It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Blistering performances.

Ridley Scott does like to tackle a variety of genres and topics, from classic sci-fi to religious epics. Now he has put the eternal battle for drug enforcement under his belt also. I'm just waiting for him to tackle the important subject of fluffy unicorns that shoot rainbows...Hollywood, make it happen. Based on the true story, gangster Frank Lucas monopolises the drug trafficking scene in New York City. Making both friends and enemies. Hot behind his tail though is detective Richie Roberts who is cracking down on the city's drug war. How do you make such a formulaic film so compelling you might ask? You bring in the big acting guns. Oh yes! Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. Washington in particular gives a commanding performance where he owns every scene. Whether it be a calm demeanour or full on rage mode, you don't mess with Frank Lucas. Crowe is absolutely fine, but feels completely underpowered when comparing to Washington's performance. It's not his fault, he is just up against a powerhouse. Supporting cast, again, just didn't make much of an impact. The story was involving for the most part, felt very realistic. Fantastic drug heist shootout during the third act. Scott's artistic flair makes even the most basic of scenes look exciting. The biggest negative, and is unfortunately a massive deal, is the first hour. It is such a drag and is completely uninteresting. It's either too quick or too slow, never perfectly balanced. Stuff happens to which I just don't care. As soon as Roberts is on Lucas' case is when the film gets going. Also the personal aspects to Roberts' life does not develop him as a character and feel unnecessary. It's a long runtime and it does feel like it occasionally, but once the plot gets going it is rather engrossing and does host one of Washington's better performances. I could listen to him say "My Man!" everyday.

American Gangster (2007) This is a biographical crime film based on the criminal career of Frank Lucas, who smuggled heroin into the United States on American service planes returning from the Vietnam War. It has an all star cast including Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, Josh Brolin, Norman Reedus and Cuba Gooding Jr. Many portrayed have stated that the film took a lot of creative license with the story. It was well received by audiences and was nominated for twenty-one awards, including two Academy Award nominations. It really was an excellent film. Fine work by all involved. It is regarded as one of the best gangster movies of the modern era.

If one were to focus strictly on plot/story when evaluating this film, it would easily receive five stars. Whether it be the U.S. military flying drugs out of Asia, the corruption of U.S. cops, or the almost surreal life of mobster Frank Lucas, all those real-life accounts are riveting, making one question how such things could possibly happen in our great country.Yet, as portrayed in this film, those stories became quite overextended or overblown, as a result making this film seem like a documentary instead of real life-inspired drama. True, I did watch the Extended Edition, but I am confident that the 18-minute less Theatrical Edition would have improved things only slightly. The film moves along at a snails pace, which while probably necessary in order to portray all the complex emotions of the movie, still may make the viewer feel as though this is a marathon viewing.Also, the acting in this film is pretty toned down as well. I'm not sure if this was because that was just what the real-life people were like, but either way it was underwhelming. The cool, intense Denzel Washington only comes out in glimpses, which is a shame in a movie that features so much of him. Only Russell Crowe's character shows great character development, and even that is not up to the standards of most dramas.To conclude, then, this film was likely the best it possibly could have been...but still doesn't translate into compelling drama. The complex drug storyline is very interesting, but the movie's extremely long run time and mellow acting will often make you feel as if you have been watching forever.

Pros: Interesting story and strong performance by Denzel. Cons: Predictable. A few directing and acting flaws.In the tradition of Blow (2001), here is a real American Hero...America has been glorifying gangsters way before hip hop and gangster rap, way before television "The Sopranos" (1999), hit movies Scarface (1983) and Goodfellas (1990). Guns and seemingly limitless funds (read "fun") were an end and a mean (by a mean I refer to both the demeanor and misdemeanor, and I mean by any means necessary) before the Godfather (1972) et al. had every prototypical Italian American and his neighbour imitate Brando, Pacino, De Niro or Pesci ad nauseum and quote lines of gangster movies like people used to quote Shakespeare. The American Dream, before "American Idol " (2002) produced prefab Pop Stars, was of an entrepreneurial spirit realistically closer to the original spirits-bootlegging Scarface than say an arguably antisocial, enigmatic, Bill Gates. America's gun culture endures. Thus the title of the movie alone, alas, says a lot about the American subconscious. This may even go beyond the United States boundaries as Hollywood and U.S. influence on the world culture is still very powerful--in Japan, you have the Yakuzas… From Bonnie and Clyde (1967) to American Gangster (2007), movies about money and violence has been very popular. For example, there is a clear preponderance of high ratings for such movies in the Internal Movie Database – IMDb, the most popular movie website in America and on the planet. At the time of this original article (Nov 2007), four out of the five overall best- rated movies in the TOP 250 out of hundreds of thousands are of that kind! In this rendition of the gangster movie genre which focuses on a clever, ruthless 'black man' in Harlem's 1960s who builds a drug empire, the glorifying is not overt, yet it is not really made in a way that you will realistically root for the "good cop" instead of the "bad a*s villain". The movie has depth in content in that it deals with connected racial tension and government involvement in corruption and drug trafficking. A big angle to the tale is that bypassing regular drug channel and getting the product straight from the source in Far-East Asia with the help of the US Army in Vietnam, this 'black man' or nig*r (America's subclass or worse than nothing) was able to overshadow even the Italian Mafia's chokehold on organized crime, which unsettled more than a few people from both sides of the law. Also, the systematic corruption in New York law-enforcement agencies that permitted the fight on drug trafficking to be very lax as well as these state employees actually profiting from this decadence in the streets, was brought to light and to life quite vividly. In this picture, Denzel dazzles and is a great villain in his portrayal of Frank Lucas, although not to the degree of his Oscar- worthy Training Day (2001) performance. He gets a chance to shine occasionally and more so towards the end, but the script and directing did not allow him to show his full arsenal on celluloid. Russell Crowe plays a cop again (L.A. Confidential, 1997) and is as subdued as his character. What I did not like is that the subplot of his personal life, although maybe interesting on paper and a worthy contrast to add complexity and not fall into black-and-white territory, did not really work and detracted instead of enhanced the picture. These were the only parts that really felt long and underused out of the otherwise well-paced 157 minutes. Carla Gugino did not really hit the mark as the wife, but it seemed to me that it was more of a storytelling mishap out of Ridley Scott's directing. He should have handled it differently to have a better impact or not use it at all and maybe spend more time on Frank Lucas' personal or "professional" life. Besides this little lack of character development that can be seen for pretty much most of the characters, the film is a good story, well told and well placed into the context of the time and place of the narrative. The conclusion wraps everything up nicely. Thank you, come again.