The state of the American box office lately straddles the line between tragic and unfortunate. Besides the Bourne Ultimatum, Transformers and Disturbia this year’s releases were–ahem, dare I say it–crappy and uninspired.

And so for much of 2007, I gave up on seeing movies in the theater. DVD’s were cheaper and more convenient, plus spared me from the hordes of whack-a-dus treating a darkened room with reclining seats as if they were watching the Super Bowl on a La-Z-Boy in their living room. Hence the paucity of movie reviews this year.
I set this malaise aside for American Gangster and was not only entertained, I was wowed.

Frank Lucas, a criminal mastermind who came to power at the tail end of the Vietnam War smuggling pure heroin from the Far East and unloaded smack twice as pure as the competition on the streets of Harlem. He made a lot of money, wrecked countless lives, and eventually spent 15 years in a federal prison, turning State’s evidence against former cronies.

But Frank Lucas was also a momma’s boy, who attended church every Sunday with his family, and handed out turkeys at the Holidays. He bought his mother a house the size of a football field and ran with dignitaries and sports legends. Plus his Momma chewed him out in front of other people.

Richie Roberts, a detective no one would work with because he ignored conventional wisdom on tracking the flow of narcotics. If there was anyone who could take down a drug dealer above the Mafia, it was his team. The work took a toll on his private life; he was an absent husband and father. These were complex men on a collision course. Which makes a film based on true events of his life so interesting.What works about American Gangster:

1) Casting. Absolutely critical. If it was anyone but Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, this movie would not work as well.

2) Pacing. Never a dull moment.

3) Story Arc. Though the director takes liberties with actual events, the dramatic license pays out handsomely. The conflict sizzles on the screen.

Recommendation: If you like crime movies, this is a must, plus own on DVD.

When the San Francisco Police Department pulled resources away from the first media driven serial killer investigation in history, author Robert Graysmith began his own inquiry. Over the course of a decade plus journey, he chased clues and witnesses all over California. Sometimes he worked against the police, sometimes with them. Relentless. Fearless. And in some way, hopeless, Graysmith paid a heavy price for his truth, losing his family to what they considered an obsession. Now his exploration forms the basis of a major motion picture. A good one, at that.

Countless producers and studios considered adapting the book for screen; only David Fincher had the nerve and skills to make it happen. I’m glad Fincher did, because in another director’s hand, this project might have degraded into the realm of the un-watchable. And it wouldn’t have been the material that caused the issue.

The backdrop, in fact, is fascinating. A lone murderer–possibly with military training, definitely with a flair for the cinematic–taunted police and the media with letters filled with ciphers, and attracted international attention. After all the time and effort, to this day no one has ever been arrested for the crimes, which may number from five to thirteen murders. The film, like the book, paints a clear picture of one particular suspect. Yet, no matter how compelling the case for this suspect may be, it does not resolve the case. Without a prosecution, the killings stand as an open wound, an affront to one’s sense of justice.

And this standoff may continue. It’s a conflict that one can live with, for one hundred and fifty three minutes of the film’s run time, and well beyond. Because that’s how it is. All who let the case affect them, are never the same.
What works about Zodiac:

1) Great cast. Robert Downey Jr. is brilliant, and Jake ( as Graysmith ) does the obsessed writer thing to a T.

2) Aesthetics. Impossible camera angles and shots make Zodiac an interesting film to watch.

3) Believability. Taking Graysmith’s account as an honest recreation of facts, the story arc is plausible.

What needs improvement:

1) A little less investigation into the Zodiac, a little more Zodiac in action. But then, that’s how it happened. Lots of time and effort chasing a ghost.

Verdict: For Fincher/Zodiac noir fans, theater full price / DVD purchase. For the casual observer, DVD purchase.

Rented 2 DVD’s this weekend, films that I skipped purposely in the theater, because they were better suited for an in home viewing. First up: Lady in the Water.

Admittedly, I am a M. Night Shyamalan admirer, one who wanted to like this movie, because his previous 4 films ranged between quite good and excellent, and I enjoyed each on a multiplex screen. Enough peers warned me off this flick, so I passed, and waited for the DVD. I watched it carefully, and will make only one observation. The real problem with this movie was the form; it needed to be a book. Interesting characters, a workable situation and a reasonable paced plot, Lady could have been a great read. A classic fairy tale, even. Some imagery plays well mentally, yet translate those same ideas for screen, and it falls short. Also, because the medium lacks the depth to bounce between a number of characters thoughts, complicated story arcs get lost, or dampened. Both compromises happened here. Chalk it to an extremely ambitious concept executed with the right intentions, but unfortunately in the wrong media.

Hollywoodland suffers from a different–and oh so similar–problem. This concept was the stuff of a made for television movie, twenty years too late. As a twelve-year-old, I might have liked this one as the Sunday Afternoon Million Dollar Movie. Alas, it surfaced in 2006, fifty years after George blew–or someone blew–his brains out across his bedroom wall. Ben Affleck did better than I expected, and Adrien Brody is a talent of note, but otherwise this could have been done for a lot less scratch, and for similar results. The storyline offered countless possible explanations for the former Superman’s death, yet very few reasons to care about the characters, why someone might want to kill him, or why he wanted to die.

Verdict: Lady, rentable; Hollywoodland, flushable.

Based on a true story, Breach follows the tail end of a massive internal investigation of FBI agent Robert Hanssen, who was arrested for treason and espionage in 2001. And interesting as that sad chapter in American intelligence might be, the biggest problem weighing down this thriller is that everyone already knows how the story ends at the outset. Unlike other fictional recreations, like Titanic, here we don’t root for survivors, or the heroes trying to save the children.

Perhaps for security purposes very little of what happened can be shown, and the director wanted to honor real events which meant pulling punches. Maybe the story arc did not lend itself to a visual adaption. But if either is the case, going for the dramatic would have been acceptable, and a lot more entertaining. A bit of artistic license goes a long way. Ultimately there is not much story to Breach.

What works:

1) Tight, zinger based dialog keeps many of the scenes afloat.

2) Chris Cooper. Great actor caught in a mediocre movie, yet he makes the best of his sentence.

What needs improvement:

1) Ryan Phillipe. He’s just cursed.

2) The script. Going for inspired by a true story, i.e. keep the names and the fact that Hanssen got arrested and invent the rest, would have unleashed a cosmos of drama and entertainment. Instead, I got warm milk and stone cold cookies.

3) The concept: In the wake of 9/11, do audiences really want to see the FBI in an unflattering light? Because they look bad here. Just awful.

Verdict: Cable.