Tupac documentary not a balanced portrait

By Chris Hewitt
Knight Ridder Newspapers

•	TUPAC: RESURRECTION Directed by: Lauren Lazin Starring: Tupac Shakur Rated: R, for violence, drug use, brief nudity and lots of raw language SHOULD YOU GO? It's entertaining and illuminating (although, if you love Shakur, you probably already know this stuff).

As it was for Marilyn Monroe and James Dean, death has been good business for Tupac Shakur, who left behind tons of unreleased records and interviews, many of which have been assembled into the documentary. And, in the unlikely event that this does prove to be the last we hear from the actor/rapper, it would be a fitting farewell.

The charismatic Shakur, whose 1996 murder remains officially unsolved, comes off as frank, articulate, funny and extremely young in a series of interviews, most of which were conducted by MTV over the course of several years. Even so, they've been assembled into a seamless whole that tells Shakur's story in his own words, including a middle section that plays like an annotated rap sheet.

The movie does not follow documentary rules (when Shakur says, "I don't know who shot me," for instance, the movie makes it seem like he's referring to the fatal shots, but he must be referring to a previous incident), and it is not a balanced portrait. Produced by Shakur's mom, it presents Shakur's point of view, and even some of that seems truncated. For instance, if, as has been reported, he had a falling-out with rap impresario Suge Knight just before his murder, you wouldn't know it by this film.

Still, there are enough surprises (Shakur loved Kate Bush and Tony Danza? Who knew?) and enough contradictions to make "Tupac: Resurrection" as engaging and complete a portrait as we are likely to get.