Prequels are a strange animal...for starters prequels are very rarely necessary and are often pointless and at worst story breaking. Prequels have to walk a fine of being their own story while not piggybacking on the story that came before. For these reasons, alone prequels are for me a no-go because something somewhere gets contradicted and essentially ruins it for me. The most infamous prequel is of course The Star Wars Prequels (which are now enjoying life as memes), but since then the term "prequel" has been a dirty word. For something as massive as "Star Wars" and to watch their prequels tank and tank hard, I could only imagine what would happen with one of the greatest TV shows ever written (yes it is, fight me). David Chase originally conceived "The Sopranos" as a movie as film was his main medium of choice, he had no interest in doing a TV show, and now we have a Soprano film: "The Many Saints Of Newark".
"The Many Saints Of Newark," tells the story of "Gentlemen Dickie" Richard Moltisanti, the father of Tony's cousin and dog-sitter-oner Christopher Moltisanti. However, before we talk about the movie proper (and this is not a spoiler since he's in the trailer) let's talk about the hairpiece in the room and what's basically keeping me from enjoying this movie entirely and that my paisans is Silvio Dante. By all accounts, Silvio Dante should not be in this movie, or rather he shouldn't in the mafia. If memory serves correctly (and it does) in the infamous Card Game story, Ralphie stated that THEY (Himself, Jackie, Silvio and Tony) were a small crew, selling pot and making small scores UNTIL Jackie decided that they'd rob Michelle "Feech" LaManna's card game. After the robbery, Richie Aprile stood up for the group and brokered a sit-down in which some of the right people got their money back. After that Tony and the others were rising stars and had to be respected and were on the fast track to being made with the exception of Ralphie who unfortunately caught the clap from some hippie.
 |
| Citation: Season 03 Episode 12: Amour Fou |
Now, one could accuse Ralphie of lying BUT Feech confirms this story later on with Silvio stating that Feech isn't interested in telling that story. This story is VERY important and basically breaks "The Many Saints Of Newark" because Tony is a child and Silvio is somewhere in his early 20s (he wouldn't be a teenager) and he's already a member of the mafia. According to Ralphie's story, however, he and the others were "non-existent" according to the mafia, they were nobodies. How exactly is Silvio already in the mafia if it was the card game robbery he did with Tony that put him on the map? Did he do the robbery with Tony when he was a baby? I'm being silly, but seriously, Silvio being in this movie MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL! Furthermore, the actor playing Silvio was the worst thing in this movie, guy was trying way too hard. Billy Magnussen does a great job as Young Paulie, showing a more dapper side to Paulie before he's older and set in his ways. Young Pussy was great, had the swagger, and even sounded like him too. But Young Silvio, he sounded like Joe Pesci inhaled some helium.
 |
| Citation Season 05 Episode 04: All Happy Families |
Anyway, getting back on point, if Silvio is already in the mafia when Tony is a child then that means that Silvio fell out of favor with the mafia and then got in league with Tony, Jackie, and Ralph, however, why would a grown man (Silvio's in at least his 20s at the start of the movie) fall in with a group of people who would barely be 20? I always operated under the assumption that Silvio and Tony grew up together and were roughly the same age (give or take a year or two) but if Tony is 8 years old (how old he was at the start of the film) and Silvio is at least in his 20s, that means at the start of the series Silvio would be 52, but he's not! According to Sopranos history, Silvio is 42 at the start of the series thus making him 2 years older than Tony. So as a writer and a "Sopranos" aficionado I cannot accept Silvio's presence in the film simply because this would make "The Sopranos" a time travel show and well...while there are minute mystical moments in "The Sopranos", it never goes that far. Far easier to simply reject something added years after the fact, EVEN IF this is canon (written by the creator himself) it openly contradicts established canon, and therefore on these grounds I reject this movie. That being said, let's talk about the movie proper. Was the movie good? Well, aside from the MASSIVE continuity error that is Silvio Dante (The Human Paradox), the film did what I believe all good prequels should do, and that's basically add flavor text to established material, something that can be viewed but ignored that doesn't disrupt the established order. In those terms, it's fine, it captures "The Sopranos" flavor while still being its own thing, it doesn't lean on nostalgia (although there are some disappointments which we'll get into in the spoiler section).
All in all the movie is fine but it will raise some eyebrows and in classic "Sopranos" fashion the ending "subverts expectations" and we all know that's code for some people will love it, some will hate it. I personally don't like the ending for reasons that I'll get into via the spoiler section. Without Silvio and the ending, the film is simply fine, it feels like an extended episode of "The Sopranos" but with so much ignoring of Sopranos continuity, I can't help but feel "Eh." about the film. I say it's fine because Dickie carries the film and you feel like he is a separated character from Christopher but you can see how and why he's so revered by Tony and if that's what the film set out to accomplish, then yes, it's fine. Final verdict, would I recommend "The Many Saints Of Newark"? Not really. If you're a "Sopranos" fan you wouldn't be able to ignore Silvio's presence and that'll torpedo the whole film for you. I will say the acting is great, everyone (except for Silvio) hits their marks as being who they're supposed to be while adding their own flavor to the character. Let's get into spoilers.
