I watched Blow a while back on HBO, and I remember really liking it. Now I'm reading the book (which is quite good by the way) so I thought I'd rent it and watch it again. I did, but after watching the film a second time I found that I liked it considerably less this time.

I think it's partly to do with reading the book and knowing what isn't quite right, but I also thought that the movie was trying too hard to be like Goodfellas, especially the scenes around the birth of George's daughter.

It's still a good movie, just not nearly as good as I thought before.

Any thoughts?

IMO, this movie is aptly named...because it blows.

Blow's a great film with one of Depp's best performances. I was very moved by the last scenes. A biopic with a very good direction.

Ironically the director died with cocaine in his system.

Films like "Blow" go to show that no matter how much you dress your films up, if the director doesn't fully know his story, then it just can't work.
"Blow" tries to be a lot like "Goodfellas". Both are similiar (narration, soundtrack, Ray Liotta, etc.), but the difference is simple:
Scorsese is a skilled director. Demme (may he rest in peace) was not.
Henry Hill was a real loser. Made Scorsese made us care about what happened to him and his family.
George Jung (sp?) was also a loser, but the film (I felt) couldn't keep the viewer interested. It didn't make the viewer care.
And while Depp is a great actor, I felt this was one of his weakest performance.

Still, "Blow" is an entertaining flick. Not a bad film to watch on TV on a rainy day, but not a great film.

Blow is one of the greatest and most realistic movies imo.

The problem with the movie is George Jung himself. He's just a boring guy that lived a wild life. There is nothing interesting about his personality.

Blow is probley one of dozen films that i can watch over and over. Brilliant,especially the ending

Blow *
2001, Demme, US
The true story of George Jung, a Boston boy who grew up to become America's biggest smuggler of Colombian cocaine in the 70s.
Because of similar stuff that has gone before, the director feels it can succeed without a narrative; as a frenetically paced depiction of a man on the rise and then on the inevitable fall, it entertains as long as it lasts.

Mick