Review of American Gangster (2007) by Cameron J — 18 Jul 2012

"American gangster, stay away from me; American gangster, mama let me be!" I'm sorry, but I just had to do that, especially seeing as how that song seems to be just white enough to fit this film. Granted, it's a film with a funk, soul and, at the end, hip-hop soundtrack, as well as a plot about a black crime boss in Harlem, but where the final product slips up as a black film is in its having Denzel Washington, the whitest black man in the entertainment industry, star as said crime boss, whose name is, of all things, Frank Lucas, one of the whitest names that I've heard in a while. Well, this film's failure to be all that black certainly wasn't helped by the fact that it is written by Steven Zaillian, co-stars Russell Crowe and is directed by Ridley Scott. Poor Ridley Scott wishes that he was American so bad that he actually made a black gangster film with "American" in the title, but the poor man has spent too much time in the UK, where what handful of black people there are seem to be about as white as Denzel Washington. Still, Scott's very UK approach to this subject matter isn't the only thing that he messes up on when it comes to fulfilling this film's high potential. Man, thank goodness he's such a good producer and always gets such good people attached to his projects, because he's too workmanlike of a director, to where this film wouldn't hit as well as it does if it didn't have such other great compensating talents, and certainly to where this film doesn't hit as hard as it should, even with such other great compensating talents.

Ridley Scott, while certainly no poor filmmaker, is a heavily flawed director, with some of his most destructive common missteps being found within the pacing of many of his films, as the man will often get to be an absolute mess when it comes to pacing, so I'm really saying a lot when I deem this film one the most messily paced efforts on Scott's filmography, or at least the early acts are. The development segment of the film is all over the place, doing the exact opposite of what it should be doing by settling in meditating upon expendable material before it hops up and takes off, glossing over significant pieces of early exposition in an almost incompetent fashion, thus leaving you to fail at getting a firm early grip on the story and characters, and with the film's freneticism in those moments being so exhausting, it's only a matter of time before the film also leaves you to fall out entirely, and when we're dealing with the hook to a two-and-a-half-hour, or in the case of the uncut version, nearly three-hour character study - woah boy -, that is really something that you [b][u]"can't do, Ridley!"[/u][/b] Sure, after a while, the film finds its pace, yet has still taken too much damage from the problematic development segment, and even when the film does get a tighter grip on its structure, it still gets to be messy, sometimes continuing to hurry through certain pieces of later exposition, while still finding time to pad things out with yet more expendable material. As for Scott's handling of the film's two-lead structure, it also gets to be hardly graceful, as Scott will spend, well, "relatively" too much time focusing on one side of the story over the other, thus convoluting the film's focus and damaging character flesh-out even further. Still, what might overwhelm the film's atmosphere the most is simply Scott's overbearingness as storyteller, as he plagues this film, like he has many others, with too much ambition and not enough restraint, thus leaving the final product's exposition diluted, the engagement value shaken and the overall resonance tainted. I wouldn't say that Ridley Scott is the Eric Bana of directors, in that he has good taste but no talent to back that up, yet Scott's worthy ambitions and commendable productions deserve better than what he can provide as a director, and this film is further testament to that, being that it is nothing if not promising, yet still too faulty when it comes to something as key as concept execution. However, as I've said time and again, Ridley Scott is not a bad or even mediocre director, just workmanlike, and while that's still not good enough for many of his film make it out without more than a few fatal flaws, it still means that he leaves plenty of room for the much stronger other key aspects to prevail, and sure enough, while this film leaves much to be desired, it really rewards with the help of what strong aspects there are, and boy, are there plenty of strong aspects in this film.

