MovieChat Forums > The Many Saints of Newark (2021) Discussion > Horrendous, Total Letdown

Horrendous, Total Letdown

posted 3 years ago by CinemaDemon989 (1286)
47 replies | jump to latest

I was so hyped about this...but brutally letdown on many levels.

First off, the film is VERY boring. Painfully boring at times. I was bored to death in really the first 20 minutes. Secondly, the writing is awful. The characters, story, and sub-plots are all over the place. There's so many things that aren't even clarified. And thirdly, as much as I didn't want to say this, Michael Gandolfini is completely miscast. He didn't have the acting chops for this role at all. Now to be fair, to fill his father's shoes is a pretty big responsibility. But still, his acting performance strongly lacked. He didn't even seem like a significant character. He had a lot of cringe worthy scenes. The Tony Soprano aggression did not show. His performance was not believable. And I don't mean to sound rude about this, but appearance wise, he was so awkward and unfitting. Who agreed to his haircut?? Who okay'd this? Seriously!??

The writing was so unbelievably bad. And why on earth did a political message have to be included in this film? I'm sure any true blue Soprano's fan who watched this will understand exactly what I'm talking about. There are so many things that didn't make sense. The ending was terrible. Everything was terrible.

2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.

If you're a Sopranos fan...I would certainly not recommend this.

[–] JohnnyDoe (1715) 3 years ago

...like you have something better to do with you time!?

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 3 years ago

I do actually. This movie seemed like it would be a special exception.

You didn't respond to the context of my review. Troll alert.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

He didn't even seem like a significant character.

I thought that was the intention. He's not supposed to be a central character for the film.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 3 years ago

Yeah, well he should've been. Yet again, bad writing. Let's be honest, everyone was only wanting to see the life of Tony Soprano. He's the main focus point from the entire series.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

I haven't watched it yet, so I can't comment on any specifics, but a movie doesn't have bad writing all because it's not about something you wanted to see.

That's like me being upset with Prometheus because it didn't have more xenomorph action in it. (Prometheus is a very upsetting movie, but it doesn't make sense to say the "writing is bad" because it didn't the plot I wanted.)

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 3 years ago

Just watch the film before you judge my response. Bad writing as in...bad direction, bad pacing, disorganized, awkward, etc.

[–] yatzo376 (7458) 3 years ago

Dickie was Tony’s hero and the impetus for what shaped his future.
It’s really pretty straightforward

[–] bistritapcv (1660) 3 years ago

Who killed him?

[–] yatzo376 (7458) 3 years ago

Junior

[–] bistritapcv (1660) 3 years ago

They saw Harold on a pay phone. I thought for sure he would be bumped off. Why wasn't he?

[–] Indiscipline (708) 3 years ago

I'd already assumed it wouldn't be anything good, but I'm still compelled to check it out for myself.

[–] Galilguy (2327) 3 years ago

My thoughts as well

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

Considering that David Chase wanted to make a movie about the Newark race riots and was asked by the studio to shoehorn the Sopranos into it so they would fund it, I’m not surprised it turned out disjointed and awkward.

[–] NitroHangover (1115) 3 years ago

David Chase wanted to make a movie about the Newark race riots and was asked by the studio to shoehorn the Sopranos into it so they would fund it

Just out of curiosity, where'd you read that? Do you have a link?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Well that explains why the story went where it went. As a Sopranos movie it was crap. There were also little things that didn't add up. When it segways to the 60's the voice over is talking about how bad it was now that RICO laws came into being... well the problem is the RICO act didn't happen until the 70's. They had little things historically that were just inaccurate. If you are going to try and jump onto some historical trip and chase after the Newark riots then at least make sure your movie is historically accurate.

[–] Boricanator (1369) 3 years ago

The film starts in the 1960s, but the latter half when Christopher was already around, was in 1971. Rico was passed in 1970.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I know it ends in the 70's but when he doing the voice over about RICO the overlay on the movie specifically states that it is the 60's. It was an error and there were many others that was simply the most blatant that stuck out like wore thumb.

