Basquiat (1996) User Reviews

Interesting Film about the Art World

[gaylealstrom-1 · 6/10 · 28 January 2016]

If you are a New York art world fanatic, you would probably enjoy this film, but if you care nothing about art or artists, forget it. It's more about Basquiat's drug and personality problems than anything else. He's so bombed out all the time, it's hard to understand how he accomplished as much work as he did. I'm sure Basquiat had a much richer and fuller life than you get from this film. This film won't make you like Basquiat as a person. He didn't come off as a sympathetic character. In almost every scene, he is strung out on drugs to the point, he's barely functioning. It gets to be a little much after awhile. The film did nothing to help me understand his art or help me to appreciate it more, or Warhol's art, who is an accessory to Baquiat in this film. The film is more about Basquiat's social life or lack thereof. I kept thinking throughout the film "Grow up already." The best thing about the film is that it shows how empty success can be. Basquiat chased success as am artist, but when he found it, he didn't find happiness just more emptiness. David Bowie is good as Warhol.

Genius or exploitation?

[jse126 · 6/10 · 14 August 2006]

"Basquiat" is a film with an agenda. Far from being a neutral stage upon which the life and emotion of the artist is played out for us to observe, this film wants to make a point about the art world, casting Basquiat as Oliver Twist. If you are looking to find out what drives an artist you are not going to find it here - unless the answer is money. The filmmakers did not go very far into the head of their subject - either that or he was a very shallow and vapid person. I did not get the feeling from this film that Basquiat was a true artist; rather, he came off as an opportunist who figured out how to capture the mechanics of bad abstract impressionism and pass himself off as one. Then a lucky break, combined with silly art collectors who have way too much money and not enough of their own thought processes, multiplied by a guilt ridden population of white people flush with 1980's cash, combine to equal the phenomenon of Basquiat.

I am not saying that this is (or is not) the truth. In the world of art there are no truths anyway. What I am saying is that this is not a neutral biography. It may pay to do a little bit of research into Basquiat before watching the film. As for myself, I admit to watching it only because I was bored and nothing else was on. I knew vaguely the story, and who Basquiat was, but had no opinions of and no real knowledge about him. Since I am not the type of person who forms his opinions on any subject based on information from only one source, I did some research into Basquiat after the film before coming to any sort of conclusions. What those conclusions were are irrelevant as far as this review is concerned - but what does concern me are the many people who undoubtedly had their opinion about Basquiat fed to them by this film and who now consider themselves educated on the subject.

As far as the film itself, it is not bad. Not great, but not bad. It had a certain feeling to it. But it is hard to get beyond its portrayal of the subject, as he is the reason for the film. As noted, Basquiat comes off as an empty headed and shallow individual without a lot of talent or original thought who likes to use drugs and drink a lot. The film's Basquiat seemed not to care much about art, that it was an afterthought to him. He was shown as a dabbler - dabbling in music too but not doing much or giving it much effort. Perhaps that is the truth, I don't know, because overall the film is more a study of art and what constitutes it and gives it value than a biography of an artist - and postulates that today's art is more about the name than the actual piece. The same thing that is given away for free by a homeless man who lives in a box can be worth six figures if the right people decide that it should. I also felt that he filmmakers relied on cliché' a bit too much for my liking. The scene that sticks out in my mind is the one where Basquiat was on a schoolyard basketball court with his buddy, who was trying to get him to play. Basquiat was totally inept at the game and had no desire to play whatsoever. The filmmakers were obviously trying to demonstrate either one or both of two things - that Basquiat was so much of a cerebral artist that he was incapable of physical sport, or that Basquiat was a black man who could not play basketball. Whatever the case, the scene was painful to watch. It was ham-fisted imagery at its worst. A well done scene with some good conversation and emotion could have sent the same message intended in the schoolyard - actually could have done it better because as blockheaded as the schoolyard scene was, it still did not send a clear and defined message.

