The Valachi Papers (1972) Reviews

• It probably didn't help that this came out the same year as "The Godfather".

  MartinHafer2011-04-19

  I truly think if this film had come out earlier it would today be thought of as a better film. After all, it's FAR better than its current rating of 6.8. That's because 1972 was the same year that "The Godfather" debuted and the utter greatness of "The Godfather" probably overwhelmed "The Valachi Papers"---as both touch on very similar subject matter. The main difference is that "The Godfather" was based fictionalized characters and had a true elegance about the film. "The Valachi Papers" in contrast was a much more straight forward story based on real mob figures--and it's a dandy film. The film begins in the early 1960s. Mobster Joseph Valachi is in prison and multiple attempts are made on his life. It seems that someone in the organization has talked--and the mob of bosses, Genovese (Lino Ventura) believes it was Valachi. And, not surprisingly, a contract has been placed on Valachi's head. This has the unintended consequence of forcing Valachi to to authorities. Almost all the rest of the film consists Valachi giving his story to the government agent. What follows is a very long story about Valachi's earliest days in the mob (about 1930) up to the arrest that brought him to prison--and a bit beyond. The story is helped a lot by the films's length--a little over two hours. You'd need at least this much to tell such a long and complicated story. It also helps that Charles Bronson is given some excellent support. Among the many wonderful actors, one really surprised me--Lino Ventura. I've seen him in many French films (mostly Pierre Melville productions) and have LOVED his acting--he plays a great mobster--cold and tough. I never realized that he spoke English so well--everything I've seen him in up until now has been in French. Here, he very credibly plays an Italian-American! The script also was quite good. While not quite as human and interesting as "The Godfather", it sure was good...very, very good. There's almost nothing negative I could say about the film other than very minor things. Bronson was too old for this role. When the film began he was supposed to be 27--but looked about twice that. Also, a few times anachronistic elements somehow made their way in--such as cars that were from the wrong time period. But, as I said, this is all very minor.Aside from this, a top quality production that deserves more recognition. Gritty, exciting and fascinating as well. By the way, although IMDb lists the movie as being rated PG, the version I saw was way too bloody and filled with nudity to have been rated PG. The lesbian scene along would have merited a rating of R. Perhaps this was a director's cut or perhaps it was not rated PG or perhaps there were just multiple versions.

  More

• Best Polish mafia film I've seen

  birck2007-10-13

  I give this a 7 stars because it was made the same year as Godfather I, so it didn't benefit from all the film-industry wisdom that followed that production. Rather, this is a character study of one mafioso, which is a separate issue from the operatic, all-systems-GO no-holds-barred approach Coppola was able to employ in The Godfather. it's a smaller film, and should be compared to, say, Mobsters (1991), which deals with the same period and some of the same characters as V.P. Charles Bronson's Valachi is adequate. He's a workaday, uneducated, down- home mob guy, and Bronson plays him as if he were Polish, with a job that he goes to every day, where everyone talks Italian. Because it is through his eyes that we see his world, some of the other characters become more vivid, e.g., Joseph Wiseman as Salvatore Maranzano. When I compare the casting of the incomparable Joseph Wiseman in this role as opposed to, say, Michael Gambon in the same role in Mobsters, or Anthony Quinn as an equally old-school rival in the same film, I wonder: None of these actors are Italian -American or even simply Italian; why do some of them work, and the others don't? Granted that Wiseman, Quinn and Gambon are all consummate professionals and true craftsmen as actors, if anyone mentions Salvatore Maranzano and the Castellammarese gang war of 1929, the face that will come to my mind is that of Joseph Wiseman. He and Charles Bronson make this film worth seeing.

  More

• One of the best mob movies ever!!!!

  MovieMan-1122000-01-01

  This totally under-rated mob film is right up there with the best mob movies (Godfathers 1 and 2, Scarface, Once Upon A Time In America, Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, Capone, Casino, Untouchables, etc). Charles Bronson, although not italian, plays a very convincing role as mobster turned "rat" Joe Valachi. The scenes are never boring and the acting is excellent. Unfortunately, this film was never released on video in the United States. Sometimes it is shown on tv but there is a lot taken out from the original version (including the more graphic castration scene). Full of action and brutality. If you love mob movies, this is one you gotta see. No arguments here....Forget about it!

