Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

sddavis63 Aside from the Nat Turner rebellion, most slave revolts in America have been largely forgotten - in spite of the fact that the largest slave revolt in US history took place in Louisiana 20 years BEFORE the Turner rebellion. "The Birth Of A Nation" offers us director, writer and star Nate Parker's perspective on the Turner rebellion. The movie receives a lot of negative comments which are probably based primarily on Parker's own controversial past. (He was accused of sexual assault while this movie was in production.) It's also possible that there's a segment of whites who have difficulty confronting the subject matter. I found this an engrossing movie that built well to its climax and in the end was moving and inspirational. The movie isn't without it's flaws but it provides a sobering perspective on slavery in the American south.That in itself, mind you, might be the movie's biggest flaw. The sobering perspective it provides is just another sobering perspective. It doesn't really offer anything fresh about the treatment of slaves in the south, simply reminding us that slavery was a brutal institution that dehumanized an entire race of people. There are some historical issues with the movie. First is the scene depicting the brutal rape of Turner's wife Cherry - which seems to have been invented by Parker for the film and becomes what you might call "the last straw" leading Turner into rebellion. But there's no evidence that it ever happened. I also thought that Parker softened the blow of the rebellion itself, perhaps to make Turner seem more noble? It was a bloody revolt that deliberately targeted white women and children and not just the men who owned the plantations and the slaves - but we didn't see much of the slaughter of the women and children. Turner's capture toward the end of the movie held Turner up as a model rather than offering the truth. In the movie Turner seems to hold his head high as he gives himself up. The truth is that he hid in the woods for a couple of months until he was discovered hiding in a hole in the ground by a white farmer. Parker clearly had an agenda here - to turn Turner into more of a hero than he was. The film also doesn't offer much analysis of the impact of the revolt. Was it successful? It's hard to say how to measure the success of such a revolt. No slaves were freed by it, and in the immediate aftermath of the revolt literally hundreds of blacks - slave and free - were murdered, and many laws were enacted that oppressed blacks even more than they already were. Little of that gets mentioned at any length. So the movie has its issues. However, I personally thought that the movie overcame those problems. In the basic flow of the story, the history was accurate enough, although the movie chose to have Turner remain the property of Samuel Turner up until the rebellion, whereas he had actually bounced around a fair bit. Perhaps that decision was made so that Samuel would be a sort of composite character representing all slave owners - but it creates a historical problem when Nat kills Samuel at the beginning of the rebellion since Samuel had died several years before the revolt. Turner was a preacher - taught to read and familiar with the Bible - and he definitely believed himself to be called by God for a greater purpose. That is a recurring theme in the movie: that Turner believed himself to be God's instrument, and the ultimate revolt to be God's vengeance against the white oppressors. In that, it points out that religion can be used to promote violence and killing as well as love and peace. I suppose it also raises the question of whether such violence and killing is sometimes justified - which are actually very relevant questions in today's world, where religious-inspired violence is becoming commonplace. In the movie, Turner helps an indebted Samuel save his plantation by being rented out to other whites to preach submission to their slaves, carefully selecting only "approved" verses from the Bible to justify slavery but is shown to become increasingly uncomfortable as he becomes more aware of Bible verses that condemn slavery and seem to justify violent rebellion against oppression.The movie depicts a lot of violence. There's rape, there's beatings, Turner himself is mercilessly whipped when he's believed to have become too "uppitty" in his preaching, for lack of a better word. The actual rebellion – while softened in its brutality - is still shown to be a violent and bloody one. Parker's performance as Nat Turner was extremely good. He's been criticized by some for (as the director and writer) placing too much of the focus on his own character, but that strikes me as a ridiculous criticism. The revolt is probably the most famous slave revolt in American history and it's remembered as the Nat Turner Revolt. How you could tell the story of the Nat Turner Revolt without focusing heavily on Nat Turner is beyond me. I also liked Aja Naomi King's performance as Cherry. The title is intriguing. "The Birth Of A Nation" seems to deliberately reference D.W. Griffith's 1915 "Birth Of A Nation" - which presented a very different story, steeped in racism and a defence of the Ku Klax Klan, which was just beginning to reorganize as that early movie was released. I'm not sure the point that was being made in taking the name - but it's obvious that there was a point.I think this movie does overcome its weaknesses and offers us a glimpse of some of the issues that confronted the past and that, in some ways, are still confronting the present. (8/10)

