ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

sirjasonwright Hoodlum empire is a considerably better film than the other reviews here would have you believe. I have just watched it courtesy of an olive films blu ray and I must say I enjoyed it. It's quite a low budget film but it has some great moments. John Russell is the main character and I must admit it's the first film I've seen that he has such a big part, he's a little wooden for sure but he's not too bad in this film. The plot tells he story of a gangster who during ww2 changes into a decent person and wants to start afresh but legit. But the mob try everything to pull him back. Underrated film I think that deserves Wider appraisal.

Martin Teller Hoodlum Empire - 5/10Senate committee hearings investigating the gambling rackets threaten the reputation of a former gangster gone good. Capitalizing on the Kefauver hearings, this is a pretty dull story with pretty dull characters and a messy, tedious flashback structure. None of the performances light up the screen, even Brian Donlevy and Claire Trevor are rather disappointing. The script is corny and clichéd, the execution of it is uninspired. Nothing about the film is outright horrible, but there's no reason to recommend it.Hoodlum Empire - 5/10

ccthemovieman-1 This film noir story is told mostly in the form of flashbacks. It begins to drag a bit in the second half and one gets a little antsy waiting to find out how the good guy gets off in the end, which we assume he does.Oddly, the main actor in this film, John Russell - the hero of the movie - is not listed on the back on the video box, in critics reviews or even in the film! The most interesting character in "Nick Mansani," played by Luther Adler. Meanwhile, Claire Trevor plays her normal film noir role of the unhappy woman, in this case the "scorned woman." Forrest Tucker was pretty good as the hot- headed hit man, too.However, overall this was just fair as film noirs go; nothing special to make it stand out. In truth, too many flashbacks ruined this film.

bob the moo It is the 1950's and the US Government is coming down hard on organised crime, going after the top men in order to cut off the head and kill the snake. Their current target is one Nicky Mansani, the elusive mob boss who has so far managed to stay away from his own senate hearing. As the statements and testimonies come in, the main event is one Joe Gray – who has turned state's evidence against his former mob colleagues, having come back from WWII as a hero and a new man. However, the others aim to prevent Joe from testifying and even set him up for prosecution.With a title that sounded dark and foreboding and offered the suggestion of a dark crime pulp thriller, I set the video and figured I'd give it a go. However the opening credits suggest a standard period genre film with no frills, an image that the film sadly maintains with the majority of its material. The actual story is a good idea but it is delivered in such a totally flat and unengaging manner that it is really hard to get involved with the film. The flashback structure is difficult to pull off so it is no surprise that the film struggles, but no excuse for being such a mess in regards narrative. The flashbacks are not tense or urgent enough – they needed to be tight, telling and convincing; instead they were often slow, boring and irrelevant. The bits that do work well are lost in a load of scenes that add little to the film and any possible tension is really sucked out of it. As the story goes on it becomes a bit clearer as to its focus and direction but I only really got into it by making an effort and stayed with it despite the delivery – not because of it.The tone of the film is very melodramatic as opposed to tough and noir-ish and this too is a problem. The dialogue matches this tone and it is too soapy to really suit the subject matter. With the story weakened by the flashback structure and the dialogue being all a bit too melodramatic and earnest, the actors do not have a great deal to work with other than stereotypical cardboard roles from the genre. Russell is far too square and rigid; he never convinces as a former wise-guy and is far to clean-cut and boring as a reformed character. Ralston's character is totally unnecessary and without her the film could have lost most of the WW2 flashback; she is rather bland and added nothing to the film. Withers played blind by being as stiff as a board – sadly he did this in his delivery and not just his posture. Adler is OK but not convincing as a big boss; Tucker is better and more fitting the genre even if it is a by-the-numbers character. Claire Trevor is underused but a good moll and the always-interesting Donlevy was given a solid role in support (I like him – and not just because he is from Northern Ireland!)Overall this film had potential but it blows it in the delivery. The melodramatic and morally simplistic tone feeds through the script and damages the whole film. The flashback structure is difficult to pull off at the best of times and it falls flat here, producing scenes that are dull, disjointed and unengaging, robbing the subject matter of the dark tone and tight pace that it really needed. The cast are mostly wooden and stiff, with even the OK ones failing to bring much life to this film. Not really worth seeing and I understand now why so few people have seen it.