The Alto Knights

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 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.

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 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.

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.