Recensioni degli utenti

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.

I watched this thinking it will be rubbish because of the low ratings. It's nowhere near as bad as the reviews say. It was more entertaining than the Irishman, which was really boring. The acting was good and some scenes were very entertaining with the sharp dialogue. You kind of feel bad for Deniro getting these negative reactions when he did a really good job playing two characters convincingly. Yeah it won't be the best mob movie you will watch but definitely doesn't deserve the negative ratings here. If you like mob history of this era you would be mad to miss this and stupid to be easily influenced by Deniro haters.

If I ever wondered why "The Alto Knights", a return to the Gangster genre for both Robert De Niro and Nicholas Pileggi, was so under advertised prior to its release, having seen it I don't wonder anymore. It's because it's not very good.

In his retirement, Frank Costello (Robert De Niro) recounts the story of his life, intertwined as it was with that of Vito Genovese (Robert De Niro). Having grown up together and risen the ranks of the mafia - Frank makes a play for some legitimacy having become "the boss of bosses" whilst Vito was trapped overseas by World War 2 and other legal issues. On his return to America, Vito wants to resume his role at the top and introduce a burgeoning narcotics business to the group. Frank is resistant but learns that Vito will take back what he lost by force, if he needs too.

Impressively, I think that De Niro is miscast twice in this film. It would be fine if he just played reflective, end of the road Costello, bookending the film and providing voice over. But he also plays both middle aged Costello and middle-aged Genovese in enough prosthetics that you can tell them apart, but not enough so you can't tell it's him. Why? Don't know. The characters aren't twins, or even related, they don't feel like two sides of the same coin, or even similar men ripped apart by circumstances. He felt - to me - too old to be playing either of them and Vito in particularly doesn't feel like he has the sort of crazy, unhinged energy that other characters suggest he has.

It's not the only problem with the film though, perhaps not even the biggest one. For me, it felt like a TV movie. For all the experience, including Barry Levinson behind the camera, it's a low-key affair. With the dialogue often delivered with what I imagine was supposed to be 'naturalistic' but feels more like characters couldn't hear each other. The mix of flashback and documentary style viewing is confused and there's not really anything in the story that hasn't been taken and used in another, better, mob film, or series.

Never so bad that I thought about leaving, but definitely a slog to get through.

The Alto Knights- In Cinemas now My Rating - 6/10

I wondered why and how a Robert Di Niro movie based on a true story about two rival New York organised Crime bosses directed by Barry Levinson could possibly flop at the box office?

Is it because there's been so many movies along similar lines starring Robert Di Niro like The Irishman 2019, Goodfellas 1990, The Godfather 11 1974, A Bronx Tail 1993, The Untouchables 1987, and Once Upon a Time in America 1984 etc?

Perhaps audiences are a bit tired of mafioso and gangsters however for me the reason The Alto Knights is inferior to the above listed movies is misplaced ego .

By that I mean as fine an actor as DeNiro is playing two roles in one movie especially when the only difference basically is a different nose and chin only confuses the characters for the audience and is a stretch to far.

I found myself trying to differentiate between the two main characters Frank Costello and Vito Genovese both played well by Robert DeNiro however it would have been better separate actors played each role .

After all they're not even related but look like twins , it's just a silly casting choice.

The story meanders also back and forth and doesn't have much impact at all.

It's basically the story of 2 gangland bosses on a collision course as told by Frank Costello married to Bobbie played very well by Debra Messing ,nice to see her in a dramatic role.

The usual scenario of gangland violence as the 2 men who were friends as teenagers vie for control of the drug trafficking and alcohol supply on New Yorks city's streets.

Once best friends, petty jealousies and a series of betrayals set them on a deadly collision course.

For me this is a straight to streaming movie.

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.

Robert De Niro as two characters is a stroke, of genius. Why they did not capitalize on this by having De Niro also play the Debra Messing and Kathrine Narducci parts is a mystery for which we may never know the explanation. How many goombahs are too many goombahs is unknowable, just as how many times can De Niro remake the Godfather becomes the question for the ages. Perhaps HBO can reprise the Sopranos with De Niro in the role of James Gandolfini and Edie Falco. I believe it is crystal clear that there are no limits to the creative talent and power of Robert De Niro. Robert De Niro as Bonnie and Clyde. The Untouchables, A One Man Show!

