Movies-TV

Can NO BODY else see?

Can no body else notice that this 'film' is the embodiment of cinematic mediocrity!??!!!Right from the very first second, it is possible to see it is average, below perhaps. Perhaps I would think more of it (as I did two years ago) before I had seen The Godfather Trilogy, Donnie Brasco, Casino and Goodfellas which all BLOW IT AWAY.The film itself rips off the above, the run-through the restaurant (Goodfellas) and the opening scenes (I thought I'd pressed play on GF part II which had somehow found it's way into the VCR. They are visually identical, the dirty old streets. You even see a boss walking down the sidewalk in a brilliant white suit- ring any bells? Don Fanucci ( i think) The Black Hand whom De Niro's Vito Corleone does away with. Anyway, at first glance, it seems like the director is trying to make a film out of the Vito Corleone storyline in GF II, young man climbing his way up the mob, blah blah...Anyway, despite this, I went to bed with half an hour remaining, I was unsure if it was a movie mad for TV or not, it certainly seemed like it. I guess it was a bad idea watching Goodfellas half an hour before hand huh?!4/10- Complete mediocrity and an unashamed rip-off with some qenuine traces (although dull ones) of individuality. Now I think of it, it reminds me somewhat of the British film The Krays about the brothers Ronnie and Reggie.Somebody wanna dispute this film with me? PLEASE DO!!!!!!! It's so BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Young Guns" with gangsters -- and that's no compliment!

Bdd acting, bad directing, bad plot, bad script. An okay way to spend a couple of hours if you like the genre and keep your expectations low. No way in the world is this a "modern classic," though.


Contrary to what Hollywood thinks, and contrary to what many in the audience may claim, many people DO get their history from the movies (just read a couple pages worth of reviews on any such film listed on Amazon), and that alone would take at least one star off of this film. Sure, you sometimes have to use a little poetic license to dramatize real people and events in a film, but when you start to resort to outright fiction to give a different impression than the facts would, you've failed. If you're going to tell a fictional story about four kids who grow up to take over organized crime in Prohibition America, then go all the way and don't use real historical figures as characters.


The even more unforgivable sin that this film commits is that it doesn't even attempt to demythologize organized crime. According to this thing, these four guys were working class heroes! Meyer Lansky always prided himself on never having personally taken a life himself -- but like Frank in "Scarface," he just had somebody else do it for him. Gotti and his ilk love this sort of crap, because even if they don't see themselves this way, they at least want the rest of us to see them this way.


If they had at least tried to show the true nature of these people, rather than glamorize them as antiheroes, this could have been a good film. As it is, it almost seems as if the script was written by a ten-year-old who dreams of someday growing up to be just like Lucky.


Somehow, I doubt the people who Luciano and company killed, raped, robbed, extorted and terrorized, etc. would find this a fair treatment of the times.

movie buff

this is a movie that i really loved it puts you right in the movie with the actors.

Well...it could have been better...

I saw this on cable for the other night, and was kind of frustrated by this movie. It was ok, as mob movies go, but the difference between this and a movie like "Goodfellas" is like little league vs Major League baseball.

I saw the potential for a very good or even a great movie, if it had been handled better. This movie was based off of the factual creation of American Cosa Nostra as we know and love it. The formation of the Five Families. The creation of the Commission. The rise to power of Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel. If handled right, this could have been another Godfather.

But it wasn't. Miscasting, for one. And I mostly mean Christian Slater. He could not pull off the role, struggle as he might. Christian, could you have at least tried to do a Sicilian accent? Just a hint of one? No? Ok, how about convincing emotions? A bit of character? No?

When I started watching the movie, I was prepared for pain at the portrayal of Meyer Lansky by that kid who was in all of those late 80's-early 90's screwy romantic comedies. But I was actually pleasantly surprised. The kid was actually trying, and it showed. Christian--take notes!

Anyway, I'm watching this movie, as I said, and watching a good movie try to emerge from a mediocre one, and I was struck by two magic words that could have made this a movie to remember, especially considering the source material.

