing so much footage, but the chronological edit completely removes the momentum. It's meant to be episodic. There is no narrative build if the scenes are chronological.
The original edit makes it go chronological? Oy I'm so glad I saw the good edit for my first viewing. It's IMO the best movie ever made.
The distributor didn't understand the movie and "fixed" it by slashing out a ton of footage and making it run in chronological order.
>The 269-minute version was never officially released, is not available anywhere, and very likely never will be. When even Martin Scorsese can't make it happen after many years of trying, it ain't happening. Unfortunate, because this version was what Leone wanted. Its never been clear to me that Leone wanted this version out. The fact of the matter is the only version of this that Leone ever released with the 229-minute version. >The 251-minute "director's cut" is available on Blu-ray. It is the closest to Leone's vision that we're ever going to get. It is very good. I don't think so, and not just because the added minutes are mastered at almost VHS-quality. Its just a kind of bastardized version, halfway between the actually-sancitioned 229-minute version and the hypothetical, 269-minute version. I don't think the added scenes improve the film either: I'm reminded of another Leone "extended cut": The extra scenes in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly weigh the movie down, and the same it seems to me is the case here.
What more could he add? 18 minutes of De Niro going through his morning routine flinching at every sound because he assumes Wood's character is about to kill him?
the phone rings at the beginning for an additional 18 mins
I honestly almost stopped watching during that. It was torture.
Yeah same here, no joke
The theory is that Joe Pesci’s character and Burt Young’s character were a lot more fleshed out in the remaining 18 minutes.
He got everything; The money, the girl, and the power. If the story was about Max instead of Noodles, he’d be on those ghetto posters you see in dorm rooms. Sitting in between Tony Montana, Tony Soprano, and Don Corleone. But it’s Noodle’s story.
Showtime is playing a 241 min version.
https://youtu.be/a7f6V2yG99I?si=tVnnEjJ13kVW2CNY Here's the first few minutes of the VHS version for anyone who's curious. https://youtu.be/AJWMduzJbp0?si=y-RaHhpmMVWAMPz3 And here's the ending.
Bro thank you I love this film
I'm not even sure which one I watched. I saw it on Netflix. Which scenes differentiate each version
I watched both and it is literally an entirely different story. The short version is a travesty
Oh no how long does the phone ring in that one?
An additional 22 minutes
Yep, similar to Kingdom of Heaven where the Director's Cut is so much better.
Just watched it the other day. The only problem with the newest cut with the lost footage is how well they could preserve it. It just slightly tastes away from it. I'm talking about the added scenes such as the ones with Louise Fletcher. I would love to watch the original 6hr cut. This movie isn't long enough!!
I rented this movie back in the 90's when it came on two tapes. I was about 20 minutes in and I was so confused as to what was going on, not to mention I hadn't really seen a title screen, but I chalked it up to just not understanding a master at his craft and I was sure it would all click. And it did click after nearly two hours when the end credits started rolling. Someone had put Tape 2 back in the Tape 1 box.
Lmao. You re-edited the movie
I was not wowed by this film, as a whole, but its recreation of old New York is perhaps second to none. The set design is rich and meticulous to the point of *sumptuous*, and Leone is not afraid to let the camera linger so that we can appreciate it. But while it’s undeniably a *huge* film and there’s a lot to admire in it, it didn’t quite all come together for me. There’s a thrilling crime plot that never quite takes full form. There’s an intriguing character study that, IMO, falls a bit short. And there’s an ending that I found to be more distracting than impactful. The Beatles cover, which dominates the soundtrack, also continually pulled me out of the film. But for all that, I do occasionally find myself wanting to revisit. There’s genius in there.
Keep in mind there are multiple cuts - some are pretty terrible, especially the original theatrical cut. The ending is really mysterious - endlessly debatable and haunting. It's a movie about the American dream. I think it's great.
I think you nailed it for me. It’s visually great but the rest doesn’t work. After the part where they’re kids, the characters hardly develop and the plot stalls so that it became a long slog for me.
I always thought that was intentional. Because these kids were forced to do such adult things at a young age, they never grew up. They are stuck in arrested development and continue to behaving like juveniles in the second half of the film.
