shortyrags

Tony Kaye offers a dramatic film in the form of American History X, on the topic of racism, presented through the marginalized perspectives of Neo-Nazi nationalists. The story centers upon a bright, intelligent man Derek Vinyard, played by Edward Norton, who unyieldingly displays his hate and disgust for other races. He and his group of friends repeatedly make life difficult for other races living in the area. Their actions finally climax when Derek goes too far and has to serve time in prison, leaving his younger brother, Danny Vinyard, played by Edward Furlong, to the will of the Neo-Nazi group. The story is powerful and features ups and downs in the characters that add an air of humanity to these otherwise inhumane Neo-Nazi racists. The characters, for the most part, are grotesque and in certain cases, utmost embodiments of our own insecurities towards different cultures and lifestyles, initiating inner turmoil sometimes. The film sometimes plays off these fears a little too much and does not offer them in a more objective and subtle way.

The film takes place in a surreal setting where there is constant conflict between differing races. The focus here is on tensions between the Neo-Nazis and African-Americans living in the same neighborhood, and at times the film tends to become a little one-sided. It feels like some of the targets of Derek's horrific actions are simply victims, when in the grand scheme of things, they likely harbor similar feelings towards Derek's group and commit similar actions in retribution. Moreover, Derek's transformation in prison is brushed over rather quickly and uses one or two powerful scenes to imply a lifetime of change. It doesn't really work honestly and the film loses a lot of its credibility there.

The acting here is decent with Edward Norton standing head and shoulders above the rest of the cast. Danny Vinyard, despite arguably being the main character, seems like he's missing in certain scenes when Norton simply takes over. Edward Furlong does look the part but he doesn't act the part extremely well. Having said that, he does a decent enough job to propel the film forward, even with his annoying monologues that lack any spirit. The rest of the cast does well with what its given with Ethan Suplee playing Derek's leach-like and terrifying friend. Even William Russ makes a strong guest appearance in a flashback sequence that explains many of the present scenarios.

The visual style is interesting here with color scenes meant to represent Derek's changed lifestyle in the present, and stark black-and-white shots used in flashback sequences to juxtapose the two races against one another. The idea, while pretty good on paper, ends up coming on a little too strong in the film, and does end up hurting the film, even though it tries to add depth. There are several haunting scenes here that the camera crew has taken from the script and captured well in film. The score is mostly two-sided, using dark and low notes for the past, and higher pitched notes to indicate a possible, brighter future. It works pretty well but like the difference in color and black-and-white, it sometimes goes for too much, especially towards the end of the film.

American History X is a film about racism that is meant to inspire disgust for those portrayed on screen but also perhaps in ourselves when we sometimes shelter similar feelings. The film is literally a little too black and white, offering little gray space between, on the topic of racism. Unfortunately, certain things aren't always as simple as the film makes them out to be and Derek's transformation is both too unrealistic and short. Edward Norton does an incredible job here but the rest of the cast members, with a few exceptions, suffer greatly, and consequently, so does the film. Overall, the film sends out a powerful message, using powerful camera shots and characters to deliver it to the audience. It is grisly and gritty at times, giving us an extreme and bitter taste of Neo-Nazi racism. However, the film has too many flaws in its execution for it to be considered a classic of 90's cinema.

Ain't no love in the Harlem city...so it goes with American Gangster, a film about the rise and fall of famed drug-lord, Frank Lucas, played by Denzel Washington and the turmoil of the cop, Detective Richie Roberts, played by Russell Crowe, assigned to his case. At heart, this is a film about gangsters and is Scott's attempt at making the African-American Goodfellas. While the premise and the performances dialed in are both strong, the film strolls along a little too casually, and slowly begins to wear down the viewer (and not in a good way).

American Gangster is naturally based upon true events, seeing as most films nowadays do require some external inspiration. Nonetheless, the premise and characters presented are not only good on paper but are fairly well executed in the film. The story moves up and down the locales of New York City and delves into criminal themes such as corruption, redemption, and revenge. Frank Lucas was written into the film with such a mystique, that is reminiscent of old gangster mob heads. With that said, the story feels like a rehash at times and the crew has simply changed the names of the characters. There is a certain lack of originality here. The chase against Lucas, led by Detective Richie Roberts, is the important counter story to Frank's. At times, the Roberts sequences can get boring and at times, it felt like the writers did not have enough material for Crowe to work with.

Having said that, both star actors turn in wonderful performances, marred only by their lack of originality. At times, I felt like I was watching Alonso from Training Day. I also felt that at times, I was watching Eliot Ness trying to catch Al Capone. Both actors are great and do what they can with the roles, but the characters have been seen so many times before and have been done so well before, that their performances aren't quite as powerful. There are great supporting performances such as the one by Josh Brolin, portraying the corrupt Detective Trupo. In terms of the cast, Scott and his crew pretty much nailed it with the rapper T.I. even getting some screen time.

The film does however, tend to drag at times. The ending is prolonged and could have been finished a lot faster. It felt like it was being stretched out just for the sake of it. There were some scenes that were just pointless and unnecessary. However, some scenes were brilliant such as the raid on Lucas' drug "plant." The music is a nice blend between urban and hip-hop culture effectively purveying the shifting music culture of New York City in the 70's. In fact, the film does a fairly good job of capturing the whole 70's New York City culture and it is visually and audibly astounding at times. There's not a lot of instrumental work here, which is a shame, but there was a lot to like about the music, anyways.

In the end, Ridley Scott creates a solid film about crime and drugs and the rise of African American drug-lords. The film, however, is not very original and it takes a lot of concepts from previous gangster films. The performances, while great, are similarly branded with this lack of originality and it just felt a little too much like the same rigmarole. To make me truly love this film, Scott had to make it a little more special than he did. As it is, the film is a little too run-of-the-mill. The film is certainly not bad; like I said, the film does a good job dealing with the element of criminality and the police trying to stop it. But there have been too many other gangster and crime dramas that have done better and more importantly, have stood out more as something special.

I won't start out this review by borrowing one of the terrible one-liners from 300, a film based upon the graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller. The film depicts the courageous efforts of King Leonidas and his 300 men at the Battle of Thermopylae as they attempt to halt the immense armies of the Persians. Sounds pretty good on paper and knowing it was based on Frank Miller's novel, I came in excited. I came out of the theater greatly disappointed and slightly angry. The film is of course, historically speaking, fairly inaccurate but it wasn't something I really minded. I did mind the multitude of corny and cheesy sequences and the horrible acting from Gerald Butler as King Leonidas. But the complaints just start there.

The film centers upon the events leading up to Battle of Thermopylae and the eventual stand-off itself. The battle sequences are actually well choreographed and highly stylized. The battles are rough and gritty, with some interesting slowdowns and speedups, and they add a little bit more to the otherwise bland, stale and predictable characters. The story is predictable and otherwise nonexistent when most of the time is spent with the Spartans yelling war cries. There are some plot holes that were particularly annoying and made it feel as if the writers had just gotten lazy or something. It didn't do justice to the novel. Moreover, I felt as if the film had been geared to a younger audience, with all of its blood and sophomoric speeches and grunts. Some of the scenes were honestly just painstaking to watch but the filmmakers obviously felt that a younger crowd might like that a little more.

The acting is just plain terrible. Prior to seeing the film, I was content that the cast was made up of relatively unknown actors. Well I wish that these guys would have learned to act as much as they learned to get buff. The characters created by the writers are already so dimwitted and indistinctive from one another; coupled with the acting, the film again suffers heavily. The score is forgettable and if anything, makes the battle sequences slightly better. The film, with its ghastly story and acting, offers little in substance and really ends up only having its artistic style to its name.

The film was undoubtedly geared toward a younger audience and consequently dumbed down. I wish they wouldn't have done that. The film could have still had its great aesthetic, graphic design without being cheesy and boring. The story, whatever there was of it, was boring and incoherent. The writers made the characters yelling and bumbling idiots, and the actors didn't do anything to improve them. This film could have been so much more, so much better. I am severely disappointed that such a great concept was handled so wrongfully and with no presumable intelligence. But as the French would say, Les Trent Cent Coups!