Gangster Squad Review Thread (Use Spoiler Tags)

[WyldeMan45]

The linchpin of the film is Los Angeles mobster Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a former boxer who became an associate of Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel, who was a charismatic figure who caroused around town with a gorgeous girl on his arm, and often with his attractive etiquette coach at his side. He once even took part in a Life Magazine profile. But he was also considered a sociopath whose vices included sex and extortion, and whose mood could darken on a dime. When innocent people got hurt, law enforcement hardened to the fact he had to be stopped.

The drama, based on a series of articles by Paul Lieberman, is the fact-based tale of the crime fighting exploits of a squad of elite Los Angeles officers lead by John O’Mara (Brolin) and Sgt. Jerry Wooters (Gosling) in the 1940s charged with stopping him. With Max Kennard (Cranston) a laconic LAPD officer from Texas who enforces the law ambitiously. Screenwriter Beall is a former South Central Los Angeles cop who wrote the novel L.A. Rex.

[Mandalorian]

Oh. My. God. I almost cried when I saw that cast! Bryan Cranston is a new favorite of mine (after watching all three seasons of Breaking Bad in a week or two).

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

Oh. My. God. I almost cried when I saw that cast! Bryan Cranston is a new favorite of mine (after watching all three seasons of Breaking Bad in a week or two).

Seriously, Sean Penn as Mickey Cohen is great as it is, then they throw in Cranston, Gosling AND Brolin. This is the movie Public Enemies wished it could be.

[octagon]

That's a great cast but all sorts of warning bells are going off.

The Black Dahlia, Public Enemies, even LA Confidential - I don't know why but things just seem to go wrong with neo-noirish period pieces set in that era.

It's like they can't resist the urge to be just a little too stylish.

Still, it's great to see things like this are still part of the mix.

Full speed ahead...

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's a great cast but all sorts of warning bells are going off.

The Black Dahlia, Public Enemies, even LA Confidential - I don't know why but things just seem to go wrong with neo-noirish period pieces set in that era.

It's like they can't resist the urge to be just a little too stylish.

Still, it's great to see things like this are still part of the mix.

Full speed ahead...

LA Confidential is a great film.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

LA Confidential is a great film.

Thank You!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by RJ Smoove

LA Confidential is a great film.

LA Confidential is one of the better films of that type (and easily the best of the three I mentioned) but even LA Confidential was a little off. I thought it was very good the first time I saw it but upon subsequent viewings it didn't hold up quite as well.

It seemed a little too flashy in ways that didn't mesh well with the setting.

And for some reason that seems like a common problem with modern films set in that period, particularly those set in LA.

[WyldeMan45]

LA Confidential had the opposite effect on me. I saw it in theaters but didn't originally care for it. Thought I tend to believe that's because I was 12 at the time and my tastes hadn't properly developed. Since then I've seen it many times and it gets better for me after each viewing. Interesting bit of trivia as well about LA Confidential is that Mickey Cohen was one of the characters. He was played by CSI's Paul Guilfoyle.

For me, Sean Penn is leaps and bounds above Johnny Depp as an actor. I've never particularly been a Depp fan and I've found his work with Burton over the last fifteen years to be lazy. They just like to make quirky films that say "Oh look at me, I'm so different". Outside of Donnie Brasco, Benny & Joon and What's Eating Gilbert Grape, I don't think I've liked his other movies. But Sean Penn has been making great movies for 30 years, and I LOVE so many of his roles. For me, Penn's involvement alone puts this film on a completely different level then Public Enemies.

With every role Ryan Gosling continues to surprise me. I still remember that young goofy kid on the Mickey Mouse club that I watched every day after school. His work is always different and he gives everything he's got in each film, I'm never found his performances to be lazy or over the top so his casting gets me even more excited for this film. Then they give us Josh Brolin who was simply amazing in 'No Country' and I think Bryan Cranston's 'Breaking Bad' work speaks for itself.

While Ruben Fleischer has only directed one movie that has been released so far, Zombieland was at least not the frantic style that Michael Mann insists on using. Just because your camera pans quickly and leaps over counters doesn't make it great Mann.

All of these things make Gangster Squad a must see for me.

[Tibor Lugosi]

Wow, top cast, cool premise - I'm in!
Another great movie to look forward to!

