Saturday, November 3, 2007
American Gangster
I liked this movie, though it was not exactly what I was looking for when I went in. I was expecting an action flick, but what I got was a biopic. It was good, mind you. It had all thetrappings of the "big" movie. Two huge stars in the leads, Denzell Washington and Russell Crowe, and lots of names in the supporting cast, RZA, Common, TI, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Ruby Dee, Armand Assante. And it was good. Not great, but good. I am not sure what it was trying to tell us about the life of Frank Lucas. I don't know if they were saying it was a good thing or not. He was clearly a ruthless fellow, which has a bit of visceral appeal to me, but is obviously not a good thing when it means walking out onto the street and shooting a rival gang leader in the head in front of a bunch of other people walking around. It was almost Machiavellian. I liked watching the actors doing their thing. I think Common is one of my favorite scenery pieces, though he was almost non-existent in this movie. I really like the sound of TI's voice and enjoyed his lines. I am a bit stunned by the story that was told, placing it in terms of reality, and "based on a true story". But there was not really enough there to make me love it. But it was good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
When you say it was almost "Machiavellian," do you mean it encouraged ends-justify-the-means thinking?
How would you differentiate between that and "be all you can be" thinking (which is not exactly the opposite of "be true to yourself" thinking, if ambition is what you're all about,no)?
American gangster, American dream?
I guess it is about ends-justify-the-means, but I also think it is about ruthlessness. And I think the difference is in the way that your ideals intereact with other people. In Lions, the idea was to commit yourself toward the furthering of a "good" idea, or cause, something that affects the greater community. Here, he commits himself to the furthering of his own cause, something that benefits primarily himself (leaving aside the idea of trickle down economics). I think that is a significant difference.
Post a Comment