User reviews

A good film , though it has extremely violent events , sadism , physical abuse , lynchings and other racist excesses . Nat Turner's Rebellion , also known as the Southampton Insurrection , is set against the antebellum South , it follows Nat Turner (Nate Parker), a literate slave and preacher , he was highly intelligent and learned how to read and write at a young age and he grew up deeply religious and was often seen fasting , praying or immersed in reading the stories of the Bible . Then , his financially strained owner , Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) , accepts an offer to use Nat's preaching to subdue unruly slaves . Later on , there takes place the brutal sexual assault by white men on Turner's wife (Aja Naomi King) , it feeds a rage that sets the rebellion in motion . Soon after, , Nat leads a slave rebellion that took place in Southampton County , Virginia, during August 1831 . As Nat orchestrates an Southern uprising in the hopes of leading his people to freedom .

The film packs crude scenes full of brutality and cruelty in which the African-American slaves suffer humiliations , flagellation , beating , degradation , and mistreats by their owners . As Nat Turner witnesses countless atrocities - against himself and his fellow slaves . As Nat Turner well played by Nat Parker carries out an upheaval against the ruthless proprietaries in the antebellum South , this rebellion occurred in Southampton Co. VA. August 21- 23, 1831 . Nat Parker gives an acceptable acting as the literate slave and preacher who orchestrates a bloody riot . Support is frankly fine , such as : Penélope Anne Miller , Aja Naomi King , Gabrielle Union , Mark Boone Junior , Colman Domingo , Aunjanue Ellis , Dwight Henry , and special mention for Jackie Earle Haley as the villain slave hunter Raymond Cobb , among others . It displays a thrilling as well as sensitive musical score by Henry Jackman , adding evocative African songs . Colorful cinematography by Elliot Davis , being shot on a former plantation between Springfield and Clyo, Georgia, about thirty miles north of Savannah . The picture was well shot by Nat Parker and it was filmed in a month , approx . Nat has filmed with all of the power and realism at its command but some scenes in exploitation style , including strong tortures , lashing , rape , grisly killings and many other things .

This ¨The birth of a nation¨ is correctly based on true events , these are the followings : Turner rebellion was, according to his own writings, based on spiritual visions . Turner had various visions , as "the Saviour was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and the great day of judgment was at hand" . Nat attempts to challenge racism and white supremacy in America, to inspire a riotous disposition toward any and all injustice in this country and abroad and to promote the kind of honest confrontation that will galvanize our society toward healing and sustained systemic change . Led by Nat Turner, he started with several trusted fellow slaves, and ultimately gathered more than 70 enslaved and free blacks, some of whom were mounted on horseback . The rebels traveled from house to house, freeing slaves and killing all the white people they encountered. Because the rebels did not want to alert anyone, they discarded their muskets and used knives, hatchets, axes, and blunt instruments instead of firearms. The rebel slaves killed from 55 to 65 people, the highest number of fatalities caused by any slave uprising in the Southern United States. A white militia with twice the manpower of the rebels and reinforced by three companies of artillery eventually defeated the insurrection . The rebellion was put down within a few days, but Turner survived in hiding for more than two months afterwards . The rebellion was effectively suppressed at Belmont Plantation on the morning of August 23, 1831. There was widespread fear in the aftermath of the rebellion, and white militias organized in retaliation against the slaves. The state executed 56 slaves accused of being part of the rebellion . In the frenzy, many non-participant slaves were punished . Approximately 120 slaves and free African Americans were murdered by militias and mobs in the área . Across the South, state legislatures passed new laws prohibiting education of slaves and free black people, restricting rights of assembly and other civil rights for free black people, and requiring white ministers to be present at all worship services.

