Diagonaldi Very well executed

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Zhithilien While this documentary does its job of, well, documenting, I did take a couple issues with it:First, the film is misleading in that it promotes itself as an issue of conflict between homosexuals and African Americans. This is a documentation of GENTRIFICATION; a war between low- and high- income parties. The sexual orientation has nothing to do with this, and race plays only a small part.Second, the film presents itself as impartial. However, though we are shown both sides of the dispute, we are manipulated into sympathizing primarily with the black homeowners. They are shown suffering and victimized, while the new white residents are shown only as money- hungry and uncaring about the consequences of their "intrusion" in the neighborhood. BOTH parties are biased, self-caring, and would love the chance to make money. That said, there is no villain in this documentary- or rather, everyone is a villain as NO communication was made between the groups to resolve their issues. Essentially they segregated themselves and refused to cross lines. This issue went on for four years! If they had spoken to each other, this could have been settled in favor of both parties. This film should additionally be shown as an example of the consequences of not communicating. Overall, a good presentation of gentrification!

groggo 'Flag Wars' is a moody documentary that vividly shows controlled urban chaos, racism, homophobia and class conflict without self-consciously making judgments; the viewer does that. The film is concerned with the gentrification of a historic downtown Columbus, Ohio neighborhood that had once been designated a black ghetto. It's a familiar story: people want to move back downtown from the suburbs, back to trendy areas where the so-called 'action' is. The previously much-avoided ghetto has become prime (and profitable) real estate.In this film, we see and hear the insufferable, bourgeois ramblings of these gentrifiers (investment is the meaning of life) at dinner parties. There is a hard-ass lesbian realtor, who shifts between colonial language about blacks to praise for unbridled capitalism to thoughtful (albeit tipsy) insights about rapacious gentrification (the woman harbours a secret guilty conscience). The film offers wonderful portraits: Linda, confused, overwhelmed and emotionally disturbed; a black Yoruba priest fighting for the right to use his house as a makeshift museum; elderly blacks who are bewildered by the dramatic shifts in their neighborhood; and exasperated, God-like Judge Pfeiffer, besieged by a blizzard of zoning laws, upon which he must pass judgment and attempt (impossibly of course) to make everyone happy.Some reviewers have called this a film about discrimination against lesbians and gay men. But they are the primary gentrifiers in this film, so sexual orientation should be a non-issue. These men and women were profiteers (often obnoxiously so), and to categorize them as 'victims' is to avoid the obvious: they exploit the lower levels of society, and that's no different than the legions of heterosexuals who do the same. I was disturbed by this film, and that's a good thing. A documentary that disturbs has done its job.

tishrobertson This film is great for anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of gentrification. While the working-class inhabitants of the neighborhood are painted in a more sympathetic light, the film does expose the good and bad edges of both sides. We see the work ethic and idealism of the gentrifiers, as well as their greed and self-absorption. We see the blatant homophobia and complacency of the original inhabitants, as well as their strong sense of community. I disagree with the first reviewer; the focus wasn't on any one person. The film follows a few people--a vulturistic real estate agent, a kooky Yoruba priest and community activist, a gentrifier who's fixing a house for eventual resell, and a sad, but surprisingly charming woman who's last days are spent dealing with insurmountable housing violations. None of the characters are completely good or bad (even the real estate agent has her sympathetic moments). But the outcome of the film is that the viewer comes to see not a decrepit neighborhood that should be grateful about its newcomers, but an already cohesive community handling changes being forced upon it by a well-intentioned but clueless group of wealthier people.

tricianoble I went to see this movie because I thought the subject matter would make a great documentary. Unfortunately the film strayed from the main theme too much and became tedious. The story ends up focusing on an alcoholic bum that had inherited a house from her parents in the neighborhood and let it become a decrepit version of what it had once been. When we see the inside of her home near the end of the film we see the squalor she lives in and immediately lose sympathy for her situation (even though she has her charms). I wondered why they hadn't focused more on the working class families that were doing their best to survive and balance the new demands of upkeeping their homes to the historic standards. I wasn't satisfied with the gay homeowners stories either. Apparently the one gay homebuyer they feature had just moved from an Omish community and was coming out of the closet, but I didn't find this out until after the movie at the Q&A. Why aren't the viewers filled in on this important fact??This movie could have been more about the situation and less about one unfortunate soul.