Those two words? Martin Scorsese.

'nuff said? The Martin Scorsese treatment + better casting = a movie for the ages.

Well, hopefully someday Hollywood will do this real-life mob story *right*. Until then, watch "Mobsters" with low expectations and you should be able to deal with it.

Really good Movie with nice music

I really liked this movie. I fyou like gangster movies, this one is for you, it is exciting.

Solid movie

Good characters. Cool scenes. This movie fits in with the Godfather movies. Un-edited version is much better.

Not recommended

This movie never seems to develop enough of its characters or of its plot to even be considered as a quality film. The actors never seem authentic as "mobsters", especially Patrick Dempsey as Meyer Lansky, and to a lesser extent, Christian Slater as Lucky Luciano, a character portrayed much better by Andy Garcia in "Hoodlum." The script is incredibly weak and even classic actors such as Anthony Quinn, Michael Gambon, and F. Murray Abraham are unable to save this horrific movie. However, the film's best performances come from Michael Gambon, Christopher Penn, Costas Mandylor, and surprisingly Richard Grieco as Bugsy Siegel. For better gangster flicks, and better movies period I recommend "Scarface", "Hoodlum", "Carlito's Way", "The Godfather" series, and "Goodfellas", just to name a few.

Wonderful movie

Great movie. One of the best. Has it all; action, romance and the great feeling of loyalty and friendship.

And about history; if you want a history lesson, read a book or go to school! Movies are for having fun and this one delivers.

Really Cool!!

I really enjoyed watching this movie. Everyone says that the characters were too young, but that's how young Lucky and the guys really were. Christian Slater was actually a couple of years older than Lucky at the time the movie was set. The age of the characters adds to the amazing ability of the kids to "succeed" the way that they did. All in all, the movie was a lot of fun. Even if you don't care for the movie itself, you can definitely appreciate the determination of these four guys and the power and strength of their friendship. The movie is fast paced and fun to watch, so it does a great job of keeping you entertained. It doesn't hurt to have four hot guys with power and guns, either.

Mobsters

This movie has great history on how the group of mobsters started i was very intrigued by it,, i love the part where Bugsy Seigal (Richard Grieco) tells a little boy that a man in the other room has a job for him and the boy enters the room and "Lucky" Luciano (Christian Slater) and Meyer Lansky (Patrick Dempsey) are sitting down and the boy asks lucky Luciano if he has a job for him and lucky said u did it kid and flipped him a coin. The point of that was the boy just picked who the boss of their gang was going to be,, i guess lucky Luciano has the (look),,, it was a great movie a lot of Mobster style violence,,truly and old school mob flick!!!

Great Movie, but inaccurate history lesson

This movie has some very great aspects to it. If you just enjoy a fast moving, quick thinking film, than this is for you. If you are a mafia history buff, than it is not. Basically this movie focuses on Lucky Luciano, and his three friends. Luciano is portrayed as almost a martyr in it, when in real life he was a common thug. The movie is very entertaining, but if you know anything about Luciano, and his associates, than you'll realize that there are tons of historical inaccuracies.

A WHITE BOYZ IN DA HOOD!!!

Some or most movies are made for entertainment so why do we carp about mediocrity, actors and realism etc. Documentaries tell the truth, movies entertain, get it!!I thoroughly enjoyed this action packed flick which cut the story down to the essentials, what happened, how Lansky Luciano, Siegel and Costello started out as kids,(we don't have to grow with them), teens living on the edge and finally men of the world, they do most of this whilst in their youth so the young faces are actually related to the characters. What we see is how they wisely refuse to let the system or "families" destroy them or hold them down. What starts out as friendship and becomes a powerful consortium. They endure all the "guns and roses" whilst in their youth and Luciano who tries to do it with the family realises that his childhood buddies are his best bet after they save him from an assasination attempt. Mobsters is a kind of boys flick which does what chick flicks do entertain, thrill and resounds with "BOY POWER"SLATER,GRIECO,DEMPSEY & MANDYLOR all do a surprising turn which they have tried to match till date without success

The story of 'Lucky' Luciano!

