Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews10
chikejeffers's rating
It was... interesting. It's different, that's for sure. Takes place in a poor area of the U.S. (not sure where) and looks into the lives of some kids living there. The main character (well, I guess he's the closest thing to a main character) is George, who has a sensitive skull and is kind of slow.
The movie struck me as very ad-libbed. I think I was probably wrong to assume that, but while watching, that's how some of the acting made me feel. Thinking of it in that way, you can understand that some stuff will work and some stuff won't move you. But if this was ad-libbed, it's 50x better than that piece of crap "Black & White". Anyway.
The movie is different. At first, I thought it'd be kind of neorealist. It has elements that are (setting, casting, certain scenes), but it also has elements of surrealism and other styles. It seems kind of random sometimes - like the director shot a lot and kept what he liked. The characters in it are pretty interesting. Most are black, but the town is mixed - some black, some white, all poor. There is a scene in which some teenage girls are sitting doing hair, talking - this I really enjoyed. It felt familiar, but unfamiliar. Why? Real life vs. reel life. The scene drives home how little we really see of the black female experience on the screen.
The settings + the low budget make for inexpensive-looking but engrossing photography. Storywise, um, it has stuff that drives it, but story is not the main focus of the film (see my previous comments on randomness). You can mainly look at it in terms of what parts you felt and what you made you go "Uh, okay...". It has some very funny moments. It has touching moments. It has a number of disturbing moments. All in all, it has a lot in it. But I have to admit, I wasn't completely caught by it. Maybe the "differentness" of the style and tone were a little hard for me to assimilate. But as a film student I'm going to nix that option for the sake of my ego.
About "differentness": I was being kind of vague. "George Washington" is not just "Well, that was a refreshing break from the norm" type different or "genre-defying" or "new approach" - to some degree, it may be these things but most of all, it's "I don't really have a clear idea of how I feel about this movie because it's hard to have a clear understanding of the movie itself" type different. That's how you get some people praising it to death and some who listen to them being not disappointed, but just... unsure.
The movie struck me as very ad-libbed. I think I was probably wrong to assume that, but while watching, that's how some of the acting made me feel. Thinking of it in that way, you can understand that some stuff will work and some stuff won't move you. But if this was ad-libbed, it's 50x better than that piece of crap "Black & White". Anyway.
The movie is different. At first, I thought it'd be kind of neorealist. It has elements that are (setting, casting, certain scenes), but it also has elements of surrealism and other styles. It seems kind of random sometimes - like the director shot a lot and kept what he liked. The characters in it are pretty interesting. Most are black, but the town is mixed - some black, some white, all poor. There is a scene in which some teenage girls are sitting doing hair, talking - this I really enjoyed. It felt familiar, but unfamiliar. Why? Real life vs. reel life. The scene drives home how little we really see of the black female experience on the screen.
The settings + the low budget make for inexpensive-looking but engrossing photography. Storywise, um, it has stuff that drives it, but story is not the main focus of the film (see my previous comments on randomness). You can mainly look at it in terms of what parts you felt and what you made you go "Uh, okay...". It has some very funny moments. It has touching moments. It has a number of disturbing moments. All in all, it has a lot in it. But I have to admit, I wasn't completely caught by it. Maybe the "differentness" of the style and tone were a little hard for me to assimilate. But as a film student I'm going to nix that option for the sake of my ego.
About "differentness": I was being kind of vague. "George Washington" is not just "Well, that was a refreshing break from the norm" type different or "genre-defying" or "new approach" - to some degree, it may be these things but most of all, it's "I don't really have a clear idea of how I feel about this movie because it's hard to have a clear understanding of the movie itself" type different. That's how you get some people praising it to death and some who listen to them being not disappointed, but just... unsure.
Beautiful visually. One of those films where you can't help but notice the importance placed on colour as it relates to set design, costume, props, etc. Painterly precision. Wanna teach someone the possibilities of great mise-en-scene? Almost every frame in this film could serve your purpose.
