I admired the film more than I enjoyed it, but it kept my interest throughout despite being a bit of slog at times. It's fascinating. The title 'Capone' invokes the expectation that this was a biopic of the famous gangster, but this isn't that at all. This is something very different, and very deliberately so, but due to the title it's going to confuse and disappoint most people (which is why Trank hated that he had to change it from the original title 'Fonzo' for marketing reasons). There's hardly a reference for this kind of film; it's not a traditional narrative in any sense.
What I keep thinking about is how even most gangster films who pretend to de-glamorize criminals and their lifestyle fail; it's the same problem with the "anti-" war movie that still depicts a rousing, exciting adventure next to the misery and the atrocities and thus defeats its own purpose. Rare is the war or gangster film that actually achieves to show the underlying emptiness; the ugly, banal, vulgar and sad reality that ultimately is what most lives of violence lead towards until the haunting memories are the only thing that remains.
The reason for that is obvious: nobody would watch that kind of film because it would be too bleak. But 'Capone' manages that rare feat: it's bleak - but not bleak enough to turn you off, and it's even often entertaining (in terms of its performances, the fantastic score, the beautiful cinematography). But even though this probably wasn't the film's intention, it still manages to be the ultimate deconstruction of the gangster as an "icon" - more so even than Scorsese's 'Irishman' (though it's nowhere near as good a film).
I liked Capone; it's weird (and I guess you shouldn't watch it unless you like profoundly weird little arthouse films) but this is definitely not a badly made film. I hope Trank continues on this path and makes more strange, personal films - although perhaps of the kind that are a little more accessible.