Nate Parker's stirring portrayal of Nat Turner's rebellion is a film that tries extremely hard to be something more than what it is. This is not the Oscar contender you read it to be, this is not some revelation in the vein of Roots, this is just another slavery film. Nate Parker's film sheds no new light on the brutality of slavery and does his absolute best to make sure you despise the white villains in this as anyone should as they are portrayed with much relish from the actors especially Jackie Earle Haley's menacing slave owner that serves as the main villain of the film. The problems that The Birth of a Nation has are ones that exist in it's director's overbearing ego and overwhelming goal to bring something powerful to the table. Parker succeeds haphazardly unfortunately. The Birth of a Nation tells the story of Nat Turner, a preacher turned rebellion leader as he fights racism in the south with a violent and brutal fist. The film is powerful and Jackie Earle Haley and Gabrielle Union are absolute gems in this film, with Union giving the best performance of her career and Nate Parker giving...well, a performance. The problems here lie with the film itself. The story plays like a more realistic version of Django Unchained, even lifting some inspiration from that film a little too heavily for the scenes in which the slaves are beaten and abused. However, the film also delves into the religious aspects of Turner so heavy handedly that it borders along the fine line of a parody more often than not. The other film that Parker must have had playing on his tablet while directing some scenes is Braveheart because, the last battle in particular, is riddled with countless homages to that film that border plagiarism. Between the way Parker conveys his violence and the way he immortalizes Nat Turner by making him more of a saint than he ought to be, the film gradually feels less and less genuine as the running time winds down. That was my biggest gripe with the film honestly. Nate Parker failed to convey anything human about Nat Turner outside of him witnessing the brutalization that went on around him. There is something divine in the way Parker conveys Turner and it is just too much for a film that is steeped in this much history and realism. It fails to accurately portray to rebellion as it happened. There are very few mentions of what the rebellion actually did in reality as opposed to what it did in the film. While I am not saying that Turner's Rebellion was without cause, the film dilutes the harsh realities of what Turner's Rebellion did. In a sense, I felt it was a bit disrespectful to the victims of his Rebellion both black and white. With that being said, this is a film and not a documentary, so there is some room for some creative liberties, within reason. However, this does stand as Nate Parker's first directorial effort and, for a first film, it is a damn fine effort that should lead to more work as a director. Despite this fact, it still is nowhere near enough to sustain this as a film worthy of accolades and praise. Quite frankly, there is a lot wrong with the film. The pacing is either mind-numbingly slow or so quickly cut and erratic that you can barely grasp what is going on. Also, the extreme close shots are so constant and abundant that it is just another contributing factor to it feeling very incoherent. The story is bland and has been done before and done better despite this being Nat Turner's first on-screen portrayal, the story has inspired many films that have come out in recent years such as the previously mentioned Django Unchained. The sound design, at least on the Sundance version that I saw, was very flat and felt a bit too post-production sounding. Despite all this, I can't fully write this film off. There are some truly powerful performances in the film and some well done battle sequences to enjoy but other than that, this is an average film.

Birth of a Nation is Nate Parker's directorial debut and I was initially sceptical about watching this film after the harsh criticism it received and the controversy around the portrayal of the events. The best way to describe this one for anybody that is not aware of the plot is "Django Unchained" meets "12 Years a Slave" although toned down slightly in budget and quality of direction. I loved this film a lot and the vision and passion that Nate Parker conveys with the script is unparalleled. Something that I was very concerned about with this film is whether or not it would fall into the trap of "The Free State of Jones" because many audiences complained that it was too long and boring however this film is consistently interesting and thought provoking from start to finish. Unfortunately, the editing throughout felt extremely rushed. It was almost as if they were scared to leave the camera on a character too long in case the audience lost interest and the editing is overall very sloppy which is one of the major flaws with the picture. I would have loved to see them take their time with the shots and extend the film to the 160 – 170-minute mark to allow for further character development but I understand why they didn't because of the hatred that previous similar films received. For the first hour of the film, it wasn't very emotionally captivating and I struggled to relate to the characters a lot. The film also loses its footing and trips over common clichés within the biographical war drama/ period piece films which takes away some of the innovation presented by the mostly superb cinematography. The characters should have been given more freedom to traverse the world as they often felt detached from the setting and environment of the film due to a lack of interaction. The film also features some very thought provoking metaphorical imagery although it often feels very forced and doesn't blend well with the structure of the narrative. An additional flaw with the film was that I felt that Nate Parker was trying way too hard in this role and was seriously desperate for acting recognition. That's perfectly understandable as this is his directorial debut although he has often quite obviously constructed scenes that allow him to stand out and seem the superior actor in relation to the rest of the cast. Moving away from criticisms on the film, what I thought it did really well was to eliminate the stigma surrounding historical settings in the film industry today where average movie goers often associate historical events as boring and tedious and I honestly can't imagine anybody being genuinely bored at this film. It just moves so fast and the events are truly brutal and relentless. Some of the scenes in this film are excruciatingly hard to watch and the film isn't scared to push the boundaries of the "15" certification. This really worked to its advantage to show the horrifying events although some viewers will be turned off by the onslaught of violence and torture. The personal peak of the film for me was the score. So expertly chosen to reflect the actions on screen and breathe life into scenes that are otherwise quite bland. The music really worked for me and there wasn't too much to the point where it felt like a music video much like other titles this year (Suicide Squad). The gore and injury detail is so well realised, absolutely horrific and shocking leaving some scenes cemented into audiences minds for days after watching the film. There was a singular scene towards the end of the film that absolutely floored me with its gruelling depiction of violence and rebellion which was followed by an uplifting and inspiring resolution and overall this film gave me way more than I could have hoped for or was expecting. The Birth of a Nation – 7.8/10

