Lansky

The Lansky story was actually an interesting one, and I didn't really mind the reporter interview style of storytelling, but was told by writers Robert Rockaway and Eytan Rockaway in a very underwhelming and cliched way. Don't go into this expecting a Scorsese production, as this is far from it.

Eytan's directing was decent, but the pacing was slow, and there were way too many elements in the Lansky story to squeeze into two hours. An example: Lansky's Jewish background and his conflict with the American Nazi's just didn't need to be so highlighted. It lacked real depth, and felt more like a bad documentary, than a good movie.

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.

Here is a pretty run-of-the-mill, lacklustre mob flick. It's a biopic, but it fails to show us anything we haven't already seen in other movies, even if we know nothing about Meyer Lansky.

Harvey Keitel does exactly what you'd expect from a great actor in the twilight of his life - he's in his eighties now - playing an iconic crime figure right before he checked out. Perhaps they were inspired by "The Irishman", also about crime figures contemplating mortality. But in that movie Keitel was surrounded by other acting heavyweights. Here it's Sam Worthington and a bunch of no-names who aren't about to become known any time soon.

Basing your movie on a real-world figure should enable you to find some spark of originality. No two lives are the same. The best I can say about "Lansky" is that it's not as bad as "Capone".

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.