I wanted to like "Blow" a lot more than I did, as I am a major devotee of the rise-and-fall drug movie subgenre. However, despite another effortlessly excellent performance from Johnny Depp, this film fails to add up to more than the sum of its parts.
The story told here spans decades, and chronicles the familiar story of the dizzying rise within the drug trade, the opulent excess, the unheeded warning signs of violence and loss, and the final fall, resulting in emotional devastation. Individual moments in the film are affecting, especially in the last third, when Depp's character attempts to go straight and win back his daughter. These scenes reveal a side to this oft-told story that are not always evident in other films. But unfortunately, the structure of the film is a mess, and the timing is all off. Somehow, I felt myself longing to see more depth of character, for the writers and directors to spend more time with each scene, while at the same time feeling boredom and restlessness due to my inability to become fully engaged by each new scene or character--the story being told is big and long, and the filmmakers clearly do not have a real handle on it.
Lack of focus and a clear sense of direction are the film's greatest flaws, and these overshadow more favorable elements, including a fresh visual take on the party-time 70s setting: This film eschews the glossy disco sheen of so many of the recent films about this era with a dingy, sun-baked vision. Glamour is noticeably missing from "Blow," a fact that I both admire and find refreshing.
Other bright moments include a subtly hilarious cameo from Bobcat Goldthwaite, as well as other strong supporting performances, and a calm, unhurried, and believable portrayal of the relationship between Depp and his father, played by the always-dependable Ray Liotta. However, the performance by Penelope Cruz is unbelievably shrill, manic, and off-putting. She comes off as a deranged harpie, a one-dimensional coke fiend. I wonder if there was far more meat to Cruz's performance before director Ted Demme began editing heavily to keep the film under 3 hours. Cruz's work has been promising so far, so I wonder if she is solely to blame for a truly awful performance.
A sign of a film that misses the mark in a fundamental way is its ability to constantly remind you of similar but far better films. "Blow" does this, and it only makes clear how unsuccessful the film is. This film owes a debt to "GoodFellas" and "Boogie Nights," as well as a number of other films, but suffers greatly by comparison. It lacks the vitality, originality, and skill of "Traffic," and the existence of these inevitable comparisons only makes it clearer that "Blow" is bluntly put together, deeply flawed, and an uninteresting take on an important and fascinating topic.
The story told here spans decades, and chronicles the familiar story of the dizzying rise within the drug trade, the opulent excess, the unheeded warning signs of violence and loss, and the final fall, resulting in emotional devastation. Individual moments in the film are affecting, especially in the last third, when Depp's character attempts to go straight and win back his daughter. These scenes reveal a side to this oft-told story that are not always evident in other films. But unfortunately, the structure of the film is a mess, and the timing is all off. Somehow, I felt myself longing to see more depth of character, for the writers and directors to spend more time with each scene, while at the same time feeling boredom and restlessness due to my inability to become fully engaged by each new scene or character--the story being told is big and long, and the filmmakers clearly do not have a real handle on it.
Lack of focus and a clear sense of direction are the film's greatest flaws, and these overshadow more favorable elements, including a fresh visual take on the party-time 70s setting: This film eschews the glossy disco sheen of so many of the recent films about this era with a dingy, sun-baked vision. Glamour is noticeably missing from "Blow," a fact that I both admire and find refreshing.
Other bright moments include a subtly hilarious cameo from Bobcat Goldthwaite, as well as other strong supporting performances, and a calm, unhurried, and believable portrayal of the relationship between Depp and his father, played by the always-dependable Ray Liotta. However, the performance by Penelope Cruz is unbelievably shrill, manic, and off-putting. She comes off as a deranged harpie, a one-dimensional coke fiend. I wonder if there was far more meat to Cruz's performance before director Ted Demme began editing heavily to keep the film under 3 hours. Cruz's work has been promising so far, so I wonder if she is solely to blame for a truly awful performance.
A sign of a film that misses the mark in a fundamental way is its ability to constantly remind you of similar but far better films. "Blow" does this, and it only makes clear how unsuccessful the film is. This film owes a debt to "GoodFellas" and "Boogie Nights," as well as a number of other films, but suffers greatly by comparison. It lacks the vitality, originality, and skill of "Traffic," and the existence of these inevitable comparisons only makes it clearer that "Blow" is bluntly put together, deeply flawed, and an uninteresting take on an important and fascinating topic.