Reviews

Crafted in Britain by director Joe Wright, Atonement tells the story of young author Briony Tallis who becomes jealous of her older sister's illicit love affair with a servant. And with this, she finds a love letter meant for Cecilia (her sister) written by the servant Robbie Turner and misconstrues it as a letter written with sadistic-perverted undertones when in reality it was a second draft that Robbie deemed to silly to use. Briony assumes that Robbie is a nymphomaniac and it is with this notion that she accuses Robbie with the rape of her younger sister. Upon hearing this, the Tallis family has him arrested and he ends up in World War II whilst Cecilia winds ups being a nurse. The rest of the movie revolves around Robbie trying to find his way back to Cecilia and also displays the cathartic process that Briony faces upon reaching adolescence and realizing the life-changing mistakes that she made. Atonement is sort of stuck in the middle in regards to whether it renders primarily on emotion or story. It is based on an Ian McEwen novel, so it does use some story elements in the latter segment of the film, such as when the story falls into the 'war-romance'-type category. The first half however feels highly eastern-oriented with well-placed shots around staircases and through windows that draw us into the secret love affair that Cecilia and Robbie have undertaken. The first part of the movie feels almost like a different film altogether. It feels quite artsy in spots and a lot of shots do not help to push the story forward. Having only seen two of Wright's films (Pride and Prejudice being the other) it's hard to lump his style into being specifically east or west. Pride and Prejudice had a lot of eastern elements in its use of detailed steady cam shots that follow its main characters around the sprawling English countryside. Atonement also has this, with an amazing 10-minute long steady cam shot that follows Robbie on a beach through the after effects of war. The shot is so magnificent that you forget about the lack of cutting and you start to feel as if you can taste the acrid flavor of rusted steel on a battleship or the stolid stench of soldiers' breath and spent bombs. The shot is very well choreographed as well as we see literally hundreds of extras that weave in and out of frame, each doing their own duty. Joe Wright uses background action nicely to tell different stories of different people without even giving them lines. Just watch the steady shot as it follows Robbie past a somber-looking band play a waltz or as he shoves into another soldier; a very well executed shot indeed. This shot does have an eastern-feel to it as it does not push the story forward but focuses on allowing the audience to see through the eyes of the main character. Editor Paul Tohill does a great job as well; his editing is never too fast paced but doesn't lag behind either. When he splices, he makes sure that we have enough time to fully incorporate ourselves within the basis of a shot. Again, his lack of editing in the steady camera scene helps to reinforce this. This can also be seen by assessing the scene that takes place near the end when Briony has come back to apologize to Cecilia and Robbie. His edits are now quick and slightly robust and help move the story along as we feel and see the tension-filled apartment room. The medium shot of Robbie when he almost decks Briony is tremendously powerful.

The Tingler is a film that was primarily used as a gimmick to fight the emergence of television popularity in the 50's. Released in 1959, it was produced and directed by the infamous William Castle. It was one of the last films Castle would make with Vincent Price; it also stars Judith Evelyn, Daryl Hickman and Patricia Cutts. It is the story about a pathologist Dr. Warren Chapin (Price) who discovers that when a person is genuinely scared, a parasite named the 'Tingler' will begin to grow on the person's spine and eventually strangle them from the inside.Dr.Warren's partner, whose wife is a mute and thus cannot scream, uses this discovery to frighten his wife to death. In an autopsy, Dr. Chapin removes the Tingler from the wife's spine causing the creature to escape. The rest of the film is about their pursuit of the tingler. William Castle has been no stranger to gimmicktry in his films;he's been using techniques to scare theatre going audiences since the early 50's. The Tingler is no different. William Castle used parts from World War 2 airplanes to devise a gimmick called "Percepto". These little devices cost Castle $250,000 to manufacture-almost the entire budget of The Tingler! Percepto would wait until specific scenes in the movie and then shock the unsuspecting seat occupant into a frenzy. Only a few seats were equipped with percepto however. In conjunction with percepto, Castle also hired audience members to faint and then be taken out by nurses. These were just two techniques devised to get a maximum scare from the audience. They were only used in larger theatres however. The last technique in The Tingler worth mentioning would be the infamous colour scene. The entire movie was shown to audiences in black and white except for one scene. In this particular scene everything is still black and white except for a bathtub full of blood with an arm reaching out to kill a woman! Their aren't very many redeeming features for a movie such as this. It's my least favourite Vincent Price film which I've seen. His acting is very average in the picture and many of the supporting actors don't contribute much at all. Again, I's hard to discuss anything else about The Tingler since everything is so average! The camera-work,lighting and set design; everything is just so monochrome and plain. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you try and keep an open mind and remember that this is 1959, you'll enjoy the movie a lot better. Just an odd bit of trivia: this could very well be the first film to contain the drug LSD. Apparently screenwriter Robb White had tried the drug at a university and decided to toss it into the script. Overall, The Tingler isn't horrible. It is definitely one of the flat out weirdest films I've ever seen which earns it some points. It's not a movie that you can watch a million times over; but if your looking for a summer afternoon kind of movie, The Tingler could be it.

