|
>how is this possible? i read ur explanation for malcolm x,
>and as i havent read the autobio myself, i cant comment.
>but i really think its weak when people hate on a movie
>because theyve read the book and their expectations werent
>met. not valid, imo.
well, for starters, i'm not saying it's a bad movie and that's not the only thing i based my decision on.
a.almost like Ed Norton in American History, is Denzel in Malcolm X, except Spike did a better job here w/ his film. this is Dezel's movie, his performance, incredible as it is, i feel like its where the film derives everything positive from. if you can imagine any other actor, or just a performance not quite as magnetic, than the film decreases in quality. and as has been controversially stated by me before, i'm not to big on actors in general, and especially not judging a film's merit based largely on them or their acting.
b.regarding the book. you really should read it. but why i use it in basing my decision, is that if a director is working with an incredible, rich, insightful source material, and fails to capture most of that brilliance, then it can't be a successful adaptation, and thus not a successful telling of this man's story.
c.the first 35 or so minutes seems to be standard bio-pic moviemaking.
d.3/4 stars
>but um...how the fuck did u like he got game?
is it flawed? hell yeah. more flawed than Crookyln or Malcolm X even. i hate the last five minutes. i think Spike went a little overboard on the sex at times (as much as i love naked, busty blonde chicks). but still . . .i might actually like Denzel Washington better here . . .the chemistry between he and Ray Allen seems real . . .all the basketball sequences are shot with some real bravura and passion . . . from the cinematographer, Malik Hassan Sayeed, who brought us Clockers and Belly, comes some extraordinary, rich visuals . . .manages to say more about its subject and draws sturdier indictments than many of Spike's films . . .Rosario Dawson's titties . . .
>and 25th
>hour..
well, i don't think it's weak, though uneven at times. as i said, my top five would change often, so i coulda easily replaced 25th Hour with something like Mo Betta Blues. again, i'm a pussy for good cinematography, rich visuals, and risky camera work that pays-off. the story is told really well. it makes sense. Spike manages to always capture the right mood and tone, so that nothing really (except for the ending maybe) feels disjointed or contrived. brought attention to the heinous NY Rockefeller drugs laws. some great dialogue, notably at the club and w/ Ed Norton looking into the mirror at his father's restaurant.
>i think that
>get on the bus is severely slept on.
yes, most of Spike's films are severely slept on. given the circumstances, regarding time and money, which Get on the Bus was shot under, it's even a bit amazing. it's refreshing to see such a wide range of diverse characters, all 3-d and not typical Hollywood fare. at the same time, its low-budget look and dull images are kinda off-putting and boring. i don't like any of the white characters. i didn't feel involved in the story, what little of it there was.
>and what about
>crooklyn? havent u an ounce of a sentimentality in u, ricky?
i have tons of sentimentality in me. and while i would hesitate to call Crooklyn bad, and i don't think i would throw the word "good" around either. i'm not a fan of about a 20 or so middle stretch, filmed with some distracting technique/gimmick. also, the word "mundane" in describing the story might come to mind.
> and i havent seen all of summer of sam admittedly, but what
>i saw of it was pretty boring.
it's a movie i had to watch all the way through twice before i could appreciate, though it too is flawed and uneven.
>no jungle fever? tsk tsk.
good sex scene at least.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn 
