johngriffin0928 Spike Lee's comedy has been reviled by people who don't seem to understand comedy. This is a really funny movie about people who make a great many moral decisions in their lives because of money. Jane Austen could have written it, if she'd been living in the 21st century. What I especially appreciated about it is that it starts out like a gripping crime drama in order to get the comedic setup established. That shift in tone is wonderful, because it keeps you off balance for the rest of the movie. There are no easy answers here. You may not like the choices the characters make, but so what? You might learn something from the way they behave and they way they face the consequences for what they do. The cast is uniformly excellent, right down to the weird doorman and the some of women who seek out the main character as a sperm donor.It's not a perfect movie by any means. It could lose about 10-15 minutes without losing any of its punch. But I had stayed away from this for 12 years because of the incomprehensible reviews it had received when it opened. Don't fall victim to the same. Spike Lee is one of American cinema's most gifted and unique directors, and this fits easily in near the top of his work. Think of it alongside Girl 6, another funny movie that left you off balance for much of the picture.

valadas But very well balanced between comedy and drama. This is the odd story of a corporate executive that for having denounced the corrupt and fraudulent deeds of his corporation is fired and judicially framed himself by his bosses as having been the author of the frauds. After having been fired his financial situation becomes very critical and dramatic which leads him to accept reluctantly the proposal of an ex-girlfriend who has turned out a lesbian meanwhile, to impregnate lesbian women who want to have children of their own by $10,000 a piece. This begins by his ex-girlfriend and the latter's present girlfriend and ends up by including the daughter of and Italian mafioso whom he impregnates with twins. All this is very well told in images and dialogues and very well acted by all performers. The story is a bit odd but credible enough and convincing in terms of sentiments, feelings and sensations except maybe for the fact that our hero sometimes impregnates several women in one night but well we have been told that Africans are endowed with a very special sexual stamina. And this is not exactly a pure sexual story since not only the question of the above mentioned corruption has its final outcome before a Senate committee but also because the sentimental relationship between the chief character and his ex-girlfriend arises now and then. And there are funny enough scenes like for instance the cartoons with the spermatozooons of our man heading for the women's egg cells which are also presented with their smiling faces. And the end of the movie, though a bit awkward from the sentimentally and morally established point of view is totally acceptable nowadays.

Nicol_Bolas I guess the first thing you should know is that this is a Spike Lee film. The very name wards off a number of people; I'm not one of them. I don't get warded off of a film just because of the director (unless it's Uwe Boll).The second thing you should know is that this is a good movie. You should know this up front because everything else I'm going to say is going to make it sound bad. But that's because of what the movie is.Most movies have a single point. An underlying purpose that the writer/director/etc is trying to get across to the audience. Large films may have 2 points.There's enough raw material in this film to be 3 separate 2-hour movies. The primary premise, a man being paid to impregnate a number of lesbians, is just the tip of the iceberg. You're going to see everything from racism to shadows of Enron; to Mafiosos; to prostitution (seen from a very strange angle); to a truly unexpected, extended homage to the security guard who caught the guys in the Watergate hotel. Subplots disappear for extended lengths in the film, only to be resurrected and dramatically change where the film is going.It shouldn't hold up, and as a regular movie it doesn't. But this isn't a movie; what it is is about a year's worth of a man's life. Now, life doesn't work like a movie. People don't deal with just one singular issue inside a year. A year is filled with numerous issues, some that disappear for months only to return and really screw you over. And, for John 'Jack' Armstrong, this was a very unique year indeed.If you look at it as one year's worth of interesting clippings from the incredible life of Jack Armstrong, it's a different film. This man is thrust into a whole bunch of crap that he has to deal with. Issues from his past come out, and he has to deal with them. It does still have a solid, overarching story arc that does get resolved in the end.The main problem is that cinema really can't effectively do what Spike Lee is trying to do. Not in its 138 minute running time.However, I think this film works best as a conversation starter. As a way to bring up numerous issues and sort of lay them all out there for people to start talking about. In some ways, it's effective in the direction that Se7en is (though not in nearly as strong a way), in showing you how apathetic society has become about various inequities, corruption, and so forth. With the exception of environmentalism, this film touches just about every societal issue to some degree.

Rock Savage "She Hate Me" is a problematic and confused Motion Picture. Parts are engaging and humorous while others are poorly crafted and self-conscious. Firstly the film has no pace. This could easily have been corrected by cutting all the dream sequences, all the scenes featuring Q-Tip and all the Watergate sequences. This would have resulted in a more focused and compact film. Why directly after the main protagonists discuss in detail a painful experience is it necessary to show a flashback of that exact moment? By doing so the film becomes too literal and nothing is left to the audience's imagination. The scenes concerning Watergate are embarrassing and very badly directed. The cutting room floor was screaming out for these scenes but Spike Lee left them in. Why? Does Spike Lee rate his work so highly that none of the footage shot can be cut?The dialogue between Q-Tip and Anthony Mackie in their walk through the park is contrived and immature. Not for one moment does Anthony Mackie convince as a Vice President of a powerful drugs company. In fact this actor is completely miss cast. He does not convey any authority, intelligence or sexuality. Wesley Snipes could have provided all these qualities with ease. I respect Spike Lee as a director but as this Motion Picture proves he needs to listen to a subjective opinion and act upon it, so his films can be less sprawling and more focused. This could so easily have been a very good film with some savage cutting.