Chi-Raq

This one is definitely not without its flaws. The editing and pacing of it is messy, sometimes very uneven. I wasn't familiar with the source material from which this is inspired by, but I found it to be really addictive in its ability to grasp one's attention. I think the ensemble cast works well, even if the tone of the film requires them to be very loud and over-the-top, to the point that the film itself becomes a little exhausting. Some of the performers aren't as good as others, and sometimes it becomes very evident. However, it's also one of those films that is kind of difficult to resist. If you let it sort of wash over you, it will work in splendid, even magical ways, I just wish it was more consistent as a whole.

I knew little of this film when I sat to watch it, only that it was from Spike Lee, and I was open to whatever it chose to do. The opening credits suggest seriousness and grit; this is an impression that continues even at the same time as it adds theatrical presentation to the delivery, and rhyming couplets to the dialogue. At this point I was intrigued by the style as well as the content but as the ideas grew the film really gets out of control. I am really not sure what the vision for the film was, and what was told to the cast to draw in so many big names – but I'm guessing different things attracted them since so many of them appear to be in different films from the others.

The film touches on a lot of serious subjects, but at the same time it tries to involve comedy, musical numbers, sexual farce, and generally odd or misjudged attempts at comedy. The result is a film that feels so totally unfocused that it is really difficult to stay with it. Being kind, you could describe this wild energy as being enough to carry the viewer along, but I did not find this to be the case. Instead I wanted it to be better – to be worthy of its subject matter and its better elements; but this never came together, and I found it quite frustrating just how messy it was.

The starry cast doesn't help because even when they are really good, they are distracting by their fame, as well as the disjointed nature of their individual material. Parris is strong in the lead, but struggles to find a through-line across all her varying material. Cannon is wholly unconvincing throughout, while Snipes' comedy gangster undercuts the grit of this part of the film. Bassett and Hudson are excellent in their scenes – and it is not their fault that their scenes exist in a film different from the other scenes. The parade of familiar faces is distracting (Cusack, Jackson, Harris, Chappelle etc), although some are used well. I do always enjoy seeing people from The Wire and Oz, however getting Whitlock Jr. to deliver his most famous line (well, word) was just another misjudged moment.

Chi-Raq has a lot of ideas and energy, and it is an experience to watch it for these. However the film is wildly unfocused and messy, ultimately failing to hold it all together or to deliver a satisfying whole.

Chi-Raq (2015)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

When a woman's (Jennifer Hudson) daughter is killed by a stray bullet, Lysistrata (Teyonah Parris) begins to rethink the situation in Chicago. Her boyfriend is the gangster/rapper Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon) and she wants him to put down the weapons. The town's other big gangster (Wesley Snipes) doesn't see the point so soon the mothers decide to team up and battle the gangsters themselves. How they going to bring peace? By refusing sex.

Spike Lee's CHI-RAQ contains some really, really great moments and things but at the same time I honestly can't remember such a serious subject being tackled in such a rather silly way. After I was done viewing the movie I went and read several reviews on it and they were extremely mixed to say the least. Some called it a masterpiece. Some said it was one of the worst movies of the year. Others said people were misunderstanding the tone of the picture because it was meant to be a black comedy. A comedy? Really?

I will start off with the great stuff. For starters, Lee does a tremendous job in the directing duties as he certainly handles the material in a terrific way and I'd argue he did a remarkable job considering the time and budget that he was working with. I'd also add that the cinematography was flawless and the soundtrack was great as well. The real shock for me was the excellent performance by Cannon who really does give a "movie star" performance here. I mean, I was really shocked at how wonderful he was in this role and he made the character rather fearful yet when it came time to show the heart, the actor did a fabulous job. John Cusack was also strong in his role as was Snipes, Parris and Angela Bassett. Samuel L. Jackson is also good playing Dolmedes.

Now, for the flaws. For the life of me I couldn't understand why the Lysistrata and Dolmedes thing was used. Yes, it turns the material into a musical and it gives the subject a rather fresh and original take but why was it needed? The film is a very political one and it really does beat the viewer over the head with the subject matter of blacks killing blacks but is this a way to get through to anyone? The film takes on a dark subject but I just couldn't help but think that it took an easy way out by not really giving any real answers. With holding sex? Really? I wish the screenplay had been done in a different fashion and the political message also got way off track and really derailed the film towards the end.

CHI-RAQ is a film that I greatly admired at times but at other times I really thought it was a misfire. Lee deserves credit for tackling the subject and he deserves credit for trying to tell the story in a different way but in the end the two things just didn't mix too well.

