I say this film was and still is largely misunderstood, mainly because it has a number of layers that seem to struggle with each other at times, especially on the first viewing. Often taken as nothing more than a stylized urban action/thriller, it seemingly contains elements of film noir running in the background that are often overlooked in reviews of this film. Furthermore, the film has very bleak undertones throughout that are juxtaposed by the stunningly vibrant visuals, which may distract many first time viewers.
On the surface, the film tells a familiar tale of two friends, Tommy (DMX) and Sincere (Nas) who are engaged in cycles of violence, that we see early on in the film turn from violent robberies to a foray into drug dealing. However, this film does not follow traditional rules of the narrative. It is almost as if we are stepping into a story that has begun. The characters are barely introduced, there are no humble beginnings to offset their climb in the drug scene, their motivations are not made explicitly clear, there is no clear antagonist. While some may see the absence of such film traditions as a fault from the director, I feel that this may have been intentional to challenge the viewer and to help deliver the films message and I personally found it refreshing.
As the characters are not initially distinguished through their introduction, in order to understand the characters it is important to make note of their environment and of the dialog between the characters. This is key to understanding the film. For instance, in the beginning of the film we see the homes of both Tommy and Sincere. Tommy's home is visually very dark and cold, almost feeling isolating and heartless, meanwhile Sincere's home is much warmer and vibrant, and he is greeted by his wife and child. From these environments we can also garner Tommy's motivation for materialism and Sincere's desires for security. The environment is an important aspect of the film.
Aside from the reoccurring graphic violence, the film is very slow moving and the characters slowly become more clear as the film progresses. It seems as though the characters are often propelled by their circumstances as opposed to leading the story. Again I feel this was intentional to the film. The first two acts it seems as though the story is unfolding and the characters are powerless players within the story, only able to assert their power in acts of violence. It is the third act where this begins to change which is really the strength of the film. As the characters become more self aware they are able to play greater part in determining their own futures.
If you can make it through the first two acts, which admittedly can be hard to sit through, the third act is one of the greatest and most memorable I have seen in a film of any genre and really separates this film from other films of the "gangster" genre. While some claim the film promotes the Nation Of Islam as the only saviour for Black people, I do not agree with this assessment. The character of The Minister does not express a specific religious belief and could be seen as much part Martin Luther King Jr as he is Louis Farrakhan. I believe the greater meaning presented is that we all have the power to create our own future once we begin to see ourselves as not merely products of our environment, but as producers of that environment. The final 5 minutes of this film are perhaps the strongest critique of the violence and gangsterisms of modern urban culture I have seen in a mainstream film.
I also found the character of Tommy, to be one of my favorite film characters. On the surface he is strong, violent, controlling and aggressive. However, from the moment he pleads to Sincere for help in escaping capture, we begin to see beneath his shell. For the latter part of the film we see that beneath his exterior he is scared, isolated and alone.
Admittedly, this film is not for everybody and I can understand why some do not like it. It moves slow, does not follow cinematic conventions, has a number of seemingly unrelated stories being told, has a rather overpowering visual presentation and contains a number of very violent and sometimes uncomfortable scenes to watch. However, the conclusion ties everything together. It becomes clear that everything in the film was there for a reason. Also, this film does seemingly resonate strongly with a cult following amongst its target audience, so I believe this film has much worth.
This film is not character driven, and also not really story driven, it is something different all together. The story of two friends engaging in the drug trade is not the primary purpose of this film. It is not about the ups and downs of dealing drugs. This film is a critique of the way that we interact with our environments both as products and producers.
While it may at times be difficult to follow, if you approach this film with an open mind and can last until the closing scene, you may find something really special.
On the surface, the film tells a familiar tale of two friends, Tommy (DMX) and Sincere (Nas) who are engaged in cycles of violence, that we see early on in the film turn from violent robberies to a foray into drug dealing. However, this film does not follow traditional rules of the narrative. It is almost as if we are stepping into a story that has begun. The characters are barely introduced, there are no humble beginnings to offset their climb in the drug scene, their motivations are not made explicitly clear, there is no clear antagonist. While some may see the absence of such film traditions as a fault from the director, I feel that this may have been intentional to challenge the viewer and to help deliver the films message and I personally found it refreshing.
As the characters are not initially distinguished through their introduction, in order to understand the characters it is important to make note of their environment and of the dialog between the characters. This is key to understanding the film. For instance, in the beginning of the film we see the homes of both Tommy and Sincere. Tommy's home is visually very dark and cold, almost feeling isolating and heartless, meanwhile Sincere's home is much warmer and vibrant, and he is greeted by his wife and child. From these environments we can also garner Tommy's motivation for materialism and Sincere's desires for security. The environment is an important aspect of the film.
Aside from the reoccurring graphic violence, the film is very slow moving and the characters slowly become more clear as the film progresses. It seems as though the characters are often propelled by their circumstances as opposed to leading the story. Again I feel this was intentional to the film. The first two acts it seems as though the story is unfolding and the characters are powerless players within the story, only able to assert their power in acts of violence. It is the third act where this begins to change which is really the strength of the film. As the characters become more self aware they are able to play greater part in determining their own futures.
If you can make it through the first two acts, which admittedly can be hard to sit through, the third act is one of the greatest and most memorable I have seen in a film of any genre and really separates this film from other films of the "gangster" genre. While some claim the film promotes the Nation Of Islam as the only saviour for Black people, I do not agree with this assessment. The character of The Minister does not express a specific religious belief and could be seen as much part Martin Luther King Jr as he is Louis Farrakhan. I believe the greater meaning presented is that we all have the power to create our own future once we begin to see ourselves as not merely products of our environment, but as producers of that environment. The final 5 minutes of this film are perhaps the strongest critique of the violence and gangsterisms of modern urban culture I have seen in a mainstream film.
I also found the character of Tommy, to be one of my favorite film characters. On the surface he is strong, violent, controlling and aggressive. However, from the moment he pleads to Sincere for help in escaping capture, we begin to see beneath his shell. For the latter part of the film we see that beneath his exterior he is scared, isolated and alone.
Admittedly, this film is not for everybody and I can understand why some do not like it. It moves slow, does not follow cinematic conventions, has a number of seemingly unrelated stories being told, has a rather overpowering visual presentation and contains a number of very violent and sometimes uncomfortable scenes to watch. However, the conclusion ties everything together. It becomes clear that everything in the film was there for a reason. Also, this film does seemingly resonate strongly with a cult following amongst its target audience, so I believe this film has much worth.
This film is not character driven, and also not really story driven, it is something different all together. The story of two friends engaging in the drug trade is not the primary purpose of this film. It is not about the ups and downs of dealing drugs. This film is a critique of the way that we interact with our environments both as products and producers.
While it may at times be difficult to follow, if you approach this film with an open mind and can last until the closing scene, you may find something really special.
Tell Your Friends