Mobsters (1991) User Reviews (57)

Surprisingly entertaining mob flick, but is short on substance

[boondocksaint20 · 7/10 · 6 November 2002]

This is one of those guilty pleasure movies for me...it combines elements of the great mob movies with fast paced and hard hitting action. For the most part, the director pulls this one off pretty well, at least for what kind of movie he was trying to direct.

I've been reading a lot of comments stating that this movie can't hold a candle anywhere near Goodfellas or Godfather or even Donnie Brasco (all of which are excellent movies). Well, all I have to say is, NO, REALLY?!? I mean come on, with a cast like Christian Slater, Patrick Dempsey and Richard Grieco, what were you expecting? Another Vito Corleone or Lefty Luggiero? This one is aimed at a younger audience (perhaps teens to mid twenties) and I have to admit, they pull it off rather nicely. What I mean is that the movie, though serious throughout, does not try to be an epic, only a high octane crowd pleaser. The action scenes are bloody and well done, and the sets are lovely. Even the acting is surprisingly good, especially Patrick Dempsey and dare I say, Richard '21 Jump Street' Grieco.

What kills me about this flick is that, though it is an exciting movie and a more than anything else, an effective time killer, the direction cuts from scene to scene getting straight to the point and little else. This seriously detracts from characterization and overall storytelling (I totally agree with other viewers who said that this movie should be at least an hour longer). I mean, at the beginning, we are vaguely introduced to our protagonists, and then five minutes later, they are in their twenties, and have already established themselves as small time crooks. How? Movies like Goodfellas and Once Upon a Time in America are great movies partly b\c they had wonderful scenes of the main characters as children, so we can see their motives when they eventually become mobsters.

This one, like I said, jumps from one scene to another, not wasting a second on dramatic pauses or even characterization. It seriously reminds you of a cookie-cutter Jerry Bruckheimer production, minus the explosions. It does have nice touches here and there of authentic 1920-1930's life and old movies depicting that era which gives the film class (the tunes, the model-T's, the dancers, the neighborhoods and finally, the spinning newspaper headlines) instead of just being another Young Guns meets the Goodfellas. However, as I said, the film's objective, to make a fast paced mafia movie with popular actors suceeds, but it also leads to its biggest downfall of limited characterization. It is hard to feel for (or despise) characters without knowing their background all too well...all we get is, hey Lucky had a hard life, Benny likes to kill people, Don Massaria is fat, the other Don is a bad fella...anyway you catch my drift.

All in all, not a bad film, though it should have been longer. Watch this one only when it's on cable or when you have time to kill, for it is rather visually pleasing and entertaining. Overall, it is a movie that doesn't pretend to be something it's not, it's a decent film with a lot of action and good performances. I give it 7/10 stars.

Mini Mobsters

[CharltonBoy · 6/10 · 13 January 2000]

As much as I love Gangster movies there is something that is not quite right about this film.Im not sure the problem is that the actors are just a little bit too young to pull it off if the film should have been an hour longer as there seems to be too much squeezed into 100 minutes. Having said all that i did enjoy this film. Christian Slater has a charm all of his own and is good as Lucky Luciano. Nice and Violent as well! 6 out of 10

Gangsters!

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 2 December 2011]

It's New York in the 20s. The men exemplify sartorial splendor and the women are buffed. The photography has a burnished glow to it. The men are all Italians or Jews and they sit around a big table and proffer business deals. They gesture a good deal, running off at the hands. They greet one another operatically, with big smiles and hugs, and statements like, "'Ey, you lookin' good. It's been too long." They're all loving friends except that behind each others' backs they scheme like nobody's business (or "bidness") to kill one another. Then they break out the .45 caliber choppers and God help the Capo sitting at his table slurping down rigatoni and that glass of robust red vino. He's going to wind up with heartburn.

I kind of enjoy movies like this, about big-name mobsters with names like Bugsy Siegel and Lucky Luciano and Mad Dog Coll and Meyer Lansky. I thrill at the way the writers slightly bend the story so that we sympathize with, in this instance, Christian Slater as Luciano. He's the central figure -- and he's basically a VIRTUOUS MAN. He never kills anybody unless there's a very good reason for it. And the better the reason, the more bloody and barbarous the slaughter is. He catches Mad Dog Coll unawares and empties his Tommy Gun into the squirming body. The explosion of so many squib charges has never before been committed to celluloid. You remember how Sonny Corleone, James Caan, gets shot up at the turnpike entrance in "The Godfather"? That was nothing compared to what happens to Mad Dog Coll.

