Clockers

Felt like a documentary without the interviews. Spike Lee is a masterful director/writer that adds gritty great subject matter! I've seen all of The Wire which felt similar to this which is cool & the drama in this was done so well; excellent intense 90's at it's finest.

There is no denying it that this is a good and well made movie but at the same time I also still had loads of problems with it!

The way I see it, this is being a pretty good portrayal of live on the streets in the '90's. It picks a mostly realistic approach but still I just can't really 'feel' this movie. I never felt involved with any of the characters in it or to any of the dramatic events and developments. It doesn't make this movie bad but it does indeed make this movie a bit of a one dimensional experience.

And remember, this is an 1995 movie. So everything that was considered to be hip and 'thug life' might seem a bit ridicules and less cool in today's perspective. The whole attitude and way of talking and the way everyone dresses makes this movie really a product of its time. In that regard this movie also really reminded me of "Kids", which coincidentally or not, got made in the same year as this movie. It makes this movie less relevant to watch now days but really, it's nothing I was holding against the movie.

I would had most definitely preferred it if this movie was using a more straightforward style of storytelling. The movie as it is seems to be wanting to focus on far too many different characters and tries to do and tell too much. It also really has its own style to it, when it comes down to its storytelling, which was nice and helped to give this movie an unique feeling but at the same time it also made the movie unnecessary hard and not all that pleasant to follow at times.

Another thing I also disliked about this movie was its pick of music. The movie mad some bad music choices, in which the music often would swell and become melodramatic at moments that really were uncalled for. It absolutely distracted and most of the time didn't suit what was happening on the screen at the time.

But really, I though this movie still had some hints of a great movie in it as well. One thing was its already earlier mentioned unique and distinctive style. Spike Lee always has had an unique and distinctive style of his own and he manages to put a lot of that in this movie successfully. There are some interesting moments in this movie, from a more technical and movie-making perspective. There was some good camera-work for instance and also very little wrong with the movie its editing and pacing.

The movie its story in essence also really seemed to be a solid one but I do feel that they perhaps should had picked some different perspectives to keep- and make things a bit more interesting and effective. Wouldn't this movie for instance had been better and more interesting if it told things more from the Harvey Keitel's character perspective? Who knows and it's not like the movie bad or interesting as it is right now but while watching this movie it constantly gave me the feeling it had more potential and things could had been done better.

I don't know, perhaps the movie was also being a bit stuck between being a gangster movie and a more realistic one. It never felt like a true gangster flick and it never felt like a true realistic movie neither. Producer Martin Scorsese perhaps should had stepped in a bit more often, since he definitely is a kind of director who can more successfully blend realism with tough and tense gangster/crime movies.

Not trying to sound too negative. The movie is good enough as it is but it doesn't ever reaches its full potential.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

In 1995 I considered Spike Lee's gritty CLOCKERS one of the year's best films; recently I spotted its video in a clearance bin and picked it up. Upon re-viewing, I am struck again by its complexity. It is the first urban drama to depict inner-city race relations with the intricacy such a pervasive cultural issue demands. On the surface it resembles a whodunit, but its main concern is how drugs and violence contaminate entire communities, dramatized in the collapse of one African-American youth's life. (He chokes up blood the way some of us sweat.) This process is observed by a predominantly white police force that makes hollow attempts to keep order, and refuses to intervene with the community's gradual decline.

Instead of characters with overt prejudices and plain racial allegiances-characters that are sterile symbols of bigotry rather than credible humans guilty of it-Lee gives us characters of casual racism. Most representative of this is Harvey Keitel's Rocco Klein, a white detective who cannot understand the culture surrounding him, which is a culture of narcotics, violence, and black-on-black crime. On his beat, drugs are less a problem than a lifestyle, murder resolves the tiniest of disagreements, and young mothers valiantly but vainly battle the influence young dealers have on their sons. Klein views the inner-city with contempt, but deep down he knows all the whores and dealers are human beings, too.