The acting in Basquiat was for the most part serviceable, with David Bowie turning in the most inspired performance as Andy Warhol. Bowie brought a subtle warmth and humanity to a person who is often portrayed as a cold cartoon character. Although Warhol was clearly intended to be an exploiter in the film, Bowie managed to show him as a person who felt that Basquiat was a true friend and not just a paycheck. This is an Andy Warhol who cared about people, and who could have his feelings hurt just like anyone else. This is not the stereotypical movie Warhol, playing with people like the proverbial chess pieces. This Warhol genuinely admired the work of his protégés. And David Bowie would know, wouldn't he? He was there. I got the feeling that Bowie took the part to make a statement about Warhol - as if he was annoyed by younger filmmakers using the stereotypical Warhol image in an exploitative way. I felt that he was subversively reading the lines between the lines. Good for him.

This film is more a commentary on the art world, on racism, and on exploitation than it is a biography. I would say that it is better to look at it this way, for as a biography it is biased and somewhat mean-spirited. Remember the first line of this review? It seemed to me that the filmmakers were saying that Basquiat was bereft of talent and inspiration - that he was a bum and a drug abuser who got lucky. Perhaps he was, but I'd prefer to make up my own mind. So it would pay to know a bit about the subject before watching - this Basquiat is a light dessert, not the main course.

See it for the wonderful sense of time and place

[tomgillespie2002 · 6/10 · 25 September 2016]

Artist-turned-director Julian Schnabel's re-creation of the New York art scene of the early 1980's is captured with the authenticity of a photograph from the time come to life. If anybody should be familiar with the vibrant energy and atmosphere of this era, it would be Schnabel, as he brushed shoulders with the likes of Andy Warhol and the topic of his debut feature, Jean-Michel Basquiat, as a key contributor to the American 'Neo-Expressionism' movement himself. What the film fails to do however, is capture the driving force behind Basquiat's art and the demons that drove him to heroin, which is odd given that Schnabel - here thinly disguised as a character played by Gary Oldman - was close friends with Basquiat.

Born into a middle-class family in New York to parents of Haitian and Puerto Rican descent, we first meet a 20 year-old Basquiat, played by Jeffrey Wright, living in a cardboard box. Already a cult figure in the city thanks to his spray-painted poetry under the guise of 'SAMO', a chance encounter with Andy Warhol (David Bowie) and art dealer Bruno Bischofberger (Dennis Hopper) propels him to the front-and-centre of the art scene. Basquiat is charming and charismatic, but also detached and inwardly focused. While this may compliment his art, he remains a mystery to his girlfriend Gina (Claire Forlani) and becomes clinically depressed when an article dubs him Warhol's 'mascot'. Wright gets all the mannerisms and facial expressions spot on, but he also bring a deep soulfulness to what is a terrific, career-making performance.

Peppered with a massive supporting cast that also includes Benicio Del Toro, Michael Wincott, Parker Posey, Willem Dafoe, Christopher Walken, Tatum O'Neal and Courtney Love, Basquiat seems frequently distracted and never really goes deep enough to unravel the thought processes of the enigmatic artist. There are moments of undeniable beauty - Basquiat dreams of moving to Hawaii and imagines the New York skyline as a surfer catching a wave - and there is a building air of tragedy as he begins his inevitable decline into isolation and drug addiction, but the film follows the familiar biopic formula to a tee. See it for the wonderful sense of time and place, and a truly astonishing performance from Wright.

I think this film is great

[egloff · 4 June 2003]

I thought this film captured the feel of SoHo and the downtown art scene in 1980's NYC. (I lived in NYC from 1986 until 2001.) I really like the untethered, free-spirited, and dangerous elements of Basquiat's character. The movie doesn't fit into the film school model of a perfectly constructed piece, but I find that appealling; the film is artful and enjoyable. I watch it whenever it shows up on one of the film channels unedited and uninterrupted. Hope you enjoy it as well.

The Strange World of Art

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 10 September 2015]

Basquiat tells the story of the meteoric rise of youthful artist Jean-Michel Basquiat. Starting out as a street artist, living in Thompkins Square Park in a cardboard box, Jean-Michel is "discovered" by Andy Warhol's art world and becomes a star. But success has a high price, and Basquiat pays with friendship and love.

I can't pretend to understand art. So I can't say I understand what makes one artist valuable or famous and another one nothing. Basquiat is one of those mysteries. What made his art special? I do not know. But his life was interesting, and the way this film challenges race is important. I have wondered why we distinguish "black" things, but not "white" things...

And Andy Warhol. Wow. I don't know a lot about him, but if he was anything like what David Bowie portrayed, he must have been quite strange to be around. No doubt Bowie and Warhol met, so the portrayal is probably correct.

