I'm really not that big a fan of Spike Lee, but I think he did a great job with this movie. I'm not going to list a bunch of reasons why people should like this movie, I'm just curious why it seems that a lot of people don't? I'm white by the way, that may or may not be relevant to some.
shareI have liked a number of his other films, but this was beneath his talents, to me. I don't think he is a great filmmaker by any means, but he has been good.
This film on the other hand, had a lame story, very poor performances, cheesy and laughable battle scenes, stupid characters, scenes that were just poorly shot all around, absurd plot devices, and worst of all; almost three hours of this piss poor content.
masterofallgoons gets my vote, he describe this mess of a movie perfectly.
shareI'm not sure why their is so much extreme hate towards this film either. Me being stupid me, I went to this board prior to watching the movie. After reading the comments here I really thought that Spike Lee had dropped the ball on this one. While it's no where near his best work, it did have it's positives. But there were plenty of negatives to go along with them. I felt it was a 5 or 6 movie and but I gave it a 6. which just happens to be it's average rating (5.8 at this time of my post actually).
shareHate to say it, but it was just a poor film. Overall, I think Spike Lee tried to replicate Saving Private Rayn a lot in his battle scenes, but they just came out choppy and poorly done. While I don't know of the historical accuracy of the characters themselves, a lot of the plot seemed just stupid. (including little details like how they rarely ever reloaded all their Thompson sub-machine guns) Lee also believes that spontaneous nudity helps the story too.
I think personally I may have, key word may, have liked it better if it focussed more on the war aspect than on the themes of racism that accompany all of Lee's films. So in answer to your question, I did not enjoy this film for valid reasons along with much of the general movie-watching population.
I started watching the movie last night, got about 30 minutes into it. Horrible horrible dialog and battle scenes. And really overdoes the music, which is the exact same music from She Hates Me(the last spike lee film I watched). I can't stand the "chocolate giant" and his poor performance and incredibly stupid lines. I'll try watching the rest of it tonight, hoping it improves, because the 25th hour, malcom x, and the inside man were all great movies(the only other spike lee movie i've seen was "she hates me" which was so-so). But this just seems like spike lee is out of his element with this one. Way too many scenes are too contrived.
Well maybe it is a bad movie, I guess I'm one of those people who like almost every movie they see. But what do you mean he went after Eastwood, did he lash out at him in the news or something?
shareYeah he went after clint eastwood because he had no blacks in his Iwo Jima films.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/spike-lee-slams-clint-eas_n_102867.html
In my opinion spike lee did a far bigger disservice to blacks in WW2 with this horrendous movie
Should there not be a proper representation of all races that fought in a war?
share
I'm guessing you only read into Spike Lee's side of the story. If you had read Clint Eastwood's reply you would understand why Spike Lee was an idiot for calling him out. Clint intended on making a movie that was historically faithful. Yes, there were black Marines at Iwo Jima. They were in the rear performing supports jobs and security, they were not a part of the main assault force. Some people just can't live their lives without a chip on their shoulder.
NO, Spike WASN'T an idiot for calling him out---the point was that World War II stories are always ALWAYS told from white soldiers' point of view---I mean,hell, if you watch most movies about World War II, you'd NEVER even know that black soldiers even fought in the war to begin with, because their contributions have always been ignored by Hollywood the majority of the time. SO what if the black soldiers at Iwo Jima were only rear performing support jobs---they STILL had stories worth telling,too. What's wrong with telling a story from THEIR perspective for a change? Why do white filmmakers always have to recycle the same old damn predictable stories about World War II about white soldiers when they could make one about the Asian-American contribution, the Hispanic contribution, the Native American contribution (like in WINDTALKERS) and the African-American contribution just as well? Those stories are a hell of a lot more interesting considering they were also fighting for a country that didn't even see them as "real" Americans and discriminated against them just like they did black folks. (See Ken Burns' WAR for all those perpectives shown, or least some of them.)
How come Clint couldn't have made a story about black soldiers for a change? How many movies do you see that even feature that subject? The last one I remember seeing was A SOLDIER'S STORY, and that was almost 25 years ago, so it's not like they're being made every damn day or anything. And you don't have to have a damn chip on your shoulder to notice that.
