|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jun 14, 2020 3:49:40 GMT
90 Tomatometer 82 Metacritic 6.6 Imdb Few ratings atm. The IMDB rating is the least surprising thing in the world Why people still use it as a measure of anything is beyond me. It's always had such a strong racist contingent in it's voting patterns. Typically, I think it's interesting way to see what people think. The audience score on RT is 63% too.
However, people are likely giving it bad reviews just because of the politics. I wouldn't be too concerned with these ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jun 14, 2020 4:01:03 GMT
Pretty great overall. Lindo is fantastic. I don't know how he would be considered supporting though. How many times has the first billed actor gone supporting? The closest case for supporting may be Christoph Waltz in Django but I still think he's lead.
I wish Clarke Peters was given more to do. He's an underrated actor that always delivers. This is Spike Lee's version of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
8/10.
|
|
Savager
Junior Member
Posts: 430
Likes: 508
|
Post by Savager on Jun 14, 2020 6:36:32 GMT
Delroy Lindo was absolutely tremendous, and would be a worthy Oscar winner, but this film was a fucking mess.
If this wins any screenplay awards, it'd be a travesty. By far the worst element of this film.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 14, 2020 7:32:58 GMT
Delroy Lindo was absolutely tremendous, and would be a worthy Oscar winner, but this film was a fucking mess. If this wins any screenplay awards, it'd be a travesty. By far the worst element of this film. I liked it a little more than some, a little less than others (~7/10) but not only is the writing all over the place - it's hard to know where the writing is bad and where Lee makes the writing look worse. There is something very formulaic in both of his last 2 movies (he and Kevin Willmott are 2 of 4 writers on each) - and the formula seems to be take a high concept idea, with some nifty lines, some TVish plotting (Starsky & Hutch in the first, and I dunno maybe The A Team in the other) and then drop each film into film history by referencing other films (the endless movie quoting in both). This element is where his "formula" really shows itself ........you can actually pinpoint the parts where the films creakily echo other in a cringe way like the "fugazi Rambo" scene, the Trump bashing (which would be fine, but he's always trite in writing it).....there are scenes in the movie that ring false - like sure maybe Crispus Attucks might get mentioned but it adds up too much..........when "The House" gets mentioned (Lee's alma mater) and Edwin Moses (who could fly ) gets mentioned in the WAY he gets mentioned in that scene - something clicks in your head that goes "who the fnck TALKS like this?" anyway........
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jun 14, 2020 10:26:33 GMT
I liked the movie very much and thought it was about on par with "BlacKkKlansman" in terms of quality. This one is definitely a bit more sprawling but it's damn powerful nonetheless. I often think that Lee's very best days are behind him - he says that having gained more experience he's become better as a director over the years but I firmly believe that his youthful experimentation was THE best era of his oeuvre with his late 80s-early 90s output being some of the most unique and vital cinema of its time. His filmic language is a bit more reserved these days but I'm very happy to see that glimpses of that incredible ambition are still very much alive inside his mind. It's precisely Lee's vibrant vision that stops the film from becoming your average jungle thriller like "Triple Frontier" or something - throughout the viewing I felt that I was watching a genuinely unconventional war film despite some fairly conventional plot trappings. It's all in the way Lee presents the story and in the way his characters interact. All those wonderful aspect ratio changes and historical inserts and the aliveness of the dialogue heavily contribute to the film's inner energy which kept me captivated from beginning to end. What's most reminscent of Lee's early work here is the very strong use of color which I observed - color is of course a great tool for not only creating memorable imagery but emphasizing emotions too and boy does it make a glorious comeback to Lee's photography here. The Oliver Stone-like mixture of various film stocks and digital shooting also worked very well for me. The film's cinematic heart sure is beating here. Yes, there is a "Sierra Madre" kind of a gold hunt here but I think that "Da 5 Bloods" smartly shifts its focus from plot mechanics to the titular group, making them and their bond the centre of the storytelling. But Delroy Lindo's Paul gets an even further focal push and his character's trajectory makes the choice worth