Rulers of the City (1976)

Expected more

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

What went wrong here? Fernando Di Leo drops the ball in a meandering crime film that takes almost fifty minutes to get anywhere and doesn't feature any particularly interesting characters. All Jack Palance does is scowl with a cigarette in his mouth, something you've seen him do in a dozen other films.It starts out with a kid witnessing his father being killed by Jack Palance, then we fast forward to the present (seventies Rome), where Tony works for local mob guy Luigi (played by a very pale Edmund Purdom). Tony wants to work the big leagues and ends up teaming up with Al Cliver, a guy who until recently worked for Palance. I guess the mystery is figuring out which one of them was the kid at the start of the film.The first two thirds of the film concentrate on these two scamming Palance while also fighting with Purdom's second in command, and the main problem is neither of the leads are that interesting. The only character with any depth is the old Neopolitan pickpocket who gets caught up in the all the madness. For some reason though his character has an over the top Italian accent whilst everyone else is dubbed American.Most of the action takes place in the last half hour of the film, where finally everyone gets their guns out. This is where Al Cliver shines as he's not the best at being emotional, but at least he looks cool gunning people down. The whole film seems a bit tired and it's as if Di Leo didn't know where to take the story, and as there's about a million Eurocrime films from 1976, this one doesn't quite cut it.

I have to admit that I collected this one because it had Fernando di Leo writing and directing, but got around to watching it because I just couldn't fathom the way the reviews are love it/hate it. I still don't get that. My best WAG is that the Italian and American releases are *very* different. I watched the original Italian release with English subtitles.There are better ones in the genre, but only a bit so. It never failed in any important way, imho. Elements were really, really great. The location shots were divine. Sitting there with some venison bolognese and a glass of red wine, you could just *wallow* in some of the location scenery. For those with marginal Italian, it was one of the easiest to understand I've ever watched. Barely needed the subtitles. That's a good comment on it, compared with other Italian crime flicks. It's very straight ahead. Not so predictable as to be boring, but what you see is what you get and that's quite satisfying.I thought the humor was well done, never over the top or distracting. And, unlike a lot of token crime film humor...it was funny. Every now and then you say, "Wait...how?...oh", but rather than being a continuity problem I thought that gave it a real-life kind of feel. Bits that would have been dragged out forever in most any movie, boom!, just happen, again giving it a real life effect. Other bits are drawn out. Well balanced, on balance, I thought.So, I just don't understand the negative reviews on this one. It has to be that the American release is very different and really crap. Most the negative reviews I've seen have been in connection with the "Fernando di Leo Crime Collection" DVD. I collected all the ones on that release from the original Italian ones, so I don't know anything about it, but I'm thinking it could be a poor release of this movie. I'll stand by my opinion that there is nothing in the world wrong or not to like about the Italian release of this one. Light hearted at times, it's not lightweight by any stretch.

What a deception that straight to the garbage can crime flick. Especially if you compare it to the other films made by this very powerful director from the other side of the Alps. I usually see every thing what Fernando Di Leo makes. Except maybe his very last film, or nearly, in 1985, starring Henry Silva, that I have commented. But this one is even worse. Even the final climax is totally awful. That's the comedy touch that destroy everything here. I am not used to this in Italian crime films. The actors are terrible, and not terrific...And this feature lacks tragedy. What a waste of time for this crap. I am lucky not to have seen many of this kind. Forget it, avoid it at all costs.

I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.