Chi-Raq

'CHI-RAQ': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Popular filmmaker Spike Lee's new comedy-drama musical; based on Aristophanes' ancient Greek comedy play 'Lysistrata' (but set in modern day Chicago). The story revolves around Chicago women, who withhold sex from their partners; until peace can be made. The title is a popular phrase, combining Chicago and Iraq, which is used to relate Chicago's Southside, to a war zone (it's also used as the nickname, of a character in the film). The movie stars Teyonah Parris, Nick Cannon, Wesley Snipes, Angela Bassett, John Cusack, Jennifer Hudson and Samuel L. Jackson (Snipes, Bassett and Jackson have all worked with Lee, multiple times before). The film didn't perform well, in limited release, at the Box Office; but it is one of the best reviewed movies of last year. I found it to be a bit of a 'mixed bag', but ultimately a good film.

The story takes place in South Side, Chicago; where deadly gang violence, is an everyday occurrence. A local woman, named Lysistrata (Parris), decides she's had enough; she also happens to be the lover of a popular rapper (in the area), and local gang leader, called Chi- Rag (Cannon). So Lysistrata decides to lead other female residents, in a revolt; by withholding physical affection, from their partners, until peace can be made. The movement becomes popular all around the world.

The movie is part satirical comedy, part musical, and part serious drama. It's also a political commentary; on the gang violence epidemic (in South Side, Chicago). The film definitely has a hard time balancing all these things; but it does have multiple well done (and memorable) moments, and a pretty good (positive) message. Spike Lee has made many better movies than this before; but it's definitely not a bad film, or a waste of time.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/j9uf6E4pnlw

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.

I'm a fan of Spike Lee's movies and was expecting to be cajoled into deep thought on today's urban problems by this film. Mr Lee has directed some very good films. Do the Right Thing is still one of my favorites. However, in Chi-raq Mr Lee has taken a highly stylized approach to his subject, and this becomes evident early in the film when every character is speaking in rhyming couplets. This continues nearly unbroken throughout the movie. I must say I found urban poetry in Do the Right Thing, but none in this film. The rhyming began to feel artificial, not conducive to either the mood or the setting, and it quickly wore thin.

Additionally, Mr Lee gave the film a strongly burlesque quality, at times extremely so, and this was clearly meant to be comic. The humor was so exaggerated, however, that it seemed ill- suited to the very serious problem it was trying to address: the murder rate of young African-Americans at the hands of other African-Americans in urban America.

Some reviewers on IMDb have asserted that Mr Lee failed to address the real problem, the "war on drugs", but the topic of the film is more complicated than simple bad law enforcement policy. Lee gave the film a hard sexually charged theme, focusing on reducing violence through female induced sexual abstinence. But he reduces the focus of responsibility in the broader society to white racism, which is likely partially true but not completely so, and even this aspect of the film is presented as burlesque.

The film's principle faults: It is not good drama, it is not good comedy, and it is not a film which provokes much thought on a problem that truly deserves attention.

First for the "haters" negative Nancy crowd: I'm bright white, don't love or hate Lee and don't know squat about Chicago.

I thought this was pretty solid. All the valid intelligent criticism I've seen involves elements tying this to Aristophanes work.

I get it,gangsta's and Aristophanes are not things that are closely associated but darn it fruity arty farty reviewers should have read a freaking Greek play at least once or twice in life.

I think Lee did an awesome job here. I gave a s*** about Chicago. The use of Aristophanes Lysistrata was a brilliant way to illustrate how long humanity has been doing this dumb crap. It's a fantastic way to illustrate just how universal this nonsense is.He managed to tie a modern day cultural issue's to ancient Greece. It's real daggum difficult to call Lysistrata "a black thing" or blame "thugs".

Kiddies, that "weird stuff" and "sing song" is the classic Greek comedy influences. Chi-Raq is a melding of modern culture and ancient Greek comedy. Now, Disney's Hercules ya'll have seen and loved that movie. The muses that sing all the songs you love? Zero to Hero 'member? You 'member...same thing. Keep that in mind when you're watching Chi-Raq.

It's fine if you hate it, not everyone digs it. Not everyone loves Broadway either, but at least judge it for what it is. Don't condemn it because of or due to ignorance.

Literature is history,we've got to remember that and teach the kids better. This is just depressing. Kind of adds to Lee's point/message though doesn't it?

Ah well, at least nobody is screaming about Lee being a bastid patriarch co opting Lysistrata and perverting it for his male needs...yet.

As for me, it was different, interesting in a good way and funny. It had raunchy humor mixed with some higher brow stuff. It was thought provoking and chees-ily preachy at times. There's thought in this. There's concern.

I think what's best,for me anyway, was that somebody left the box FINALLY and looked at this from an entirely new perspective. It's not the same boxed up thugs and gangsta garbage. It's not classic men vs women tropes. I loved it for it's oddities. I loved it for the new angles on age old problems.

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.