|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 13, 2020 11:46:53 GMT
90 Tomatometer 82 Metacritic 6.6 Imdb Few ratings atm. Using an IMDB score as a metric for a film by Spike Lee with an all-black cast that bashes Trump is about as useful as walking outside without a mask right now and grabbing hold of everyone you pass. As for the film, it's very good. Lindo is extraordinary and there's no way in hell he's supporting (way more of a lead than even Ali, Pitt, or Waltz). But we all know how these things go, so who's to say where he'll be campaigned. Hey, don't shoot the messenger...
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 13, 2020 13:02:34 GMT
Have to say, that as much deserved praise as Lindo is getting, and he will easily and rightfully run away with all the individual honors come award season, this is a terrific ensemble cast. The Bloods themselves are a wonderfully likable group of guys who are just fun to hang out with and watch for a couple of hours.Their bond feels as real as real can be. Majors and Peters have been covered, but Isaiah Whitlock jr reminds us why he became such an iconic TV character in The Wire (sheeeeeiiiiit! ). Whitlock is such a likeable presence and he adds a lot to the dynamic of the group. Norm Lewis does fine work, and Chadwick Boseman were he given a little bit more to do might have been up there with Peters and Majors as a supporting actor contender. But Boseman was terrific in the limited remit he had to play with. Jean Reno is a bit moustache twirly and surface level, but kinda fun. Johnny Tri Nyguen is subtle, likable and empathetic as the Bloods Vietenamese guide. And Melanie Thierry makes the strongest impression among the female roles. Thierry has been a presence in French cinema for a long time now, but this feels like a role that might open up doors for her in Hollywood and English language films.This feels like something that can easily win SAG Best Ensemble, imho.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jun 13, 2020 14:21:49 GMT
I lost track of how much the film goes on after he leaves it so maybe that will be part of it since it doesn't seem like a BA performance but a BSA......definitely ...................... I didn't really like the Trump shots in the finale because it seemed like low hanging fruit and that finale really seemed to take a lot of screen time too imo..........but yeah while he's in the movie........he's lead The film has exactly 15 minutes that goes on after he dies not counting credits. And he still gets an intercut monologue after he dies. I dunno, that's not nearly enough time in a 2.5 hour movie where he's given primary focus for at least half of it. I don't see how someone can claim fraud towards Ali, Waltz, or Pitt, and think this is a supporting performance. Who is he supporting?!? Do you also consider Peters lead?
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 13, 2020 15:03:19 GMT
Have to say, that as much deserved praise as Lindo is getting, and he will easily and rightfully run away with all the individual honors come award season, this is a terrific ensemble cast. The Bloods themselves are a wonderfully likable group of guys who are just fun to hang out with and watch for a couple of hours.Their bond feels as real as real can be. Majors and Peters have been covered, but Isaiah Whitlock jr reminds us why he became such an iconic TV character in The Wire (sheeeeeiiiiit! ). Whitlock is such a likeable presence and he adds a lot to the dynamic of the group. Norm Lewis does fine work, and Chadwick Boseman were he given a little bit more to do might have been up there with Peters and Majors as a supporting actor contender. But Boseman was terrific in the limited remit he had to play with. Jean Reno is a bit moustache twirly and surface level, but kinda fun. Johnny Tri Nyguen is subtle, likable and empathetic as the Bloods Vietenamese guide. And Melanie Thierry makes the strongest impression among the female roles. Thierry has been a presence in French cinema for a long time now, but this feels like a role that might open up doors for her in Hollywood and English language films.This feels like something that can easily win SAG Best Ensemble, imho. I've been thinking about the ensemble in general too, ever since I saw the film yesterday. Lindo is clearly the standout, but all of the Bloods are outstanding together, and have great comradery, which is what makes what happens to all of them at the end all the more tragic. I especially liked Whitlock Jr who had a lot of a great moments of "painful comedy", and modern realization. Aside from some of muddled action at the end (I don't think it's ever been Lee's strong suit), I thought it was a terrific film. I was surprised by how intense it got too, some of the things that happened at the end of the film were shocking to see.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Jun 13, 2020 15:32:44 GMT
The film has exactly 15 minutes that goes on after he dies not counting credits. And he still gets an intercut monologue after he dies. I dunno, that's not nearly enough time in a 2.5 hour movie where he's given primary focus for at least half of it. I don't see how someone can claim fraud towards Ali, Waltz, or Pitt, and think this is a supporting performance. Who is he supporting?!? Do you also consider Peters lead? That’s more debatable to me. I’d lean no, but I could understand thinking he is. The reality is there’s only three characters who are actually given proper development in Lindo, Peters, and Majors, so describing this as an Ensemble piece without a lead feels lazy and weak to me.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 13, 2020 17:02:49 GMT
Do you also consider Peters lead? That’s more debatable to me. I’d lean no, but I could understand thinking he is. The reality is there’s only three characters who are actually given proper development in Lindo, Peters, and Majors, so describing this as an Ensemble piece without a lead feels lazy and weak to me. Peters has all the elements of leading focus: a storyline that has nothing to do with the other Bloods, and a plot trajectory that could see him grow as a character (stepping up as a father to his daughter and being more of a paternal influence to Majors, as well as acting as the calm and rational yin to Lindo's yang; I really did think the paranoia surrounding his gun possession would be a bigger factor in the storyline), but the film all but abandons that at the halfway mark. Majors, too, has the groundwork laid as well but it's all but gone by that point as well. The film should have been an ensemble piece, but Lindo becomes so dominant and the others fail to get any real meat to their storylines that yeah, it would be a cop-out to call them all supporting.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 13, 2020 17:26:52 GMT
That’s more debatable to me. I’d lean no, but I could understand thinking he is. The reality is there’s only three characters who are actually given proper development in Lindo, Peters, and Majors, so describing this as an Ensemble piece without a lead feels lazy and weak to me. Peters has all the elements of leading focus: a storyline that has nothing to do with the other Bloods, and a plot trajectory that could see him grow as a character (stepping up as a father to his daughter and being more of a paternal influence to Majors, as well as acting as the calm and rational yin to Lindo's yang; I really did think the paranoia surrounding his gun possession would be a bigger factor in the storyline), but the film all but abandons that at the halfway mark. Majors, too, has the groundwork laid as well but it's all but gone by that point as well. The film should have been an ensemble piece, but Lindo becomes so dominant and the others fail to get any real meat to their storylines that yeah, it would be a cop-out to call them all supporting. It is an ensemble piece. Just one with a dominant performance in Lindo. It's not unheard of for an actor to tower above an ensemble. Think Bill Murray in Ghostbusters.Even so, I think you are underplaying just how good the rest of the cast were. For me, the characters played by Majors, Peters and Whitlock Jr were fully formed and didn't need improving on (Whitlock Jr didn't need his own side story. He worked fully in the moment as that humorous component of the group). Giving every character in the group their own personal side story for extra "development" would have been fucking awful and clunky. We got just as much as we needed. I don't think I've seen a more convincing group dynamic in a cast in a long time. It was genuinely beautiful just watching these guys interact. All these guys felt like they had truly known each other for decades. You would not get that feeling in an underdeveloped ensemble. Even Majors immediately felt like he'd been this nephew figure for the rest of the group for years. That's some kind of fucking alchemy. I also think Melanie Thierry and Johnny Tri Nyguen really added to the ensemble (especially in the final third of the film), beyond being extra warm bodies in the cast.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 13, 2020 17:29:33 GMT
Have to say, that as much deserved praise as Lindo is getting, and he will easily and rightfully run away with all the individual honors come award season, this is a terrific ensemble cast. The Bloods themselves are a wonderfully likable group of guys who are just fun to hang out with and watch for a couple of hours.Their bond feels as real as real can be. Majors and Peters have been covered, but Isaiah Whitlock jr reminds us why he became such an iconic TV character in The Wire (sheeeeeiiiiit! ). Whitlock is such a likeable presence and he adds a lot to the dynamic of the group. Norm Lewis does fine work, and Chadwick Boseman were he given a little bit more to do might have been up there with Peters and Majors as a supporting actor contender. But Boseman was terrific in the limited remit he had to play with. Jean Reno is a bit moustache twirly and surface level, but kinda fun. Johnny Tri Nyguen is subtle, likable and empathetic as the Bloods Vietenamese guide. And Melanie Thierry makes the strongest impression among the female roles. Thierry has been a presence in French cinema for a long time now, but this feels like a role that might open up doors for her in Hollywood and English language films.This feels like something that can easily win SAG Best Ensemble, imho. I've been thinking about the ensemble in general too, ever since I saw the film yesterday. Lindo is clearly the standout, but all of the Bloods are outstanding together, and have great comradery, which is what makes what happens to all of them at the end all the more tragic. I especially liked Whitlock Jr who had a lot of a great moments of "painful comedy", and modern realization. Aside from some of muddled action at the end (I don't think it's ever been Lee's strong suit), I thought it was a terrific film. I was surprised by how intense it got too, some of the things that happened at the end of the film were shocking to see. Absolutely. I can't fathom how people could complain about the quality of this ensemble just because Lindo was next level. Lindo was great, but I left the movie wanting to spend time with all these guys.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 13, 2020 19:08:25 GMT
It is an ensemble piece. Just one with a dominant performance in Lindo. It's not unheard of for an actor to tower above an ensemble. Think Bill Murray in Ghostbusters.Even so, I think you are underplaying just how good the rest of the cast were. For me, the characters played by Majors, Peters and Whitlock Jr were fully formed and didn't need improving on (Whitlock Jr didn't need his own side story. He worked fully in the moment as that humorous component of the group). Giving every character in the group their own personal side story for extra "development" would have been fucking awful and clunky. We got just as much as we needed. I don't think I've seen a more convincing group dynamic in a cast in a long time. It was genuinely beautiful just watching these guys interact. All these guys felt like they had truly known each other for decades. You would not get that feeling in an underdeveloped ensemble. Even Majors immediately felt like he'd been this nephew figure for the rest of the group for years. That's some kind of fucking alchemy. I also think Melanie Thierry and Johnny Tri Nyguen really added to the ensemble (especially in the final third of the film), beyond being extra warm bodies in the cast. Murray is the dominant lead in Ghostbusters because it's not really a proper ensemble. Murray's the one who is given the relationship angle with Sigourney Weaver and is the face of the franchise. Ray and Egon (and to a much much lesser extent, Winston) are notable and great in their own right, but I don't know how anyone could look at Ghostbusters and consider it a true ensemble. Murray is the lead. I enjoyed the dynamic among the cast because they're all natural performers and have a great rapport, but Whitlock, Jr. and Norm Lewis's characters really could've been folded into one another and you really wouldn't have lost much. The fun of watching Whitlock, Jr. was seeing Clay Davis walking about with Lester Freamon and holding out hope for his trademark "sheeeeee-it" (thank God we got it, too), but I don't remember much about him as a character aside from that. What was Melvin's story? We get a payoff from a throwaway gag midway through the movie at the end, but that's about it. And Norm Lewis's character got the reveal of his broke-ness right before he steps on the mine, but beyond that, the only character trait he had was that he had an Amex card. Narratively, they don't bring anything to the table save for being extra bodies. You can disagree, and that's fine, but in a film that presupposes being about a squad of friends, having only one character get a true and proper full arc while the others are relegated to second-tier growth positions (if that) is frustrating to me. Even if you compare it to something like Stand By Me, which has a similar four-ensemble dynamic, at least Teddy and Vern's characters were defined and had crucial plot necessities that drove the story in some way, even if it's Gordie and Chris who are the core of the story. But we don't get that with Eddie or Melvin.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 13, 2020 19:20:26 GMT
It is an ensemble piece. Just one with a dominant performance in Lindo. It's not unheard of for an actor to tower above an ensemble. Think Bill Murray in Ghostbusters.Even so, I think you are underplaying just how good the rest of the cast were. For me, the characters played by Majors, Peters and Whitlock Jr were fully formed and didn't need improving on (Whitlock Jr didn't need his own side story. He worked fully in the moment as that humorous component of the group). Giving every character in the group their own personal side story for extra "development" would have been fucking awful and clunky. We got just as much as we needed. I don't think I've seen a more convincing group dynamic in a cast in a long time. It was genuinely beautiful just watching these guys interact. All these guys felt like they had truly known each other for decades. You would not get that feeling in an underdeveloped ensemble. Even Majors immediately felt like he'd been this nephew figure for the rest of the group for years. That's some kind of fucking alchemy. I also think Melanie Thierry and Johnny Tri Nyguen really added to the ensemble (especially in the final third of the film), beyond being extra warm bodies in the cast. Murray is the dominant lead in Ghostbusters because it's not really a proper ensemble. Murray's the one who is given the relationship angle with Sigourney Weaver and is the face of the franchise. Ray and Egon (and to a much much lesser extent, Winston) are notable and great in their own right, but I don't know how anyone could look at Ghostbusters and consider it a true ensemble. Murray is the lead. I enjoyed the dynamic among the cast because they're all natural performers and have a great rapport, but Whitlock, Jr. and Norm Lewis's characters really could've been folded into one another and you really wouldn't have lost much. The fun of watching Whitlock, Jr. was seeing Clay Davis walking about with Lester Freamon and holding out hope for his trademark "sheeeeee-it" (thank God we got it, too), but I don't remember much about him as a character aside from that. What was Melvin's story? We get a payoff from a throwaway gag midway through the movie at the end, but that's about it. And Norm Lewis's character got the reveal of his broke-ness right before he steps on the mine, but beyond that, the only character trait he had was that he had an Amex card. Narratively, they don't bring anything to the table save for being extra bodies. You can disagree, and that's fine, but in a film that presupposes being about a squad of friends, having only one character get a true and proper full arc while the others are relegated to second-tier growth positions (if that) is frustrating to me. Even if you compare it to something like Stand By Me, which has a similar four-ensemble dynamic, at least Teddy and Vern's characters were defined and had crucial plot necessities that drove the story in some way, even if it's Gordie and Chris who are the core of the story. But we don't get that with Eddie or Melvin. I still think you are being a teensy bit picky on this element. An ensemble does not necessitate every character getting detailed backstory or development. Do we really delve into all the backstory's of The Magnificent Seven (for example)? ....or do only a couple get that treatment, while the rest just "second tier" growth. The Bloods are not a group of 4. It just seems that way at the start. It's really about six guys ( Majors and Boseman as well). Those are almost Magnificent Seven numbers, and not all of of them will be able to be much other than likable team members.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 13, 2020 19:26:11 GMT
