I have to see "American Gangster" this week. Normally, I'd be down for a crime film, but Ridley Scott excites me about as much as watching a goldfish attempt to write Tolstoy. Add to that the long running time and Russell Crowe in an expanded role and we have one very unmotivated boy.

So in an attempt to kill myself, I'm going to watch as many of these "good" movies of '07 as I can in one trip. So "Michael Clayton" will most definitely be the second feature, I'm looking for at least one more.

What are these "good" movies of 2007? If I don't go tomorrow, movies coming out on Friday (11/9) can be suggested.

So what?
The Darjeeling Limited?
Gone Baby Gone?
Lions for Lambs?
We Own the Night?
Rendition?
Elizabeth: The Golden Age?
The new Coen Brothers movie that isn't playing near me?

Kubo wrote:

Anyone see the Assassination of Jesse James by (inhale) the Coward Robert Ford? Despite the long ass title, I thought it looked halfway decent.

I heard lots of great things about it from my peers. I didn't see it because the subject matter didn't really interest me, but I'd be willing to rent it later on.

I've become a really lazy movie watcher lately. I rarely want to go to the theater to watch anything, but I rent like mad. I don't even use Netflixs, I actively go to Blockbusters, Hollywood Video, or the Redbox and rent movies. I'm going to assume it's the power my couch holds over my ass.

I came out of "Michael Clayton" wanting to kick in somebody's skull. While I can't say it's a terrible movie, because it was aesthetically competent, I hated nearly everything in it. It felt like a 40 minute story stretched over two hours. The acting isn't bad, but I had problems with the dialogue being too sterile. There were lots of parts I thought were just silly (Tom Wilkinson strips naked in a room and then is talked about having chased after a girl wearing only his boots). Honestly, it felt like people only like this movie because it's different from the summer movies, but compare this film to the really "great" films out there and it doesn't hold up.

"American Gangster" was alright, but again I know Ridley Scott could cut about a half hour out of it and it would be that much better. It's too similar to other movies. In fact, the opening teaser was similar to the one in "Michael Clayton". AG opens with a man being doused in gasoline, lit on fire, and then shot to death before flashbacking to five years earlier. MC opens with Clooney going to some guy's house, driving away, parking on the side of a road, getting out to look at horses, and then behind him his car blows up for no reason before flashbacking to four days earlier*. In fact, watching the movies back-to-back they were structurally very similar!

Maybe I just hate the "good" movies, maybe I raise my bar of expectations beyond what can be achieved. I admit, that movies like "Saw IV" my bar of expectation is only set as high as the other movies, so I'm not expecting Oscar quality acting from them that I do with movies where critics are like: Oh, Oscar worthy performance! But I've been surprised by a lot the "good" movies in the past; I don't think it's that hard to please me. I know my Ridley Scott bias affected my opinions of AG, but MC I didn't have that many reservations, because I knew almost nothing about it. I'm not a big fan of George Clooney, but there was an early scene of him driving a car where he looked like how he should've played Batman, so I just kept that in mind and actually liked his performance (performance, mind you, not character).

Anyway, I thought they were both very flawed and unworthy of the praise, but I understand I'm probably cynical and too tough on them. "American Gangster" is worth checking out if you like the subject matter (yet I'll recommend re-watching "Scarface" instead), but I really can't suggest "Michael Clayton".

*I've simplified the opening of "Michael Clayton".

Oh, Denzel was great. Frank Lucas' story was great. Crowe's character had the story problems. But from what I heard, they added to Roberts' character because Ridley Scott and Brian Grazer didn't want to make a "black film". The addition shows.