American Gangster Reviews

flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Mister Tee wrote:Oh, and Ruby Dee is an embarrassment through most of the movie -- fluttering around in search of scenery to chew -- but then, unexpectedly, nails her big moment flawlessly. I don't see the Oscar campaign EW seems to be ginning up, but it's a strong moment.
I thought the same thing about Dee’s performance. Hamola throughout much of the film and then she absolutely nails her final big scene. It’s a great moment in a film terribly bereft of them. In a scant year, I could see her pulling off a veteran nomination for her performance.

Is it bad that my favorite part was the “Across 110th Street” montage?

Crowe is so thoroughly unlikable, it’s a wonder he’s cast in so many of these types of films. His character arc was boring and completely unnecessary (I mean, what was the Kramer vs. Kramer mini-movie inside of the bigger film? Point?). And I think his accent sucks. This movie did not live up to the hype placed on it by several people I talked to.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

I thought American Gangster wanted to be The Godfather so badly it was almost painful (even before the justly lambasted finale -- intercutting a church sequence with the fates of Washington's five brothers...you've got to be kidding me). The whole thing is such an unnecessarily bloated epic, the kind of film that thinks it's IMPORTANT because of its running time and its BIG STARS but has nary a thought in its head.

But the biggest thing that sinks the film is a complete lack of urgency. I kept wondering when the dramatic tension was going to kick in -- the film seems to keep Crowe and Washington apart for so long to provide contrast, but one can only absorb so many (not-very-deep) parallels before some sort of conflict between these two characters results...and it takes an AWFULLY long time to get there. (As Tee points out, the Crowe half is terribly mundane, and the Washington section, while slightly more exciting, still feels like a cobbled-together mash of Godfather/Scarface cliches.)

I didn't even think the film was visually interesting. Ridley Scott's been blasted around here a lot lately, but at least you could say most of his ouvre -- Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Blade Runner, et al. -- looks stylish enough. American Gangster, though, couldn't be more blandly photographed: I can't even remember one interesting shot or memorable visual (though I did like the period costumes.)

As far as the cast goes, Crowe and Washington are both ostensibly GREAT actors (and I know both can be great), but both have disappointed me a lot lately. I feel like it's been so long since either gave a truly surprising performance (and neither even approaches that here) that I truly wonder when they'll ditch these big budget bloat-a-thons and return to the exciting work that shot them to stardom in the first place.

All in all, an empty, inconsequential film that clearly thinks it's something else. I'd hate to see this film swoop up a load of Oscar nods.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Some thoughts on yet another mediocre movie:

For the first half-hour or so, I disliked it thoroughly. It seemed so pleased with itself for covering such Big Subjects (race, drugs, Vietnam) and spanning so much territory, yet it depended on the same decadent tricks as standard action flicks. (Open with a brutal killing! -- that'll get the juices flowing!) The phrase "Empty Epic" came to mind. (Which might line me up with Sonic, since I thought the very same about Casino)

It didn't seem any less empty as it went on, but it did, ultimately seem far less epic -- it wasn't, in the end, about a huge chunk of black American history; it was about one hustler who pulled off a lucrative scam for a stretch but finally got caught. And I enjoyed the movie more at that point, simply because I wasn't any longer irked by the dichotomy between what it appeared to think it was and what it was actually achieving. Though, truly, there was nothing in the story that merited 2 hour-40 minute treatment.

An obvious point of comparison is Mann's Heat -- another movie that featured two big stars in separate story lines, and seemed way longer than the heft of the material required. But Heat, at least, had a couple of exceptional action sequences, and a whole bunch of characters who, even if they never came together to amount to anything, were well drawn on their own terms. Gangster has no really memorable sequence (the big attempt, at the end, is such a Godfather rip-off you can't believe they're serious), and, really, not a single well-drawn character.

