Lansky

Meyer Lansky was a Jewish immigrant who had an affinity for numbers, and his "business sense" eventually made him one of the most successful crime bosses. The story in this movie focuses on 1981, Lansky was to die in 1983 of lung cancer. But an author, money short, meets with him to gather information to write a book of his life. One provision, what Lansky tells him must remain confidential until Lansky's death, otherwise he wouldn't like the consequences.

Much of the movie is told in flashback form, with a heavy focus on the late 1930s and the 1940s. Harvey Keitel does a remarkably good job as Lansky.

Good movie, gives us a glimpse of the golden days of organized crime during the period that Las Vegas and gambling became big business. My wife skipped, not her kind of movie. I watched it on DVD from my public library.

It's a very so-so movie, but Harvey Keitel makes it completely worth watching. His demeanor toward the young writer reminded me of some of my own mentors. Not that they were gangsters. Just something in his voice and delivery. Don't you love it when people are really, really good at their jobs?

Few genres are as seductive or as enduringly popular as the gangster movie. Since the earliest days of cinema- with 1906's 'The Black Hand' often cited as the first- audiences have been enthralled by the suave thuggery of characters like Fat Tony and Joey Two Fingers. From the explosive fury of 'White Heat' to the operatic grandeur of 'The Godfather', we've watched countless mobsters rise and fall in clouds of cigar smoke, drawn in by the glint of power and the promise that crime can sometimes pay- for a while, at least.

The best gangster movies crackle with energy. They're fast-talking, blood-soaked morality plays. 'Goodfellas' doesn't just show you a life of crime- it sweeps you up in it, dazzles with its rhythm, then punches you in the gut. The camera moves like it's in on the scam. The characters are magnetic, dangerous, deeply flawed. The dialogue crackles with razor-blade wit. There's urgency, chaos, consequence.

Sadly, Eytan Rockaway's 'Lansky' is no 'Goodfellas.' A tired, cliched slog, the film takes one of the most intriguing figures in organized crime and renders him about as exciting as a tax audit. It follows an aging Meyer Lansky in the twilight of his life, doing a series of interviews with a struggling journalist under the pretence of telling his side of the story (a narrative device strikingly similar to the one used in John McNaughton's 1999 'Lansky').

In theory, it's a chance to peel back the layers of a mythologised figure, to explore the man behind the headlines. In practice, it's a lot of talking, not much showing and a distinct lack of bite. For a film about a man with blood on his hands and the FBI breathing down his neck, 'Lansky' feels oddly low-stakes and low-energy. Rockaway's screenplay- written alongside his father Robert- brings nothing new to the table of gangster fiction, relying on overly familiar tropes, ticking boxes; sketching the outline of a legend without ever colouring in the man.

The film could be the poster child for 'generic gangster movie'. However, while some, like 'Black Mass', may be generic, at least they're a bit of fun. For the most part, 'Lansky' is dull. Flashbacks to his glory days are flat, drained of urgency or danger. The dialogue plods. Even the violence, when it arrives, feels perfunctory- as if included out of obligation rather than narrative necessity. There's no momentum, no grit; no spark. It's a film that mistakes solemnity for substance and slow pacing for depth.

There are brief moments that hint at what could have been. Some scenes involving Lansky and the journalist crackle with, if not quite excitement, at least life. The character of the older Lansky is believable, with some good dialogue. Throughout, there are glimpses of a more engaging film- one properly exploring Lansky's morally ambiguous character. Sadly, these moments are fleeting, overshadowed by the narrative's relentless stagnation.

Moreover, Peter Flinckenberg's cinematography ticks every box on the generic gangster movie checklist- moody lighting, smoky rooms, endless slow zooms- but forgets to add any actual atmosphere. It isn't by any means a bad looking picture, but it feels like style without soul. Although it contains all the visual hallmarks of a gangster drama, it has none of the menace, energy or allure that makes a film in the genre stand out.

Although April Lasky's production design is serviceable, it suffers from the same sense of checkbox filmmaking. The sets dutifully hit all the expected notes- dingy offices, smoke-filled bars, opulent hotels- but they rarely feel lived-in or evocative. Like much of the film, they look the part without ever truly selling the world they're meant to create. The same can be said for Laura Cristina Ortiz's costume design; forgettable and generic.

Really, there's only one reason to watch 'Lansky': Harvey Keitel. As the titular mafioso, Keitel is far and away the film's most compelling aspect. Nuanced and credible, he injects the film with a certain quiet gravitas. While the script does him no favours, Keitel brings layers to a character who could've easily been a one-dimensional gangster archetype. He's a man at the crossroads of a legendary life; Keitel captures the weariness, the wisdom and the dubious morality of someone who has outlived the thrill of his own story.

Sam Worthington does steady work as the journalist, though there isn't much for him to work with in the face of the Rockaways's scant, cliched characterisation. John Magaro's performance as the younger Lansky is so over-the-top and hammy he might as well be hanging in a butcher's shop window, and the same can be said for David Cade's Bugsy Siegel. Additionally, as an FBI man, David James Elliott fades into the background completely, while the talents of AnnaSophia Robb are wasted entirely in the criminally underwritten part of Lansky's long-suffering wife.

