Good, but not as brilliant as some would have us believe...

Rating: Null/10 (7 April 2008)

Ridley Scott's crime opus is a real slow-burner that starts a little shakily as it struggles to introduce the central characters in a way that doesn't confuse the viewer, and proceeds to tell its epic story at a stately pace that defies both genre conventions and present-day trends. There is no doubting the quality of the product here, there's no doubting the fact that it is a relatively big and important film, and yet there's still that nagging feeling that it isn't really as good as it could have been
Denzel Washington wins more screen time than co-star Russell Crowe and quite frankly acts Crowe off the screen. Ten years in the States and Crowe still has trouble concealing that antipodean twang when he's playing an American. While Crowe fights against his accent, Washington fights against his nice guy persona. Presumably he was chosen for this role because of that charisma  it adds depth to a bad guy when he's also a nice guy  but for some reason he just doesn't convince as this urbane businessman capable of shocking acts of brutality; his dark side simply fails to convince, and his violent outbursts too often seem too much at odds with his usual calm demeanour.
Despite these niggles, as you would expect , the film is extremely well made. Scott could make a decent film out of the shoddiest of material, and with a cast like this one you just know you're in for some quality performances. Certainly, the acting and visual style outshine the plot which  despite being based on true events  is straight out of the Warner Bros. Big Book of Gangster Stories © 1937. We are never in any doubt as to how the film will end, and it is to Scott's and writer Steven Zaillian's credit that we're still willing to stick with it to the end credits anyway.