Malcolm X my review and the a point i like to make!
02-12-05, 11:58 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malcolm X my review and the a point i like to make!
When this film came out in 1992 in my area (tri-cites,wash-state) this movie was not here so fast forward to about 1998 i think watch it on VHS wow what a movie.
I wish i had seen this on the big screen like JFK 1991 the year before Malcolm X the subject i think is the reason that it didn't play area here..
Now it the second dvd release the first one was back in 1999 i think not for sure on the year i did watch that on dvd very good much better than the vhs copy i saw..
Then feb 2004 this one is loaded with a better picture sound and bonus features for me i love lots extras.
Denzel washington for my money this is his greatest film other than hurrcaine
he got the shaft from the oscars he was the best actor period..
Now the grade for the DVD..
PICTURE 8/10
SOUND 8/10
EXTRAS 8/10
the best feature buy-far is the Malcolm X documentary from 1972 i seen pictures and read a little about the man but to hear and see him what power in talking to the people of the time..
And now my point other then dvd talk web site there are not alot of review for the this dvd why i don't get it this is one of the best films of 90's..
Well that said i finish...
I wish i had seen this on the big screen like JFK 1991 the year before Malcolm X the subject i think is the reason that it didn't play area here..
Now it the second dvd release the first one was back in 1999 i think not for sure on the year i did watch that on dvd very good much better than the vhs copy i saw..
Then feb 2004 this one is loaded with a better picture sound and bonus features for me i love lots extras.
Denzel washington for my money this is his greatest film other than hurrcaine
he got the shaft from the oscars he was the best actor period..
Now the grade for the DVD..
PICTURE 8/10
SOUND 8/10
EXTRAS 8/10
the best feature buy-far is the Malcolm X documentary from 1972 i seen pictures and read a little about the man but to hear and see him what power in talking to the people of the time..
And now my point other then dvd talk web site there are not alot of review for the this dvd why i don't get it this is one of the best films of 90's..
Well that said i finish...
02-13-05, 09:12 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Trecastagni, Sicily
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the reason is obvious. Malcolm clearly identified the problem. That is the reason it didn't get a lot of play and didn't win the awards it deserved. And it is the reason we won't be hearing that much about the new release. Some things won't change until it's too late. Just look around - it's not hard to see.
02-13-05, 09:53 PM
#4
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by ROBERTCOP34
When this film came out in 1992 in my area (tri-cites,wash-state) this movie was not here so fast forward to about 1998 i think watch it on VHS wow what a movie.
I wish i had seen this on the big screen like JFK 1991 the year before Malcolm X the subject i think is the reason that it didn't play area here..
Now it the second dvd release the first one was back in 1999 i think not for sure on the year i did watch that on dvd very good much better than the vhs copy i saw..
Then feb 2004 this one is loaded with a better picture sound and bonus features for me i love lots extras.
Denzel washington for my money this is his greatest film other than hurrcaine
he got the shaft from the oscars he was the best actor period..
Now the grade for the DVD..
PICTURE 8/10
SOUND 8/10
EXTRAS 8/10
the best feature buy-far is the Malcolm X documentary from 1972 i seen pictures and read a little about the man but to hear and see him what power in talking to the people of the time..
And now my point other then dvd talk web site there are not alot of review for the this dvd why i don't get it this is one of the best films of 90's..
Well that said i finish...
I wish i had seen this on the big screen like JFK 1991 the year before Malcolm X the subject i think is the reason that it didn't play area here..
Now it the second dvd release the first one was back in 1999 i think not for sure on the year i did watch that on dvd very good much better than the vhs copy i saw..
Then feb 2004 this one is loaded with a better picture sound and bonus features for me i love lots extras.
Denzel washington for my money this is his greatest film other than hurrcaine
he got the shaft from the oscars he was the best actor period..
Now the grade for the DVD..
PICTURE 8/10
SOUND 8/10
EXTRAS 8/10
the best feature buy-far is the Malcolm X documentary from 1972 i seen pictures and read a little about the man but to hear and see him what power in talking to the people of the time..
And now my point other then dvd talk web site there are not alot of review for the this dvd why i don't get it this is one of the best films of 90's..
Well that said i finish...
02-14-05, 08:55 AM
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by ROBERTCOP34
this movie was not here
Originally Posted by Psych1
I think the reason is obvious. Malcolm clearly identified the problem. That is the reason it didn't get a lot of play and didn't win the awards it deserved. And it is the reason we won't be hearing that much about the new release. Some things won't change until it's too late. Just look around - it's not hard to see.
