The Martian

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Peña, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Aksel Hennie, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Donald Glover, Benedict Wong, Mackenzie Davis
Running Time: 141 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

When The Martian hunkers down and seriously focuses in on the nuts and bolts of its story, it's great, gripping entertainment that's almost worth every bit of praise thrown its way. When it doesn't and gets sidetracked with silly jokes and comedy, the filmmakers strive for less than what they should, perhaps out of concern audiences will be turned off by a heavy dose of science and space physics. This is one of those films where a hearty recommendation will seem like a pan because of the talented involved and expectations going in. But make no mistake about the fact that this is a strong film, and for director Ridley Scott, easily his best in years. While its problems may prevent me from fully joining in with those hailing it a "return to form," at least most of the framework is present for it to deserve that designation. There's something besides an astronaut that gets lost along the way, preventing this from ascending to the heights it should with this strong a set-up and central performance powering it.

Based on Andy Weir's 2011 novel, the film centers around astronaut and botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon), who's part of the Ares III manned mission to Mars, led by commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), and including pilot Rick Martinez (Michael Peña), systems operator Beth Johanssen (Kate Mara),  flight surgeon Dr. Chris Beck (Sebastian Stan) and navigator and chemist Dr. Alex Vogel (Aksel Hennie). It's on Sol 18 of their 31 Sol expedition when a dust storm hits, forcing them to evacuate and leaving a believed to be dead Watney on Mars.

Rationing what food he has and taking up shelter in the crew's surface base, Watney uses his botanical knowledge to grow potatoes and hopefully survive until the Ares IV crew arrives in four years. But back on Earth, satellite planner Mindy Park (Mackenzie Davis) discovers photos revealing Watney has survived and it's up to Mars mission director Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to establish contact and formulate a rescue plan with the help of JPL director and engineer Bruce Ng (Benedict Wong). This is all in the face of potential PR nightmare for NASA director Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels), who not only has to inform the public of this situation, but the Aries III crew on their way home. What develops is a tight race against time with Watney's life on line, as well as whomever is assigned the dangerous task of retrieving him.

The Martian's opening hour is its strongest because it might be the only point where we legitimately have no idea what could happen, as the audience is left observing Watney in this perilous predicament as he comes up with solutions to extend his survival. He keeps a video log, which is also an ingenious idea because it gives us kind of a running commentary on the action and adds a lot some humor in a stretch of story when its most needed, both for the protagonist and viewers. Later on the comedy becomes a problem but here it isn't because Damon is a complete natural at sliding it in and finding just the right tone to play this guy, who we hardly know anything about because we don't need to. His performance takes care of everything, including frequent hard science-filled soliloquies to the video camera, which never failed to completely hold my attention.

The surface of the planet and cinematography also look great, likely in part because they were filmed in Jordan rather than a Hollywood sound stage. The space scenes have a similarly realistic feel and it's a relief that we do notice the toll all of this takes on Watney, both through Damon's weight loss and the fact that he suffers what seems like appropriate injuries from the physical ordeal he's put through. Ridley Scott definitely did his homework. And what might be the most impressive aspect of Drew Goddard's script is how little we know about Watney the person, forsaking the type of heart-tugging backstory that undermined Gravity's efforts. They just let Damon do his job, and does he ever, letting us know everything necessary about him through his carefully thought out actions to insure survival.     

It's when the action shifts to NASA that issues start to arise and what started as an intriguing character study shifts into something less captivating, with an outcome that isn't even the slightest bit in doubt. Not just the "what" but exactly the "how" is telegraphed pretty early, leaving the remainder of its two-and-a-half hour run time to be filled with bureaucratic arguing and comedy. A number of rescue scenarios are brought up only to be shot down until another one is explored, before again being shot down. It's almost as if Goddard's screenplay over-explains and justifies every little decision just to cover itself. They talk about how this will work because of that or that will work because of this, only to have Jeff Daniels' NASA director say it just can't be done because of x, y or z. For a far more rewarding Daniels performance this year in a faintly similar role, watch his award-worthy turn in Steve Jobs, delivering material that deftly avoids the cliches he's forced to trudge through here as a disapproving boss rejecting everything simply because the script requires it.

And at the risk of exaggerating, it felt as if there were about fifty scenes exactly like that aforementioned one, broken up only by jokes, clever one-liners or, at worst, moments of broad comedy that seem to have come from another film entirely. Take, for instance, Donald Glover's astrodynamicist who takes a pratfall on the floor in the middle of a dramatic scene for no good reason at all. It takes us right out of the story, creating an unnecessary headwind that prevents anyone from fully investing in what's supposed to be this life or death situation. Some levity is fine, and in the case of some of Damon's scenes even welcome, but I'm not sure how many times I need to be reminded either through dialogue or the soundtrack that Jessica Chastain's character listens to bad 70's music. Ironically enough, among NASA's stuffed suits and lab coats, Kristen Wiig gives the most serious performance in small role as their media relations director.  

The ending, as inevitable as it may be, is handled well, largely because when the script is focused on the retrieval of this character and the moral questions facing the crew that left him, it's firing on all cylinders. If anything, more time should have been spent on the latter, but the scenes we do get of it are no-nonsense and contemplative, held together by Chastain, who couldn't make a mockery of this material even if she tried. There's a point when the Ares III team have to make an important (if predictable) decision and weigh the pros and cons in a scene that contains the thoughtfulness and drama I wish were invested in some of the more jokey NASA scenes on Earth.

It's preferable to focus on the many things this does well since that's easier to explain, but there's still that nagging feeling. You know the one. It's when either the filmmakers or studio just can't seem to get out of the movie's way and trust what they have. Had they done that, this really would deserve to be mentioned in the conversations it currently is. Still, it's an enjoyable survival in space adventure that's more deserving of comparisons to Gravity than Interstellar. But while the latter earned its exorbitant running length with the sheer scope of its story and ambitions, The Martian isn't interested in those bigger questions that would put it in its company. That this got the full endorsement of NASA is interesting on a number of levels, not the least of which involves the fictionalized depiction of their employees. It works, just on a level that's more entertaining than suspenseful or thought provoking.  