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's a great cast but all sorts of warning bells are going off.

The Black Dahlia, Public Enemies, even LA Confidential - I don't know why but things just seem to go wrong with neo-noirish period pieces set in that era.

I'm biased here as LA Confidential is currently in my personal top 5, but it is leaps, leaps, and vigorous bounds ahead of those other two movies*. It is one of the best-scripted, ensemble-acted films I've ever seen. Not to mention the look of the film, which successfully marries the classic film noir palate with a contemporary sensibility and in turn completely set the benchmark for that 'look' in current cinema.

If 'Gangster Squad' turns out half as good as LA Confidential--which with this cast it has the greater chance of doing--then it'll be great.

*I've never seen Public Enemies all the way through, but I don't feel I need to to validate this opinion.

[BostonMA22]

Originally Posted by octagon

LA Confidential is one of the better films of that type (and easily the best of the three I mentioned) but even LA Confidential was a little off. I thought it was very good the first time I saw it but upon subsequent viewings it didn't hold up quite as well.

It seemed a little too flashy in ways that didn't mesh well with the setting.

And for some reason that seems like a common problem with modern films set in that period, particularly those set in LA.

isn't one of the big reasons, if not the biggest, for doing a period piece is to capture the nostalgia of that time in the style it's known for?

granted, some recent films like The Black Dahlia and also Hollywoodland are over-stylized to cash in on the period being depicted but i disagree that Public Enemies and especially L.A. Confidential (a film that the director stressed was minimally stylized to give the audience the feeling that they were watching something contemporary) fall in that boat. they use enough style to give the audience and themselves that reminiscent feel to mix with the development of their stories.

IMO, L.A. Confidential is certainly one, and Chinatown, one that seems to be in your favorites, is another.

[WyldeMan45]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

*I've never seen Public Enemies all the way through, but I don't feel I need to to validate this opinion.

Spoiler alert about what you missed.........

[Show spoiler]Dillinger dies!

Shocking right, who could have seen that coming?!!?!? There I saved you another wasted hour on that piece of crap.

[Scarriere]

On a 5 star rating system, I'd give Public Enemies 4/5 and L.A. Confidential 5/5. LAC blew me away! Public Enemies I enjoyed.
If The Gangster Squad falls in this range, I'll be more than happy!

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Scarriere

On a 5 star rating system, I'd give Public Enemies 4/5 and L.A. Confidential 5/5. LAC blew me away! Public Enemies I enjoyed.
If The Gangster Squad falls in this range, I'll be more than happy!

I think I'd give L.A. Confidential a 4.5/5 and Public Enemies a 3/5. Black Dahlia, I don't remember well enough to rate.

[WyldeMan45]

L.A. Confidential a 5/5
Public Enemies a 2/5
Black Dahlia 2/5

[BostonMA22]

L.A Confidential: 5/5 (virtually flawless)
Public Enemies: 4/5 (Ken's review here pretty much captures my thoughts. i'm a Mannaholic though, so i still extremely enjoy it)
The Black Dahlia: 2/5 (one of the most over-stylized noirs ever made, in the time where overstylization in noirs was [or is...] a bad thing).

and since i mentioned it and was hoping to talk to Octagon about it, [B]Chinatown[/B ]is even more "perfect" than Curtis Hanson's pinnacle is. my second favorite of the genre, only behind The Maltese Falcon.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by BostonMA22

IMO, L.A. Confidential is certainly one, and Chinatown, one that seems to be in your favorites, is another.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your response. I didn't want to derail the thread any further than I already had but people don't seem to mind the tangent so...

Yeah, Chinatown is definitely one of my favorite films and it's an interesting compare/contrast to LAC. The main difference for me is that every time I watch Chinatown I feel like I'm watching a movie set in the thirties and when I saw first saw LAC I more or less felt the same way. From time to time it felt like they were trying to hard but not to the point where it took me out of things. When I watch LA Confidential now I feel like I'm watching a 90s movie set in the thirties and I find it very distracting.

It reminds me in some ways of the Coen brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There. They shot it in black in white but they used a very sharp film stock and style which made their black and white choice seem a little too self-consciously stylish. Almost as if they were screaming 'look! look! this is just like classic noir!' rather than simply trying to make a classic noir. (Contrast that to the way Scorcese used b/w in Raging Bull which worked much better).

