John Seal This film has been slaughtered by the critics and IMDb voters, so maybe I'm just feeling the need to play Devil's Advocate - but I don't think so. A remake of Ganja and Hess, this is one of Spike Lee's most cinematic of films, carefully lensed, well scored (albeit with music that reminded me of Love, American Style - maybe that's the point), and intelligently acted. It's the antithesis, in fact, of his previous film, Red Hook Summer, which had its good points but ultimately looked like a student film. I found Da Sweet Blood of Jesus hugely entertaining and thoroughly engaging - and c'mon, how can you dislike a film dedicated to the memory of Christopher Lee, or one so clearly in debt to the works of Jean Rollin?

LeonLouisRicci In this Independent, Kick-Starter Film there is much "Blackness", Typical of Spike Lee. From the Opening Non-Sequitur of Free-Style "Dancing' in the the Streets" to all of the Black Heritage with Culture Wall Hangings and "Revival Meeting" Church Whailings, there is "Blackness" Everywhere.Even the Borderline Blasphemous (with context to the Film) Title is "Black Speak". The Film, a Remake of a 1972 "Blaxploitation" Called "Ganja and Hess", is the Story of an Upper-Class Blood Licker. It's a Beautifully Shot, Mess of a Story about, one Guesses, Addiction. But Who Knows? The Movie is so Everywhere the Message gets Lost somewhere between the Soft-Porn and the Awful Acting.The Film's Ambiguity Sparks Over Analysis. Truth be Told the Movie is Visually Arresting and Not Much Else. It's Different, certainly Not for Everyone, and is somewhat Engaging, but the Pace and the Script are so Slow and Uninteresting that there is Never any real Connection Between the Audience and the Screen. It's Voyeuristic and Self-Indulegent, even more so than usual for the Director, to a Fault.Overall, Recommended for Art-House Patrons, Spike Lee Check-Listers, and Seekers of Off-Beat and Midnight Type Movies. There is an Artist at Work here, and like All Artists, Not Every Work is a Masterpiece.

avdors1 Spike Lee is one of the premiere directors of my generation. With that said, I am still trying to figure out the focus and purpose of this movie. The actors, many of whom, we've seen in other Lee films, are so subdued and non significant. The movie seems to lack...well, life. His career has created valuable works that have symbolically and literally offered calls for self-awareness and offered insights into the social-political realities of African-Americans and America in general. I can't figure out what significance this movie has. There are some disturbing scenes that do not seem to add any insights or purpose to the movies story. The few things I gathered from this are: rich/poor exploitation, addiction, socio-sexual dynamic, and Sankofa. The story telling doesn't offer anything new or dynamic. So, with a heavy heart, I give this a thumbs down and not let this be representative of Spikes true genius!

gavin6942 Dr. Hess Green becomes cursed by a mysterious ancient African artifact and is overwhelmed with a new-found thirst for blood.Spike Lee has made a very strange film here. Maybe because it was based on another film that happens to be rather strange ("Ganja and Hess") or maybe because it was filmed with a low budget and short on time, with relatively unknown actors... but there is something decidedly off about the picture.Like the original, there is an ongoing metaphor about addiction. The main character is not a vampire in the traditional sense, despite an unquenchable thirst for blood. He expresses that many (perhaps most) people have addictions... drugs, money, alcohol, women... his is just different.The Jesus parallel is played up from the original. There is indeed something strange about a man (Jesus) who asks his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Christians, of course, do not find it strange. And that makes the parallel interesting... why do we recoil at one man's thirst for blood and yet look forward to drinking blood each Sunday without thinking anything of it?