Offerings is your basic slasher horror film. Directed, edited, written and produced by a man named Christopher Reynolds, it stars Loretta Leigh Bowman (Ya, I've never heard of her either) and a few other unknowns. John Radley is your typical neighbourhood weirdo/mute. The only difference is that he eats animals and his mother treats him like filth (including butting out her cigarettes in his breakfast). John's only friend is a girl named Gretchen. Naturally, Gretchen gets teased by everybody for hanging it with someone as introverted as John Radley. So one day the neighbourhood kids push Johnny down a well and leave him their. The incident leaves his face horribly disfigured and damages the limbic region of his brain, thus destroying any conscience he had in the first place. To make a long story short, John ends up murdering his mother, being placed under sedatives in a pysch hospital for 10 years, and breaks out after impaling a few people with needles. Get the picture? The rest of the story deals with him coming back and murdering all of the kids that did him wrong. He severs off their body parts and leaves them on the now teenage Gretchen's doorstep as his 'offerings'. It's pretty much like every other clichéd horror flick released in the 80's. One thing you're bound to notice in the first 20 minutes is that this is almost a scene-by-scene rip-off of John Carpenters 'Halloween' (Scott, I'm looking your way). No seriously, I could almost picture Carpenter watching this and cursing. We have a few Carpenter-isms to point out: An almost EXACT copy of his synthesized music, a pudgy cop who would rather bust a kid for porn then find out why body parts keep showing up randomly, horny teenage girls who would rather wear belly tops then watch the news, a psychology professor who thinks he can catch the killer and of course several ominous camera angles that either show us whatever the killer sees or shows us his eyes. All of these things add up to a very basic horror movie. I'll give it some credit though; there is a scene near the beginning that really made me cringe. I'm still trying to figure out if animals were actually killed on set. Apparently, on John's journey from the pysch back to his hometown, he eats various animals he finds in the countryside. Well our director Chris Reynolds decided to show some pretty grotesque close-ups of the carcasses-including flies! On a more supernatural note, I noticed that the guy who played the older John (Richard A. Buswell) also played a car driver in 'Rain man'. What makes this weird is the fact that these are the only two films that he's ever been in and I reviewed them both on the same night! Talk about creepy… Overall, the acting is what you'd expect in this type of film. The weird thing is that sometimes an actor will talk with a Texan sort of accent in one scene and then talk totally different in the next. I only mention this because it happened more than once; and well, it was kind of weird. The best acting performance came from a grave-digging intern who portrayed the clichéd, creepy caretaker mould to a tee. Some of the flaws of Offerings: A couple of shots blatantly cross the axis of shooting. These scenes don't even include the killer, so I don't think the director was trying to make us "feel" any sort of emotion; it just came across as being erroneous. The film is also irrevocably dark most of the time. In some scenes you can tell the only lighting present is the flashlight a character is holding. This is probably why about 90% of the movie takes place outside or around the vicinity of daylight. So aside from being overly predictable, unrealistic at times and a carbon copy of "Halloween', Offerings could do a lot worse for itself. If you found this cheap enough somewhere, it could make a pretty good purchase for 1 or 2 viewings perhaps. Actually, it would probably make a better rental.