Then there's the film's gimmick: all the dialogue is sung. When I was watching this film, I kept thinking one could write a really great paper comparing this film to "Moulin Rouge". Both unorthodox musicals. Both quite melodramatic. Love is the main theme in each. But to me, "Moulin Rouge" was multicolored whip cream compared to the sumptuous sundae, with rich ice cream, fresh fruit, and tasty chocolate syrup, that is "Umbrellas". I preferred the latter film in a major way. Of course, there are some who would prefer "Umbrellas" before even seeing it. Rare French New Wave flick vs. hyped Hollywood production? For elitist moviegoers, the choice is already made. That's not me, though. It's just, "Moulin Rouge"'s in-your-face approach represents the excited overachiever and Demy's film represents the calm ACHIEVER. See both and tell me you disagree.
What makes "Umbrellas" so rich? It's a package. The story may be melodrama, but it is fascinating, beautifully-structured melodrama that holds you in its grasp as it unfolds. The story is extremely well-done and the movie has THE best ending I've ever seen in a romantic film. I won't reveal it, but let's just say that those ready to dismiss the film as sentimental before seeing it are missing out on pure genius. But the sentimental will enjoy this film as well. You have these baby boomers who look back fondly on stuff like Zeffirelli's "Romeo & Juliet" when this is 10x better. Anyway, characterization - amazing. Each character is fleshed out well and engrossing in their own way. Add to that impressive, touching, memorable performances as well as striking attractiveness (that last one is not something I look for in a film's characters, but for those who do...). Then there's the realness of the story - the way it touches on the politics and current events of the time (the war with Algeria, etc. - French colonialist pigs!).
As I said, it's a package. Any complaint this movie could inspire would sound petty. I'll come out and say it - it's a masterpiece. If I made it, any slump I hit, I'd remind myself, "I've made a masterpiece. I've made a valid contribution to the world of art. I am satisfied." If you get the chance, check it out. Without a doubt.
Then there's the film's gimmick: all the dialogue is sung. When I was watching this film, I kept thinking one could write a really great paper comparing this film to "Moulin Rouge". Both unorthodox musicals. Both quite melodramatic. Love is the main theme in each. But to me, "Moulin Rouge" was multicolored whip cream compared to the sumptuous sundae, with rich ice cream, fresh fruit, and tasty chocolate syrup, that is "Umbrellas". I preferred the latter film in a major way. Of course, there are some who would prefer "Umbrellas" before even seeing it. Rare French New Wave flick vs. hyped Hollywood production? For elitist moviegoers, the choice is already made. That's not me, though. It's just, "Moulin Rouge"'s in-your-face approach represents the excited overachiever and Demy's film represents the calm ACHIEVER. See both and tell me you disagree.
What makes "Umbrellas" so rich? It's a package. The story may be melodrama, but it is fascinating, beautifully-structured melodrama that holds you in its grasp as it unfolds. The story is extremely well-done and the movie has THE best ending I've ever seen in a romantic film. I won't reveal it, but let's just say that those ready to dismiss the film as sentimental before seeing it are missing out on pure genius. But the sentimental will enjoy this film as well. You have these baby boomers who look back fondly on stuff like Zeffirelli's "Romeo & Juliet" when this is 10x better. Anyway, characterization - amazing. Each character is fleshed out well and engrossing in their own way. Add to that impressive, touching, memorable performances as well as striking attractiveness (that last one is not something I look for in a film's characters, but for those who do...). Then there's the realness of the story - the way it touches on the politics and current events of the time (the war with Algeria, etc. - French colonialist pigs!).
As I said, it's a package. Any complaint this movie could inspire would sound petty. I'll come out and say it - it's a masterpiece. If I made it, any slump I hit, I'd remind myself, "I've made a masterpiece. I've made a valid contribution to the world of art. I am satisfied." If you get the chance, check it out. Without a doubt.
It angers me how overlooked this film is.
It is not an easy film. It is bleak and at times very off-putting. Actually, if you are a thinking, caring person, this is movie is overall heart-breaking.
But it is brilliant and, for the person who truly tries to understand it, a compelling, insightful look at the problems killing black America today. The only reason for the film's lack of recognition I can imagine is that its subject matter had been examined a number of times before. But the inescapable fact is that this one of the best examinations of the subject matter there has been on screen - on par with "Boyz N The Hood".
And it is FAR from uncreative. In fact, on one level, it is not a "hood" movie, but a whodunit. The mystery aspect of the plot is very interesting. But there are other, more important layers. It is the story of the confusion and crisis of a young man's life. Most importantly, it is a brutal look at drugs, guns, and life in the projects. It is a movie asking why so many young black men are dying in the streets.
