Hustle + Flow

I loved it.

I saw it in Memphis before it went to Sundance. Highly recommended.

Also loved Brewer's previous Memphis flick, "The Poor And Hungry," especially since I've spent a lot of time at the P&H Cafe. Don't know if it's in release anywhere, but they show it from time to time around town.

I dunno... a good movie with Tayrn Manning, DJ Qualls, Anthony Anderson and Ludacris? As a terence Howard fan, I'm still skeptical.

Can someone here explain to me why rooting for the piece of shit pimp who wants to be a rapper is deemed so cool or gritty or real or whatever? It seems every rap video or movie glorifies what everyone wants off of teh street.

I know a few of you love the hookers, but why does this lifestyle get so much attention in a good light? We should be trying to end it.





I still want to see the movie.

According to today's Hollywood Reporter, the film's release has been pushed back from Wednesday, July 15th to Friday, July 22nd in order to accomodate a public sneak preview on Saturday, July 16 to help build further word-of-mouth.

This is so ridiculous. Do you feel the same way about movies about any other kind of criminal?

No, because those criminals would be white.

I remember being interested in it around Sundance time, but then it just slipped my mind. Now I'm seeing ads for it everywhere. I've heard nothing but rave reviews for Terrence Howard's performance in this (and the film in general) so I'd definitely like to get out and see this when it comes out in a couple weeks.

Before anything, think about Godfather, Goodfellas, Casino or any other mobster movie. Did you have any problems with those movies? Did you complain about glorifying a bunch of murdering thugs that bled the life out of local businesses? You won't answer truthfully, but I doubt you even had a second thought about it.

And it's not so much as a "good" light. Just a light in general.

This comment reminds of another topic about people refusing to play San Andreas.

Great movie, I had been anticipating seeing this for sometime and was actually surprised that not only did it manage to live up to my expectations it surpassed them.

Good to hear Godzuki. I wasn't able to get to any of the early screenings, so I'm gonna try real hard to see it next weekend when it comes out every where.

I think it is a testament to the skill of a filmmaker when they can elicit sympathy from an audience for a basically despicable character. This film has me intrigued. And after that review I believe I have to see it.

I'm with Gracie Lou...that was a remarkable write-up Dev. Really looking forward to seeing this movie.

I know this is irredeemably sexist of me, but there is something that I just find more despicable about a pimp who exploits specifically women than a gangster who tends to exploit mostly men.

Still, a very interesting review, Devin. You've made me want to see this film.

For those who are interested, a more skeptical take from A.O. Scott:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2005/07/2...gewanted=print

I think Atticus had a decent question, and you didn't really address it.

Now, first of all, I have not seen the movie yet, only the trailer, read some snippets of reviews, and I just read your entire review... so that is all I have to go on.

I had the same initial reaction as Atticus upon seeing the trailer. And yes, I would have the same feeling if the movie seemed to have the same plot but was about an aspiring Italian mafia assassin who wants to be a famous actor and make more money, or a caucasion who rips people off for tens of thousands of dollars who doesn't think that is enough money and wants to be a famous country singer as well. (Assuming they were straight up dramas and not comedies.)

There are two basic possibilities for a movie like this (and of course lots of area in between):
1) We are supposed to like and root for the character wholeheartedly.
2) We are supposed to view the film more like a documentary and just glimpse into this character's world.

The trailer made it look like #1, which is what I think Atticus was getting at.

Like I said, I just read your review, Devin, and you make it sound like it may be more like #2 (or at least have more of those elements involved in it). That is a big difference, and perhaps how you should have phrased your response to Atticus' question as opposed to assuming there is some weird prejudice going on and lashing out.

I don't think I should at all. How many threads on this board are about crime films? How many people here decry Tarantino's work because of how he glamorizes criminals?

I do, however, eagerly await the threads you will make excoriating Goodfellas, Casino, the Godfathers and other likeminded films.

Tarantino films are different. They don't appear to be taking place in our world. They are not realistic dramatic works. They are somewhat silly, hyper-stylized, more than a little comedic. And when they are not so much like that, I never find myself rooting for the "bad guys."

Hustle and Flow, however, looks (from the trailers, haven't seen it yet) as if it is trying to be a serious drama where they want the audience to seriously root for a bad person. And like I said, your review makes it sound like it isn't that clear cut, but that is how it appears to be advertised.

I was just pointing out that I wouldn't mind that aspect being addressed as opposed to terse remarks implying the people asking the questions are hypocritical.

You are giving examples of #2 in my statement above. I wasn't rooting for anyone in Goodfellas, for example, I felt like I was being given a glimpse into the world of some pretty despicable people, and I wouldn't have cared if they all died.

My question was, is Hustle and Flow like that? Am I supposed to actually care about the main character and root for him? Or am I just supposed to be an impartial observer during a segment of this man's life.

Like I said above, the trailer made me think the first... which made me not want to see the movie. But now with all of this positive buzz, I'm curious.

I find that very hard to believe. Goodfellas, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, The Sopranos, The Shield, all feature despicable protagonists, but none would work if we didn't feel some sympathy or identification with them. We like Liotta's character, and we care about him. Otherwise, I don't think the film would work. We know Tony Soprano is a contemptable character, and yet we are shocked every time he does something awful. Why? Because we like him.

Yeah, Z-Man nails it. All of those films work - the Tarantinos, the mafia films - because we like the characters. They're given great dialogue that we like to quote. They just all happen to be white.

Just wanted to say that was (yet another) great review Devin, and that with all the praise this film's garnering it looks to be a must-see. And it's even playing in the local MoG cineplex (I was mildly surprised), so I hope to be able to check it out this Sunday. Too cool.