What it has is Themes -- something Zaillian provides, a bit too obviously. (I can imagine a film class paper "American Gangster: Searching for Purity in an Impure World") And it's obviously trying to set up its two main characters as representative of families and how they cohere or fall apart. The problem is, the Crowe family dynamic is so banal -- so familiar from 100 movies -- that the time spent on him seems wildly out of scale with our interest level, and you can't escape the feeling that you're mostly watching it because Crowe's screen-time has to match Denzel's.

As for the performances: is Crowe going to play semi-retards for the rest of his life? It's as if he can't do an American accent without resorting to The Stupid. I'm growing more and more to believe The Insider was the only great performance he had in him. Denzel is better, and has some effective moments, but I never got the sense that his Frank Lucas was a man ready to pop into violence at any moment -- the times when he did seemed disconnected from the rest of his performance.

Oh, and Ruby Dee is an embarrassment through most of the movie -- fluttering around in search of scenery to chew -- but then, unexpectedly, nails her big moment flawlessly. I don't see the Oscar campaign EW seems to be ginning up, but it's a strong moment.

In the Credibility Matters department...the fact that Grazer/Crowe so fudged facts the last couple of times out makes me wonder what's true here and what's not. Why does it matter? Well...if Lucas came into the law's sights because he broke his long-time rule of not attracting attention by attire, that's an interesting detail. But if it's made up, it's way too corny.

Some things only anal folk with memories will be bothered by: The Ali-Frazier fight was in early 1971; no announcer would have mentioned Diane Keaton's name then, because no one knew who the hell she was. When the brother's Yankee tryout is mentioned, they say it was set up with Billy Martin -- but, unless we'd suddenly jumped a few years ahead, this was well prior to Martin's tenure. The film also seemed to conflate the signing of the Vietnamese peace agreement in '73 with the infamous evacuation of '75 -- though that may have simply been sloppy editing.

Despite all this...I can vaguely see why some people are touting this as a best picture nominee. Given its length, it's not boring (and in fact gets a bit more engrossing as it goes on). And, unlike any number of other films this season, it doesn't collapse in the final reel. It wouldn't make my list (as an extended crime drama, it's not a patch on Zodiac), but, then, my taste hasn't prevailed in a long time.
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Anon wrote:The movie theater was packed when I went to see it earlier today, so I expect it to do well at the box office this weekend.

The two leads did not disappoint, and it was great having Denzel and Russell in a movie together. But somehow I found Ridley Scott's direction to be a bit uneven. His leads were great, but the supporting cast didn't really have much to do.

Imagine having the likes of Ruby Dee and Chiwetel Ejiofor (who I really hope gets recognized for his work in Talk to Me) in the cast and not exploiting their talents!

But, the movie overall was intelligent and well done, nothing superb, mind you, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a Best Picture nod (if only because we have so few major contenders right now, it seems). I do hope Ridley gets ignored for directing because this is hardly his best work.


I agree. The two leads were great but something was lacking from the supporting cast. Several actors that have been interviewed for the film (Cuba Gooding Jr. and Common) had barely any screentime at all. This could be due to their importance in the grand scheme of the film of course. Despite this, American Gangster was good, but not as good as it was hyped up to be IMO.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
Anon
Temp
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Albany

Post by Anon »

The movie theater was packed when I went to see it earlier today, so I expect it to do well at the box office this weekend.

The two leads did not disappoint, and it was great having Denzel and Russell in a movie together. But somehow I found Ridley Scott's direction to be a bit uneven. His leads were great, but the supporting cast didn't really have much to do.

Imagine having the likes of Ruby Dee and Chiwetel Ejiofor (who I really hope gets recognized for his work in Talk to Me) in the cast and not exploiting their talents!