It's not a backhanded a compliment to label the The Martian as enjoyable mainstream entertainment Scott pastes together with impressive technical prowess, meticulous attention to scientific detail, and most of all, Damon's committed performance. But to uncover what's holding it back, you needn't look further than its bewildering Golden Globe nomination for Best Musical/Comedy. While that controversial categorization is clearly a stretch, there are far too many instances when you're wondering whether its inclusion is really as big a leap as it seems.            

The Counselor

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, Brad Pitt, Rosie Perez, Natalie Dormer, Edgar Ramirez, Ruben Blades, Goran Visnjic
Running Time: 117 min.
Rating: R

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★) 

It would give me great satisfaction than to say that Ridley's Scott's The Counselor isn't nearly as bad as you've heard. But that would only be half the truth. Viewers' tolerance for just how "bad" it qualifies as will vary. But sandwiched within the mess are flashes of brilliance resulting in the type of spectacular near-miss that could only be made by a talented filmmaker. Scott definitely earns an "A" for ambition, as its easily his most intriguing effort in a while, despite wildly mixed results. If you're going to fail this is at least the most respectable way to do it, taking risks and swinging for the fences. Unsure if its a pulpy crime thriller or pitch-black comedy, the only thing audiences can be certain of is that they'll be baffled and repulsed, and maybe even a little shocked to discover the story comes from the Pulitzer Prize winning author of No Country For Old Men and the director of Gladiator. And that's assuming they can even make it through to the end. Just don't say you weren't warned.

Michael Fassbender is the unnamed "counselor" of the title, a respected attorney who finds himself in the middle of a dirty drug deal with the Mexican cartel thanks after taking some bad advice from his eccentric friend Reiner (Javier Bardem), whose cheetah-obsessed girlfriend Malkina (Cameron Diaz) has some nasty intentions of her own. Despite being warned off the deal by business associate Westray (Brad Pitt), the counselor seems to sink deeper and deeper, not only jeopardizing his own life, but that of his girlfriend Laura (Penelope Cruz). Their relationship is perhaps the only traditional element in a story that's told unconventionally, often forsaking plot and narrative drive in favor of dishing out long, symbolic soliloquies that ruminate on the nature of man and the presence of evil.

There are a couple of scenes that merit mention if only because it's unlikely you've seen anything else like them in a movie before, for better worse. One is obviously the now infamous Diaz scene, in which she pleasures herself on the windshield of a yellow ferrari as Javier Bardem's wide-eyed, crazy haired Reiner looks on in utter shock and disbelief. But what you haven't heard about this flashback is how little it has to do with anything and how it's dropped in the middle of the story without any real rhyme or reason. That's less a criticism than an observation, but also that could also reasonably apply to just about every other crazy scene in the movie, of which there are plenty. It's just that this one takes the cake as its most sensational and tittilating, its existence intended to incite that very debate. There's also a big moment in the last act involving Brad Pitt's Westray that can't really be described, not so much at the risk of spoiling anything, but because  a mere description can't do it justice.

The only predictable element in a project this bizarre is that the performances would also have to be, with the exception of Fassbender's character who is essentially the put-upon straight man amidst the insanity, with Cruz gamely taken along for the ride. Since we're so used to seeing the actor playing edgier roles that exploit his intensity it's a neat reversal to see him as an essentially weak, helpless character, dialing down the charisma he's known for. The rest of the characters at times seem to function primarily as mouthpieces for Cormac McCarthy's philosophizing, spouting thematic observations about greed and selfishness. Given her most delicious role in years, Diaz again proves (as she did in Vanilla Sky) that she's born to play a heel, making you wonder why she isn't given villainous opportunities more often. Complete with spotted tattoos, her Malkina channels a predatory cheetah in both physicality and attitude, making her by far the most eccentric and intriguing character. She flat-out steals the movie, and for reasons entirely unrelated to her showcase scene.

On paper, The Counselor seems like something that deserves praise for at least being unique and stepping outside the box, transforming what could have been a pedestrian crime thriller into an entirely different animal. But it's just such a mess, marred by the nagging feeling that there's a much better movie trapped inside, struggling to get out. It looks great but is often such a slog that it's tough to get a handle on what's happening and who's double-crossing who. McCarthy's script undoubtedly contains ideas, but they're dispensed in such an undigestable manner that the film's events seem almost beside the point.

This is all about style and flash, two words that more frequently leap to mind when considering the late Tony Scott's filmography than his brother's. In fact, if I didn't know better I would have really thought it was his last film because in many ways, it kind of plays as a bizarre tribute. For Ridley, it's major departure, and one that probably needs more than a single viewing to fully absorb as it contains considerably more passion than many of his superior films. There's an extended director's cut out there and I'd be curious to discover if any of the issues are resolved since this reeks of a project that came apart during the editing and post-production stages. But even in its current state, it's hard to claim anyone involved is phoning it in. Most successful movies aren't nearly as compelling as this failed one.
       

Prometheus

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green, Charlize Theron, Sean Harris, Rafe Spall
Running Time: 124 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

The term "meet your maker" is interpreted literally in Ridley Scott's polarizing Prometheus, his quasi-prequel to Alien that has both less and more in common with that series than you'd imagine. From the get-go it's clear exactly what kind of science fiction this will be. The smart kind, with big ideas. Whether all the ideas presented are fully explored is a separate issue, but at least enough are, even as I lost count of how many movies those ideas seemed to reference. It's territory we've been in before and there's never much doubt where the story's going, but fortunately this still manages to be effective on its own terms. The film looks great, employing practical style special effects and set design that goes a step further than we're used to seeing in most big budget sci-fi blockbusters. Even just the opening title sequence confirms that. But the story exists in this weird gray area between being presented directly as an Alien prequel and setting up its own philosophical mythology that draws heavily from 2001: A Space Odyssey, it's sequel, 2010, and even something like Mission To Mars. Anyone approaching this looking for extremely deep insights into human existence might be disappointed, but as far as relentless sci-fi, horror adventures go, it ranks high.