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.

Barry Levinson directed this mediocre gangster movie, with writer Nick Pileggi turning a potentially dramatic story into a generally dull exercise in nostalgia, genre cliches and a showpiece for Robert DeNiro to show off his considerable acting skills.

First hour is uninvolving and hard to sit through, thanks to an awkward flashback structure and rat-a-tat-tat editing. It opens with De Niro has mobster Frank Costello surviving an assassination attempt in 1957, and then fills in the his story and that of his childhood friend, mobster Vito Genovese (also played by DeNiro), leading up to the second half where their troubled relationship comes to an end -and the picture gets interesting. Too late for me, after suffering through that first half.

Levinson is bogged down in nostalgia, all the vintage cars, lots of old footage of familiar real-life celebs ranging from Louis Prima and Louie Bellson to James Cagney and Little Richard, and hectic montages of still photos. After a while, I was wishing that this was a Ken Burns documentary titled "The Crime Families" instead.

The entire movie is told from Costello's point-of-view, with sort of a third DeNiro playing old age Costello and looking more like Martin Scorsese (my peculiar reaction only). DeNiro's acting plus the script sugarcoat the Costello character to such an extent that he comes off as the "good guy" of the story.

But it is DeNiro as hothead/nutcase Genovese that is the flamboyant role here, especially compared to the overly bland Costello presentation. Levinson would have been better off casting Joe Pesci as Genovese. The gimmick of DeNiro times two, playing both leading roles in a movie, comes off in a technical sense, but is distracting from the story.

Supporting cast is extremely weak, mostly making no impression at all. An exception is Kathrine Narducci as Genovese's fiery wife Anna -she's the best thing in the picture. Debra Messing as Costello's wife is stuck in a nothing part. Of all the subsidiary gangsters in a large cast, only Michael Rispoli as Albert Anastasia stands out of the crowd.

"The Alto Knights" is a colossal disappointment that squanders a promising premise and Robert De Niro's legendary status in the gangster genre. The gimmick of De Niro playing dual roles as mob bosses Frank Costello and Vito Genovese feels like a cheap stunt, with neither performance rising above a hammy caricature-complete with a distracting fake nose and overdone prosthetics. Barry Levinson's direction is aimless, and Nicholas Pileggi's script is a dull, exposition-heavy slog that lacks the energy or depth of his classics like "Goodfellas." The pacing drags, the story fails to grip, and the supporting cast is underutilized. What could have been a fresh take on a Mafia tale instead feels like a tired retread, better suited to a Wikipedia page than a theater screen. Save your time and money-this is a misfire not even De Niro can salvage.

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.

This movie was sitting on such a big potential that I'm still angry at how it was wasted!

The film is based on a very interesting story, the story of two men who grew together since they were kids to become the two biggest bosses of the American mafia in the 1950's - 60's. Friendship, betrayals, paranoid suspicions and greed nurtured this relationship for more than 50 years.

Thanks to a frantic screenplay and choppy editing, the telling of this story turned out a complete mess. It was often difficult to follow the events and the dialogues and I'm sure I've lost more than one detail. From the number of people leaving the theatre before the end, I wasn't probably the only one...

Having De Niro covering the two main roles might have been a nice gimmick in a more linear movie, here it just adds to the overall mess.

De Niro's great performance is not enough to save the day.

This is an entertaining gangster film that's gritty, well-paced, and grounded in real mob history. It's not the best gangster movie ever made, but it delivers exactly what the genre promises and keeps you hooked the whole way through.

Ignore the hate that's more about the lead actor's politics than the movie itself. That stuff shouldn't distract from what's actually a strong, underrated mob flick with solid performances and a cool story.

If you're into gangster movies and judge films on what's on screen and not the headlines then you'll probably enjoy this one.

Along with the top notch performances, fans of the sopranos will be thrilled with the amount of recognizable faces.

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.

The movie begins with a confusing casting error - De Niro playing two roles. If they can't find two good actors in Hollywood, maybe it's time to give up on gangster movies. Having him as the two leading actors is silly - and something that will not be tolerated by the more cinema-savvy folks who would pay to see a movie of this genre.

