American Gangster (Ridley Scott, 2007)

[flyonthewall2983]

why, Why, WHY would people read scripts before the films come out?

[Antoine Doinel]

Yeah, I don't get it either. It's certainly something I don't do, and I generally try and keep most info about movies I anticipate greatly to a minimum.

But Universal and Paramount Vantage are largely making these scripts available for Oscar consideration and a downloadable PDF is much easier to make available to voters than sending them each a copy.

[souvenir]

Meh, I was letdown by this film. It moves okay for over 2 1/2 hours, but we've seen everything before. There's no human element here and the glorification of Washington's character is unforgivable. Trying to focus on both the main characters is a mistake and makes for a messy movie that lacks gravity and often defies explanation. Despite the length, the film and, specifically, its characterizations, feel incomplete.

My expectations were probably too high, but it's really just above average and nowhere near great or that substantial even.

[Oedipax]

Yeah, pretty underwhelming stuff. Clearly it wanted to have some greater significance, with the typical parallels and reversals: the gangster as embodiment of Capitalism; the hazy line between cop and criminal; the dubious 'progress' of a black man surpassing the white mafia at drug sales; the whole Vietnam debacle as Lucas's vehicle for heroin distribution, etc.

The script takes a long time to do very little in the end - most of the characters still end up feeling exceedingly one-dimensional. The style is really just perfunctory, and this strikes me as some of the least exceptional cinematography Harris Savides has ever done. This film could've been shot by any competent Hollywood DP; I have no idea what drew Savides to this project or why Ridley Scott felt he needed him.

[Luke M]

I agree with both of you Oedipax and souvenir. I was underwhelmed. Denzel is usually great but his performance here was nothing special.

[Magic Hate Ball]

why, Why, WHY would people read scripts before the films come out?

It depends on the person and the film. I enjoy doing it; I read the Darjeeling Limited script five months before the movie came out, and it was still endlessly delighting, if just for the fact that I got to see what was added or subtracted and how they handled the material. I read Margot At The Wedding just a couple weeks ago, and look forward to it, despite the casting of Jack Black, who I loathe with incredible energy.

[moviefan]

I agree with both of you Oedipax and souvenir. I was underwhelmed. Denzel is usually great but his performance here was nothing special.

I was a little disappointed by the film. The trailer got me excited to see the film, but overall it wasn't as great as I thought it would be. American Gangster is missing what The Godfather trilogy, Scarface, and many other long length movies have. I don't notice the passage of time with those films.

The French Connection is a better film in my opinion.

[filmnoir1]

Finally saw this last night after much prodding by others who claim it is a masterpiece, or an instant classic, or even more egregious, best picture of the year material.
This film felt tired and lacked any real punch or narrative coherence that made me want to follow these characters. I did not feel as if there was any type of development in either the characters of Richie or Frank Lucas. Furthermore I would argue that the film spends too much time trying to recreate or emulate the films of the 1970s like Serpico, Across 110th Street, French Connection and countless others. What those films could do was use the narrative to comment on political and social issues within America culture at large. However, in Scott's film he simply uses the device of the television and news footage of Vietnam, Johnson and Nixon to mark the passage of time, while also attempting to comment on the current war situation and feeling of crisis in the country.
In addition to these comments I must say that I was deeply underwhelmed by Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe in this film. It felt more as if they were simply going through the motions rather than trying to even bring life to this film with their performances.
My last thought or question is why do we need a movie like this today. What does it say about America that we continue to make films that endorse racial prejudice and the marginilization of groups of people simply to make a buck? And this is a film constructed to make money, lots and lots of money without regard for its subject or how it might effect other people.

[HerrSchreck]

To those whove seen this film--

How does Denzel's character play? Every bigtime reviewer (especially on tv.. the real dicky guys like on NBC who every middle american family mom will hear) I've heard talk about this film makes it a point to repeat this same line that is beginning to sound canned:

"..and the film deserves credit for not glamorizing Washington's character,"

which is beginning to sound like a pr offensive passed down by the studio to the networks to counter the charge that they know the film is most vulnerable to.. which is that the character is absolutely being glamorized.

