Why glorify a drug-lord?

Rating: 7/10 (3 November 2007)

This film has all the ingredients for a spectacular project; Interesting story,big actors,good budget but it just doesn't utilise these ingredients effectively. The story is epic, a progressive look at a man's rise and fall in the drug world, with settings from the slums of Harlem to the jungles of Vietnam. There are moments of excitement but very few, and the whole theme is too formulaic, echoing films like 'Blow' and the 'Godfather'. Drawing on the synopsis, you could make an accurate prediction of all the main events in the film. The 'Frank Lucas' character seems to mirror Pacino's 'Corleone', as the 'family man','the silent introvert thinker' and 'the calm gangster prone to the occasional act of extreme violence'. In addition, although Washington pulls a great performance, he fails to portray Lucas. Lucas was a violent drug-lord who killed thousands with his product, and still boasts his deeds to this day(youtube.com). Washington portrays an ethical figure with strong family values trying to live the 'american dream' while corrupt cops and gangsters try to stop him. In reality, he should be classified in the same category as the other scum in the film, since his actions were just as, if not more, unsavoury. In my opinion, 'Frank Lucas' is not portrayed in this film, Denzel plays himself and it's difficult to hate a sincere, well spoken, handsome gentleman. Denzel doesn't even put on the strong southern accent which Lucas has. If this film was not based on a real character, then I would rate it as a mediocre gangster movie elevated by grand performances from the front men. But since Washington is supposed to portray an arrogant, vulgar drug-lord, my valuation is lower. In the future, it would be no surprise if films depicting Hitler as the misunderstood leader, or Charles Manson as a fallen icon, are released.