John Langezamo & Mira Sorvino
*
*
*
Summer of Spam
Author: anonymous
21 July 1999
The film is a collection of cliche's on just about anything out there. It has no focus whatsoever, no goals, no real message. Symbolism is pushed over the top and stereotyping is abundant and outrageous. This movie can't resist the temptation of making drama where non exists. Every small exchange of words turns immediately into a lengthy, unjustified dialog that is so typical of an acting class rehearsal. Where there is no substance to this exchange, the actors (regardless of how good they are normally) can't help but compensate with exaggerated emotion, aka "raising the stakes". Over acting, to put it simply. The directing is of no help here. Nothing can save this non-story.
It is forced, faked and boring to tears. Inaccuracies in portaraying punk rock with The Who, piercings and flashy 90's outfits. Characters wander without a role, detail and motive. Locations are arbitrary. This is Boogie Nights cum The Good Fellas cum Saturday Night Fever, with meaning and art ripped out.Good DP. I'll give it that.Some films have flaws. This film is Lee's flaw. He sold out, like the rest of them. Became irrelevant. He has nothing of interest to say anymore.I have no desire to see anything again from this guy (whom I'll refrain from naming from now on).
It's a shame this movie came out when it did, during a time when it was as politically incorrect as it could get to have violence in a movie (think post-Colorado shootings). If this movie were released a year sooner or later it wouldn't have been as ignored and hated as it is. This is really a good movie, if you aren't expecting a crime-thriller, but an interesting look at the summer of 77 in New York. The use of music is outstanding in this movie, the atmosphere is incredible, the editing is flawless, and it makes my top ten of 99. Not for the faint of heart (ie. conservatives who go insane when they see sex or violence on the screen). There is nothing 'a priori' wrong with having sex or violence in a movie. If you don't like that kind of stuff, what the #$%$ did you see this movie for?
Author: Ziggy from Vancouver, BC
1 May 2001
Summer of Sam is complete cinematic crap, and an utter waste of time. It's not the sex, it's not the violence; it's the terrible characters, the meandering and plotless script (lots of subplots, but no real plot), and the horrid directing that make this one big stinking pile and one of the worst if not THE worst film of 1999.
This was one of the most ridiculous and badly directed movies I've seen in a very long time. I've never liked Spike Lee, but thought I'd give this one a try: bad mistake. The movie is supposed to show how the Son of Sam real life murders affected a neighborhood in the summer of 1977; what it really did was center around the most boring characters that I doubt anyone cared for as far as their drug problems, marriage problems, and so on, etc. The scenes that depict the murders are just that, and nothing more; a shooting and then it's back to Saturday Night Fever!
What's even more ridiculous is Spike Lee's choice to show up as a reporter in the movie: Spike, trust me, you're no Hitchcock, stay out of the movies, it makes them even worse off. The most silly scene had to be the dog speaking in a goofy voice, which was depicted in a scene before it where it was supposed to have been shot??? Spike, what were you thinking when you made this film? Not thinking at all is my guess. People who think they'll see a crime drama, take my advice and do not waste your time or money on this loser. You're better off watching Jerry Springer in this case! Waste of film, I gave it a 1 out of 10: awful dud.
Author: minimal-cut-set from Brazil
11 May 2006
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In N.Y.C. during the seventies, a serial killer still at large causes the reaction of the Italoamerican community. The movie is ten stars. and Spike Lee is, in my opinion, one of the best (if not the best) American director of our days. I am just curious to know if the director was inspired by an old German movie (also very beautiful) by Peter Fleishman (the title, translated in English is something like Hunt Scenes in South Bavaria), of whom this movie could be considered, in my opinion, a very personal (and wonderful) remake.
In the German movie a young (maybe homosexual) guy is persecuted by the people of his village in south Bavaria who think he is the maniac who killed a young girl simply because he is different and unconventional. In the Lee movie the plot is practically the same, just replacing Bavarians with Italoamericans.So I think that Lee, as Fleishmann in the 1969 movie, wanted to show, and he did it very well, how intolerance and suspicion towards diversity can be a trigger for fascism and blind violence. Finally, the actors are all very good and in particular I liked very much the performance of Adrien Brody and John Leguizamo.
Author: pkrime from Eden Prairie, MN
25 July 1999
"Why?"
That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt.
He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac".
An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion.
He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago."How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?You decide.