It's very tough to put any character up on giant screens in the guise of one of our most charismatic stars all at once across the whole globe with a gabillion dollar ad campaign, and have him NOT be glamorized. That's just the nature of cinema. No matter what steps you take to signal "do NOT like this bad bad man, he's NOT a role model", the more some folks are going to take to him.

[Antoine Doinel]

Though I haven't seen the film yet, I think it's safe to say the Washington's character has been at least immortalized thanks to Jay-Z's new album that is inspired by the film and is garnering its own fair share of critical acclaim.

To me, what makes films like these successful more often than not are the fact that the "bad bad men" do lead somewhat glamorous lifestyles. I think that is definitely part of the allure of the gangster: money, power, women etc at your whim. It's what makes the Corleone family and Scarface such enduring myths in our cinematic knowledge. They may not have always been noble people but there is a strange attraction to capitalism and ambition taken to its most extreme degree, especially by society's underdogs.

[Mr Sausage]

To me, what makes films like these successful more often than not are the fact that the "bad bad men" do lead somewhat glamorous lifestyles. I think that is definitely part of the allure of the gangster: money, power, women etc at your whim. It's what makes the Corleone family and Scarface such enduring myths in our cinematic knowledge. They may not have always been noble people but there is a strange attraction to capitalism and ambition taken to its most extreme degree, especially by society's underdogs.

This is exactly why I consider Scarface a failure: its attempt to portray the life of a despicable weasel is continually undermined by its need to turn him into a heroic myth of virility.

I'll stick with the Long Good Friday.

[Cold Bishop]

In fact, I think more often than not, most films of this type fail because of this. The "strange attraction to capitalism and ambition taken to its most extreme degree, especially by society's underdogs" is all the more reason these people shouldn't be glamorized. They're capitalists gone terribly wrong.

[Antoine Doinel]

I will be the first to agree it's a fine line to tread (and I'll also be the first to agree that Scarface is a terrible movie), but is a hustler on the street really all that different from the guys in the White House?

"Glamorization" all depends on who is watching and where they are watching from.

[HerrSchreck]

In fact, I think more often than not, most films of this type fail because of this. The "strange attraction to capitalism and ambition taken to its most extreme degree, especially by society's underdogs" is all the more reason these people shouldn't be glamorized. They're capitalists gone terribly wrong.

Far bbe it from me to tell anyone that they're "wrong", but I think you're wrong.

Tehy're not capitalists gone terribly wrong. They're "capitalists without permission," and in americas carefully calibrated world of compartmentalized Crucial Relationships, and access to neccessary power, and the kind of system that puts (and keeps ) a dude like Bush inna White House-- people will always respond to tales about guys who leap over that whole disgusting mess and chose a more violent, spiteful, and angry means that is (in the films at least) a simpler and more direct means of making it.

[Andre Jurieu]

To me, what makes films like these successful more often than not are the fact that the "bad bad men" do lead somewhat glamorous lifestyles. I think that is definitely part of the allure of the gangster: money, power, women etc at your whim. It's what makes the Corleone family and Scarface such enduring myths in our cinematic knowledge. They may not have always been noble people but there is a strange attraction to capitalism and ambition taken to its most extreme degree, especially by society's underdogs.

This is exactly why I consider Scarface a failure: its attempt to portray the life of a despicable weasel is continually undermined by its need to turn him into a heroic myth of virility.

I actually enjoy how Scarface unapologetically embraces the vile nature of the gangster. It seems to be in perfect harmony with the film's obsession with excess. DePalma might not be as accomplished or as thoughtful as Goodfellas - where Scorsese destroys the mystique of the gangster using the very same techniques he earlier applied in an effort to seduce the viewer and draw our attention to the enticing characteristics of the lifestyle - but Scarface never pretends to be anything it isn't. Stone and DePalma clearly love Tony and his abrasive attitude and they don't ever really judge him, instead choosing to simply recognize that his behavior will eventually be snuffed out. DePalma is so over-the-top with everything he does within the film that it starts to become painfully obvious that the film is fantasy and has little to do with reality (though I will admit that's probably not how it's perceived by 99.9% of its rabid cult of fans).

