Watch The Birth of a Nation For Free

the audience applauded

Best movie of this year hands down!

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

A powerful story inspired by true events. A winner of two Sundance awards. But the question is, is it entertaining? The film is well made and generally the acting is quite good. The film has atmosphere and is somewhat moving. However, the story is slow to get going and just sort of plods along to a very predictable ending. For production quality and direction we would give this movie an 8, for entertainment the most we would award is a 4. Will we watch it again, probably not.

This is a tear-jerking bio-pic of Nat Turner, a slave minister who lead an unsuccessful rebellion. The film starts with his anointing as a child and ends with Nina Simone singing "Strange Fruit". This is another installment of "man's inhumanity to man" series inspired by our history on this planet.With a successful slave revolt in Haiti, slave owners feared the same in the US. Nate Parker gives us an excellent performance, although "12 Years a Slave" was a better film. The original film "Birth of a Nation" was the first film to be shown at the White House. It's Reconstruction message brought about protest and a resurgence of the KKK. This film is only connected in name only.The whipping and killing scenes were brief and less graphic than what they could have been. We do get the idea that men were whipped and women were raped and beaten also.Guide: Brief nudity (Aja Naomi King)

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.

The movie was just "ok". Pretty much what I expected in a "slave movie"- brutal whippings, white males raping at will, and a lot of turning a blind-eye rationalizations by the "good ol white folk." What's "typical" is the response from certain reviewers (read:white) who seem hung up on Nat Turner's actions rather than the REASON why he acted the way he did. These reviewers are aghast that the real rebellion resulted in the deaths of "innocent" white women and children of slave holding families YET they conveniently sidestep the feelings of a slave having known that 'massah' and any other white male could sexually denigrate his wife, sister, mother, or preteen child at any time. It's almost like white males are supposed to be "entitled" to do whatever they felt and if someone who is impacted "reacts"- like Nat Turner- then that person is at fault. In real life Nat Turner may have killed white women and children in the rebellion but these same "so-called innocent" white people didn't have any heartburn over the inhumane brutality suffered ad nauseam by black women and children. Based on many reviews seems like the same savage primitive attitudes of many whites haven't changed in the past 185+ years since the events of this movie.