History favours the brave, but like any form of art, it is also about perception. Whether that perception is a result of inner expression or manipulated by external influences, what matters is the manner in which it is told. Bold, controversial and violent, The Birth of a Nation is a period drama that is as powerful as it is important. Most of all, this film functions as a cinematic memorial to one of the first freedom fighters that would eventually give rise to the American Civil Rights Movement.

His name was Nat Turner and although not shown in the film, he received the same fate as the fictionalized William Wallace (who was famously portrayed by Mel Gibson in Braveheart). Played by Nate Parker in his directorial debut, Nat is a slave with compassion for his fellow slaves. He is also in good standing with his master Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) but the latter has problems of his own, including mounting debts and alcoholism. They were friends since childhood and Samuel's mother was the first to notice Nat's incredible ability to read (this was a time when literacy was considered a gift, and rare even for white landowners). With this 'ability' Nat is allowed to preach the Bible to other slaves with the intention of putting the fear of God into them. It works for some time, until Nat witnesses the ugly and often heinous atrocities of slavery. The inevitable happens when Nat perceives scripture as a double-edged sword – that which justifies slavery and that which justifies retribution.

Based on the actual 1831 salve rebellion in Virginia, and co-written by Parker, The Birth of a Nation is a slow burner during its first two acts. Visual artistry notwithstanding, Parker's nuance is the cogs and wheels turning in Nat's head. Did he snap or was he disillusioned by his own sermons? Although the result is an explosive finale that is both brutal and disturbing, the answer to that question lies in the way Nat is perceived. With collateral damage on both sides, history has all but condemned Nat Turner as a mass murderer, much like what English history says about Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace. But the director has us believe otherwise; that Nat was more like a hero whose actions influenced a far bloodier war 30 years later in the emancipation of slavery, and hence the title.

Yet at its core, this film is a penetrating enquiry into the ongoing struggles for justice and equality, the fine line between the use and abuse of authority, and also whether the history taught today is factual, or eroded, or sanitised. Whether Nat lost his faith or manipulated scripture to justify his rebellion is of little importance because The Birth of a Nation is competently made and told with grit. Like Steve McQueen's relentless 12 Years a Slave before, the theme on dehumanisation is rampant and doesn't let go even during its most harrowing moments. Even so, Parker's narrative may not be as flawless as McQueen's Academy Award winning masterpiece but it's still an effective undertaking for a debut director; And given the racial uproar behind the new Trump administration, perhaps even a well-timed film that takes a stab at a challenging dilemma – intention versus action.

The beloved darling of last year's Sundance Film Festival is a competently crafted biographical drama that brings the story of Nat Turner to life in splendid detail and exhibits expert workmanship in all aspects of filmmaking but it still fails to bring anything new to the table and feels like something that we have seen many times before.

Set in 19th century America, The Birth of a Nation tells the story of Nat Turner, an enslaved man & a preacher who's taken to different plantations by his financially strained owner to preach to other negro slaves and, after witnessing countless acts of barbarity inflicted upon them by their owners, orchestrates an uprising to lead his people to freedom.

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Nate Parker who also stars in the leading role, The Birth of a Nation takes its time to set up its premise and is quite violent & disturbing when it's meant to be but there are also times when it needlessly indulges in some petty allegorical bullshit & unneeded flashbacks which hamper its steady narration by an extent.

While it's evident that the film is a product of extensive research, no real effort is made to separate its look n feel from other examples that deal with the subject of slavery. Its iconography has a lot in common with Steve McQueen's 12 Years A Slave but it is still lacking in the raw emotional power of that powerfully-moving feature. Nevertheless, for a debut feature, this is an impressive start.

