What puzzles me the most is why I rate this show an 8/10, but no season is greater than a 7/10.
I think it's because of its unending depth. You can analyze it literally, metaphorically, philosophically, emotionally, inter-personally, culturally, existentially, and psychologically and you'll never get a right or wrong answer. I love Breaking Bad, but you can't do that with Breaking Bad. Perhaps with The Wire you could, not still not as much as The Sopranos.
98% of the show is about people and their lives and their interaction with themselves, each other, and society. Wikipedia lists the genres as "Crime Drama", "Serial Drama", "Psychological Drama", and "Black Comedy". All of those seem a bit overdone as on the surface is a simple "Drama", but they are missing the actual genre, because at its core it's a "Tragedy".
And it's a Tragedy for every character. Even Carmela screws people over, has zero family patience, ignores Tony's criminal indiscretions, and manipulates her way through life. Meadow, too, talks a big ethical game but the moment her dad gets arrested, she pulls out the race card saying Italian-Americans are unfairly treated (knowing full well that her father is a full-on criminal).
At first glance, Melfi may be the odd one out, but I don't think so. She lives vicariously through Tony. Even after urging from her own therapist and Tony making both overt sexual advances and physically threatening her safety, she is willing to sit with him alone in a room, session after session. And maybe she's helping him on some level. She says she is but the show filled with unreliable narrators so we have to be the judge, and I don't see much change in Tony. He remains a mean brute, willing to take whatever he wants, steamroll anyone in his way, and show minimal remorse. I get the whole Doctor-Patient confidentiality thing, but surely he crossed the line, and she never reported him, ethically, or unethically.
And that's the big reason why the show gets rated "Great" but each season is only "Good". There are no characters working for the betterment of society, or really anyone else except themselves. And even then, that's a stretch, as they treat themselves poorly with extravagant indulgence in everything - rich food, steady booze, illegal drugs, tobacco, purchased sex, physical abuse, and cowardice in trying to change. Tony may go to therapy to solve his panic attacks, but one they're solved, he stays there for validation, which Melfi unintentionally provides.
With the The Wire, people are trying to cut through the corruption, crime, and dysfunction - to only limited success, but they’re trying -whereas in The Soprano's, they not only revel in it, but they create it, and they pay the price through being shot, paralyzed, brain-damaged, stabbed, eye-gouged, curb-stomped, garroted, sodomized, put in coma's, institutionalized, accidentally shot, suicide, run over, betrayed, hit with flails, suffocated, choked, ear mutilations, blunt force trauma, strangled, hit with sap, falling out of trees, bludgeoning, getting thrown out of windows, mock executions, brick to heads, fatal car accidents, head ran over by car, overdosing, asphyxiation, beaten with phones/pool cues/fists/movie awards/bats/geomatic equipment/golf clubs, suffering lung cancer, fatal heart attack from constipation, and getting sprayed in the eyes with roach killer.
I found myself constantly wondering if Tony Soprano or Walter White is more of a sociopath. Walter cooked meth for thousands and thousands of people and messed their life up, but it's guys like Tony who enable it, and keep the dark side of humanity thriving. Tony rises to the occasion, killing who needs to be killed as if they're pawns in a chess match. He uses people for money, sex, support, comfort, friendship, and rarely, if ever, shows reciprocating kindness. Plain and simple, he's a taker, not a giver. And if he does give it's with strings attached, or else he's just a d:asterisk_symbol::asterisk_symbol:k later on as he thinks you owe him.
A word to new viewers, it's slow AF, and remember, it's a Drama, not a Thriller or Mystery. It's hard to argue that this show is not the deepest that has ever aired on TV, and because of it, it'll always be right at the top of the greatest shows of all time. And James Gandolfini's acting - WOW.
The Sopranos was the first massively successful American cable drama that aspired to levels of sophistication (and violence) only seen in movies. It was not the first sophisticated American TV drama and it wasn’t the first drama to bring movie-style violence to television. But it was the first one of these shows to be successful at this – the first runaway hit of these types of shows – and it established HBO’s “It’s not TV…” brand like nothing else before it. So it is unquestionably the most influential dramatic show of its era, but the question remains, is it any good?
The first season’s digital video has dated horribly – making you wonder what decade it was made in – though that improves with the second season. The content dates it somewhat too, given that, only a few years later, HBO would debut a number of other shows with far greater levels of realism and sophistication, making The Sopranos appear to pale by comparison.
But I think that’s unfair to the show. Those later masterpieces wouldn’t have been green-lit without the success of The Sopranos and they benefited from watching the first few seasons of The Sopranos and learning valuable lessons about serialized drama: what works, what doesn’t work – hell, what’s even possible.
At the heart of the show is perhaps the greatest performance in TV history (to date anyway), especially given Gandolfini’s personality in real life. And he is ably supported by Falco, who is pretty near as great. Some of the other, Italian, actors are shockingly weak (early on, anyway) but, on the whole, it’s the great acting that keeps you involved even when the show gets a little hard to believe, as it often does given how frequently they all get away with various criminal activities pretty near all the time. (Though, again, given previous TV standards, the show still manages a great deal of realism relative to the stuff that came before.)