But, the movie overall was intelligent and well done, nothing superb, mind you, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a Best Picture nod (if only because we have so few major contenders right now, it seems). I do hope Ridley gets ignored for directing because this is hardly his best work.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sonic Youth wrote:But the only thing that will keep Generica Gangster - to steal Mike D'angelo's phrase - from being nominated is a huge dropoff in attendence next weekend. Because this weekend is gonna be a huge one. Ridley Scott fanboys must be in paradise.
$15.8 million on friday. probably should have a $45-50 m weekend. i doubt there will be a big drop off. in fact, the film might even be number one again. its only competition is FRED CLAUS (why is a christmas movie opening two weeks before thanksgiving?), LIONS FOR LAMBS (another in the long line of middle east films to bomb), and P2 (a film so insignificant i do not care enough to even insult it).
AMERICAN GANGSTER will probably be the only grown up film to make more than $100 m this year, unless CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR somehow does well...but since i love life too much i will not be holding my breath.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

jack wrote:I do get your point on it being compared to The Departed, but compared sight-unseen. After you watch it, there's no ground for comparison.

You're right. It should be compared to Casino.

But the only thing that will keep Generica Gangster - to steal Mike D'angelo's phrase - from being nominated is a huge dropoff in attendence next weekend. Because this weekend is gonna be a huge one. Ridley Scott fanboys must be in paradise.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

At Metacritic, the film has a 76 rating...the same as Dreamgirls had.

But, Jack Mathews gave Dreamgirls 100 there. He gave Gangster 63.

By contrast, he gave The Deparetd 100 and it ended up with an 86 rating.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Jack Mathews of the NY Daily News, who is perhaps the reviewer with the most similar taste to that of the Academy, only gave it 2 1/2 stars.



Edited By Damien on 1194048015
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Post by VanHelsing »

Question is are the voters ready to embrace this film after last year's major success that is The Departed? But Washington might still be nominated. If not for this film, then it might be for The Great Debaters.
With a Southern accent...
"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...
"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"

-------

"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"
"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

i did not read a single review of AMERICAN GANGSTER before i watched and reviewed it here. later, i did read some reviews and they all seemed to agree with my assesment. the film is expertly done, but just a bit shy of greatness. i know not everyone was as impressed with THE DEPARTED as i was, but my comparison of scorsese's film to scott's film would only be to highlight the "fun" that seemed to be missing from the latter. i enjoyed AMERICAN GANGSTER, but more on a level of respect for its filmmaking rather than the way i enjoyed THE INSIDE MAN for being so darn fun.
i stick by my original statement about scott's direction in this film being the most "mature" of his entire career. i still think his masterpiece is ALIEN, but like david fincher this year, scott moved beyond his commercial (as in advertisements) roots. too often his films scream, "look at how cool looking i am." this film was amazingly restrained, and i appreciated scott for that.
again, though, this is admiration rather than love. will that be enough to earn it a best picture nomination? especially with early comments about other films such as ATONEMENT, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, JUNO, BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD and others which people seem to love.
last year, people said FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS was sunk by bad reviews. the reviews from the major critics were not bad (78% fresh on rt), but they were more admirable rather than affectionate. LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA on the other hand was a film critics not only admired but personally loved. sure, some people did not like LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, but the general consensus was a gushingly affectionate response by film lovers.
AMERICAN GANGSTER is a film i enjoyed while i was watching it and admired when it was finished, but i did not walk away from it with that feeling i and all film lovers have after they have seen an incredible piece of filmmaking. that response seems to be reserved this year for the other films i previously mentioned. i enjoyed it but i did not love it, and that seems to be the general consensus of the reviews i have read.


