The film is done well enough and the story is compelling. The setups are often theatre and the play as well. It is however a good rendering that is probably more accurate than the hollywood threatment so far.

The story of America's most famous mobsters and their rise to power, GANGSTER LAND examines Al Capone's ascension through the eyes of his second in command, "Machine Gun" Jack McGurn. Once an amateur boxer, McGurn is lured into the Italian mafia after the murder of his stepfather. Despite the good cast such as Sean Farris, Milo Gibson, Jason Patric and more this film was a pretty damn snooze fest but also far away from great that the trailer made it look like but then what should i be expecting? The next Godfather? No but a good film?

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.

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.