But even though there is that lack of realism at times with the level of violence, there’s a ridiculous amount of realism in the show’s rather incredible sense of place, a sense of place achieved by perhaps no other TV drama prior to its existence – though there have been a few comedies that might have created some kind of illusion of place slightly similar. (And equaled in its sense of place by only a few shows that I have seen.)
And, at times, it’s incredibly funny.
One problem with the show – and a problem with many “new” TV shows, such as Battlestar Galatica – is that it still didn’t move beyond the self-contained episode, where pretty much everything that happens in the episode has no bearing on anything else in the show. The best example of this is the episode when Christopher relapses and tries to kill Tony. Later on, it’s like it never, ever happened. Ever. And that’s absurd and below the otherwise excellent standards of the show.
One thing I have no reservations about is the series’ “dream episodes,” the one when Tony decides Pussy is a rat and particularly “The Test Dream.” I never thought someone would handle dreams on TV better than Twin Peaks but this show does it exceptionally well – Tony’s dreams are like mine, only with mobsters, therapists and Annette Benning. And even when the dreams are a lot less surreal – like when Tony is shot – they are still imbued with a great deal more weight and meaning than most dreams in movies. Really, I think the show set the standard for dreams in contemporary TV and film. It’s just brilliant at these moments.
Another thing they handle rather brilliantly is Christopher’s Hollywood aspirations. They pull in some rather big fish and those fish play up their own selves very well. And it’s something that they do over the course of a number of seasons, seemingly holding it back to use whenever they need a little extra awkwardness and humiliation (for Christopher). It’s a neat change of pace.
And it avoids clichés a lot of the time in how it’s filmed. An example is the death of Phil’s brother, where it seems like Sil is getting wine in the face or something and we have no idea what is going on. That’s just one of numerous examples where they handle something differently than they could have and it just makes the show more interesting.
One final thing: that second last episode was probably unbelievably tense when it aired. Unfortunately, like the entire planet, I already new the ending so it wasn’t as tense for me. But even knowing the ending, it was still a nice change of pace for the show. It really felt like, for a moment, No One Is Safe. And, if I haven’t made this known to you already, I am on the “The ending is fantastic” side of the fence.
On the whole, the show is an incredible achievement. There was nothing like it ever before and it’s still relatively unparalleled in some aspects – as a portrait of an individual family I can only think of Six Feet Under as its equal as as a portrait of the mob I can’t think of its equal, at least in TV.
Season 1 is just perfect. Perfect. I can't think of another word other than perfect. It's got everything you didn't know you needed from a gangster type show. It is very different from casual mafia shows/movies. The episode lengths and amount, as well as the acting and dialogue, are perfect. Also, the dynamics between everything is...perfect.
Season 2 is just as good as season one but not better. One thing it did have, though, is some really good character development.
What in the world is season 3? It's both better and worse than previous seasons. Although the storylines are so juicy, they have way too many plot holes. Jennifer Melfi is one of the most interesting characters, yet her storyline was just forgotten. I'm sure they will talk about all the forgotten plots in the upcoming seasons, but cmon. I kept waiting for them, but barely anything came.
Season 4 is a lot better than season 3 but a lot less juicy. This really is the climax of the sopranos. Both very wanted and very unwanted things happen. Ugh, I'm dreading next season. That last episode has broken me.
Season 5 is no joke, all while full of jokes. It's both hit and miss. Some episodes are boring and full of filler, and some are really interesting and eye gazingly disturbingly good. Bitter sweet is the only way to put it. I'm still mad they haven't yet expanded on Jennifer Melfis storyline. IT'S BEEN 2 SEASONS now and not a peep.
Season 6, one word for it, depression. Everything boiled down to this season, and it gave it point blank. The writers weren't feeling warm or peaceful. Took me a while to finally get through the final few episodes, like many others. I didn't want it to end, but whilst watching it all I was hoping for was for it to end. It is truly one of the only series that nearly everyone can in some way relate to.
So, as a whole, this series is both realistically unrealistic and extremely revolutionary. The relatability is insane, all because of the content we get to see, hear, and feel. This isn't a mafia or gangster show. It's a lesson on propaganda, mental health, physical well-being, racism, sexism, homophobia, sex, religion, relationships, families, war, and so on. Tackling the dirtiest things we all deal with no matter the age, size, colour, or creed. The production was immensely basic, which made it feel like home. The plots were adventurous, but there were too many holes. The acting and script were phenomenal. You could see the personal twist each character gave. I could write about this show for decades as it's on par with some of the greatest pieces of TV. Although, it's not the greatest show of all time because it's in its own league. It does and doesn't have things that this genre stereotypically has. I recommend this show to everyone who has an interest in psychology/therapy/mafia/politics/ or legendary TV.
Since May of last year, I'd been watching The Sopranos on-and-off, and finally finished it yesterday.
