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.

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.

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.