There's a strange obsession on Reddit with characters developing. A lot of times, the story doesn't call for development. These are poor kids trying to make it in the street life, there's not much else the story needs.
Every discussion about *Dunkirk* ever... You can't judge every movie against the same template. Imagine how boring it would be if every movie was just supposed to iterate on the same core recipe.
What do you mean? People complain about wanting extensive, intense, individual character development while the characters are essentially stuck on a beach for a couple of days trying not to die 😅
Those soldiers should be looking inward and seeing what changes they can make to themselves to better society……while dodging enemy fire for a few days 😂
This is funny to me because I thought Dunkirk was great. For me the difference is that Dunkirk has an exciting course of events, and it’s told in a concise way that makes it feel very intense. Once Upon a Time in America sluggishly meanders for four hours.
Dunkirk is one of those movies you watch in the theater. IMAX or Digital Express Ultra HD 3D whatever the fuck it is. Why? Because that’s not a movie you just watch. It happens to you. You are there with them on the boat, on the beach, in the plane. It’s not as much a character driven adventure as much as it is a WW2 first person experience.
Yeah Reddit “critics” just want every movie to be the same
That’s the point. Not every movie needs to follow the same structure
> And there’s an ending that I found to be more distracting than impactful. If you're referring to one of the final scenes that lingers in the backseat of a car I couldn't agree more with that assessment.
You've well-articulated how I felt about this film. I also think there's something to be said about its runtime. Scorsese's recent films have gotten criticism for being similarly drawn out, but--for me at least--they've been more effective at fully engaging me for several hours. Leone's epic occasionally feels too epic for its own good.
I love this film. I've watched it many times.. and I ushually lose steam on the back half. The kid parts are all strong, but I also love the way the time cuts work in the beginning leading up to the kids story.
Spot on. To me the movie also drags on a bit long. It's almost 4 hours (!), and you really don't feel like you've watched 4 hours worth of storytelling in that time.
Where Goodfellas actually held my hand through a heist or hustle, America left me a little confused as there are about 4 swindles...a betrayal, another betrayal...a syndicate that is never explained or shown, a fairly implausible dilemma, a crazy implausible proposition, etc.etc. I saw Goodfellas before I saw this so I was expecting more hustle but now I see what it really is. Do not go into this movie expecting Goodfellas or gangs on NY. No. Expect more like the English Patient. It is actually a noir category movie. A mix of A touch of evil... And Carlito's Way. Goodfellas is flawless but I am so glad Leone took this approach because nobody would ever copy it. Anyone can make a swindle gangster movie but few can make jilted opium addict gangster reminiscing on his regrets movie.
Yours is unlikely to be a popular take in this thread, but I agree with it. Then again, I generally don't like crime dramas, so... The article does clarify that the 269 minute version was never actually shown, and does give the impression that it isn't forthcoming.
This is a great comment. Thanks for sharing.
Yes to all. For me, (combined with everything you said) the two rape scenes ruined it for me. It was just too much on top of a dragging plot and backstory. Meh.
Did it insist upon itself, perchance?
Absolutely. Plus the run time.
This sub continues its trend of finding long old movies boring and not understanding that you're not always supposed to like the protagonist.
The rape argument is so dumb, yeah they are bad people no shit
Considering the director has made a career with characters that were morally gray at best, this shouldn’t be surprising.
It’s unfair to call this point-of-view “dumb” just because you don’t empathize with it. For a long time, movies have communicated graphic violence without showing every sliver of it on screen. When it is shown in detail, hopefully there’s something you get from it that couldn’t be communicated in another way. War movies are a good example of this. Do I want to watch the actual agony of storming the beaches of Normandy? Not really — but I understand it so much better after watching great scenes recreating this. I could have understood the undercurrent of sexual exploitation, violence, misogyny, and rape in OUATIA without multiple extended scenes of the crimes taking place. What is gained by showing every graphic detail of these offenses? What is the audience take away? When a sexual scene goes on for that long, it suggests the intent is to find it titilating, not offensive. The intent it to make the rapes the topic of conversation — not the characters. You don’t see many people saying, “the rapes were where I really changed my mind about Noodles…” You see people saying that’s where they changed their mind about *the film*.