The year is 2089 and archeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have discovered an ancient map in Scotland that connects many cultures and is interpreted by them as an invitation by humanity's "Engineers," or creators, to travel to their distant moon. The mission's  funded by the late Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce in old age make-up), the Weyland Corporation's founder and CEO. After traveling in a state of suspended stasis, Shaw, Holloway and the rest of their Prometheus crew led by Captain Janek (Idris Elba) awaken at their destination in 2093. They meet the mission's director, the emotionally vacant Dr. Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and its monitor, an android named David (Fassbender) who allegedly has no feelings, but  whose behavior and appearance is patterned after Peter O' Toole's T.E. Lawrence from Lawrence of Arabia. During their investigation they get get much more than they bargained for, with a discovery that puts not only their lives in jeopardy, but could potentially threatens the survival of the entire human race. They wanted answers and get them, but it don't come without a price.  

If there's an issue it's in the film's inability to completely break free from the Alien franchise and fully establish itself as its own standalone entity. Of course the pressure was on (at least from a studio marketing perspective) to push this as a "prequel to Alien." In a sense it is, without Scott going so far as to completely acknowledge that. Basically he wants to have his cake and eat it too, which is problematic only when certain Alien elements are jammed into the second and third acts of the film, giving it a different feel than it started with. Scott would have just been better off severing all ties and influence to that franchise, saving the audience some confusion and making for a cleaner finished product. Even the very last shot of the film feels more like a shout-out to fans than anything that organically sprung from the narrative. But if that's the worst problem the film has, I'd still say it's in pretty good shape, especially considering the number of ways this could have gone wrong and come off indistinguishable from the usual big budget sc-fi devoid of ideas. It definitely doesn't deserve to be lumped into that category and nothing about the story or its presentation seems at any point to be unsophisticated, or worse yet, dumbed down to make it more accessible.

The idea of future explorers searching for the human race's origins makes for an engaging start point and it's held together by a couple of really strong performances and fantastic effects work (not to mention a cool 80's throwback sci-fi miniseries-style score from Marc Streitenfeld). Fassbender's performance as David the android already starts as something interesting but only becomes more fascinating when the other characters start pushing him and his true motivations boil to the surface. Jealousy, paranoia and even a certain level of arrogance start to seep through his robotic facade. This is the most obvious homage to 2001's HAL, as a computer begins to show obvious signs of a soul and personality, but with disastrous results for the rest of the crew. Fassbender's meticulousness keeps you wondering whether there is more to this android than just circuits while also making it subtly clear he could just be programmed to follow order and preserve the mission. Either option seems equally disturbing whenever he's on screen. The real emotional android just might be Theron's Dr.Vickers whom she plays as detached ice queen and non-believer to her core, backing the mission strictly as a business decision and nothing more. The faith and belief is supplied by the protagonist, Noomi Rapace's Shaw, who can hang with Sigourney Weaver's Ripley only in so far as the amount of physical punishment she endures. While it isn't fair, the movie seems to want to invite a comparison between the two, making Rapace's performance seem more underwhelming than it actually is. If nothing else, she endures the grossest C-Section you've ever seen performed on film. Idris Elba could have been given more to do as the ships captain, but he's memorable in his few big scenes opposite Theron.

You have to wonder how the public would have reacted to this film had they not known it was in any way tied to the Alien franchise or co-written by Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof. Given how some have still inexplicably not gotten over how he ended that series, it's likely many were foaming at the mouth to blame him for any perceived problems with this project. That his script balances issues of faith and science thematically similar to the show's controversial, unfairly maligned finale only gives fans more ammunition to complain, no matter how off-base they are. While the script does definitely lag behind the directing and visual effects, it's only problem is the "been there, done that feel of its premise" and its inability to step out of Alien's shadow despite the film's initial ideas suggesting it could have possibly surpassed it. The jaw-dropping visuals and performances from Fassbender and Theron really stand out as the biggest reasons why it's a success. At the very least, Prometheus is Ridley Scott's best effort in ages and seems more than a worthy of a sequel that can hopefully deviate even more from the original material it's inspired by.

Robin Hood

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Matthew Macfadyen, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Kevin Durand, Mark Addy, William Hurt, Danny Huston, Max Von Sydow, Scott Grimes
Running Time: 140 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Originally, Ridley Scott's Robin Hood was to be released under the title, Nottingham. That would have been a much better choice, one that at least doesn't conjure up early '90's images of Kevin Costner in the role and a certain Bryan Adams theme song. I wonder if they went for the safer, more obvious title because they feared audiences wouldn't know what it was. The only reason I'm mentioning this is because Scott is burdened with the incredibly thankless task of putting a fresh spin on a tale that's that's been told a hundred times over and can really only be told one way. At least a new title could have created the illusion that things might be different this time and a new approach would be taken. It would be something, because let's face it, any filmmaker will always be grasping at straws with a character as limited as Robin Hood. He isn't exactly deep or multi-dimensional, nor does his legend boast rich narrative possibilities that can go in a million different directions. Other than completely modernizing the story and setting it in the present day you're handcuffed with what you've got. Scott goes the only route he can, the safest and most predictable, and while this qualifies only as average entertainment at best, it's still better than it should be given the circumstances. While he falls short in his obvious attempt to duplicate adventure epics like Braveheart and his own Gladiator, I'll give him credit for perfect casting and some great battle scenes. It's mainly the overly familiar and somewhat uninvolving "untold" story that can't keep pace.

