User Reviews

The birth of a nation was a fantastic movie that I happened to watch last night for the first time ever. A poignant depiction into the Nat Turner legacy and what occurred in Virginia right before the start of the Civil War as it pertains to human rights violations In the deep South. I highly recommend it to fans of django unchained and 12 years of slave. It is a very emotionally electric film and the realities of it being based on truth make it more harrowing as it reveals the heinous truth that birthed America and how the truth is the country was born from violence and abuse that any person living at the time could easily see how Nat led a rebellion that was absolutely needed in order to bring justice to a time period riddled by oppressive abuse.

It's such a painfully overrated movie. The acting is OK but annoyingly takes a brilliant piece of history and turns it into an awkward movie-going experience. It feels fake and it lacks heart.

Best movie of all time. All the negative reviews are simple minded individuals that don’t want to see the truth about history. Nay turner was a HERO hands down.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda, Propaganda.

Impressive directorial debut from Nate Parker (and a more than solid acting gig as well) in this brutal and compelling story.

Book and non-violence versus weapon and upraising. 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

Turner's tale may be 150 years old but its rebellious, fervent spirit courses through the veins of America today, so much that its viewing feels like political action.

Mediocre film that had potential. Basically the directing and storytelling were just sub-par and left the film a bit slow and boring (I fell asleep at least once and had to finish watching it again.) A better director could have actually made this film into something Oscar worthy, but...that it is not. It has many shot selections that are out of a lifetime movie, and even worse...Nate Parker added in events that did NOT actually happen that portray his character in a more favorable light and then leaves OUT aspects that would make his character look "worse"...even though it **** truth. Seems like the conduct **** who is a rapist who discards the truth for the convenience of whatever it is he is seeking. Sub-par film, made by an even worse, and creepier human being. Overall, not very good, and mostly ruined potential.

I enjoyed the movie and acting, it talked about a really important topic. Some do say that it could have been a lot better, but I think it was still pretty good and it is an important movie

Is there a talented actor with worse luck than Armie Hammer? Since first establishing himself in teen hearthrob roles on shows such as Gossip Girl, he went on to show he was here to stay with a great turn in The Social Network. Since then, no matter what he picks, things just never work out for him. Sign onto J. Edgar, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio? Critical failure. The Lone Ranger, directed by Pirates helmer Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp in a big budget revival of a popular old television show? Critical and commercial failure. The Man From UNCLE, co-starring Henry Cavill and directed by Guy Ritchie, and another revival of an old television show? Mixed reviews and a commercial failure. Nocturnal Animals, starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, while being directed by Tom Ford? This one has to be the one, right? Nope. Mixed reception and not likely to garner much Oscar attention. And now, we can add The Birth of a Nation to that pile. After seeing Michael Fassbender play a slave owner in 12 Years a Slave and in the aftermath of #OscarsSoWhite, this one seemed to be a safe bet to finally get Armie Hammer some popular recognition, but no, the film suffers critically and is maligned because of Nate Parker's past. Will this man ever find a film that is successful both critically and commerically? The Birth of a Nation is a largely well put together historical biopic, a genre that I love. Though many hated the earlier The Free State of Jones, I am an apologist for the film and the genre as a whole. Give me some historical story and I would probably enjoy it a bit more than most. The Birth of a Nation, however, is hard to enjoy and its reasons only become clear in the second half. Initially a rousing tale of a slave, Nat Turner (Nate Parker), who learns the Bible and is sent to preach in horrible conditions to horribly treated slaves, the film is moving. It is always moving, in fact, with its images of brutality and horrifyingly poetic take on slavery. Yet, Parker overdoes it with symbols and a ham fisted approach to his protagonist's tale. Using butterfly symbols, a bleeding piece of corn, and repeated religious symbols (angels, crosses, and connections between Turner and various prophets), the film feels entirely misguided. This symbol-filled second half largely derides an otherwise solid film. In the lead role, Parker is incredibly solid. Delivering powerful monologues, he captures the charisma and power of Nat Turner. Any man willing to take on his oppressor with nothing more than the Bible and an axe is a man that has incredible internal strength and confidence. Parker really captures this and turns in a consistently powerful performance of Turner. Alongside him, Aja Naomi King is brilliant as Nat Turner's wife, Cherry. Backing her husband on his mission from God all the way, she turns in a subtly powerful performance that will hopefully springboard her into larger roles. Yet, as mentioned, it is the writing and direction that often let this one down. While the acting is rousing and the writing hits some high notes in the monologues, the film just feels too hamfisted. I am not one to argue that Nat Turner is bad. The men he killed undoubtedly deserved what they got coming to them for their treatment of slaves. Yet, the symbolism connecting him to Jesus or other prophets was just far too much. Turner lived with the sword and died by the sword, yet Parker is unwilling to criticize his hero at all, instead painting him as a religious prophet. While I concede that his situation demanded a violent uprising and that Turner himself was very religious, Parker comparisons between the violent Turner and the non-violent Jesus feel a bit too much. Of course, this only one instance of such ham fistedness with other instances of bleeding corn, some dream sequence in the trees with a half-naked Nate Parker or something, and the butterflies. All-in-all, Parker loses sight of his hero in these moments and instead turns into a symbolic look at a real story, when the real story was good on its own. All of that said though, the first hour of The Birth of a Nation is quite good. Largely lacking the symbolism, it is a raw and powerful look at slavery. Combined with the sequence set to "Blood on the Leaves" at the end, Parker finds some truly stirring images in this film. Combined with good smoky cinematography covering the film is flat browns and grays, accented solely by blood or by the bright red/pink flowers given by Nat to his wife Cherry, the film is often quite pretty to look at. Through this film, Parker finds a captivating visual style and it is unfortunate that the final product does not live up to this style. However, despite my reservations with this film, Nate Parker's past would not hinder my watching of any of his films. If I can watch the works of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski without hesitation, I can do the same here.