The script is quite pitiful. There are more cliches in this film than in your average Aflac commercial. In the hands of an actor well past his prime, it is merely pitiful. The only positive aspect of this film is the fact that those who do waste $25 on a ticket and popcorn should have no reservations missing a few minutes to visit the restroom.

Overall, a well-done film from Barry Levinson with a fantastic performance from Debra Messing, who I feel should be considered for an Academy Award nomination. Debra was very convincing portraying Frank Costello's wife and the make-up used to age her identity was on point.

Moreover, I was first introduced about Frank Costello through cinema with the films, "Mobsters" , and "Bugsy." And, he was always came off as a background character or, a gangster with not much significant affiliation with the crime syndicates and Luciano crime family.

However, I am glad Costello's life during his later years was finally brought to the silver screen.

For being 82-years-old, I thought Bobby de Niro did one helluva job portraying both Costello and Vito Genovese.

The film does justice illustrating the historical events leading up to Frank's conflict with Vito Genovese, the background details of how Frank and Vito met in their younger ages and, Frank's eventual retirement from his life of crime.

The cast members each knew their assignment, respectively.

In particular, both Katherine Narducci and Michael Rispoli.

If the casting directors had hired other actors not too familiar with audiences, this film may have not been entertaining.

The film does move by a comfortable pace, yet with a running time of two hours, I left the theatre thinking that an extra 30 -45 minutes minutes would have created time to add more details about both Vito and Frank in their earlier days as young adults.

I really do not have any gripes or grudges about the film since I am enamored with crime dramas films involving gangsters from the Irish, Jewish, Italian, Black, English, Hispanic, heritages. To me, I find the history fascinating.

In my opinion, the film does give shades and similarities of The Irishman, Goodfellas, and also felt like Levinson's follow-up to "Bugsy." Lastly, I would say that this film is worth a viewing for all the fanatics of the crime-drama genre.

It's a good film. Yes, it's not the next Goodfellas, but it's a slowburn, slow paced kind of film. Acting is great, cinematography if exceptional, the story telling is also decent. Ironman and Hulk are not showing up in this one smashing buildings and cracking jokes, probably that's why a lot of people seem to be so upset about it.

I think that if someone like Pesci or Keitel or Pacino would've played Vito, that would've been better. Although De Niro really does his best to portray to different people, but you can definitely see the same mannerisms in what are supposed to be two completely different people.

Robert DeNiro no longer has the star power that he used to have, and playing dual roles is twice as bad. It was so boring I can't believe I actually made it to the end, but I really didn't have anything else to do, and just hoped it was going to get better...nope! Debra Messing is another actor that I just can't get behind, and should just stick with comedy(if that's what you call it). The whole gangster genre was good for a short period with the Sopranos, the Godfather, etc. But this one doesn't even come close to being enjoyable. My brother dragged me to see this crap, and now he owes me a big expensive dinner to make up for the damages!

After seeing over the years Robert De Niro star in gangster films such as Mean Streets, Goodfellas, Casino, and The Irishman, it's astonishing to see him play gangster fresh in The Alto Knights. Sure, we've seen most of his facial and vocal turns before, but never in two different mobsters in the same film with two distinct personalities.

Narrator Frank Costello (De Nir0) is an analytical businessman not wholly invested in being a mid-twentieth century icon; his former best friend from youth, Vito Genovese (De Niro), is a hot head bound to lead the mob in the US, regardless of his friendship with current mob head, Frank. To see De Niro play both nose to nose in negotiations is to see one of the great film actors of all time.

When you look into Frank's eyes, you see latent menace that has caused countless deaths. Looking at Vito's glasses, you don't have the depth but rather a surface violence, hardly hidden. A great actor brings both distinct personalities alive.

Director Barry Levinson also brings his memorable work with Bugsy and Wag the Dog while writer Nicholas Pileggi brings traces of success from Goodfellas and Casino. With the three pedigrees converging in The Alto Knights, you must expect greatness, and you get it, maybe not throughout but enough to say that if Coppola and Brando had also been involved, this film would have been incomparable.

