American Gangster: No more than a 6 out of 10

Cafe Society
1

Warning: The following topic contains spoilers for American Gangster.

I finally saw American Gangster two nights ago and I thought it was good, but I thought there were enough weak elements to keep it from being great.

A few of the things that bothered me:

The supporting actors did a much better job than the leads, IMO. Frank’s wife and mother were both good, as was Frank’s . . . butler? - the guy who plays Henry on Eureka - who was that character, anyway? Denzel was just Denzel. I didn’t hear a hint of the southern accent he suposedly did research on. He seemed to be playing the exact same role he plays in every movie. Russel Crowe was decent (better than Denzel IMO) but nothing special.

The movie was filled with fluff that could’ve been cut, seemingly just to make it more “epic.” There’s a notion that definitely exists among my friends these days - probably in Hollywood as well - that a movie has to be over 2 and a half hours to be considered great. American Gangster was filled with whole pointless storylines; Russel Crowe’s character didn’t even have a son in real life, so that storyline was utterly useless. The Cuba Gooding, Jr. storyline added nothing to the movie and had no resolution. There were countless unneeded scenes peppered throughout - one I recall in particular was Russel Crowe developing film. Painfully extraneous.

The dialogue and writing in general was bad in places. Two parts stood out as so cliche I almost laughed. One was when Lucas got up from the table and shot the guy in broad daylight, then returned to the table, tucked his napkin back into his collar and said, “Now what was I saying?” I could’ve mouthed those words right along with him if I’d thought I was watching a lower caliber movie. The other part was when the wife said, “If you leave now Frank might let you live.” Straight out of an old action movie or - these days - a parody of one.

I don’t like the aggrandizing of gangsters, and in particular how they changed the facts to do it in this movie, but I know most people don’t mind so it’s a small and personal complaint.

Despite all this I somehow managed not to hate the movie, so they did something right. Six out of 10 is pretty fair, I think. Not bad, but not the film I was expecting after all the hype.

2

Six out of ten is about what I’d give it, too. Not a bad movie, but not especially great either. I think it may have been shooting for an Oscar in a very crowded field.

3

I enjoyed the film. It has a great cast and a good story. I agree the Cuba Gooding Jr. storyline is superfluous, and the movie did seem cliché at times. It’s an entertaining movie. I give it 7.5 out of ten. I hope fractions are allowed in movie reviews. :smiley:

4

I was hoping for a glimmer of genius from someone in there. Denzel Washington, Russel Crowe, and Ridley Scott are certainly each capable of really doing something special on the screen, but in the end they all just did a decent, pat job.

I think that ultimately, the script was flawed. Russel Crowe’s character was a straight shooter from the first scene to the last–he never developed any. Denzel Washington’s character they tried to portray as having done something great and respectable by giving witness against everyone, but it ended up seeming more like he did it because “why the heck not”? It wasn’t like he had a hope of getting free otherwise nor of being able to rebuild his business anytime soon. So again, the character never really developed. He started as a guy who was decently intelligent and willing to do what it took to get what he wanted if it seemed possible, and never veered from that.

I’d be fine to watch it again, but I’m not going to be searching down the DVD.

5

I thought it was bad, but there were enough strong elements to keep it from being terrible.

This was possibly the most cliched movie I’ve ever seen. Lines of dialog like you cite, “now, what was I saying” and “there’s a line around the block”. Every scene, if you couldn’t place it in another movie exactly, you got the feeling you’d seen it before.

The costumes, the facial hair, the soundtrack, the interiors. . .all of it felt old.

There were at least 3 separate montages. . .including one right out of Scarface, with money being sorted to a hip soundtrack to indicate that the drug operating is growing.

Do we really need to see naked ladies cutting the drugs in another movie?

Can we finally start to admit that Denzel is NOT a good actor? He’s Denzel, and that’s great, but he’s no better an actor then Tom Cruise, Richard Gere, or Kevin Costner, who do what they do, and do it well, but they’re not acting.

He’s not even Bruce Willis.

So, basically, this was probably as bad a movie as Ridley Scott, Russel Crowe, and Denzel can make. It’s still watchable, kind of cool in places, but this was untimately totally forgettable. Not as good as Scarface, not as good as Godfather, not as good as Goodfellas, not as good as Serpico, not even as good as Carlitto’s Way or Donnie Brasco.

6

Is that supposed to be a criticism? Are you complaining that a movie scene effectively evokes the time period in which it’s set?

It’s not a matter of “admitting” something, it’s a matter of opinion. I think he’s a great actor.

Agreed about the script, though; should have been trimmed to a nice tight 100 minutes. Riddley Scott is a brilliant visual director, but doesn’t know a good script from a bad one.

