American Gangster

While most famous directors in this age are making films solely for their own entertainment, Ridley Scott comes up with a work of such incredible awareness and craft that it’s essentially unbelievable. Two and a half hours of the essence of scorching filmmaking that will sweep you away with its unique ode to the time period, perfectly written and superbly acted parts, and, last but not least, the naturalistic violence that a proper gangster cannot do without. Scott extracts the essentials from Scorsese, De Palma, and Mann, but remains incredibly his own, i.e., a self-assured filmmaker with a unique authorial imprint that will be indelibly etched in the viewer's mind forever. There is no point in sparing superlatives here. Believe me, they’ll get Oscars for editing, cinematography, and directing! Edit: The absence (albeit!) of nominations in these categories is the American Film Academy’s greatest crime since the beginning of the new century! Shove the Oscars up your ass! (03/11/2007)

Impressed by its high ratings and aware that it was one of the most acclaimed films of last year, I expected an exceptional experience that did not materialize, though this is not to say it was a bad film. However, many gangster epics have been produced in the United States, and Ridley Scott's film does not rank among the very best. My favorites remain the older films by Scorsese and Coppola. Ridley Scott adds perhaps only racial issues and the trauma of the Vietnam War to the classic gangster theme. The first half of the film moves at a slow pace, and Russell Crowe seemed quite unremarkable to me. Most of the scenes felt familiar, as if I had seen them somewhere before, and they could have been shot with a bit more atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is a high-budget blockbuster, skillfully edited, with excellent music and good actors. Overall impression: 75%. (10/02/2008)

It's been a couple of months since the release in cinemas and I still can't quite grasp the genius of this opus. Right after the premiere, I got carried away by the enthusiastic applause for the result, but over time, all that remained in my head was the traditionally stunning Crowe (unlike Washington, who must always play at full capacity, Denzel has a role written in such a way that he comes out as a king in any case) and Scott's precise direction, without which the film would collapse several floors down. However, I also have a problem with him not offering me a scene that would go down in history, and if I don't have to aim so high, at least something smaller like a stylish shootout. But that is missing and paradoxically, one of Zaillian's most proclaimed scripts is to blame for that. The lack of black and white between the two main characters, which causes the absence of a villain. The evil gaze is involuntarily directed at the generalized group of "corrupt cops", and despite apparent objectivity, Scott takes us where he wants us to be, and I have to be a little disappointed because this is not how I imagined Ridley's pivotal work in his career at all. I understand the global acclaim, but despite many positives, I'm not joining in. (11/01/2008)

Another contribution to the family of top-notch mafia flicks. The first half is a little protracted and boring, but the second half makes up for it. Denzel Washington steals the show, forcing Russell Crowe into the sidekick role. The new Scorsese (The Departed) was more superficial, but stronger in details and with sharper edges. Scott is slower and less flashy, but also more harmonic and easy to follow. The kings of the genres for me are still Coppola (The Godfather) De Palma (Scarface) and old Scorsese (Goodfellas). (20/12/2007)

An excellent, atmospheric gangster movie. Perfect directing from Ridley Scott, excellent acting performances from Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe is further enhanced by an excellent screenplay. And Josh Brolin made a really good impression on me; he’s appearing in better and better roles these days. (05/03/2008)