If forced to classify it, this version of Robin Hood could be considered a prequel of sorts, or more accurately, an origin story.  When King Richard (Danny Huston) is killed in a siege, his common archer, Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) must return to London to inform the Royal Family of the king's death and witness the coronation of the deceased's younger brother, Prince John (Oscar Isaac). The evil, self-absorbed John wastes no time abusing the throne with unfair tax demands and appointment of Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) as the collector, though he's secretly an agent of the French King using his new position to stir up a Civil War in England.  Upon arriving in Nottingham, Robin assumes the identity of slain knight Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), a knight who's dying request was that he deliver a sword to his blind, aging father, Sir Walter (Max Von Sydow). Loxley's also left behind a widow, Marion (Cate Blanchett), who's slow to warm up to her husband's replacement, but of course we know those cold feelings toward Robin won't last long. In fact, we already know a lot of things and that's the problem. The few details we didn't know could have just assumed, not shown to us in a prequel. From a literal standpoint, this portion is "untold," but it's also unnecessary, doing little to add to the legend of Robin Hood or Nottingham, or cause us to re-think our previous perception of the character. We do get some mileage seeing familiar faces in a slightly different capacity like a pre-"Maid" ass-kicking Marion, the somewhat goofy Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Macfadyen) before he becomes a major villain, Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) as a beekeeper and Robin's "Merry Men," Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dale (Alan Doyle). But most of the thrills come from the battle scenes which, aside from ripping off Braveheart, are exciting and well choreographed, and the noticeably authentic set, costume and art design. But that should almost be the minimum requirement for a period adventure like this anyway, particularly one helmed by a filmmaker as experienced as Scott.

With both actors pushing past the forty year mark I'm sure many will complain that Crowe and Blanchett are "too old" for these roles. That's nonsense and I commend Scott for going against the grain by casting mature, experienced performers instead of someone like a Robert Pattinson or a Kiera Knightley in a misguided attempt to go younger, which could have easily tarnished the entire film. I'd imagine the pressure from the studio to do that was strong considering this is supposed to be a prequel, but such an approach would have been inappropriate for the material, and this wasn't ever going to reel in the younger crowd anyway. Prequel or not, Robin and Marion should be a man and woman not a boy and a girl and the versions we get here actually come closer their authentic origins in how they look and behave. As played by Russell Crowe, Robin is more of an action hero than he was in the past which I don't take issue with since there aren't a whole lot of other things the character could be at this point that we haven't seen already. But what's most surprising is how likable, funny and relaxed Crowe seems a role that you'd expect to be a Maximus retread and regardless of the quality of the material, he's continues to be an actor who's never given less than a top tier performance in anything. A true highlight is his witty banter and chemistry with Blanchett, who's one of the few actresses (other than maybe Jolie) capable of bringing the necessary elegance and grace to Marion, while at the same time also being believable as a feisty, strong-willed warrior ready to suit up for battle (as she does in the climactic showdown). The long overdue modernization of a character depicted in previous incarnations as merely a damsel in distress is one of the smartest details in the script by Brian Helgeland, who interestingly enough previously wrote and directed A Knight's Tale. Also helping is the presence of not just one, but two formidable villains with Oscar Isaac making an especially slimy and detestable King John.

With barely a 15 minute difference between the theatrical and unrated cut, I viewed the theatrical one and it's hard to regret that decision since a running time of just over two hours feels right whereas two and a half would seem to be unnecessarily pushing it. While it's unlikely an extra scene or two would have made the story feel any fresher or more inspired, I'd almost be curious enough to find out. The film works best as a teaching tool for directors on how to cast properly since this could have easily turned into a total disaster without talents like Crowe and Blanchett carrying it. It was an honest attempt by Scott who's onto something here since there is a joy in watching an old fashioned adventure epic that relies on story and character rather than distracting computer generated effects. I just wish the story were better and I actually cared what happened to the characters. It's a closer call than I expected and judging by the conclusion a sequel almost seems inevitable, or would have been had this made more money and anyone liked it. Maybe they can call that Nottingham.

Ripping Apart Entertainment Weekly's List of Top 25 Active Directors

A couple of months ago Entertainment Weekly released an absolutely hilarious list of the "Top 25 Active Directors." It wasn't until recently that I had the chance to actually go through it and see just how horrifying it was. In case you haven't heard, EW ceased existing as a relevant publication a couple of years and has recently gone off the deep end in terms of their disposable content, not that it was ever the bastion of journalistic integrity to begin with. It's the kind of magazine you read on the toilet (or maybe flush down it) and has all but become indistinguishable from your US Weekly or OK! Magazine. We should probably just consider ourselves lucky that Michael Bay, McG or Catherine Hardwicke didn't show up on the list.

I'm under no grand delusions that the publication exists for intelligent film commentary and since all lists are completely subjective I approached this one with very low expectations and an open mind. Even still, this has to rank as one of the most laughable movie-related lists I've ever seen. So much so that I had to comment on it. It's just awful, even by their standards. But it's important to look at exactly why.

Their choice of the word "ACTIVE" is curious one, implying that you had to have shown recent results in order to receive consideration for the list. I wholeheartedly agree with that but the problem is that in many cases that was all they looked at and in others they just forgot about it and rewarded certain mainstream filmmakers based on past glory and/or box office receipts. There's more to this than just picking the directors who made the best films since that topic is subjective in itself.

I always thought the fairest way to judge this is by the overall integrity of the filmmakers' body of work--past and present. When you see film, can you tell who's directing it? Do even their bad ones seem to say something important visually and narratively? It shouldn't just be as simple as picking your favorite movies and listing who directed them. The list can be seen here, complete with their somewhat lackluster explanations. Be forewarned though-- it's one of those annoying slide shows. They also ranked the 25 that didn't make the cut, which unsurprisingly included many who should have. Below are my takes on their choices, along with two controversial exclusions I thought were justified.

25. Jon Favreau-This is almost too laughable to talk about and further proof that Iron Man has emerged as one of the most overrated films of the past 5 years. What scares me most about the pick is the possibility that many reading the magazine may actually agree with it. A superhero movie comes along that's slightly above average for a change and everyone's wetting their pants. The further away I move from the movie the less I appreciate about it. Elf? Zathura? Decent films, but please. I suppose I should just be grateful he's in the last spot. By the way, Mickey Rourke looks ridiculous in those photos from Iron Man 2.

24. Pedro Almodóvar- I have not seen a single film this man has directed. Right now you're either you're rolling your eyes in disbelief at how I could have not seen any films from the legendary Spanish director Pedro Almodovar or you're thinking, "Me neither. Never heard of the guy." If it's the latter that's proof that EW just did this as an attempt to add "prestige" to their list and include a foreign filmmaker. I hope not because I've heard nothing but great things about his work. It would be a shame if he was included for the wrong reasons.