here is the imdb.com summary of the major critics' opinion of AMERICAN GANGSTER:
Reviews of American Gangster, starring Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, are split between love and hate. On the love side is Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times who awards it a four-star ranking. "This is an engrossing story, told smoothly and well," he writes. Likewise, Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal sums up: "It's a great big gangster film, and a good one." Claudia Puig in USA Today concludes that it "is probably the best gangster crime drama of the year." And Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post raves, "In American Gangster, time doesn't fly, it explodes. The thing is 2 1/2 hours long; it feels like 40 minutes. Whether it's the next great American crime movie or simply this year's professional stunner will be determined over the net few months." On the other hand, Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News says he likes the final 40 minutes of the movie, "but the film is 2 hours and 40 minutes long, and the runup, setup or whatever-up you want to call the first two hours is largely a drag." Jan Stuart in Newsday says "the film begins to show its flab about two-thirds in." Michael Sragow in the Baltimore Sun pronounces it an intriguing true story turned into "facile melodrama" and dismisses it as kind of "a cover version of a Scorsese, Coppola or De Palma movie." Which is apparently good enough for Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle who writes: "So it's not a classic. ... Instead, it can be classed as a respectable second-tier entry."
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
jack
Assistant
Posts: 897
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: Cape Breton, Nova Scotia

Post by jack »

I'm not sure I understand your view of American Gangster, rolo. Of all the potential Best Picture nominees this year, American Gangster seems like a sure bet. So far this year the two best films I've seen are 3:10 to Yuma and American Gangster. Both would be welcome on a Best Picture list in my opinion.

I do get your point on it being compared to The Departed, but compared sight-unseen. After you watch it, there's no ground for comparison. Ridley Scott's direction should stand as one of the most assured and skilled come year end.

Having said that I'm really enjoying this year’s race so far - nothing has stood out as major front-runner. And that's a good thing. For now I think American Gangster should stay on people's prediction list. Until everything else is released, American Gangster is the best film of the year...
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Sabin wrote:Owen Gleiberman gives it a "B". It may be one of the most acclaimed movies of the year but it seems to be lacking in passion.
this review seems to follow the same line. the way you describe it sabin is exactly how i felt about the film: well made but nowhere near as fun as THE GODFATHER, GOODFELLAS, or even THE DEPARTED. i still think people should go see it if they like well made films, but expect to enjoy it on a more intellectual level.


American Gangster
By Dana Stevens

Denzel Washington plays Frank Lucas in American Gangster
American Gangster (Universal), Ridley Scott's epic about Harlem crime boss Frank Lucas, never reconciles its desire to be the black Scarface—a bloody, balls-out fantasy of crime as a form of ethnic empowerment—with its aspiration to be something weightier: a grittily realistic treatise on race, capitalism, and social mobility in America. As a result, the movie is never quite pop enough to get audiences hooting and hollering and quoting favorite lines, nor smart enough to inspire passionate post-movie debate. Scene by scene, the film is unassailably well-crafted. (Whether there had to be so many scenes—the subplot-stuffed saga runs 157 minutes—is another matter.) But there's something oddly dull, even respectable, about Scott's adherence to the rules of gangster-film grammar.

It's almost incredible that anything about this movie could be staid when you consider its source material, a 2000 New York Magazine profile of Frank Lucas by Mark Jacobson, in which the 69-year-old kingpin, parked on the street corners of the neighborhood he once owned, spins eye-popping, impossible-to-verify tales of smuggling dope out of Southeast Asia on Henry Kissinger's plane. Lucas is a satanic charmer who can turn a phrase like nobody's business: The atmosphere at a high-stakes pool game was "so quiet you could've heard a rat piss on a piece of cotton in China."

When we first meet Ridley Scott's Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) in 1969, he's a discreet driver and occasional hired gun for the old-school Harlem gangster Ellsworth "Bumpy" Johnson (Clarence Williams III). Bumpy dies of old age in Frank's arms, mumbling about his disdain for the newfangled chain stores that are taking over the neighborhood: "What right do they have cutting out the suppliers … buying direct from the manufacturer?" As the soft-spoken but merciless Frank takes over Bumpy's operation, that's exactly what he proceeds to do, eliminating the Mafia middleman and smuggling his dope direct from Vietnam in the coffins of dead soldiers.

