The Alto Knights - I due volti del crimine

I don't see why all the "hate" for this movie. It's a decent mafia movie. Not great, not terrible. I see people complaining that De Niro shouldn't been playing two characters, especially the main characters. I think he did a good job, which shows his incredible talent of getting into different characters. Yes, you could see it's the same person, the difference was not big, Frank Costello and Vito Genovese didn't look alike but you could see who was who in the movie.

It's not the typical, highly violent mafia movie we're used to and perhaps that's why it doesn't get up there in the top. It's hard to compare it to the classics. I remind you that The Irishman was also different from what we're used to when it comes to mafia movies, De Niro and Scorsese. But that's how it is, they can't make the same format of movies because we'd get bored of it.

This movie stands in its own, and shouldn't be compared with the classics. It's a different approach.

Anyway, like I said, it's not a masterpiece nor a fiasco. It's a good, decent movie for people interested in the mafia/gangster genre.

This film was a bit like all of the other Robert De Niro Italian Mafia films, so you know what you're going to get. It's enjoyable, and by no means a bad film, but a tad formulaic.

I am unclear why De Niro played both main characters - at times it felt a little confused and, to be honest, my mind wandered to the prosthesis that went in to differentiating his looks. Was the fact he played both, a metaphor on the nature of the individuals (because this was based on real people), a commentary on the nature of the type of people involved, just a bit of fun for the actor, or an attempt to save money? Whichever, whilst it didn't have much of an impact on the film, it was odd.

As I say above, even though formulaic, an Nobel film, but with no surprises.

The Alto Knights... It takes all of the charm of GoodFellas (and is very clearly written by the same guy: Nicholas Pileggi), but it lacks the mastery that Scorsese brings, instead looking like a lazy knock-off. It has plenty of potential, but it chooses to take the easy way out and ends up feeling half-baked.

GoodFellas has one of the best narrations of all time by Henry Hill and his wife, Karen, and this movie attempts to do the same. However, it ultimately hurts more than it helps. Instead of adding on to the story, De Niro sits there and tells you the story for the first half hour. He tells you about himself and the other main characters and everyone's entire backstory, rather than letting you experience it for yourself. It starts off like nothing more than a bedtime story with some black and white stock footage of Hell's Kitchen in New York thrown on screen. Then it abandons the narration for a bit before picking it back up. It doesn't let you experience the characters and feel for them; it tells you exactly what it wants you to know, with no creativity, no room for interpretation, and no flair, all of which are things that a movie needs.

Apart from that, the writing is not particularly bad. It's nothing special, but it doesn't hurt the movie. De Niro does his best with what he's given, but the dual role ends up being too distracting. His dialogue scenes with himself feel clunky and out of place. All I could think about was how perfectly Joe Pesci would fit into that role as a short-tempered, stubborn mob boss (who lies to make himself taller).

This movie had so much potential, in both its story and its cast, but it was wasted, instead cutting corners. Yet, despite all of this, it was still a little bit of fun, and nice to see just a straightforward, traditional gangster movie. It's easy enough to look past all of its flaws and enjoy it (most of the time). There are some good moments of suspense, a few comedic lines, and even most of the side characters feel well-rounded enough to be believable. Unfortunately, this movie is only just good enough, nothing special, but it's for sure worth a watch if you get the chance.

I saw the reviews of this and was surprised how negative they were.

I was always going to see it.

The critic in The Metro paper in the UK goes on about how old the film makers are,is this relevant?

I agree with her the film could be better but it is still a good watch.

I like this sort of film but am not an expert on the history of the story and viewers don't need to be.

Sending a reviewer who doesn't like gangster films to see a gangster film seems wrong.

I give no spoilers but the film reminded me of Once Upon A Time In America.

It is not as good as that film but this is still a quality production from a justly respected director.

The production design and costume design in this are excellent.

You believe you are in the 1950s.

I didn't notice any body using modern language either.

The soundtrack was great as well,I hope it is available on cd.

What about the script you ask? Well the script is fine,it tells a complicated story well.

The acting is great.

People playing older people look older.

I was not very familiar with all the cast but I was impressed with all the performances.

If anyone who likes this sort of film they should ignore the negative reviews and go and see it.

You believe.

Bobby shoulda only played Frank and it coulda been better had he woulda.

Fine lead actor and to some degree he can perform character actor but playing opposite himself was distracting for me. His voice inflections and tonality, mannerisms, and basic personality made scenes with both characters very monotone. That carried over to solo scenes as well. Makeup was good but not good enough to dispell.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, but would have appreciated it with Keitel, Pacino, Hoffman, or many other possible actors playing opposite in the Vito role.

Messing was great.

PS Joe Bonanno would slap you senseless had he seen where you made him old and frail before his time. I knew him in the 1970s and he still presented a formidable presence.