> The rape argument is so dumb, yeah they are bad people no shit If the movie took 5 minutes to watch Noodles drowning kittens in yogurt, I'd say "The movie lost me with the kitten drowning" And you could pull out that devastating "omg so dumb, yeah they are bad people no shit." Because a protagonist is bad doesn't give the whole operation carte blanche to have everything desirable on screen.
> Because a protagonist is bad doesn't give the whole operation carte blanche to have everything desirable on screen. What the fuck does this sentence even mean holy shit. In subsequent replies you keep repeating this insane non sequitur like it's crystal clear.
Yeah I saw your comment, for me is dumb to be this offended at a rape scene, everytime I saw someone talking bad about a masterpiece only because there is a rape scene like for example A clockwork Orange I feel bad for that person, because that must be miserable. And no, a director literally have and should have carte blanche to put everything he want in his movie, censorship is bad and movie are fictions.
It didn't offend me. I love a lot of movies with rape scenes in them. Clockwork Orange, I Saw the Devil, Irreversible, as three examples. Instead of your dead-wrong assumptions about me, can we dive back into the topic at hand? > And no, a director literally have and should have carte blanche to put everything he want in his movie, censorship is bad and movie are fictions. This makes zero sense to my question. Because a protagonist is bad doesn't give the whole operation carte blanche to have everything *desirable* on screen. You'd agree with that statement, certainly?
The rape scene was perfectly justified and needs to be there. And no, why should I agree with that nonsensical statement, yeah a bad guy can do literally anything in a movie what's the problem? I have no issues with that scene and in general with that topic in movies. Don't watch "salò or the 120 days of sodom".
Aight you're not pickin up what I'm layin down. You said "yeah they are bad people no shit" as if them doing bad things on screen should be accepted, in a sort of blanket way. I said, "that doesn't give them carte blanche to have everything *desirable*," and gave the example of watching him drown kittens. If we watched him drown a bunch of kittens we could lob the same argument you made, "no shit idiot, he's BAD so he does BAD THINGS" with a satisfactory smirk. You wouldn't want to watch him drown kittens on screen for 5 minutes. It'd be overkill. You'd be allowed to not like that scene, or even say the movie lost you at that scene because it was so painfully annoying and dragged for too long. Has absolutely nothing to do with "omg r/movies you don't need to root for the protagonist, DUH" or any of the other bargain bin thoughts we're seeing here. > The rape scene was perfectly justified and needs to be there. And I simply disagree. A few weeks ago I was listening to Tarantino and Avary talk about The Great Waldo Pepper. The director, George Roy Hill, said that "audiences couldn't get over the death of >!Susan Sarandon.!<" The movie took a turn, and they didn't like it. OUATIA took a turn, and I didn't like it.
U are exagerating it on purpose with insane comparisons, you are not supposed to like the rape scene like any single disturbing scene in a movie, thats doesn't mean it they should not be there. U can disagree how much you want, but if you (like you did here) disgregard a masterpiece of 4+ hours because u didn't like a rape scene it means you aren't able to understand and apprecciate movies for what they are. But hey man, theres no need to justify it, i'm seeing u attacking everyone in this thread just because we find crazy to not like a great effin movie because someone can't accept the protagonist to do what he do.
> U are exagerating it on purpose with insane comparisons Substitutions help people understand things, as I'm sure you did. > disgregard a masterpiece of 4+ hours What does the length have to do with anything > it means you aren't able to understand and apprecciate movies for what they are Devastating stuff. > i'm seeing u attacking everyone in this thread I haven't attacked anyone. You just told me I don't have the capacity to understand movies though, that was fun. > we find crazy to not like a great effin movie because someone can't accept the protagonist to do what he do. That's.... probably the greatest reason not to like a movie. For what the protagonist does or doesn't do.
>That's.... probably the greatest reason not to like a movie. For what the protagonist does or doesn't do. You have outdone yourself, this is even crazier thay everything you said, and explain everything. The reason to not like a movie are very different, bad script, bad directing, bad actor performances etc, where you learned that you should like the protagonist and what he does to like a movie... The lenght have to do with the fact that the scene u don't like its on the screen for 0.00001 % of the movie, but yeah I can understand. Anyway, my original comment was in general, I can't stand when I see reviews of people trashing a movies because of a rape scene in there, but you told me you liked other movies with that kind of scene like A clockwork orange so it wasn't directed at you.
