Thanks for the memories!

Such a frustrating disappointment

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I have loved most of the Spike Lee joints I have seen, but this time I felt much disappointed with the remake of "Ganja & Hess". To start with I still do not fathom the cult following of the original: it is true that for its time it was an innovative approach to cinema dealing with paranormal activity, and quite different from most African-American motion pictures of the 1970s, but at the same time I found its central premise a bit pompous and wordy, and many viewers' reactions a bit exaggerated. The so admired "slickness" of both versions is too ornate for me, and quite distracting: it makes the plot look sillier than it is for all its pretension that we are witnessing an "awesome" psychological drama. I have to admit though that Bill Gunn had more control over his own material than Lee: the remake is amazingly disjointed and even longer than the original, with extensive stretches of "music videos" that could have been cut without affecting the drama. As a matter of fact Lee's film contains good elements that do no blend, as Bruce Hornsby's score and varied songs so omnipresent and badly dosed that the soundtrack becomes annoying, no matter how good the composition or the tune are. Then take the beautiful opening credits sequence or the great church scene featuring Valerie Simpson singing and playing the piano, mix them with the obligatory lesbian scene, the dispensable garden cocktail for white scholars, the unexplained trips to town (Hess must certainly be a hot specialist on the Ashanti culture, but we see little of that), the trivial little procession after the wedding... and you get something very bloody but hardly sweet. Your "cultural background" will not suffer much if you skip this.

The last half hour of this film is so great and quite emotional that I wish the rest of the film had the same depth of feeling. The scenes in the baptist Church and the ending in the shadow of the Cross are Great work!!! (Look- there is Lee's signature dolly shot -backwards no less)The first half of the film leans towards coolness and detachment which seems to arise from the character of Hess and the Nantucket of the very rich. While there is a point to this, contrasting the orderly sterile lives of the wealthy with disorderly vibrant lives of every one else, it somehow works against the film a bit.One of the most memorable and haunting scenes for me is where Hess picks up the mother(possibly an addict already) on the park bench with her child. It is his confidence and wealth that make her powerless much like a vampire's trance. When Hess is leaving and he tickles the baby's chin, we see what he has done to the mother. Now she will be a different kind of addict! When he meets the mother and child again it is clear she has fed on her child to fulfill her need for blood.I'm not sure I parse it's meaning fully but it is definitely contrasting the old Ashanti culture's "addiction" to blood with Christian salvation by the blood of Jesus. Hess trades in his addiction for salvation by "Da sweet Blood", where as Ganja comes to embrace the old ways.I saw the original Ganja and Hess years ago and I have sometimes remembered it in the same way as I do another early 70's original, Let's scare Jessica to Death: as a one of a kind. Dreamy, haunting , regional, low budget and also a UNIQUE take on the vampire theme. I see it's now on DVD so I will be definitely check it out again.BTW people-I don't think Ganja and Hess is really a blaxploitation film.

As an old fan of Ganja & Hess, i was very curious to see Spike Lee's take of this arty oddity. Very few things changed from the script, except the part of minor characters : the slow pace, the theatrical acting and the general mood are scrupulously respected, so you must expect an art-et-essai movie rather than an usual vampire flick.I didn't found it as bad as the other reviewers, even if I can express a few reserves : the score that sometimes looks like a sort of car play-list (the original was quite experimental), or the lack of twisted shots that made the first movie so unique.However, I hope that it will encourage the new generation to rediscover the 73 version that still shines like a black diamond, with its strange mix of perversity and religious knick-knack.

Spike Lee is one of the premiere directors of my generation. With that said, I am still trying to figure out the focus and purpose of this movie. The actors, many of whom, we've seen in other Lee films, are so subdued and non significant. The movie seems to lack...well, life. His career has created valuable works that have symbolically and literally offered calls for self-awareness and offered insights into the social-political realities of African-Americans and America in general. I can't figure out what significance this movie has. There are some disturbing scenes that do not seem to add any insights or purpose to the movies story. The few things I gathered from this are: rich/poor exploitation, addiction, socio-sexual dynamic, and Sankofa. The story telling doesn't offer anything new or dynamic. So, with a heavy heart, I give this a thumbs down and not let this be representative of Spikes true genius!