My understanding is that our real, contemporaneous mobsters sit around enjoying these movies and chuckling over them, wondering, only half dreamily, who's going to play THEM in the next Mafia movie.

The fact is, though, that this isn't very original. Roger Corman did it just as well twenty or thirty years earlier, on a lesser budget, and with tongue in cheek. This film tries desperately to be a serious look at what long ago became a joke. The sources that have been ripped off are not only gangster movies, beginning with "Little Caesar" and meandering through The Godfathers and Goodfellas, picking a bit here and a shtick there, but hard-core pornography. There are just enough plot points established -- who's bedding whom, who has a grudge against whom, and how about that tentative meeting between rivals -- to justify the more interesting scenes, the ones everyone is waiting for, sex in pornography, stupendous violence in "Mobsters." You haven't lived until you see a scarlet pool of gore spilling viscously across the tiled floor of a steam bath.

Frankly, I'm getting a little jaded. I don't care if these moral morons protected their wives, loved their girl friends, went to the opera, enjoyed rugala, disliked fluorescent light bulbs, wanted to save the pandas, or had a magnificent stamp collection. It's the one percent of the time when they are putting a bullet through someone's forehead that bothers me. Showing us their human side amounts to a sort of apologia. You know -- I'm fundamentally decent. I just have this piacular quirk.

They don't deserve this favorable propaganda. They deserve long jail terms, but then a lot of people belong in jail who are now sailing on Long Island Sound.

very impressive

[carangi · 19 March 2002]

I must say, I don't really agree with what most other people have to say about this movie. I must admit it has its ups and downs, especially when it comes to the casting. Casting Christian Slater as Lucky Luciano was just ridiculous. He is just so the wrong type. He is a good actor, but this part does not suit him at all! It is a different story for several other people. I must say I was very impressed with the performances of Richard Grieco and Lara Flynn Boyle. Richard clearly shows he can do a lot more than just being the pretty boy. He was probably the best choice for the part. Violent and sensual. He even manages to do a quite funny scene, when his character gets angry, because someone tells him he does not kill with style. I did not know what to expect from him, as I had only seen him in "21 Jump Street", but give him a chance, because he will not disappoint you. Lara Flynn Boyle's performance is wonderful. Too bad her part was so small, as I would have loved to see more of her in this movie. She shows here clearly she can do so much more than cheap comedies. Usually I would give this film 8 out of 10, but because of Richard and Lara, I will make it 9.

I don't have a wife, because emotion is dangerous.

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 13 June 2010]

Under Charlie "Lucky" Luciano's reign, organised crime met peace for 15 years. This is the story of how he, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel and Frank Costello, came to sit at the top end of the table after forming "The Commission".

Mobsters, a film that has some where along the line attained an extra part to its title - "The Evil Empire" - is a movie that seems to consistently let down newcomers who venture into it. I'll state right from the off that I very much enjoy the film, but, and it's a big but, I'm fully aware it's hardly a shining light for the gangster genre, or even a deep and detailed historical point of reference of the four boys who grew up to be mob "legends". However, those folk who harp on about the "G" movies by Marty and Francis; using them as a point of reference, should know better, while those venturing first time into it expecting "that" type of gangster movie clearly haven't looked at the facts.

Lets examine said facts. It's directed by Michael Karbelnikoff, who? Exactly. It stars Christian Slater (Luciano), Patrick Dempsey (Lansky), Richard Grieco (Siegel) & Costas Mandylor (Costello). Collectively they were at the time known for what? 21 Jump Street, 80s teen romances and 80s edgy angst. Hardly a roll call of actors about to take the gangster genre to greater heights is it? True, the film does offer hope by having the good pros Michael Gambon & Anthony Quinn as the two waring bosses about to be given a stern life lesson from the young upstarts, but at the time of Mobsters' release Gambon was still a fledgling name and Quinn was doing films like Ghosts Can't Do It & Only The Lonely!

