Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

sammmmmm100 The documentary, "Jean-Michel Basquiat: the radiant child," was about an African American artist from brooklyn New York name Jean-Michel. In the film they talked about the way he lived his life as a kid, the start of him being an artist, and how he was fascinating with his work until his death. A lot of people were inspired by his work because he abused his work physically but in a figuratively speaking way.Jean-michel Basquiat was an fascinating and very complex artist from brooklyn new york.He was very successful at the work he did in the 80s.People notice the originality of his work, its emotional depth, unique iconography and formal strengths in color.He went from spray painting meaningful graffiti on buildings, to appearing on TV and having his own art studio.Yet when andy warhol died jean-michel became increasingly isolated and his herrion and depression grew more surve.Soon after that he died of a heroin overdose in 1988.I knew that jean- michel died of a heroin overdose but watching the documentary made it more shocking because it had a lot of emotion towards the people who were in the interview because they knew jean michel personally so it was sad to watch them tear up.A Lot of his friends were in the interview and even the friends he knew before he was an artist.I give this documentary a 5 out of 10 because it was really enjoyed how they displayed the interview. They went back and forth from when Jean was alive in the 80's to his friends being interviewed in 2010.

gradyharp Tamra Davis created this documentary about her friend, the famous (or infamous) graffiti artists Jean-Michel Basquiat, (December 22, 1960 - August 12, 1988). The obvious love for the artist is evident in the manner Davis put together this series of interviews with those who knew him, sold his works, wrote about him, or were part of his large social entourage - Julian Schnabel, Larry Gagosian, Bruno Bischofberger, Tony Shafrazi, Fab 5 Freddy, Jeffrey Deitch, Glenn O'Brien, Maripol, Kai Eric, Nicholas Taylor, Fred Hoffmann, Michael Holman, Diego Cortez, Annina Nosei, Suzanne Mallouk, and Rene Ricard. Davis also includes some rather in depth discussions and demonstrations by sharing his many works which many (including Davis) declare were the zenith of Neoexpressionism in America. The problem with the film as a film is the quality of camera work and editing: it is a bumpy ride. But as far as a collection of statements from Basquiat himself it is a treasure. It is hard to believe that he was one of the first popular black artists to draw international acclaim. Unfortunately the rigors of his public persona and the drugs that accompanied that resulted in his far too early death. His place in art history is secure, but at a terrible price. Grady Harp

Snownoise The only good thing is that they edited and organized the whole segments very well but many important things are missing. First of all, it has very limited interviewees. There should be more than 10 people giving the information about Basquiat during 90 minutes. Second, there's not enough information about Basquiat's mother who could be the major influence of him, so as Andy Warhol. Third, there's no explanation about why Basquiat's art work is good basically. What they are representing through this documentary is "Basquiat is genius!" and that's all. Most of all, they claim Basquiat is a straight man. I don't really get this part and I still can't understand why they want him to be a straight man? Do they feel shame about the fact that he isn't? They somehow want Basquiat to be straight. Can't they tell by his paintings? Anyway, overall, it's a really poor documentary movie. There's no point at all. Who doesn't know Basquiat's a genius/radiant child?

MisterWhiplash Jean-Michel Basquiat wasn't always a wonderful guy. He could be stubborn, and a "work-aholic" when it came to his art (he ultimately made over 1,000 paintings and postcards in his ten years making art), and got addicted to heroin which, if anyone brought it up around him, he would get vicious and vindictive. He died when he was 27 years old, and at a low point in his life and career following the death of his good friend Andy Warhol. But this isn't really what Tamra Davis wants to show, at least not entirely. She wants to give a fair assessment of her friend's work, a true artist in the sense that he pushed boundaries and conventions, did things his way, and got recognition and praise though somehow stayed on the fringe when it came to widespread acceptance. Like Jimi Hendrix, he was even revolutionary in his efforts at what he did, borrowing from others in a "neo-expressionist" style that was fresh, hip, but had a basic quality to it that could be understood.We get a view of his career- how he started off as an underground artist living downtown Manhattan at a time where, as one person puts it, "everybody did everything." No inspiration was lost on people who painted, had a band, made movies, wrote poetry and fiction, and made other art projects or graffiti. Basquiat, or "Samo" as he was called (such as "Same Ol' S***"), put up worded graffiti all over the city that got him some attention, and he had a band with Vincent Gallo where nobody could play an intstrument. But it was the very graffiti drawings he did, starting with postcards that he got sold to Warhol on a whim, and then with paintings by the dozen that he took off. One of the joys of the film is Davis showing us so much of the art, how much there was variety in his work even if so much seemed the same child-like drawings. For how simple and crude they appear, one sees a pattern, and there's an amazing sophistication in his work.Perhaps those who are not fans of Basquiat- and the documentary shows how there were some who looked down on his work, some of which (like the current MoMA director) have recanted- may not get a lot out of the movie. But as a film about the nature of an artist, how he works and how he interacts with people, some infamous like Warhol (their collaboration story is one of the highlights), and some not like the hangers-on at his apartment, it works very well. Some of Davis' low budget aesthetic makes it a little less than great, such as the newer interviews she's done with former curators, artists, musicians, and art dealers and buyers, are lessened in quality by bad audio and video. But perhaps (?) that was part of the point, too. She has an artist as her subject, also a close friend (Davis has some nice if uninteresting anecdotes about eating Chhinese food with Jean-Michel), and the work, and his life and his stories told from a 1986 interview done personally with him, speaks for itself.This all said, if you are a fan, or think you are, or even just enjoyed Julian Schnabel's 1996 movie, this goes more in-depth and you get a lot of great looks at his daring, provocative artwork, and his process. 8.5./10