I have always been very interested in the mob from early 1900 to the 50's. This film didn't disappoint me, probably because I wasn't expecting much. I knew this film was just made in order to get 4 young rising actors on screen together. Those actors being Christian Slater whom would later go to star in Brocken Arrow with John Trovolta. Patrick Dempsey who plays Meyer Lansky, Richard Grieco who plays Bugsy Siegel (The man who made Las Vegas) and Costas Mandylor as Frank Costello.The film feels very rushed and it seems the producers were more interested in the action rather than story which is interesting on its own. THe characters arnt developed very well but as someone who has read up on all of them I felt as if I already knew them. Christian Slater does the best but looks nothing like the real Luciano. The film was too short running in at around 105 minutes. I think the director's and writers should have sat down and watched GOODFELLAS which was made the year before.

Pretty boys trying to act wise.

Mobsters has no redeeming qualities.I am a big mob fan and love reading about the history of the five families,so i jumped for joy when i read the blurb on the back of the video.Unfortunately for me,i was sucked in and it cost me 100 minutes of my life.The main problem is none of the cast look credible as gangsters they look like pretty boys.Christian slater as lucky was laughable as were the others,also the story seemed cramped and dragged on.I would recommend the godfather trilogy(maybe skip the third one)casino and goodfellas for authentic gangsters and good storylines but please,avoid this movie like your mother in law.

Entertaining

Good Mob entertainment with Christian Slater, Richard Grieco and many more. Why those two actors don't get the respect they deserve is still a miracle. Also why this movie wasn't recognized much in the cinemas is a mystery. It's solid good work, like any classic mob movie.

La Cosa Nostra in Training

Mobsters casts four young players of the day as four of the legendary gangland figures of the 20th Century in their salad days. Christian Slater, Patrick Dempsey, Richard Grieco, and Costas Mandylor play Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, and Frank Costello respectively. The film is a fictionalized account of how the four of them wound up on top of the gangland heap.Michael Gambon and Anthony Quinn play the two old style Mobsters who are rivals for the title of boss of all bosses in the New York City area. Playing Charles Ferranzano and Joe Masseria the two of them control most of the illegal liquor trade which gave organized crime in this country it's real foothold. But our young men prove to be tough, smart and resilient as they play off the two old bosses against the middle.Mobsters as a film captures the ambiance of New York during prohibition very well. I'm not sure I would have cast Christian Slater as Lucky Luciano, still Slater does very well with the part. Richard Grieco as Bugsy Siegel is very good, you can see the genesis of Warren Beatty's character when he played Siegel in his film, Bugsy. Note should also be mentioned of F. Murray Abraham as Twenties gambler Arnold Rothstein who was the initial sponsor of the young mobsters in training. And Nick Sadler is one frightening Mad Dog Coll. You'll see quite graphically where his nickname came from.Mobsters is good viewing, not exactly historically accurate, but actually sticks closer to the truth than most films of this type.

Good mobster movie...

I thought mobsters was a good mafia movie, though it had Christian Slater star as 'Lucky' Luciano. Could have been better, but another great mafia movie. I would recommend buying it, cause it's a classic.

emotion is dangerous.....

The story of a group of friends in turn of the century New York, from their early days as street hoods to their rise in the world of organised crime. As their crime empire expands, they have to deal with many problems, including their own differing opinions on how to run their business, the local Godfather, and the psychotic Mad Dog.one of those movies that you saw when you were all but a teenager and when watched for the first time in over ten years, you realise, it's not that good, but you still hold a little place in your heart for it.basically a 'young guns' movie for the teenagers who loved 'goodfellas', Mobsters is hilariously miscast, but beautifully shot and although it appears very botched, a lot of love has been put into the project.the slow motion scenes with the tommy guns are laugh out loud, as are the vox-popped poker scenes and newspaper articles with the long scenes with the big band playing a score in the background.seasoned vets such as Abraham and Quinn, seeing the big 'Ker-ching!' in their eyes, and seeing young saplings such as Slater and Dempsey giving it the big one is pure cringeworthy. but in 1992 it wasn't. it was the epitome of cool. it was the film makers trying to get the youngsters to understand the prohibition and 'mobs'. it was for people who were not allowed to see 'Bugsy' or 'Goodfellas', so there parents would see that Slater was in this and think 'ok, he's a good role model, let them see this'.it's all pure guilty pleasure, hokum of the highest order, but i was one of those teenagers.