Its 120 minutes of runtime could've been further trimmed, for there are plenty of scenes that don't add much to the story and at times take the focus away from what's relevant. Camera keeps itself firmly fixed on Nat Turner, the cold colour palette is finely utilised, and the decision to capture the violence & brutality in its raw, unadulterated form is a welcome one. Lastly, all of it is wonderfully supported by its evocative score.

Coming to the performances, the cast consists of Nate Parker, Armie Hammer, Jackie Earle Haley, Aja Naomi King & others, and although all chip in with apt inputs in their given roles, their screen time is shortened to keep the focus on Parker's character. Parker's measured performance packs wide range of emotions and he expresses them convincingly for the most part and manages to render Nat Turner on the screen with effectiveness.

On an overall scale, The Birth of a Nation does justice to the legacy of Nat Turner despite its many shortcomings and is at its best during the final act when the inner rage of the enslaved bursts out in masterly-shot acts of brutality, violence & retaliation. Yet none of it lingers long after the credits have rolled and in the end, it feels like one of those movies that lifts certain elements from different examples of its genre but fails to provide its own touch of originality to it.

"You got purpose, its in you." Nat Turner (Parker) is a different type of slave. He is literate and a preacher. He is treated better than most slaves and remains calm and obedient. When he begins to speak to other slaves around the south he notices mistreatment and worse. No longer able to stand by and do nothing he leads a slave revolt that ends up changing the country. Going in I was expecting "another brutal slave movie" along the lines of 12 Years A Slave. While it did not shy away from the horror of slavery it was more about the reasons that led up to the uprising and had more of a Free State Of Jones feel than 12 Years A Slave. That fact alone made this easier to watch. I'm not 100% sure how historically accurate the movie is but it is a movie that should be seen and understood. Things like this can happen and people can take a stand not based on how they are treated, but how they see others treated. That is an important lesson. Overall, easier to watch than 12 Years A Slave and one that is very much worth seeing, but nothing earth shattering either. I give this a B.

Nat Turner (Nate Parker) grew up a slave in Virginia. It was better than most slaves and he was taught to read the bible by Elizabeth Turner. His father ran away after killing a slave catcher. Raymond Cobb (Jackie Earle Haley) is one of those evil slave catchers. With fears of a slave revolt, Reverend Walthall suggests that the debt-ridden drunk Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) hire out Nat's preaching to soothe other restless plantations. Nat talks Samuel into buying and saving Cherry-Ann. Nat witnesses and experiences countless injustices. When he dares to baptize a white man, he is whipped. Finally, he organizes a slave revolt.

This is competently made. It is sincere but it doesn't have that extra something to put it over the top. Nate Parker is a good actor but Nat Turner is a passive character for the first half of the movie. He could have made more with the religious aspect. That would be a different angle to get at this subject matter. Whatever it is, the movie needs a new spin to angle this shot.

I had the opportunity to watch this film at Sundance this year and after the screening Nate Parker gave a speech that I will never forget.

I didn't learn about the Nat Turner Rebellion until I was in college and hearing that there was going to be a film was very exciting. I was 22 and learning about Nat Turner. 22 years on this earth without knowing about a man's ability to fight back for his life and the lives of everyone he knew.

This movie is about standing up against what's wrong and through his incredible performance, Nate Parker tells that story with passion and determination.

The film brought the realities of Nat Turner's life-time to life. You aren't watching a movie about Nat Turner, but rather, you are watching Nat Turner himself live the excruciating pain and tragedy of the south during the early 1800s. This movie represents our countries beginnings and the title is a reference to the infamous film made in 1915. 100 years later and we have made progress, but our country still has a long way to go.

What I enjoyed most about this movie was the message that Nate Parker wants you to walk away with. During his speech after the screening he said, "This film tells the fatalist to sit down, and the optimist to stand up." For those of you that aren't aware, Fatalism is "the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."

So stop being the fatalist. Stand up and go make a change in this world.

Back at the beginning of this year, the Oscars were in the midst of the #OscarsSoWhite crisis. Word started leaking out about a film making the rounds at Sundance and other Festivals that should end talk for the next year. It was a movie written, directed and starring an African-American about the Nat Turner slave rebellion in 1831. Early word is that this film would be a shoo-in for Oscar nominations.

