User reviews

Can Tom Hardy just finish season 2 of Taboo already? This is a waste of his time and talent.

Summary: The movie centers on the final year before Al Capone's death. He suffers from dementia caused by advanced neurosyphilis.

While his wife, brother and sister in law, son, and old friends try to care for him, his mind wanders back and forth from his current state to haunting memories of his gangster past.

The setting, hair, makeup, costumes are fantastic. The movie takes place in a small universe - Capone's Florida estate. There are scenes outside of his estate, but largely it's focused on Capone and his family trying to care for his ailing health. This is because, in the final year of his life, his entire world IS the estate.

His hallucinations are largely due to dementia and a second stroke suffered during the movie. I think this is where audience members take issue with the movie. Some have criticized the movie as disjointed - but that's because the mind of a person with dementia is disjointed. Likewise, when the name Capone is mentioned, it almost always conjures up the image of Capone in his young years - a tough, shrewd, criminal that loved to indulge in parties, alcohol, and women, and was the genius mastermind behind numerous robberies and schemes.

Instead, what is presented to the audience is a disgusting, weak, demented old man who sh.ts the bed and pisses himself. His eyes are perpetually bloodshot, most of the time he's only capable of grunting or growling a few words, he walks with a doddering stumble, and his skin looks like death warmed over. These are actually symptoms of a person suffering from a neurodegenerative disease. Tom Hardy does an excellent job at portraying Capone in this manner. If you're familiar with caring for a person with dementia or mental decline, you would find his look and behavior eerily realistic. This also makes his hallucination/flashback scenes more realistic - and thus, why they have an element of "horror" to them.

It is also a very slow movie. It's anticlimactic. That is a valid criticism. It was a good watch, but I'll never watch it again. I got the main take away that Al Capone had a miserable few years at the end of his life.

I love gangster movies and I am a big fan of Tom Hardy, ok? So I had every reason in the universe to anticipate this movie. Aaand as you can see from my rating I didn't like it. Main reason? It was boring! It was aimless and boring!

I 'm only writing this review to praise Tom Hardy who (as per usual) gave his 100% and disappeared in the role of Capone. He's the brightest star in a pile of... well, you get it.

Check this movie for his performance if you have patience. If not... I don't know... go watch Boardwalk Empire? \_(0.0)_/

This movie has a very low IMDb rating mainly because many viewers wanted this to be a different movie, perhaps one of Al Capone's whole life. But it isn't, it focuses on the very last year or so when he was at his Florida mansion, his mind mostly childlike, his memory poor, his health failing, and his phobias in full display.

Al Capone's life of crime is pretty well known by anyone who pays attention, and his imprisonment was for tax evasion, that was the only easy way to get a conviction. But in prison his mental faculties were progressively eroded by neurosyphilis, something he never recovered from.

No one really knows what was going on in Capone's head during his last year or so but this script if nothing else shows the chaos that surely must have been present. Towards that goal, to show that this career criminal had a hell on Earth towards the end, it is a well-made movie. I watched it streaming on the Kanopy site via my public library's subscription.

Although set in Florida it was filmed in Louisiana, mostly Covington, New Orleans, and surrounding areas.

Beautifully shot movie. That's the only plus. Wasted cast. Terrible script. Incoherent and slow as all hell.

The most boring movie I have ever seen. Period, full stop.

Five stars only because of Tom Hardy's performance. Waste of time.

If you are expecting shootings and Godfather alike you are watching the wrong movie and unfortunately people don't even read what this movie was about hence the low rating.The movie is esoteric.Is about his entrapment in his own mind and about the straggling with his own demons of the past.Hardy once again is just ridiculously amazing.

Did this film really need to be made? All it consists of is Al Capone mumbling while sitting in a chair. Half the time I couldn't understand what he was saying. Don't get me wrong Tom Hardy was pretty good in this, I just think it was a boring and storyless film. Wouldn't recommend it. 5 stars

Such a poor film - that's about all I can muster to describe this waste of time.