Most scenes are intimate as Frank's wife Bobbie (Debra Messing), and he quietly map out their fate. More flamboyant is Vito's wife, Anna (Katherine Narducci), whose courtroom histrionics as she testifies against him is the stuff of in your face while it contrasts with De Niro's subtler approach (not his usual path). The variety of acting and its excellence makes this a gangster film you should not refuse.

I was on the fence about seeing this movie but I'm fan of Robert DiNero so I had to see it. It wasn't bad just not what I was expecting. The beginning came off like a documentary but as it goes along you see the story of 2 boys who were friends turned enemies. It wasn't what I was expecting but still interesting. I'm wondering why Mr. DiNero played both characters. In my opinion Chaz Palmiteri or Al Pachino playing one would've elevated the movie. It's no Goodfellas but it's based on a true story. I could've waited to steam it but I wanted to see it on the big screen. I fell like the acting was good but the storyline was weak. It lacked drama and there was no visual killing but there were some historical tidbits tidbits and a few funny lines.

Seems like "The Alto Knights" is getting a bad rap. But i actually kinda liked the movie.

Robert De Niro strangely plays 2 characters here - Frank Costello, and Vito Genovese. Its slightly similar to De Niros "Casino" in that Costello is successfully expanding outside of his mob origins. But Genovese is his childhood friend and loose cannon. Who could drag him down with him.

The movie should appeal to anyone who likes De Niros earlier gangster films as its a decent story, told with some decent acting and casual humour. But it really does lose something having De Niro play the 2 parts. This was distracting at times, and kind of a rediculus gimmick really. When having someone else play 1 of the parts seems like a no brainer.

Just Awful. De Niro plays two characters but unfortunately no effort was made to make one dreadful mobster look different than the other - I don understand what the reasoning behind this was. Perhaps De Niro thought he was too special to spend a lot of time in a make-up chair, but it hurt this film. The story is one most know but it was painfully boring. The cadence was monotonous and monotone with no emotion put into it. This movie had such potential to be a good period piece of La Costra Nostra but left more questions than insight. The only saving grace was the lighthearted scramble from the backyard gangster gathering.

People are herd behaviours it's always been and it's going to be Robert De niro is one of a fine actors in his own class mastering the mafia rules he played a dual role in his 80s for me when i first found out about the critical behaviour of people i decided im going to watch it then I'm going to write my own review.

This movie based on a real story, but this story is not one of those stories that martin Scorsese would've chose for his mafia movies thats why people are over standing this movie this is not an action drama it's a historic crime thriller.

De niro played his rule flawlessly i would've loved another actor for vito but Robert de niro pulled it for me the voice between frank and vito voices are a bit odd and that's because de niro played dual here and he played the old frank as well okay i like the idea of him playing the older version frank but playing the vito i don't know still for me I haven't had any issues with it other that the places they put frank and vito next to each and that was a bit odd for me other than great acting from de niro i loved both characters and I've enjoyed frank and vito the scenery that were chosen for the road bit of the movie was top notch the cars especially the cinematography i mean come on it's the guy who cinematograpghed the last of Mohican i loved this movie and i enjoyed.

I think people were wanting a movie from de niro at least one last ride from his mafia acting career and this movie wasnt their Irish man or good fellas i get it but 5/10 no way.

The Alto Knights is everything you would expect from the teaming of respected veteran director Barry Levinson, the writer of classics like Goodfellas and Casino (Nicholas Pileggi) and screen icon Robert De Niro, a beautifully shot and supremely well acted gangster movie with a script that brings the characters to life via razor sharp dialogue. It is precisely that and absolutely nothing more, meaning your milage with it will depend on how much you enjoy watching snazzily dressed, older Italian-Americans sitting around clubs and mansions while the sword of Damocles hangs over their head.

That isn't to say the film doesn't have a stab at trying to forge its own identity, the USP being that De Nero plays both lead roles. This isn't a "Legend" situation where the characters are brothers, he plays real life mafia friends turned rivals Frank Costello and Vito Genovese. Costello is more recognisably De Nero, the suave and composed man about town with only minor changes to the actors appearance. To portray Genovese he dons some fairly significant prosthetics and has a ball imbuing the short tempered motormouth with nervous energy and a simmering violence that is barely contained even in his most peaceful moments. Old Bob is, of course, one of the all time greats but can definitely be guilty of mailing it in on occasion. None of that here though, whether its the challenge of playing two characters or the quality of his collaborators, he is giving his all in every scene and reminding everyone why he is cinema's greatest screen gangster. The two performance really are distinct and the scenes when both characters sit down together work seamlessly.

