Chi-Raq

Lionsgate | Release Date: December 4, 2015

5.4	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 65 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

lancedance2Dec 14, 2015

Regarding Behuman's review, the movie was terrible, but Jesus Christ I hope you're a troll. Gang violence is caused by "hyper-masculinity"? You expected the "examining the gender norms that enable male violence"? Are you seriously thisRegarding Behuman's review, the movie was terrible, but Jesus Christ I hope you're a troll. Gang violence is caused by "hyper-masculinity"? You expected the "examining the gender norms that enable male violence"? Are you seriously this uneducated about what's going on? First of all, we'd still be living in the stone age if it weren't for that Masculinity you are crying about. Second, when did "gender norms" ever dictate that it's OK for men to murder people? I'm pretty sure murder is highly discouraged in society. And if you want to talk about rap music, I can point out tons of female rappers who glorify violence, and not that I even think there is an issue with that, that kind of rap came as a result of the violence, it did not cause the violence. Third we know why violence is so rampant in these communities, it's because of poverty broken homes, lack of education, lack of job opportunities, drugs, and gang culture that all play a factor into the violence. They didn't talk about "gender norms" because it literally has NOTHING to do with the violence. I mean this is something that's been known for a very long time, you have to be a troll, you can't be this ignorant. Fourth, lesbians, gays, and transgenders aren't in the film because the plot of the movie isn't about them. Why wasn't there crippled people to, autistic people, or people who believe they're dogs? The film is trying to push a message and doesn't have time to meet your absurd equality quota.

It's clear you must hate black people because you are really pushing hard to keep the attention away from the actual causes of violence and crime and instead, you try to focus it on absurd nonsensical issues. Something tells me that your issue with masculinity isn't because of any violence you believe it causes, but more about your hatred for men in general. It assumes that if men don't act like women then they are doing something wrong, completely ignoring the fact that men and women are different all the way to the their instinct. I don't know what turned you against men, but taking that out by hindering attempts to solve serious issues is HIGHLY inappropriate.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

Brent_MarchantDec 5, 2015

Despite having its heart in the right place, this stunningly unfocused, poorly executed amalgamation of ideas, narrative threads, and writing and filming styles doesn't hang together as a cohesive whole. Instead, viewers are left to endure anDespite having its heart in the right place, this stunningly unfocused, poorly executed amalgamation of ideas, narrative threads, and writing and filming styles doesn't hang together as a cohesive whole. Instead, viewers are left to endure an overlong, repetitive diatribe that criticizes seemingly everyone and everything without offering much in the way of realistic solutions. The film never decides whether it wants to be incisive satire or serious drama, taking a scatter-shot approach that's akin to throwing a bowl of spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. Unfortunately, these shortcomings obscure whatever strengths the picture has to offer, such as its excellent performances by Jennifer Hudson, Steve Harris and John Cusack. In short, "Chi-raq" represents a lost opportunity to draw serious attention to a real American tragedy.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

behumanDec 10, 2015

Spike Lee has sold out black women to save black "manhood," taking his old school definition of "sex" from the porn industry, which is ironic, since the film is about becoming conscious of your own "slave conditioning." Apparently the womenSpike Lee has sold out black women to save black "manhood," taking his old school definition of "sex" from the porn industry, which is ironic, since the film is about becoming conscious of your own "slave conditioning." Apparently the women in this film did not get that memo regarding sexuality. Also shamefully hetero normative. Lesbian, gay and trans gender people of color simply do not exist (other than one embarrassingly homophobic caricature). I expected a polemic examining the gender norms that enable male violence. Instead, this film went out of its way to reinforce a strict gender binary in which females are dressed as porn stars and move like
strippers and are the objects of lust. Women’s true power to end male violence is in waking up to their own "sex slave conditioning" and stop finding psychopathic pimps and murderers sexy—in life or on film. Chi-raq is one step forward, two steps back in analyzing and addressing the true cause of male gang violence--toxic hyper masculinity and the sexual scripts that enable it, which this film not only enthusiastically reinforces, but celebrates, making this "Joint" an epic fail.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

hendrikchipmanJan 5, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An hour into this movie, I wanted it to stop. This movie goes for too long. They should have made this movie 1 hour long rather than 2 hours. My partner debunked this movie in 2 seconds. She said "boycotting sex would not work because the men would just find new partners". Yet, Spike Lee made a 2 hour movie about something that could easily be debunked in 2 seconds. This movie was also a Hollywood//leftie propaganda piece. John Cusak came off as an anti-gun nutter. There was one scene where John was preaching against gun violence on the pulpit. I can think of no better analogy to describe this movie. It was about a bunch of privileged Hollywood actors preaching about gun violence. No one likes to preached at.