Harris Savides is as sharp as he always is as Ridley Scott's cinematographer, drenching the film in a handsome darkness in lighting and color, not to where he taints the film with a relentless bleakness, but to where he really absorbs a lot of grit from the substance and, at times, even tension when hairs begin to raise. What further absorbs a lot of life from the substance are such smaller things as the imperfect (I was digging on the funk and soul before they brought in hip-hop for the credits; ladies and gentlemen, the history of the black mainstream music industry, as dramatized by Ridley Scott), yet generally strong soundtrack that helps in setting the tone of the film in some spots, and does so with the help of the sometimes overbearing yet generally also strong and texturing score, while the technical value stands as yet another small strength that makes a huge difference in the long run, for although much of the editing gets to be too frenetic, to the point of exacerbating much of the inorganic flow in Ridley Scott's storytelling, the editing remains cleverly tight, giving the film a kind of intriguing intensity, made all the stronger by clever sound design that helps in immersing you in this world. As for the great Steven Zaillian's screenplay, it is admittedly not without a few shortcomings for Ridley Scott to intensify in his execution, from some of the aforementioned structural missteps and even some borderline profound unsubtleties in a few characters (Ooh, Josh Brolin shot a dog, he must be the bad guy) yet on the whole, Zaillian's script boasts many a snappy line, and is fairly well-structured and cleverly complex, with unique touches and slick tricks that may not be given the treatment they deserve when it comes to execution, yet still generally cut through just enough to earn enough of your attention in the story, and it certainly helps that this film tells, well, just a plain awesome story. Sure, the film's worthy concept faults much too much in execution (Thanks a lot, Scott; rhyme intended), yet the fact of the matter is that the story is a worthy one, enough so that it gives this film enough immediate intrigue to keep you sticking with it, especially with its being carried quite a ways by the colorful cast, from which standouts emerge, whether it be the in-and-out yet commendable John Ortiz as the corrupt junkie cop, or the charming performers of Frank Lucas' messy but moral rags-to-ritches family members, or, of course, our leads. Co-leading man Russell Crowe steals the show whenever he graces the screen, as always, not only delivering dialogue like a champ while really playing up a seamless and elaborate New York accent without even a wince, but capturing the atmosphere of Detective Richie Roberts (Man, his parents were jerks) as a firm man of justice, yet one with his own glaring flaws, and watching Crowe become this person is an enthralling experience that may not have enough material at its back to really knock you out, yet still offers further proof of Russell Crowe's being among the great actors of today. As for the man on the other side of the law and story, Frank Lucas is shockingly and almost criminally with limited layers as a character, yet Denzel Washington manages to transcend that for the most part, for although he's not doing too much more than playing Denzel Washington, he stills absorbs enough depth and essence from Frank Lucas in his interpretation of the notorious crime boss, giving him a kind of unpredictability as an intelligent and dangerous man, yet still gracing him with a kind of humanity that furthers both the unpredictability and compellingness in our co-lead. Both lead performers deliver as sharply as you would hope they would as individuals, and as their charismas clash, whether they be in the same scene or playing cat-and-mouse from entirely different spots, they create an engrossing chemistry that gives this film even more energy, and while I wish I could say that this chemistry, the performers behind it and that the other strengths are enough for this film to transcend the mistakes made by Ridley Scott, as director, for the most part, the film is engaging in its being so well-concieved, for although the film might not haved impressed me as sharply as its impressed others, it's hard to not be won over by the final product.

Overall, Ridley Scott once again lets high potential down with uneven storytelling that really pronounces the limited exposition and over-elongation of the film, and with Scott adding insult to injury by drenching the film in a kind of overbearing overambition that taints its resonance and engagement value, the final product emerges as yet another victim of Ridley Scott's potential-squandering, yet not to where it doesn't go saved by the strong team behind Scott, as gritty cinematography and generally sharp technical value set immediate intrigue, really brought to life by Steven Zaillian's mostly well-structured screenplay, as well as by a myriad of colorful performances, the most effective of which being by Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington, both of whom establish both gripping individual charisma and an intense chemistry that really breathes life into this two-man tale, thus leaving "American Gangster" to stand as a generally worthwhile gangster farce, even if Ridley Scott once again stands to deliver much more.

3/5 - Good.