Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Tied for the best movie I have ever seen

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Better Late Then Never

A fictionalization of the early days of four major mafia figures, 'Mobsters' follows the young Luciano (Christian Slater), Lansky (Patrick Dempsey), Siegel (Richard Greico) and Costello (Costas Mandylor) as they rise from street punks to gangster powerhouses. How so? By playing back and forth between the two big dons of the time, Faranzano (Michael Gambon) and Masseria (Anthony Quinn), whom Luciano has a personal vendetta against too.One of the dullest mob movies I have ever seen, this Mafioso spin on the Young Guns formula is flat and generic. Despite the solid production values, the direction by commercials veteran Michael Karbelnikoff is so bland and televisual that a lot of the mood and atmosphere is nonexistent (not helped by the strange use of blackouts every twenty minutes, like the movie is going to an ad break). This could be forgiven if the story had meat, but instead, the characters are every flavour of tired 'mob' tropes, and the narrative is paper-thin and clumsily constructed. The movie by turns wants to be a revenge story (which only matters during the opening and end), a romance (which is also very haphazardly chucked in), a battle of wits, an action film, a buddy movie and even to an extent, a recreation of history (which here, talk about a total whitewash of gangsters and their lives) and does none of them well.The fact that the film is such a huge dud is a pity, as the cast do try and bring some life in, whether its our young foursome as the main charismatic hoods, or even the more ebullient Gambon and Quinn as the Dons. Plus, as I said, the film isn't cheap or ugly looking, and Michael Small's score does do a good job of bringing in that jazzy 1930s flavour.But that's all the film has going for it. When you have writing this bland and sloppy, you render any investment nonexistent, and I could not wait for this thing to be over. I wanted to give this a chance, I wanted it to surprise, but like Nispel's promising but disastrous 'Pathfinder' before it, this was just bad.

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.

Christian Slater stars as Lucky Luciano, a prominent mob figure in the Prohibition Era who rose to power early on as a member of a group of four who did things their own way, and whenever they felt the need to get it done.This film was produced in a way that made Lucky and his friends, including Meyer Lansky (played by Patrick Dempsey) and Bugsy Siegal (Richard Grieco), look like products of their environments. Slater's father was roused by one of the local Dons in his house right in front of his family, along with his mother getting a little "attention" as well. The event stayed with Slater's character throughout his life as he set the old man up for retribution. Although based on actual events, I feel this movie fails in one area in that it glamorizes the era. Prohibition meant no booze and that's where this group first got their start, in supplying illegal liquor to these nightclubs.Although a fan of both lead actors and liking the chemistry between the two, this movie did have its own shortcomings, and I found myself wondering when the movie would be over. It was somewhat disappointing to me, considering I've waited over seventeen years to see this film.5 out of 10 stars!

Poor Christian Slater! He tries hard, but the script sucks and he's got a supporting cast that ranges from insufferably dull (Richard Grieco) to manic scenechomper (Michael Gambon & Anthony Quinn, frantically vying with each other to see who can eat the most scenery in the least amount of time).The good: The cast, particularly Costas Mandylor, looks damned fine in the period suits. Also, Patrick Dempsey would eventually grow into his voice, face, and body and join the cast of "Grey's Anatomy." Unfortunately, this movie took place many years before that would happen. Christian Slater is not awful in this film.The bad: Lara Flynn Boyle, the general dialogue, the editing, Richard Grieco (in his "Booker" days, I was a fan!), the script, the story.The hilarious: Occasionally, Anthony Quinn. In addition to eating scenery, he was rarely in a scene in which he wasn't eating a meal, having a snack, gnawing on a table leg ... at one point I thought he'd start gnawing on Slater's shoulder, just to have something to chew on.Rent "The Godfather" if you want to see a great film. This is what a film SHOULDN'T be.