Frank's unusual business methods allow him to charge half the price for a product twice as good, a dangerously pure heroin that goes by the street name Blue Magic. As a result, Frank has soon cornered the junkie market, infuriating both his Italian competitors and the crooked cops who depend on them for kickbacks. This brings Frank to the attention of Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), a New Jersey cop who's so clean that when he came upon a stash of $1 million, he turned it in—an act that's earned him the contempt of the entire department. Roberts is named head of a federal drug task force to investigate the source of Blue Magic, and although Frank soon emerges as a player, the evidence against him remains maddeningly slippery.

So, unfortunately, does the character of Frank Lucas, who should be the dark, pulsing heart of this movie. Instead, Washington's gangster is as opaque and iconic as the face on a coin. It's hard to know whether to attribute this indistinct quality to the script (by Steven Zaillian), to Washington's tight-lipped performance, or to something that exceeds both, a factor we'll call "Denzelitude." As I heard one viewer say on the way out of the screening, "I had my problems with the movie, but you just can't hate on Denzel." Precisely. Despite Washington's Oscar-winning excursion into villainy in Training Day, he's still somehow too measured, too refined and statesmanlike, to bring the gonzo crazy when needed. I found his performance in Training Day a bit hammy, but in American Gangster, Washington goes the other direction; he plays a drug kingpin so austere and restrained that we never understand Frank's true motivation. Is he simply a born businessman, who might in another time and place have made his millions in mergers and acquisitions? Or does he need to be a criminal—does he enjoy gunning down rivals in broad daylight and slamming people's heads into grand pianos?

Russell Crowe, as the cop-turned-prosecutor who's more honest than he is good (Richie's personal life, as we learn in an intrusive subplot, is in the toilet), delivers a more finely detailed performance, but that may be because the movie doesn't ask him to bear as much symbolic weight as Washington's title character. The title itself suggests that there's something quintessential about the Frank Lucas story, and at key moments he's given to pronouncements like "I can do anything I want—this is America!" But when it comes to unpacking that symbolic baggage, the movie is vague, falling back on pre-existing mob-film archetypes (the climactic scene, in which Scott crosscuts between a raid on Lucas' house and a formal church celebration, is straight from The Godfather). In a rushed and unsatisfying coda, Richie and Frank join forces to prosecute the bad cops (led by a marvelously slimy Josh Brolin).

The movie's central ambiguity is revealed in this ending. What should have been a clash of two opposing moral universes instead comes off as a wan buddy flick. What exactly is the story of Frank's rise and fall supposed to have shown us about gangsters, or about America? And if the answer is "nothing," shouldn't we have had more fun?
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Owen Gleiberman gives it a "B". It may be one of the most acclaimed movies of the year but it seems to be lacking in passion.

AMERICAN GANGSTER

As Frank Lucas, the brutal Harlem drug lord of American Gangster, Denzel Washington has a gaze as steady as a statue's, and he wanders through the vibrantly messy, pre-Giuliani-time streets in an overcoat that accentuates his wide shoulders and coiled, urban-king swagger. There's no doubt that Frank communicates strength — in fact, he communicates little else. Washington might be playing a senator, or Malcolm X all over again; his performance is smooth, confident, and more than a little familiar. Even as a gangster, he doesn't transform — he doesn't release his inner thug. He's still every inch Denzel, all dour nobility.

Directed by Ridley Scott, and adapted by screenwriter Steven Zaillian from a New York magazine story entitled ''The Return of Superfly,'' American Gangster is meticulous and detailed, a drug-world epic that holds you from moment to moment, immersing you in the intricate and sleazy logistics of crime. Yet the movie isn't quite enthralling; it's more like the ghost version of a '70s classic. Scott nails the grit and clutter of the era — the bombed-out buildings, the litter and the rusty pay phones — and he structures the film almost pointillistically, with brief, heightened, coruscating scenes that flow into each other. American Gangster unfolds on parallel tracks, cutting back and forth between Frank Lucas' reign and the stubborn quest of Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), a terse and scruffy last-honest-narcotics-cop-in-New York, to hunt him down. It's like The Godfather, Serpico, Scarface, and The French Connection all mashed in a blender, along with a heavy helping of synthetic cocktail mix.