After 1988 had seen the then current Brat Pack of Sheen, Estevez, Sutherland et al take on the Western genre with Young Guns, it was kind of inevitable, given that film's success (and its Slater starring sequel in 1990) that a young spunkier foray into gangster land would follow. And here it is in the fun, violent and semi-fictitious Mobsters. While Young Guns is no Magnificent Seven, and did the same Mobster hating crowd expect that also? So Mobsters is no "G" film either. The young cast work hard and enjoy themselves, with Grieco really looking the part in what was his first film. While F. Murray Abraham, Chris Penn and Lara Flynn-Boyle also feature; even if all are underdeveloped and in the case of Flynn-Boyle, a victim of one of those cheese laden slow-mo sex scenes!

If not expecting something too serious then this is a decent treatment of the legend of Luciano and Meyer etc. Over the top performances (Gambon/Quinn) blend with the watchable (Slater/Dempsey play off), and the manic (Nicholas Sadler as Mad Dog Coll) to leave an entertaining film that really wasn't trying to be one of those "G" films in the first place. 6.5/10

La Cosa Nostra in Training

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 25 September 2007]

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.

A Big Yawn

[bobilene · 2/10 · 23 March 2005]

This movie could have been much better if it stuck to the facts related to all the real characters portrayed. The only reason one might take in this travesty on fact is to pick out all the "it didn't happen that way" episodes. Also, one must wonder what ever happened to Vito Genovese who was entirely left out. Genovese being Luciano's right hand man and later under boss. A joke, was the renaming of Marranzano to Farranzano. This viewer chuckled every time his name was mentioned. As far as fact goes, that misnaming was just one of many blunders. For example to name a few: Marran ooops Farranzano was not responsible for Luciano being left for dead. This episode happened when Luciano was very young and it's not clear who was responsible.

No, Luciano's crowd didn't kill Mad dog Cole. The scene in Marran oops Farranzano's office is again a joke. Marranzano (gotta use his real name) was shot and stabbed by 4 Jewish gunman posing as police officers. He wasn't thrown out a window.

Tommy Reina was not killed because he set Luciano up. Maseria had Reina, who was a Maseria ally, killed for business reasons. It had nothing to do with Luciano.

Interested in what really happened during these times? Read Joe Valachi's book "The Valachi Papers", it covers this world A to Z.

It's a shame that Anthony Quinn, a great actor was caught up in this towards the end of his career. He was fine, but all surrounding actors, including Christian Slater seemed to be miss cast.

Two stars only

Young (Machine) Guns...

[ElMaruecan82 · 6/10 · 22 March 2020]

"Mobsters" takes me back to these early days when my opinion on movies didn't depend on an authority: all that mattered was the enjoyment, the fun I had watching the film alone, with friends or family and in 90% of the cases, my father.

These days there was no IMDb and no Internet, classics and average flicks were watched with the same impartiality. I think my father and I had enjoyed "Young Guns" with the same enthusiasm as a Sergio Leone's classic and I'm not too guilty to declare that we enjoyed "Mobsters" as if it was "Goodfellas". Yes, it sounds silly with some perspective but that was a time when a viewer's mindset wasn't dictated by factors such as critics, ratings or reputation, we let a film grow on us or not.

I mentioned "Young Guns" because in many aspects, "Mobsters" resembles this film, it's an exaltation of youth and friendship based on real-life events with memorable shootings and disturbing outbursts of violence. And I think I enjoyed the film for two of these three aspects, I liked the bond between the protagonists, I loved to know that the four would end up being the most emblematic gangsters after Capone, I loved that the film built my knowledge of an era I always was fascinated with. In my review of "Bugsy", I said: "Bugsy Siegel appeared in two 1991 mob movies, "Bugsy" and "Mobsters", I'm glad I discovered the "lesser" one first, it plugged in my memory names such as Arnold Rothstein, Benjamin Siegel, Lucky Luciano, Frank Costello and Meyer Lansky and made my experience of the better film much easier."

