Should I see it?
Yes.
I have mixed feelings about this film. Ridley Scott is a workman who has dutifully made very dense, impressive films. His best movies (
Gladiator,
Black Hawk Down,
Thelma & Louise,
Blade Runner,
Alien) are strongly constructed and very direct. When he is on he is one of the most confident storytellers making movies today and I think that is his real appeal. These films don't wander, they choose their path and he mines the narrative for all it's worth. This, and his heroes tend to be blue collar in their thinking and manner. This outing is a little different. He seems less secure in his story and the whole film suffers from a lack of focus.
The film tells the story of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), a drug dealing crime boss who in the 1970's began funneling heroin from Vietnam to the United States. This was done by bribing military men to do his smuggling for him. Working against Lucas is Det. Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), an incorruptable cop with a failing marriage and a ex-partner who overdosed on Lucas' product. A third branch of the film comes from the horribly corrupt police department fronted by the threatening Detective Trupo (Josh Brolin). Everything is there to make one heck of a story, multi-dimensional characters, strong motives, a grand scale. Scott missteps however in his choice of focus. He concentrates on Lucas' part of the story. While this means we get an opportunity to watch Washington dig his teeth into a meaty role (something not as common as it should be) it also means we are cheering on the bad guy. Lucas is the hero of the story, Roberts (the real hero) is cast as the villain. Do not understand, Roberts isn't portrayed as evil, he's actually quite sympathetic, he is the villain when we look at the narrative's structure. Since Roberts isn't a real bad guy, Scott is forced to drag in the corrupt cops and Dect. Trupo to play this role. This makes the narrative a little cockeyed and other areas suffer for it. First, Robert's failing marriage becomes a unconnected distraction to the rest of the story. This could have been a meaningful and rich area but it comes across as shoehorned since the topic is only visited instead of explored due to time constraints. Moreover, Lucas and Roberts as men are not as deeply investigated as they should be because so much time needs to be spent jumping from one avenue of the story to the next. ***SPOILER*** By the end of the film, Lucas is caught and imprisoned. He turns on his hard won business, and it is noted that Roberts eventually defends the man in court. This remarkable turnaround mentioned in passing before the final credits is confusing because there is nothing in the film that hints that this would ever happen. A shocking turn like this should be born out by the nature of the character, there is little in the actual film to explain what happened in real life after the story drops off.
Overall, the film is a good watch but it fails to be a great film. The awkward script asks too much of the audience and despite the wonderful scene work and strong performances, the film fails to deliver as much as it could. It's better than most but still faulty.
Cautions: There's tons of violence, drug use and swearing.
Worldview: The following of the criminal instead of the cop doesn't make this a bad movie. It is obvious that a criminal can make an effective hero (
Godfather II leaps to mind). There needs to be a coming to Jesus moment however. The criminal needs to acknowledge his deeds, to be held to account. This film has this scene in the end, but it feels flat due to a lack of depth. Lucas is shown to be a criminal but he's not often shown to be acting criminally. He kills a man on screen but this man is a competing thug who is clearly menacing him. It comes off as more of self-defense even though he murders the man in cold blood. Since Lucas' crimes are watered down to make him more appealing, the power of his confession loses much of it's punch. This final conversation is a gentle twack upside the head of the audience alerting them that while we have been on the side of the criminal, what he is doing is indeed evil. This film doesn't come out in favor of murder and selling drugs. But it doesn't necessarily clearly condemn it either. When we look at the film's portrayal of almost all cops as being on the take and shown to be more villainous than the drug dealers the movie's finale is morally muddled and therefore misleading.
Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
Fallen (1998)
Deja Vu (2006)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Creative Loafing
Screen It! Labels: cops, Denzil Washington, drugs, film, mob, movie review, Russell Crowe
1 Comments:
I agree but not fully. (No surprises there, right?)
I think that Lucas's thuggery is brought out quite well by the demonstration for his family of just what it is that he really does when he confronts the man on the sidewalk. We also see that he knows deep down that he is not a good guy, someone to emulate, when he is troubled by his nephew (?) saying that he wants to quit baseball and join the family business. By contrast we are shown the messy life of the good guy. He does not have a "nice family life" like Lucas does but by dealing only in truth he becomes someone to respect, especially when he realizes the truth about himself during the divorce proceedings. Our whole family felt the case for both sides was powerfully put.
Post a Comment
<< Home