Not the best of Denzel, Russell, or Ridley

Rating: 5/10 (16 November 2007)

I love director Ridley Scott, but this was not my favourite from him. I love Denzel Washington, but I felt that this was not his best film. I love Russell Crowe, but this wasn't a juicy role for him. I love gangster films, but this was not my favourite.
So what can I say about a film that sometimes looks like a Harlem Sopranos, or has cliché TV announcer exposition through the early 70s. What stands out in this film that makes it unique? The story of Frank Lucas is kind of well known. Denzel is great in the role. Crowe is almost exactly in the era and location to be Serpico. No car chases, but otherwise has a "French Connection" quality to it (including a key scene). Did Ridley Scott want to de-emphasise production style for pedestrian docudrama? Did this movie not try hard enough to show a unique view of a well worn genre?
I say.. guilty. Although competent acting gives this a positive rating from me, I can't recommend it for much else. Therein lies another drawback, the 2 1/2 hour running time. Something I believe is unjustified for - once again - lack of depth, in what we are supposed to feel for all involved. When Michael Mann makes a 2 1/2 hour movie ("Heat", "Insider" with Crowe), I am drawn in through the third act. Here, it was not gripping me.
So go for the stars, but don't expect to feel much pull into the material.