Again with some perspective and maturity, I can spot the weaknesses in the film and understand the factors that didn't make it the classic it intended to be (if it ever did), but just because a "Once Upon a Time in America" it ain't (it might not even be in the same league as "The Untouchables") the film has a lot to offer, if only a take on four iconic gangsters at the prime of their physical strength, with an interesting performance from Patrick Dempsey as Meyer Lansky, the man who understood from the start the merit of keeping it low-key and in the shadow. I could believe that that Dempsey would grow up to be the Ben Kingsley's counterpart in "Bugsy", and I appreciate a subtle touch in the poster: he's the only one not to carry a gun. And if Christian Slater isn't exactly transcending as Lucky Luciano, he's not as bad as his Razzie-nomination suggests and his interaction with Dempsey and the clash of their two gangster policies is often fascinating.

These are the men who believed that a new order was to be established, that the time of old Dons channelling Julius Caesar or Il Duce or Commedia Dell' Arte was over and that they had to seal a friendship between Jews and Italians and I guess Irish mob too, the kind of order that prevailed in "The Godfather" before the Turk showed up. "Mobsters", with a sort of delightful obscenity, depicts the two representatives of the old order as despicably as it gets. Michael Gambon is Faranzano, the histrionic bigot who thinks of himself as an Emperor and plays the Don with grandiloquent self-importance while Masseria is a sort of Fanucci with the appetite of a boar. And if Gambon plays it with laughable solemnity, it's fun to see Quinn chewing the scenery as frenetically as a mouthful of carbonara penne. It's really a contest of which "big bad guy" will make himself more detestable and it kind of derails the film from its apparatus of seriousness.

Of course then every attempt to take the film seriously vanishes with Mad Dog Coll (Nicholas Sadler) who's so brutal and sadistic that he makes us forget all the strategic intelligence displayed by Luciano and Lanski. The plot is tricky enough with its set of false alliances, true betrayals and chess-game maneuvers and then we have this little punk causing even more mayhem, showing off, throwing knives, cutting tongues and biting noses as if he belonged to a horror film. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the film but because of the two Dons and that Mad Dog, I did with a guilty pleasure.

Indeed, it's sometimes frustrating that a film could fail to deliver as a gangster epic drama and yet have so many palettes of emotions to show, such a great costume and art design, some interesting scenes such as the introduction of Rothstein (F. Murray Abraham), the way the four heroes pick their leader, the scenes between Dempsey and Slater, the ending and even the romance with Lara Flynn Boyle. Maybe the plot was too complicated for its own good or downright savage in its displays of violence but there came a point where it could get as caricatural as "Harlem Nights", a film that I actually enjoyed, except that it meant to be over-the-top.

So "Mobsters" could be a hidden or underrated gem of the 90s but so many iconic gangster movies were made back then that it was lost under the Scorsesian and Tarantinian shadow. Speaking of these guys, I looked at the director's page: Michael Karbelnikoff, and discovered he only made 3 films and he started as a commercial director. And it's true the film has the feel of a commercial, it's all flash and its attempt to add some substance is ruined by too many hammy performances. You could tell Quinn had fun playing the old Don, Gambon too, and don't get me started on Sadler. The irony of "Mobsters" is that it got one thing right:; the heroes casting and they didn't have much occasions to show how good they were. Talk of a wasted opportunity!

Not recommended

[natdaddyonasis · 2/10 · 24 December 2003]

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.

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

[freds-7 · 6/10 · 6 December 2003]

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!

Pointless

[culmo80 · 5/10 · 20 January 2008]

I'm sorry, I really tried to like this movie but it just was rather pointless.

Yes, it's the dramatization of the real-life rise to power of some of the most successful criminals in US history, however, the writers seemed to want to cram as much of their lives into as little time as possible. For instance, in one scene we see Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky in a car that is then shot at by a hit-man. 5-10 minutes later in the film, they are all sitting in a room, talking about this incident with the hit-man...obviously some great deal of time has passed but this was a little confusing at first.

Perhaps if they had stretched the movie out another hour or so, they could have built up the characters some more, including the villains. When Christian Slater has his friends throw the don out the window, he says it is revenge for ruining his father. The ruining of his father took oh about 45 seconds of screen-time at the very beginning of the film.

I suppose the point is that there was no point to this film. It tried to show the intrigue of the organized crime gangs of the 20's and 30's and it tried to portray the rise of Bugsy Siegel, Lansky, Costello, and Luciano as well as be an action/drama/love story. It came up flat in all areas.