it. The man disintigrates in front of our eyes and yet simultaneously puts himself back together. Going on a self-destructive journey he actually gets a chance to put the pieces of his broken self back together - an idea that felt tremendously engaging to me. Which was of course helped by Lindo giving a terrific performance. I often wonder about the inner places actors have to go to in order to give performances like this. But however painful the process may be, it sure seems worth it when the performances excel to such an extent. Now, I didn't think the entirety of the movie was perfect. That first Vietnam action sequence had me worried for a while with its awful CGI but thankfully Lee's further setpieces were a bit more modest. Still, action isn't really his strongest suit and it showed. I also think the very ending is a bit muddled here - we've got this montage of what happened with the surviving characters and their money intercut with Lindo's letter but then Lee finishes with an MLK speech and a title card about his murder...which somehow didn't feel cohesive with the rest of the ending. MLK's murder has already been covered in the movie with a powerful scene and that final bit or archive footage seemed sort of disconnected from the rest of the film's final momentum. Whereas a real life footage ending worked like gangbusters in "BlacKkKlansman", Lee's attemp to repeat the same thing here wasn't as good. But overall I thought the movie was excellent. I gotta get to "Miracle at St. Anna" to see how Lee dealt with war before. Seems a bit forgotten these days, also quite long...sounds juicy!
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 14, 2020 16:16:38 GMT
I watched just under an hour of this before I had to tap out. Frankly, I thought what I saw was atrocious and the worst effort I've seen from Spike Lee. What on earth was the script!
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Jun 14, 2020 23:47:40 GMT
Words can't do justice to how fucking incredible Delroy Lindo is here - he deserves every ounce of the acclaim coming his way. His performance is a deeply complex, intense depiction of PTSD, guilt and rage, and it serves as a devastating emotional anchor for the whole film. Spike Lee's direction is typically passionate and dynamic, though I continue to have mixed/negative feelings towards the way he splices in real-life news footage and images - sometimes it works wonderfully (the opening and closing montages), other times it feels jarring and misguided (the clip from the Trump rally). The narrative can often feel rather messy, with certain strands either going nowhere or being wrapped up in underwhelming fashion. However, I still really liked it on the whole, as it had moments of searing power, and its story was just damn entertaining from start to finish. Lee's uncompromising vision still blazes brightly, setting him and his films apart from everything else out there, and I applaud him for that, cinematic warts and all. 8
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Jun 15, 2020 0:12:06 GMT
I loved this. I haven't really been into anything (fictional) Spike has done in the 21st century, but within all of his recent output have been flashes of the great filmmaker from the 80s and 90s. So for me this comes as a shockingly enjoyable return-to-form for the legendary director. This film was an absolute feast from start to finish. It's just so jam-packed with disparate tones, wild stylistic flourishes, copious moments of grace and beauty, emotional stakes of both the thematic and schlocky kind, and countless setpieces that veer from serene and understated to deranged and brazenly pulpy to an absurdist degree. All of the things I usually dislike are there (a score that constantly ping-pongs between powerful/moving to overbearing/grating, a general messiness in pacing and storytelling mechanics, unabashed heavy-handedness) and yet somehow within this film those choices seem correct or at the very least forgivable.
If they wisely commit category fraud and submit Lindo in Supporting I would bet a hundred dollars today that he wins. All I had heard going in was how revelatory the performance is, and holy mother of god does it live up to the hype and then some. I'm already calling that it'll go down as one of the best performances of the 2020s. In ten years on this board he'll be right up there on the Best Of Decade performance lists. Also, this might be premature but I would be absolutely thrilled if the Academy takes this opportunity to correct the glaring stain on its Best Director category and award Spike Lee his first directing Oscar and the honor of becoming the first black director to win in the category. This should've happened decades ago, it couldn't be given to a worthier black filmmaker, and better yet the movie itself deserves it and represents a highpoint in the late era of his career.
