Review: American Gangster

Today there will be several posts for movies, since I've not really had much time to post the past few weeks. I seem to be on a gangster stretch at the moment, so I decided to post these all together. Interestingly enough, they are all very different sorts of movies. We'll start with this one because... well, it starts with A. Yeah, it was an arbitrary decision :)

So here you go: American Gangster.

This is based on real events in 1970s New York. The movie is set as parallel stories of Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts. Lucas is a drug dealer in 1970s Harlem rising to power through heroin sales, and Roberts is the detective on a task force to bring down dealers in the States, with Lucas leading their list of targets.

Honestly, this movie wasn't quite what I expected. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but I was definitely expecting more cat-and-mouse scenes, and (honestly) more violence. It was actually pretty mild in terms of gangster-movie violence. Amazing how a trailer can spin a movie so differently, isn't it?

I was kinda mixed on this movie. I liked it, but at the same time... The cast is very solid. Both leads are very good in their roles (Denzel & Russell Crowe - what would you expect?) And Josh Brolin as the crooked cop (well, one of them) was spot-on. But somehow, the movie overall didn't leave as big an impression as other gangster movies I've seen. Nothing "new," I guess - there are just so many rise-and-fall pictures that have been made, I think, that it almost seemed a little formulaic. I did like, though, that it was a new cast of characters. I'd never heard of Frank Lucas before, and in the 60s and 70s, he was more influential than the Mafia in New York. His seized assets (according to the movie) were over $250 million. Yet you haven't really heard of him! Makes you want to go read more (always a good sign for me - means the characters are believable, interesting, intriguing, and worth delving into further).

It was a long movie, but I don't think Ridley Scott has made a short movie. For the most part, it didn't feel too long though. The times when I felt it was dragging were the scenes dealing with Roberts' divorce. I know, I know - "character development," and it did balance nicely against Lucas' scenes with all his family and new wife and everything. However, it just seemed... extra to me, just not as necessary. The overall theme of the movie was corruption - Roberts was one of the few honest cops in New York at the time, Lucas even dealt with corruption within his own organization. Just a thought from a movie buff, but those "extra" little scenes could have been trimmed, giving a tighter, more streamlined movie about corruption and power, set within the framework of Lucas and Roberts' story. But that's just my little two cents.

I really liked the historical touches on this movie. Ridley Scott is good with that (Gladiator, remember?) With a time frame so recent, it's always easy to have historical touches in costuming, but this movie definitely gives you the nice gritty feel of the New York of the period. The soundtrack is great, full of contemporary hits. And as far as history goes, apparently Hollywood didn't need to embellish as much as they do with other movies - actually kept things pretty close to the truth. Roberts and Lucas were both consultants on the movie, so I guess that helps keep it more true-to-life. Check out this history professor's comments on the movie. Interesting stuff! More trivia from imdb, some of the extras in the scenes in Asia were actually involved in Lucas' organization! I love these little tidbits :)

Overall: 4.5 of 5. It was a good movie, and I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a great movie. Could have been more, I guess. Definitely worth the time though. Good acting, interesting story (especially when you consider it really happened), and lots of nice historical accuracies make it a good watch.