Err... Can we mention the unmentionable, please?

[hobbittall · 7/10 · 4 June 2018]

While the evocation of the 1980s, obvious passion for the artist's work and magnificent acting from the ensemble cast should have made this movie a '10', it has one fatal flaw: this film, Basquiat, dealing with a young man's struggle for identity, fails to mention or even hint at the fact that he had both female and male sexual partners. While I highly respect the acting ability of Jeffrey Wright (just check out his performance in Westworld), he was not only misdirected but simply miscast. To understand the real Basquiat, see the 2010 documentary Jean-Michel Basquiat - The Radiant Child. There, you see a cute, good-looking, charismatic, ambitious although introverted young man whom you could easily imagine receiving offers from men and women alike - and equally imagine the offers being taken up. The portrayal in the film, Basquiat, is of a slightly autistic, inarticulate, heterosexual boor with a 'junkie walk' before he was even a junkie. It is well documented that the artist David Bowes was a male lover of Basquiat's, and other characters from the era, some still alive today, attest that while living on the street he would often exchange sexual favors with both males and females for a place to sleep for the night; not uncommon practice for the homeless. I mention all this not to disrespect the memory of Jean-Michel as I'm actually a great fan of his. Let's instead respect him by honoring him truthfully and mentioning the unmentionable: male-to-male sexuality.

Directors and scriptwriters be damned; you spoil otherwise good movies. Just when will film-makers get over their homophobic paranoia? Why make a movie about Howard Hughs and not mention he had bedded most Hollywood leading men of his day? Why make a movie about Alexander the Great misrepresenting his life-long male lover and companion, and not mentioning his Persian male lover? Why make a film about Archilles and pretend that his male lover, whose death caused his downfall, was his platonic cousin? Why make a movie about Cole Porter and not mention anything? The list goes on.

An incomplete life, an incomplete film

[bandw · 6/10 · 29 July 2006]

This film biography of the artist Jean-Michel Basquiat left me wanting to have a better understanding of him as a person and as an artist. The movie takes us from Basquiat's being a graffiti artist sleeping in a cardboard box to being a major superstar cavorting with Andy Wharhol in such a halting way that I never felt I got to know the person or his art. You might think that in covering a decade of a person's life in less than two hours director Julian Schnabel could only skate on the surface and leave us with the superficial story we get here, but Schnabel himself proves that a more complete and satisfying film portrait can be accomplished by having given us a treatment of the entire life of the Cuban writer and poet Reinaldo Arenas in his magnificent "Before Night Falls." The contrast between these two movies illustrates the problems I have with "Basquiat." For example, we are told that Basquiat came from a middle-class family, so why did he wind up sleeping in a cardboard box in a New York City park? We are given a few hints about his relationship with his mother, who winds up in a mental institution, but not enough information to form any solid ideas about it. His father appears in one scene at an art opening, but we are left with no idea about the relationship between Basquiat and his father. So, whereas we come away from "Before Night Falls" with a firm grasp on Arenas' young life, we are left with knowing almost nothing about the early Basquiat.

Basquiat's personality remained opaque to me. I got very little feel for his work habits and almost no feel for his art. I knew little about his art going into this movie and was disappointed that we did not get to see enough of his work to have an opinion about it. After all, that is what he was famous for. Don't most artists say that in order to know them you should know their art? If that is true, "Basquiat" does not give us much of a chance to know the person. However, if Schnabel agrees with the statement made by a person in the movie that only about twelve people in the world understand art, then maybe he felt it would be pointless for us to see much of Basquiat's paintings. But Schnabel didn't seem to feel that way about his own work though, since much of the art we do see is Schnabel's.

Scenes that could clarify only confuse. Take for example the scene where Basquiat is being interviewed by a Larry King type reporter. Basquiat not only confounds the reporter, but us as well. Was he being arrogant or rude or inarticulate or embarrassed or shy or conflicted or what? He must have signed off on giving the interview, so why behave like he did?

What accounts for Basuait's decline and ultimate death by heroin overdose? In one scene between Basquiat and Andy Warhol Basquiat claims to be clean and there is an indication that his work has been on the decline at that point. Is the implication that drug use fueled Basquiat's work? This is not pursued. It *is* shown that Warhol's death was a tremendous blow to him.