What the fk are you talking about, Eastwood made a movie called Letters from Iwo Jima told completely from Japaneses POV. What filmmaker you know would spend the time and money to make an entire epic from the non white enemies POV???
shareYes,since African-Americans are mostly ignored in WWII movies. I liked this movie and loved the scene where the soldiers had revenge against that southern shop. Jim Crow is raw and dirty in the South
shareI agree with this guy every step of the way. I saw this film I actually thought I was about to watch a true story about a squad in the "Buffalo Soldiers." Instead I got a hollywoodized piece of crap war film with gratuitous sex, cheesey one liners that portrays black people in a stereotypical manner, only adds to the issues on what cinema have portrayed black people in the past. Most of all it has little to nothing to do with the actual Buffalo Soldiers who did bleed and die for this country. Spike Lee you have spat on our veterans and you have shunned your own people you hypocritical piece of *beep*
share@maestroman
Oh,please---I just rented out and saw this film and it is NOWHERE near as bad as most people on this board are making it out to be. Honestly, if anybody BUT Spike Lee had made this film, everybody would be calling it a classic---it seems like the bad reviews here are mainly because people have issues with Spike and not the actual movie itself as much. It only had one sex scene which lasted barely 5 minutes, there was nothing stereotypical about it---I thought the film looked great, the scenes in Italy were beautiful,and I loved the fact that one of the soldiers could actually speak Italian and could communicate with the little boy they rescued. Some folks claim that it went all over the place and didn't make any sense---well,that's only if you fell asleep during it and missed a part or two. I liked the mystery aspect of it---why was that old dude shot in the beginning? After watching the complete film, it totally made sense. It's a pretty good film it you like war films, like I do--I watched it all the way through and was never bored once. I think some people just didn't know how to process a film about soldiers that weren't white and didn't follow the usual war movie trajectory---it's very explicit and gruesome when it comes to the violence,however.
Also Spike Lee didn't discredit anything about the veterans---your last statement is so completely untrue and and just plain ridiculous. I enjoyed the parts about the partisans, which were very interesting,exciting and tense. I thought the actors were pretty good---Derek Luke is usually good in anything I've seen him in,and Laz Alonso--the fine-as-hell Italian-speaking soldier---kicked ass. Always like seeing Michael Ealy in anything 'cause he's fine too, and a good actor---however, Omar Benson Miller's character, Bishop, did get on my nerves--I wanted to grab him and say, "Stop being so damn nice and grow a damn backbone! S***!" BTW, when's the last time you saw a film exclusively about black soldiers in World War II, anyway? It's long *beep* overdue---I've been sick and tired of seeing war movies about ONLY white soldiers, as if they were the ONLY soldiers who fought in World War II----gimme a *beep* break---I'm tired of seeing that s***. Whatever---I liked this film, because it showed that Spike has actually grown as a filmmaker and widened his scope, and even though the ending came off like a fairytale, it was still satisfying---to me,anyway.
About the ice cream scene---I didn't see a damn thing wrong with it---from stories I've read about black soldiers coming back from the Second World War, they actually had to put up with that same racist s*** when they came back---however, since they had been around the world and discovered that not ALL white people hated black folks and acted like segregation was completely natural/thought black folks were inferior---they weren't taking that *beep* anymore. Check out a book called TAPS:LETTERS FROM A JIM CROW ARMY, a compilation of actual letters from black soldiers serving in the services---you'll be surprised at how even though they were serving their country, they were still treated like s***. Hell, some black soldiers even got beat up for wearing their uniforms---how *beep* was that? How come Hollywood rarely ever makes films about the 92 Division? I guess because it challenges the white hegemony of war films,apparently.
Really kgreene12_248! They're just so full of it, lol. I liked this movie so much I watched 3x's already. Lot of these ppl r from other countries & many rip into anything a black director does...thats why I dont pay attention to the rating & go by how many pages of "user comments" there is. I dont even pay attention to what they say, good or bad...if it's over 7-10 pgs. The movies turn out to ALWAYS be good. Its never failed me yet
You're kidding, right? You determine how good a movie is by how many pages of comments are on IMDB??? Even if 75% of the comments are NEGATIVE??? I guess we should take a class from you on empirical research methods.