And then, the movie came out...

THE BIRTH OF A NATION is a very serious, slow and deliberate film that shows the evils of slavery from Nat Turner's point of view, pushing a good man over and over again until he reaches his boiling point and starts a rebellion against his white oppressors.

Unfortunately, slow, serious and deliberate is my code for boring. Star, director and writer Nate Parker portrays Turner as a man who is very willing to turn his cheek time after time after time. And we get to see Turner turn his cheek time after time after time until such a time where I got sick of seeing it and thought "get rebelling already".

I don't mean to make fun of the subject matter, which is a very serious black spot in our nation's history, but this movie doesn't give us anything new to view and besides Turner, no other character is fleshed out enough for us to care about. The direction and cinematography is competent and workman-like, but nothing special, so it is up to the words and the acting to draw this motion picture forward.

Sad to say, there just isn't enough here to warrant a recommendation.

If you want to see a good, serious movie dealing with the issue of slavery, rent 12 YEARS A SLAVE, the movie that this movie wanted to be, but just never was.

6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)

I strongly disapprove of the fact that this movie has gotten a lot of IMDb thumbs-down from people who most likely haven't seen it, but just disapprove of a movie about slavery, as well as one whose director has a problematic past.

However, that's not what I'm writing about here. I DID see the film (at a film festival), and my disappointment is based on the movie itself, not politics or anything else external. "The Birth of a Nation" is about a very important chapter in US history, yet it sanitizes that history to a ridiculous degree. I think most non-blatant-racists can agree that an uprising amongst slaves is a thing that inherently generates empathy. Yet this movie apparently doesn't agree--it needs to sanitize the mental health of Nat Turner (who was on record as saying God directly told him what to do from an early age) as well as pretend women & children weren't killed in the Turner uprising. I'm not saying these things were justifiable. What I'm saying is that they're part of a complex historical record, and shouldn't have been left out of a movie that purports to tell the "truth." That would be fine if "Birth" were one of many Nat Turner movies out there, but it's the only one most people are likely to see.

It's also a pandering, middle-of-the-road "inspirational" movie, so much less complex a take on slavery than the recent "12 Years a Slave." While that movie was a work of art, this is more like a TV movie in style and content. I just wasn't impressed by it. I wish somebody would make great Nat Turner movie. This isn't it. And sorry, a bad populist telling of the tale isn't better than no telling.

"Anytime anyone is enslaved, or in any way deprived of his liberty, if that person is a human being, as far as I am concerned he is justified to resort to whatever methods necessary to bring about his liberty again." Malcolm X

The antebellum South had not been kind to slaves, if you look only at the award-winning 12 Years a Slave, in which Solomon Northrup, an upstate New York free man, was sold into slavery. But you can now relive that excruciating experience from the religious and moral perspective of a slave, Nat Turner (Nate Parker), in Nate Parker's realistic and dramatic The Birth of a Nation.

While both men are mercilessly whipped in the two films, 12 Years remains superior in its scope and complexity. Yet, Birth is strong in deeply exploring the hero's motivations for the rebellion he eventually foments in 1831. It shows his daily humiliations and hardening in the face of unfettered violence, his growing reliance on the Bible for rebellion, and finally the brutal rape of his wife, Cherry (Aja Naomi King). The film graphically depicts the violence and is equally indulgent showing the growing love between Nate and her.

As in 12 Years, Birth takes care to show the close relationship between slave and master, Samuel (Armie Hammer). In both cases, master might seem at times benign but not over the length of the film. The owner becomes a symbol of the once proud South now reduced to exploiting human beings, in this case black slaves. In Birth, the progression to violence is slow, even as the ultimate violence comes on us.

Parker has a director's eye for the ironies inherent in the beautiful Virginia mansion (actually filmed in Savannah) and the poverty of the servants' quarters, the empathy of Samuel's mother, Elizabeth (Penelope Ann Miller), and the growing intolerance of her son. Thank Geoffrey Kirkland's production design— white plantation houses and those iconic drooping willows—to a stirring, sometimes too intrusive, score by Henry Jackson. Elliot Davis's camera is particularly strong in night shots. Director Parker's slow pullback shot of the mass hanging is memorable.

Although this film does not have the epic perspective of its namesake by D. W. Griffith (1915), it is nonetheless a respectable entry into the canon of film helping to reconcile the white and black populace, the birth of tolerance.

