This film is a condensed version of the miniseries. It is a highly romanticized version of the lives of two real gangsters - Benjamin "Bugsy" Segal and Charlie "Lucky" Luciano - and a third character Michael Lasker, who is a composite of several people (including Meyer Lansky). The lives and businesses of these three are intertwined with most of the more famous crime bosses (including Al Capone and Dutch Schultz), and the story deals with the patterns of alliance and betrayal among the bosses, leading to the birth of organized crime. The story covers nearly ten years, so there's not as much depth as in the series, but despite this and the inaccuracies I enjoyed it as a bit of American myth-making.
4 Reviews
Watch Gangster Wars with an open mind
Bundayville8 May 2004
The film Gangster Wars has received many bad reviews over the years from professional and amateur critics alike. It is hard to see why, because the time in which it is set is was a most confusing time in the history of organized crime. It was a period when they understood what they were and how disorganized they were. The film might be light on acting qualities, but the script is actually well written, considering it was a movie for t.v. Michael Nouri is excellent as the infamous "Lucky" as is Brian Benben as Meyer. To condense the history of the outset of the Commission into a few hours is difficult enough and the film does well to introduce us to the major players and small time players and how they all connected. For the novice, if you're looking for a simplified account of those turbulent times look no further than the Gangster Wars. It does not confuse and after watching it you will have a clear view of just how intelligent and adept, "Lucky", Lansky, "Bugsy" et al were, and how violent it really was. It might be dated and un-Hollywood but the movie will capture you and give you a thirst for delving into a past which made American Organised Crime. Enjoy it, with an open mind.
Very poor editing
madison-moosie6 July 2008
This film was edited from at least a dozen episodes of a TV series. At the time of the series there was a public outcry in the USA because the makers 'glamorised' the subject. There was also the express intent advertised by the family of Meyer Lansky to sue the makers. You would never think so from this adaptation which, one assumes, must be the point of it.
By today's standards, due to the visual 'shorthand' now developed, the plot pace would appear slow but because the 'structure' of the story has mostly been lost in the cutting the viewer, who has no factual knowledge of the life & times of the gangsters depicted, won't know how the links organically developed between the many 'careers' presented. This condensation has produced a very disjointed and skewed picture of what these actually were.
The TV presentation was certainly glamorous; but the 1920's and early 30's was that kind of period with often stunning clothing for both men and women. It was faithful to it and, as the histories of the people involved have become more widely documented, to those also. The ragged and tattered remnants of the original series show more than anything else the duplicity, amorality and violence these people were capable of. Enough there to satisfy any lobbying crusaders against moral depravity.
What the film does however, is to massacre, to leach, the joi de vivre and the sheer enjoyment of the period out of the TV series and give the public a turgid, colourless product. Yes, these are bad people; their way of lifting themselves out of the gutter often despicable but why is it wrong they never loved, laughed or enjoyed themselves. Did they also stop being human and become one dimensionally wicked as depicted in the film? Perhaps it was impossible to edit the TV series into anything other than this improbable rendering in the running time they allowed themselves; being charitable this assumes the people responsible actually had some talent. In the event they should have left well alone.
By today's standards, due to the visual 'shorthand' now developed, the plot pace would appear slow but because the 'structure' of the story has mostly been lost in the cutting the viewer, who has no factual knowledge of the life & times of the gangsters depicted, won't know how the links organically developed between the many 'careers' presented. This condensation has produced a very disjointed and skewed picture of what these actually were.
The TV presentation was certainly glamorous; but the 1920's and early 30's was that kind of period with often stunning clothing for both men and women. It was faithful to it and, as the histories of the people involved have become more widely documented, to those also. The ragged and tattered remnants of the original series show more than anything else the duplicity, amorality and violence these people were capable of. Enough there to satisfy any lobbying crusaders against moral depravity.
What the film does however, is to massacre, to leach, the joi de vivre and the sheer enjoyment of the period out of the TV series and give the public a turgid, colourless product. Yes, these are bad people; their way of lifting themselves out of the gutter often despicable but why is it wrong they never loved, laughed or enjoyed themselves. Did they also stop being human and become one dimensionally wicked as depicted in the film? Perhaps it was impossible to edit the TV series into anything other than this improbable rendering in the running time they allowed themselves; being charitable this assumes the people responsible actually had some talent. In the event they should have left well alone.
Slow-moving supposedly fact-based story...
dwpollar27 April 2001
1st watched 4/27/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Richard C. Sarafian): Slow-moving supposedly fact-based story of real gangsters ranging from Lucky Luciano to Al Capone with almost everyone in between. The focus is on Luciano(played by Michael Nouri) and his friends Bugsy Siegel and Michael Lasker(who is a fictional character). It's hard to believe that these people who just wanted to be in the bootleg business turned into what they became. This I think is where the movie fails. We don't believe the actors, and we don't see any pain that these people went thru in any of their relationships. Most of the characters are played without emotion, even in their bedrooms. The hard part is believing that so many people had the same response. The police are not even present in this film(Do we believe that goodness didn't exist in these settings?). If this truly is the way life was, I'm sure glad I didn't live in New York or Chicago during these times.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
