American History X (1998)

Wonderful performance by Norton

This movie would not have been as believable if Edward Norton was not in it. His almost maniacal performance is simply astounding. You can see it in his eyes, he takes this role 100% seriously. It truly is probably his best performance to date and surely worthy of the Oscar nomination. I sometimes find him to be understated, but there is no mistaking that in this film. He owns this role and he is the reason to see this film.

That said, the film itself is nothing truly innovative or spectacular, the subject matter isn't original or shocking, but it did hook me in regardless. Again, the acting made it believable. The prison scenes were an eye opener, thought a tad on the cliché side, but I couldn't help but be moved.

The ending, for me, almost didn't make any sense in the grand scheme of things, but I think the director ended it exaclty where it was supposed to end. In my mind, it could have gone a little longer in regards to an extended ending. Actually, doing some research, I read that a longer ending was planned, but never filmed. If it was, it would have been purely for the shock value.

I would recommend this film to anyone that wants a good story with wonderful performances. July 17, 2008

POWERFUL film from Edward Norton!

this has to be one of the best onscreen performances from Edward Norton. hard to watch in places, but definately a movie he should have won the Oscar for for his portrayal of a Neo-Nazi skinhead. hes definately one of the best actors of this generation, since "Incredible Hulk" is his best film to date, American History X is definately Top 3 of his career. July 16, 2008

American History X

Gripping! Edward Norton and Edward Furlong are incredible actors. The movie is an eye opener about hatred, intolerance, and environmental effects on our behavior. The events in the story could be true to life makes it scary. Compelling story. July 2, 2008

American History X - Public perception of a masterpiece in retrospect

Vintage years for film seem to come in bunches - the late forties - the late nineties - being primary examples. In the thick - when the critics become the most confused - spoiled by the surfeit, we, the movie going masses seem to troop along. Such a year for film was 1998-1999. Most of us have had our differences with the judgments of The Academy of Arts and Sciences (if you're not smiling by now - don't read further). But none of the Academy's many shameful blunders compare to what went down on Oscar night 1998. Let me remind you. The nominees for best picture: Shakespeare In Love (winner), Elizabeth, Life is Beautiful (Best Foreign Language Film winner), Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line. O.K. I'll ask: Would any of you today, in your right mind, claim that any of these films (every one of them set in Europe, by the way), with the possible exception of Saving Private Ryan, held a candle to that enduring masterpiece, in the opinion of so many here, and elsewhere, one of the greatest and most important and moving films ever made, American History X?

Over time, the vox populi imparts justice of sorts. These days, when I inquire of my 20-something students if any of them have seen Shakespeare In Love, maybe a hand goes up. Perhaps, this handily-crafted piece of fluff (with its cavalier sense of history) made all the more delicious by the mellifluous, long-waisted presence of La Paltrow, goddess of the late dot com boom in the blush of young beauty, deserved a better fate. Perhaps not. Perhaps, the spectacle of Gwynnie dancing with Daddy (like Candy) at her Oscar coronation helped prepare T.V. audiences for the nepotistic profligacy of the coming Bush inauguration. Perhaps, nothing could have prepared them.

The response to American History X is, of course, quite different. A decade later, an entirely new generation of viewers again experiences the intensity and passion of this magisterial cinematic statement and responds in kind. My point is: there's no substitute for a film which has something crucial say and says it as well as it could be said.

We all know how much inconsequential junk is passed of as cinema every year. Like the audience, the film industry must eat to stay alive. Clichés, humorless as ever, abound. Ask Bruce Willis to say something on film. That's why I'm upset. When a great script gets made into a masterpiece, in Hollywood no less, even the best tend to shun or worse, pan it. Or misunderstand it. This film is about a lot more than misguided white racist supremacy. Please. And Derek's rhetoric is not that logically powerful or convincing to be obsessed over, as many critics have, at the expense of all the many more important things this film says.

Take the greatest screenwriting mentors: Robert McKee and Syd Field. McKee's masterpiece, Story, may be best book ever written on dramatic writing (roll over Aristotle), or writing narrative, period. Sine qua non for attempting to write for the cinema. What is the favorite script of these genius pedagogues? Chinatown. No doubt a great script - the textbook exemplar. And - in many senses a great film - made at a pivotal moment in the history of film - a moment it eulogized - the passing of film noir. Yeah. The ultimate corruption of the world, the masked and massive darkness we found our world on. The perversity of power we enshrine in our struggle for survival. But to tell you truly, American History X (to my knowledge wholly ignored by both Field and McKee in their writings and seminars) is the greater script (for all the principles it betrays) and the greater film. The proof is in the pudding: this film enunciates the essential conflict of our time, not another, or the fruit of that conflict, whichever way one wishes to see it. And I would go further. I would say, in the progressive cadences of its tragedy, in the somber measure of its gravity, this script ranks with the best of Aescylus and Sophocles. You mean Oedipus X? Yuh, that too. That grimy little block of Venice, CA takes on epic proportion by the film's end.

The night the Academy snubbed American History X has long since receded into the past. But that history which is ours, depicted here, is an event which we must claim as our own, a responsibility which none of us, as a humanity, can evade.
July 2, 2008

Cream of the Crop

Hands down, this is an amazing movie. There is very little to find wrong with this movie.

The acting is by far the highlight of this film. While not his breakout role, this is the first movie where Norton really showed he was a star. He goes from downright scary to completely likable through the movie. More importantly, its a transition you really believe.

Furlong, who bothers me a lot, mostly it's his voice, also puts in a good performance. The rest of the cast also adds a lot to the movie. I am a fan of Ethan Suplee, and this is role is one of the reasons. Also Fairuza Balk puts in a sold performance. And Avery Brooks, always a winner, really comes through. I think Brooks puts in the second best performance, next to Norton, of the whole film. In a movie with the caliber of acting, thats saying something.

The story itself is uplifting in it's own way, but still very dark. This is definitely a drama, so anyone looking for lighter fair should steer clear. Normally I am not a fan of flashbacks, but they are handled very well. The pacing is dead on, and the viewer is not left wondering how much time is left until the movie is over.

This is a quality flick, one of my all time favorites, and a must see for any moviegoer. May 29, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...