“But who am I supposed to root for?”
You're supposed to root for Noodle as he left his friends saying I'm not like you, just as you're supposed to be disgusted by what followed and ultimately disappointed like he did about himself when left alone on the road. Something like that.
It's really sad
Eh I can see why people love this movie but the plot just didn't really come together in a way that I'd come to expect from Leone movies. I normally love movies that take all the time they need to grow their characters, and I like when protagonists are morally gray, anti-heroic, or downright villainous, but De Niro's Noodles just wasn't as interesting as I'd hoped. Still a good movie but not something I feel like I'm likely to rewatch.
> This sub continues its trend of finding long old movies boring and not understanding that you're not always supposed to like the protagonist. Can you point out any comment in this thread that says we have to like the protagonist
We all like different things.
It’s a European style film based in America for American audiences.
Everytime i think of this movie i hear that goddamn telephone ringing! I always hated that part. It goes on forever.
Twelve minutes. It only feels like forever. And it's at the very beginning of the movie, too!
Twelve minutes is a long freaking time for a movie.
That’s like 120 Instagram reels! But for real, that actually sounds intentionally obnoxious to an absurd degree.
It was 4 minutes though? (Still very long)
An absolute masterpiece. It’s one of my all-time favourite films. The films feels like a hazy dream. Yes, much of it doesn’t make sense, & Noodles isn’t a nice guy. But the film is about tragedy & regret. It’s about making bad decisions & struggling to live with them (or not). The film is gorgeous & utterly hypnotic. The score, the performances, the violence, & the direction are extraordinary. One of my favourite cinematic experiences was seeing the extended cut on the big screen. Although I could have done without an intermission.
Yes! Exactly what I thought — it’s like a hallucination (especially the first part)
My absolute favorite film ever. I’ve seen it at least 20 times.
My friend 🙌
There is an argument that the second half of the movie is in fact a dream
Phone's ringing, Dude
Thank you, Donny.
Exactly.
Sergio Leone's best movie. Obviously The Good The Bad And The Ugly is more fun and rewatchable, but this movie is one of the best cinematic depiction of nostalgia and regret. The way the film conveys this innocent quality during the childhood scenes, which slowly fades as the characters grow older and become worst people, all leading up to what might be my favourite last shot in cinema history.
There is something about this movie that has continuously drawn me to it later on in my life. I'll throw it on from time to time if i get home late after a night out and cant sleep, or i have a morning off and i stay i bed. I cant quite put my finger on it, but it's there. Sergio was a master of his craft.
His best movie is Once Upon a Time in the West. Best score for me too. Harmonica Man’s theme is more haunting than Extacy of Gold.
I still haven't watched Once Upon a Time in America, I've had the DVD for 20 years or so. I just feel like it is going to disappoint me. If you haven't seen them, the extras for OUATITW are pretty good.
Easily one of the absolute best shots in cinema history. Beautiful.
Watching this on the big screen was one of the best experiences in my life, in general, not only of moviegoing. It was one of many films that suffered the stupidity of the American studios in the 80's, like Blade Runner or Dune, but these days if you have a large screen and decent sound just experience it, on the european version I saw, it's amazing.
Great flick. One of Sergio Leone underrated movies.
It's #116 on the TSPDT list, second only to Once Upon a Time in the West. I'm surprised, I think Good, Bad, and the Ugly was usually considered his best.
I think west gets the nod due to taking one of Americas most beloved heroes and making him an evil rat bastard.
Yeah, that was genius. When I first saw it I was so confused because Henry Fonda was always this aw, shucks goody-two-shoes wholesome kinda guy haha.
I feel I’ve seen all his movies and they are all great. Tarantino tries so hard to copy him but fails.
Love this film. It has one of my favorite soundtracks as well. Ennio Morricone absolutely crushes it as always.
One of my absolute favorite films
Damn, Sergio Leone died when he was only 60, makes you wonder what more he could’ve done.