23. Paul Greengrass- Having shamefully still not seen any of the Bourne films I'm not the best person to be judging the merits of his inclusion on this list or his placement. But that should hardly matter to EW who I'm sure gave him the spot primarily on the basis of the amount of dough that franchise raked in.

22. Paul Thomas Anderson- Upon seeing the title "Top Active Directors," a couple of images raced through my mind. The first was of Rollergirl. The next was of womanizer Frank Mackey reduced to tears at his dying father's bedside. The last was of Daniel Plainview, drilling into an ocean of oil, his hand emerging from below covered in black. I prefer Fincher slightly for the top spot but it's VERY, VERY close and I wouldn't dare argue with anyone who would rank PTA number one. But they ranked him at... 22? Really? This guy wrangled an Oscar-worthy performance out of Adam Sandler for crying out loud. That has to count for something.

21. Ang Lee- No arguments here, especially in this slot. What I didn't realize until recently was that he hasn't really directed that many films despite being known to American audiences for over a decade now. Regardless, The Ice Storm is one of the '90's greatest and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain proved that accomplishment wasn't a fluke. His Hulk joins Michael Mann's Miami Vice as one of the decade's most intriguing and creatively ambitious commercial failures. It doesn't hurt his standing with me in the slightest.

20. Ron Howard- This is a tough one. As a director he really never doesn't do anything special but he's one of the most consistent on here, with only a few occasional missteps (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, EDtv and from what I've heard the recent Angels & Demons). Sorry, but I loved Willow. When he's on he's really on (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon, Parenthood) but too much of his work falls into the middling mainstream category. Most of the directors on here (even those I don't care for) have at least one film that can be considered an Earth-shattering accomplishment. He doesn't and nothing really sets him apart from the pack and I still say his most impressive achievement will always be as as co-creator/producer/narrator of Arrested Development. Nothing he's done in the film world even comes close and that's a testament to the show, not a swipe at his directorial career. 20 is a fair ranking.

19. Clint Eastwood- This is disgusting and I'm not even a huge fan. If this list meant anything at all, diehard devotees of his work (of which there are plenty) would be up in arms at this lowly ranking of 19. Not only at age 79 does he boast one of the most impressive, expansive filmographies of anyone on here (Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, A Perfect World, In the Line of Fire, Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby) but he exemplifies the word "active" having made two important cinematic contributions in the past year (Gran Torino, Changeling) with another one already in the can. What were they thinking?

18. Danny Boyle- I'll give credit to them for at least showing restraint with this somewhat plausible #18 ranking for him. Looked at from afar his entire filmography is a mixed bag (A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach) with some gems thrown in (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later). For shame, I still haven't seen Sunshine. Slumdog Millionaire is by far his pinnacle, but unlike Nolan with The Dark Knight, Boyle wouldn't have made this list without his 2008 entry. But he did, and EW didn't really overrate him, which was nice.

17. Darren Aronofsky-Despicable ranking. An atrocity he isn't AT LEAST in the top 10. If looking at the names of some of the filmmakers ranked ahead of him doesn't make you throw up in your mouth a little I don't know what will. But what's so scary about my surprisingly adverse reaction to his placement is that like a few other directors on here I've discounted, he's only made three films (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler). That means those three films were more memorable and powerful than many other filmmakers' entire output that's spanned decades. And I don't even LOVE those three movies. But they're distinct and were made by someone with considerably more vision than most on this list. Snubbed by the Academy also, Aronofsky just can't ever seem to catch a break.

16. Zack Snyder- Ha Ha. Obviously, having only directed three films thus far he's done nothing to earn a spot on this list but in his defense I don't think he in any way deserves to be thought of as a hack or mentioned in the same breath as a Michael Bay or a McG, as many have unfairly been doing. His worst film (300) was an emotionally empty, visually dazzling exercise, but even that misfire wasn't exactly forgettable. As Watchmen proved, he obviously has talent and could eventually work his way on to the list, as unlikely as it seems. The editors at EW are idiots for putting him on it now.

15. Sam Raimi- The sell-out of all-time. Awful choice. Probably my least favorite director on here. If he had just retired after the Evil Dead films then maybe they could have made a case for his inclusion. Maybe. But he went on to helm the Spider-Man franchise and ruin the once promising careers of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Recently tried to regain some cred by going horror again with Drag Me to Hell which I have no interest in ever seeing since there's nothing unique about his filmmaking style. Now he's threatening to give us Spider-Man 4. Make it stop. He's ranked at 15 but any number would be too high for me. The anti-Nolan.

14. Judd Apatow- If this were a list of the most influential people in the movie industry today or a list of the most important writers or producers Apatow would be ranked #1 hands down. How he's changed the face of comedy over the past few years can't be undersold and he's one of the few on on here who have real substantial achievements to brag about. But unfortunately, this is a list of the best active DIRECTORS. He's only helmed three films, with his latest, the dramedy epic Funny People just hitting screens now to surprisingly lukewarm notices. Based on his output so far you'd fare better arguing he isn't a great director than he is, with sometimes shaky control over tone and an aversion to the editing room. And even those who think he's a master behind the camera would still have to admit he's a far better writer. But I still understand how they couldn't avoid the temptation to include him. His contributions to comedy so far are immeasurable...just not as a director.

13. Tim Burton- Ask anyone and they'll probably tell you their favorite Burton film is Edward Scissorhands. Good answer, considering he's devoted his entire career to remaking it over and over again (Batman, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd) without stepping out of his comfort zone once. And that's my main problem with him. He's one of a kind but is unable to stretch or trying anything different, or at least hasn't proven yet that he can.