Da 5 Bloods is sprawling yet intimate, meandering yet energetic, playful yet powerful, and absolutely dense with risks and delights and pure unfiltered Spike Lee filmmaking. Parts of it reminded me of Twin Peaks: The Return, in both the crystal clear digital cinematography's capturing of aged faces and the sense of an older filmmaker following his legendary creative impulses within a modern setting. Scenes like the Bloods walking single-file through the forest, all quietly singing along to the non-diagetic Motown song, in particular recall the quiet, contemplative, meandering tone of so much of that season of TV. Comparisons to Marty's latest are inevitable, and in the battle of de-aging CG tech vs. creative license hand-waving it all away, I for one certainly think Spike won that argument.
Also, I must say that the MLK assassination broadcast scene is my favorite moment in any Spike Lee film since the early 90s. What a bold reminder of his power as a storyteller. This was the standout among countless others in a pleasantly surprising knockout of a film.
9
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jun 15, 2020 1:07:03 GMT
I gotta get to "Miracle at St. Anna" to see how Lee dealt with war before. Seems a bit forgotten these days, also quite long...sounds juicy! St Anna isn't good imo, though in a way it's like Spike doing Clint/Spielberg, it's also mawkish, badly acted, way too long, and there are some really cringe-worthy scenes played for laughs/shock. I think I prefer Da 5 bc it has the Lindo perf - but St Anna encompasses more of war and the sides of it, and the Hanoi Hannah scene in Da 5 is Spike imitating himself, a much better sequence in St Anna of Axis Sally's broadcast.
|
|
flasuss
Badass
Posts: 1,830
Likes: 1,615
|
Post by flasuss on Jun 15, 2020 1:34:13 GMT
I just watched it and agree with most of the assessments- the screenplay could be better, less heavy handed, and it could have been 15 minutes shorter, but it still works pretty well overall, in no small part because of Lindo's fantastic performance, that should certainly win an Oscar with ease. It's a pretty good joint, even if not in the Do The Right Thing league.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jun 15, 2020 14:21:30 GMT
Someone on twitter timed the screen time of the actors in this...
- Delroy Lindo - 1:21:45 (52.45%) - Clarke Peters - 1:08:53 (44.20%) - Isiah Whitlock Jr. - 58:12 (37.34%) - Jonathan Majors - 52:44 (33.84%) - Norm Lewis - 41:57 (26.92%)
Its gonna be hard to justify Lindo in supporting. Not that I think it matters since I think he could win either category ala Olivia Colman
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jun 15, 2020 16:45:11 GMT
Someone on twitter timed the screen time of the actors in this... - Delroy Lindo - 1:21:45 (52.45%) - Clarke Peters - 1:08:53 (44.20%) - Isiah Whitlock Jr. - 58:12 (37.34%) - Jonathan Majors - 52:44 (33.84%) - Norm Lewis - 41:57 (26.92%) Its gonna be hard to justify Lindo in supporting. Not that I think it matters since I think he could win either category ala Olivia Colman
He has to be lead.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on Jun 15, 2020 17:04:40 GMT
The only two that are arguably worse this century for this category are probably Ethan Hawke (opposite one of the five biggest movie stars on the planet who won in lead) and Jamie Foxx (won in lead for a different performance and opposite one of the five biggest movie stars on the planet). But I can't think of a single (at least recent) fraud case with the confluence of factors working against it (the screentime, the perspective he's given, the first billing, the lack of a bigger co-star, the fact he'd be a black actor dropping to supporting in the current climate etc).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 15, 2020 17:23:01 GMT
The only two that are arguably worse this century for this category are probably Ethan Hawke (opposite one of the five biggest movie stars on the planet who won in lead) and Jamie Foxx (won in lead for a different performance and opposite one of the five biggest movie stars on the planet). But I can't think of a single (at least recent) fraud case with the confluence of factors working against it (the screentime, the perspective he's given, the first billing, the lack of a bigger co-star, the fact he'd be a black actor dropping to supporting in the current climate etc). I was racking my brain trying to think of an example and couldn't come up with one, because at least the ones you mentioned had a strong co-lead to work with.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 15, 2020 17:33:49 GMT
If it was Denzel, the category placement would have been a no brainer. I'm glad Lindo got the role but to me, it's hard to imagine that Spike didn't talk to Denzel about this film and this role, it's a big missed opportunity for "them". But I'm confident their fifth will be something great.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jun 15, 2020 18:33:26 GMT