Lucas aspires to be a new kind of inner-city criminal. He's a drug dealer who thinks like a CEO, without the plumage of previous black gangsters. His innovation, which puts him a step ahead of the Italian Mob, is to realize that with the Vietnam War raging, he can purchase uncut heroin directly from the Southeast Asian kingpins who supply it to American soldiers. Using his connections, he journeys upriver, like a grunt in Apocalypse Now, to the jungles of Thailand and buys 100 kilos. He then cuts the U.S. military into the deal by having the drugs shipped back on Army planes. Now that's thinking outside the box.

Frank's product, marketed as ''Blue Magic,'' is purer than any other dealer's, and he sells it for less. American Gangster tells the story of a singular underworld mind, yet Frank, as a character, isn't fascinating, exactly. He's an icon who hasn't been completely filled in. Every half hour or so, starting with the opening scene, he commits some hideous cold-blooded execution meant to demonstrate he's got more stones than anyone else. His fury, though, is tidy and compartmentalized. Even for a stealth corporate gangster, he doesn't show a glimmer of it the rest of the time. You never feel — like you did when James Cagney shoved that grapefruit in his girlfriend's face in The Public Enemy, or when Tony Montana unleashed his mad-dog machine-gun rage in Scarface — that Frank is a gangster because he lives and breathes violence.

Washington's performance lacks idiosyncrasy, and it also lacks a whisper of the streets, though that, at least, is by design. When Frank's Puerto Rican beauty-queen wife (Lymari Nadal) gives him a striped fur coat, he wears it to the 1973 Ali-Frazier fight, and that's the tip-off to Detective Roberts that there's a new player in town. Frank gets caught out the one night he dresses like a pimp. There's an irony to that fact the film should have made more of. What works, terrifically, is Roberts' fixation on Frank. Crowe plays him with a thick, hunched body and a squint of a scowl. He's a caveman lug who has burned his life down to an ashy nub of integrity. Catching criminals is all he has; he's every bit as obsessed with nailing dirty cops, like the shakedown bully Detective Trupo (Josh Brolin). Still, it takes a special doggedness to trap Lucas, since Frank's secret weapon — the real way he sneaks drugs into the country, not revealed until late in the film — has a ghastly ingenuity.

Frank builds his empire with family, uprooting brothers, cousins, and his dear old mother (Ruby Dee) from North Carolina and moving them to a mansion that looks like the Tara of Westchester. Yet we barely get to know the brothers, even as they run Frank's operation. (The great Chiwetel Ejiofor is wasted.) American Gangster is never dull, but it could have used more good old-fashioned melodramatic intrigue. The last section, in which Lucas and Roberts finally connect, is almost weirdly upbeat. Many movie gangsters have, of course, become role models, but this film might have been more convincing if it didn't set out to create one.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

well...............i just saw AMERICAN GANGSTER. it was good, very good. however, and i predict this will be a common perception among critics, it cannot hold a candle to THE DEPARTED. i know films should be allowed to stand alone. they should be judged by what they accomplished, not by what other films have accomplished. i know all this, but all i could think was how great THE DEPARTED was while this film was just good.