Christian Slater...his fake accent was pretty annoying as well. Luciano was born in Sicili and would not have spoken with such an accent anyway.

The Godfather, this was not. Goodfellas, this was not. I like movies about the Mafia like anyone else but this was just weak.

It's supposed to entertain not educate!!!

[glitterygirl-1 · 8/10 · 12 October 2005]

I have loved this film since it came out and I can't believe some of the comments! Did you really expect another Goodfellas from the Brat Pack? Or did you just watch the film so you could confirm your suspicions and have a good moan? The film is very entertaining and well acted. Robert De Niro and Al Pacino may be good actors but the cast of this film is much easier on the eye(!) and I don't think you can fault the acting in this film. Patrick Dempsey and Christian Slater are particularly good in their roles.

Stop being so judgemental and accept the film for what it is - an entertaining action flick loosely based on real events. If you expect a history lesson from the cinema you are bound to be disappointed!

If you're a mob fan, then watch this one

[brylav88 · 7/10 · 15 November 2013]

I won't give a synopsis, since you've probably already read one, just a straight out review. This movie got a very low rating, but it is NOT a low movie. I really enjoyed this movie, but I'm also very into the mob and old time gangsters, I gave it a 7 because it's a fair compromise between my personal rating and the movies ratings on the whole. If you like mobster movies, and in particular are interested in Charlie Luciano and Meyer Lansky, then you'll enjoy this movie. Very few movies, if only a couple, have been made about Charlie "Lucky" Luciano and Meyer Lansky, but this one gives a MOSTLY historically accurate portrayal of the 2 gangsters and their rise to the top. Hope you liked the review, its actually my first despite the amount of time I spend on this website.

Like a "Scholastic Books" adaptation of "The Godfather", short on sparks and juice

[lemon_magic · 4/10 · 14 January 2006]

I understand that the movie is aimed at a younger audience than classics like "Godfather" and "Once Upon A Time In America". In fact the young 'all star' cast (almost a mafia version of "Young Guns") is the real point of the movie. But "Mobsters" casts a bunch of young pretty-boys (I include Dempsey in this category as a "fresh young face")in roles that are far over their heads and out of their collective reach. The movie tries very, very hard to convince us that these fellows are street-tough, hardened future mob leaders, but frankly, Slater and Grieco and company (as portrayed here) would get their tails kicked by the shop class students from my high school.

Before I saw this movie, I considered myself to be a fan of Christian Slater, Patrick Dempsey and Richard Grieco, and I was hoping for good things from all of them. But after watching this ill-considered melange of gangster movie clichés, I was instead convinced that none of these actors are any better than the material (and director) they have to work with and that their previous successes were happy accidents. And in spite of the historical resonance of its source material, the writer and director of "Mobsters" just don't give them anything worthwhile to work with. "I just set the cameras up and let them roll, OK?"

The movie suffers from a lack of compelling detail - both in the plot and in the way the actors inhabit the characters - in journaling the formation of these characters. Face it, in real life they were psychos, thieves, murderers and sociopaths and they did a lot of damage to American society. So the only reason to admire and emulate them is for of their toughness, cunning and tenacity in overcoming the odds and out-thinking and outmaneuvering their competition. But the movie gets lazy - it takes huge liberties with the source material, and substitutes a simple revenge motif for Luciano's overwhelming drive to dominate. As for the supposed masterstrokes of betrayal, strategy and double-dealing that Slater and company employ to cause their rivals' downfall, well...I've heard of more complex double dealings and betrayals in a junior high school girl's locker room. (From my sisters and girlfriends, of course...I wasn't there personally!) And the acting choices are essentially lazy too...I have to blame the director for this, since I've seen all these young actors do good work elsewhere.

It's not that the movie is unwatchable...no movie with Quinn and Gambon in it could ever be completely bad, and the rest of the cast is too professional for that to happen. It's just that the movie has no heart or guts or attention span. I also hate that it completely wastes Dempsey (who was engagingly resourceful, smart, quirky, and funny in previous roles and is none of those things here) and it pretends that the "Young (Tommy)guns are smarter and more interesting than Anthony Quinn and Michael Gambon. This is obviously not the case to anyone with eyes.

