The Many Saints of Newark

Really? All that talent and money, and yet overall this is a meandering narrative mess that doesn't know what story it wants to tell. It is more or less a hodgepodge of cameos by younger versions of the TV series characters superimposed over a laughably shallow and revisionist narrative on the riots that destroyed Newark NJ.

The closest analogy I can give is the shockingly bad "Deadwood: The Movie" which was an insult to everyone who enjoyed the Deadwood series. It makes me profoundly grateful that no "movie" was made following "Rome" or Boardwalk Empire."

I think I'm right in saying that this is another one of the films that is going to open on "HBO Max" in the States, rather than widely at the cinema. Here in the UK, we have had a cinematic release and as a fan of "The Sopranos" I jumped at the chance go. Though I wouldn't go as far as to say I was disappointed, I came away unsure as to the point of what I'd seen.

Richard Moltisanti (Allesandro Nivola) is a gangster, running numbers and trafficking stolen goods in Newark. Initially struggling to conceive a child of his own, he acts like a second father to the son of his friend Johnny Boy Soprano (Jon Bernthal). Young Tony (William Ludwig/Michael Gandolfini) has an unstable homelife and is beginning to act out at school. Dickie Moltisanti has other issues though, such as the rise of black gangs in the neighbourhood following the riots of 1967 and his attraction to his father's young new wife, Giuseppina (Michela De Rossi).

It's not that this is bad. By no means is it bad. The performances are excellent, the impressions of established characters are nicely done, the recreation of the 1960's and 1970's is really well done. It's that I felt like I was watching what should have been at least three seasons of television, with the fast forward button on. It's interesting to see that this is being sold as "The formative years of Tony Soprano" when really that's quite a small part of the overall film, barely even a third of it, I'd say. It's very much the Dickie Moltisanti story, narrated from beyond the grave, by his son. It's his relations that make up the bulk of the story and not just his relationship with Tony, but also with his father played by Ray Liotta, his new step mother, a low level runner called Harold McBrayer, played by Leslie Odom Jr and with the rest of the family - both actual and metaphorical.

There are quite a few different plot points to the film, but all are shallowly dealt with as they only have two hours to play out, rather than thirty. It's like watching a wrap up film for a cancelled TV show where the writers say, "this is where we would have gone". None of the betrayals or murders play that heavy as we don't spend enough time with the characters to get more than a basic feel about who they are.

Again, I don't want to bang on as if what's here isn't good. It is, and I really hope if finally allows Allesandro Nivola to get some meatier roles again, and, on the smaller screen, it might seem more fitting than it does at the Cinema. But I came away wishing I could have the rest of this, rather than just the tiny taster menu that was on offer.

They made a movie about Dickie Moltisanti. Most Soprano fans couldn't give a damn about Dickie. He's a background character.

Fans wanted a show about Tony Soprano. The movie made Tony a background character. We learned more about Tony's childhood from the original show than we do during this movie.

With the exception of one scene, we don't even know anything about Tony's relationship with his father.

It's puzzling. The original show was all about the complexity of family dynamics. This movie was a B-rate gangster flick sidetracked by a plot about a black gangster during a time in the 60's when there would have been minimal interaction between street gangs & mob bosses.

The fans wanted a Tony Soprano coming of age Story. Instead the producers delivered a 2 hour film with 14 minutes of Tony Soprano flashbacks.

Jon Bernthal said this film isn't like the Sopranos, and I can see what he means. I walked in thinking this would focus on Tony Sopranos' route to becoming who he is when we meet him in the first episode of the Sopranos, but instead, it focuses on Christopher's dad, Dickie Moltisanti.

The acting is superb, but the plot is thin. Dickie is not a particularly interesting character. In fact, I think focusing on Johnny Soprano would've made for a way more gripping film. What we end up with is something half-baked, more of a mini series than a stand-alone film. I have to admit, when the credits started coming up, I was thinking, "Is this it?"

For a Sopranos fan, it's worth a watch, but ultimately, it was underwhelming.

Why was half the film about racial tensions and a black gangster? What was this huge inspiration Dickie gave to Tony? How is this co written by the creator of the Sopranos?

If this movie had nothing to do with the Sopranos it would be mediocre with an overly abrupt ending. Compared to a similar movie like A Bronx tale it has no soul.

But as a prequel to the Sopranos it is badly written, paced, and at times boring.

Some of the performances were good, and you can tell the actors really tried their best to portray their older counterpart. But ultimately most come off as caricatures (especially Silvio). Michael Gandolfini is just too young an actor to pull off Tony, but he does try.

The black characters subplot was completely unnecessary, only really planting a seed where someone does something unbelievably stupid at a beach (you'll see what I mean). Where does he fit in the Sopranos tale? What the hell is Frank Lucas doing here? Did I just watch beat poetry in a Sopranos movie?

I admit I haven't seen the show in a few years, but have watched it several times start to finish. This is beyond subpar by comparison.

What happened David Chase? Did you lose a bet with the HBO execs?