6/10

Rain man is director Barry Levinson's crowning masterpiece. Featuring an all-star ensemble of Dustin Hoffman, Tom Cruise, Bonnie Hunt and Valerie Golino, it won Oscars for best director, actor and screenwriter in 1988. I must have watched this film at least a dozen times and I never tire upon viewing it in succession. It is the story of an egotistical salesman Charlie Babbitt (Cruise) who, upon learning of his father's death, is perplexed to discover that he has an institutionalized autistic savant as the brother he never knew he had. Charlie ends up going on a road trip of sorts with his brother Raymond (Hoffman) where after being annoyed with Ray's disability, discovers a love for Ray that he never knew he had. We watch as the movie takes us through plenty of luscious scenery and locale while we feel lost in the budding relationship that eventually unfolds between Charlie and Raymond Babbitt. Only a director like Levinson could pull something like this off. Everything is so carefully executed, to the masterful location planning and creative camera angles to some strikingly innovative juxtaposition. At one point near the middle of the film, we watch a shot showing us nighttime and then, without ever cutting away, show us daylight unfold in one composite shot. Furthermore, we have more Levinson trickery in the placement of promotion. At one point we see Charlie sitting in the hotel as a multitude of jump cuts show us the passage of time and we hear numerous commercials playing in the background. Whether this was intentional or not, it works well in the context of the scene. In a way, it's almost as if Levinson has broken the auteur barrier. His directorial work on Rain man is nothing short of stunning. Levinson is truly in his prime here. He even seems to bring out the best in Hoffman as we watch his character Ray constantly notice things that the average non-autistic person would take for granted (ie. the structure of a bridge for instance). I really don't have to say much about the acting. Hoffman's performance as a mentally handicapped Ray is legendary. Truly one of the most realistic performances ever brought to the screen. But it's Cruise as Charlie Babbitt that really shines. It was this film that finally showed naysayers that Cruise could actually act. I actually prefer his performance to Hoffmans! I would go as far as saying that this beats out 'Jerry Maguire' as Cruise's finest acting to date. Watch out Edward Norton! The musical compositions layered throughout Rain man remain some of my favourite of all time. Hans Zimmer has never been better; the Rain man theme song stays in your head long after you hit the stop button. He would even go on to use the same musical structure in his next movie, 'Days of Thunder', also with Mr. Cruise. Basically the entire score is an ethereal, uplifting experience in itself. Stu Linder provides excellent editing to compliment John Seale's dazzling camera work. It's a shame that Linder died only a few months ago while completing Levinson's,'Man of the Year'. I really can't say enough about this film. It's one of those movies where the viewer notices something new upon each viewing. I only just recently noticed that the photo montage on the closing credits screen are actual the pictures that Ray took while on his journey. Also look for a cameo by Levinson as the psychiatrist near the end of the picture. Truly a work of art, Rain man will shine well into the 21rst century as a fine example of classic cinema. By the way…who was on first base?

