The Real Goodfella (2006)

The Worst Film Ever

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

The Real Goodfella (2006) **** (out of 4)Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS is one of the most loved movies ever made and this documentary tells us what happened to Henry Hill after the movie ended. We start off learning what truths were covered up in the film including the real violence that was happening with some of the lead characters in the film as well as what really happened to cause Hill to rat out his friends.THE REAL GOODFELLA is a terrific documentary that fans of the film are going to love for a number of reasons. The biggest reason is the fact that you get to hear how crazy and violent this crew were and we get some nice comments from Scorsese about some of the changes that were done. There are also members of the FBI here talking about the real doings as well as authors and experts on the Mob.Of course, the highlight is getting to hear from Hill. The man himself is interviewed here, cussing up a storm and discussing the various problems that happened in his life. He's certainly quite the character so hearing him explaining his life, his great times and his fear of being murdered are quite interesting.

With an impressive degree of access to Hill, Scorsese, former FBI heads and other impressive contributors, it is a total pain that this documentary failed to be much more than the basic affair that it is. The narrator continually tells us the reality was harder and more shocking than the film Goodfellas showed, but it doesn't engage in any way comparable to the film. Why is this? Why would a real documentary on the subject that says it goes deeper and harder into the story be described as basic or lacking?Well the main reason is that it covers the same story in 50 minutes as opposed to about 160. Looking at it in an ideal world it should have been great and it could have done it by going two ways. 1 – make it all about Hill's interviews a la Fog of War; or 2 – have as many contributors but make the film much longer. Because the film does neither it is hard to really get into it. The last 15 minutes of the 50 finally moves past the story told in the movie but even then it isn't that good because it is still done in very broad and basic strokes. It was really frustrating because I couldn't help wondering what the makers were trying to do. I'm sure they had good intentions but just got stuck with too much footage and too little good footage (the Hill sound bites are repeated suggesting it was a pretty short affair). However this is still their failing and it is hard to have sympathy – not many people get access to people like they did in this film and it is hard to forgive them for fluffing it.Overall this offered much but is surprisingly poor. I hate to kick it but I simply cannot understand why the makers failed to deliver. They apparently had great access to people and a solid 50 minute slot but I assume that they weren't able to get what they wanted because all they produced was a basic sweep that tells you very little more than Goodfellas and does it a lot less engagingly.