hughman55 After hearing for most of my multi-decaded life that D. W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" (1915) was a pioneering masterpiece in the film world I finally watched it in 2009. Then I gave it a 1 star rating and wrote this in my IMDb review: "I find the intellectual airy fairy commentary in the 10's section of the reviews here to be disturbing. Frankly, I think you people should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting this disgraceful homage to slavery and murder. Slavery is at the very least murder of the soul. But we all know that was the least of it's offenses. "The Birth of a Nation" is a bad film because it promotes a reprehensible ideology. The merits of it's production values are irrelevant. And not that it should make a difference but for the record, I am a southern white male." Readers at IMDb have rewarded me with a 46/92 rating. What a surprise. What we have here 100 years later in the new "The Birth of a Nation" (2016), finally, is the truth about slavery. Even "12 Years a Slave" was too cowardly to go where Nate Turner has gone. THAT film, "12 Years a Slave", would have you believe that some slave owners were benevolent. Really... This film is unflinching in its accurate portrayal of what slavery in America was like. It is stomach turning to watch the horrific beatings, rapes, torture, and just general bondage of people; and what other choice could there possibly be? Not showing it and pretending it didn't happen? Then add that it was conducted as routine commerce. Yes, other humans, slaves, were bought and sold; and there were no legal restrictions on what you could do to that person. These Crimes Against Humanity were done in the name of God, Christianity, and the U.S. Constitution. In the 40's when it was Hitler and the Holocaust we prosecuted and executed those responsible. Here, we just call it a difference of opinion and "states rights". Ask yourself this: is it possible to be a Christian in America during the slave holding years and, own, beat, and rape, other people because they have a different skin color than you; and then when you die be welcomed by God into Heaven? Just wondering. The performances by Nate Turner, Amie Hammer, Penelope Ann Miller, and others, are sensational for their commitment to authenticity. Actors are notorious for weakening their portrayals by forcing a sympathetic facet into the inventory of an utterly unsympathetic character. Kind of like trying to show the human side of Hitler. Armie Hammer does not fall into that trap. I knew he was in this film but I had trouble finding him only to discover that he was the behind the unrepentant face of a vicious slave owner with zero redeeming qualities. That takes guts and talent. Nate Turner is also good. His only weakness is that he is wearing so many hats in this production: lead actor, director, producer, screenwriter, etc. Being in that position is tough and he does it well. But he does a better job as director for his fellow cast members. His character, Nat Turner, is lynched in the end; and apparently with the many portrayals of lynchings inventoried in American cinema over the last 100 years plus, it has taken an African American producer/director/writer/actor to present that horrifying event from the perspective of the man being lynched/murdered. It is powerful and about damn time. Apart from this film's well crafted and honest depiction of the worst chapter in American history, it has served to magnetically draw out current day racists. This film turns race baiting on its head by telling the whole truth about slavery and drawing out racists who cannot handle it. Need proof? Read some of the reviews here with 6 stars or less. What's most amazing is that these reviewers are not even ashamed of themselves. So, racists? Unload! I'm looking for a worse than 46/92 here. Come on. I know you can do it.

Gordon-11 This film tells the story of an American boy of African descent, living in the days when there were still slavery in the United States of America. He becomes a preacher after being taken under the wings of the master's wife. As he goes around and preaches to other slaves, he witnesses indescribable torture and abuse."The Birth of a Nation" is not directly related to the founding of the country, but I see why it's named as such. Without the people who worked super hard under inhuman conditions, the country would not be where it is today. It is a profoundly powerful story. The abuse and tortures of slavery is almost too​ painful to be touched upon, even though hundreds of years have passed. The protagonist finds God, but gradually questions his faith when he witnesses the horrific crimes against humanity. The story touches me. The cinematography and lighting effects are well done as well, making this film an artistically pleasing, but emotionally tough film to watch.