  More

• " From this day onwards, Joe Valachi, you live by the gun and the knife "

  thinker16912008-11-25

  America has always been a land of opportunity. For the Italians, none more so than giving rise to an American icon, the Gangster. For many years, the U.S. government denied the existence of Organized crime. Even the top U.S. law enforcement officer and head of the famed Federal Bureau of Investigation, J.Edgar Hoover, denied such an organization existed. His apathy was due in part to his own shadowy complicity with the Giancana crime family. That's pretty much how it stayed until the advent of the McClellen commission. The movie " The Valachi Papers " is the direct result of that investigation and brought to the forefront of public awareness the vast network of the underworld's crime bosses and their families. The wellspring of that knowledge was none other than the most famous gangster since Al Capone, one, Joseph Valachi. His testimony, created a healthy respect and awe for the Mafia or as Valachi termed it, La Cosa Nostra. (Our thing) This movie is a compilation of his criminal life, dastardly deeds and the revelation of some of the nation's most notable names. Men like Vito Genovese, Anastasia, 'Lucky Luciano' Don Masseria and Marazano. The film is honest when it deals with its legendary brutality and bodies are left throughout the story including its most graphic moments. The end result is perhaps the best Mafia movie since the Godfather. ****

  More

• The Blood, She's A Run Like A Sauce Marinara.

  rmax3048232012-05-25

  This Mafia story has a couple of things going for it. In its overall structure it resembles an "Apologia" in the original sense, not an apology but a defense of what the accused has done and the explanations for it. Joe Valachi was, as I understand it, one of the first members of the Mafia (which is mentioned by name) to spill the beans about initiation rites and about the workings of the organization itself. I don't know how closely the plot resembles historical accuracy but Peter Maas was a careful and balanced writer and usually reliable. When Valachi, played by Charles Bronson in what may be his best performance, tries to hang himself in his cell, it could easily be because of guilt. The organization of the Mafia seems to fit into a hierarchy of allegiances. It's a little like belonging to the Marine Corps. First, of course, there is one's family. But then there is the Mafia, a brotherhood sealed in blood and fire. Then there is loyalty to the particular province of the old country -- Sicily versus Naples, let's say. Only then is there any expressed allegiance to the nation of Italy itself. When a young man wants to be married, friends ask, "Is she a nice Italian girl?" (America is described by Maranzano as "a foreign country" and high-echelon members take long sojourns to Italy.) Religion is deeply felt but is irrelevant to the violent goings on. Police, lawyers, and other ethnic groups are viewed as potential enemies. There aren't any real heroes. Valachi himself is more or less swept up into gangsterism but no excuse is given. (Thank God he wasn't an abused child.) He's participated in a number of murders and shows no remorse. We also see that some hits are made to satisfy the lust of a Capo for someone else's wife. It's not "strictly business." We identify with Valachi because he's the character whose development we follow for thirty or forty years, not because he's an upright citizen. He's happy enough to settle down to a legitimate business, running a restaurant, but he's caught in a web of conflicting allegiances to friends, family, and the organization. Except for his final confession, he's never treacherous or particularly clever. In these -- and in other ways -- "The Valachi Papers" differ from the first two Godfather movies. In Coppola's films, which really DO resemble "apologies", we grow to love the fictional Don Vito Corleone. He's an avuncular figure who is little more than a community organizer. He helps the poor and battles the corrupt and kills only to save the neighborhood from abject subservience. The word "Mafia" is never used. The Corleone family kills only those who deserve to die. There is power and money, yes, but the power is used benevolently and the money is incidental, hardly more than a means of providing well for one's wife and children and the elderly parents, when it's not given away to the poor. When you're done watching the Godfather movies, you almost wish there were more people like that. Like Dirty Harry, they may stretch the law but they keep the streets safe and their neighbors prosperous. They only sell drugs to African-American children. "The Valachi Papers" is a brutal movie though. There's not much emphasis on family life. No happy al fresco dinners with a dozen people sitting around a long table, drinking wine, eating veal scallopini, and singing songs. Instead there's a scene in which some guy gets his testicles removed for boffing his Capo's girl friend, while he screams and begs Valachi to shoot him. Bronson's performance really does stand out. He's not the stern, competent character of a "Charles Bronson Movie." He's tentative, sometimes embarrassed and sometimes afraid. For the only time in human memory, he shows what appears to be genuine anguish as he's compelled by compassion to shoot his emasculated friend. Nice job.

  More