La vita di un gangster

Growing up around the mob, Joe turns to the syndicate early in life & quickly gains respect, jobs, & a great deal of money. And despite his mother's & his girlfriend's attempts to persuade him to stay out of organized crime, he works his way up the ladder to the top. But there's bound to be some competition to head the syndicate. Who can you trust?

This is a great early mob film with very good acting, a great story with a beautiful love story built in featuring the stunning Lita Milan. Not terribly suspenseful, but overall a good flick.

I, MOBSTER may have some historical significance, of a sort. This may be the first film based on a paperback original. When I say "paperback original" I'm referring to the flood of two-bit (literally, they sold for a quarter) paperback books that were NOT reprints: these books, published by Dell, Gold Medal (Fawcett) Lion and others had a boom after World war II, taking over the newsstands, drug store racks, etc. and hastening the demise of the pulp magazines. Writers like Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson, Jim Thompson and Charles Williams got their start in the paperback originals, and established writers like David Goodis and Cornell Woolrich turned to them for quick money.

Many of these books have now been filmed by the likes of Truffaut (SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER from Goodis' DOWN THERE) Cornfield (THE 3RD VOICE from Williams' ALL THE WAY) and others -- Jim Thompson most frequently --but as far as I can tell, Roger Corman's I, MOBSTER was the first, from an "anonymous" Gold Medal Original, I, MOBSTER, published in 1951.

Can anyone find an earlier?

Roger Corman directed this 1958 story of the rise and fall of a hoodlum, on what was for him a generous budget. There's an exploitation feeling to this one, which was one of many inexpensive, somewhat backward looking crime films of the late fifties. Steve Cochran, in the title role, is a little too old but still holds the screen with his unique brand of sleazy charisma, showing once again that with the right vehicle he might have become a major star. His performance is sympathetic, and helps make the movie more interesting than it might have been with a cooler actor (Ralph Meeker, say). The script isn't much, and the other actors are no more than adequate. If one has a taste for lowbrow crime films, this one's pretty good, as it evokes its paperback and men's magazine era nicely, and has about it the whiff of an old-time barbershop.

If you are a fan of his, then you wont be deceived, no way. It also proves that Roger Corman was a very good director, not only the film maker of cheap crap flicks, in horror genre. He also could give westerns and film noirsas this one. Remember ST VALENTINES DAY MASSACRE, THE INTRUDER or VON RICHTOFFEN AND BROWN, not grade B movies but excellent major ones. This film, that I comment now, offers the usual and predictable rise and fall of a gangster, his loves, his fights and the rest.... Nothing special but splendidly done and pulled by the best actor for this kind of stuff. Enjoy.

This film is classified as Film Noir, but on close examination is a routine 50s gangster movie and a cheap one at that. Joey Sante is a wiseacre, rebellious kid of 11 who runs numbers for the local bookies. Joey's father disapproves of his disrespect and arrogance but his mother convinces him he will someday be a great man. Suddenly the scene changes and while the other characters age slightly (if at all), adolescent Joey is now 41 year old Steve Cochran playing a younger age. The rest of the film focuses on Joe Sante's organized crime career, rising through the ranks to eventually running his own organization. But after breaking with the big boss Paul Moran (Grant Withers in his final role), he suddenly becomes the object of a Senate probe and marks himself for extinction.

Sante's constant companion is Blackie (the affable Robert Strauss whose aging is suggested by hair frosting), first Joe's mentor while a boy, then his immediate superior, then his immediate subordinate and finally his trusted friend who does him in. Strauss had his chance to shore up if not carry the film, but his lackluster role got in the way due in great measure to uninspired direction.

The film assumes an air of self-importance, epic and biographical in concept and presented in Cinemascope, but never rises above a low grade "B" picture in any aspect. While it pretends to be a fascinating study of a hoodlum's life, it plods along like a routine stage drama. The only Noir element is Joe's seemingly conflicted character headed toward a fatalistic end. Joe is represented as a decent sort, supporting his mother (who accepts his largesse and then ultimately disowns him), keeping needy acquaintances on the payroll and even turning down gratuitous trysts with wanton floozies. He never betrays a friend, and kills people only when he absolutely must. We would be persuaded that Joe is really not a bad guy.

Corman's direction shows his simplistic style, but without the sight gags or wacky characters found in "Little Shop of Horrors" or "Bucket of Blood". The plot is forced, the script flat and the same blaring jazz soundtrack later used in "Shop" and "Bucket" is offered for suspense. Completely devoid of imagination, suspense, humor, interesting camera work or real empathy for any of the characters, the story lopes along until its inevitable, predictable conclusion.

Sorry Roger, suspense and schlock are two different concepts. You were in way over your head on this one.