The reason people make fun of Spike Lee is because he's as transparent as Kate Winslet's Awards lust. Whether it's Tarantino, Tyler Perry or Eastwood, he always goes after directors that target the same audiences he does. Except, of course, they're actually successful at it.
Leaving a screening of The Paperboy.
kiss, I replaced your SaBa pic because it was too damn tall, but I still like your sig.
Originally Posted by erikdean
kiss, I replaced your SaBa pic because it was too damn tall, but I still like your sig.
Leaving a screening of The Paperboy.
6 years ago, Inside Man.
This is way off. Tarantino and Eastwood don't target the same audiences as Lee. LOL. Perry doesn't really either. His target audience is black women late 20s and above. And if you think Perry is as successful as Lee then I'd like to know where unless you are counting money as your measure of success because everything else Perry hasn't had much success with making a good film. Lee's worst film is still better than Perry's best film.
Agree. Call me next time Spike Lee has a good film people will see. As for Tyler Perry. His films suck but he has power and a huge fanbase. Something Lee used to have.
Yes they do and that's all that matters at the end of the day.
Tarantino and Lee broke through around the same time. And yes, they appealed to the same modern demographics of the 90s. The difference is that Tarantino has matured as a filmmaker and continues to be relevant these days and has managed to stay loyal to his own style. Lee basically sold out. His next projects are a remake and a sequel of the only box-office he's had in years, the completely generic Inside Man.
Are you saying Spike Lee has not tried to appeal to modern African American females? I disagree. I think he's just not had success at it. Tyler Perry may not be a critically acclaimed director but it's undeniable that a considerable portion of the black community relates to his filmmaking. Spike Lee used to have that loyal fanbase at some point but it quickly disappeared because he seems out of touch with current sensibilities.
Alas, his fight with Eastwood regarding his war movies came around the same time he was preparing his own war movie and Eastwood was at the peak of his directing career. It was nothing more than a cheap tactic to garner publicity for his film. As if people weren't responding to Miracle at St. Anna because it was a film about African Americans and not because... well, it wasn't a very strong film overall.
I actually like Spike Lee. He's undoubtedly passionate and I don't think anyone's claimed he's devoid of talent. People admire passion, but they don't like whiners. And that's how he comes across lately.
Leaving a screening of The Paperboy.
Agreed. I admire a lot of his work, but he's become such an obnoxious, bitter troll lately.
Great. Now who's going to watch Sunday Rose on SAG night??
My only issue with Spike Lee is that it frustrates me that people vote for the Academy Awards without seeing major players. I know it happens all the time, but people aren't usually as vocal about refusing to see a film like Lee is here, or Borgnine/Curtis were re: Brokeback Mountain in '05. People that don't have time to watch everything is one thing..but who flat out refuse to...well they shouldn't be allowed to vote then. But oh well, whatever.
I haven't been following every page in this and the previous thread, so I'm not sure if this has come up before, but I'm surprised it's not coming up more frequently. I just got back from the film and have only this to say:
Anyone who is putting Waltz in the supporting category should have their teeth knocked out. I understand category fraud at the Academy but the critics' groups? What the fuck is wrong with them?
Waltz EASILY has more lines than any other character in the film, and is in all but, what, like a few scenes?
Give me a fucking break. He should not be put up against DiCaprio and Jackson, that is ludicrous.
T E A M R I V E T T E
Dicaprio was fantastic.
He was, and I think he was considerably better than Jackson. Even when Leo's not talking, you can see what his character's thinking. This really was a tour-de-force for him, and because of all the early buzz I fear he's becoming undervalued for what he's done here.
Best of all, he doesn't seem like he's in a Tarantino film, as Jackson and Waltz, even at their best, do.
T E A M R I V E T T E
Dicaprio was best in show.
Exactly, what were those critics smoking, some of them are being hypocritical in not accepting Hunt in supporting while they do accept Waltz who's most definitely a co-lead.
80 on Metacritic with 37 reviews and 7 100. 89 on Rt with 119 reviews with a 7.9 avg. 15.5 million opening day making it the biggest opening for a Tarantino movie ever. Like I said a few days ago. Tarantino is looking good for a best director nod.
Apparently Django received a Cinemascore of A-. Color me surprised; I thought the violence would turn off quite a few people.
Isn't that (relatively) bad, especially for a film that was going to draw its fanboys on opening day? Like... Burlesque got an A-. But I guess we have to wait for the next few weeks' receipts to find out.
It's interesting. I hadn't really given much though to this until right now. You're right, though. I had placed Walz in my own personal supporting category (at #1 no less, because I thought he was incredible), but I should probably move him. He's a whole lot more difficult to place in lead.
If anything, I hope the category fraud can at least get him nominated.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