This movie is much more real than 12 years a slave and I can imagine that it will leave many feeling uncomfortable. It is the truest account of slavery that I have seen on the screen and it is the best movie I have ever seen. I notice that the negative comments all come from a racist point of view.

The movie is a powerful narrative of the acne of hate on the face of U.S. History. The scares are deep and are clearly seen from a far today. This is quite evident in the negative comments written in this post about the movie, one can clearly see the ignorance associated in their response.

Here's yet another "propaganda" film to remind people, especially Black people, they were and remain **** The screenplay, acting, direction, editing and all other artistic aspects of "The Birth of a Nation" embrace the mediocrity of predictable "Hollywood" filmmaking. QUESTION: Do films like "The Birth of a Nation" or "12 Years A Slave" or "Glory" (1989) or "Amistad" (1997) really function as entertainment, or education, or both? RESPONSE: Looking at the big picture, it doesn't matter, because ultimately the purpose of these films is to make money. Just over a decade ago, the U.S. entertainment industry was the second largest export industry following the aerospace industry (Source: Sandrine Cahn & Daniel Schmimmel, The Cultural Exception). Even today, nearly sixty-(60) percent of film revenue is from foreign countries. Clearly, by exporting films like "12 Years A Slave," White people relish the opportunity to repeatedly tell the whole world how the U.S. successfully controlled and managed its **** and guess what, White people are still doing it! The plantation system evolved to become the reservation system for Native Americans. Adolf **** learned from it, and along with other tactics employed by advocates of eugenics, he eliminated six-(6) million Jews, which is only a drop in the ocean when compared to the tens of millions of Blacks/Africans that died directly as a result of slavery during the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. QUESTION: After being educated about the horrors and impact of slavery through **** slave films, have White people demonstrated any significant change in their dealing with Black people to prompt social change? RESPONSE: HELL, NO! There are more Black men in prision now than the total number of Black men held captive during slavery! Source: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. White Americans make up only 64% of the U.S. population, but possess 90% of all wealth. For every dollar in assets owned by Whites in the United States, Blacks own less than a nickel, a racial divide that is wider than South Africa’s at any point during the apartheid era. Source: Matt Bruenig of Demos Like the overwhelming majority of theatrical films featuring Black people in leading roles, "The Birth of a Nation" is NOT entertainment, nor is it educational. It's just another **** film paying homage to slavery, oppression, discrimination, and especially White privilege, and these films have absolutely no artistic and educational value. These **** films embolden White privilege and change nothing. Albert Einstein said it so clearly, “Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” **** **** **** ****

The Birth of a Nation is based off of a true story that I have been previously unaware of. It is about Nat Turner and his eventual slave rebellion that lasted a couple of days (correct me if I'm wrong). The first thing to know about this movie was the price at which it was purchased at a festival by Fox Searchlight. For them to pay up $19 million for this film means that they expected it to be an awards favorite. However, that isn't the case really. Admittedly, this was an easier disappointment to watch compared to the Free State of Jones, not just because the runtime is 15 minutes shorter, but the fact that this movie had much better scenes with character development and was definitely able to explore its themes. But similar to Free State of Jones, this movie took its sweet time to start; in fact the rebellion lasted for only 20 minutes of this movie. Arguably, it is possible to say that they wanted to build up character motivation (it is effective), but the characters do very little, and it leaves them empty in comparison to the complex environment around them. In summary, this movie is boring to an extent, but not unlikable. To hear later that this movie flopped big time is a reminder to Fox Searchlight: the purchase may set records, but that doesn't mean the movie is entirely worth the price. I liked the imagery in this movie (though some moments are brutal and hard to watch) and I do feel that this movie needed to be made, but overall, it is lacking in a few key areas and only manages to earn a seal of acknowledgement.

