This was a horribly sloppy and downright insulting attempt at a mob movie. It ranged from moderately boring to downright ridiculous, with very little redeeming value in between. I mean, I literally can't believe how bad it was. Rather than write a huge essay, I'll just make a list of the good vs. bad, to keep it simple. First, the good:1. The cast is generally high quality. The use of the cast is another story altogether, but as far as pure talent goes, the cast was mostly top notch. 2. Very good cinematography. The locations were great and everything was shot and lit very well. Clearly a good deal of money was spent on sets as well. And that pretty much sums up the good. Now, onto the bad:1. The writing and story as a whole was awful. Just awful. It was nearly impossible to follow at times, with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. And this is completely aside from the fact no part of the story bears any resemblance to reality whatsoever; I can appreciate a good historical fictionalization. But this was a complete mess. Its as if the writers themselves didn't know if they wanted it to be pure fiction or based on some kind of reality. The result is a story that is impossible to sink your teeth into, and characters that behave in absurd and utterly incomprehensible ways, particularly towards the end. The final scene is laughable in its utter absurdity.2. Horrible use of a good cast. Yeah, there is a lot of talent in this group, but they are not used very well at all. Listening to the extremely talented Michael Gambon attempt an Italian accent through his very heavy British accent is painful. The rest of the primary cast struggles with their tough-guy gangster-speak as well. It just doesn't work, and their performances suffer for it on the whole. When you factor in the horrible script on top of this, you get plenty of scenes that just fail on multiple levels. 3. Tons of period details done wrong. There is really no excuse here; when you have a film with this kind of budget and the amount of care put into the sets, it's downright insulting to the audience to get so many small details wrong. Plenty of furniture used was incorrect for the time and the suits and tuxedos were absolutely incorrect. In fact, Christian Slater as Luciano wore a tuxedo to what was supposed to be a major formal event in a key scene, and was clearly wearing a cheap CLIP ON Bow-tie with his tux. The kind you'd see a waiter at a catering hall wearing. You could see the clip. Never mind the fact that the clip-on bow tie had yet to be invented, but even if it were, would young Charles Luciano ever wear such a thing? Was it REALLY that much trouble to procure a real bow tie? That's the kind of flagrant error that should have gotten several people on this production banished from Hollywood. Overall, the movie is a disaster. It has a few entertaining moments, and can be pretty to look at, but if you're interested in watching a movie that is actually enjoyable (or makes sense), then skip it.

This movie is just plain awful. It's a textbook example of how "packaging" has ruined the art of film-making in Hollywood. It was obviously more important to the studio to fill up the screen with "bankable" stars than to make an intelligent, entertaining drama.The casting is horrible and the acting is strictly cornball. Anthony Quinn, that Swiss army knife of ethnic characterization, delivers yet another offensive, simplistic stereotype, a two-dimensional cartoon slob who stuffs his face with pasta and blubbers with faux emotion.The young stars who powered this fiasco into production are little better. The most notable aspect of their vapid portrayals are their glamorous but unbelievably pristine suits. In fairness, they've been given very little of substance to work with; did it really take two writers to butcher this story and concoct such clueless dialog? Luciano and Lansky were criminal geniuses in real life, smart enough to rule the underworld and avoid the long arm of the law, yet here they can best be described as "less dumb" than the rest of the idiots surrounding them.The worst crime committed by this movie is the screenplay, which wastes one of the most fascinating and dramatic episodes in the history of crime, the Castellammarese Wars that rocked New York in the late 1920s and solidified the structure of the modern American mafia. Typical of its idiocy is the misnaming of Maranzano as Faranzano. Apparently some wise old development exec decided that having two of the key characters with names that began with "Ma" was simply too confusing, so they kept Masseria and renamed Maranzano. There are several other inaccuracies as well. The movie is more fiction than fact, and not good fiction at that. It adds nothing of value to the body of gangland cinema.The beauty of "The Godfather" was that the writer researched the story he was telling and translated it into an epic tale that captured the spirit and reality of the mafia, changing the names of the characters but preserving the essence of their experience. "Mobsters" kept the names and threw everything else out the window.On top of all that, even the action sucked.That said, there is one redeeming moment in the movie. The chorus girls dancing in the club looked great and the dance routine was fairly good. Too bad it wasn't 90 minutes longer.

An extremely disappointing gangster film about legendary heavies "Lucky" Luciano, "Bugsy" Siegel, Frank Costello and Meyer Lansky. It seems director Karbelnikoff had no idea what he was doing when he put this film together. "Mobsters" has none of the power and intrigue that made films such as "The Godfather" and "The Untouchables" so enjoyable.The casting is awful. Christian Slater is no gangster (his performance did not help) and Richard Grieco is no Jew. Patrick Dempsey is the only likable, and slightly believable character.PS No effective music either ("Miller's Crossing"). This film had nothing.Saturday, January 25, 1992 - Greater Union Melbourne

I really enjoyed watching this movie. Everyone says that the characters were too young, but that's how young Lucky and the guys really were. Christian Slater was actually a couple of years older than Lucky at the time the movie was set. The age of the characters adds to the amazing ability of the kids to "succeed" the way that they did. All in all, the movie was a lot of fun. Even if you don't care for the movie itself, you can definitely appreciate the determination of these four guys and the power and strength of their friendship. The movie is fast paced and fun to watch, so it does a great job of keeping you entertained. It doesn't hurt to have four hot guys with power and guns, either.