The only two that are arguably worse this century for this category are probably Ethan Hawke (opposite one of the five biggest movie stars on the planet who won in lead) and Jamie Foxx (won in lead for a different performance and opposite one of the five biggest movie stars on the planet). But I can't think of a single (at least recent) fraud case with the confluence of factors working against it (the screentime, the perspective he's given, the first billing, the lack of a bigger co-star, the fact he'd be a black actor dropping to supporting in the current climate etc). I was racking my brain trying to think of an example and couldn't come up with one, because at least the ones you mentioned had a strong co-lead to work with. Statistically not counting the other factors the only recent cases that are worse are Mara and Hawke. The only winners ever that would be worse are Timothy Hutton and Jack Albertson. Ali for Green Book is very close though. Edit: Patty Duke and Tatum O’Neil are actually quite a bit worse
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 15, 2020 18:47:50 GMT
I was racking my brain trying to think of an example and couldn't come up with one, because at least the ones you mentioned had a strong co-lead to work with. Statistically not counting the other factors the only recent cases that are worse are Mara and Hawke. The only winners ever that would be worse are Timothy Hutton and Jack Albertson. Ali for Green Book is very close though. Edit: Patty Duke and Tatum O’Neil are actually quite a bit worse They all had co-leads, though, which Lindo doesn't. It's really hard to make an argument even for Peters as a co-lead despite his screentime, because his perspective and plot importance really wanes after the first half, when Lindo takes full dominance of the film. So even though those people (along with Haing S. Ngor, Steinfeld and, most recently, Pitt) were hard category frauds, they at least had internal competition or a co-lead to play against. Lindo running supporting when there's no internal competition or anyone else to take up the lead mantle might be unprecedented, and would leave a very bad impression in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 15, 2020 18:58:53 GMT
I dunno...it feels like an ensemble to me. I didn't even realise Lindo had much more screentime than someone like Peters, though his solo trek through the jungle in the final act probably made the difference. But up until that point, it felt like completely a "team" movie, with Majors and Peters having as much importance to the narrative as Lindo (hell, Majors and Peters get romantic sub-plots, and Lindo gets zilch!). And even when Lindo goes for his trek, the "team" still continue their own adventure.
To me, you can do this any way, and I wouldn't consider it particularly egregious. I'd put Lindo in Best Actor, purely so Majors and Peters have a shot at supporting nods. But I do think you could run it as the film having no true "lead", and put Lindo in Supporting Actor as well (where he'd be a sure bet to win, even if the Oscars isn't held for another 10 months).
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jun 15, 2020 19:13:27 GMT
Statistically not counting the other factors the only recent cases that are worse are Mara and Hawke. The only winners ever that would be worse are Timothy Hutton and Jack Albertson. Ali for Green Book is very close though. Edit: Patty Duke and Tatum O’Neil are actually quite a bit worse They all had co-leads, though, which Lindo doesn't. It's really hard to make an argument even for Peters as a co-lead despite his screentime, because his perspective and plot importance really wanes after the first half, when Lindo takes full dominance of the film. So even though those people (along with Haing S. Ngor, Steinfeld and, most recently, Pitt) were hard category frauds, they at least had internal competition or a co-lead to play against. Lindo running supporting when there's no internal competition or anyone else to take up the lead mantle might be unprecedented, and would leave a very bad impression in this day and age. Richard Burton in My Cousin Rachel is and always will be the ultimate example.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 15, 2020 19:21:22 GMT
They all had co-leads, though, which Lindo doesn't. It's really hard to make an argument even for Peters as a co-lead despite his screentime, because his perspective and plot importance really wanes after the first half, when Lindo takes full dominance of the film. So even though those people (along with Haing S. Ngor, Steinfeld and, most recently, Pitt) were hard category frauds, they at least had internal competition or a co-lead to play against. Lindo running supporting when there's no internal competition or anyone else to take up the lead mantle might be unprecedented, and would leave a very bad impression in this day and age. Richard Burton in My Cousin Rachel is and always will be the ultimate example. Yeah, but even then, he had Olivia de Havilland to go up against, and Burton was a relative newbie. Still rank-as-hell category fraud, but at least he was up against a two-time Oscar-winning A-lister. Lindo doesn't even have that.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jun 15, 2020 19:24:22 GMT
Richard Burton in My Cousin Rachel is and always will be the ultimate example. Yeah, but even then, he had Olivia de Havilland to go up against, and Burton was a relative newbie. Still rank-as-hell category fraud, but at least he was up against a two-time Oscar-winning A-lister. Lindo doesn't even have that. I mean at least there is time Lindo is off screen (although I agree he is definitely lead, and should be placed as such), Burton is in every scene past the brief intro (which de Havilland isn't in either), dominating every scene in terms of his character's perspective being the most important, while de Havilland is frequently absent throughout.