Interesting review from Grace Randolph (whom I don't always agree with, but she has some interesting content). Worth a listen even if you don't agree with her insights. She thinks Da 5 Bloods is better than both The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre and Apocalypse Now.... and I thought I was a fan Don't know if I'd go that far (yet), but Lee really did something special with this.Jaw dropping filmmaking.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jun 13, 2020 19:29:09 GMT
As usual with a Spike Lee production the eye-rolling wink at you moments are all over it ( Trump and film references, Apocalypse Now, this one the most unbearable, even the song at the bar....ugh ) and way to many deus ex machina and easy manipulation in order to move forward to hide flat characterizations, but in some of those moments the pay off is tremendous and fairly engaging throughout ( although I don't know about rewatchability ), it feels earned unlike the majority of Blackkklansman. Lindo getting the praise is deserved but that's mainly because the other 4 guys from the title don't get anywhere near the treatment of his character, the path was cleared for him in that way.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 13, 2020 20:07:15 GMT
Murray is the dominant lead in Ghostbusters because it's not really a proper ensemble. Murray's the one who is given the relationship angle with Sigourney Weaver and is the face of the franchise. Ray and Egon (and to a much much lesser extent, Winston) are notable and great in their own right, but I don't know how anyone could look at Ghostbusters and consider it a true ensemble. Murray is the lead. I enjoyed the dynamic among the cast because they're all natural performers and have a great rapport, but Whitlock, Jr. and Norm Lewis's characters really could've been folded into one another and you really wouldn't have lost much. The fun of watching Whitlock, Jr. was seeing Clay Davis walking about with Lester Freamon and holding out hope for his trademark "sheeeeee-it" (thank God we got it, too), but I don't remember much about him as a character aside from that. What was Melvin's story? We get a payoff from a throwaway gag midway through the movie at the end, but that's about it. And Norm Lewis's character got the reveal of his broke-ness right before he steps on the mine, but beyond that, the only character trait he had was that he had an Amex card. Narratively, they don't bring anything to the table save for being extra bodies. You can disagree, and that's fine, but in a film that presupposes being about a squad of friends, having only one character get a true and proper full arc while the others are relegated to second-tier growth positions (if that) is frustrating to me. Even if you compare it to something like Stand By Me, which has a similar four-ensemble dynamic, at least Teddy and Vern's characters were defined and had crucial plot necessities that drove the story in some way, even if it's Gordie and Chris who are the core of the story. But we don't get that with Eddie or Melvin. I still think you are being a teensy bit picky on this element. An ensemble does not necessitate every character getting detailed backstory or development. Do we really delve into all the backstory's of The Magnificent Seven (for example)? ....or do only a couple get that treatment, while the rest just "second tier" growth. The Bloods are not a group of 4. It just seems that way at the start. It's really about six guys ( Majors and Boseman as well). Those are almost Magnificent Seven numbers, and not all of of them will be able to be much other than likable team members. Sure, it doesn't necessitate that they all have equal perspective to Lindo, but Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen didn't have the sheer amount of focus and characterization that Lindo had, especially in comparison to the other guys in their respective films. That's why you can't treat it as a true ensemble film. I'm not demanding that they all be equivalent to Lindo's presence, because obviously that would be an overstuffed movie, but Clarke Peters at the very least was poised to have a strong arc to rival his, and it just didn't after the halfway mark. But I would've liked there to be more of Whitlock, Jr. and Lewis, because I never felt like they had enough to work with despite having a good rapport with the others (and I just found it weird how the movie just kind of glosses over them, especially when the whole crux of the return to 'Nam was to bring home Norman's body; you almost have to ask yourself why they even bothered with that if most of the others were going to be stuck there with him). And I know you liked Thierry, but I found the minesweeper subplot rather hokey and I really, really could've done without their bumbling up on them at that critical moment, especially because they don't really do anything to help the situation.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 13, 2020 20:25:45 GMT
I still think you are being a teensy bit picky on this element. An ensemble does not necessitate every character getting detailed backstory or development. Do we really delve into all the backstory's of The Magnificent Seven (for example)? ....or do only a couple get that treatment, while the rest just "second tier" growth. The Bloods are not a group of 4. It just seems that way at the start. It's really about six guys ( Majors and Boseman as well). Those are almost Magnificent Seven numbers, and not all of of them will be able to be much other than likable team members. Sure, it doesn't necessitate that they all have equal perspective to Lindo, but Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen didn't have the sheer amount of focus and characterization that Lindo had, especially in comparison to the other guys in their respective films. That's why you can't treat it as a true ensemble film. I'm not demanding that they all be equivalent to Lindo's presence, because obviously that would be an overstuffed movie, but Clarke Peters at the very least was poised to have a strong arc to rival his, and it just didn't after the halfway mark. But I would've liked there to be more of Whitlock, Jr. and Lewis, because I never