The Big Wait, equals Big DVD disappointment

I loved this movie when it first came out OK, so the actings not great at all, and the casting could have been better BUT after whoever finally decided to release this movie on DVD, they gave MINIMUM EFFORT in its creation.

DO IT PROPERLY, OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL!

LIST OF PROBLEMS
1) Several Scenes are missing on the DVD version eg, Richard Greicos' love scene when they go to meet Sam Rothestein. Basically on the UNCUT version on VHS he just takes one of the ladies at the party by the hand and they go off to a room together and he starts to seduce her by moving an ice pick gently all over her body while talking softly to her about how to kill somebody properly, after finishing telling her how to kill a man properly he slides off the top with the ice pick.

In this DVD version, his love scene is cut back dramatically, basically he takes off one side of her top with the ice pick, kisses her, then takes off the other side. no talking about how to kill a man properly. Whoever decided to cut the footage back, deserves to be shot. It just made the scene SOOO much more tasteless, almost made it look like D grade soft porn.

Another Scene missing from this is a beautiful scene where Charlie and his Dancer girlfriend are out on a picnic and they get caught in a rain storm

Another scene is where Charlie runs away from Farenzano at

Staten Island

Who knows what else is missing, these were just to name a few.

2) When it says BONUS on the DVD menu, I actually thought I was getting a BONUS! Silly me, after watching the movie and accessing the so called BONUS option on the DVD menu like I usually do after watching a DVD, I was left dumb founded and bitterly disappointed when the only 2 options of the so called BONUS material were 3 trailers, 2 of which look almost exactly the same and the other bonus was a picture of 3 other DVD's that are recommended for viewing. This is one of the worst cases of getting ripped off on a DVD that I have ever experienced.

I'll stick to my full UNCUT VHS version and pray that it survives until the next version of this DVD comes out again, hopefully a director's cut.

Message for the next makers of this film on DVD:

-DO IT PROPERLY, OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL
-DON'T CUT CORNERS TO MAKE THE LENGTH OF THE FILM SHORTER
-GIVE US BONUS MATERIALS THAT IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A BONUS, eg interviews, history documetaries, etc

A bizarre movie that still manages to entertain....

This is the most bizarre gangster film I think I've ever seen. (Spoiler) It re-tells the story of the Castellmarese War and the events that lead to the birth of the National Crime Syndicate. In 1920's New York two Mafia Don's fought for total control, Joe Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano. Charles Luciano, played here by Christian Slater, and his Italian and Jewish associates saw off the two old timers and established a new order. In this film Luciano and Lansky aren't so much gangsters as heroes. So they're bootleggers; but who the hell supported prohibition anyway? Luciano's narcotics and prostitution rackets are conveniently overlooked here. The villains of the piece are Masseria and the curiously renamed 'Faranzano'. This is a heavily fictionalised version of events. If you have any knowledge of what actually went on you'll spot the all to frequent use of Artistic Licence through out. I have to admit I had a problem with this movie before I even sat down to watch it. Christian Slater as Charley Luciano? Watching the film did nothing to change my mind; Slater is badly miscast. It's the most unconvincing portrayal of a prominent Mafiosi I've seen. Michael (The Singing Detective) Gambon isn't much better as Faranzano and Anthony Quinn is wasted as Masseria. See HBO's 'Gotti' for what Quinn can do when given a well-scripted role. Still, despite its constant deviation from established events, the dodgy dialogue and the iffy casting, I found the movie entertaining. Possibly because I had so few good expectations left after the first ten minutes that things could only get better!