this is by far the worst movie i have ever watch because of how pointless it was i also feel a shame to share the same name as the director. the only thing interesting about this movie is the dancing in the beginning. but Honestly, this movie goes against the formula because the hero is not really a hero and there is no tragedy that is overcome there is no victory instead the movie ends the same way it began in confusion. this movie is about addiction and i do understand that the writer is trying to show that all addiction is similar from caffeine to crack and hes also trys to show how all addictions will lead to a person hurting the people closet to them or getting them addicted as well. but spike Lee could have brought out all those points with a better script this movie cost 1.45 million dollars and while thats not close to the amount most directors had to work with. there are other movies that became classics that spent less movies such as Juno,Friday these were classic movies that also did not have big budget but were both great movies and truly spike lee never had a lot of budget money to us in his other movies. and after watching this movie i no why they didn't give him more money.the title of the movie does not make sense its more of trick to get you interested and the opening sermon with the fake preacher. the title is the da sweet blood of Jesus which is a old gospel hymn but the church seen preacher is not talking about the Jewish Jesus its actually referring to a black Jesus which the hip hop community has made up to rebel against what they read in scripture, i know this because i am an African American also, now also the title represent Jesus blood being spilled for the benefits of others but the movie shows this false Jesus as a murderer spoiling other peoples blood. that's why this movie should get a 2.1 IMDb rating this movie is not worth watching

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.

Dr. Hess Green becomes cursed by a mysterious ancient African artifact and is overwhelmed with a new-found thirst for blood.Spike Lee has made a very strange film here. Maybe because it was based on another film that happens to be rather strange ("Ganja and Hess") or maybe because it was filmed with a low budget and short on time, with relatively unknown actors... but there is something decidedly off about the picture.Like the original, there is an ongoing metaphor about addiction. The main character is not a vampire in the traditional sense, despite an unquenchable thirst for blood. He expresses that many (perhaps most) people have addictions... drugs, money, alcohol, women... his is just different.The Jesus parallel is played up from the original. There is indeed something strange about a man (Jesus) who asks his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Christians, of course, do not find it strange. And that makes the parallel interesting... why do we recoil at one man's thirst for blood and yet look forward to drinking blood each Sunday without thinking anything of it?