arshteynberg
Let me start by saying, that I went into this movie with eyes open. I have loved gangster films since I was a kid. I can also quote most lines by heart from some of the most famous (no-plugs needed).What I find awful, is that the only basic element that is redeeming about this film, is the movie score. They literally try to use it to mask all the drawbacks of the film in scores of scenes.There are scores of anachronisms in the film (I added one in the beginning of the film about the $100 bills). The acting is B-level at best. The scene of the Valentine's Day massacre with a cheesy one-liner, and over the top yelling by Machine Gun. Mobsters were at times animals, but the lame revenge plot really doesn't do much. Jamie-Lynn Sigler was better in her role as Meadow Soprano than Lulu. The plot lines are weak, and the nepotism of the Gibson name shines with Milo. They really could have basically used anyone to play Capone, and might have been better (I think my high school acting chops might have brought in bigger ticket sales). There is very little in terms of backgrounds and areas to present the landscape of Chicago, rather than a small Hollywood backlot. If the characters had a strong enough presence or view-ability element, then perhaps that would have pulled the movie together.All-in-all, I wouldn't even count this to be a gangster movie, as this would insult even the lower level flicks like Crazy Joe, without even being compared to the modern and classic greats like The Public Enemy, Goodfellas, Godfather, etc.
nebk
Gangster Land is a small budget action thriller chronicling the rise and fall of Al Capone and his right hand man "Machine-gun" Jack McGurn (born Vicenzo Gibaldi). The movie is however done in very broad strokes and offers very few factual details and frequently depicts events inaccurately. The acting is relatively fine with the main roles being played by Milo Gibson (Capone) and Sean Faris (McGurn). Jason Patrick, Jamie-Lynn Sigler, Peter Facinelli and others act well in their supporting roles. Obviously the movie was done on a tight budget so there are no massive special effects to speak of. The problem with the film lies in the fact that it feels very very rushed and very little is explained. There is the usual look at bootlegging, speakeasies, Thompson Machine Guns and the main character who falls in with the wrong crowd after trying to be honest. So it has all been seen before. The events depicted however are not true as the reality was quite different regarding Jack McGurn. There is also no real mention of the numerous gangs and mobsters involved in the 1920s and 1930s prohibition era gang wars. The ones that are mentioned however are not given any depth due to the length of the movie or lack of. Overall this movie is not the worse way to spend 85 minutes but it could have been much better had attention been paid to accuracy and character development. A tentative 6/10.
gsfsu
Unless you already know the main characters making up the various Chicago mobs of the 1920's and 30's you will most likely not understand this movie. It is mostly a collection of well-known incidents (the St. Valentines Day Massacre for example) and extreme violence along with standard "mobster meets dance joint showgirl" interludes.Because the entire story of the Chicago mobs are not explored in greater detail and the actors don't look much like their real life counterparts it is often difficult to follow the action when one gang is attempting to waylay the other(s). Even the 1950's TV program "The Untouchables" offered a lead-in before each episode that explained a bit about the history. This movie just begins cold.I gave the movie a 3 for the photography, sets and costumes but the storytelling leaves a lot to be desired. Anyone who knows the actual history of gangs in Chicago will wonder why they made this movie.