I also didn't like the content of this story. The women withheld sex from the men to stop gun violence. Leave aside the fact that this would not work, why didn't the women just dob their partners in? If the men were murdering people (including children), a lack of sex does not seem like a fitting punishment. And, if these men were gang members and were killing children, wouldn't there be a risk of rape if the women withheld sex? I guess Spike Lee didn't think of this.

I feel like I need to respond to the propaganda presented in this movie. (1) Spike Lee introduced the movie by comparing the deaths in the Iraq war to murders in Chicago. As a statistics graduate, I suggest Spike Lee compare all of the murders in Iraq during this period and include Iraqi deaths to get a better comparison between the two areas. (2) Spike Lee can criticize the South all he wants but he cannot deny that Texas has a better track record than Chicago regarding gun violence.

All in all, a waste of time, to be preached at by a bunch of privileged actors. Also, why was John Cusak the head of an all black church? That doesn't make sense. Oh, and I couldn't understand a word Samuel Jackson or John Cusak said. This is what I heard: "blah blah blah leftie nonsense blah blah blah guns are bad blah blah blah something racist blah blah blah blah". In summary, I wouldn't even recommend pirating this movie.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

Drago_MalikFeb 11, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The problem is gang murders in Chicago. The gorgeous female protagonist's solution is for all women to go on sexual strike till it stops. When it is resolved there is a pish posh of leftist wishlist solutions tagged onto to the contract for all social problems like some legislation in Congress. The scope of the movie had long before went out of focus skipping to scenes that just seemed out of place for a real issue that could have had some proper attention. Instead we end up with fluff and a pipe dream that is ineffective for resolving anything. There are some real moments, mostly with the mother who lost her child. A line that resonates with me is when she yelled at onlookers saying they didn't deserve to see her child laying there. I felt the same way when I saw my first dead body. I was ashamed to see them like that knowing them that way when their family didn't even know yet. That was excellent. The movie seems to be directed in patches where there is some drama and then we go into some comedy and they just don't meld together at all. The comedy is just out of place. Sadly the politics is pretty much one dimensional, hence the solution is inadequate. I didn't care for the rhyming dialogue either. John Cusack was definitely out of place and doesn't do a good preacher.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

FlominkFeb 21, 2020

Nothing is really left to the imagination as this film constantly insists on beating you over the head with its messages, and the motives of its characters. From clunky, barely rhyming dialogue to music whose lyrics are just "this is what isNothing is really left to the imagination as this film constantly insists on beating you over the head with its messages, and the motives of its characters. From clunky, barely rhyming dialogue to music whose lyrics are just "this is what is happening, and this is why it's bad", much of it becomes insufferable as the movie progresses and it's constantly forced on to the listener. The first twenty minutes are very well made, and if the movie maintained that tone, it could have been very compelling. Half way through the film, however, it completely loses direction and decides, rather than telling a compelling story, to beat the viewer over the head with as many political messages and talking points as they could possibly think of when writing without any consideration for how it fit into the narrative, or the overall message of the movie (if it even has one beyond these talking points). The priest has to be one of the weakest performances in this movie. From the scene he is introduced to the end of the movie, he acts only to move the plot along or to try and stuff an already bloated movie with more messages and talking points. Beyond his poor performance, at times he'd seem to fit better in a death metal band than in a movie that wants anyone to take it seriously, his dialogue has a manic flow that rarely ever amounts to anything in the grand scheme of the movie. The narrative, at the aforementioned half way point, struggles to find out where it is, and where it wants to go, vaguely following the plot of the comedy it's based on, Lysistrata, but seemingly having no idea what to really do once it gets there. There are some funny moments, and at times the narrator can be pretty entertaining, and like I said earlier, the introduction is very compelling, but ultimately the movie is a mess that tries to say way too much, and do too much without any clear direction beyond delivering these messages as rapidly as possible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews