Other characters and moments are underutilized or go almost completely wasted. Cuba Gooding Jr. plays Nicky Barnes, Frank Lucas' chief rival at the time, yet appears in a handful of scenes, and only one sharing any interaction with Lucas. Perhaps it's be-cause Barnes is supposed to have a movie coming out based on his own life, but Gooding is in fine form here. He should have been used to better effect. In what seems like a further effort to justify the audience spending their money to see a gangster film(all the best parts of this movie were definitely in the trailers), there is a gratuitious scene of a man getting his head blown open while Frank is explaining to Eva the values "Bumpy" taught him. This scene actually elicited snickers from my screening audience, and would have worked better if it hadn't been included.
Detective work is one part intelligence and procedure, two parts luck--and it is a stroke of luck which clues Richie in to the fact that America's most notorious drug lord is a Black male. Something which almost no one but Richie's investigative crew and his own boss believe. Once this fact is set in Richie's mind and his investigation finally proceeds down the proper path, it leads to a showdown with Frank and his people. I'd like to report that the two hours it takes to get to this moment(Gangster clocks in at a bloated 2:37) are worth it, but I honestly can't. I'd like to report that Denzel and Crowe give the best performances of their careers, but at most, both men are just severely competent. In fact, the only time Crowe and Washington are together on screen comes near the very end of the film. While in an interrogation room it's clear that Crowe's Roberts has the upper hand, Wash-ington's Lucas owns the scene. Thus is the debate of which man is the better actor forever closed.
To Gangster's credit, its setting in late sixties/early seventies New York and New Jersey has an air of functional authenticity un-matched by anything in recent memory. Having grown up in such locales in that era, I can say with absolute confidence that from the refurbishing of old-time fire hydrants down to its soundtrack, Gangster feels like a movie shot in that time period, which some-one has only recently unearthed.
There is still a lot of Best Picture Oscar buzz for American Gangster, which I attribute to two factors: First, the names of Scott, Washington and Crowe have generated the initial chatter. Second, enough people simply haven't seen Gangster yet. For a film to be worthy of winning Hollywood's most coveted prize, it has to be an outstanding film, an exemplary film, one which contains attributes of shocking originality that rise above the standard. In short, a noteworthy film.
While considerable effort has been expended in the creation of this movie from all concerned, I fear that come a year from now, more important and worthy films will have come down the road and supplanted Ridley Scott's latest effort in the minds of the public and--more importantly--in the minds of Academy voters.
Barely remembered next year, American Gangster won't be regarded as noteworthy. It'll be little more than a footnote.