The movie has a great cast, with some cameo appearances being throw-aways. Willem Dafoe appears as an electrician with the soppy advice to Basquiat, "You'll get there, you'll get there." For a moment I thought I was seeing a Disney movie. And Christopher Walken is pretty much wasted in his role as an interviewer. But there is some great work by Jeffrey Wright as Basquait, by Benicio Del Toro as Basquiat's early friend as well as by Dennis Hopper as an art dealer. David Bowie steals ever scene he is in as Andy Warhol - he alone makes this movie worth seeing.

One area where "Basquiat" feels authentic is in its depiction of the New York art scene. The complex interactions among art dealers, gallery owners, artists, critics, patrons, and hangers-on gives us an insider's view. Clearly Schnabel knows what he is talking about here.

The music is all over the map from the Rolling Stones' "Waiting on a Friend" to Henyrk Górecki's third symphony.

As in "Before Night Falls," Schnabel promotes the idea of art as the manifestation of an artist's pursuit of freedom. In a scene near the end of "Basquiat" we see the artist standing up in a jeep and delighting as it speeds along. We get the idea that Basquiat's life was a pursuit of personal freedom that was blunted in his confronting the real world.

Inscrutable, yet interesting study....

[MarieGabrielle · 9/10 · 4 June 2006]

of Jean Michel Basquiat and the art world of the 80's. Granted, the film is a bit abstruse, and some viewers have complained about the music tracks (actually Basquiat's own music from his band); but it does serve to show the disaffected life of an artist, who seemed to gain fame, money, and fair-weather friends, despite himself.

Jeffrey Wright is very understated, but believable as Basquiat. Apparently he and his father were estranged, until he became famous. Then everyone wanted something from him. Not just another story of fame and its vices, however; because the film does NOT show his life as glamorous, indeed once he has "made it" we still see him dining at Lutece, people critiquing, being unaccepting of him as a person. Perhaps in real life this was one of the sources of his insecurities, and reason for his drug addiction. Certainly, if one believes even half of what is written about the NY art world- it cannot have been a forgiving place.

That aside, the film also has some interesting cameos, David Bowie as Warhol is excellent, Dennis Hopper as the Zurich art dealer, Bruno Bischofsburger is very believable. An amusing cameo with Christopher Walken as a James Lipton character; a pretentious interviewer. The only annoying performance was Parker Posey, as gallery owner Mary Boone, who perhaps portrayed this person too close to the mark.

Keeping in mind that Basquiat was under age 30 when he died, this story is credible. An artist who rose too fast, was used and discarded- apparently in real life Basquiat had a tendency to be generous, and gave away many of his paintings. There is one scene where he is beaten up so two street people can take steal a "SAMO" inscription on a piece of metal.

The visuals are also noteworthy, while an earlier review critiqued the surfboarding sequence, I find that a preferable segue to Basquiat's need to escape; apparently he owned a good deal of property in Hawai'i and spent time there as well.

The scenes with Claire Forlani are also effective, Basquiat's some-time girlfriend, we see her as a waitress, then a junkie, then a cleaned-up version, going to Columbia. The NY street sequences are realistic, It is not glamorous (though the accompanying jazz music is). It shows the schizophrenic nature of NY; Lutece, a homeless person sleeping outside, a man selling stuffed animals on the street, and Bruno Bischofsberger(Hopper) who mistakes Basquiat for a homeless person, trying to clean the windows on his Mercedes. Very realistic.

I highly recommend this film; it does not glamorize the story, and while it may not be completely accurate, it rings true, and portrays a life many artists may wish for, until they get it. 9/10

A Little Rambling, but Fascinating Biopic

[Aly200 · 6/10 · 2 September 2016]

I must confess that I knew (and still know) very little about the subject of this biopic. In all the talks of art in my education, the name "Jean-Michel Basquiat" has never come up. So being unfamiliar with the man's work, I was able to watch the movie with an open mind. The result: worth the time despite the sluggish pacing.

The film's narrative is mostly a bit straightforward in telling of Jean- Michel Basquiat's rise to fame as an unknown graffiti artist to a sought- after painter and eventually to his slow decline before his untimely death at age 28. The film's pacing is a little too sluggish at times, making some scenes tedious to get through. The film does very little in exploring the relationships between its title character and the influences in his artistic career though there is some analysis in Basquiat's romantic relationship with a waitress and a late third act look at Basquiat's relationship with fellow artist and one-time mentor, Andy Warhol.

