Meyer Lansky - Amerikanisches Roulette

There are a lot of truly great actors in this movie. Illeana Douglas. Max Perlich. Dreyfus. Eric Roberts. Lots of them. But the dialogue in this movie is horrible. The acting is stilted because of that. And the story is just not believable. It almost seems as if the writers tried to grasp onto the "mob" madness and cut and pasted other stories to come up with this one. It is not believable. Meyer Lansky was a gangster. This movie portrays him as some kind of innocent victim of circumstance. Simply untrue. He was not a victim. When you see this film, you get the impression that he was somehow compromised by the government because he was a Jew. A real look into who he was will tell a different story. And this is not it.

I'd seen a preview for Lansky on HBO a couple of weeks ago and it looked like a fascinating movie. Too bad the film couldn't meet the expectations. Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland's Opus, Night Falls on Manhattan) stars as Meyer Lansky a gangster from the early 1900's. The film deals with his character throughout the film going back and forth from different ages. Dreyfuss is not the only actor to play Lansky in the film. Dreyfuss plays him from his 30's on, Max Perlich (Beautiful Girls, Georgia) plays him in his 20's, and a child actor plays him at a younger age. The film deals with his dealings in the mob and his family life. Eric Roberts (Runaway Train, Most Wanted) plays Bugsy Siegel and Anthony LaPaglia (The Client, Commandments) plays Lucky Luciano. Both of these actors do well, especially LaPaglia, but aren't given enough screen time. Richard Dreyfuss is very good in the lead, but is out-acted by Max Perlich playing Lansky in his earlier years. I know the film probably wanted a big name (Dreyfuss) but I would have preferred to see Perlich play him the whole time instead of Dreyfuss. The film takes some good choices on how to tell the story, but the story itself is kind of boring. It's interesting at times, but nothing special.

Made for HBO movies (particularly the ones with only one-word titles) have become the ‘in' thing these days. They carry a lot of prestige, and certain EMMY nomination for the lead (think Gary Sinise/Truman, Ving Rhames/Don King, Angelina Jolie/Gia). In fact, I'd venture a guess that most stars with a little forethought ask their agents ‘why can't I get one of those deals?'

They can be career builders, or a career jump-start, and suffice it to say there is incentive by many in the creative community to continue this lineage of quality programs.

But perhaps now the guild is off the rose. I mean, Meyer Lansky? The guy was boring in real life and even more so in the reincarnate. At least Gia was a lesbian drug addict.

Gangsters from Al Capone to Don Corleone have been romanticized quite successfully in films-but we know all that stuff. The made-for-HBO GOTTI should have foreshadowed to most that this genre has been overused, and abused.

Probably everything we need to know about Meyer Lansky we found out in fifteen minutes of BUGSY anyway.

Mamet's script is derivative and plodding, Richard Dreyfuss is not only unconvincing but over-the-top in his portrayal of Meyer Lansky. And the musical score is so retro-Godfather it's laughable.

Don't waste your time.

I saw the movie yesterday on HBO. Liked Robert Dreyfuss' performance very much. He is great! But didn't understand what happened to Lansky's first wife, Anna. She simply disappeared with no explanation and was suddenly "replaced" by Teddy. Did Anna die? Did the Lansky divorced? It seems that the producers made the movie only for the mob's admirers and/or experts, supposing that everybody would understand the story. There was a lack of some connections to make the movie understandable. Even so, I enjoyed it very much, especially because of Dreyfuss, who happens to be one of my favorite North American actors. Anthony La Paglia played well too and even Eric Roberts had a good performance.

This film succeeds in portraying Meyer Lansky as a victim in the whole procedure. This has to be rubbish - wasn't he allegedly the brains behind most of the mobster operations and died with millions of dollars of his ill-gotten gains stashed away somewhere in Switzerland? The constant leaping backwards and forwards in time, while expertly handled in "Once Upon a Time in America" was clumsily handled in this film. Dreyfuss, though a good actor, was miscast and therefore seriously out of his depth here: this only served to increase my dissatisfaction with the film. And what did happen to Anna? Why was it assumed that everyone watching the film was as au fait with the story as David Mamet? The only times the film lit up was when either Eric Roberts or Anthony Lapaglia were on the screen. It's a pity it wasn't the story of "Lucky" Luciano. Lapaglia dwarfed Dreyfuss both physically and metaphorically every time they were on screen together. All in all if you like gangster movies fact or fiction, I'd advice you to miss this one.