10 OUT OF 10

Bad Boys is a gritty, suspenseful film dealing with drugs, rape, death and young delinquents existing in a hostile environment. I just want to point out that this is NOT the Michael Bay film of the 90's! This version of Bad Boys was released in 1983 to moderate success at the box office, compared to the summer blockbuster status of the newer Bad Boys films. Rick Rosenthal (Halloween 2) occupied the director's chair with strong support coming from Sean Penn, Esai Morales and Reni Santoni. The story goes like this: Mick O'Brien (Penn) is being held in a juvenile facility for the vehicular manslaughter of his rival's younger brother. The rest of the plot is a riveting tale of suspense as his nemesis Paco (played by Morales) rapes Mick's beloved girlfriend while Mick is still in prison. This vengeful act lands Paco in the same prison where our character Mick currently resides. What follows? You guessed it; a barrel full of drama as a dramatic confrontation between Mick and Paco ensues! I first saw Bad Boys a few years ago after I purchased it for 3 dollars in a used movie bin. It ended up being the best three dollars that I ever spent! It really is that good of a movie. I realize I might be a sucker for early 80's dramas, but I rank Bad Boys as the most under-rated film of Sean Penn's entire career. It's hard to believe that he was only 22 in the movie, having just come off the set of Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Esai Morales is solid throughout as Penn's rival as well. Apparently Esai used to get quite a bit of attention from young girls visiting the set. This left Sean Penn in a crabby and malicious mood, which resulted in him getting a gym membership and having some prep talk with director Rick Rosenthal. For more on that conversation I suggest you listen to the films commentary track. All of the acting in Bad Boys is 100 percent believable at all times. I actually felt like I was in a deadly prison environment where one minute I have a best friend and the next he's making a stereo to blow up in my face! Oh yes…Bad Boys is that bad! On a more technical note, I really enjoyed some of the steadicam shots that follow characters down various stairways and around sharp corners. There is even a mistake in the last 10 minutes of the film where you can plainly see a steadicam operator directly in the shot! But it is barely noticeable considering how intense the last few scenes are! The movie itself is rather dark in some spots; which is probably the result of the lower budget price tag. But nonetheless, this film is much better than any other teen angst movie of the 80's that I've seen (including Coppola's 'The Outsiders' released in theatres only 2 days later!). There is really so much more to Bad Boys then I can write in these few paragraphs. It paints a dark picture for the American judicial system and an even darker picture for dramas of the early 80's. Please see this movie!

10 OUT OF 10

Mean Streets saw its theatrical release in early in 1973. Directed by a young bearded director by the name of Martin Scorcese, the film featured a then unknown Robert Deniro as well as a young, clean cut Harvey Keitel. The film was based on Scorcese's experiences growing up in New York's 'Little Italy' in the early sixties. Scorcese would spend hours with fellow scriptwriter Mardik Martin in a parked car, observing his old neighborhood for any ideas to add to a movie he was planning to make called,' Season of the witch'. This film would later become Mean Streets. It revolves around Charlie (Keitel), a catholic man trying to work his way up the mob hierarchy. Unfortunately, he is also in love with a woman (Amy Robinson) who is epileptic which is a big no-no in the mob world. Just to make matters worse for Charlie, he also sticks his neck out for Johnny Boy (Deniro) who is highly in debt to a loan shark named Michael. As the film progresses, it becomes apparent that Johnny Boy has no intentions on repaying Michael back anytime soon. Take all of this, blend it together with a smooth 60's soundtrack and you have the fabric that makes up Mean Streets. The film was originally planned to be produced by Roger Corman on one condition; Corman wanted all black actors! Obviously this didn't work out and another producer was brought in. When viewing Mean Streets, you can't help but notice the extensive use of the steady cam! At one point in the film, Keitel is actually wearing a steadycam-esqu brace on his body while "Rubber Biscuit" by The Chips plays vigorously in the background. Scorcese actually received some criticism from friend and fellow filmmaker Michael Powell since Powell argued that many of the steady cam shots were too jerky and should have been replaced with dolly shots instead. In some cases it's easy to see Powell's point, but for the most part I actually prefer the jarring feeling that the steady cam brings to the picture. The pacing of Mean Streets relies heavily on this disconcerted feeling and I feel the constant use of the steady cam helps to employ this-although I do feel bad for whoever the steady cam operator is…ouch! A lot of these early camera shots would later influence filmmakers such as Quentin Tarantino and would have a profound influence on Scorcese's own movie, 'Casino'. The acting in Mean Streets is excellent throughout. Keitel is spot on as Charlie and Deniro's 'Johnny Boy' is a great introduction to his often-copied method style of acting. In one scene, Deniro actually got into a live argument with Richard Romanus who portrayed the loan shark Michael. The two had been in an argument for the majority of the 25-day shoot so Scorcese, ever the entrepreneur, played off on this with sound results! The editing throughout the movie works parallel with many of the off angle camera shots. It does works out well in the end though. This was one of the few Scorcese pictures to not have Thelma Schoonmaker as editor. Rather, Scorcese employed a young Sidney Levin for the job. Music also plays a pivotal role in Mean Streets. It features music from the 60's including a few early Rolling Stones tracks to boot. One final tidbit worth mentioning about this film has to be the enlivening quotes! We hear Johnny Boy's,"It's a good twenty dollars!" rant to Charlie's, "You know Joey Clams?" argument. The subtextural humour is always present and adds a subtle flair to an otherwise perfect sophomore film from Martin Scorcese.