The problem with American Gangster is that it does pretend to be imparting a moral stance upon its audience by giving us a few obligatory concessions that Frank Lucas's actions are causing distress upon society. Yet, these handful of scenes (I can actually only think of 2 or 3, including the "thanksgiving montage") are a drop compared to the inherent respect that the film has for Lucas within every frame, even when Washington isn't on screen. I don't think the film glamorizes Lucas in the same overtly gaudy method that has almost become accepted within films like Scarface and crap like Ted Demme's Blow, but it almost does something more reprehensible by allowing Lucas an endless supply of reverence and admiration at how he lives his life in such a respectful manner, unlike his flashy competitors.

Plus, the ending feels like a total mess since it's incredibly hasty in its conclusion. The camaraderie between Roberts and Lucas is so rushed that it feels hollow.

The problem with American Gangster is that it's competent filmmaking without any real soul, so it simply feels generic and bland.

[Awesome Welles]

Ridley Scott's real life crime drama attempts to be a sweeping saga of the infamous Harlem mobster Frank Lucas, spanning at least five years or more but with a running time of 160 minutes the film manages to give the feeling of very little passage of time. What one would assume attempts to be a sprawling gangster story akin to something like The Godfather fails on many levels. Attempting to follow the lives of Lucas and Ritchie Roberts, the cop investigating him, this duality which seems to want to evoke the similarities between the pair, the thin divide between gangster and cop, in a story full of corrupt cops, this would have been an interesting theme to explore but Roberts is nothing more than an old cliche and the characterisation of Lucas seems mixed. The film opens with a shot of Lucas, emphasizing his uncompromising gangster attitude, one capable of grotesque inflictions on another man, this early characterisation seems deliberately forced and a quick way of establishing his persona, for a film of this length it seems hardly necessary as Scott has the time to nurture his characters and develop them as they grow around the unfolding events. Scott also presents Lucas as a family man and with a heart beneath his cold exterior, and this is given, literally, through a pat the dog scene, which leaves a sickly feeling in its wake. The most powerful scenes involving Lucas are those with his mother, giving a real sense of his character and his past, how it has shaped the man, but this is left frustratingly thin and underexplored. For the presentation of Lucas as a cold gangster Washington's performance only comes off as bland and this is perhaps the fault more of the script which feels like a first draft. Similarly the cliched Ritchie is attempted to be given depth and history through a few scenes but again with so little time devoted to this it comes off as cliched and in the grand scheme of the story unneccesary. It seems that Scott is attempting to cram too much into this film and would perhaps have benefited from being a lengthy television project. No doubt we will see a revised Director's cut soon. Disappointing.

[akaten]

Haven't seen the film but I noticed in one of the UK papers at the weekend (possibly Times on Sunday) which interviewed both Ridley Scott and Denzel Washington that the script had initially been set to be directed by Antoine Fuqua and star Benico Del Toro instead of Russell Crowe.

Now I don't know how much the script was changed when this initial project fell through, but it does make me wonder if American Gangster was planned as a sort of 70s themed Training Day, a "gangsta" procedural film with lucrative Jay Z merchandise thrown into the mix. Also peculiar is how Denzel mentioned with pride, how after the film production he bought Frank Lucas a new home, when he could have used that money to help recovering addicts or something.

Also it seems that Denzel Washington had with that first version a $30 million "pay or play" contract, meaning he received payment first time round simply for signing on the dotted line. Hollywood, bunch of crazies the lot of them!

[Antoine Doinel]

Actually the Fuqua version of the film was a month away from shooting when the studio pulled the plug due to budget concerns. Then they proceeded to pay BOTH Denzel Washington and Benicio Del Toro their salaries as they both had pay or play contracts.