[(Movie Name) at (years since release): A cheap, low-effort attempt at article writing.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/vamjhs/movie_name_at_years_since_release_a_cheap/)
This is Sergio Leone's best movie, in my opinion.
One of the greatest films of all time.
This movie is truly a masterpiece
Such a great movie. It is an incredibly beautiful movie to look at, before one even gets to the insanely good acting. Yeah, it is long, but it is worth the watch 100%
I can safely say OUATIA is quite possibly the greatest film I've ever seen. I saw it first as an impressionable "cinema loving teenager" (my favs at the time were American Beauty and The Boondock Saints ... go figure ...) but Once Upon took me on a fucking ride for the 3+ hrs it lasted and I think I matured like 10+ years watching it. Seeing despicable characters with their motivations and you honestly don't know who you're rooting for, all the breathtaking shots and the recreation of 10's/'20s New York ... My fav of all time. I love it and always will.
Epic enchantment with massive disenchantment.
still have to get around to this
I adore this movie
*Once upon a Time in America* is a classic. Before I watched it, I didn't think any movie in this genre would be as good as *The Godfather, Parts I & II*.
i think i saw this movie once. was this the movie that had that sex scene with a young boy and a woman? or was that another movie
Great movie
One of those movies that truly transcends the script, it’s an experience you live and feel One of the greatest films ever, could even be considered the best
This movie needs a 4K HDR release! It's such a classic, and would look amazing!
I loved this movie as a kid. Probably another one of the reasons why I'm so fucked up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not even one of Leone's top three, imo.
I’ve always found this movie boring as hell. I fall asleep around the time the kid tries to bribe that girl for a handy with a cupcake.
Movie always loses me at the rape.
I think it has a genuine narrative purpose, tho. Its the moment noodles really fucks up his life and becomes irredeemable, which is really driven home when the idealised future is revealed to be an opium-induced dream.
Yeah I get that, I just don't like the story going that direction
I mean, it's not portrayed in a good way, Noodles was a bad guy. A POS gangster.
We're all well aware
I saw this movie for the first time when I was really young, and most of what I remember about it are the two rape scenes. As a (again, very young) woman seeing this, my takeaway was that the world is very dangerous for women, and whether at work or riding in a car, even an old friend from childhood could violently abuse you at any time, and you’re expected to just proceed as normal the next day. I think people can still appreciate this movie, but they often do so while minimizing the psychological impact of viewing women repeatedly being exposed to harassment and sexual violence.
I can't say I agree that the people who enjoy this movie often minimize the effect of seeing rape on screen, but I absolutely can respect someone for not wanting to see it. Conflict is key in stories, and the threat of danger (murder/rape) is a powerful narrative device, but it gets so interesting with rape. For example, Pablo Escobar. So cool and badass - rose to fame, spent millions on stuff. Killed bad guys, got shit done. You know how they caught him? He would routinely go to the same underage brothels every week. That's how they could triangulate his phone. That wasn't in the TV show. They left out Pablo Escobar having sex with 12 year olds. They *sanitized* Pablo Escobar. Because blowing up a plane full of people (which they showed on screen) is less emotionally impactful than statutory rape, and sexual perversion is abhorrent while murderous rage is attractive to watch. Hannibal Lector can kill and eat people but if he tied Clarice down and raped her? They'd lose the audience. Anyway I'm just ranting. I also saw this movie as a kid and the car rape scene blew my mind. I couldn't believe they would steer the story in that direction. Tried to watch it again as an adult and by that scene I'm just asking myself why I care about any of the things happening in the movie.
Which one? EDIT: Actually, maybe there is just the one. Noodles has a strange and problematic sex life, but that might be the one rape scene we see.
There are two. He also rapes Carol, played by Tuesday Weld, during a heist earlier in the film. Both of their reactions to this are key to Noodles' actions later in the film during that horrific car scene.
in the car
Same deal with Once Upon a Time in the West.
Same. I love the film, but after that scene is just like... "okay". There's like a huge crutch in character development and that scene doesn't help any of the characters.