9.5/10

The Gamble, aka 'La Partita' , shot straight to VHS after it was released in 1988. Matthew Modine, Jennifer Beals and Faye Dunaway would star in this period piece directed by Carlo Vanzina. Plot: When Francesco (Modine) returns home with the assumption that his father's wealth will be there to keep him content, he discovers that his father has lost everything to a German countess (Dunaway) while gambling. The countess is captivated by Francesco's good looks and physique and lets him gamble his life for the return of everything she has won from his father. He looses and becomes her slave. Francesco realizes that the countess never loses for some strange reason and fleas. The rest of this film is him on the run from the countesses' men until a dramatic confrontation with the countess at the end of the picture. One defining thing about this film is the locations. There are so many amazing Italian and European locations to awe at, whether it be the 15th century castles or the lush forests and mazes; The Gamble offers gorgeous locations by the pound. One thing to note however, this is another film which suffered some loss of quality in the picture due to its conversion to VHS. If you can get over the graininess, you can enjoy the film a lot more. Costumes are always a big thing in any sort of period piece. The Gamble features a plethora of wonderful costume's that seem like they were made for this movie alone. Whether you look at some of the old world dresses that the actresses wear to Modine's classic tux, it's all there! The acting in The Gamble is far from memorable. Modine seems one sided most of the time and a lot of the women actresses are portrayed as sex objects throughout the film with loads of unneeded nudity. Ian Bannen, who is usually a top notch actor, also seems to be suffering from poor direction I believe. This is another movie that does have good choreography. Just watch how some of those stunt doubles weave their horses throughout frames with ease. Even the swordplay is excellent; it's probably the most Modine does acting wise. The one big flaw in The Gamble is the ridiculous ending! I couldn't believe how the movie went from a classical renaissance kind of picture to a flat-out supernatural film! I'm not going to spoil the ending, but it did leave a sour taste in my mouth! So along with this and a few other flaws, watching The Gamble could very well be a gamble in itself! If you find it cheap enough (like I did) I would suggest purchasing it for three reasons: 1. How not to act. 2. To look at the scenery without actually spending money on traveling. 3. How not to anger your audience with the most non-believable ending I've ever seen