[akaten]

Actually the Fuqua version of the film was a month away from shooting when the studio pulled the plug due to budget concerns. Then they proceeded to pay BOTH Denzel Washington and Benicio Del Toro their salaries as they both had pay or play contracts.

Yes, Benico Del Toro received $5 million basically for signing on the dotted line. Now maybe both stars did research and preparation work, or cleared schedules but is that really worth millions? Perhaps it could be suggested that as he was axed from such a high profile film it is a form of conpensation.

I was just focusing on how ludicrous the entire situation is, how even by the excessive and wasteful standards of Hollywood, these inflated amounts being handed out are utterly insane.

[Antoine Doinel]

Ludicrous? Yes. Suprising? No.

[portnoy]

Saw this last night. I'm lazy so I'll just copy/paste an e-mail I sent to my friend about it:

American Gangster. Hm. I mean, It's a Ridley Scott movie - he's not an incompetent storyteller, the cinematography is nicely murky/cloudy (Harris Savides channeling Conrad Hall), most of the performances are fine (always good seeing Chiwetel, Ruby Dee, John Hawkes - though Josh Brolin is like something out of a Michael Dudikoff movie and Cuba Gooding Jr is an embarrassment), etc. etc. The movie is bloated as shit, though - I don't care about Russell Crowe's personal life, I don't care about his wife (Carla Gugino, in a bed-shittingly shrill performance), his friend or his partner. In the 1930s, this movie would've been 95 minutes long and you probably wouldn't have lost anything meaningful, as far as narrative, theme, or character.

There are at least two astonishing brainfarts: a throwaway character anachronistically projects latter-day criticism of the gentrification of Harlem onto the late 1960s and one montage intercuts between Denzel and his family celebrating a Rockwellesque Thanksgiving and anonymous heroin junkies shooting up/wasting away. If I hadn't been on a date in a crowded theater, I probably would've howled with laughter at the latter.

[Matt]

Yes, Benico Del Toro received $5 million basically for signing on the dotted line. Now maybe both stars did research and preparation work, or cleared schedules but is that really worth millions? Perhaps it could be suggested that as he was axed from such a high profile film it is a form of compensation.

I was just focusing on how ludicrous the entire situation is, how even by the excessive and wasteful standards of Hollywood, these inflated amounts being handed out are utterly insane.

I won't defend the amounts involved, but pay-or-play deals do make a certain amount of sense. When an actor signs a contract, he essentially forgoes any other projects that could be made in the same time period as the film he's contracted for. If that film fails to get made (not uncommon in Hollywood), the actor has at least been compensated for having had to turn down other projects that might have been made. When you consider that most mainstream movies get greenlit and their budgets set on the basis of what actors are attached to the film, I think pay-or-play contracts for actors are a reasonable expectation. I understand that that is not your complaint, but I'm offering unsolicited comment nonetheless.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Just saw it. Incredible, held me from beginning to end. Perhaps it's because I've just started to understand Catcher In The Rye's multiple layers of symbolism and allusions, but it seemed like American Gangster was surprisingly subtle and complex, with rich characters and compelling plot points. For example, the moment the coat was brought out, I knew his character well enough to know exactly what he thought, why, and how he would respond to it, which made the boxing match sequence that much more interesting.

I disliked the lack of a defenite beginning or end; in a sense, it opens on one in a hundred little sequences and kind of ends on a random note; it feels unstructured and messy at both ends, but in the middle it's solid as a rock. Anyways, it goes right up into my top five.

Of course, I'm very dumb, so what the hell do I know.

[Antoine Doinel]

No doubt we will see a revised Director's cut soon.

Yep, it's coming. 20 mintues longer.

[Macintosh]

Anyways, it goes right up into my top five.

Of course, I'm very dumb, so what the hell do I know.

You can't possibly be that dumb for realizing this =D>