Synopsis:

Quote: The documentary explores the lives of America's first generation of gangsters including Charlie "Lucky" Luciano, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel and Meyer Lansky who started out as three young hoods in the slums of New York and wound up absolute rulers of a kingdom founded on liquor, loan sharking, gambling and extortion. Told through vintage newsreel footage, rare archival photos and the explicit words of the gangsters themselves, this is an informative and fascinating behind-the-scenes look at one the greatest success stories of the 20th century, a nightmarish twist on the American dream.

I agree pitdeadite I mean this was back in the 1990's this is too old to release a film.

It is sad when studios try to confuse the public by releasing a film with a similar title of a blockbuster. They hope to cash in on people buying gifts. They did they same thing for WAR OF THE WORLDS.

Hi, i'm new in here.

Well, they can make a few bucks of it now.

Dave Brock wrote:
Rubbish!  That's the title of the documentary and nowhere is there any mention of Crowe, Washington or Scott.  It's also got 'The' in the title, unlike Scott's film.

If you don't properly look at what you are buying that's your fault.  No one with a brain cell could actually confuse this with Ridley Scott's film.
And if you do...You should really be more concerned with your state of mind and general IQ than a DVD.

Marketing something at a beneficial time is also not a crime.

Only 45 minutes running time though according to IMDB.  That's a crime.

You're kidding, right?  You seriously can't be that naive.  You believe it's a coincidence that these two movies with nearly identical names (minus one article) are being released on DVD at the same time?  Do you seriously believe it's a coincidence that this release is using the same black/white stylings as the Ridley Scott film?  That this film's cover has no mention of any director or stars, or the fact that it's a documentary?  Yeah, I guess all that's just a coincidence.  PISH!  It's an obvious grab at fooling consumers.  You say it doesn't happen but IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!  My nephew got some old TV-movie Spartan flick on DVD for his birthday because my Aunt thought it was 300; I mean, they both had practically the same artwork and used the same font and visual style on the cover.  This practice happens ALL THE TIME!  Most of America doesn't follow DVD websites or keep up with this kind of thing.  They see AMERICAN GANGSTER and draw a parellel to the previews they saw and thought looked interesting and see that the artwork is similar and they buy or rent it.  It's no different with any other knock-off ploy.  For instance, my father-in-law mentioned he wanted to see this flick but couldn't tell you the names of the people who are in it; he doesn't keep up with that.  He just knows that he saw a preview for this movie called AMERICAN GANGSTER that he liked and, alas, here's a movie that is just being released called THE AMERICAN GANGSTER...and they use the same poster stylings!  And the latter has no mention what it's about or that it's a documentary!  It's not hard to imagine that some non-moviephile would get jipped.  It's underhanded and wrong.

Dave Brock wrote:
FACT - This cover is actually nothing at all like the Ridley Scott cover!  Why do you think it is!?

Are you blind??  Need I point it out to you?  Look at this cover and then at the 3-disc collector's edition: both are predominantly black and white, but with a smidge of red.  Both have nothing on the cover except the title and the silhouettes of two men.  Both say either THE AMERICAN GANGSTER or AMERICAN GANGSTER without any star or director listings, nor any tagline about the former being a documentary.  I mean, what more do you need? It doesn't take a scientist to see the similarities.

Dave Brock wrote:
FACT - This doc came first and IS called "The American Gangster".  And was called that before Scott's film even existed.

I never said anything about the Scott movie existing first now, did I?  The '300 SPARTANS' movie or whatever it was called that my aunt bought came out well before '300,' but just because it was first did not mean it wasn't a lesser known film trying to capitalize on the release of a newer, more known one.

Dave Brock wrote:
FACT - Nowhere does this mention Scott, Crowe or Washington or have any plot write-ups or reviews that could make anyone think it's that film.

Exactly; one of my points.  Documentaries USUALLY have more than just the title on the cover.  Why?  Because they're lesser known properties that practically need to scream what they're about to draw interest.  Go to NETFLIX and look at the covers of all the documentaries in that section - every one has a byline stating WHAT it's about or WHO directed it or some sort of quote from a critic.  You'll find that NOT ONE has just the title on the cover.  Why?  Because this movie obviously doesn't want you to know what it's about.

Dave Brock wrote:
FACT - "The" is there...It's not in Scott's film.

Wow, yes, you're right: "the".  Big difference.  Let me ask you this: If I made a space documentary and put THE STAR WARS on the cover of the DVD with artwork that more than just resembles the artwork from the Lucas film, wouldn't you say that's more than a passing difference?  I mean, after all, it has the article "the". TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

FACT: You're totally naive.

Dave Brock wrote: FACT - And you're an idiot.

Wow, nice.  Personal insults.  You'd fit right in with some of my fifth graders.

Dave Brock wrote:
FACT - A blind one if your think those covers look ANYTHING like each other.

Never said they looked EXACTLY alike, but they are of enough passing similarity to where your average uninformed gift-buyer could be duped.  You may think it's exclusive "to my kin," but do you think it's just a coincidence that this practice happens with regularity?  Oh yeah, you probably do; after all, you thought it was with these two products.  But if you need proof I can send you dozens of DVD covers of TV movies and the like that use this same ploy of trying to pass themselves off as being their more-known counterparts.  

Dave Brock wrote:
The titles are not the same font, not the same size, not in the same place.

You're completely missing the point.  The average "walk in the store and grab THE AMERICAN GANGSTER that my wife wants to see" consumer isn't going to know EXACTLY what the Ridley Scott cover looks like anyways.  He's not going to know, "Hey, the font of the two are completely different so this CAN'T be it." A completely not thought out argument...try again.

Dave Brock wrote:
Don't assume the rest of society is as incapable of looking, reading and thinking as you and your kin.

You think it's just "my kin"?  Let's see: Some kid pesters his dad, "Hey, don't forget to pick up that AMERICAN GANGSTER movie I want to see, okay?"  Dad (or your average gift-buyer) says, "Okay".  He walks into the store (or rental place), sees a film titled THE AMERICAN GANGSTER on the cover with no mention of its status as a documentary (which basically every documentary DVD does; have you looked at NETFLIX yet?) and sees that it was just released, and picks it up.  Not that hard to imagine, eh? Is it also equally hard to imagine someone writing on their wish list for Christmas or a birthday "American Gangster DVD" and the gift-buyer mistaking the two, seeing as no star names or director names are listed? Or do you expect the requester to write down the synopsis on his list, kind of like: "AMERICAN GANGSTER - starring DENZEL WASHINGTON and RUSSEL CROWE; directed by RIDLEY SCOTT. DO NOT CONFUSE WITH THE AMERICAN GANGSTER DOCUMENTARY".  Maybe your wish lists look like that, but most people's don't. Oh, wait - you're expecting them to be 100% versed on DVD fonts and lenticular cases as you yourself are; I forgot: You're not willing to think about others who are not as obsessed with movies and/or DVDs as you, someone who posts on a DVD site, are.  



There are plenty of people who "blind buy" DVDs, just like the cases I explained above.  Those are the people that are being duped.  Not forum posters named DAVID BROCK who sit on DVD webpages calling people "idiots".

Hmmm..sittin' back, reading the boys goin' for it, drinking my brew....or is that beer? Oh no....