WiselyFilmedGuys

Rating: Null/10 (19 November 2007)

I'm a Sir Ridley fan. The man is top tier film-making. He long ago mastered the ultimate trick, how to create distinct film worlds and render spatial relationships within them. His two brooding sci-fi epics were the pinnacle. Twenty-five years later, we still can't stop talking about them. And while everything he's done since then has ranged in quality from almost-as-good to the shockingly irrelevant, there's always been something noteworthy about each effort. This one's merely good, but that means it's still better than most of what I've seen this year.
When we observe it in the context of genre it's as exemplary as any other film of its kind. Of course it looks spectacular in how unspectacular it makes everything appear; it paces itself well, always moves with confidence; is full of good performers in good performances. The problem is that it has no soul. This time Scott seems content to internalize his selected genre instead of busting out. At the end I was satisfied but not deeply moved or exhilarated.
"Gladiator" was exhilarating, at least as far as its action mattered. For better or worse, it popularized the fast-cranked discontinuous flow of modern movie action. I admit I was slow in coming around to it. Then "Kingdom of Heaven" did the same thing but with a much better screenplay. "Matchstick Men" played some havoc with its tired conman formula and redefined my expectations for that experience. But this one uses an old play book and never breaks step. Also, Scott usually has a knack for paring his material to the bare essentials so I was dismayed to find annoying clutter like the useless subplot about the Crowe character's marriage problems. And the cop-crook personality contrasts, meant to comprise a theme about similar-yet-dissimilar personalities met in conflict, didn't compel me in any way.
But the story gains something extra if seen as a sort-of sequel to a 1997 gangster movie you may or may not remember, "Hoodlum." That one was set in the 1930s and had the great Laurence Fishburne as Harlem racketeer "Bumpy" Johnson, who appears briefly in the first act of this as the Washington character's dying mentor (interestingly enough, played here by an actor who was an antagonist in the earlier film). Look at both movies together and you'll see a singular idea segueing from the first to the next -- that black criminals in this country could only gain a substantial foothold in the world of crime-as-free enterprise through its evolving currents, whereby they could commit to the same ruthless ethics as their white counterparts. Johnson was cowed by the white mob but somehow garnered a folk hero image from those he commanded, always while living in the shadow of those he enforced for. Frank Lucas was able to break away from that white-dominated system, even though he was still a hot-headed thug whose business destroyed many lives. All of this seems to be equated as differing circumstances of the day along with Lucas being more clever in his thinking, having more bravado, and maybe less scruples. Both pictures are heavily fictionalized and the first one isn't nearly as accomplished, yet Scott seems to emphasize some kind of unity by using the same combination of music ("Amazing Grace") and setting (a church) for his ending, as "Hoodlum" did.
And yet there was hardly a moment I wasn't entertained. Even if he doesn't hit the same high marks every time, Scott always delivers something worth your investment because of the way he can think about scenes, storyboard them, mature them, shoot them, and then combine it all and throw it to you with a motivating cinematic idea at its core. His effort equates to some degree of achievement every time. Now contrast that with how things might have panned out if Antoine Fuqua hadn't been fired. He's from a younger generation, has always emphasized an admiration for Scorsese (particularly "GoodFellas") and word has it he wanted to hold up production long enough for Ray Liotta's participation in this. Well, Fuqua's no great talent (remember he made that lousy "King Arthur") and we would very likely have been left with a pallid Marty imitation, right from the fan boy handbook.
But rejoice. Instead we've gotten something just as good as real Scorsese, although still governed by many of the laws of crime film convention. How rewarding then that the plot itself doesn't matter too much.
I mean, just look at the climax Scott builds at the end of this film (when Crowe and his narcotics agents crack down on the public projects) and how there is not one element in that sequence that isn't anchored in a specific, advanced visual principle. Similar to what Pixar repeatedly accomplishes. From the composition to the editing, the resulting rhythm is that of another character who co-opts our stance as audience and as participant, anticipating the action most of the time as we do but still able to surprise us. It is as good as anything in "The Departed."
The man is always pushing. And the fact that he consistently instills such singular visions into these big commercial projects is even more reason to value him.
Blake's rating: 3 (out of 4)