Every film he's made looks exactly the same and plays in exactly the same dark, gothic style featuring a bizarre, misfit protagonist (usually played by the similarly overrated Johnny Depp). The only time he strayed slightly (VERY slightly) from that was with Big Fish. He also has some real junk on his resume, like Sleepy Hollow and that ill-conceived Planet of the Apes remake. Alice in Wonderland just looks like more of the same from him. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

12. David Fincher- You think The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had anything to do with this disrespectful ranking? If so, that's good for a laugh because Fincher's supposedly "weakest" work is leagues better than so-called masterpieces directed by EW's filmmaking legends class here. I'd say Panic Room is his weakest and even that's still better than most of these directors' best. The most talented filmmaker working today and my choice for #1.

11. Guillermo del Toro- Mixed feelings. On one hand it's impossible to argue against the technical prowess of someone who brought us Pan's Labyrinth and the Hellboy films. On the other, that's really all he's brought us so far and while he's been working since the early 90's he's only just hit his stride now. Most everything else is forgettable (Blade 2) or just unimportant (Mimic). Ranked a little high but with a couple of more films under his belt he'll likely earn this spot sooner than later.

10. Joel and Ethan Coen- A no-brainer. Not even EW couldn't screw this up. A perfect example of filmmakers with their own distinctive storytelling style and unlike some other picks on here their best days don't seem to be behind them. Some of their more recent efforts (No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading) beyond being quite great can stand side by side with the classics (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona) without embarrassment. Most importantly, they're always challenging themselves and going in new directions. No personal favorites of mine but credit where credit is due.

9. James Cameron- Um... I thought we said "ACTIVE." Cameron hasn't made a film in over a decade. I'm all for quantity over quality but let's not get carried away here. He doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. And am I the only person not at all looking forward to Avatar?

8. Michael Mann- I really like this pick. It just feels right. "Feels" is actually a great word to use because all of his films have a visually distinct one that only he seems to be able to pull off. I can't name a single one of his films that would rank among my favorites but you have to respect what he brings to the table. Actually could stand to work more but I'll take quality (Heat, Ali, The Insider, Collateral) over quantity any day of the week. Say what you want about Miami Vice (and believe me I have) but it was one of the best SHOT movies of the past 5 years. And it took guts and a lot of artistic ambition for him to do that to his own television series whether you agree with it or not. It's the kind of brave flop other directors on here wish they had the talent to have made. Public Enemies may have hurt his standing in the public's eyes but I haven't seen it yet so can't comment.

7. Quentin Tarantino- He's representative of the kind of choice that makes sense not necessarily because he has the strongest resume on here (far from it), but because even his lesser films contribute something important to the overall body of work. Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and Kill Bill definitely aren't for everyone but no other director on this list could have made them. And this coming from someone who's far from a Tarantino fanboy and thinks he believes his own hype way too often. When you're watching a movie directed by Tarantino YOU JUST KNOW he directed it. The man knows how to tell a story with the camera almost as well as he can with words. That's often overlooked. Great choice.

6. Ridley Scott- I've actually enjoyed most of his films (save for the recent Body of Lies) but nothing he does ever strikes me as truly unique, nor do I feel he has a distinctive voice that greatly differs from other filmmakers, especially in the action genre. An impressive craftsman without a doubt (Alien, Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down are nothing to sneeze at) but worthy of being named one of the top ten working directors today? Probably not. Check out Gladiator if you don't believe me. A strong film, but completely pedestrian.

5. Steven Soderbergh- Interesting selection but I don't agree with it and especially not at #5. After a promising early career he went on autopilot and started turning out safe, unchallenging mainstream fare like Erin Brockovich while occasionally throwing in arty, experimental efforts (Full Frontal, Bubble and the recent The Girlfriend Experience) that yielded mixed results. But what ultimately keeps him off for me are those Ocean's films. Hollywood superficiality at its peak. Takes risks, but not as often as he should. The filmography might be there but the quality isn't. Ranked a bit too high.

4. Christopher Nolan- I don't have a big problem with this. Sure, #4 may seem a little high but that's only because the rest of the rankings are so screwed up. And as a "of the moment" pick it has a lot more credibility than, say, Danny Boyle. His previous work (Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins and The Prestige), while not perfect, support the kind of singular vision that deserves top notch placement on a list like this. That vision was realized in The Dark Knight, making those aforementioned films look even better in hindsight.

3. Martin Scorsese- While not one of my personal favorites, even I can recognize when I don't have a leg to stand on in an argument. I have no case here that he's overranked. One of the all-time greats whose recent work (i.e. The Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed) can stand its ground.

2. Peter Jackson- I shouldn't even be commenting on this since I haven't seen any of The Lord of the Rings films, but what else has he done that warrants a spot this high? You raked in a lot of cash-congrats. Just based on his placement it seems like another crowd pleasing, monetarily motivated pick from EW.

1. Steven Spielberg- I knew they'd do this and I take issue with it not because I dislike Spielberg or his films (how can anyone?) but because the reasoning behind the selection is so dubious when you consider his underwhelming output this past decade. Two words: CRYSTAL SKULL. He needs to get back on the map quickly if he wants to re-claim his throne. And it's a good thing we're judging his work as a director not a producer (Eagle Eye, the Transformers films) or he'd deserve to fall off the list completely. The word "active" does him no favors in evaluating the merits of his #1 ranking. That said, I can't argue he doesn't at least still deserve be in the top 5 or 10.

Didn't Make it and I'm Glad
Spike Lee- The most overrated filmmaker alive. I'm sure many were up in arms when they didn't see his name, feeling this exclusion symbolizes the list's inaccuracy, but I felt like clapping. His films range from preposterously overrated (Do The Right Thing, Inside Man, and just about everything else) to flat-out awful (the recent Miracle at St. Anna). But at least there's one other person as thrilled as I am that he didn't make the list: Spike Lee. Now he has a new excuse to cry racism and blame Clint Eastwood for all his problems. The fact is his films just aren't that great. Yes, of course he's a lot better than some of the choices up there, but just because they didn't deserve to make it doesn't mean he should.

Woody Allen- As much as it pains me to say it, you'd have to go back to the 70's or early '80's to make a strong argument he deserves a place alongside the best active directors, if only because he's been so wildly inconsistent since then. Unlike Lee however, I'm actually a fan of his work and find even his lesser efforts to at least be interesting. It seems we just keep waiting and waiting for the next truly great Woody Allen picture to come along and it never does. It's getting frustrating. For every movie that flirts with greatness (Match Point) there are a dozen others that don't (The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Celebrity, Scoop, the list goes on and on). The output is just too uneven to warrant inclusion. A good call by EW.

Should Have Made It (these names jump out at me as outrageous omissions but there are probably more)
Wes Anderson
David Lynch
David Cronenberg
Richard Kelly
Lars Von Trier
Sam Mendes
David Gordon Green
Oliver Stone
Spike Jonze
Gus Van Sant

Body of Lies

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Golshifteh Farahani, Vince Colosimo, Mark Strong
Running Time: 128 min.
Rating: R

★★ 1/2 (out of ★★★★)

The worst offense committed by the political espionage thriller Body of Lies is that it fails to bring anything new to an already tired and uninspired genre. In a first, I actually found myself somewhat disappointed that the film wasn't worse or it didn't fail in a more interesting way. Given that it's directed by Ridley Scott and co-stars thespian heavyweights Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio it shouldn't be a surprise that despite a thin story it still just barely misses the mark. What is kind of surprising is how run-of-the-mill it is. Although, given its uninspired Lifetime TV movie of the week title and embarrassing promotional artwork, that may not be surprising either. It's more likely to call to mind a Direct-To-DVD clunker from the '90's starring Sean Young or Richard Grieco than the latest effort from an Academy Award winning filmmaker.

Marketing notwithstanding, this was basically destined to be a technically proficient effort featuring a pair of good performances and nothing more. And that's exactly what it is. It won't be remembered as a career highlight for anyone involved, but thanks to some exciting action sequences and impressive location shooting it isn't a complete wash. Just thank Scott for at least not shoving a political agenda down our throats and just telling the story, as uninvolving as it may be.

The plot is somewhat complicated, though not really when you think about it...or don't. DiCaprio is cocky C.I.A. field agent Roger Ferris, sent to the Middle East to take out a deadly al-Queda like terrorist organization led by Osama Bin Laden wannabe Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). He's aided via headset and high tech survailence in this mission by his boss back in the states, Ed Hofffman (Crowe in gray-haired, paunchy Insider mode). He keeps track of him by satellite in between attending his children's soccer games. They make an uneasy bedfellow in the head of Jordan's Intelligence Agency, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong) as Ferris's emerging romantic relationship with a pretty local nurse (Golshifteh Farahani) threatens the entire operation.

There's a lot of ideas and action jammed into writer William Monahan's (The Departed) script and surprisingly more than enough to justify the film's over 2 hour running time. It's never boring since Scott is the kind of director who knows how to make things crackle visually, but the problem is I just didn't care about anything that happened or who it happened to and every plot point seemed well mapped out in advance. There's some intrigue involving the motives of the Jordanian intelligence officer and some resonating cultural observations involving the nurse's relationship with Ferris, but other than that we're just waiting for the clock to run out.

Luckily, we're left waiting with DiCaprio and Crowe, actors incapable of giving bad performances in anything. That said, this won't go down as either's strongest work. Especially DiCaprio, who seems to be delivering a less potent version of his Oscar nominated role in Blood Diamond while distractingly slipping in and out of a southern drawl. Crowe fares better except the part seems underwritten and almost inconsequential at times. He's good, but it could have been played by just about anyone as effectively. The two don't share screen time for most of the first hour but when they do finally square off it can't help but feel like a letdown considering how pedestrian the rest of the picture is.

We're also in the hands of a director who knows how to keep it moving at a brisk pace and stage exciting action sequences. There's an authenticity to the film that wouldn't be there if a less talented lensman were at the helm. While sharing the same relentless style as Scott's Black Hawk Down it doesn't contain nearly as much substance, but at least he does a good enough job hiding it while Monahan's script is thankfully lacking in the preachy ulterior motives that sunk last year's embarrassing trifecta of Rendition, Stop-Loss and Lions for Lambs.

This doesn't pretend to be any more than what it is and as a result it isn't. Ridley Scott is too talented a director to be wasting his time on projects that should go to his brother Tony. This may as well be called Enemy of the State 2. Coming up for Scott is his cinematic interpretation of the board game Monopoly and it speaks pathetic volumes that during this my thoughts turned to it as the potentially more intriguing project. At least its different and if a crazy idea like that fails it'll at least do so memorably. It's disconcerting to consider that Hollywood has run dry of ideas but after watching something like Body of Lies I start to worry if it's a real possibility.

American Gangster

Director: Ridley Scott
Starring: Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, Lymari Nadal, Ruby Dee, Carla Gugino, Clarence Williams III, Cuba Godding Jr., Armande Assante
Running Time: 157 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

The gangster film genre has become so familiar in American cinema that it could very well be considered an institution, or a cliché. When the 80th Annual Academy Award nominations were announced earlier this year a lot of people who surprised that American Gangster only picked up two nominations (one for Best Supporting Actress and another for Best Art Direction), despite being universally praised by critics and audiences upon its release as one of the best films of the year. Under normal circumstances two nods would hardly be considered a disappointment, but it is when you have an epic crime drama directed by Ridley Scott starring two actors the caliber of Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington. It is "EPIC" in every sense of the word and exactly the kind of film that wins little gold men, which made it's exclusion at awards season that much more surprising.

In taking pages out of similar films like The Godfather, Goodfellas and Scarface by telling a very familiar, comfortable story, the film could have seemed like a pale imitation, but instead feels like the real thing because it presents the material in a fresh, interesting way and the trajectory of the story goes in a different direction. It's also breezier and more accessible than those other films, which many may view as a negative. I don't. Nor do I care that serious creative liberties were taken with the original story because I think this is one of those cases where a little embellishment adds more dimension and flavor to the characters, which deepens the film.

Anyone who lives for gangster and crime movies (I'm sorry to report I'm not among them) will absolutely love this, while everyone else will at least be entertained thoroughly for over two and a half hours with first class filmmaking. It's chief selling point is the prospect of seeing Crowe and Washington lock horns onscreen for the first time since 1995's forgettable Virtuosity. It doesn't disappoint at all on that end and delivers on many other fronts as well, especially in regards to Washington's performance, which is one of his most electric and powerful in years. I'm not sure if it's a movie we couldn't live without, but it will provide a lot of enjoyment for fans and non-fans of the genre.

Washington is Frank Lucas, the protégé and right-hand man of "Bumpy" Johnson (Clarence Williams III), a gangster who runs much of the drug trade in late 1960's Harlem. When he passes away from a heart attack, Frank takes over the reins, cornering the drug market and putting the competition out of business. The secret to his success is a new purer from of heroin coming out of Bangkok, of which he controversially smuggles out of Vietnam using U.S. troops and equipment. Frank's rule over the Harlem drug trade puts him at odds with the Italian mob, led by Dominic Cattano (Armand Assante) and a flashy, loudmouth dealer Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr.) trying to pass his brand off as his own. But his biggest adversaries are the city's crooked cops trying to get a cut in the action, the worst of which is the creepy, intimidating Detective Trupo (Josh Brolin).

It seems the only cop in New York not on the take is Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) who actually turned down a $1 million payoff, which makes him a joke among his co-workers. He's also plagued with personal problems as his partner slides into drug addiction and his ex-wife (Carla Gugino) is suing him for custody of his son. Soon he's selected to head up a new narcotics squad and it isn't long before he has his sights set on Frank and his men. The movie tells juxtaposes the stories of these two men throughout and prepares us for the inevitable showdown in the third act. Scott knows what he has and milks it for everything he can, as Crowe and Washington don't share a single scene together until the last 10 minutes of the film. It's worth the wait though. And if you're expecting this film to end in a firestorm of bullets and taking bets on which man will survive you're approaching this story from the wrong angle, just as I was.

Frank Lucas is one of the most compelling characters you could hope to build a film around because he is, like this genre's best, complicated and full of contradictions. He wants to run the show but hates flashiness. He demonstrates cold-blooded ruthlessness when it comes to business but he's ultimately he's very fair and loyal . He endangers his wife (Lymari Nadal) and mother (Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominee Ruby Dee), yet does everything he can to protect them. He cares for his brother (Chiwetel Ejiofor) but doesn't have time for his stupidity. Nothing is black and white with Frank, which is what makes the character so fascinating and engaging.

I've criticized Washington in the past for taking junk cop parts in films like Out of Time and Déjà Vu because we know he's always been capable of so much more. Here he shows us that and these are exactly the kinds of roles he should be taking. Of all the nominations this film was supposedly robbed of you could have made the strongest case for Washington for a Best Actor nod. At times you're mad at him for playing Frank so charismatically because he makes this drug dealer and murderer somewhat likable, which creates conflicting feelings as you watch.

The common thread he shares with Crowe's Richie is their belief in fairness and honesty even though they're operating on opposite sides of the law. They're practically cut from the same cloth, which makes their eventual encounter at the end of the film work so well and go in a different direction than anticipated. The sub-plot involving Richie's ex-wife and the custody battle is a screenwriting invention since the real Richie Roberts didn't have a child, but it does lead to an interesting courtroom scene where we're asked to question the motivations behind Richie's honesty and whether he really is as great of a guy as he makes himself out to be. Crowe turns in a good performance as well even if his story fails to pack the same emotional punch as Frank's. But it's not meant to, nor could it.

There's been a big question concerning whether Ruby Dee "deserved" a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her five minutes of screen time in this film. Whether she does or not depends largely on how you feel about the Academy's policy of rewarding an actor or actress for their life's work as opposed to the performance they happened to be nominated for. That's clearly what happened here, but I have a feeling the Academy unintentionally did her more harm than good by making her look like a charity case instead of an actress who gave a dynamic supporting performance worthy of award consideration. Anyone who's seen her work over the years knows she's no charity case. Having said that, she does give a reasonably strong performance in a woefully underwritten role.

If a supporting nomination should have gone to anyone it should have been Josh Brolin who plays what could have been a stereotyped crooked cop without pretension and gives a cold, calculated performance that cuts into the very heart of the picture. With a single icy stare he can imply things about this man that no line of dialogue is capable of. Between this, Planet Terror and No Country For Old Men (which I've yet to see) 2007 should be remembered as his breakout year. And to think just a couple of years ago the only project any of us would be interested in seeing him in would have been The Goonies 2.

It was a big shock when Cuba Gooding Jr, appeared onscreen because this must mark the first time in who knows how many years this guy has acted in a film of any value. It's sad but true. After the choices he's made since his 1997 Best Supporting Actor victory it's a miracle a director like Ridley Scott would even consider casting him in even a small role like this. No actor's stock has fallen further after an Oscar victory than his so hopefully this marks the beginning of a turnaround because he at least does a decent job with what he's given here. With all the big names in the cast this could have degenerated into a game of "spot the star" but it doesn't as all the supporting players slip into their roles seamlessly. But the most support comes from director of photography Harris Savides who can now say after this and Zodiac that he shot two of the best looking films of the past year. The costume design and a perfect late 60's soul soundtrack don't hurt the movie's cause either.

American Gangster continues an trend we've been seeing throughout 2007: The "throwback" film. Movies like Eastern Promises, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford and Michael Clayton are all movies that could have been playing at a theater near you during the 1970's. But rather than just simply ripping off films from that decade these seem genuinely inspired by them and play like respectful, authentic tributes (some more than others). It's a trend that I hope continues because if there's a decade in filmmaking you want to mimic it's that one. Scott clearly did his homework here and his use of a montage that juxtaposes drug overdoses with a Thanksgiving dinner he'd have to admit is right out of Coppola's playbook.

He's a director that can pretty much do anything, even if I'm more than a little worried how he'll pull off the proposed film adaptation of the board game Monopoly. But that doesn't mean I don't want to see him try it. As someone who isn't a fan of the crime or gangster genre it says a lot that I found myself captivated for two and a half hours by a film that didn't drag its feet at all and had more than enough story to justify its running time. American Gangster may not be a complete original, but they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That's especially true when it's done this well.