7

No, I’m complaining that it’s all been done before. There are ways to do period pieces that don’t look like you just plundered the sets of movies that did it before you. There was nothing creative or new about the look.

I’ll say this: He’s enjoyable to watch. He’s got a great face, a great voice. When he first hit, you were thinking, “oh, this guy is great.”

But, now, I’m starting to ask: what’s he ever done that isn’t just ram-rod straight, all business, Mr. Dignity Denzel? His “Big Move” is flashing that great smile to throw you off balance. When has he ever done a varied vocal performance, or any kind of off-note physical performance?

It’s even the same performance in “Training Day”. The words just happen to be more sinister.

Agreed.

8

I almost forgot - it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it but wasn’t the “Amazing Grace” montage very derivative of the montage at the end of the Godfather? I know I’ve more or less seen that montage before; as soon as the church doors opened and I heard the music I knew what was happening.

9

If I remember correctly, there was

  1. A “growing the business” montage. Counting money. Drug shipments. Wild parties, etc.

  2. A “drugs are bad” montage. Dead junkies, needles going into veins, etc. This might have been the Amazing Grace one.

  3. An “arresting all the bad guys” montage. Cop cars pulling up, bad guys running, etc.

Some of these are running together in my mind. It’s possible there was even a 4th one, perhaps one with a lot of dead bodies?

10

Amazing Grace was the arresting all the bad guys one. It reminded me of the “round up” at the end of the Godfather where they shoot everybody.

11

It’s unfair to judge him by his worst films.

His performance in “Hurricane” was, IMHO, the best performance an actor has ever committed to screen. Watch it more than once. On the surface is what appears to be the Denzel bluster, but his character is changing and growing underneath his bravado. And it’s a dyamic arc with two radical turns. He changes, and then he changes again. It’s a marvelous, marvelous work.

12

By my count, I’ve seen 21 different movies that Denzel had been him.

I’m judging him by his body of work. I keep waiting for him to do something else, to take a risk with a role.

Hurricane was a role that was suited to Denzel’s strengths.

Think about guys like Di Caprio and Brad Pitt. They open themselves up to ridicule and criticism when they take on new accents, new personas, odd mannerisms.

Last 4 Di Caprio roles that come to mind. . .Gangs of New York, Aviator, Departed, Blood Diamond. There’s not a thing in common in those roles. It’s not that Denzel doesn’t give a good performance, but you could take a character from any of his movies, drop him into any other Denzel movie and not miss a beat. Could you say that about those Di Caprio roles? About Tom Hank’s roles?

Sorry about the Denzel hijack. I think that AG really just cemented in what I’d been thinking about him for a while. I really thought I’d see something more from him for once.

13

But it’s ridiculous to simplify good acting to accents and other affectations. Yes, some people are able to pull that off well, but the reality is that Denzel is not gonna be offered many of those roles. How many period movies are you gonna be able to convincingly cast a well-known American Black actor in? Im not saying we should cry for Denzel, but the range of roles Tom Hanks would be cast for is much larger than Denzel. Denzel isn’t gonna play Howard Hughes or anyone on the Titanic, he’s gonna play Frank Lucus, or Malcolm X.

Yes, but I don’t think anyone denies that DiCaprio is a great actor. But even he often goes back to roles where he is the debonair heart throb who trades on his good looks. It has less do to with his acting, and more to do with who he is. Same with Denzel. Honestly, if you can’t appreciate his performances in movies like Cry Freedom, Glory, Philadelphia, The Hurricane, Malcolm X, or Training Day, then I don’t know what to say. They are just as rich and varied as almost any other great actor.

14

I think he did a great job in Branagh’s ‘Much Ado about Nothing’. Even surrounded by these phenomenal actors (I’m not counting K. Reaves, of course) he stood out, and, to me, he didn’t seem to be Denzel, he was Don ( I forget, John?)

I have to agree that this script, movie, etc… was pretty bland, cliche, tepid.
If he gets a good script, I think he is great, vs. DeNiro (name out of a hat) who is always DeNiro.

15

They seemed to accordion time too much, as said above there were the montages. The part where the cop and the criminal team up would have made for an interesting film in and of itself but it was only a minute or two of screen time.
I thought the baddie-cop should have been more evil, had a better exit.

16

I couldn’t get over the fact that a lot of it was just false. Now it’s a damn sight better movie than the Departed (imho) but it’s nowhere near a movie like Goodfellas or even Casino. The fact that it claims to be accurate or at least based on real-life events moves it away from being classified as fiction a la the Godfather. Some parts of it were good but a lot of it was forced. In reality, he was mostly a stooge for the Gambino crime family and he was chased by a number of agencies (though in fairness a lot of movies ignore this point).

Still better than the Departed though!