[–] Boricanator (1369) 3 years ago

What he says that it was right before Tony shows up as a teenager and that was in 1971. Johnny was just being released after 4 years in prison.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I makes sense now. I went back and watched it with subtitles and realized that the voice over was Christopher, I thought it was Dickie in which case it made no sense at all.. but when I realized it was his sone it made sense.

[–] BeaSouth (2786) 3 years ago

The racial thing was brutal and consumed half the screen time. Black characters were complete strangers having no connection to the HBO series and no time to establish themselves in a movie that was supposed to be about the origins of the DiMeo and Soprano crime family. For me, it was too much retroactive wokeness commentary. The 12 minute scene of BLM militant spoken word poetry was completely over the top. It was like 2021 Chase was working overtime to make up for a lack of racial diversity in the original series.

[–] Boricanator (1369) 3 years ago

When seeing the film, I knew the film woukd get criticized for being too woke. Thr critics didn’t disappoint.

However, as liberal as I am, those criticizing the film for being too woke are right. We didn’t need to talk about the Newart Riots and we certainly didn’t need the Harold character.

[–] bistritapcv (1660) 3 years ago

Why wasn't he bumped off at the end (Harold)

[–] NitroHangover (1115) 3 years ago

Because they're planning to make more movies. Confirmed by David Chase.

[–] BeaSouth (2786) 3 years ago

Which is fine. Let Harold and his black criminal syndicate have their own story and weave in whatever Black Power cultural issues the writers want to experiment with. But let it stand on its own two feet and see if it can independently acquire its own audience rather than reformulating the Sopranos

[–] Tongue (446) a year ago

But the problem is, no one cares about Harold and they definitely aren’t interested in seeing a spin-off series based on his gang. Seriously, I could not tell you one interesting thing about him or his gang .. he’s just another gangster - been there five that

[–] Boricanator (1369) 3 years ago

Disjointed is the word that came to mind while watching this film. There was so much emphasis on the Harold character and the race riot that it didn’t make sense.

[–] Creamofwheat22 (434) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NitroHangover (1115) 3 years ago

Some of you guys are fucking ridiculous. You're mad that Tony isn't the main character?? They've been making this film for like three years! In all that time, you never bothered to read up on the plot?? Tony was never gonna be the main character. It was always supposed to be about Christopher's father, Dicky Moltisanti. The side plot was always going to be about Dicky's relationship with Tony.

The Tony Soprano aggression did show, but it only showed little hints of it, as it should be. Appearance-wise, he was awkward? He was supposed to be an awkward teenager. His haircut?? LOL, come on, man. Did you think that 15 year old Tony was gonna be half-bald with short hair in 1971?

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 3 years ago

Dude...he was not a good actor. How is this not obvious?

[–] NitroHangover (1115) 3 years ago

He had Tony's body language, facial expressions and mannerisms down pat. You are not understanding that this was not supposed to be the same 45 year old seasoned gangster that we know. He was playing an insecure, skinny, awkward 15 year old kid version of Tony. He did GREAT.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 3 years ago

You are entitled to your opinion. But damn...as movie watchers, we are in different dimensions.

[–] tvector420 (28) 3 years ago

I have to agree with NitroHangover. This movie wasn't amazing and I have my own criticisms about it, but the casting/acting was on point. Michael Gandolfini was perfect as an awkward young Tony. That's like criticizing The Godfather trilogy because Michael Corleone wasn't a cold-blooded killer in the beginning of the first movie. Tony was like 15 then, he obviously wasn't going to be like his experienced, cold-hearted, gangster, middle-aged self. People change.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 3 years ago

Uhh, yeah I'm still not buying that.

[–] yatzo376 (7458) 3 years ago

Wow! I loved it.
It’s a prequel that could be a series, and probably will

[–] NitroHangover (1115) 3 years ago

Absolutely.

[–] Creamofwheat22 (434) 3 years ago

It's a prequel that should have been a mini series. There was way too much going to pack into a 2 hour movie. It was a jumbled mess and felt like 2 movies crammed together.

[–] johnmiller (3360) 3 years ago

Disagree.