felt like they had enough to work with despite having a good rapport with the others (and I just found it weird how the movie just kind of glosses over them, especially when the whole crux of the return to 'Nam was to bring home Norman's body; you almost have to ask yourself why they even bothered with that if most of the others were going to be stuck there with him). And I know you liked Thierry, but I found the minesweeper subplot rather hokey and I really, really could've done without their bumbling up on them at that critical moment, especially because they don't really do anything to help the situation. Honestly, I think Majors and Peters characters were just as strongly developed as Lindo.The difference is Lindo was playing an extreme character, and that allowed him to play more extreme traits and emotions. Majors growth throughout the film was fantastic. He started off almost seeming like an obnoxious dickhead who just wanted to get in on his dad's treasure hunt. I started off disliking him. But right up till the end, his character grows and matures and basically works not to become his father. His arc is there from start to finish, it's just more subtle compared to the guy dealing with PSTD demons.. Not everyone can be the "crazy guy" that attracts the most attention in a movie, which Lindo essentially gets to play. But I loved the arc of Majors character, and Peters was the soul of the film (he's like a Morgan Freeman, if Freeman's schtick had yet to become cliched). Lindo may have had the most visceral role and it's simply going to be more eye-catching by it's very nature, but I think Peters and Majors were as well developed.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 13, 2020 21:45:17 GMT
Sure, it doesn't necessitate that they all have equal perspective to Lindo, but Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen didn't have the sheer amount of focus and characterization that Lindo had, especially in comparison to the other guys in their respective films. That's why you can't treat it as a true ensemble film. I'm not demanding that they all be equivalent to Lindo's presence, because obviously that would be an overstuffed movie, but Clarke Peters at the very least was poised to have a strong arc to rival his, and it just didn't after the halfway mark. But I would've liked there to be more of Whitlock, Jr. and Lewis, because I never felt like they had enough to work with despite having a good rapport with the others (and I just found it weird how the movie just kind of glosses over them, especially when the whole crux of the return to 'Nam was to bring home Norman's body; you almost have to ask yourself why they even bothered with that if most of the others were going to be stuck there with him). And I know you liked Thierry, but I found the minesweeper subplot rather hokey and I really, really could've done without their bumbling up on them at that critical moment, especially because they don't really do anything to help the situation. Honestly, I think Majors and Peters characters were just as strongly developed as Lindo.The difference is Lindo was playing an extreme character, and that allowed him to play more extreme traits and emotions. Majors growth throughout the film was fantastic. He started off almost seeming like an obnoxious dickhead who just wanted to get in on his dad's treasure hunt. I started off disliking him. But right up till the end, his character grows and matures and basically works not to become his father. His arc is there from start to finish, it's just more subtle compared to the guy dealing with PSTD demons.. Not everyone can be the "crazy guy" that attracts the most attention in a movie, which Lindo essentially gets to play. But I loved the arc of Majors character, and Peters was the soul of the film (he's like a Morgan Freeman, if Freeman's schtick had yet to become cliched). Lindo may have had the most visceral role and it's simply going to be more eye-catching by it's very nature, but I think Peters and Majors were as well developed. The thing is, though, Majors's character exists purely through his relationship with Lindo. He has no real dynamic with any of the other Bloods except for Peters (which is a promising one, and I think if they had jettisoned the minesweepers they would've had enough time to develop his bond with his "godfather", which might've raised the stakes in having David choose between his true father and the one who respects him whenever Lindo's paranoia got the better of him (which is why I think the film missed a huge trick when it dumped the gun facet). But David has no relationship with Melvin or Eddie (does he even exchange any dialogue with the latter?). David does have an arc, but it's 100% dependent on his relationship with Paul. Which further emphasizes that it is Lindo's movie, not an ensemble piece.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 13, 2020 23:11:51 GMT
5/10, rounding up for Delroy Lindo’s mega-MAGA-meltdown of a perf and I mean meltdown as he’s just pouring sweat which is a great visual metaphor of his brimmed-over guilt. His big at-camera monologue might be my favorite moment - a thrilling bit of sad Shakespearean madness. Otherwise while it’s such a timely movie in some ways at the same time it's a huge letdown and even hard to take seriously bc of the trainwreck of a script and how constantly parodically contrived it is. Spike fiddles a little too much - aspect ratio, jarring music over scenes that don’t need it, and all those inserts which are mostly okay but at a certain point they’re uncalled for. Why do we need to see some of the most famous heart wrenching photo-captures ever during what is at least somewhat a generic action movie with telegraphed reveals and elementary dialogue. Spike isn’t the first to make a black Vietnam movie and though he tries to puncture this with so much added feeling (like the ending speeches), his resort to reference feels at times either awkward or desperate and his uneven hand gives this a total offness.
|
|
BlackCaesar21
New Member
You're barking up the wrong acorn!