If you watched the trailer, you knew going in that this film wasn't going to profile the heyday of Al Capone, but rather his cognitive decline at the end of this life. I am not sure if this is indicative of our times that people can't sit through a movie without all of the bells and whistles, but I thought this was a phenomenal portrayal of what dementia looks like. It just goes to show you that even the wealthy are just human and suffer like anyone else. I recommend this movie to everyone. It is not a gangster film but a portrayal of a violent criminal whose dementia haunts him.

Al Capone remains one of the most famous and iconic gangsters of all time. During the 1920s he practically owned Chicago (owing in part to prohibition). After spending several years in jail, he got released to his residence in Florida to live out the rest of his life. Suffering from neurosyphilis, Capone could only sit around reminiscing on his life of crime.

Josh Trank's "Capone" looks at this. Tom Hardy plays the moribund criminal. It's one intense performance. The rest of the characters didn't really stick in my mind. It's an OK movie, not great.

PS: Al Capone once said "Never trust a cop. You never know when he might go straight."

Terrible film. You can't understand a word Tom Hardy says and there is absolutely no plot. It was torture watching this tragedy of a movie and I wouldn't recommend it even for my worst enemy.

I admired the film more than I enjoyed it, but it kept my interest throughout despite being a bit of slog at times. It's fascinating. The title 'Capone' invokes the expectation that this was a biopic of the famous gangster, but this isn't that at all. This is something very different, and very deliberately so, but due to the title it's going to confuse and disappoint most people (which is why Trank hated that he had to change it from the original title 'Fonzo' for marketing reasons). There's hardly a reference for this kind of film; it's not a traditional narrative in any sense.

What I keep thinking about is how even most gangster films who pretend to de-glamorize criminals and their lifestyle fail; it's the same problem with the "anti-" war movie that still depicts a rousing, exciting adventure next to the misery and the atrocities and thus defeats its own purpose. Rare is the war or gangster film that actually achieves to show the underlying emptiness; the ugly, banal, vulgar and sad reality that ultimately is what most lives of violence lead towards until the haunting memories are the only thing that remains.

The reason for that is obvious: nobody would watch that kind of film because it would be too bleak. But 'Capone' manages that rare feat: it's bleak - but not bleak enough to turn you off, and it's even often entertaining (in terms of its performances, the fantastic score, the beautiful cinematography). But even though this probably wasn't the film's intention, it still manages to be the ultimate deconstruction of the gangster as an "icon" - more so even than Scorsese's 'Irishman' (though it's nowhere near as good a film).

I liked Capone; it's weird (and I guess you shouldn't watch it unless you like profoundly weird little arthouse films) but this is definitely not a badly made film. I hope Trank continues on this path and makes more strange, personal films - although perhaps of the kind that are a little more accessible.

We've seen many great performances put to screen by Hardy, beginning with Bronson, which gave him the attention he needed, and ending with this one.

But with Capone, it was really only Hardy, plus Linda Cardellini's (with little screen-time) usual great work. We've seen many great acting talents wasted on poor screenplays and directing, which we hope not to see in the likes of Tom Hardy.

His only Oscar nomination was while working with a great director in Alejandro Iñárritu, but that was only it. If he takes the Leonardo DiCaprio route and only work with great directors (e.g. Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, Spielberg and Cameron), we would most definitely see the best in him, and him getting the appreciation he deserves.

We don't know what was intended with this movie, but whatever they had planned, Hardy did just enough to make it work. It may seem as an unconventional parodying performance, or just absolute madness-portraying.

If you appreciate great acting, watch this movie. Otherwise, you might want to look out for better plot experiences.

Seriously, stupid and confusing all the way through.., it was as crap as Capones nappy... Absolute shocker. Avoid at all costs, part way through you'll ask yourself shall I turn this off, save time don't turn it on!

