Paul Sorvino plays an aging mobster released from jail after two long decades and earnestly struggles to find his place amidst a rapidly changing world. This isn't a gangster movie per say, it's not even Good Fellas in a retirement home, it's more of a retrospective character piece of what an aging mobster ripped from the pillars of power and left to be mostly forgotten would subsequently face when released after so long. And I guess it begs the question in all of its soul searching and kitschy "east coast neighborhood" dialogue was this move absolutely necessary? Sorvino and Rappaport certainly play their roles well but the movie feels like it's operating in some sort of invisible sandbox that unfortunately only superficially scratches the surface of its characters, leaving us with a fairly empty feeling after it's all over. One can't help but ask what was the point exactly? The largest character arcs are written and served on a convenient platter rather than developed organically. It's certainly a different take on the gangster movie and the refreshing aspect of that point ends right there, what it doesn't do is reinvent the character study, slogging along tiredly trying to find footing somewhere. If the directors point was to give us hyper realism then it certainly beats watching someone vaccum for 90 minutes, but I think the main point is lost somewhere in another movie. So you can't teach an old dog new tricks and criminals don't change...the end. It's not completely far fetched to understand that older adults who leave prison are certainly disenfranchised, thrust into a brave new world thats busy with distraction. But Shawshank Redemption did this concept better in 15 minutes than this could do in 90. It's not a horrible movie by any regard but it's certainly missing that something to set it apart.
Review of Once Upon a Time in Queens