The show is generally great, but I think my biggest, though still small, hindrance is having watched and loved Mad Men first. Despite being a supposedly more "boring" milieu, my feeling is that Matthew Weiner took what he learned from this, and then honed and sharpened the short-story-collection approach to near-perfection with his own show, without The Sopranos' occasional, but still more frequent, minor missteps (for example, I find the resolution of Tony/Melfi arc good, but the way Peter Bogdanovich's character is used as the catalyst a tad contrived and over the top for the show). Similarities abound, including dream sequences and parallel of characters (searching around doesn't find much so this may be a minority opinion, but to me AJ Soprano at times feel like a springboard for Glenn Bishop), so my feeling of comparison throughout the show is bit unavoidable.
As said though, still love it. The comparison just means that I find this an A- show, to Mad Men's A one. And this feels truly like a great, innovative series for the medium moving forwards. I also love the series finale better; James Gandolfini and Tony Soprano are one of the best marriage of character and actor ever, and remain unmatched; and the show may have a deeper bench of memorable, distinctive characters/actors more than any show ever. Like, one reason that Carmela seems to never get the misogynistic feedback many of her successors like Betty and Skyler receive is the way the show situated the character within this environment, and for Falco's fiercely empathic performance (she is the best at conveying her character feeling upset so much that we feel it along with her).
Seasons ranking:
5
6B
3
4
1
6A
2
(3 and 4 are borderline equal though; along with 6B, 3 may be the most consistent season, while 4 has the incredible second half to compensate for its first weaker one)
Top 10 favorite episodes (top 2 are definite fixes, while it's a bit of crapshoot ranking the rest; could have swapped one out for "Army of One" (3.13)) :
No wonder why this is still remembered as one of the best-written TV shows ever. The realistic, unvarnished approach to the mob's lifestyle is clearly inspired by films like "GoodFellas" (with which it shares a few cast members), but "The Sopranos" is surrounded by an aura of melancholy, cynicism, and sarcasm that cannot be found anywhere else. It starts off as some kind of offbeat comedy about a depressed Mafia Boss in a dysfunctional family, but you can notice that things are getting gloomier and gloomier as time goes by. Surely many things happen along the way, but it looks like it's always about the people more than the events. The writers keep teasing us for years about things that eventually never happen, but when it's someone's time to go, they are suddenly out, without offering dramatic build-ups or drawing any conclusions whatsoever. Today you are here, tomorrow you are not. That's it. It's a fascinating yet disorienting approach for us television literates. The characters and their stories are realistic in their mediocrity, but you always get the feeling that you are watching something sophisticated and cinematic.
The first few seasons are definitely more entertaining and offer more payoff for the audience, but the writing and performances are incredibly consistent throughout. It's never particularly engaging, but never disappointing either. After all, we are talking about the show that turned "low-key" and "anti-climatic" into its weapons - consistency and (relative) sobriety are the key, not twists nor tension.
The characters are sometimes too many to keep in mind, but the ones who stick are unexpectedly lovable (even though there's not even a single positive figure in the whole show). Tony is such an asshole, yet we can't help loving him. Being able to join his therapy sessions helps to build affection and grasp the depth of the character.
Review by sun-burntBlockedParent2021-11-26T20:29:02Z— updated 2024-02-25T14:45:13Z
It's overrated.
People talk endlessly and use pretentious words to describe it, but that will never change the fact that its just plain boring.
In good shows every scene has a purpose, it has a start and an end, it unravels like a story should; drip feeding the viewer interesting plot developments. Sopranos doesn't do this. Episodes are filled with pointless scenes that serve no purpose. Each episode of The Sopranos is a tasteless gourmet meal. From the appearance it looks like it should be great, but then you start eating it. The first bite tastes pretty good, the second slightly less good. The remaining bites are bland, occasionally you get a bite that tastes just okay. And then its over.
The dialogue is essentially the gangster equivalent of small talk. Its never interesting. Its rarely funny. And it gets boring really fast.
Sopranos is incredibly ahead of its time in terms of the sheer production value. Its cinematic. Its definitely fair to say it laid the ground work for modern high quality TV shows, but that doesn't automatically equate to the show being entertaining in its own right. Thomas Edison's original lightbulb was a genius innovation, but compared to the stuff we have now, its complete garbage. Its inefficient, it dies quick and its expensive. Would modern LED lightbulbs exist now without Edison's pioneering invention? No. Does that fact make Edison's original design a flawless masterpiece? I think you can agree it does not.
A story should also have build up and a pay off. Sopranos doesn't. It feels like the story doesn't progress. When you watch a show like Breaking Bad you feel the story progressing, you feel the build up throughout the season and then the insane pay off at the end. When I watched Sopranos I felt nothing. Its a rollercoaster that goes in a flat line, with occasional small bumps. Breaking bad is a rollercoaster that constantly twists and turn, rising and falling, keeping you engaged and interested not knowing what will happen next.
Conclusion:
Innovative? Definitely.
Entertaining and interesting? Definitely not.