Once Upon A Time in America - Extended Director's Cut

MakeEmLaugh

It's finally here. The 269 minute version of Sergio Leone's masterpiece, Once Upon a Time in America.

My first thought is... wow, what an opportunity: to see the 'preferred' version of a film so many years after the death of its creator.

My second thought is... what if this is just a superfluous? The 229 minute version of America was perfect, in my view. Are we to believe that this version - 40 minutes longer - will make that previous version redundant? I hope not.

The extended version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly not only failed to improve upon the International Theatrical Version, it detracted from it in many ways, particularly by including scenes which Leone himself had cut from the film.

As Leone is no longer around to give this version his consent, how are we to know that it, too, won't have moments which stick out like a sore thumb?

The de-saturated quality of this scene does not give me a lot of hope.

Has anyone seen this version yet, or does anyone plan to see it?

marco_polo

I'll certainly give it a look, this cut was supervised by his family afaik, so you'd think it will be a frame for frame recreation as Leone intended, because even the 229 minute version was a subsequently edited version under pressure from the distributors to get the running time down.

It is certainly possible that the additional 40 minutes won't actually make it a better film but very interesting to see nonetheless (See apocalypse now redux for reference )

Ushabye

Unfortunately you were right to be skeptical. The color timing on the new Bluray has been altered to try to match the entire film to the sub-par quality of the newly added scenes. Maybe this is the best they can get those cut scenes to look due to the limitations of their condition, or perhaps they weren't willing to spend the money on a proper restoration? Either way the results are disappointing. All the warmth has been removed from the colour pallet. The scenes, by themselves, are fascinating to watch for any fan of the film, but personally I'm going to keep the previously released Bluray as the definitive version.

Sad Professor

The restored scenes look absolutely ghastly.

Lets just be clear about one thing: This is not a director’s cut. Leone never approved it. Leone’s children with the help of some film historians found some badly damaged outtakes lying in a film can and decided to splice them into the film and make a few extra bucks. And there’s plenty more where they came from. Give it a few years and there’ll be an even longer version available.

marco_polo

Just been doing a little more reading over the past hour out of interest and what was released is a 251 minute cut so it is still missing some 18 minutes of footage that there is some rights issue with.

Also seems to be some evidence Sergio was pretty happy that the 229 minute cut was the best version so calling this extended version a directors cut is definately misleading.

MakeEmLaugh

Sad Professor wrote: »

The restored scenes look absolutely ghastly.

Lets just be clear about one thing: This is not a director’s cut. Leone never approved it. Leone’s children with the help of some film historians found some badly damaged outtakes lying in a film can and decided to splice them into the film and make a few extra bucks. And there’s plenty more where they came from. Give it a few years and there’ll be an even longer version available.

To be honest, I'm almost relieved. Hopefully this version will be seen as a curio rather than the definitive version.

The previously-available version on Blu-Ray and two-disc DVD was damn near flawless, in my opinion. It didn't need beefing up. Leone may not have liked the cuts, but film is an unusual artform that way. Sometimes outside influence can be a good thing.

marco_polo

Some more info on this restoration here if you are interested.

http://notesofafilmfanatic.com/?p=911

crybaby

Seems like a very tasteless move on the part of his children, have they been burning through their inheritance money or something?

charlie_says

I have actually never seen this.

What is a good version to get then if this isn't so great?

Links234

charlie_says wrote: »

I have actually never seen this.

What is a good version to get then if this isn't so great?

Haven't seen the new version but the regular 229 min version is just well worth seeing, better than the Godfather in my books

MakeEmLaugh

charlie_says wrote: »

I have actually never seen this.

What is a good version to get then if this isn't so great?

Links234 wrote: »

Haven't seen the new version but the regular 229 min version is just well worth seeing, better than the Godfather in my books

I would agree. Though I probably cherish The Godfather Part II more as a film, Once Upon a Time in America is a greater standalone achievement than either film individually.

This review by Adam Smith of Empire magazine explains why.

Let's get our heresies out of the way early on; the film that Once Upon A Time In America is often compared to is, of course, The Godfather. They share superficial similarities: both are epic in scope and exceedingly long. They both have at their heart a history of immigrants and the lure of criminality to the poor; they both traverse decades and they both paint a picture of the birth of 20th century urban America.

Leone's film is arguably the better of the two - if the less popular - eschewing, as it does, the soapy melodramatics of Coppola's family saga in favour of less audience-friendly, but more intriguing, ambiguity and symbolism.

Superficially, it is a gangster film. There are gangs and guns and drive-bys; speakeasies and Prohibition. But in the midst of the familiar trappings, Leone investigates the more resonant, enigmatic themes of time, identity and the reliability of memory. And he does it with incredible technical skill.

Leone is above all a master visualist and his movie is drenched in imagery pregnant with meaning. In the early portion of the film, we follow the adolescent Noodles and Max as they exuberantly roll drunks, torch newspaper stands and form the friendship that will become one of the film's central thematic pillars. Here the looming Manhattan Bridge seems to offer way out of the poverty stricken ghetto, but nobody ever crosses it.