The lead character Strike has a stomach problem. It might be an ulcer or something like that. I believe it is a metaphor. Just as heat represented racial tension in Lee's masterpiece "Do The Right Thing", Strike's sickness represents the illnesses plaguing the ghetto: drugs, guns, liquor.
Like DTRT, this film looks at community. The mothers, the cops, the young people, the kids, the men trying to make a living - there is eloquent commentary in "Clockers" on the situations of all. In Spike's movies, paying a little attention is rewarding. A good essay could be written on what I call the Spike Summarization technique. This is when Spike compresses a serious debate or concern in the black community into a few expressive moments of action or dialogue. There are better examples in other movies, but it manifests in "Clockers" a few times. A bunch of kids are sitting in front of Rodney's (Delroy Lindo) shop; one of the kids is rapping while the others pay attention. The two sides to the coin: we feel the artistry and skill of the moment, the continuation of a rich tradition of oral art; we're also struck by the cruelty and coldness in the kid's violent lyrics, and we think about where that comes from.
Stylistically, this movie is a huge success. The cinematography is amazing, and I wonder what must be wrong with my tastes when I'm floored by a film like this and find visually bland a more oft-praised classic. The projects become blinding panoramas, landscapes which add tons of meaning to the poignant ending (I won't reveal it here). The sound is great; many films of this nature use hip hop in the soundtrack to produce certain effects, but "Clockers" does it in a more methodical way which jars some people, but contributes to the film's meaning.
I could say more about the film, but I encourage you to just see it, along with the rest of Spike's oeuvre. He's not a perfect filmmaker, and some of his best films are marred by elements that don't work, but I feel his consistency in terms of delivering brilliance is not below most of the cinema's most celebrated auteurs.
It is not an easy film. It is bleak and at times very off-putting. Actually, if you are a thinking, caring person, this is movie is overall heart-breaking.
But it is brilliant and, for the person who truly tries to understand it, a compelling, insightful look at the problems killing black America today. The only reason for the film's lack of recognition I can imagine is that its subject matter had been examined a number of times before. But the inescapable fact is that this one of the best examinations of the subject matter there has been on screen - on par with "Boyz N The Hood".
And it is FAR from uncreative. In fact, on one level, it is not a "hood" movie, but a whodunit. The mystery aspect of the plot is very interesting. But there are other, more important layers. It is the story of the confusion and crisis of a young man's life. Most importantly, it is a brutal look at drugs, guns, and life in the projects. It is a movie asking why so many young black men are dying in the streets.
The lead character Strike has a stomach problem. It might be an ulcer or something like that. I believe it is a metaphor. Just as heat represented racial tension in Lee's masterpiece "Do The Right Thing", Strike's sickness represents the illnesses plaguing the ghetto: drugs, guns, liquor.
Like DTRT, this film looks at community. The mothers, the cops, the young people, the kids, the men trying to make a living - there is eloquent commentary in "Clockers" on the situations of all. In Spike's movies, paying a little attention is rewarding. A good essay could be written on what I call the Spike Summarization technique. This is when Spike compresses a serious debate or concern in the black community into a few expressive moments of action or dialogue. There are better examples in other movies, but it manifests in "Clockers" a few times. A bunch of kids are sitting in front of Rodney's (Delroy Lindo) shop; one of the kids is rapping while the others pay attention. The two sides to the coin: we feel the artistry and skill of the moment, the continuation of a rich tradition of oral art; we're also struck by the cruelty and coldness in the kid's violent lyrics, and we think about where that comes from.
Stylistically, this movie is a huge success. The cinematography is amazing, and I wonder what must be wrong with my tastes when I'm floored by a film like this and find visually bland a more oft-praised classic. The projects become blinding panoramas, landscapes which add tons of meaning to the poignant ending (I won't reveal it here). The sound is great; many films of this nature use hip hop in the soundtrack to produce certain effects, but "Clockers" does it in a more methodical way which jars some people, but contributes to the film's meaning.
I could say more about the film, but I encourage you to just see it, along with the rest of Spike's oeuvre. He's not a perfect filmmaker, and some of his best films are marred by elements that don't work, but I feel his consistency in terms of delivering brilliance is not below most of the cinema's most celebrated auteurs.