Posts: 142
Likes: 103
|
Post by BlackCaesar21 on Jun 14, 2020 0:00:12 GMT
5/10, rounding up for Delroy Lindo’s mega-MAGA-meltdown of a perf and I mean meltdown as he’s just pouring sweat which is a great visual metaphor of his brimmed-over guilt. His big at-camera monologue might be my favorite moment - a thrilling bit of sad Shakespearean madness. Otherwise while it’s such a timely movie in some ways at the same time it's a huge letdown and even hard to take seriously bc of the trainwreck of a script and how constantly parodically contrived it is. Spike fiddles a little too much - aspect ratio, jarring music over scenes that don’t need it, and all those inserts which are mostly okay but at a certain point they’re uncalled for. Why do we need to see some of the most famous heart wrenching photo-captures ever during what is at least somewhat a generic action movie with telegraphed reveals and elementary dialogue. Spike isn’t the first to make a black Vietnam movie and though he tries to puncture this with so much added feeling (like the ending speeches), his resort to reference feels at times either awkward or desperate and his uneven hand gives this a total offness. I agree with you on this, he's a brave filmmaker but the lad needs to just hold back a bit. A tad indulgent
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 14, 2020 0:11:31 GMT
5/10, rounding up for Delroy Lindo’s mega-MAGA-meltdown of a perf and I mean meltdown as he’s just pouring sweat which is a great visual metaphor of his brimmed-over guilt. His big at-camera monologue might be my favorite moment - a thrilling bit of sad Shakespearean madness. Otherwise while it’s such a timely movie in some ways at the same time it's a huge letdown and even hard to take seriously bc of the trainwreck of a script and how constantly parodically contrived it is. Spike fiddles a little too much - aspect ratio, jarring music over scenes that don’t need it, and all those inserts which are mostly okay but at a certain point they’re uncalled for. Why do we need to see some of the most famous heart wrenching photo-captures ever during what is at least somewhat a generic action movie with telegraphed reveals and elementary dialogue. Spike isn’t the first to make a black Vietnam movie and though he tries to puncture this with so much added feeling (like the ending speeches), his resort to reference feels at times either awkward or desperate and his uneven hand gives this a total offness. I think think this is as awful a take as you can get, but each to their own. I simply don't think you get Lee as a filmmaker and probably never will, and that was sort of punctuated for me with your strange Charles Burnett take the other day. This is going to go down as one of the best films ever made. Can't see any other outcome. I'm not really prone to that type of hyperbole for a film (especially on first watch), but it's as plain to see as possible. I'm more than comfortable putting it in the same tier as all-timers like Apocalypse Now and The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre. It's an instant classic, and honestly I despair when I read takes like this here about a film so brilliant and vital when I saw people literally dying to defend a film as stale and lifeless as The Irishman (which Da 5 Bloods is a million times better than) from criticism just because it had Scorsese's name on it (and some iconic actors). I love Scorsese. He"s one of the greatest directors ever, and in totality, he's greater than Lee. But I can't recall the last time Marty made a film anywhere near as good as Da 5 Bloods.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 14, 2020 0:49:17 GMT
pupdurcs' ardent passion for Spike Lee (and Denzel) is adorable.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 14, 2020 0:55:28 GMT
pupdurcs' ardent passion for Spike Lee (and Denzel) is adorable. You forgot Nicole Kidman.Or were you trying to insinuate something else Besides which, my "passion" for Lee is nowhere near as ardent as it is for Denzel or Kidman. I respect the guy and think he's one of the best American filmmakers ever, but he's not the very best for me. I put the actors right at the top of their field by comparison. So yeah, the white Australian woman, in comparative terms is better than Lee to me. There are several filmmakers I'd argue to be greater than Lee. Now do you want to add some meaningful criticism to this thread, or some more pithy nonsense about me being "adorable" And as an aside, I don't take too kindly for random mentions of Denzel being brought up to devalue or derail my contributions to a thread that has nothing to do with him. I've seen that tactic played too many times now over the years, and I find it abhorrent, lazy, intellectually dishonest and distasteful. We've generally been cool, but I'm letting you know my boundaries, just in case. But if that's the level you wish to go to, thanks for the heads up. Take it back on topic, please.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 14, 2020 1:46:18 GMT
pupdurcs' ardent passion for Spike Lee (and Denzel) is adorable. You forgot Nicole Kidman.Or were you trying to insinuate something else Besides which, my "passion" for Lee is nowhere near as ardent as it is for Denzel or Kidman. I respect the guy and think he's one of the best American filmmakers ever, but he's not the very best for me. I put the actors right at the top of their field by comparison. So yeah, the white Australian woman, in comparative terms is better than Lee to me. There are several filmmakers I'd argue to be greater than Lee. Now do you want to add some meaningful criticism to this thread, or some more pithy nonsense about me being "adorable" And as an aside, I don't take too kindly for random mentions of Denzel being brought up to devalue or derail my contributions to a thread that has nothing to do with him. I've seen that tactic played too many times now over the years, and I find it abhorrent, lazy, intellectually dishonest and distasteful. We've generally been cool, but I'm letting you know my boundaries, just in case. But if that's the level you wish to go to, thanks for the heads up. Take it back on topic, please. Awwww man, chill. I just found your hyperbolic praise of Lee to come from a pretty strong place of love, clearly it had to come from there and nowhere else. That just stood out in this thread. Nothing about Denzel (or Kidman). And yeah... we've generally been cool too, and yeah..... I generally agree with the majority of your takes. The ones on Huston and..... surely some others..... Zellweger, was that you? That I forgot.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 14, 2020 2:10:40 GMT
