Malcolm X appreciation thread

A true masterpiece, directed by Spike Lee. Wonderful performance by Denzel Washington. Great storydevelopment. A small criminal turns into a powerful and influential leader.

 

I refuse to watch anything by that dorky nerdy geeky scrawny racist fag

 

I liked the film

A very mild whitewash, but still well done

Lee is hit and miss, for me, but he hit with this one and Washington was tremendous

 

Denzel was great, but the film could had been better. Don't get me wrong, I found it entertaining, but I was expecting more. Maybe Oliver Stone could had done a better job than Lee here.

 

how? by re-writing history by pulling non-existent events and characters out of his ass?

Stone is a joke who somehow nevertheless managed to make one absolute masterpiece-- Platoon

 

Wall Street is the only good film on that list

"Born" is overrated, but not bad

The other two are sensationalist bullshit

 

It was a MAINSTREAM Film for Sure, but "Malcolm X" Also Gives a TRUE SENSE of WHO Malcolm X was...Characters are Oftentimes REINVENTED in Biopics...Denzel Captured the SPIRIT of Malcolm & Spike Lee FILMED it Brilliantly...The Flick is what MOST will Now Default to, If/When they Want a Cliff's Notes Version of the Man & REED is Fine w/that...

But Having Said That, Spike Should Be ASHAMED for Giving Himself Such a Large ON SCREEN Role, in a Film Sooooo Important...





REED:hammert:

 

dupe

 

definitely... as whitewashes in historical biopics go, it was very, very mild. Agree with Lee inserting himself into the film.

 

YO MOMMA... WHAT? WHAT?

 

I don't find Spike Lee's presence in the movie to be problematic. He played his role very well.

 

He's done either very good or shit movies. Natural born killers is Tarantino's script.

 

The fact is Stone would have churned out a better Malcolm X than Spike did.

 

ANYBODY Could've Played the Role, but REED is Betting Spike DIDN'T Even Hold Auditions for that Part...From the OUTSET, Spike was Gonna Make SURE his Mug was ON SCREEN...But Instead of Some TRIVIAL Role, Spike Casts Himself as Malcolm X's Best Criminal Friend???...

Clearly an EGO Move...




REED:boohoo:

 

You Would 1st Need to Illustrate what's WRONG w/Lee's Version, Before ASSuming Stone Automatically Churns Out a "Better" 1...



REEDopcorn:

 

Well for one thing i think he should have casted Wayne Brady instead of Denzel.

 

Fact is that Malcolm X is better than any movie that Oliver Stone has ever made.

 

Too bad Spike Lee didn't direct Ali. He would have delivered a better movie than Michael Mann.

 

Is that so?

It's a "fact" that a man whose biopics and historical pics have been nothing but a sensational pack of lies would have done a better job on a biopic of Malcolm X than a guy who comparatively stuck to the facts?

What's a good biography, one that paints an accurate picture of a person through a reading of their actual deeds and the context of their times or one that ignores the context of their times completely, substitutes the actual deeds of the person with a litany of completely fabricated actions and paints a completely distorted and false picture of that person?

Stone's "JFK", a grotesque, irresponsible marathon of lies, fiction and cynical manipulation did more to harm intelligent discourse of the most famous American assassination of the 20th century than 10,000 books written by the Petre's of the world on the same subject. To anyone with even a casual command of the inarguable events of the assassination as well as the attempted trial by Garrison, that film is a sickening spectacle. Offensive in the low regard with which it holds its audience.

Stone's grasp of and his interpretation of history can be trusted about as far as you could throw a tank. The thought of him applying his absurd and purposefully lurid historical vision to the life of a controversial, already little understood important figure of the tumultuous 1960s makes me shudder.

Like it or not, for many people, films like these are the only history lesson they are ever going to get on a particular subject. Altering history GREATLY (as he did with the despicable "JFK") for the purpose of so-called "entertainment" and to fit the kind of worldview guaranteed to attract extremely gullible audiences is a bald-faced game of propaganda and, without wishing to take away everyone's fun, I don't think you can denounce such practices in strong enough terms.

 

with one exception - "Platoon"

Stone, for once dealing with a subject from his own personal life, hit a home run with that film.

 

Great post there C. And for the record I was not serious when I wrote it's a fact that Stone would make a better Malcolm X then Lee. Those that know me know I rarely make absolute statements about something that is not only opinion but can't be proven. You're right that Spike did stick to the facts and in that vein he should be commended, but something about Malcom X just fell flat and I can't even put my finger on it. The Stone argument though is irrelevant far as I'm concerned. In my opinion Malcom X is a very rewatchable film that I've seen many times. But, having read the book, I still can't call it a great film. Something with the pacing or what-not and I keep waiting for a directors cut or uncut version to come out as the film seems badly edited in spots.

 

That's fair. It is a chunky film. Far from perfect. Definitely good, though

 

That is exactly what I said. Denzel made the film work. He was Malcom X. Lee's direction was a little too reverend of its subject, neglecting in part the persona Malcom X created in the 60's: a very radical, sometimes bordering in the dangerous, activist for the Black movement. His verbal attacks toward Martin Luther King jr (he called him an "Uncle Tom" among other niceties) were downplayed here because Luther King is revered today almost like saint. Film is good, but could have been better. The editing looked very amateurish. Some parts were way too long and should have been left in the editing room floor. Also Lee was unable to create a satysfying climax to the film. IMO "JFK" was more entertaining, even though was made up of pure conspiracy speculation. But it was damn entertaining. In Malcom X besides Denzel, who else gave a memorable performance? In JFK Costner was okay, but Gary Oldman was damn brilliant as Lee Harvey Oswald; Tommy Lee Jones was nominated for his role of Shaw. Even Kevin Bacon in his cameo was very good.

 

the word is "reverential"

And JFK is not made up of "mere conspiracy speculation"... It is an outright fabrication, not just in the invention of non-existent people, but in the total and complete misrepresentation of ACTUAL people, most noticeably Garrison himself, who was literally NOTHING LIKE the character in the film.

 

Delroy Lindo wasn't bad as Archie but for the most part there really were no other big roles in that film other than maybe Spikes. I thought a lot of people gave pretty good performances even if they had 1 scene or very small parts.

 

Delroy Lindo's a VERY Underrated Character Actor...

He was West Indian Archie in "Malcolm X", he was a Cop in the Mel Gibson Flick where his Kid Gets Kidnapped by Gary Sinise, he was a Drug Kingpin in "Clockers" and he was a Struggling Musician w/a Wife & Kids in "Crooklyn"...Lindo Primarily Does "Spike Lee Joints", Obviously, but he's a GOOD Actor in REED's Opinion....



REED
:hammert: