possibly my favorite gangster film

Rating: Null/10 (10 December 1999)

I have a hard time deciding whether I like The Godfather I and II or this film better. I do lean a little toward this one though. I look at this film as a kind of cult alternative to the Godfathers. It's directed by Sergio Leone, best known for his "spaghetti westerns" with Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef. From what I've read, Leone had this film in mind since the mid-60's, but the studio wanted another western, so the brilliant Once Upon a Time in the West was made, then the flawed but very interesting Mexican revolution epic A Fistful of Dynamite, and then Leone produced, co-wrote, and directed a few scenes (uncredited, Tonino Valerii was credited as director) of the lesser-known-than-it-should-be Western Comedy My Name Is Nobody. I think the way Leone directs his first (and unfortunately last) gangster film is interesting to contrast with those of Francis Ford Copolla and Martin Scorsese.
The film has the feeling of a guilt-ridden, drug-fueled nightmare; few films have been able to capture this feeling so effectively. The cinematography by Tonino Delli Colli which creates a very dreamlike rather than realistic look, and the excellent haunting score by the great Ennio Morricone (a grade school classmate of Leone and his regular composer from A Fistful of Dollars on, interestingly enough, the score was composed a whole seven years before filming began) contribute a lot to this feeling. Morricone would later borrow from himself a little when composing the score for Brian DePalma's film The Untouchables. The first time I saw this film, it stayed with me for days. The structuring of the film is very unique too, jumping from the 1930s to the 60s back to the 20s, none feels like "the present", they all swirl together.
A very unique film, don't let the almost-four-hours running time scare you off, I've watched it several times, and it doesn't feel like almost four hours. The film is structured so elegantly, I can't imagine cutting a minute. (definately only watch the 226 minute version, the original theatrical release was re-edited and shortened signifigantly, which, needless to say, was quite damaging). Of course, when I watch it on video, I do feel the need for the occasional intermission. I would be thrilled at the opportunity to see this film in a theater, but it would definately strain my bladder. This definately isn't a film for those who think of movies as disposable fast food entertainment, and think 90 minutes is an ideal running time for all films. 90 minutes may be just the right amount of time for some films to tell their story (of course, some only require about 10 minutes), but not this one.