According to Boxofficemojo, it played on 1249 screens and made nearly $50 million. Are you saying that the movie didn't play in Washington state? I find that hard to believe.
It is -- by far -- Spike Lee's most successful film. To imply that there's some sort of racist reason why it didn't 'get a lot of play' and 'didn't win the awards' would need a bit more facts to back it up.
02-14-05, 11:15 AM
#6
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: I was here but I disappear
Posts: 8,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't attribute it's potential lack of DVD press to racism necessarily: DVD sites don't always move with the same urgency for every release.
However, both Spike Lee and Malcolm X have been the victims of a sort of reductive condescension by the general media. Both have made statements that don't sit well with the mainstream and they've been defined by those things. This is something I talk about in regards to Malcolm in my review: All most people know about him is that he advocated violence, black separatism and said "by any means necessary" (which is sort of a threat), but his story and legacy are way more complicated and powerful than that.
Spike, similarly, has said some stuff that led to controversy (and has been credited with saying things that he didn't say, too) but his movies, at their best, are the most balanced, honest films about race that have ever been made. They deserve more acclaim from the mainstream than they've gotten. Malcolm X should be a banner release but I think it did get a little B-listed thanks to the (unfair) reputations of its subject and director and also to the mainstream's hunger for more mainstream fare (It takes a release of the level of Raging Bull to get an "art" film to top the hit list in our review section, "Malcolm X" peaked at #5 or so, with 4,104 hits to date, as opposed to Badder Santa, which got that much in one day)
As for awards, Malcolm X was definitely robbed. Was it racism? Not consciously but it's ugly when you see Denzel lose for this amazing performance to Pacino for his showy, unmemorable performance in Scent of a Woman. That stupid movie was a safe choice for a career award for Pacino after he didn't win for more worthwhile (and darker, more dangerous) performances like Godfather 2. Then Denzel actually does win, but for what is a super stereotypical, ugly performance in a pretty racist move... Doesn't sit right (neither does Do The Right Thing, one of the best American movies ever made, not even being nominated in the year that Driving Miss Daisy actually won... nuff said on that one.)
Also, ROBERTCOP34: You should post your reviews in here, but you might want to gather your thoughts and edit your writing a bit first. It's tough to figure out what you're saying from that post.
However, both Spike Lee and Malcolm X have been the victims of a sort of reductive condescension by the general media. Both have made statements that don't sit well with the mainstream and they've been defined by those things. This is something I talk about in regards to Malcolm in my review: All most people know about him is that he advocated violence, black separatism and said "by any means necessary" (which is sort of a threat), but his story and legacy are way more complicated and powerful than that.
Spike, similarly, has said some stuff that led to controversy (and has been credited with saying things that he didn't say, too) but his movies, at their best, are the most balanced, honest films about race that have ever been made. They deserve more acclaim from the mainstream than they've gotten. Malcolm X should be a banner release but I think it did get a little B-listed thanks to the (unfair) reputations of its subject and director and also to the mainstream's hunger for more mainstream fare (It takes a release of the level of Raging Bull to get an "art" film to top the hit list in our review section, "Malcolm X" peaked at #5 or so, with 4,104 hits to date, as opposed to Badder Santa, which got that much in one day)
As for awards, Malcolm X was definitely robbed. Was it racism? Not consciously but it's ugly when you see Denzel lose for this amazing performance to Pacino for his showy, unmemorable performance in Scent of a Woman. That stupid movie was a safe choice for a career award for Pacino after he didn't win for more worthwhile (and darker, more dangerous) performances like Godfather 2. Then Denzel actually does win, but for what is a super stereotypical, ugly performance in a pretty racist move... Doesn't sit right (neither does Do The Right Thing, one of the best American movies ever made, not even being nominated in the year that Driving Miss Daisy actually won... nuff said on that one.)
Also, ROBERTCOP34: You should post your reviews in here, but you might want to gather your thoughts and edit your writing a bit first. It's tough to figure out what you're saying from that post.
Last edited by Gil Jawetz; 02-14-05 at 11:19 AM.
02-14-05, 11:49 AM
#7
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Trecastagni, Sicily
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gil - That was a excellent analysis.
It's not unusual for the Academy give out awards to those who should have won for earlier performances - so that's not the problem I had/have. I can't collect the "facts" but saw at the time how that film was treated and, to me, the reasons were obvious. I didn't realize it earned so much but still - if not for ----
It's not unusual for the Academy give out awards to those who should have won for earlier performances - so that's not the problem I had/have. I can't collect the "facts" but saw at the time how that film was treated and, to me, the reasons were obvious. I didn't realize it earned so much but still - if not for ----