When I first heard about this film I thought it would be a remake of the film from the early 1900's. Having seen that film I was wondering how a film that sympathizes with the KKK could get remade in this day and age. Upon figuring out it was a different film based on Nat Turner's rebellion and slave uprising I was cautious but interested to see what we would get. These types of films about a dark time in the country's past could easily turn into films that intentionally play the emotion card and don't have substance that can elevate the film elsewhere. This film also suffered a giant and negative downturn with Nate Parker's rape allegations came to light right before the release of the film. There was a theory that all that negativity (which was well deserved) hurt the film as an award season contender. The controversy surrounding the film completely buried any buzz it could have generated. Having now seen the film I can say that the film is not worthy of award season praise, has a few flaws but overall had enjoyable moments.

The subject matter is heavy handed, of course. Nate Parker isn't the greatest actor but he does well playing a slave preacher who becomes demoralized and outraged by the treatment of black people. The film features a slow build, almost too conservative. I'd say the film is ultimately uneven. Nat's youth is covered in minor detail and you quickly shift to his adult years. A lot of the beginning feels inconsequential. And when a shocking event occurs in the film, it seems a bit glazed over (the rape in the film). The pace picks up in the middle when Nat's owner attacks and whips him but then stalls again. At this point, we want to see the rebellion. I also could do without the visions that Nat' experiences throughout the film. They seem artistic and seem to convey a message, but what is the message? Nat and young Nat meeting each other in a primitive state in the forest? Some of it just seems to be there for the sake of being there.

Once you edge towards the rebellion, its great. However, its too short. The action is violent, unforgiving, and relentless but then its gone. I wanted larger focus on the rebellion; if done right it could have been great. There's a sense of longing in many places but I can't fault a first time filmmaker too much for that. Prior to the film I absolutely expected the inclusion of the song "Strange Fruit" and no doubt it was there. It was used well with powerful images of the bodies of lynched slaves. The eventual final moments of Nat Turner are also done quite well. His fate is unfortunate but he is accepting of his legacy.

I don't think the film satisfied me entirely. There are moments that absolutely could have been improved upon but ultimately I think Nat Turner's rebellion is an important moment in our countries history and his story should be told. I think the approach could have been much better but we get a fairly good presentation of a really important matter. There are better films out there that cover stories of slavery with more conviction.

7/10

The best thing about this film is the script that based on the real. Such films are really worth a watch, before that, worth to be made. But did it depicted accurately is what we don't know. So here the effort should be appreciated and everyone who involved in it. It was about the African-Americans during the early 19th century. The film focused on a boy who learnt to read and write became a preacher. He taught his community about all the good and bad. But it all comes into question when he realises that what he reads in the book is not the same in the real world. He has been in the path of non-violence all his life and now at the crossroad, he forced to take a weapon and fight back for the freedom.

An inspiring film. If it was well written and made, would have been an Oscar material. Though the actors were good and well shot in locations. Nate Parker was brilliant in the lead, as well his direction was not bad, particularly in his first attempt. Previously, he had done some fine roles, but this is his best appearance. Perfect length and pace to sit for it patiently looking for the next events in the narration. Had some too much violence in a few scenes, but those were very much needed. Despite the film telling a true story, it did not appeal enough due to the lack of proper improvement in narration. Which I blame for not availability of proper information and records. Surely one of the best among in the year, not one of the top films of the year. So it is a must see then.

7/10

I'm familiar with Nat Turner.

Unlike Quentin Tarantino who came up with the fictional character of Django in Django Unchained, Nat Turner was a real person whose life events became that of folk lore, similar to what Tarantino was doing with Django

Writer, director, producer and star Nate Parker attempts to turn the folk lore made of rumors and speculation into a story that tries to tells us what actually happen to the best of his abilities.

Some of the things in the movie I herd about, some of the things I did not, some things try to put a real perspective on what maybe an over exaggeration.

It's a lot like 12 years a slave. A lot of it is hard to watch. No matter how many times you see the truth on slavery, I can't help but be disturb by it, and I'm indifferent about learning something new about how slavery works (Movie talks about slaves needing to carry a piece of paper whenever they are away form their master or his property and present to any white man who ask in order to prove ownership)

Unlike 12 Years A Slave the story of Nat Turner is a lot more powerful, compelling as it creates this tale of a man completely devoted to the word of God that it compels him to take down those who are not, even if it goes against the American dream at the time.