Which explains why Samuel Jackson is everybody's favorite.
Your gross generalizations aren't bolstering your point, Devin.

And, back to the topic at hand, likeable but corrupt criminals in film go back to the days of Bogart and Cagney. This is hardly something new, and shouldn't be looked upon any differently because the characters are black.

Sam Jackson is everyone's favorite because he's FUCKING SAM JACKSON and John Travolta is only John Travolta, not because he's the moral center of the film.

Jackson's most popular roles are in films where he's the black guy amidst a sea of white faces.

Very true as well. Warner Bros just put out some great old gangster films on DVD that have central characters every bit as despicable but just as likable as any modern one.

What does that have to do with your point?

He is making white films. He just happens to be the black guy in them. I am seeing people getting up in arms about glorifying crime in black films, not white films.

Actually, that's one of the semantic things that interests me about HUSTLE & FLOW. If the writer/director is white, is it a "black film?"

I don't know. That is an interesting question. I'd like to think that a good film would transcend that barrier, being neither a "black film" or a "white film", and simply be recognized as good, solid cinema.

I agree completely. I do find the relation between the ethnicity of an artist - be it a filmmaker or a writer or whatever - and the story they are telling to be interesting. It's like Spike Lee's insistance that Norman Jewison NOT direct MALCOLM X. And would THE GODFATHER have been the same if a non-Italian had made it? Is there an element of ethnic identity that comes to bear on a film that is about a specific ethnic group? IE, not just some action picture, but a movie like HUSTLE & FLOW, set in a specifically black milieu.

Is JACKIE BROWN a white film?

The idea of rooting for black criminals isn't all that daring or new. Who isn't rooting for Larenz Tate to get away with the robbery in DEAD PRESIDENTS? Who isn't happy that Jada Pinkette actually does get away with the last robbery in SET IT OFF?

I have a strong feeling you don't really read threads. The film that is being discussed is a black film. I am wondering why this poster feels that the glamorization of a criminal life style is so horrible here, but I don't see him popping into threads about other criminal films with the same problem. The biggest difference I can think of between this film and other white crime films is the fact that this is a film about black people.

JACKIE BROWN is a very, very white movie.

I think the distinction that needs to be made is whether a movie is ABOUT an ethnic group, or FOR an ethnic group. I've watched and enjoyed many "black films", because I didn't feel that they were excluding me, as a viewer, because I didn't share that background. The films, instead, shared the background with me.

Lee and Coppola absolutely bring the culture of their ethnicity to those films. Lee moreso with Do The Right Thing and Jungle Fever. I would dare say those films would be inferior had they been made by a WASP. You can't deny that a filmmaker's racial identity influences their expression.
Now, what qualifies a White or Black film? Well, that can get as muddled as what qualifies a White or Black person. Unless you're using extreme examples, the description is meaningless.
Roots is a black film because it's primarily about the black experience. Whereas Wall Street is a white film.
From what I can tell, Hustle and Flow seems pretty universal. It just frames it's story in a minority setting.

Yeah, that's more or less what I'm getting at, just put more succinctly.

Nigger, please.
Jackie Brown is a universal story. If anything, it's primarily a woman's movie since Jackie's gender influences the story a whole lot more than her race.

The idea of JACKIE BROWN being a white film is just off. The concept of movies being of a particular race is already sort of startling, you don't see a lot of people say a book is white or black. JACKIE BROWN is a film with 2 black leads and a lot of supporting roles with balck actors (Tucker, Lister), it also gives us Grier as a criminal that everyone is rooting for.

All major booksellers and their "African American Literature" sections disagree with you.

First of all, I disagree with you about Liotta's character. He is not a hero or likeable at all. Were we watching the same movie? I still contend that Goodfellas doesn't require us to like any of the main characters.

Pulp Fiction doesn't ask us to root for anyone necessarily, and it is not a serious drama, it is meant to taken in a more comedic vein. We may root for certain characters to perform certain actions in specific scenarios, but I would hope that if at any time we felt these were real people, we would no longer be rooting for them as they are evil in many ways.

Same with the Sopranos... the Sopranos is meant to be sardonic and humerous in many ways, so I wouldn't call it a serious drama (although it has many dramatic elements, it walks the line between drama and comedy pretty consistantly).

I haven't seen the shield, but as far as the commercials, they lead me to believe that he is basically a "good" man who bends the rules to try to stop "bad" men. That is a far cry from being an assassin, a pimp, a drug dealer, etc, etc.

And finally... I didn't say this movie was like that (I haven't seen it), I was asking HOW this movie was in terms of Atticus' concerns and my comments.

IS IT a movie about a fairly despicable, immoral character that the movie wants us to root for? Or is it sardonic, somewhat comedic, or otherwise removed from reality and overly "real" and dramatic so that these concerns are less important.

Nobody really seems to be addressing this. You just keep pointing out other movies where main characters are questionable morally and telling me that I'm apparently hypocritical for not starting threads about all of those movies. I haven't started threads about those movies because I think they are different (as I've explained numerous times)... and even if I thought those aforementioned movies were just as bad, me not ranting about them at this particular instant doesn't negate any opinions that I have on this movie.

The fact that you haven't seen the movie really negates any opinion you have on the movie.

That's a valid point but if I'm going to discuss books by how they are organized at Barnes and Noble we are in for rough times. When actual people talk about a novel they have read you don't commonly say that was a "great black book" or that was a "badly written white book."

If JACKIE BROWN is a white film then that would make THE 25TH HOUR a black film.

Quentin Tarantino makes really uniquely white films. His films are made from the POV of a white dude assimilating other cultures, and JACKIE BROWN is a part of that. I find his stuff very interesting because while they have a level of diversity in them, they remain specifically white concepts of how people of other races talk, behave, etc. To me, anyway.