Boasting an A-list cast including names like Gary Oldman (with a convincing American accent) as art dealer, Albert Milo; sadly Oldman has such limited screen-time but does shine in his usual way when he appears. Dennis Hopper also makes an appearance as manager, Bruno Bischofberger, to both Andy Warhol and briefly Basquiat and also an appearance by Benecio Del Torro as Basquiat's best friend. Some other cameos include the likes of Christopher Walken as a reporter who interviews Basquiat in the declining period of his career, Willem Defoe as an electrician, Parker Posey as an art gallery owner among others.

The film's first standout performance belongs to a brilliantly cast David Bowie as the famed Andy Warhol. Clad in Warhol's actual wigs, glasses and leather coat, Bowie embodies the enigmatic artist with perfect characterization. From the manner of speaking to Warhol's mannerisms (aside than the wardrobe), Bowie's performance is so convincing that you forget the rock legend is only acting and brings Warhol back to life so magnificently. A role that was tailor-made for the one and only David Bowie.

And the second stand-out performance is of (now popular) character Jeffrey Wright in the title role of Jean-Michel. Wright brings a reserved shyness to the role, playing Basquiat first as a man only expressing his views on the world and eventually as a man who lets the fame get to his head. Wright does bring a brashness required for the film's later half as Basquiat's fame grows and the he begins to see himself as the best. The actor's chemistry with his fellow actors particularly with Bowie's Warhol make for some in- depth thought at how similar both artists were in being artistic outsiders (different from the norm), but also how different their personalities are; Wright's Basquiat being brash, outspoken and borderline control freak to Bowie's Warhol being shy, reserved and soft spoken though having a certain control of his own artistic vision.

This movie has its own style and is a good character study of real-life faces. Give it a shot and enjoy.

Basquiat - an inspiration.

[kickice · 9/10 · 18 March 2004]

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie 'Basquiat'. It is a subtle portrayal of a complex character, beautifully acted by Jeffrey Wright. It would have been easy for the film-makers to go over board with this movie. Basquiat sure did have the character to allow that. And the fact they didn't feel the need to do that, is why I like this movie so much. It'd been easy to concentrate more on the drug taking, on his immense paranoia, and on his lively lifestyle that went beyond Andy Warhol and Madonna. And doing that would have probably got the movie more hype, attention and plaudits. Instead the makers of this movie just give glimpses of his life and merely suggest a whole lot more, and this works well. It's a movie that goes along more at a stroll than a run, and grows in stature and depth as it does so.

But, the 'problem' if you can call it that, with 'Basquiat' is that you need to know this man's art, and this man's character to really enjoy and appreciate this movie. And that's why I think it maybe doesn't get the sympathetic reviews or attention it deserves. If you didn't know about this man's life before seeing the movie, then I don't know what you could take from the film. And if you watch it without knowing about him and his art, then I can imagine it wouldn't really hit the mark.

What makes this movie beautiful in it's subtlety is that it does great justice to the wonderful talent and nature of Jean Michel Basquiat. And if you love his art, then do watch this movie, it's well worth it.

9/10

An Empty Canvas

[nycritic · 6/10 · 16 January 2006]

The pain of creating, the pain of creating, the pain, the pain, the pain of creating! How many times have I read the biographies of artists who came into this world and in a brief lifespan revolutionized the art world but went ignored by their contemporaries? You would think that someone who comes from the art world -- like I do -- would appreciate this film and stand in (snobbish) applause after seeing the all-too-brief life of Jean-Michel Basquiat, an artist who created thoughtful meditations on graffiti art which burnt a sieve throughout the New York art scene of the 80s, but I can't. Despite Jeffrey Wright's performance as the title character and David Bowie's spot-on vapidness as Andy Warhol (another artist whom I fail to see his significance), there's no profound connection with the audience. I can't seem to relate to the self-involved superficiality that Julian Schnabel brings to the screen, and much less so when he self-promotes his own art while telling the story of another who isn't alive to stand up for himself in defense. Also, some scenes of people acting outrageously seem made just to shock -- for example, when Rene Ricard rips into Basquiat's dinner party because he's accepted an offer which does not include Ricard in any way. What on Earth is a party guest doing dancing from table to table and singing in a falsetto? Snobbery of the worst kind. If I had seen this film when it came out and while I was active in the art scene I would have blindly accepted it as the Next Major Vanguard Film About An Artist, but seeing it for the first time as a much older person, I can't see it, I don't get it, because creativity is not that profound and painful and doesn't warrant that much existentialism.