Vengeance Valley first came to theatres across America in 1951. The principle cast comprised of Burt Lancaster, Robert Walker and Will Wright. The film was directed by Richard Thorpe (who would go on to direct Elvis in 'Jailhouse Rock'). It would be Lancaster's first western and also one of the few early Lancaster pictures to have full colour throughout. The basic premise of Vengeance Valley revolves around a cattler taking in a foster son, Owen (Lancaster). As they age the cattlers other real son Lee (Walker) begins to resent Owen. This resentment soon turns into acrimony and he frames Owen for being the father of an illegitimate child conceived by a woman on the ranch, which in reality is Lee's child. This is part of a maniacal scheme to turn his father against Owen, thus leaving Lee the ranch when his father dies. One thing first noticeable about Vengeance Valley is the bright principal photography. Even for an early 1950's picture, there is no doubting that the greens are green and the blues are blue. The entire movie is full of wonderfully provocative scenery such as mountainous landscapes and Montana-esquire farms from days gone by. This was actually probably my favourite part of Vengeance Valley: the locations. However, a lot of the indoor sets seem claustrophobic. You can tell that they didn't build any sets for the film since sometimes the characters may be in a room but the frame feels so compressed and out of focus. Other times they might be shooting inside a train and again we are faced with this claustrophobic feeling. I can't say whether or not the director was trying to achieve this, but nonetheless, it mad some scenes hard to watch. One more notable disdain would be the prevalence of animal cruelty scenes. Not to get into too much detail, but there is a lot of rugged handling of the animals in the film including the actual stabbing of a cow who has fallen. Whether this was the filmmaker's intent has yet to be determined. On a more positive note, good choreography is present throughout Vengeance Valley. If I ever wanted to be a cattle rancher this would definitely be a handy resource tool. A lot of the scenes with cows and horse riding seem well planned and executed. I can't say the same about a lot of other 50's westerns that I've seen throughout the years. In terms of acting, Lancaster is definitely the most present character. He seems to have a solid grasp on the character of Owen. Walker fits his role to a tee; it's a shame that he would succumb to a tooth infection only two months after this was filmed. Vengeance Valley is a solid little melodrama. Aside from some of the issues presented above, it does have a few redeeming features and is definitely worth a look for fans of old westerns or for people looking to start a cattle farm.

Corrupt (also known as 'Cop killer') was directed by Robert Faenza and stars Harvey Keitel as Lieutenant Fred O'Connor, John Lydon (yes, the former Sex Pistols front man) as sociopath Leo Smith and Sylvia Sidney as Leo's primary guardian Margaret Smith. Released in 1983 and based on the Hugh Fleetwood 'Order of Death', Corrupt is an intense psychological drama that contains elements of both sadism and masochism. Fred O'Connor is a New York City cop who has become obsessed with hunting down a notorious cop killer. One night he returns to his apartment to find that the cop killer, Leo, has followed him. Unfortunately, O'Connor has been renting this apartment with another officer using dirty and stolen money. Leo clues into this and O'Connor kidnaps him and tortures him for fear that if set free, he will elude the police of his illegal activities. The film uses a prodigious amount of master shot coverage although this is not entirely a bad thing by any means. It simply just sets up the turf for Keitel and Lydon to strut there respected acting abilities. Keitel is completely believable as the cold and merciless lieutenant (Keep in mind that this is pre-'Bad Lieutenant' Keitel people). John Lydon also gives a solid performance as the devilish cop killer. Most of the sets in Corrupt revolve around unfurnished and dark atmospheres such as where Fred O'Connor and Leo Smith play out their estranged and volatile relationship. I get the hunch that the bare sets are a metaphor for this. The music for the film was written by both Ennio Morricone and John Lydon. Lydon provided a folksy country tune and Morricone brought his 80's synth rock sound to the fold. I'm not exactly sure if I like Morricone's new wave approach. It's sort of the same thing he brought to 'The Untouchables' only more repetitive. It does get the job done however. Overall, this film is what it is: one of those average cop dramas that came out in droves throughout the eighties. One side note: there are numerous versions of this film floating around the market. Since the film has no owner, it has become part of the public domain and can now be distributed by anyone (including your 4 –year old son and his friends!). The version I own contains all of the crucial scenes although the process of transferring from 32mm to DVD left my copy full of sharply lit images and highly pixilated environments. Don't let this scare you away though; Corrupt is definitely worth a look! Particularly for fans of classic Keitel!

