Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Steineded How sad is this?

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

mrbreadtoast-06562 While this movie was based upon real-life events, the movie was released at a time when our country was (and still is) very racially divided (2016). The folks who made this film clearly were trying to toss gasoline on the race fire. They wanted to demonize white males for slavery, and in my opinion to agitate blacks who watched the movie.The Nat Turner rebellion occurred a long time ago (1831), and this film portrayed all white slave owners (except white women) as extremely cruel & openly evil against their slaves. It goes without saying that slavery was, and is, awful -- which is why white folks are the only ones who abolished it. However, brutally murdering white folks in cold blood is far worse, and the movie was told from the vantage point that brutally murdering random slave owners was completely justified. The final scene in the movie morphs into a group of black Union soldiers fighting the Civil War, and there's not a white male to be seen fighting. Nor is there any mention that white males in the US government were the ones ultimately responsible for abolishing slavery, and a great many white males gave their lives fighting the Civil War.If you're tired of watching movies that demonize white males, I wouldn't suggest that you watch this. All of the black slaves were portrayed as intelligent, articulate, well spoken, and well mannered, but the white males were portrayed as unkept, dim-witted, and evil.The acting was decent, but it was clear that the script was clearly manipulating the viewer's emotions to push a one-sided agenda.

grantss Virginia, 1820s/30s. Nat Turner is a slave on a cotton plantation. Through his eyes we see the conditions the slaves have to live under, in particular, the brutality of the slave-owners. Due to having the rare privilege of being able to read, Nat is a Christian preacher. His ability to influence other slaves is used by the slave-owners to their own ends, and ultimately by Nat to fight back.Based on a true story, and produced by, directed by, written by and starring Nate Parker, this movie had the potential to be a powerful examination of the inhumanity of slavery. However, for the most part, it doesn't go anywhere new and is quite dull in its delivery. The first 70% or so of the movie would be only interesting to those who had never seen a movie or documentary on US slavery before. Pretty stock standard stuff, with one-dimensional characters and predictable plot. Quite clumsy at times too, with unnecessary symbolic imagery that is almost laughable. The final 30% sees the outcome of this brutality and is fairly interesting, with an ending that is reasonably powerful. However, it is underdeveloped and demonstrates how bad the pacing of the movie is. Instead of spending 70% on overdrawn setup and 30% on hasty conclusion, Parker should have built up the pace and spent more time on the outcome.On another note, the choice of title is interesting. The 1915 film The Birth of a Nation is one of the most controversial and divisive movies of all time. Directed by cinematic pioneer DW Griffith, on the one hand it is lauded as a seminal moment in movie history, due to its cinematographic innovations. However, it is also one of the most racist movies ever made, ending up as a pro-Ku Klux Klan propaganda campaign.If one of the aims of the 2016 The Birth of a Nation was to reclaim what the title means and set the record straight, fair enough. Just a pity the finished product doesn't come anywhere close to living up to that billing.Watch 12 Years a Slave instead.

Mr Nuff I cannot understand the hate this movie has received. The mere 6.3 rating (as of June '17) this movie received is far below what it deserves--in my opinion an 8, but a 9/10 would be perfectly understandable. I think it's mighty ironic that switched halfway through the boring Star Trek Beyond (7.1) to watch this riveting drama.Disclaimer: Perhaps it is due to the fact that I am black that I find slave movies fascinating for all the exact reasons I find World War II movies fascinating: the existence of a distinct, clear, and unforgivable evil in our history being shown on screen, as well as the pathos evoked by the victims of such evil. These stories become the ultimate drama, incapable of being considered melodramatic because of the real horror they portray. I like to think that the critical art consumer in me sees past this movie preference and can rate the film objectively.So why does this movie deserve an 8 or 9 out of 10? Excellent acting, a fantastic score, and the unapologetic and accurate brutality depicting a story of unquestionable heroism. Nate Parker becomes Nat Turner, a slave preacher in the 19th century who led a slave revolt. The pacing is excellent, you follow each rise and fall of multiple characters until Turner is pushed over the edge to commit his acts. It's been compared to Braveheart in other reviews (e.g. Matt Seitz at rogerebert.com) and I think that comparison is apt: it's bloody, inspiring, and perhaps too kind to the hero, but not in a way that ruins the movie. All of Turner's actions in this movie really happened, it's just the omissions that make it less than perfect.So this movie would deserve a perfect 10 were it not for some minor historical inaccuracies. For example, Turner's revolt also killed children, and while the slaves are shown killing women, they omitted the killing of kids. They omitted many of his "visions" that may have been signs of his mental illness. His death happened slightly differently. It's hard to think these revisions were done for any other reason than to make him seem flawless. But even those who opposed the violent evil that was slavery should be depicted for who they really were. This brings it down to an 8 for me. The overall movie is mostly accurate and incredibly well-told.I can speculate why this movie was rated poorly, even by those who haven't seen it; I urge those who would rate this movie lowly to please watch it anyway.

Tad Pole . . . BIRTH OF A NATION (aka, WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE GRAPES OF WRATH) that the ONLY way to deal with Urban Unrest back in the 1800s was a thorough axle greasing (which gave rise to the expression, "The squeaky wheel gets greased"). Now Director Benny Boom carries this theme forward with another True American Story, ALL EYEZ ON ME. Mr. Boom makes it clear that the protagonist of this Tragic Tale emerged from a deep gene pool of UltraViolent Urban Guerillas, not unlike Parker's earlier Nat Turner Doomed Hero. Abraham Lincoln was 22 years old when Nat got greased, causing this Great Emancipator to found the G.O.P. on a Repatriation Platform. Though as President, Abe was gunned down like NAACP Leader Tupac Shakur, Grateful Americans carved a giant replica of him on Mount Rushmore for his Great Idea. ALL EYEZ ON ME carries Parker's saga of Nat forward nearly 200 years to prove that America is NOT a safe or suitable environment for transplants with the characteristics of Nat and Tupac. It shows Tupac causing the death of an six-year-old from his own clan in a public park, while committing numerous other felonies against his misplaced cohorts. It shows some guy named "Shug" also engaging in countless violent felonies, as well as a stray prison-yard murder as another example of fraternal warfare. The U.S. Government is justly criticized for wasting nearly half its budget to lock up nearly all the Urban Males, and many of their Moms, such as Tupac's. Leader Trump MUST redirect a small fraction of this "corrections" budget to implement Abe Lincoln's own Grand Correction plan of repatriating a kidnapped, hostage population to the more suitable environment from which it sprang. Leader Trump should start with the Will and Jada Smith Crime Syndicate, which the ALL EYEZ ON ME whistle-blowers finger for Tupac's slaying, if not Shug's. The Streets of Chicago have been stained with ENOUGH blood, let alone L.A., Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, Houston, New York, Philadelphia, etc. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Leader Trump's Muslim Deportation Proposal Today, so it seems unlikely to scotch an idea adopted from the also revered Abe Lincoln which will curtail any more of this ALL EYEZ ON ME-style UltraViolence.