I don't care if a movie has anything intelligent to say! As long as it holds my attention for two hours in some glorified candyland... great!!!

It's interesting that three of the biggest whitewash/character assassination "true" stories of the last decade have all been produced by Brian Grazer (A BEAUTIFUL MIND, CINDERELLA MAN, AMERICAN GANGSTER). Good movies all, and never let the truth get in the way of a good story, blah blah blah... Still, I feel like Richie Roberts and especially Max Baher deserved better.

Someone needs to tell these people that IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE! Real life tends to be boring and less dramatic, so of course they added things for dramatic effect. No shit... that's why it's BASED on a true story, not claiming to be an exact retelling of a true story.

American Gangster is a well-made but average film. Nothing about it felt "great". Not the acting, the script, the story. I totally forgot that Grazer was the producer. It really shows.

It's basically Zodiac's antithesis. Both cover a similar time period, even use the same cinematographer. But whereas one was as truthful to the facts as possible and almost detrimental in its lack of traditional dramatics, the other is a full-on Hollywood embellishment played for melodrama.

Saw this movie tonight, and I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone can be so blown away by it. It's certainly long, but it's missing the scope of a real epic; the action feels like it all occurred over a few weeks' time. And who gives a shit about Crowe's character's personal life? Okay, he's an honest cop in a dirty world--you could still show that and lose 20 minutes. Finding out afterwards that the whole custody battle was fabricated makes it even worse.

I don't recall any memorable scenes, moments, shots, lines, etc. It had the attention to detail of GoodFellas without Scorsese's kinetic drive, the family aspect of The Godfather without the operatic, truly tragic arc, and the badass gangsta attitude of Scarface without any of the actually entertaining cheap thrills. Worst of all, it seemed anonymously directed to me. Great that Ridley can move from genre to genre with ease, but would you ever have guessed who made the film if you didn't know beforehand?

This isn't a bad film by any means, but award-worthy? Not for anything I can see. The whole thing was just rather generic, and I had a more exciting time reading the New York Magazine article that inspired the film ("The Return of Superfly").

I don't know, I think it matters that the movie turns a bonafide bad guy (Lucas) into a charming movie-star guy lacking in motivation but full of badassery, plus he more or less wins in the end. In contrast I watched Black Caesar with Fred Williamson last night and that's a movie that ends the right way: with the gangster beaten to death in a slum by teenagers.

I like Warner Herzog's take on this long contested debate:

"Something filled with millions of facts does not necessarily speak to a higher truth...The New York phone directory is filled with facts, but it doesn't speak to a deeper truth."

Good point, but not one that really is relevant to this movie, unfortunately.

Just saw A.G.. It's a mixed bag. The second half is much better than the first half. One thing that bothered me? It was filled with wobbly accents. Crowe was not consistent in his Noo Yawk accent. And what idiot thought it was smart to cast Carla Gugino and Kadee Strickland as New Yorker women? Frankly, I've never found Denzel less interesting than in this role. Man, I don't know who could have played the part better, but I bet, somewhere out there, there's an African American actor who could have sold this street personality better than Denzel. Okay, I know I'm being contrarian, but I agree, Zodiac was a far more impressive film. This is an epic crime drama that fails to soar.

The article seems to suggest that most of the film is false. Apparently Lucas himself said its about 20% accurate. The History Channel documentary also paints a different story. The real life Lucas in the doc seems nothing at all like Denzel's character. I also find it ironic that most of the critics have been complaining about the Crowe storyline w/ his custody battle and it turns out the guy never even had any kids!

I also thought it was a very good but not a great film. Major events occur in the last half-hour or so and seemed rushed and glossed over, especially after Lucas is finally arrested.

I do think that there should be a line that filmakers should keep from crossing when calling something a true story and then changing history. "Beautiful Mind" comes to mind. "Hurrciane" also was problematic if you do a little research on Hurricane Carter. The evil police officer that framed Carter was completely made up (I think he was played by Dan Hedeya) and the evidence still seemed to suggest that Carter was the killer.

Denzel giving Lucas money for a home and a car is also a little sickening.