7/10

Burnt Offerings was released theatrically in 1976. It starred Oliver Reed, Karen Black as well as Bette Davis. Directed by Dan Curtis (who also directed the maniacal 'The Brain from Planet Arous') the film would go on to maintain cult status. It is one of the few seventies horror classics that hasn't been stamped with a remake yet. The premise of the story is simple: Ben (Reid) and Marian (Black) rent an expansive summer home in the sprawling countryside for a mere 900 dollars. The house takes a hypnotic hold on Marian whereas only Ben seems to notice while Marian is totally oblivious to this. As the summer drags on many spiritualistic occurrences take place including the house's uncanny ability to repair itself after someone is injured or dies. Upon watching this film a second time, I was thoroughly impressed with the cinematography work done on behalf of Jacques r. Marquette. It was very subtle and surreptitious upon my first viewing but upon seeing the film again, many of his tracking shots and quick cutaways reminded me of 'Easy Rider'. The look he brings to the film also centers around a 'smokey' look seen in a lot of soap operas. The self-proclaimed 'British bull' Oliver Reed is surprisingly laid-back in his role of the ultra masculine husband Ben. Bette Davis delivers a solid role as usually. However, I found Karen Black's acting to be bothersome. I just couldn't get into her part! I was also perturbed by the immaturity she conveyed on the films commentary track. That's another topic in itself though… In terms of special effects Burnt Offerings delivers. I caught glimpses of creative reverse playback and innocuous use of wind and rain machines. The environments portrayed throughout the film seem to be poorly lit; at certain times you would expect there to be some sort of fill light! For example, at one of the pool scenes it is incredibly difficult to see what exactly our two protagonists are doing in and around the pools parameter. Although Burnt Offerings is nothing spectacular, for a mid range budget, 70's horror flick it does have some goods spots but can render on the pretentious side. The picture does present some juicy scenes such as a rather deplorable pool scene between father and son and, of course, the infamous ending. I would recommend Burnt Offerings for fans of 70's horror movies. Otherwise, maybe save it for a rental folks!

6/10

Once Upon a Time in America was originally released in 1984.It starred Robert Deniro, James Woods, Joe Pesci and Jennifer Connelly. Directed by Sergio Leone, the film featured an alumnus of Leone's crew who had worked on all of his films. This included Enno Morricone's musicality as well as Carlo Simi's production design and Tonino Delli Kelli's masterful and creative cinematography. Once Upon a Time in America is a complex tale about New York City Pals who grow into gangsters and live their friendship throughout prohibition. Near the end of prohibition, a bank heist gone wrong becomes the focal point of the story. A subsequent reunion of the surviving friends 30 years later primarily involves Noodles (Deniro) revisiting his past. The movie itself is almost four hours long and its 1.85:1 ratio shows off Leone's unique visual style. For instance, at one point we may see a crane drop down from the top of the frame like some sort of giraffe to catch Noodles entering an old pub or we may watch in awe as the Brooklyn Bridge is reconstructed right before our eyes. These are just two amongst many commodities that really do reinstate this as Leone's pinnacle masterpiece. It would also be his final film. Deniro delivers the goods as usual. His method style of acting that we are so used to seems to be replaced by a more complacent and tranquil demeanor in this film. James Woods's character has a hint of ambiguity; at the end of the film I both admired and hated his character. Joe Pesci has a minimalistic role as a small-time hustler. Another mentionable fact of OUATIA would be the quality child acting portrayed throughout the film. A young Jennifer Connelly nails her role as Noodles lost childhood sweetheart in the early scenes of the picture. Throughout OUATIA we are treated to Morricone's breathtaking compositions. Perhaps it is the orchestrated version of The Beatles' 'Yesterday', or any other of his musical motifs. Not since, 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' has Morricone been so luminous. Overall this film is pure cinematic art. From time to time there isn't a word said but the music and pictures on screen carry the story forward. OUATIA was released in three different edited versions - apparently the full version created a quandary for Warner Brother's executives and it was butchered down two hours. This broke Leone's heart and he would never live to see the full version be released many years later on DVD. I would recommend Once Upon a Time in America to anyone who has a deep passion for movies. It contains gratuitous use of much Leoneism and will be talked about for many decades to come. However, it does take an average of two viewings before the plot begins to make complete sense, but when it does prepare to be engulfed in Leone's most enduring creation since the sixties. A gem of a film indeed!

10 out 10!