Here are some FACTS for you:
Production Budget: $45,000,000
Domestic (USA) Gross: $7,919,117
Foreign (Non-USA) Gross: $1,404,016
Total Gross: $9,323,833
Total Loss: $35,000,000+
2008 (Domestic) movie rank: Didn't even make the Top 150 movies of the year. As a comparison, the 150th ranked movie was "Sex Drive", which made $8,402,485. The #1 movie of 2008 was "The dark Knight", which grossed $533,345,358 domestically.
Choose any of the following for how Spike's movie did at the box office: tanked; bombed; died. Spike lost $35 million on this poorly made movie.
There are alot of people who would gladly embrace a movie about the 92nd but this drivel ain't it. And the racist line is old... VERY old. That seems to be the answer to all the porblems, right? Just call it racist.
Better directors or producers? Spielberg/Hanks; Eastwood; Bruckheimer/Ridley Scott. Better black directors? Fuqua, Whitaker, Washington. I'd lay money on it.
kgreene you are so completely full of it. It was a bad movie, it didn't matter who the hell directed it.
share@disquieter6
I liked it, I thought it was good, and frankly, I could give less than a damn about your opinion.
@disquieter
I'm not "full of it" just because I don't agree with whoever didn't like it---that's their opinion,AND yours. The movie wasn't perfect---it did have some big flaws in it---but frankly, I've seen far worse movies than this, and I still liked this,despite its obvious flaws--end of story. If you didn't like it,fine--that's just you,not me.
Mostly plot holes and a convoluted story line with more elements than it could handle. It also drags on quite a bit in the middle destroying the already somber pacing.
The main point that I could not get over the entire time I watched it, was that he had that old luger prepped and ready the whole time while working in the postal office. Really? He brought that gun to work on the off chance that this italian man would maybe someday come to his booth during his shift? And the newspaper falling out the window...
I guess it could be attributed to the miracle of the statue head, but it all felt really rushed and ill conceived. Best scenes were the milk shake shoppe, and the entire village being executed. Talk about scenes having weight. The rest on the other hand weighed no more than a feather.
I chalk this film up more to a missed opportunity, than a bad film though, as it definitely had some great potential and elements.
"Best scenes were the milk shake shoppe, and the entire village being executed. Talk about scenes having weight"
I agree totally. They were the flashes of real brilliance in an otherwise less than adequate film.
people only hate this film on imdb and thats only because of how racist this site is.you only have to see how low any black actor or black dominated film is rated by the sad pathetic losers on here, people rating ot one when they dont even watch the film, you cant take any rating regarding any black actor or film seriously on this site,everyone knows that
shareYou're an idiot mrtn.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=42573598
He brings up a valid point for discussion though.
shareSo I'm rascist for not liking a film prodominantly filled with black actors? No no no no no. That is just a pathetic statement. There are great black actors out there, and my opinions are dominated by general logic and analysis. It's not my fault Spike Lee promotes rascism in his movies, but it certainly dosn't influence my opinion of the film. Most of this board has already explained why we don't like the movie and I don't believe one person even commented on how they hated the blacks and supported white supremecy. If you like it, that's great, but it dosn't make us old-school Southern slave owners who judge movies based on race.
And to further decapitate your theory, you can look at movies with black characters and high ratings like Hotel Rwanda, Glory, City of God, or even Training Day for god's sake; Denzel was great their and no one judges him!
I love Lee and I was completely dissapointed by this film. It was nearly three hours long and full of extraneous scenes. The entire murder sub plot was illogical and did nothing to further the major plot of his film. It was contrived and unecessary.
The probl is one of poor pacing and editing. There was a wonderful 90 minute movie to be had. Lee just had a poor eye for editing on this one. That is really a shame and nothing like his strongest films
To be blunt, because it stinks. It is overly full of itself, much like Bono has gotten. Spike Lee sometimes does a decent job, but, I think he took this movie waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy to seriously. Overly long, over-acted, nuff said
shareI was very disappointed with this movie. I really thought Lee was going to bring a new perspective to WWII, but the racial aspect was really very predictable and sterotypical. As far as movie making is concerned, the dialog was absolutely terrible and often anachronistic. There were too many plots for a war movie and too many unnecessary supporting characters muddled the film. The action sequences were a throw back to pre Saving Private Ryan war movies and not in a good way. People get shot and simply fall over; people get blown up and fall off a ledge. It was very corny.