You forgot Nicole Kidman.Or were you trying to insinuate something else Besides which, my "passion" for Lee is nowhere near as ardent as it is for Denzel or Kidman. I respect the guy and think he's one of the best American filmmakers ever, but he's not the very best for me. I put the actors right at the top of their field by comparison. So yeah, the white Australian woman, in comparative terms is better than Lee to me. There are several filmmakers I'd argue to be greater than Lee. Now do you want to add some meaningful criticism to this thread, or some more pithy nonsense about me being "adorable" And as an aside, I don't take too kindly for random mentions of Denzel being brought up to devalue or derail my contributions to a thread that has nothing to do with him. I've seen that tactic played too many times now over the years, and I find it abhorrent, lazy, intellectually dishonest and distasteful. We've generally been cool, but I'm letting you know my boundaries, just in case. But if that's the level you wish to go to, thanks for the heads up. Take it back on topic, please. Awwww man, chill. I just found your hyperbolic praise of Lee to come from a pretty strong place of love, clearly it had to come from there (no others). That just stood out in this thread. Nothing about Denzel (or Kidman). And yeah... we've generally been cool too, and yeah..... I generally agree with the majority of your takes. The ones on Huston and..... surely some others..... Zellweger, was that you? That I forgot. I don't actually think my praise of Lee is remotely hyperbolic. He gets that level of praise that I give him in critical circles a lot. Regularly in fact. It may only appear so on a board like this, where he's comparatively underrated, and (some) people have been almost trained to devalue his work for a long time. In actual reality, Lee is probably one of the most revered and respected auteurs ever. I shouldn't really have to be defending the calibre of his body of work or his overall stature. Plenty of critics and other cinephile circles have been doing that for years without my help. If critics compiled a list of the 20 greatest directors of all time, I don't think it'd be considered a huge surprise if Lee got on that list. That's how highly I know he's rated in critical and other spaces. It's more about respect for Lee. I thinks he gets much less than he deserves in some spaces, while in many other critical or cinephile spaces, he's just as revered as I just mentioned. I got that kind of respect for Lee, that I see applied more in other spaces, and I just try to apply that respect that I see for him elsewhere, here. It just odd to me that a director of his stature can still be openly disrespected in some circles. It's not much deeper than that. Even so, it doesn't affect my opinion of Da 5 Bloods. If it was a dud or merely "ok", I wouldn't hesitate to say so at all. I think Spike hit it out of the park with this one, and I love defending work as exceptional as this.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 14, 2020 2:25:50 GMT
Awwww man, chill. I just found your hyperbolic praise of Lee to come from a pretty strong place of love, clearly it had to come from there (no others). That just stood out in this thread. Nothing about Denzel (or Kidman). And yeah... we've generally been cool too, and yeah..... I generally agree with the majority of your takes. The ones on Huston and..... surely some others..... Zellweger, was that you? That I forgot. I don't actually think my praise of Lee is remotely hyperbolic. He gets that level of praise that I give him in critical circles a lot. Regularly in fact. It may only appear so on a board like this, where he's comparatively underrated, and (some) people have been almost trained to devalue his work for a long time. In actual reality, Lee is probably one of the most revered and respected auteurs ever. I shouldn't really have to be defending the calibre of his body of work or his overall stature. Plenty of critics and other cinephile circles have been doing that for years without my help. If critics compiled a list of the 20 greatest directors of all time, I don't think it'd be considered a huge surprise if Lee got on that list. That's how highly I know he's rated in critical and other spaces. It's more about respect for Lee. I thinks he gets much less than he deserves in some spaces, while in many other critical or cinephile spaces, he's just as revered as I just mentioned. I got that kind of respect for Lee, that I see applied more in other spaces, and I just try to apply that respect that I see for him elsewhere, here. It just odd to me that a director of his stature can still be openly disrespected in some circles. It's not much deeper than that. Hey, now... come on dude. I like Spike Lee too. I think Do the Right Thing is one of the most original films of that era. It's a great zeitgeist, anthem of the times, pumping with passion and sharp insight into ghetto urban culture (and a highly truthful film) , not to mention hilarious, and the assortments of characters were a wide spectrum. It's definitely the closest comparison to Goodfellas from that period (1989-1990). Not to mention, it wore the aesthetic of Public Enemy which just went to show how important that film was culturally. And I don't think he's a one-hit wonder or anything. There are other films I even think are vastly underrated, and not nearly talked about enough. Summer of Sam (for instance) > Magnolia. But he's not Top 20 all-time directors. If you compare him to Clint Eastwood or William Wyler or Richard Linklater, that would comparing him to directors of an equal talent-level and stature, but I don't think you can truly compare him to Coppola, Scorsese, Renoir, Ozu, and directors like those and claim that he's a Top 20 all-time director. Sure, IMDB isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and you can have your opinion. Not saying your opinion is in any way wrong. And I'm not criticizing you for being hyperbolic. You can be hyperbolic if you choose, but I just think you're too loosely stating your claims as facts, to the point where it's...... ya know, slightly comical. (the first thing I noticed)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 14, 2020 2:53:05 GMT