Some people have already posted that the story is inaccurate. I will admit that I only know bits and pieces of this man's story (like I said to me it's only a folk lore), and a lot of those bits and pieces don't add up to what the movie is telling, but considering my classes in American History never bothered to tell me anything about this man, I feel that this is a decent start, and like the Tuskegee Airmen hopefully more films will come along and be more accurate for everyone's standards.

This was an exceptional job for fist time director, Nate Parker, who I knew as an actor and had no idea he trying to be the full package. I hope this will not be the last time we see him do something like this.

Historically accurate or not, it is just a movie designed to inspire us to learn more about our history as Americans, and it does live up to the Nat Turner folk lore as he stood his ground against all odds to do what's right in his heart.

Great movie!

Nate parker writes, produces, acts, and directs this landmark in American history. The story of Nat Turner is one that is relatively uncharted territory in the realm of cinema, with that being said, Nate Parker does a great job of of telling the story, albeit a little shortsighted as to the backlash that transpired afterwards.

Also, I don't know what this other critic user is talking about in regards to calling this movie, "racist crap" and giving it a 1 out of 10. The movie tells the story of a rebellious slave who does whatever he needs to, to achieve freedom from the oppressive south. With that being said, his story simply tells the truth of our nations racial relations at this time. In this particular context, Blacks and whites surely were not singing kumbaya, our relationship was highly one-sided, volatile, and largely disturbing. So, to anyone who is not prepared to see a small glimpse of historical truth in regards to our nations past, do not see this movie. You'll just end up like this other user, offended because this movie doesn't depict white people as saviors, heroes, etc, like most movies...it depicts a more sinister side that too often goes untold, unseen, and therefore, unnoticed.

Nate Parker gives us his directorial debut about fellow Virginia, Nat Turner, a literate, enslaved African American who instigated a rebellion against their oppressors across Southampton county back in 1831. As with many actors who turn to directing for the first time, Parker, like them, also portrays the lead role.

The film's entire focus is on Nat Turner, given a brief glimpse of his childhood, we're then up to speed with him as a young adult plantation slave, serving the Turner family who appear to be a compassionate one and actually educate Nat in the verses of the Bible.

It's a bleak and often horrid account of the exploitation and oppression the slaves had back then, being stripped of their basic human rights and any self worth. Though Nat being considered fortunate among his brethren, while the rest of the counties, and quite possibly the majority of the states beat, rape and kill creating them lesser than dogs.

His bible studies lead him to preach, eventually being another commodity exploited by his drunken master, in an attempt to calm disobedience among their neighbouring plots. Coupled with some atrocious incidents, this preaching turns him into a Joan of Arc of Virginia, believing God had instructed him to act in the form of spiritual visions.

It's an impressive directorial debut from Parker, with some great visuals, surreal at times and quite surprised to read the film was only shot in 27 days. Parkers performance is strong and reminded me of actors like Jamie Foxx or Denzel Washington. Supporting cast such as Armie Hammer, Penelope Ann Miller and Gabrielle Union actually have little part when in comparison but do their bit well.

Henry Jackman provides an amazing score, it's unlike his other work I'm fond of. Incorporating strings, piano and a choir, he gives the film the right spiritual tone. However, it has an interesting, inspired soundtrack, with Nina Simone's "Strange Fruit" playing on the film, other artists like Naz, Lil' Wayne, Ne-Yo, Trey Songz and 2 Chainz are on the soundtrack. Not saying it doesn't work, but it's hardly fitting for the period piece.

Unfortunately, the film loses its way, lacking the impact the story possibly deserves, missing details and connection to its title. There's some great capture but some not so good too and it becomes rushed, disjointed and anticlimactic. I think it attempts to be an American Braveheart, a worthy try, but ultimately underwhelming and uninspiring.

Running Time: 7 The Cast: 8 Performance: 7 Direction: 7 Story: 8 Script: 7 Creativity: 7 Soundtrack: 7 Job Description: 4 The Extra Bonus Points: 0 Would I buy the Bluray?: I doubt it.

