Review of American Gangster

More Gangs of New York

American Gangster is one of those films that takes great risk in treading where many feet have already. Any gangster film produced these days has been preceded by a number of capable predecessors: The Godfather films, Goodfellas, The Departed, etc. In fact, the latter of those won best picture at the Oscars just last year, and for good reason. That's the problem I have with American Gangster, really; it doesn't do anything new, and it doesn't do anything better.

The film opens on Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), and we quickly learn that he, at least in regard to his police work, is an uncannily honest man; he gives nearly a million dollars, in cash, over to his precinct even in the midst of an extremely corrupt and criminal police arena. It's acts like these that prompt the FBI to use him for an investigation of unrest taking place in the drug economy of New York.

The kingpin of this new economy is rising star, Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). He's a family man, just trying to do well by them, but also a criminal terribly interested in clarifying his power to the surrounding gangs. He buys his family a house, he shoots people who don't pay him money. He's a conflicted individual.

Apparently, this is a historical story, and Frank Lucas actually existed. So I wouldn't be spoiling much by telling you that Lucas gets in way over his head, and Richie Roberts finds out exactly who's figured out a way to get cheaper, purer heroin into the US from Thailand.

Quite honestly, as interesting as the story could be at points, it was a typical good guy/bad guy film. Russell Crowe did a great job acting out the eccentricities of his honest cop/bad father character (throughout the film, Roberts is enduring a custody battle over his son), though the side story was really unnecessary in the script. Denzel plays the crazy gangster about as well as he can be played, though I really think the strength is not in his acting, but in the good dialogue construction in the script. To me, he was Denzel playing a Denzel part. Russell Crowe impressed me with his vulnerability, but Washington couldn't impress me at all. Of all the acting in the film, however, I found myself most impressed with that of Josh Brolin, playing a small part as an extremely vicious Special Investigations Unit officer, but who made Washington and Crowe look like background ornaments in every scene he spoke in.

I don't know what it is about Ridley Scott's direction, but I always feel as though something is missing. The film is competent, sure, but nothing is visually or otherwise communicated that clarifies or is outside of the story. The direction seems not just without strength but as though its being completely led by the nose. The script is decent, but honestly needed a stronger hand to bring it to its potential. The predictability of the script could have been saved by some ballsier direction, in my opinion.

Additionally, as I said before, this film just doesn't offer anything new, and in a genre so plagued with genius in so many of its films. The story seems to be a rehash, at least plotwise, of so many other stories out there. The direction is boring, the acting decent, and the writing somewhat bland, except for the occasional piece of dialogue. However, don't get me wrong; this film is, if nothing else, competent. But competence doesn't equal greatness, and that's the thought I'm left with for this film.

Posted on 12/29/07 by: chrisrayn 03:10 AM