BTW, thanks for mentioning Hollywoodland...that was in the back of my mind when I was making that first post but I couldn't put my finger on it.

[BostonMA22]

Originally Posted by octagon

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your response. I didn't want to derail the thread any further than I already had but people don't seem to mind the tangent so...

no problem. this thread seems to be just a broad talk of recent and/or great Gangster films so i never thought of it as derailment.

Yeah, Chinatown is definitely one of my favorite films and it's an interesting compare/contrast to LAC. The main difference for me is that every time I watch Chinatown I feel like I'm watching a movie set in the thirties and when I saw first saw LAC I more or less felt the same way. From time to time it felt like they were trying to hard but not to the point where it took me out of things. When I watch LA Confidential now I feel like I'm watching a 90s movie set in the thirties and I find it very distracting.

i've seen both films three times now (third viewing of Chinatown was this past Monday night and proved to be the best so far), and i looked at both being great examples of the respective directors setting their films in a past time but also succeeding in making the audience feel like their experiencing the story as it goes along. but, just about every film ever made has some sort of hallmark of the decade it was produced in, and i think both films, to a very small extent, own up to that. it doesn't bother me at all personally, as long as it almost non-existent (unlike The Black Dahlia, whose decade differences are horribly noticeable).

It reminds me in some ways of the Coen brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There. They shot it in black in white but they used a very sharp film stock and style which made their black and white choice seem a little too self-consciously stylish. Almost as if they were screaming 'look! look! this is just like classic noir!' rather than simply trying to make a classic noir. (Contrast that to the way Scorcese used b/w in Raging Bull which worked much better).

another coincidence to match up with Chinatown for me, i also rewatched the Coens' nod to noir this past week as well, and noticed exactly what you're talking about (from what i read though, the film was shot in color and then changed to b&w in post-production) though again, it didn't bother me at all as i found it to be very well done and very entertaining cinematography (a hallmark in itself for Roger Deakins).

i've always looked at Raging Bull (my favorite film from my favorite director) in a much different light though. the film goes for much more brute realism than that of any noir, so the hard-edged, extremely violent effects of boxing are displayed in an ultra-realistic manner. what Raging Bull achieved visually is really the opposite of what "Classic Noir" is known for (predominantly 1940s and 50s), which is known for it's extremely atmospheric-atmosphere.

i'm curious, do you dislike the high majority of first-born noirs like Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, or Touch of Evil (films that are strongly referenced, visually, in The Man Who Wasn't There) and if not, could you further explain what you mean in your explanation?

BTW, thanks for mentioning Hollywoodland...that was in the back of my mind when I was making that first post but I couldn't put my finger on it.

probably the most obvious of the shamefully modern period noirs, i'm surprised it scored as high as it did with the critics.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by BostonMA22

i'm curious, do you dislike the high majority of first-born noirs like Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, or Touch of Evil (films that are strongly referenced, visually, in The Man Who Wasn't There) and if not, could you further explain what you mean in your explanation?

I absolutely love classic noir. Double Indemnity is constantly fighting Chinatown and Glengarry Glen Ross for the number one spot on my wish list and The Big Sleep is never far behind.

I like neo-noir as well. (In fact, I consider GGR neo-noir). When I said the Coens should have simply made a classic noir I meant that instead of imitating the style (which is how TMWWT felt to me at times) they should have just used it (like they did in a lot of Blood Simple and Fargo, for instance).

That's interesting about shooting in color, that would actually explain a lot.

[BostonMA22]

Originally Posted by octagon

I absolutely love classic noir. Double Indemnity is constantly fighting Chinatown and Glengarry Glen Ross for the number one spot on my wish list and The Big Sleep is never far behind.

I like neo-noir as well. (In fact, I consider GGR neo-noir). When I said the Coens should have simply made a classic noir I meant that instead of imitating the style (which is how TMWWT felt to me at times) they should have just used it (like they did in a lot of Blood Simple and Fargo, for instance).

That's interesting about shooting in color, that would actually explain a lot.

ah, gotcha. instead of constant referencing, just do it. should've realized that first off, but either way, i still very much liked how the Coens did TMWWT (although it's not one of my favorites from them and i agree, Blood Simple's noirish elements are perfectly done) but i see why you feel the way you do.