62% 6/10

The Birth of Nation tells the story of Nat Turner as he treks through his life of brutality and slavery at the hands of brutal plantation owners in 19th century Southern America only to lead a slave rebellion to exact revenge on his oppressors. First off, this film is shrouded in controversy and hype while masking itself with the notion that this is an important film. In the hands of a more capable director, The Birth of a Nation could have been a truly mesmerizing film but Nate Parker's overly ambitious and slightly egotistical vision is hard to swallow for all the wrong reasons. The film starts with young Nat Turner playing with the son of his slave master, Samuel. Nat is a special boy as he learns to read and write at a young age with the help of his slave owner Elizabeth Turner (Penelope Ann Miller). From that point on, we see Nat Turner (Nate Parker) and Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) as adults. The two are friends but Nat must still walk on egg shells due to his status as a slave. The story progresses very slowly, showing Samuel in a financial bind and Nat living a comfortable life (with all things considering) with his wife Cherry. Samuel eventually exploits Nat as a preacher to the slaves and even makes money off of him as a preacher of gospel in order to keep the slaves docile and calm. As he is carted off to multiple plantations for sermons, he sees the horrors of slavery first-hand and decides, after a brutal (fictious) rape on Cherry, to rebel and cause an uprising. The film is a sad one. It is sad because of slavery, because of the brutality, yes...but the saddest part of The Birth of a Nation is the idea of what could have been. The film is a vicious display of violence and brutality with a one-sided and very historically inaccurate story. While many people are not privy to Nat Turner's rebellion, it still does not excuse the poorly constructed storyline based around the idea of a rape and religious visions in order to fuel the Nat Turner character's motives as if Parker was not confident enough in telling the true life story and the real reasons behind why Turner rebelled. Much like this year's Free State of Jones, The Birth of a Nation screenplay is haphazard and very amateur in its execution. The women characters are mere pawns that have little to no dialog and the dialog they are given is so unsubstantial that it lessens the impacts of their actions...especially when the Cherry character's rape is such an integral part to Parker's telling of the story. The acting is powerful at times and Parker gives a good performance but it is a performance that you can't take seriously at moments. He is an actor that can have you tear up in one scene and unintentionally laugh at another whether it is because of a line delivery or some of his overly dramatic scowls. Gabrielle Union, who plays Esther, the muted rape victim is also amazing in her role. Armie Hammer also shows glimpses of a great performance especially because his character had a much more interesting sub-plot to delve into and the film really never gave it a second thought outside of a single scene scored to overtly dramatic music. The filmmaking is the downfall here. The Birth of a Nation is painfully slow in its first hour and very chaotic in its second. It reeks of an inexperienced filmmaker and left me genuinely surprised especially because of the hype that we've heard about this film. Honestly, I've seen History Channel specials with better productions. The blue tint is overbearing, the actual camera work is too close and honed in on its subjects, the sound is flat and the editing is so erratic that it's very hard to keep track of what's going on. Overall, The Birth of a Nation is less 12 Years a Slave and more Free State of Jones. It may be an important story but it is far from an important film.

This was a tough movie to get through. Not because of it's inability to keep me enthralled, but rather due to the it's in your face portrayal of the early lives of African American slaves in the USA. We have all read and watched movies based in this time and subject. The brutality and victimization is ours to deal with and reflect upon. The movie flows well from beginning to end. The characters are well thought out and develop cleanly in the film. The dialogue seemed sometimes forced and coercive but nonetheless keeps true to itself. The scenes of immense degradation were tough to view but essential to the plot and the movie. I commend the fact that the title "Birth of a Nation" was reclaimed in a movie about strength and fortitude rather than it's predecessor of cowardice and fear.

I typically love historical films. Having a bachelors degree in history and an enormous home library consisting of many historical books from all periods in American and World history, I have a fond knack for this particular subject.

Unfortunately 2016's "Birth of A Nation" mostly disappoints. This film feels more like a made for TV movie than a big budget film. The dialogue felt contrived and the movie was plagued with too many clichés. The film also ignores the darker side of the slave rebellion, in which women and children became innocent victims, along with the plantation owners.

Birth of a Nation basically paints Nat Turner has an unquestionable hero, yet the real Nat Turner - if you've ever read any history - probably wouldn't be considered as a hero by the vast majority of modern people, considering some of his questionable actions during the rebellion that left women and children slaughtered.

There wasn't really much of an impact on me by the end of the film, and I think the film mostly fails to give the viewer a clear or unique message. In the end, the film mostly feels like a waste of resources. Historical films should be better than this!