I guess my main problem with "Honeydripper" was the lack of real conflict or dramatic central theme to the story. It's a quiet small-town drama of the sort I usually love, but with the sense of being a bit of an afterthought. Rather like a story that was written on a slow afternoon when nothing much else was going on. That might work for something of a little more personal nature, but this is a film of archetypes and experiences, not of one-on-one human interaction.
So what is good about it? When Sayles' direction is at its best, "Honeydripper" is a heavy and real film. Best scenes are when the characters tell stories to themselves, and any scene with Keb' Mo'. Danny Glover is real good too, as is Stacy Keach (even with Keach playing the sort of role he always does). But by the end of the film, it all starts to feel a little arbitrary. By the final scene, we get the sense that not much happened, and something should've. It's in no way not worth watching, though. Give it a shot.
So what is good about it? When Sayles' direction is at its best, "Honeydripper" is a heavy and real film. Best scenes are when the characters tell stories to themselves, and any scene with Keb' Mo'. Danny Glover is real good too, as is Stacy Keach (even with Keach playing the sort of role he always does). But by the end of the film, it all starts to feel a little arbitrary. By the final scene, we get the sense that not much happened, and something should've. It's in no way not worth watching, though. Give it a shot.