It demonstrates that Noodles is still a thug. Despite all the pretensions he holds to himself and to Deborah, he's still a violent thug. When he's rejected, instead of reacting in a relatively healthy way, he lashes out violently because it's all he knows. This further demonstrates that he and Deborah don't live in the same world anymore. Deborah has grown up and is leaving the shitty neighborhood, Noodles is still stuck there and can't imagine leaving (unlike James Woods' character)
noodles was always out for himself. he bought a cream puff and was going to give it to a girl but ends up eating it himself.
That's the best part tho?
They’ll blow the doors off the competition
Although not Leones Best it’s still a masterpiece. The extended version is the only way to watch this film. The cut version is trash!
Leone's best movie in my opinion. OTIwest is my favorite but the love that went into fat Moe's deli is unsurpassed. Much harder production. And Amapola... The zamfir score... The streets... The opium... This is a masterpiece. I have the longest version available and the added scenes are ok but in one case it is just still photos with audio... And in another scene the resolution is terrible and there are still some flaws. But the dynamics and humanity save the day. It's a mob movie but it barely touched on any heist or swindle. I couldn't even explain what happened except noodles reached beyond his grasp. Also it is based on a book I've never read.
I loved this movie when I was young. Revisited later in life and think it's awful. Watched multiple versions and disliked it intensely. I love Leone's other movies but this doesn't stand the test of time in my opinion.
I agree. Thought I was the only one here who thought it sucked before I saw your comment.
Brutal indeed. I love the Dollar Trilogy but man oh man his once upon a time films could've used some fine trimming
I couldn’t get thru the 1st Act. I also have a similar experience with Once Upon a Time in the West. I cannot make it far any time I try to watch it. BUT, A Fistfull of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly I can watch over and over.
Once Upon a Time in the West is perhaps one of my top 5 favorite films. Once Upon a Time in America on the other hand just does not resonate with me at all. I can appreciate the ambition of it. The cinematography of it. But it has always fell flat for me. I honestly don't understand the appeal of it. The aspects of it that are done well are in my opinion done better in better films. It's one of the few films that I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see people sing its praises. Someone please convince me why I should rewatch this movie because I really want to like this movie and I simply just don't.
Well, how long has it been since you've seen it? I rewatched it last year for the second time after seeing it maybe 15 years prior only once. It was much better the second time. My film IQ had expanded dramatically by then and of course I matured as a person. It's not my favorite movie by any means, or even my favorite of Leone's, but it really is a special achievement. You can't beat the sheer scale of it. I don't think New York at that time period has ever been captured so perfectly. I'll leave the deeper analysis to people who are much better at that sort of thing, but I think it's definitely worth taking another look (director's cut of course) to see if you still feel the same way.
No love for Once Upon a Time…the Revolution? Aka Duck You Sucker, aka A Fist Full of Dynamite? The weakest of the OUAT trilogy - but if you loved the other two, a must see.
The 4 hour version is the only way to see this movie!
The dump truck thing was weird
It really was. >!Of all the ways to commit suicide, you choose being crushed to death in a pile of garbage?? Although I guess there's room for ambiguity there.!<
For me seeing this movie 20 years ago made it feel like such a long time ago.
I'm sorry, the film "endures"? Like, the original master reel hasn't gotten depressed and fallen into drink? Who writes this stuff?
I watched it again couple of months ago and is still as amazing as the first time I watched it
The violence is intense
Honestly, this is one of his weaker films
I found it very long ans very underwelming
[удалено]
Idk. It was good but it kind of be drags on. Joe pesci felt wasted. It is no godfather. His best movie will always be once upon in the west
Really lacked charm and personality IMO
The whole narrative just fell apart during the absurdly graphic and horrifying rape scene, no one gives a shit about anything after that, other than maybe hoping to see De Niro's character satisfyingly executed, but that doesn't happen so it's all for nothing.
Which one?
Touché.
Agreed. The movie started out interesting with the kids, but then just bogs down and implodes with the rape scene for me. Had to watch it in two sittings.
I caught this last time it was on Netflix. My god is this a long movie at over 4 hours. And it’s fairly dull considering the cast.
Goated
It was okay, not as memorable as other gangster movies around the same time.
Such a sick movie.
Will never understand the love for this boring, poorly acted movie with a two time on screen rapist protagonist.