Don't waste your time with "Mobsters" if you want to watch movies about the Mafia. Stick with the classics. And pray that Slater comes to his senses someday and turns his career around, and that someone gives Dempsey another chance in a real movie someday - Dempsey's movie career apparently cratered with "Mobsters"...fortunately seems to have landed on his feet and moved permanently into television projects.

nice decor, pity about the blood on the rug

[Philby-3 · 10 July 2001]

This movie is based on the rise of four leading organised crime figures, from the end of WW 1 to the early thirties. The central character, Charles (Lucky) Luciano (Christian Slater)is credited, if that's the right word, for introducing modern corporate governance to a group of organisations previously based on ethnic affiliation and loyalty to a chief. So, in the movie he and his associates Meyer Lansky, Frank Costello and Bugsy Siegel works to bring down two aging Dons whose time has come. The Dons, played by Anthony Quinn and Michael Gambon, are certainly ruthless, but their imaginations are limited. The young turks on the other hand see new markets and new alliances. In the new mafia, Irishmen, Russian Jews and others work alongside Italians.

The period is evoked beautifully in shades of brown and cream. Unfortunately many scenes have a certain sameness to them - a couple of hoods meet in some office or hotel for a delicate business chat, each armed to the teeth. When an impass is reached the guns blaze away. This gets boring after a while and you start to wonder why they don't use the phone sometimes. It isn't because the FBI are after them (the IRS was a bit more successful) and they have the New York cops in their pocket. There are some very bloody scenes depicted with gratuitious graphicness.

Luciano and to a lesser extent Lansky are quite sympathetically depicted, with many of the killings being of "let's kill them before they kill us variety." Poor old Tony Quinn is put down not even able to remember the guy whose death is being avenged. One thing that does come out is that organised crime was in the US long before the prohibition era, but the money made then financed the mob into many other areas, pre-eminently gambling in Cuba and Las Vegas. Meyer Lansky was the biggest investor in the early Vegas casino the "Flamingo", opened I think, by Bugsy Siegal.

This is a moderately interesting account, though with some substantial departures from the historical record. Apart from all the gore my objection to it is that it glamourises some very nasty people who did a great deal of damage to American public life. The FBI, and all its attacks on civil liberties, justified its existence by reference to organised crime, yet did little to stop it. After the time covered by the film Luciano was imprisoned not through the efforts of the FBI but through those of NY prosecutor Thomas Dewey. Luciano was eventually deported to Italy, after assisting the OSS, forerunner of the CIA, in their wartime dealings with the Sicilian mafia. Al Capone, a bit player here, was famously imprisoned for tax evasion. Meyer Lansky was charged with tax evasion in the early 1970s, but beat the rap. He died peacfully at 81 in retirement in Florida. His family not only maintain his grave, but also a web site about him.

Under Rated

[thedarkside-79541 · 7/10 · 25 May 2020]

This movie is entertainments and not big on facts. It was cast well and enjoyable. Beings it is a movie from 30 years ago it is far from bad. I belive the rating is a bit low.

Not a classic, but worth seeing

[goodfellas1018 · 7/10 · 25 March 2006]

It is no Godfather or Goodfellas, but it still is a must see for someone into mob movies or even a good story line with action. You still get to learn a story and see good violent parts. Slater does a pretty good job playing Lucky Luciano and the rest of the cast did good as well. Does not compare to Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci or any of those guys, but for what it is i highly recommend you go see it. You won't feel like you wasted your time, and i guarantee you will end up saying it was a good movie if you take a good look at it. After i saw the movie i went online and researched more information on Lucky Luciano and his crew. It gets you in that feeling to be into the movie. When you watch it you can not think of comparing to the godfather or Goodfellas then you will be upset. You just need to let it be its own movie in its own way, and enjoy the film.

Not worth watching it

[alexander.stroeck · 4/10 · 16 October 2000]

Unfortunately I can´t recommend this movie although it has Mr Quinn and Christian Slater in the cast. They deliver a good job-but the dialogues and the story are so wooden and bad-the cast just can save this mediocre story-telling. I saw it with three friends and they all asked me to stop the (uncut) tape after one hour. They were right: This is a bad gangster movie-realy!