This movie is impressionist art on film. Julian Schnabel proves to be as talented behind the lens as he is "on canvas."

[JB-145 · 9/10 · 6 June 2000]

If you love art, this movie is definitely for you. If character development and good writing are important elements in your movie selections, definitely add this one to your list of "must sees." However, if you typically only prefer major "blockbuster hits," you may want to forego it.

Intricately performed and written, this film is "art-house" & "independent" at it's very finest. David Bowie is perfection as Jean Michel Basquiat's friend and mentor, Andy Warhol. Michael Wincott sheds his usual grovel-voiced tough guy persona to play Basquiat's first flamboyantly feminine art dealer. Jeffrey Wright's brilliant performance as the complex Basquiat received a nomination for "Best Debut Performance," and Benecio Del Toro won "Best Supporting Male Performance" at the 1997 Independent Spirit Awards. Even the minor characters (Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, Dennis Hopper, Parker Posey, Willem Dafoe) add colorful performances to Julian Schnabel's first "canvas on film." --J.B.

Spaced-out Drama

[harry-76 · 6/10 · 13 April 2000]

Just becuase the talent "graffiti painter" Basquiat was turned on drugs, and drifting through life, doesn't mean Julian Schnabel's direction and Lech Majewski's script need be also. What a limp, unpertinent style and feel this production has. On the other hand, there's David Bowie doing a most impressive Andy Warhol, Dennis Hopper convincing as Warhol's colleague, and Jeffrey Wright nicely responding to the director's instructions. As a added bonus, the fine Gary Oldman gives us yet another of his amazing characterizations as a fellow artist. If only Schnabel and Majewski put some life into their work, this would have been a pointed biopic. As is, it's a case of a whole in desperate search of its parts.

A waste of an outstanding cast.

[=G= · 5/10 · 25 February 2001]

"Basquiat" tells the story of a NYC street tagger's rise to moderate success and a brief career as a legitimate artist. This unfortunate flick loses on all levels with a litany of cinematic faux pas too long to list here. Perhaps the main fault is central character is given no depth. Rather the camera spends huge portions of time showing the laconic "Basquiat" doing mundane nothings of things. Also the creative force behind the film clutters the work with capricious nonsense such as surfers in the sky, incongruous music and sound, and other junk. If this film is for anyone it would be the artsy/fartsy crowd..with the empahsis on fartsy.

Shame on the critic...

[x111b3825 · 16 June 2002]

Why is it whenever a work comes out about an artist of a modern slant, there arrives the masses claiming their dogs might paint better...and how about the simple complaint that "they didn't show us what was going on in his mind..."

Hogwash. Art will always be in the eye of the beholder, and unless you hear it from the horse's mouth, nobody knows what is going on in the head of anyone else. Take a look at Julian Schnabel's most recent work "Before Night Falls," and subject it to the same analysis. The only reason we might know more about Reinaldo Arenas is because he wrote it down...the motives are not always as clear as we might hope to believe we have grasp of...

How about Jackson Pollack? How many of us know that the "Wizard of Oz," an apparently simple, innocent childhood fable, was actually a political statement of the author (and this is from the "horse's mouth")?

Take the film for what it is and don't spend your time looking for the boom mic to peek into shots or read Basquiat's mind and you might find it enjoyable. For the art critics out there, let us not pretend to understand the process unless you are somewhat of an artist yourself, okay. Because you cannot understand the motive does not change the fact it may exist on some other plane than we perceive. Okay, off of my soap box!

One Artist's Tragedy

[alexduffy2000 · 7/10 · 7 August 2002]

BASQUIAT is the portrait of an artist who went from homelessness to fame to tragedy in the 1980's Manhattan art scene. It's worth watching, mostly for David Bowie's portrayal of Andy Warhol. I never got a sense of why Basquiat's art was so great, I guess it must have been in the eye of the beholder. Still, the film is compelling to watch, it moves well all the way to its tragic conclusion, but it's not that memorable.

