American Gangster review

 Number 468 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ridley Scott's 2007 biographical crime film 'American Gangster.'

Based on the true story of Harlem crime kingpin and drug lord Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) American Gangster explores how this once lowly crook rose to become of the biggest drug traffickers in US History, as well Newark Detective's Richie Roberts' (Russell Crowe) efforts to catch him.

Ridley Scott really likes his overlong films, doesn't he? Black Hawk Down was far longer than it needed to be, and the same could definitely be said for American Gangster which burgeoned on three hours. It was bloated and could have been excised. The obvious example would be Richie Roberts' storyline. He is supposed to be the only honest cop in a department of crooked cops like corrupt NYPD detective Nick Trupo (Josh Brolin) who regularly accepts bribes and robs criminals of their drugs only to go on and sell them himself. 

Richie is also locked in a bitter divorce battle with his ex-wife. Although he is straight in his work, he is not in his personal life. As we learn, he is a serial womaniser. This was a massive subplot which didn't deserve the amount of screentime we spent on it. I really couldn't have cared less. Richie's wife Laurie (Carla Gugino) was little more than a scorned woman. And due to Richie being so straight, he wasn't the most interesting character to watch. We like maverick detectives who aren't corrupt, but they play by their own set of rules. This is what sets them apart from every other police officer out there. And this subplot also did a disservice to Russell Crowe who is a good actor.

If we didn't spend so much time on this subplot, I would have enjoyed American Gangster much more than I did. Frank Lucas was the superior and more interesting character. It was fascinating seeing his journey from his former boss' driver and bodyguard to, effectively, the Harlem Pablo Escobar. Although the historicity of the film's events have been questioned, it's amazing to see how he cut out the middle-man and dealt directly with heroin producers in South-East Asia. He smuggled the drugs back into the country by putting them in the coffins of American soldiers returning home from Vietnam.

Ultimately, I would say this is a good film. It just didn't need to spend so much time on Richie Roberts. 

The Next Three Days review

 Number 936 on the top 1000 films of all time is Paul Haggis' action thriller 'The Next Three Days.'

John Brennan (Russell Crowe) is a teacher whose wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is sentenced to life in prison for murder. He is only one who believes she is innocent and begins plotting to break her free from prison.

Paul Haggis also directed Crash. I didn't like Crash. I thought it was half-arsed and contrived. I would say the same for the Next Three Days. It doesn't just stretch my suspension of disbelief, it snaps it in half. The whole film is completely implausible.

Let's start with John Brennan who is the unlikeliest hero ever. He's a teacher. You would never believe he could stage a successful prison break. To aid him, he tracks down and consults Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson) a former convict who successfully escaped from prison. Damon Pennington helps him, because of ... reasons, before disappearing and not featuring again. John goes onto learn criminal skills like making bumper keys by watching Youtube skills. Although he has a few initial mishaps, he goes onto master these skills. This is ridiculous. You can't just master something by watching Youtube videos. It takes a lot of practice. I realise they don't have the time to show this, but they could have tried at least.

And it's unbelievable that John Brennan, a teacher who is naive enough to ask a street dealer about forging passports, and then goes onto be robbed by him, to be able to pull off a prison break. It might have been a bit more believable if Damon had physically helped him instead of offering information. I also think Russell Crowe was miscast. True his American accent was better than expected, but he wasn't believable in the role. He's an action-star who has played cops and robbers alike. He wasn't suitable as some naive teacher venturing into the world of crime.

I also thought that we were sorely missing Lara's perspective on things. One reason, I enjoyed prison drama Felon was that it focussed on the husband's life within prison and the wife's life outside of it. But this film was all John Brennan with only snippets of Lara's life. If we were going to care about her escaping, we should have seen more of her in prison. She tries to commit suicide, but we only hear about it, instead of seeing it. This scene was far more important than one of the silly, over-long musical sequences.

Also, after John breaks Lara free, he starts to be pursued by cops Lieutenant Nabulsi (Lennie James) and Sergeant Harris (Allan Steele.) Yet they only appear nearing the end of the film, as if they were an afterthought thrown in by Paul Haggis. It's very strange, as John was initially investigated by the cops who quickly dismiss him as a nutcase.

Why does Paul Haggis or his films feature on this list? Neither Crash or the Next Three Days deserves to be included in the top 1000 films of all time.

3:10 to Yuma review

 Number 489 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 2007 remake of the Western action 3:10 to Yuma.

Christian Bale plays Dan Evans, a down-on-his-luck ranchers and family man. With steadily mounting debts, he decides to risk everything and earn a big reward by bringing outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to justice. Gretchen Mol, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda and Alan Tudyk all co-star.

Since starting this challenge, I've watched my fair share of Westerns and I can safely say that I don't care for cowboy films. Cowboys and gunfights have never been something that's interested me and, as such, I was pretty bored throughout this film. This isn't a valid criticism, but more personal preference. Obviously it has to be good, otherwise it wouldn't be on this list, but it wasn't for me.

As I wasn't interested in this film, I wasn't particularly invested in any of the characters. Yes, they do have arcs and they show some growth, but I don't think it was enough. Throughout the film, we're led to believe that Daniel wants to deliver Ben Wade to the law, so he can collect the reward and pay off his debts. Admirable motivation for sure. But at the end, it's revealed that all he wants is to make his sons proud of him. Yet I think that this happened too late for it to have any input. And I don't think it's very credible.

Yes it's established early on that he has a rocky relationship with his son William (Logan Lerman) but that doesn't stop him from accompanying his dad on his mission. The two of them fight side by side on multiple occasions.

Ben Wade's arc was a bit more interesting. he's quickly established as a ruthless outlaw - brutally robbing an armoured stagecoach and killing all but one of the Pinkerton guards. Wade later kills another man in his sleep, but as he and Daniel grow a burgeoning respect, Wade starts to reform his ways. In the end, he voluntarily goes to prison so that Daniel's family can have the reward money. Characters are never wholly good or bad.

Having said that, Ben Wade's right hand man Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) was pretty evil. In a hell-bent mission to rescue his boss, Charlie executes surrendering federal Marshals and shoots a man in the back. This unwavering loyalty was by far the most interesting part of the film and I wish they explored that further. I don't think they properly addressed why Charlie was so loyal.

While Western afficionados might love this film, it wasn't for me in the slightest.