Apart from Tom's acting, which was good, there was nothing interesting about this movie. It was very slow and I couldn't connect with it at all. At times it felt like Matt Dillon was the main character. Sometimes slow movies are good. Like Agatha Christie books that are turned into movies. This one isn't, really. I was waiting for the story to unfold, but there was nothing. I love Tom Hardy and I am giving the movie 1 star only because he is in it. It deserves zero, otherwise. Such a disappointment.

Film looks visually good but this is NOT a gangster movie so it doesn't deserve the 1 and 2 stars.

It's just about his descent into madness.

Real shame as you can see Tom Hardy has put some effort into this character but it just falls flat and the story just doesn't deliver.

Those of you expecting a violent gangster flick or The Untouchables 2 don't bother you will be disappointed, if you want to see a dark grim tale about the last 12 months in Capone's life that doesn't pull any punches then this is a very rewarding film. Incredible performance from Hardy in a film that is more about declining mental health that gangster shoot outs.

It's extremely hard to describe this movie. What will be even harder to explain is why you should watch it. The bottom line is, if you're interested in taking a deeper look at an otherwise unhurried and rather blunt film, you might find something of worth here (as I did).

Tom Hardy plays an aging Al Capone, once a renowned gangster now suffering from dementia. His performance in this movie is extremely understated (despite his glaringly obvious accent) and could be misinterpreted as a waste of potential with a capable actor. He has very little dialogue to work with throughout the film,-- so, for the most part, he relies solely on expressions and actions-- but that isn't necessarily a fault of the actor or the script. As you'll find for most of these seemingly obvious flaws, there is a conscious decision in making them. The script relies heavily on Hardy to deliver these non-verbal cues to the audience; sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't. For the most part though, Hardy manages to anchor the movie just enough to not let it sink in the water. As for the other actors in the film, they all turn in very acceptable and unexceptional performances. Again, this could be considered a flaw but it is a very intentional choice by Director Josh Trank.

The editing and the script offer only bits and pieces of information, seemingly leaving it up to the audience to try and piece it together. But, by the film's end, I think it's very clear that the viewer (just like Capone) isn't given all the pieces. This choice is not to the benefit of the viewer as it makes you confused and rather irritated. Yet again, this is meant to put you in the shoes of Capone himself. While there are fragments of his past and reveals along the way, in no capacity does it try and solve a mystery of where the money is hidden (as suggested by all of the marketing). Instead, through beautiful cinematography, it seeks to put you in his shoes.

This also means the watching experience inevitably won't be for everyone. It's by no means a thriller or a mystery as some of the trailers might presume. This movie is meant to give you insight into what it feels like to have deterioration of memories and personal events. In this respect, I found the film rather intriguing. The pacing is what a lot of people complain about and for good reason. To say this film is slow is an understatement. However, putting that aside, I don't see how any other pacing could have fit for this movie. Given the material, there aren't many alternatives that wouldn't end up betraying the director's vision.

That being said, the big question is what was Trank's vision? I have alluded to it already, but this isn't a gangster movie or even a fall from glory movie. You never get to see Capone as his former self truly. All you see him as is a frail and ailing man suffering from dementia. The film seeks to capture what the experience is like for the individual himself (Capone) and occasionally some insight into the people around him. It doesn't give you answers but rather a hollowed-out interpretation of what is happening. At times it's very clear and concise (particularly with characters close to Capone) while at other points (mainly towards the end of the film) it becomes meandering and confusing. Unfortunately, this choice is ultimately a detriment to the audience. For many, this inconsistency in filmmaking will be seen as a flaw and not a conscious choice. For many more, this will be seen as the wrong choice to make.

Somehow, despite all of these glaring choices, the film doesn't come off as pretentious either. The filmmakers feel genuine in their attempts to tell the story they wanted to tell. Is that story unsatisfying? Very much so. All in all, the slow-pacing, bizarre editing, and understated performances leave much to be desired. Yet those same issues give the movie a uniqueness. Intrigue is spun from being in the same shoes as the character and grasping for answers but never receiving them. Watch it if you have the patience.

Proof that even a great actor can't turn a garbage movie into a masterpiece (or even anything remotely interesting).