A troubled soul

[jotix100 · 6/10 · 7 July 2005]

Georgia O'Keefe, the doyenne of American art once said: "I don't know what art is, but I know what is art when I see it".

Julian Schnabel, a New York based painter, turned film director, decided to make Jean Michel Basquiat the subject of his first time at the helm in the new role. The result is a film that shows us a young artist in search of an identity when he was breaking as a painter.

Jean Michel Basquiat was a success story, as far as his art was concerned. He clearly became a big force in the New York art scene. We watch him as he goes from a struggling young man to the success he became, and ultimately killed him. Some people can cope with fame and wealth, but others, like Jean Michel couldn't. History is full of cases like this one troubled young man who died too soon.

As far as Basquiat's art, well, that's in the eye of whoever is seeing it. Some will say it was trash, while others, like it seems to be the case with the director, tells us otherwise. Some of his pieces are overwhelming in their intensity.

The only reason for watching this film is Jeffrey Wright, an actor's actor. Mr. Wright is seen almost sleepwalking through the film. He seems to be on a permanent fog, as he didn't relate too well to all the hangers-on of that world. David Bowie as Andy Warhol made a tremendous impression. Benicio del Toro is only seen briefly. The rest of the cast do whatever they can under the unsure direction of Mr. Schnabel.

Are you a writer or a white writer?

[Mr Parker · 7/10 · 20 August 2002]

I was able to appreciate this movie. I'm sure that it's probably not the most accurate portrayal of JMB that we can get but it's still a pretty compelling look. I think director Julian Schnabel was able to capture the essence of the '80s art world pretty well, even though I question his directorial skills somewhat. There are some really good performances here, one of my favorites being Benicio Del Toro as JMB's best friend, Benny. I thought Jeffrey Wright was really good as JMB and I think this guy is definitely gonna go places in the near future. The cameos are pretty interesting, with Dennis Hopper, Willem Dafoe, Parker Posey, Gary Oldman and Christopher Walken putting in a couple of minutes worth each. It must be noted that David Bowie gives a haunting performance as Andy Warhol. It's pretty creepy actually. The selection of music for the movie was taken from JMB's actual record collection and it's great stuff. It's not a perfect movie but it's moving, at the least. An interesting, if at times skewed, look at the '80s art scene and one of it's icons. RATING: ***1/2 out of *****.

everyone with a brain should see this movie

[andrfenlon · 10/10 · 1 April 2001]

I cannot believe that Basquiat isn't high in the top 250; it is easily the best movie I have ever seen. No matter whether or not you like/liked Basquiat's art, this movie is amazing. In fact, you'll probably enjoy the movie more if you don't like his art. Basquiat was a crackhead who chose to live on the street. None of his art demonstrated amazing artistic technique, yet with the help of some exorbitantly rich, twisted and influential people in the art world, he rose from the gutter and gained international stardom. Whether he deserved his fame, wealth and glory is addressed throughout the film, but the movie is more about how his self-destructive tendencies managed to get the better of him and lead him to an early death. The movie is very depressing, but also inspiring. The acting is fantastic overall, although Dennis Hopper was awful as Bruno and I wish that Courtney Love were not cast as Big Pink. The film itself is even a work of art. Don't see it if you're only into mystery, horror, suspense, or action films, but if you like art or are at all intellectual, see it see it see it see it see it!

dislike Basquiat but fascinating art world

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 7 February 2015]

It's 1979 New York. Jean Michel Basquiat (Jeffrey Wright) is an unconventional artist who lives in the park. He likes waitress Gina Cardinale (Claire Forlani). He crashes with his friend Benny Dalmau (Benicio Del Toro). He assists an electrician (Willem Dafoe) at a gallery run by Albert Milo (Gary Oldman) and Mary Boone (Parker Posey). He sees Bruno Bischofberger (Dennis Hopper) and Andy Warhol (David Bowie) having lunch and sells some of his art to Warhol. Rene Ricard (Michael Wincott) takes an interesting in his art and starts showing him around. Annina Nosei (Elina Löwensohn) gives him the space to start painting. He goes with Big Pink (Courtney Love) who drives away Gina. He is interviewed by a guy (Christopher Walken).

