After reading a review on the new movie, “American Gangster”, by Roger Ebert, it obvious that our views on the movie are similar. This movie is set back in the Vietnam War; the director (Ridley Scott) does a great job with set designs and costumes to make it clear at what time the story takes place. The director also places within the movie some shots of the war which adds to the realism. The main actors both did a stellar job as the critic points out. Russell Crowe plays the lead detective and Denzel Washington plays Frank Lucas, the main drug liaison.
As Ebert points out it is in Denzel’s calm demeanor and “Brooks Brother’s” image that he is not suspected right away. On top of this, his ethnicity (being African American) aids in the cover up of him taking over the Harlem drug trade form the Mafia. Also he is not as obvious as a gangster, because he is not wearing modern day “bling.” Just as the reviewer states, “...Denzel Washington is in another one of those performances where he is affable and smooth on the outside, yet ruthless enough to set an enemy on fire” (Ebert, 1). Ebert then goes further to point out that while he is a gangster he still has class.
Roger Ebert points out something about the female lead that I really agree with. Too often we have women playing the same roles over and over again in the movies. In this particular movie it is the image of the wife forcing the husband to choose between his job and his family. This is seen in many modern films of today, be it Lord of War or The God Father. Which is way Ebert says, “But that doesn’t save us from the stock female character who are becoming increasingly tiresome in the movies” (1) and also “Their obligatory scenes together are recycled from a dozen or a hundred other plots” (1). As the critic points put, “Roberts’ domestic crisis is not what the movie is about” (1). This part of the movie felt like a filler. Furthermore, it was hard to feel empathetic, since this image keeps getting recycled.
I must agree with the critic when he stated that the ending of the movie was surprising. With your typical or comparable movies the end is a huge blow out. “The film ends not with a ‘Scarface’ style shot out, but with Frank and Richie sitting down for a long intelligent conversation” (2). This ending seemed refreshing, especially after some of the roles (as mentioned above) were tiresome.
The last thing I noticed was the critic never commented on the length of the movie. I found that some scenes had been dragged on and that it could have been cut down. Overall, he hit the nail on the head with his review. In the future, I would read more of Roger Ebert’s reviews, it seems like he knows what he is talking about.
As Ebert points out it is in Denzel’s calm demeanor and “Brooks Brother’s” image that he is not suspected right away. On top of this, his ethnicity (being African American) aids in the cover up of him taking over the Harlem drug trade form the Mafia. Also he is not as obvious as a gangster, because he is not wearing modern day “bling.” Just as the reviewer states, “...Denzel Washington is in another one of those performances where he is affable and smooth on the outside, yet ruthless enough to set an enemy on fire” (Ebert, 1). Ebert then goes further to point out that while he is a gangster he still has class.
Roger Ebert points out something about the female lead that I really agree with. Too often we have women playing the same roles over and over again in the movies. In this particular movie it is the image of the wife forcing the husband to choose between his job and his family. This is seen in many modern films of today, be it Lord of War or The God Father. Which is way Ebert says, “But that doesn’t save us from the stock female character who are becoming increasingly tiresome in the movies” (1) and also “Their obligatory scenes together are recycled from a dozen or a hundred other plots” (1). As the critic points put, “Roberts’ domestic crisis is not what the movie is about” (1). This part of the movie felt like a filler. Furthermore, it was hard to feel empathetic, since this image keeps getting recycled.
I must agree with the critic when he stated that the ending of the movie was surprising. With your typical or comparable movies the end is a huge blow out. “The film ends not with a ‘Scarface’ style shot out, but with Frank and Richie sitting down for a long intelligent conversation” (2). This ending seemed refreshing, especially after some of the roles (as mentioned above) were tiresome.
The last thing I noticed was the critic never commented on the length of the movie. I found that some scenes had been dragged on and that it could have been cut down. Overall, he hit the nail on the head with his review. In the future, I would read more of Roger Ebert’s reviews, it seems like he knows what he is talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment