American History X: Movie Review By Roburado

AHX wasn't too bad. It was pretty good except for the fact that a movie just seems to be too short a form to deal with hate and such--at least most movies. I mean, they could have gone into Schindler's List-type length, but I doubt that would have ever happened. It was a good enough effort that I wanted to see more. I didn't want it to end quite when it did. I guess I also hoped for the bigots to be fleshed out a little better, but, again, you can only do so much in two hours. I guess such movies are just hopelessly and intrinsically over-ambitious.
I still hate Edward Furlong. He wasn't bad. I just don't like him. Edward Norton was good. Hadn't really seen him in anything else that I can remember, but I liked him for the most part here. Actually, I don't think I've seen him in anything. Not bad. B+ to A- performance. A little hampered by the medium and its troubles with the subject matter. Just wished the material were a little better. I guess that's good enough that I wished it were just a little better.

So, on the Joe Lozito scale, I guess I'd say ***, but it doesn't really seem like your kind of movie so...I guess it wouldn't even register. I guess I'll have to license the use of the Joe Lozito scale.

Casting fun: I do like that Avery Brooks was in it. Not bad. Not great. Adequate. Oh...and in other Star Trek news, I was amused that Jennifer Lien was in it. I also like the fact that Beverly D'Angelo was in it. Don't know why, but I like her. Glad they cast Stacy Keach as a big baddy. Why? I hate him. Made it easier for me to hate that big baddy. Also, it was amusing to see him get work. Just seemed like one of those out-of-work-actor-gets-a-chance-to-redeem-himself-in-new-wacky-or-obscure-films type of roles. I don't think he's going to win any Oscars a la James Coburn, though. Nothing special.

Miscellaneous...Praise to Ed Norton for bulking up. The boy can play basketball too.

One other gripe I had was that this is one of those films where you just know that actors and actresses were just loving their chance to be liberal and to fight the good fight against hate. It was like the movie was made out of duty. It was like it was made because someone thought it was important to make another movie about hate, and that these actors and actresses thought they should be a part of something so righteous. Don't get me wrong. I think that's all good and noble, but it's not much for entertainment. Art and social criticism, maybe, but not entertainment.

Oh...the liberal (pun intended) use of mucho black & white in the flashback sequences was kind of cliche, but how the hell else are you going to do a flashback with any modicum of class or respectability?

So, I guess, to sum up. ***, because I thought it was a good effort taking into account the limitations of the medium, which have vast implications for the script. Again, I wish it were * better. I almost want to drop it to **1/2. It was flawed, but, again, that has more to do with the medium and the marketplace. But...actually, I got to really like the Edward Norton character/performance after his reform. I really started to sort of root for the guy and his efforts to take care of his family. So, maybe it really deserves the ***.