Interesting...don't know anything about the background of the film, and it would certainly be a fascinating product if it turned out to be *truly* atrocious, but my suspicion is simply that it's a bit also ran, and the critics have decided to wheel the big guns out because a) it stars such well known talent b) it was, to a degree, a vanity project and c) it has cost a LOT of money to make and showed appalling returns (by Hollywood standards, at least).
As far as it goes, it sounds like it revolves around 'worthy', if relatively uninspiring, subject matter, has drawn upon sensible casting (whether or not Mirren is perfect for the role, I would assume she had a decent stab at it, and calling Pesci in to do something set amongst the underworld in the 1970's is clearly a no brainer), has been diligently researched etc. etc. I would still imagine that this is the type of material I wouldn't expect to be attracting audiences in their droves because it probably lacks most of the elements that actually entice an audience to a crime drama (such as brutal murders, gang politics, betrayals, police stings etc. etc.) and sounds like it is veering much closer to the mode of worthy fictionalised biopic. Indeed, in genre terms, it may well fall between two stools - being nowhere near violent enough for the action loving crime story aficionado, and perhaps too gritty and remorseless for most fans of biopic. But this is just guess work, going on say the prototype casting brackets Mirren and Pesci would fill respectively; as I said, I don't know anything about the actual film!
Still and all, I hardly think that this film should have been slated to be a phenomenal box office smash that was going to beat all other takings this year - it's hardly an Inception or Toy Story 3, by the sound of it. So, I suppose my conclusion is - fair enough, it's a flop, but I would have thought critics would have cut a film like this more slack in the first place. Or something.