|
|
|
Post by dadsburgers on Jun 15, 2020 23:56:39 GMT
Someone on twitter timed the screen time of the actors in this... - Delroy Lindo - 1:21:45 (52.45%) - Clarke Peters - 1:08:53 (44.20%) - Isiah Whitlock Jr. - 58:12 (37.34%) - Jonathan Majors - 52:44 (33.84%) - Norm Lewis - 41:57 (26.92%) Its gonna be hard to justify Lindo in supporting. Not that I think it matters since I think he could win either category ala Olivia Colman I'm most surprised Whitlock has more screentime than Majors tbh
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jun 16, 2020 0:05:41 GMT
Statistically not counting the other factors the only recent cases that are worse are Mara and Hawke. The only winners ever that would be worse are Timothy Hutton and Jack Albertson. Ali for Green Book is very close though. Edit: Patty Duke and Tatum O’Neil are actually quite a bit worse They all had co-leads, though, which Lindo doesn't. It's really hard to make an argument even for Peters as a co-lead despite his screentime, because his perspective and plot importance really wanes after the first half, when Lindo takes full dominance of the film. So even though those people (along with Haing S. Ngor, Steinfeld and, most recently, Pitt) were hard category frauds, they at least had internal competition or a co-lead to play against. Lindo running supporting when there's no internal competition or anyone else to take up the lead mantle might be unprecedented, and would leave a very bad impression in this day and age. Like I said those are only statistically worse. I’m not arguing who is worse category fraud.(though I’m not sure the presence of another lead makes one worse than another)
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 16, 2020 2:31:30 GMT
Someone on twitter timed the screen time of the actors in this... - Delroy Lindo - 1:21:45 (52.45%) - Clarke Peters - 1:08:53 (44.20%) - Isiah Whitlock Jr. - 58:12 (37.34%) - Jonathan Majors - 52:44 (33.84%) - Norm Lewis - 41:57 (26.92%) Its gonna be hard to justify Lindo in supporting. Not that I think it matters since I think he could win either category ala Olivia Colman I'm most surprised Whitlock has more screentime than Majors tbh It's a team movie, and Whitlock was in almost the first frame of the movie (he is the first Blood we see), and made it to the last non-montage scene. Majors didn't turn up till about 30 minutes in, even though his role immediately seemed to assume more importance when he did turn up. But it can't be that surprising, as Whitlock had a huge headstart. It's quite impressive that Majors is only about 5 minutes behind Whitlock in screen time considering that.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 16, 2020 16:15:31 GMT
I'm most surprised Whitlock has more screentime than Majors tbh It's a team movie, and Whitlock was in almost the first frame of the movie (he is the first Blood we see), and made it to the last non-montage scene. Majors didn't turn up till about 30 minutes in, even though his role immediately seemed to assume more importance when he did turn up. But it can't be that surprising, as Whitlock had a huge headstart. It's quite impressive that Majors is only about 5 minutes behind Whitlock in screen time considering that. I think what impressed me more with the cast was how they managed to make Boseman's role seem larger then it was, despite the fact that his character kinda disappears in several key points throughout the film. Even though Lindo is the main focus, in terms of screentime, it's definitely an ensemble "multi-cast" film.
|
|