"Some things change your life forever."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 11 October 2014]

It wasn't very long into the picture that I realized any semblance to historical accuracy was right out the window, so when that happens all you can do is either turn it off or go along for the ride. This would never be considered in the same league as "The Godfather" or "Goodfellas", but for a couple hours of diversion it's not the worst you could do. Still, the movie's casting is a little suspect when you consider what real life mobsters look like, not at all like the hunks selected here for their box office draw appeal for the Millenial set. Now Anthony Quinn, he looks like a gangster given the right milieu. Put him in front of a bowl of pasta like they did here and he's a veritable Don Corleone, but that'll only get you so far. You need a compelling story and good character development in any genre and this story was just too superficial. So all things being equal, my summary line quote from the film doesn't really apply to the picture, but there was one line that made an impression that I'll probably wind up using more than once - "A wedding is like a funeral, but with musicians".

So forgettable I almost watched it twice

[TheOneThatYouWanted · 3/10 · 15 September 2020]

No really, I saw it on TV and started watching it and then after 5 minutes realized I've already seen it based on one scene. Wasn't going to risk watching it again. I'm sure it was awful.

little gangster gem, to be rediscovered

[horrorules · 7/10 · 23 February 2024]

I have always really appreciated this little gangster movie, yes it is undoubtedly not a masterpiece like Casino, Goodfellas, Carlito's Way, Scarface...., but it is better than other films of the same genre praised by all, I consider this film superior to the Godfather sequels or films like The Irishman, Once Upon a Time in America and others... all good films, but IMHO overrated, this "Mobsters" is a b movie, but it has great merit, it is aware of it, it doesn't try to be a arthouse film, this film doesn't care, it wants to be a funny, brutal (and it is, the violence is at the highest level, which is a good thing) and unleashed tour de force in the world of criminals of the 1920s, all represented with a good cast, Slater is very good, he manages to be suffering and ruthless at the same time, Dempsey is also good even if he has little space in the film, very nice Richard Grieco and Costas Mandylor (in the pre-Saw phase), the legendary and late Robert "Maniac Cop" Z'dar and then obviously the great Anthony Quinn who actually dominates the scene.

This film is certainly not an Oscar film (although actually seeing how we are reduced today, where a piece of rubbish like Barbie is sent to the Oscars, well maybe Mobsters deserved something too), but it is a film that should be rediscovered and appreciated.

Cheesy "Brat Pack" Gangland Melodrama

[czarnobog · 1/10 · 27 August 2008]

This movie is just plain awful. It's a textbook example of how "packaging" has ruined the art of film-making in Hollywood. It was obviously more important to the studio to fill up the screen with "bankable" stars than to make an intelligent, entertaining drama.

The casting is horrible and the acting is strictly cornball. Anthony Quinn, that Swiss army knife of ethnic characterization, delivers yet another offensive, simplistic stereotype, a two-dimensional cartoon slob who stuffs his face with pasta and blubbers with faux emotion.

The young stars who powered this fiasco into production are little better. The most notable aspect of their vapid portrayals are their glamorous but unbelievably pristine suits. In fairness, they've been given very little of substance to work with; did it really take two writers to butcher this story and concoct such clueless dialog? Luciano and Lansky were criminal geniuses in real life, smart enough to rule the underworld and avoid the long arm of the law, yet here they can best be described as "less dumb" than the rest of the idiots surrounding them.

The worst crime committed by this movie is the screenplay, which wastes one of the most fascinating and dramatic episodes in the history of crime, the Castellammarese Wars that rocked New York in the late 1920s and solidified the structure of the modern American mafia. Typical of its idiocy is the misnaming of Maranzano as Faranzano. Apparently some wise old development exec decided that having two of the key characters with names that began with "Ma" was simply too confusing, so they kept Masseria and renamed Maranzano. There are several other inaccuracies as well. The movie is more fiction than fact, and not good fiction at that. It adds nothing of value to the body of gangland cinema.

The beauty of "The Godfather" was that the writer researched the story he was telling and translated it into an epic tale that captured the spirit and reality of the mafia, changing the names of the characters but preserving the essence of their experience. "Mobsters" kept the names and threw everything else out the window.

On top of all that, even the action sucked.