I don't actually think my praise of Lee is remotely hyperbolic. He gets that level of praise that I give him in critical circles a lot. Regularly in fact. It may only appear so on a board like this, where he's comparatively underrated, and (some) people have been almost trained to devalue his work for a long time. In actual reality, Lee is probably one of the most revered and respected auteurs ever. I shouldn't really have to be defending the calibre of his body of work or his overall stature. Plenty of critics and other cinephile circles have been doing that for years without my help. If critics compiled a list of the 20 greatest directors of all time, I don't think it'd be considered a huge surprise if Lee got on that list. That's how highly I know he's rated in critical and other spaces. It's more about respect for Lee. I thinks he gets much less than he deserves in some spaces, while in many other critical or cinephile spaces, he's just as revered as I just mentioned. I got that kind of respect for Lee, that I see applied more in other spaces, and I just try to apply that respect that I see for him elsewhere, here. It just odd to me that a director of his stature can still be openly disrespected in some circles. It's not much deeper than that. Hey, now... come on dude. I like Spike Lee too. I think Do the Right Thing is one of the most original films of that era. It's a great zeitgeist, anthem of the times, pumping with passion and sharp insight into ghetto urban culture (and a highly truthful film) , not to mention hilarious, and the assortments of characters were a wide spectrum. It's definitely the closest comparison to Goodfellas from that period (1989-1990). Not to mention, it wore the aesthetic of Public Enemy which just went to show how important that film was culturally. And I don't think he's a one-hit wonder or anything. There are other films I even think are vastly underrated, and not nearly talked about enough. Summer of Sam (for instance) > Magnolia. But he's not Top 20 all-time directors. If you compare him to Clint Eastwood or William Wyler or Richard Linklater, that would comparing him to directors of an equal talent-level and stature, but I don't think you can truly compare him to Coppola, Scorsese, Renoir, Ozu, and directors like that and claim that he's a Top 20 all-time director. Sure, IMDB isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and you can have your opinion. Not saying your opinion is in any way wrong. And I'm not criticizing you for being hyperbolic. You can be hyperbolic if you choose, but I just think you're too loosely stating your claims as facts, to the point where it's...... ya know, slightly comical. (the first thing I noticed) I didn't say he was in my top 20 directors of all time list, did I? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Never given much thought to ranking him like that. I just said, that I don't think it would come as much of a surprise if critics voted on a top 20 directors all-time list and he was on it. He might not be, but it just wouldn't be a shock if he was, imho. And if you did think it would be a surprise, then you simply don't play close enough attention to critical discourse or their echo chamber. Through good times and bad, critics have generally done their best to keep Spike's rep elevated. There's many a huge auteur they've sort of let go of or deemed irrelevant (think Oliver Stone, once sort of equal to critical stature to Lee, but who has not maintained Lee's critical stature for as long). But they have kept faith with Lee for damned near 35 years now. It's all opinions at the end of the day. If someone wants to put William Wyler in their top 20 directors of all-time list, who the fuck am I to tell them they are wrong? I don't have to agree, but Wyler is historically accomplished enough for a top 20 placement to not be considered absurd, if somebody wants to go there. Same goes for Lee. This isn't a police state. There is no right or wrong answer, where you get sent to the gulag if you mention Lee and Wyler alongside Scorsese and Ozu.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 14, 2020 3:05:43 GMT
Hey, now... come on dude. I like Spike Lee too. I think Do the Right Thing is one of the most original films of that era. It's a great zeitgeist, anthem of the times, pumping with passion and sharp insight into ghetto urban culture (and a highly truthful film) , not to mention hilarious, and the assortments of characters were a wide spectrum. It's definitely the closest comparison to Goodfellas from that period (1989-1990). Not to mention, it wore the aesthetic of Public Enemy which just went to show how important that film was culturally. And I don't think he's a one-hit wonder or anything. There are other films I even think are vastly underrated, and not nearly talked about enough. Summer of Sam (for instance) > Magnolia. But he's not Top 20 all-time directors. If you compare him to Clint Eastwood or William Wyler or Richard Linklater, that would comparing him to directors of an equal talent-level and stature, but I don't think you can truly compare him to Coppola, Scorsese, Renoir, Ozu, and directors like that and claim that he's a Top 20 all-time director. Sure, IMDB isn't the be-all-and-end-all, and you can have your opinion. Not saying your opinion is in any way wrong. And I'm not criticizing you for being hyperbolic. You can be hyperbolic if you choose, but I just think you're too loosely stating your claims as facts, to the point where it's...... ya know, slightly comical. (the first thing I noticed) I didn't say he was in my top 20 directors of all time list, did I? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Never given much thought to ranking him like that. I just said, that I don't think it would come as much of a surprise if critics voted on a top 20 directors list and he was on it. And if you did think it would be a surprise, then you simply don't play close enough attention to critical discourse or their echo chamber. Through good times and bad, critics have generally done their best to keep Spike's rep elevated. It's all opinions at the end of the day. If someone wants to put William Wyler in their top 20 directors of all-time list, who the fuck am I to tell them they are wrong? I don't have to agree, but Wyler is historically accomplished enough for a top 20 placement to not be considered absurd, if somebody wants to go there. Same goes for Lee. This isn't a police state. There is no right or wrong answer, where you get sent to the gulag if you mention Lee and Wyler alongside Scorsese and Ozu.Who sends anyone to the gulags dude? I'm the least likely to feel the need to go there over film opinions - I think you got the wrong guy here. I've always let people have their own (and visa versa) - it's some other people that feel the need to police things like that. (that a_bout_de_souffle character from like 8 years ago is the best example) I'm just saying.... no, I don't think Spike is anywhere close to being Top 20 in my personal opinion. William Wyler is just a random example, but I think Spike's best >>> Wyler's best so he can claim to be better based on that, or not, I dunno... but random example anyways. And no..... I don't recall seeing any list putting him that high. You even said his closest counterpart (by filmmaking style) is Oliver Stone. Does anyone put Oliver Stone that high? Come on now. Still, Spike can claim to be better than Stone because like you said Stone got washed up after the 90s where Spike kept on making relevant films despite a few small periods of down activity. (Holy shit.... I remember Alexander...... just...ugh, that was a turn for the worst, lmao and it all went down for him from then on.) But I don't think the fact that he persisted longer than Stone automatically jumps him into the top 20 though.
|
|