The film begins with a bungled attempt on Costello's life that sends the "boss of bosses" to the hospital and leaves him trying to figure a way out the game he is no longer interested in playing. We then get some quick narration covering his and Genovese's rise up the ranks before the story starts in earnest with the return of Vito from a six year hiatus in Italy to avoid a murder charge. He wants his number one status reinstated but everyone likes the way Costello has been running things so he has to settle for a smaller piece of the pie. For his part, Castello has come to enjoy the trappings of being viewed as a legitimate businessmen and now spends more time out at his country pile than in the city. He opts for a "what do you want me to do?" approach to his problematic friend, giving him a neighbourhood to run and trying to have as little to do with him as possible. Vito is too paranoid, ambitious and simply violent for this to work though and as he ignores Frank's warnings about dealing drugs, offs people who annoy him and gets involved in a very public feud with his equally confrontational wife (an excellent Kathrine Narducci) tensions start to rise.

Given the time period and end of an era theme, the film The Alto Knights will draw most comparison to is Martin Scorsese's epic bum number "The Irishman". This doesn't come close to matching the epic feel of that multi Academy Award nominee but at a full film's length shorter it is certainly more accessible. It is also, arguably, more consistently entertaining and certainly funnier. It is a film that shines in the lighter moments, with the incidental dialogue between characters more engrossing than the story itself. Vito Genovese may be a man of frightening violence but its impossible not to be amused as he jabbers on about bungled assassination attempts, gets his nose put out of joint by the mere proximity of his wife's ex-husband or goes on apoplectic rants at the idea of Mormons digging up a golden book. Making the mob world's inhabitants so much fun to spend time with makes the moments of violence feel more shocking.

There are a couple of distractions. Firstly, considering he is a real person who sat atop the criminal underworld for decades, the film is very kind to Frank Castello, portraying him as a pragmatic businessman who really just wants everything to run nice and quietly and doesn't seem to tend towards violence at all. Perhaps he really was like that by the time we see him but watching a real life gangster played as a dutiful, dog loving husband is a little strange. Still, he is the narrator and no one is the villain of their own story. Secondly, there is no getting away from the fact everybody is old. The films picks up when the De Nero characters are already in their fifties rather than subject us to digital de ageing but it is obvious the actor is a fair bit older and the whole thing being built around an ageing star who, however good he is, has danced this dance any time before, throws extra light on the fact there isn't really anything new here.

So The Alto Knights never threatens to escape the shadow of its illustrious forbears but it's an entertaining addition to the genre. Who knows how many more chances we'll get to see either top tier De Niro or classic gangster films with this level of polish.

7 wise out of 10 guys.

It is a most grievous thing to witness a once-mighty prince reduced to a shadow of his former self, shuffling through the corridors of power like a weary sovereign clinging to a throne he no longer commands. Such is the state of Robert De Niro in The Alto Knights, a film that aspires to the grandeur of past crime epics but instead finds itself wandering aimlessly, much like its aging protagonist.

De Niro, once the lion of this genre, now moves with the sluggish gait of a ruler who refuses to acknowledge the rise of younger, sharper heirs. His presence, once commanding, now elicits pity rather than fear. The fire that once burned in Goodfellas and Casino has been reduced to embers, and no amount of nostalgic reverence can conceal the fact that his time as a cinematic warlord has passed.

The film itself is a relic-an artifact that would have found a comfortable home in the theaters of a bygone era but now serves only as a reminder that not all battles should be fought. Had the producers possessed true cunning, they would have sent this directly to streaming, where it might have at least avoided the indignity of public scrutiny in the coliseum of the box office. Instead, they have placed it before the masses, unarmored and unfit for the duel.

A wise ruler knows when to retreat, to consolidate power elsewhere, and to leave the battlefield before his once-loyal subjects begin whispering of his frailty. De Niro, and indeed this film, would have done well to heed such wisdom.