Klein is introduced at the scene of a homicide, where the police handle the gruesome death with a clinical sense of detachment, cracking bad jokes and asking the bloodied corpse questions. Is it just a job, or is it racism? For Klein, it's both: he needs the gallows humor to psychologically deal with this culture of depravity. What's fascinating about CLOCKERS is Lee's willingness-and guts-to present Klein, despite his prejudice, as the film's hero. Lee understands that casual racism is simply endemic and inescapable in American culture. What he appreciates is Klein's ability to transcend his own prejudice and finally do the right thing.

This is a decent enough drama although the talents of an impressive set of actors is under used in my opinion. The story could've been tighter too. The denouement is a letdown. The worst part of the movie is the atrocious use of music that neither fits the scene and often takes away from the dialogue. Amateur hour for that.

Strike (Phifer) works as a drug runner (clocker) in a NY ghetto for dealer Rodney (Delroy Lindo). When someone kills one of Rodney's enemies Detective Klein (Keitel) investigates. Strike's brother Victor (Washington) confesses but suspicion points to Strike. Klein suspects that Victor is covering for his brother and begins to put the heat on Strike for more information.

The main plot is a form of crime thriller, with Keitel playing the cop trying to uncover the truth behind the murder. However the plot is not what this film is about - this is basically a film about the effects on drugs on the NY ghettos. Strike is the "average black man", while his protégé, Tyrone (Peewee Love) is "black youth". The film tries to show the forces placed on them by their situation, their role models and the few options they have in life. Rodney represents the draw of selling drugs, of quick money while policemen Andre (Keith David) and Klein represent his conscience trying to get him to do the right thing - Andre and Tyrone's mother (Regina Taylor) particularly doing right by your own community.

The message is at times forced, Keitel's sequence towards the end is very clever cinematically but feels a bit like a sermon, but at other times we're allowed to work it out ourselves. Strike is not judged but allowed to be pulled by the situation around him, his sickness representing the sickness of his situation. Through him we see the pressures that are on him to act like his peers and the bad role-models he has in his life. In Shorty we see the same things affect the next generation and, while his aping of Strike is clumsy, you again see how the lack of good role-models reduces the options for an otherwise intelligent kid. The best thing about the comparison of Lindo and Keitel is that neither is judged - both are allowed to show themselves as appealing, Lindo appears as a parent, almost seeking the best for all his workers and Keitel is allowed to be an honest cop with a good moral code. However both are also seen in a bad light, Lindo brings out the violence, pressure and treachery of his character - a man who is really out for himself while the way Keitel pressures Strike is seen as bad as Rodney's pressure and reveals a racist angry streak within himself. We are left wondering how anyone can survive between the two.

Phifer is good as Strike and manages to avoid just doing a ghetto-movie type of performance, he makes you believe that he is trapped in a no-win situation. Isaiah Washington gives another in a string of strong performances as the honest man trying to get by. Lindo is great as drug dealer Rodney, mixing paternal aspirations with moments of sudden viciousness. Keitel and John Turturro act below their station and aren't given much to work with, Keitel especially doesn't always manage to carry the moral core of the story without preaching. Two small roles of interest are Tom Byrd as Errol who has plays the fallen dealer with AIDS, however not enough is explained about his character, also Michael Imperioli (better known as Chris in The Sopranos) plays bent cop Jo-Jo. Peewee Love stands out as Shorty/Shorty, sucked into a world that lacks choice.

The film looks great, the whole thing has a bright colourful sheen on it that is very attractive to look at. Combined with Lee's stylish director it makes for a beautiful film - although some scenes are shot differently and on different stock, to make a point, although I'm not sure what that point is. The music is as good as most of Lee's movies, a mix of soul and hip hop, it is better than many ghetto films that just assume that the hip hop is all that's needed to help the mood.

This is a good example of the lack of options that exist in the ghetto and, besides some very obvious preaching, it makes it's point without shouting it at the audience. The only failing is that Lee bottles it near the end, delivering a sentimental ending of hope that is unfortunately not the truth in many cases.