the story never carried the weight of trafficking such a heavy load

Rating: 5/10 (26 March 2001)

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Blow is a silly name for what should be a serious movie about a man's life in the drug trade; yet the title fits not because it is Ha-Ha funny but because the movie is incongruous and superficial for the most part.
The abbreviated bookends of George's life with his parents and his own `kid' do not offer the insight needed to understand George; what should be explanations are merely exposes of what happened. We never see George in want; even when his father is forced to bankruptcy, George is well groomed and neatly dressed; yet, it is the desire to avoid being poor that is neatly but merely verbalized as his motivation. Who is fooling who here?

George's biggest childhood problem is his father's unstable relationship with his mother, emphasized when his father pleads `not in front of the boy.' George, although he is meant to have grown up possessing the parental love of his father's tenderness, only duplicates his father's poor choice in a marriage partner. Unfortunately, the father's love is wasted on George in subtle ways. When he first returns, George is called `our son' by the loving father; later, George is emotionally disowned when announced as `your son' to his mother (even though it is the mother who has turns him in). When George refers to his own daughter it is with the perfunctory "not in front of the (generic) kid." What attempts to foster a father-child relationship is just one birthday anniversary after another...no wonder the kid wanted to have nothing to do with her father. His efforts at love were superficial at best; only too late does he learn `it's not the money;' which is most unfortunate in that he had a father enlightened enough to teach that valuable truth that it is about the love...and keeping yourself available to provide that love, rather than in a prison cell or strung out on drugs or away at work in another part of the world.
Unrealistic drug trafficking scenes cause the empty void of the movie. Only way into the 2nd hour do daily problems in the real world: jealousy, competition, back stabbing, emotional instability, communication errors, miscues, etc. seem to show up... too little too late. It all seemed too simple, too nice, too well put together... too unbelievable. For example, with a half dozen revolvers drawn point blank on him, George is hit in the shoulder by a solitary shot. Weren't any of those other drug traffickers trigger happy?
It was almost as if emotion was drained from the story. By rapidly addressing Barbara's condition, a frank opportunity to intensify disloyalty just slips by. Even the simple phrase "I want a Dad at home," would have been more painful than the kid's "What do you want from me?" when George tries to reclaim his position as father.
Despite these story faults, there is simple entertainment value in BLOW. Although Depp does not convince me of anything except his inherited but profound poor choosing of a marital mate, he is always interesting to watch. Liotta is the best, especially in his quiet hurt over his son; Griffiths as his wife is a bit much; how did he put up with her? Barbara is too empty to be taken serious and it is too weak a role for Potente; Mirtha's range, especially her wrath, cannot be covered by Cruz even though her turning on George is one of the most emotional scenes. I would have reversed the Potente and Cruz characters. Cruz exudes support and affection, her sweet voice dampens intentional anger. Rubens is most entertaining as the gay distributor. Only Derek looks like he ever inhaled, again well into the story after the betrayal.
The body of the story, the actual drug trafficking is made to look interesting, if you are a new viewer to these things. But the execution scene, the gun barrel in the mouth, the apartment overloaded with money, the constant sampling of product have all been done better when seen through more realistic eyes. That's the problem with BLOW, it looks as if the characters were never really involved in the drug trade, they might as well have been inhaling sugar powder as they never really looked the part and the story never carried the weight of trafficking such a heavy load.

Who is fooling who here? BLOW seems to turn out to be more about boasting than about cocaine. But what would you expect from a director who needs to tell you with a sub-title that it is the 70's. If you cannot create that feel from all the distinctive dress, hairstyle, manners, speech, and music of that time, you can't expect to tell one of the prime stories of that period without blowing it!