Many of the occupied minds of their expectations just not seem to be able to understand what this movie is all about. It is about community and social order enforced to those who crave to be something different. It's something more too. It's about expectations of what people have on their lives and how those expectations are not born freely, but from need be in line and need to merge to society. Actually that is perfectly clear when Vinny struggles with his wife. In the end you are not sure is Vinny really in love with her or is he driven by obsession of having "decent marriage" and so on. He struggles between what he have learned to be right and where his desires drive him and in between he is unable to take responsibility for his actions. And this is why there's so much sex.
Where else in life's spectrum people's expectations and reality is as sensitive as in area of sexuality. In this sense the most sincere relationship in the movie is between Richie and Ruby. Richie don't want to engage to sex just because it's expected. He's perception of sex seems to be that it's completely corrupt and in no circumstances sex could be truly gentle way of expressing desire and love. But in the end Ruby make him believe otherwise. Before that sex have only been a way of getting money to get away for Richie and he leaves his real self outside of it. Thus his relationship to Ruby is the most gentle and honest one found in movie.
Some have said that there's no explanation of why Berkovizc did the killings. There certainly are not so much said about his personal reasons, but lot are said about society's ways of enforcing social order and thus using violence as a meaning to maintain that order. And this is what this movie is about. So why whine about if it ain't something different. Are people really so occupied by their expectations that they can't listen what storyteller have to say and can't open their eyes to see the obvious. Or are movie watching not driven by curiosity for life, but fulfilling expected mantra?
Many of the comments seems to suggest, like some characters say in the film, while speaking about Richie, that Lee have gone "out of line" with this film, which I find quite revealing. I have seen suggestions that characters in movie are so "dysfunctional" that they would have deserved to end up as victims of Berkovizc. Any hint what kind of mentality perhaps was driving Berkovizc? It is obvious in the Richie beaten-scene that gang who beats him is disappointed as they are interrupted. They don't care about murderer, but want Richie down cause he is different. In the end murderer is closer to those gang members than any of the strange guys they are listing as potential killers.
Thirdly I see this film as a comment to our ways to glorifie violence in media and so on. It is in question of violence serious, but in representing violence it is also ironic. Powerful end sequence, where "star" of the show ( Berkovizc ) is coming to police station and Who's music is used, is crucial. It have almost revolutionary fewer in it, but in the same time Who sings "welcome the new boss, same as the old boss". And it is cut to the beating of Richie, the one who is too different and don't care about respecting the rules that others follow and worry about. Movie seems to suggest that society doesn't change and individuals end up to suffer from same sort of burden of expectations which makes those trying something different it's enemies.
Berkovizc is portrayed making killings, cause dog order him and it is not coincidence that in the end-scene Berkovizc character looks to police dog and smiles. It suggest that same sort of despise drives society to punish it's members than drived Berkovizc to killings. Smile suggests that he welcome's his punishment, perhaps even craves for it. Remember how real Berkovizc have tried to integrate back to society and get acceptance by turning Christian. So Berkovizc is product of the society and it's pressures. I also see whole speaking dog thing making irony of how people don't take responsibility of their actions, but look for excuses.
So "speaking dog-scene", ridiculed by some here, is well motivated and actually what else it could be than farcical. Perhaps it is too challenging, as a way of telling story, for some viewers. But this only makes Lee even more courageous. Hub of the life stems from diving to uncertain, not from obeying the expectations. And Lee is explorer of that uncertain, at the same challenging viewers to be ones. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, some haven't been up to this challenge."It's not the individuals who destroy themselves, but the order that people have built for themselves." Fassbinder
Author: fifi_st_michael from United States
25 August 2007
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Finally got around to renting this.YES I already knew that it would not shed any light whatsoever on David Berkowitz (which is quite a shame)The idea of a film taking place in that context, however, was quite a refreshing breakthrough.However, the execution was severely disappointing.The main storyline IS NOT suspicion among friends and neighbors (if the focus stayed here, it would have been truly compelling)The bulk of the film is wasted on the Leguizamo's perversions interfering with his marriage, in redundant and graphic detail.He likes certain kinds of sex that he feels would cheapen his wife. If I wanted to watch a movie about a cheating pervy husband, I would have rented something else!This plot line overtakes the whole fiasco, blurring the more interesting story lines.A mistake.It prevents the film from EVER airing on network TV.ADD: several annoying, overly long disco sequences.Setting the mood of an era is fine, but too much is more than enough.Overall comes across as a rough draft in severe need of editing.