Distortions of fact in movies generally don't bother me. But I feel Richie Roberts' complaints go the heart of what's wrong with American Gangster. A "great" film could've been made about Frank Lucas, but this film squandered the opportunity.

It turns an illiterate, murderous thug into a suave, charming and even noble folk hero. Then it fictionalizes the life of the cop in order to puff up an equal, parallel role for a white star of equal stature. This worked wonders for the box office, but it was dramatically shaky as well as morally irresponsible because the cop's fictional domestic issues really don't compare to Lucas' empire building, criminal intrigues and murder.

I didn't buy the movie's simplistic schematic contrast of the noble cop/bad person vs the bad guy/noble man. It felt imposed for purely commercial reasons. The structure in itself prevented any kind of honest, deep exploration of character while also trivializing all the terrible things Lucas did. Now to find out the structure was built on lies...

The film is not only factually untrue but it has nothing honest to say about its true-life characters or the period in which it's set. Grazier and Scott mixed real names and a handful of facts with parts they assembled from other movies (Heat, Godfather, Serpico, Scarface) with an eye toward pushing the audience's buttons. And it succeeded. That's all it did. It is the most cynical kind of Hollywood manipulation and exploitation.

mutinyco>> When it comes to filmmaking, I've always supported drama/narrative at the expense of straight facts, but not so fast on your antithesis statement.

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/movie.htm

I haven't seen American Gangster yet, but the Zodiac comparison immediately came to mind. I still consider Zodiac my favorite film that I've seen so far this year, but I must admit that I was a little disappointed by some of the inaccuracies.

When the entire focus of a film is an unsolved mystery and the lengths to which it drives its characters, it seems like a bit of a cheat when the facts with which you are playing fast and loose run directly contrary to the unsolved nature of the real case. I didn't mind Graysmith's character in the film finding his closure by believing that Arthur Leigh Allen did it, but it seems like a disservice to take steps that would make it seem like the case against Leigh was stronger than it was.

Sounds like a little bit of media sensationalism to me. I was under the impression that Roberts consulted closely on the project - all the promo material has him on set nearly every day. Surely he couldn't have had that much of a problem with the film.

i so miss the realism of 'night & day', 'the jolson story', 'yankee doodle dandy', 'lady sings the blues', 'funny girl' and 'beau james'...... how on earth could bio-pics become the bs they are today????.....

I liked AG, but was a little bit disappointed to hear that the Roberts custody battle did slow things down but it might have made since if it was true. I wonder if Steven Zaillian might have been cribbing from his Schindler's List script with the man who was unfaithful in his marriage and was friendly with the enemy but had integrity with the big issues.
And it is easy to say that the artist should put the dramatic story first, but if someone was filming my life, I would not be thrilled with alterations to add a dark side.

jeffmcm: the guy who ruled harlem gets busted, rats out everyone in town and goes to prison and comes out almost ten years later with absolutely nothing and he "wins in the end?" what movie did you see?

If you watch the Nov 2 charlierose.com interviews everybody sets the record straight. The chinchilla coat, why Frank actually started cooperating w/ the prosecutor (Richie) who is now his attorney. Richie says in the interview he wasn't too pleased w/ Crowe's depiction of him. Thinks he came off too soft and Richie said he was tougher than that.

That's the way "based on a true story" movies are made. Most of it takes liberties, but I don't think the general audience cares.
Interesting that article talks about Lucas getting paid but doesn't say anything about Richie getting paid, which he says on Charlie Rose he did get paid.
And don't believe Denzel bought him a $500K house. Frank is an old guy 77 yo in a wheelchair, he's probably living in a very modest house somewhere in Jersey or the south. Who knows?

Another good source is that NYmag article that it's based on.
Come on if every "based on a true story" was really based on a true story, then it would be a documentary. BTW, there are several docu's out about Frank and Nicky Barnes - Mr. Untouchable, and they are very good.

"Just saw A.G.. It's a mixed bag. The second half is much better than the first half. One thing that bothered me? It was filled with wobbly accents. Crowe was not consistent in his Noo Yawk accent."

Me too, Crowe's Aussie accent was entangled w/ the NY accent. A little distracting.

And what idiot thought it was smart to cast Carla Gugino"

Gugino's role could have been played by any c-list actress.

"Frankly, I've never found Denzel less interesting than in this role. Man, I don't know who could have played the part better, "

No one could have played it better. Denzel was the first choice from the beginning, but the real Frank had a southern drawl and I kept trying to find a Black actor with a southern background and there is none.

I believe Frank as described by many people was a charmer, and that's where Denzel does come through with the charm.

"This is an epic crime drama that fails to soar. "

It's engaging, it's entertaining, it's based on two men who are still living (see the charlierose.com interview) which is very rare.

In the broadest sense I could care less about the "facts" as depicted in films. Sometimes artistic choices can be made where facts are ignored to the detriment of the film (the ludicrous "Fur" for exammple - just tell the Arbus story and it'd be better, stop thinking so much).

In the specific case of AG - there are a variety of artistic "choices" that hurt the film. The main one is not to explore that Lucas who saw himself as a revolutionary black figure skirted the issue of how his business killed his own people (the film touches on this but not enough).

It's a good film, with good performances. There's nothing great about it. It is indeed the anti-"Zodiac", that film took the events and turned it into a meditation on something ELSE; AG takes events and turn them into Gangster Movie Greatest Hits Volume 1.

This was a surprisingly underwhelming film that never ever got under the skin of Frank Lucas, who was rather one-note throughout the whole movie. There was little to play which is why Washington's performance fell back on his familiar mannerisms. I personally felt Don Cheadle would have been better for the role, as I never see him coast through performances as often as Denzel.

To find out the story about Roberts was made up makes it all the more frustrating that they wasted so much time on his custody hearings in the film. It was a supporting role blown up to co-lead to justufy casting Russell Crowe.

Was this movie about much of anything or it was it just a compilation of gangster movie moments done better in many other movies?

Like Orwell said, at fifty everyone has the face he deserves.

The same goes for health: money can't buy that.

Lucas is pathetic gimp in a wheelchair.
Roberts is standing tall.

People act as though filmmakers have a "responsibility" to accuracy. If that's the case make a documentary.

Producers have been rooting around newspapers since "The Producer" was invented for story ideas. Unfortunately, real life doesn't always offer the three-act structure and character arc movies require.

I also found a couple of holes in the Post story. If the studio paid Frank Lucas, doesn't it stand to reason that they paid Richie Roberts? And if so, and accuracy was an issue, why did he agree? Or, why not demand at the very least that his character be portrayed accurately?

Also, it's not unheard of for a film we all know is based on real people still living to change the characters' names: Casino, The French Connection... A small stink from Roberts and this probably could've been the case with AG (which I loved, btw).

As far as Denzel's Hurricane, that was just a plain bad film. The makers can blame bad press all they want for the Oscar snub, but it was a pendantic, predicatable bore. If you understand how the liberal mind works you knew exactly how that story was going to roll out before the opening credits ended. Which happens all too often these days.

Speaking of HURRICANE, does anyone remember that Rod Steiger played the same exact role in that and in CRAZY IN ALABAMA in the same year? I'm pretty sure he was just walking around in Judges' robes full time by then.

Some folks just can't handle the harsh realities...

now he has a reason to write his book correcting the movie.

Far as the NY phone book goes, if only I can remember the name of the blond I met at Onyx, I'd be calling her up and getting some deeper truth."

I really liked American Gangster, but it was definitely missing something... like it was just sort of going through the motions and never gave me that level-10 thrill feeling. It moved along at a solid 7 or 8, but never took it to the next level. It's hard to say why, exactly.

Note to Richie Roberts: If AG "whitewashes" Frank Lucas, after showing him to be a homicidal individual who victimizes his own community with an epidemic of death and who destroys his own family just in order to fulfill his own greed, how bad must the real dude be? Hitler bad? Pol Pot bad? Stalin bad? Cos he's kind of there already, based on the movie I saw...

Richie was a consultant for the film. He was there for some of the filming. He's never complained about any of it before and all of a sudden this comes up in the Fox/Murdoch-owned Post? Highly suspicious.