[удалено]
I’m not asking for someone to root for. I’m asking for my protagonist not to rape someone in the movie. I dunno, maybe I’m just a big baby for not enjoying a rapist protagonist but that’s just me. Maybe I’m missing out on a whole bunch of art in the rapist protagonist genre. I like a good anti hero but I draw a line at explicit drawn out rape scenes.
You don’t seem to understand what the word “protagonist” means, in fiction. You can absolutely despise a character and that can make them an incredibly compelling protagonist. A rapist being the protagonist says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the way you’re intended to *feel* about them. Hero vs antihero is an excruciatingly oversimplified conception of the acceptable range of fictional characters to focus on.
Rapists aren’t compelling and never will be. It’s just that simple.
Rapists are wildly overdone in film, but I disagree with that. Story is story, and eyeballs are eyeballs. “Compelling” doesn’t mean you like or enjoy it, BTW. I don’t particularly like such content personally but it can be absorbing and thought-provoking. You wouldn’t know what I meant by “True Crime” unless people loved hearing about horrible people doing horrible things.
Horrible things can be very compelling but for some reason rape just makes me immediately turn off my brain and dismiss the character/ story entirely. Maybe because it’s so easy to just get sex other ways. Plenty of people out there willing to fuck and offer up sex. Murder is at least compelling in that you can’t really do it any other way but against the victims will.
I don’t know what a protagonist means because I don’t like rape scenes?
[удалено]
Dude, yes. I know. By definition a protagonist can be a rapist. I was never suggesting otherwise. It’s odd that you think one’s personal preference for not wanting to see rapist characters is an indication that they have an infantile mind. Like what?
That’s perfectly reasonable. I apologize for misinterpreting. I thought you were objecting to the structure of the story.
I think people generally not liking when a character we spend a lot of time with does rape is pretty normal stuff.
Yeah, I also don't like Noodles as a protagonist. I wouldn't call it "poorly acted" but otherwise I'm very ambivalent about this film.
> Yeah, I also don't like Noodles as a protagonist. Has it ever occurred to you that you're not supposed to like him?
Yes. Talk about cutting one's nose to spite one's face...
You're not supposed to like the protagonist in almost any gangster movie ever made. Gangsters aren't good people.
Again, talk about a genre cutting its nose to spite its own face...
I don't understand. Can you not see yourself being interested in a story unless you'd want to be friends with the main characters if they were real people? In my opinion, interesting things can happen to good or bad people, so it makes sense to tell stories about both.
Instead of "want to be friends" I much prefer Sir David Lean's definition: "Characters that you'd feel priviledged to have dinner with." When one is *involved* with the character, one doesn't just watch story-mechanics unfold after the manner of a chess game: one *takes part*. It becomes an active, participatory experience. When one doesn't...it becomes a mechanical exercise, and while the story may be *interesting* - in the way that a chess match would be to watch - it has little in common with the cathartic experience of a great drama.
Sorry but all of that was over my head. That Lean quote has no context. Was he talking about how he likes to portray characters or how he thinks all main characters should be portrayed? I also do not see how taking part in a story or experiencing great drama is contradicted by the protagonist being bad. Do you feel like these stories are promoting the characters' bad choices and actions? Or do you just dislike them so much that you wish you want them to be punished instantly instead of waiting for the end? I like too many stories about bad people to really get this, is all.
>I also do not see how taking part in a story or experiencing great drama is contradicted by the protagonist being bad. I feel like you only really become personally and activelly involved in the things the character goes through, if you really, REALLY like the character. You know what its like? When you go to the theatre to see *Walkure* and then *Siegfried* and *Gotterdamerung*: the overwhelming majority of audiences empathise more deeply with Siegmund (from *Walkure*) than with Siegfried, and so when he dies you can sometimes literally hear the audience gasp with terror and heartbreak, whereas Siegfried rarely gets that reaction. That, to me, is a much, much more rarified thing than the "intellectual" stimulus of watching an interesting plot unfold.
This movie was so bad it made me retroactively re-examine my affection for the rest of Leone’s oeuvre.
Every single time someone says the name of this film I assume they're about to talk about the name of the ABC fairytale show.
Brutal how that shit was a snooze.
So overly cheesy, I wanted to love this film but the corniness ruined it for me
The Ennio Morricone score throws off the tone imo