That said, there is one redeeming moment in the movie. The chorus girls dancing in the club looked great and the dance routine was fairly good. Too bad it wasn't 90 minutes longer.

Really Cool!!

[carolynay · 8/10 · 2 April 2006]

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.

Instead of playing in the sandbox let's start a gang

[mloessel · 7/10 · 8 July 2022]

Christian Slater leads this fictional account of how Charlie Lucky Luciano and his band of four began as childhood thugs and eventually rise up of to teen mobsters who take on the established old school mobsters of the 1920s. Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano (aka Christian Slater), Meyer Lansky (aka Patrick Dempsey), Benny 'Bugsy' Seigel (aka Richard Grieco) and Frank Costello (aka Costas Mandylor) find each other on the streets of New York. Christian Slater anchors this well textured film that focuses on how organized crime took over the distribution of alcohol when Prohibition became law in 1920.

The film doesn't attempt to justify or glorify the lawlessness that was prevalent. It showed what people did to survive and that organized crime was one of those vehicles. There was no moral message no need for one. If you wanted to survive the street life of New York you needed to be in a gang. A gang provided you the protection against thugs who were looking for fast money. Christian Slater's Luciano saved Dempsey's Lansky from the beating of a thug in the opening scenes. Luciano also hung out with Benny Seigel and Frank Costello. Lansky wasn't a tough guy but he never ran away from a fight. His strength was found in who he associated with: Luciano and his two pals. The four formed an alliance that led them to connecting with old school Mafia people whom they despised.

One of my favorite scenes is the four guys hustling down the street after Luciano saves Lansky from his beating. The look on Lansky's face is priceless. I'LL never get tired of watching this classic drama on the beginnings of organized crime.

Bad in almost every way.

[tpaladino · 4/10 · 29 October 2011]

This was a horribly sloppy and downright insulting attempt at a mob movie. It ranged from moderately boring to downright ridiculous, with very little redeeming value in between.

I mean, I literally can't believe how bad it was. Rather than write a huge essay, I'll just make a list of the good vs. bad, to keep it simple. First, the good:

1. The cast is generally high quality. The use of the cast is another story altogether, but as far as pure talent goes, the cast was mostly top notch.

2. Very good cinematography. The locations were great and everything was shot and lit very well. Clearly a good deal of money was spent on sets as well.

And that pretty much sums up the good. Now, onto the bad:

1. The writing and story as a whole was awful. Just awful. It was nearly impossible to follow at times, with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. And this is completely aside from the fact no part of the story bears any resemblance to reality whatsoever; I can appreciate a good historical fictionalization. But this was a complete mess. Its as if the writers themselves didn't know if they wanted it to be pure fiction or based on some kind of reality. The result is a story that is impossible to sink your teeth into, and characters that behave in absurd and utterly incomprehensible ways, particularly towards the end. The final scene is laughable in its utter absurdity.

2. Horrible use of a good cast. Yeah, there is a lot of talent in this group, but they are not used very well at all. Listening to the extremely talented Michael Gambon attempt an Italian accent through his very heavy British accent is painful. The rest of the primary cast struggles with their tough-guy gangster-speak as well. It just doesn't work, and their performances suffer for it on the whole. When you factor in the horrible script on top of this, you get plenty of scenes that just fail on multiple levels.

3. Tons of period details done wrong. There is really no excuse here; when you have a film with this kind of budget and the amount of care put into the sets, it's downright insulting to the audience to get so many small details wrong. Plenty of furniture used was incorrect for the time and the suits and tuxedos were absolutely incorrect. In fact, Christian Slater as Luciano wore a tuxedo to what was supposed to be a major formal event in a key scene, and was clearly wearing a cheap CLIP ON Bow-tie with his tux. The kind you'd see a waiter at a catering hall wearing. You could see the clip. Never mind the fact that the clip-on bow tie had yet to be invented, but even if it were, would young Charles Luciano ever wear such a thing? Was it REALLY that much trouble to procure a real bow tie? That's the kind of flagrant error that should have gotten several people on this production banished from Hollywood.

Overall, the movie is a disaster. It has a few entertaining moments, and can be pretty to look at, but if you're interested in watching a movie that is actually enjoyable (or makes sense), then skip it.