Chicago is referred to as Chi-Raq. American losses in Afghanistan from 2001 to today amounts to 2349, in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 amounts to 4424, and Chicago from 2001 to 2015 with 7356 murders. Dolmedes (Samuel L. Jackson) refers to ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes' play Lysistrata. Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon) is a rapper. Lysistrata (Teyonah Parris) is his girlfriend. Cyclops (Wesley Snipes) is a local thug. Irene (Jennifer Hudson) suffers the lost of her child from a stray bullet. Lysistrata leads a campaign by the women to withhold sex until the men stop the violence.

Spike Lee takes on a tough subject. The 'solution' is poetic and way too simplistic. I get the allure of pairing the classic Greek play with the present day reality. If nothing else, he's agitating for a solution to this intractable problem. He's not giving up. As for the movie itself, I have a few problems with the cast. John Cusack does not fit as a priest. I accept his Chicago connection and his need to help with this issue. He has never played this type of role and it's very odd to see him here. The General King Kong character is even worst. He is ridiculous. I don't know what Spike Lee is trying to say about the military and what connection they have with the murder rate. On the other hand, Jennifer Hudson's presence is powerful. Overall, this is a mix bag but at least, Spike Lee is willing to tackle the issue like he did so many years ago.

The newest joint from director Spike Lee, is a bizarre experiment for all to see.

Told in a brash tone, preaching with a megaphone, promising to make heads roll, And influenced by the writings of old Aristophanes.

Lysistrata (Parris) is the main squeeze of Chi-Raq (Cannon), A man with hopes to rap and plans attacks with and between two rival clans.

There's similarities between another two households alike in dignity, Down to the the colors worn during their mutiny.

So hopeless is their feud, no faction can collude to end, The violence penned and pent up in the hearts of these men.

So too does Lysistrata makes her nihilism known, Until an innocent is slain by a bullet in stray.

Plotting with Miss Helen (Bassett) and her sisters to atone, The ladies decide to keep their menfolk at bay.

Thus swayed with a solemn oath to end the specter of death, From the streets of the City with Big Shoulders, The women of Chicago swear with resounding shibboleth, To go on sex strike until the violence is over.

Much like this review, the film is in rhyme, which can grind, The gears of many not willing to meet it halfway, The characters imbue parody and are unable to find, Balance between the real and distorted morality play.

Overwrought with the thoughts and ersatz of bathetic farce, There's still something radical with which few can parse; Like when the gals take the armory, like Greeks to the treasury, The choruses of men and women can't help but find, A sincere quest for peace too abstruse for the blind.

Thus this film is a siren's call for peace that should be heard, Even if it is incredibly uneven in places.

The sui generis of such a movie bends to the absurd, Yet the message is true thus putting me in it's good graces.

There was much hullabaloo about it's offensive fantasy, Minimizing the tragedy of a besieged Windy City.

I for one stopped myself from attending a screening, As Chicago is second home thus this treatment is demeaning.

Yet firstly, this film is supposed to be skit and travesty, While the reasons for violence is complex, the act is absurdity! Why not have an expression that typifies the high camp of low brutality.

Why not revel in the message of love, that which comes from above, Below and inside the mourning, healing hearts and souls thereof.

There are many reasons to hate: revenge, opportunity, resource, religion, Politics, poverty, power, cash, race and competition.

Yet there is only one reason for love.

Secondly the source material is Greek in more ways than one, Comprehending the pathos of such a think piece maligned, Appropriates the fields of Thalia, Euterpe and Clio entwined.

It's not the who, what, where or when but why, when all is said and done.

And how strongly you feel by the tears and blood shed, When all players arrived, sheathed in white, bathed in the glory, Indemnified by a campaign ignited by Leymah Gbowee.

They end in the way a comedy should, in jubilation and ascension.

A better understanding made possible by an old form.

In modernity and convention we're given new dimension, With which to understand what's sadly a new norm.

Manipulative? Simplistic? Sexist? Maybe; Greek comedies are not exactly known for their subtlety.

Neither is Lee who hungrily experiments with novelty, Blusters with the voracity of his new expression, Not bothered or concerned with the asylum of discretion.

He's a maverick through and through, taking risks made bear, By a new form first fashioned by the surname Lumiere.

It tries, it fails, it gets back up again and fights the good fight, Using to make right the names of Jackson, Bassett and Snipes.

Is this movie acropolis or apocryphal? Watch and decide.

www.theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com