Later in the film, before the gruelling rape sequence, Noodles dines in a vacant ballroom - an infantile, sociopathic vision of loving gesture, and of course it reveals Noodles as a man who must own the object of his love completely. After it, he stands in a dishevelled tuxedo against a blue-grey seascape, a scene as drained of colour as Noodles now is of redeeming moral worth. But, to get to the point, what is it all about?

Since its release, the complex structure of the movie has left audiences and critics slightly baffled. It's a movie that seems to offer no real resolution. Or at least no easy one. Who took the money from the case at Grand Central Station? How does Max survive what appears to be his murder? And what happens to him in the end? Does he fling himself into the garbage truck after Noodles' final visit? If he does, then the film takes on an unambiguously judgemental tone. The man who came from trash, and reduced a culture to trash, finally reduces himself to trash. Or does any of it actually happen at all?

One fascinating reading of the film, suggested by Leone and investigated by Christopher Frayling in his biography Something About Death, is that the film takes place - in its entirety - in one moment in 1933. Noodles enters the opium den after his betrayal has left his friends dead. He lies on his cot and, in a single moment signified by the enigmatic smile that concludes the film, remembers his past and dreams a possible future.

In the end, Once Upon A Time In America, like all great art - and that is surely what it is - stubbornly resists a final, authoritative interpretation. It places us resolutely alongside the mystified Noodles, desperately searching for a coherence to his life which is probably unobtainable.

catallus

I could never warm to this film, it always struck me as being needlessly grotty. The hideous rape-scene by Noodles in the back of the car never sat right with me. There's a lot to like in the film, and it is undoubtedly a work of art, but it isn't something I'd like to watch again.

MfMan

catallus wrote: »

I could never warm to this film, it always struck me as being needlessly grotty. The hideous rape-scene by Noodles in the back of the car never sat right with me. There's a lot to like in the film, and it is undoubtedly a work of art, but it isn't something I'd like to watch again.

Agree totally. Far too unnecessarily sordid, with some of the scenes just gratuitous. Plot, such as it was, a bit tedious and light weight also. Morricone's majestic score is far too good for it really.

Isn't it open to debate whether the entire thing is just a dream? I mean he wakes up at the opium den at the end. I think I remember things such as the oddly youthful appearance of Elizabeth McGovern's character when he catches up to her many years later as being a clue.

OldeCinemaSoz

It says something about AMERICAN CINEMA when a HOMEMADE gangster film like THE GODFATHER plays SECOND FIDDLE
to something a WOP made. Only THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY can compare TO ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.

The rest? REDUNDANT.

MakeEmLaugh

Links234 wrote: »

Haven't seen the new version but the regular 229 min version is just well worth seeing, better than the Godfather in my books

5 Reasons ‘Once Upon a Time in America’ is a Greater Film than ‘The Godfather’

arcticmonkeys

Looking through this Thread makes me want to go back and watch the movie again. All four hours of it :rolleyes:! I agree about the rape scene, it seemed to come of nowhere, far to gratuitous.Along with The Long Good Friday its probably my favourite gangster flick of all time.

Mizu_Ger

catallus wrote: »

I could never warm to this film, it always struck me as being needlessly grotty. The hideous rape-scene by Noodles in the back of the car never sat right with me. There's a lot to like in the film, and it is undoubtedly a work of art, but it isn't something I'd like to watch again.

I watched it once a number of years ago and this is exactly how I've always flt about it. I did pick up the new blu-ray to give it another chance, but can't bring myself to watch it!

It's the only Leone film I've seen that I haven't liked.

MadDog76

I love "Once Upon A Time In America", always have and have watched it several times over the years .......... definitely one of my all-time favourite movies ........... but better than "The Godfather"??? No

Saralee4

arcticmonkeys wrote: »

Looking through this Thread makes me want to go back and watch the movie again. All four hours of it :rolleyes:! I agree about the rape scene, it seemed to come of nowhere, far to gratuitous.Along with The Long Good Friday its probably my favourite gangster flick of all time.

I read a few opinions on the rape scene in another forum and I don't think it's as straight forward as it seems.

someone said that they seen the rape as a methaphor. Like it was something that could have been beautiful (as in Deborah and noodles love) turning bad like everything did for noodles. Also that despite their ideals of one another, neither will change for the other. She wanted noodles to change but she decides to leave for hollywood because she knows that he will always choose max and a life of crime proving that and ending any possibility by raping her. Someone else was saying that noodles was also a victim of Deborah although nothing could excuse his actions.

I haven't seen that movie in a long time and I can't quite remember the end, I must watch it again. I'm ashamed to say I've never watched any of the godfather movies so I can't compare. Better start with the godfather films then go back to once upon a time in America

MakeEmLaugh

I just finished Adrian Martin's book on Once Upon a Time in America as part of the BFI Film Classics series.

Some interesting info. Martin insists that the western My Name is Nobody (which Leone produced) originally had a James Bond-like caption claiming its protagonist, Terrence Hill, would “return in Once Upon a Time in America”.

Also, Clint Eastwood was apparently offered but declined the role of an Irish-American gangster, which presumably went to Treat Williams, who plays Jimmy O'Donnell. It would have been interesting to see Eastwood reunite with the person who effectively kickstarted his big-screen acting career (if you don't count low budget sci-fi films like Tarantula).