Eytan Rockaway's 'Lansky' is a far cry from the best gangster films. Generic, cliched and frequently dull, it really doesn't have much to offer. While Harvey Keitel manages to breathe some life into a character who deserves better, the rest of the film stumbles through checkboxes without ever finding its own pulse. If you're looking for a glimpse into the complex mind of the mob legend, you'd be better off reading his Wikipedia page- at least there, your interest won't get lost in a haze of smoke and missed opportunities. In short, 'Lansky' is an offer you can refuse.

I am not saying you need a $100 million budget to tell the story of Meyer Lansky, or you must have Tarantino, Spielberg, or Coppola but it would help a lot.

Trying to make a biopic on one of the most consequential figures of the 20th century underworld is a massive undertaking.

First things first - Harvey Keitel is really great. Not just great. He is perfect for the part. It is one of his five best roles.

He is from new york, jewish, tough, pretty much the same age as Lansky was at the time the movie is supposed to take place and is old enough with the nyc street background and wise enough to understand the Lansky character.

The actor playing the younger Lansky is not bad but is not the man for the job - few could be.

The Bugsy siegel character works fine for the early crime scenes but in the vegas scenes he does his best vince vaughn in Swingers Impression and he is about 10 years too young for siegels vegas years though it could have been pulled off with some better acting and directing. A scene of Siegel falling asleep at the bar is not something he would have done. Siegel also wouldnt have showboated in the manner the director depicts. The director ends up making a cartoonish impression of siegel.

The filmmaker also loses a lot of credibility with the Millers Crossing stolen execution scene which is not just a scene lacking any believability but shows a real sloppiness of filmmaking.

This movie was shot in 20 days and it shows. It was rushed together.

A love triangle and hotel story involving the author is a completely unnecessary distraction which turns the film from a biopic of a monumental figure to a late night soap drama on the oxygen channel.

The movie somewhat recovers from its pitfalls through the power of Lanskys story. Much of the general storyline is true though the amount of liberties taken such as the millers crossing execution scene are too big of a distraction.

The maranzano showdown also takes liberties with what is known. The director also fails to detail the importance of the moment or that Maranzano was the biggest boss of the time.

Many of the scenes in the film are just made up though others are credible.

One great part of the movie is the jewish attacks on the nazis which is little known today but was factual.

The movie also does a good job in explaining lanskys assistance to the us government in rooting out nazi spies which is very important to the story.

This movie is a more realistic depiction of lansky then some other movies and shows have done.

While Keitel does a great job in his portrayal, it feels too much at times like the younger version is too much Hymen roth. Roths version of the Lansky character had too many elements which were not accurate. For example he had a tough Rugged baritone voice which instilled fear and demanded respect not the squeakiness that the younger lansky version shown here and in the roth version and other versions.

There are two great supporting acting performances in this film - david james elliot who is the government agent hounding lansky and anna sophia robb who plays lanskys wife.

Robb is a real revelation here and is an actress to look out for if you are unfamiliar.

My Other main criticism is most of the violent scenes are just not believable and were more interested in gore.

The depiction of murder inc as an afterthought is a fatal flaw as it is integral to the lansky story. This should have been central to the story. Instead it is treated like the orks in lord of the rings with a saturday afterrnoon cartoon feel.

The prohibition era is essentially glossed over. Except for a card room scene and the meeting of his wife and luciano.

What we have here is a major error of trying to combine a story about a reporter who interviewed lansky and whose stories may or may not be partially fictional and a story of one of the most impactful gangsters which is given equal treatment to the reporter.

Consider for a moment all of the time godfather 2 spent on the cuba scenes when our story is supposed to be about the man who made those cuba scenes happen and instead we get about two minutes of cuba - which is where lansky made his great fortune and lost it.

Basically this film tries to do too much with too little and falls short by rushing through each item as if it were a checklist.

The greatness of Keitel makes this worth watching. As for the story of Lansky, it is a teaspoon mixed with some accuracy, some false tales and some folly but ultimately there is an honest attempt by the director to show the general character of lansky in the manner in which he is believed to have acted. The ending is perfect and that is a big part of the lansky story.

The problem lies in the parts of the film which stray too far from the truth.

Like having a guy in cowboy hat in nyc or visiting an alabama jail to find a magical clue from some southern convict turn the film into a version of con air.

It was so good to see Harvey Keitel in a bigger role once again. And I have to admit I do like Sam Worthington - I know that may not be a popular opinion or something that will matter in the rating for most people, but I thought I'd "explain" why I chose to go a bit higher than the average rating is right now.

Having said that, the movie could have done with a bit more money. It may aim a bit higher than it eventually can reach. So certain things fall a bit flat I reckon. Not any of the actors though. Or the (violent) murders and killings that can be witnessed - no pun intended.

Never heard of Lansky and went into this completely unaware of any backstory. This still was able to "entertain" me or rather have me on the edge of my seat. Suspense was high and there are a few twists that work quite well. Maybe you have a few characters too many overall, but it did work and was not too messy or incoherent for my taste.

Certain editing and camera angle choices were weird even for me, but I assume it was time and money restraints. Still this works, if you let it.