getting to the film itself, it was quite impressive. i am no ridley scott fanboy. i think ALIEN is one of the best films of the 70s, but other than that his films range from good (THELMA & LOUISE), could be better (BLACK HAWK DOWN), visually amazing (BLADE RUNNER), visually overblown (GLADIATOR), and down right annoying (MATCHSTICK MEN).
scott is known, and revered by some, for his film's extravagance and beauty. this is often to the detriment of the story and acting. i must say, though, that scott actually was smart enough to get out of the way of his own movie. he facilitates some great action sequences, but also lets the more story oriented scenes to just simmer.
with ZODIAC and now AMERICAN GANGSTER, i have seen two films this year by a visually impressive director to show some amazing maturity and restraint. coincidentally, they both took place in the 60s and 70s, were about true life criminals and the people set to capture them, were very talky films, and both beautifully shot by harris savides (more on him later). i am very relieved to see both a young and old director can learn new tricks. from what i have been hearing, p.t. anderson has taken the same lesson with THERE WILL BE BLOOD. movies do not have to be visually over the top to still be cinematically impressive.
scott still is no robert altman. he does not know what to do with actors. he is no amateur, but he is also no maestro. denzel washington and russel crowe do excellent jobs, and are both restrained where others might have gone over the top. i was particularly pleased with washington's work. he is one of our greatest living actors, but like pacino has a tendency to play only charming and angry. he often misses the subtler moments in some of his characters. i was pissed when he won for the ridiculousness that was TRAINING DAY. however, he proves why he is considered a great actor. i am not saying he should or will be nominated for best actor. it is not as if he would be unworthy of a nomination, but i certainly hope there are five more worthy nominees this year. i think you can cross him off your prediction lists though.
crowe did a good job. i have only seen him give one great performance, in THE INSIDER (which he should have won for). i was equally outraged when he won for the equal ridiculousness that was GLADIATOR. he was good in A BEAUTIFUL MIND (better than washington that year), and was good in CINDERELLA MAN. however, i am still waiting to see him deliver on the incredible talent i saw in THE INSIDER. this is definitely not the performance to make me a believer again, and it would have to be a really bad year in the acting category for him to be nominated.
the screenplay was fine. it certainly was not the vulgar poetry THE DEPARTED offered us. it framed the story nicely, and fleshed out its characters just enough to get us involved. i read some criticism about wasting time on the family life of crowe's character, but it was not that big of a burden on the film. superfluous yes, but not detrimental. there is no way this pragmatic screenplay is going to compete in the very busy adapted screenplay category, although they might try to be sneaky and put it in original. still, i cannot imagine a nomination either way.
now for the man of the hour. harris savides first came to many filmlover's attention for his mesmerizing work in ELEPHANT. his naturalistic lighting and fluid camera movement was caught impressive without being showy. i loved his work in BIRTH, and became a true fanboy with his masterly work in ZODIAC. i have not seen someone use light and shadow so well since gordon willis, which is funny since ZODIAC and AMERICAN GANGSTER are capturing the visual style of a 70s film. his work in this film is just further proof of his great career ahead. it does not compete with ZODIAC's brilliance, but is certainly impressive.
however, there is no way the academy is going to nominate him for either film. like gordon willis, his work is just to subtle. the past two years have shown us that subtle but brilliant cinematography (BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and CHILDREN OF MEN) will be overlooked for beautiful but overblown cinematography (MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA and PAN'S LABYRINTH). if he is nominated it will be for ZODIAC, but i doubt the academy will recognize him this year. eventually, but only after he has been passed over for many brilliantly shot films.
the only nomination i can see happening is editing. pietro scalia does another wonderful job here. he proves once again that action scenes can have fast editing without having frantic editing (i am looking at you michael bay). the editing was very good, and could possibly win this year. it moved everything along nicely, even during very talky scenes.

i am sure all of you are going to have to see the film for yourself before you remove it from your best picture predictions. i hope everyone does go see it. like 3:10 TO YUMA, this is a thinking person's action film. i certainly hope this film does better than the western because if hollywood does not see a better return on this one they are going to stop financing smart films and keep making crap like TRANSFORMERS and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. even after you see it for yourself, you may still think it has a shot. i am not saying it would be a bad nominee for best picture, but the academy is not going to suddenly nominate another gangster film for best picture when they just saw a superior one the year before. everyone did fine work, but other than scalia no one is going to be nominated.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”