The way Jeffrey Wright portrays Basquiat is kind of annoying. He seems to have Asperger at times while at other times, he's simply an a-hole. He's definitely a hallucinating druggie. I'm not sure how accurate the character is but it's not a flattering portrayal. Although he's not an overtly bad guy, I simply don't care about him. It is however a very fascinating view of his meteoric rise in the art world. It's a great slice of New York life. It's odd to see these many great actors in cameos. It may be better to have lesser known actors in these lesser roles. It becomes more of a distraction especially when those actors don't come back. For me, the most interesting part is when Walken's character asks questions to Basquiat that makes him squirm. One more thing, I don't like the way that some of the edits fade out to black like it's fading out to a TV commercial break. That's also a bit distracting.

Fascinating look at New York art world

[SKG-2 · 9/10 · 18 March 1999]

I'm a sucker for movies set in New York City, which is one reason I decided to see this, that and the supporting cast. I don't know much about Basquiat, his life or work, so I don't know how accurate the movie is, nor do I know much about art, but this film drew me in. I know the film was made by a friend and compatriot of Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, and if there's a weakness, it's that sometimes we feel this is an inside job. Nevertheless, we do go inside the art world, get to know about graffiti, and we get to understand what makes Basquiat tick. I also thought Jeffrey Wright was good in the title role. The supporting cast were all first-rate as well.

Artsy Fartsy, but Fun

[DaveRach · 7/10 · 28 February 1999]

I found this film to be rather interesting (a major compliment coming from a fan of gangster and Sci-Fi films). From the point of view of a college student with 3 art history courses under my belt, it was fascinating. David Bowie's performance as Andy Warhol alone is worth seeing the movie for, and Christopher Walken should really do TV interviews. He is always entertaining. I highly recommend this one.

Great Films

[Michael-282 · 9/10 · 4 January 2000]

Once in a while a movie is perfectly acted; this is one of them. David Bowie does the best Andy Warhol ever captured on film. The film in itself is a work of art, as much as Basquiat was himself. I'm unaware of how factual the film is, but I'm guessing it's not too false. It's a near perfect film and that's why I give it a solid nine.

Thanks but no thanks?

[skepticskeptical · 6/10 · 19 April 2019]

This is one of those bizarre films, like Oliver Stone´s The Doors, where you end up shaking your head at the end wondering whether the director had some sort of vendetta against his subject. Don´t get me wrong: I am no fan of Basquiat. I have no idea, actually, what to think about his art. I do know that I myself have no artistic talent whatsoever, and if I foolishly attempted to produce portraits and paintings, they would be flat stick figures with no dimension or depth. I do have a good vocabulary, so I could pepper my works with some trigger words and maybe someone would discover me and I would become instantly famous and wealthy, and celebrities like Andy Warhol and Madonna would want to hang out with me. Who knows?

What I do know is that this particular film of Basquiat´s life makes it seem very much as though his mode of painting was not a choice but a consequence of his lack of any training or skills and wholly a product of a troubled youth who has Freudian parent issues and, on top of all of that, an inordinate sensitivity about being disrespected as a black person in America. He bristles when a journalist describes his work as ¨primitive¨, but what other word would be appropriate, I wonder? (Maybe ´childlike´?) I should say here, however, that the scene of him attempting to hail a taxi is accurate. I witnessed this treatment of one of my black friends when we were out in Boston and no cab would stop for us until I hailed the cab. Then, when my friend got in, the cabbie said, ¨Hey, what´s going on here?" Really.

Back to this highly unflattering film in which in one amazing scene Basquiat is depicted as a zombie walking around NYC in his pajamas. According to this depiction, Basquiat used hard drugs (heroin) from the very beginning, not just after becoming famous, as a more recent film, Basquiat The Radiant Child (2011), suggests. My recommendation to anyone interested in this subject would be to watch both films and assume that parts of each are true but both succumb to one of two excesses: psychological reductionism or idolatry.

So what?

[robolly · 2/10 · 11 April 2002]

Saw this film at a preview screening back in 1996. The director was there to tell us how great it was. There was some nice photography, but the way the story was told, I found nothing compelling about the character. I guess we're supposed to care because, you know, they made a movie. By the end of the film I thought "So what?"