Even with Nate Parker's fantastic performance, The Birth of a Nation's heavy-handed direction and flawed narrative make the viewing experience slightly boring and uninteresting.

The subjects of this movie, slavery in general and Nat Turner in specific, are important stories that need to be told. There have not been enough good movies made about these subjects, including this one. There are many powerful and disturbing moments in The Birth of a Nation. For some people, these moments and the fact that these stories are not told often are enough for them to ignore the glaring flaws in the film. The female characters are weak and need men to save them. Nat Turner's character is grossly oversimplified. There is a complete lack of subtlety and nuance in many scenes and with most of the evil characters. Many of the shots are over-composed or overly staged. so that they just look fake. The actor director is far too in love with himself and that really hurts the film. To be sure, there are going to be racists (whether they are aware of it or not) who will hate this film because of their biases and bigotry., But while I respected the intent and motivations of the film maker, the end result is simply not a very good film. I rate it as I do because I wanted it to be great. It needed to be great. It just is not great. It is worth seeing though. It merits discussion and reflection. I just wanted it to be better.

What: Real life Django Unchained Who: Nate Parker, Bobby Elvis, and Armie Hammer as, the man with the coolest f***ing name ever Where: The version of America Donald Trump probably wants to go back to in order to "make it great again" When (can I watch again): Whenever you forget Nat Turner was one of the original badass Americans. Why: Nat Turner is one of the most amazing, and inspirational Americans that ever lived, if you've never even heard his name this movie is a must.

This movie was Amazing! Nate Parker did a flawless job expressing the pains of slavery. I am not going to lie me & my husband were shaking & crying after the movie ended..could not drive our car until we got our cry out.

Ignore all of the hate reviews. I guarantee more than half of them are from people who haven't even seen the film and are just giving it bad scores and reviews as a way of boycotting it in response to director/star Nate Parker's **** controversy surrounding the film. People should be judging this film based on the film itself like I'm about to. All that aside, I'd say that this was actually a pretty solid film that did great work at bringing Nat Turner's slave rebellion to glorious life. The acting was fine and the cinematography was often times beautiful. Overall, while it may not bring anything new to the table in terms of period films, it's still an unflinching look at an infamous and significant moment in history. It really does deserve a chance and should not be dismissed simply because of the controversy surrounding Nate Parker in real life!

There's a scene in the movie where Nat Turners militia gathers and he asks is that everyone cus he expected more people and that’s how I felt at the theater. I liked the movie alot the acting was great especially Nate Parker. That guy was “amazing” it looked amazing the story was powerful without being as graphic as some other similar period pieces and none of that matters because most people are too chicken **** to go see it. I can say it’s the best film I’ve seen all year, which it is, and it wont matter because White people don't want to “feel guilty” and Black people are “tired” (imagine I said that in the whiniest voice possible). This is why we keep going thru the same **** No one wants to face it we’re all just a bunch of **** cowards. To be fair I did see some White people in the theater. I wished I could have taken a moment to talk to one of them, but when I left the theater I was feeling some “emotions” plus I’m not one for talking to people I don’t know, so there that on top of the “emotions”. I imagine people with more social graces might open up a dialogue which would have been great. I would love to know why they were there, and what they thought, and what in their life made them so open minded. Even tho I didn’t talk to them it was really nice seeing them there. It was almost like “well that’s 6 people I don’t have to worry about” that being said I did have the “slightest” fear one of them was gona start shoot’n the place up. Hands to god, the thought crossed my mind... Sorry :D I don’t know what else to say. I liked it and wished more people saw it. I think it’s gona get snobbed at the oscars, no shock there. People should go see it tho. It’s very encouraging. A word of advice, if you’re White don’t associate yourself with the White people on screen. That’s not You. those are racist who were horrible ****ty people, my guess is if you’re watching The Birth Of A Nation(2016) you are not. And Black people go support this dude or don’t ever complain about “there aren’t enuff Black movie creators” or what have you. And if you’re really WILLEE scarwed just buy a ticket online, show some support. Nate Parker put in a lot of work and did a really great job bringing us this beautifully, heroic, tragically necessary and relevant piece of history.

For those who don't remember their history, Nat Turner (played with poignant power by Nate Parker) was a slave and preacher in 1800s Virginia, who led the country's largest slave rebellion. This film, which is a masterful first effort by writer/director Nate Parker, doesn't revel in the violence or extreme cruelty. Even though there are appropriately brutal moments, he's chosen to focus on the emotional experiences that led to Turner's transformation. The cinematography is beautiful and the performances are forceful. It takes a bit too long to build momentum, but once it does, the film builds to moving and powerful final image.

The movie "Birth of a Nation" is truly a great film, especially for young black Americans who will not learn about Nat Turner because our education system purposely leaves this piece out. The negative views are biased, they would prefer to see slave movies where slaves were nothing but submissive, people are simply upset that this is a film about slave rebellion

A powerful movie that lives up to the hype! I was going in to this movie thinking that it was being overrated by many reviewers. Boy, was I proven wrong! Nate Parker does an amazing job of not only playing the lead, preacher and rebel leader, Nat Turner, but an amazing job as director as well. There are some nice shots, and there's a fare bit of artistry in this, especially at the end. The movie drags at times, but gets back on track to the rebellion. Fine performances all around, this movie deserved the standing ovation it got at TIFF.

Just watched "Birth of a Nation". A Masterpiece!! 6 out of 5 Stars! Full blown applause from theatre at the end. Very relevant to what continues today. Based on a true story. Must receive nomination for Best Film 2016 and Best Actor role. Depictions **** of Americans whom today continue to believe that this is the norm between white Americans and African Americans. Extremely moving, tears in the audience and dramatic finale!

Birth of a Nation is one of the best movies of 2016. A riveting, profound, compelling, provocative and unsettling film. A moving retelling of NatTurner's Slave Rebellion that many throughout history has tried to bury. It's a passion-fueled effort by long-time actor/director Nate Parker, who provides a great voice in getting his incredible vision across; a stunning debut.

Nat Parker doesn't want you too know something that is very important about his movie. Many of the people that were killed by Nat Turner and the Rebellion WERE INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!! He knows that if you knew this you wouldn't want to see this movie and that you would know that the main character was a mass murderer of the most horrific kind! He was not a hero of any kind, nor was he any better than the slave owners themselves, since he murdered so many women and children. Do not bother seeing this movie unless you want to see a complete work of fiction.

A beautifully filmed, well-acted, well-told rendition of the legacy of rebel slave Nat Turner. Although episodic at times, and decidedly graphic (though not gratuitous), the film offers a potent, moving, haunting message that's particularly relevant for today's racially charged culture. We'd be wise to heed the warning of this powerful picture. A major accomplishment for writer-actor-director Nate Parker.

Pretty incredible performance by Nate Parker. That is undeniable. It's a very simple story that perhaps could have used a bit more nuance, but it hammers home the visceral feel of times, and it does a nice job of that.

This movie was mind blowing and one of the best movies I have ever seen. He was genius in writing, producing and directing this move while also having a leading role. Unlike other slave movies that have been done in the past, this movie set itself apart as the audience viewed the such bravery, will and spirit of the slaves despite being under wicked oppression. This movie also highlighted such horrors that slaves were left to endure and how evil many slaveholders were. Mr. Parker also added a dash of ancestry to the movie which intensified the movie all the more. I will purchase the DVD when it is available and recommend this movie for all to see.

Nate Parker has talent, scope, and vision. There could not have been a better director to helm this sensitive, brutal and brooding drama about Nat Turner's rebellion. In the wake of many films on African American struggles, including 12 Years A Slave, Birth Of A Nation has a hard time standing out of the crowd and reeling in the Oscar Bait. The content portrayed is disturbing, and most of the film is dark and slow burn. However, Nate Parker does a good job as Nat Turner, and the rest of the cast were very good as well. The film is extremely overdone in the terms of length, the scenes where Turner is being tortured are hard to watch and drag long enough to get under your skin, while there are rushed scenes of dialogue between characters and a wasted opportunity to re-create the battle scene in the climax. The score is incredible, and the cinematography is done very well. Even though it does not match to the caliber of Django or 12 Years, The Birth Of A Nation is an incredibly important film, and touches a part of American history that needs to be shed light on now more than ever. It's mostly a dull knife but easily pierces through the historical genre.

While the story of Nat Turner's Rebellion is a powerful one indeed, the controversially titled The Birth of a Nation provides a very "ok" experience. The scenes involving Turner leading the rebellion and letting his ideas of freedom run wild are great and lead actor/director Nate Parker, along with the rest of the cast, are great. However, the film comes off as very derivative (note the Braveheart and 12 Years a Slave similarities) and the expression of Turner's true emotions and his development have been done much better (as seen in various other mediums). Overall, an okay debut for Nate Parker and, hopefully, he can provide some better follow-up films.

It's very well acted and knows its messages are important, but its direction is heavy-handed and it can't figure out *why* it matters. Parker is a talented actor and displays it here, changing his emotion from scared and tearful to angry on the drop of a hat. But he gets in his own way, creating contrived dream sequences that come off as awkward and never puts us in Nat Turner's evolving mindset. A nice effort, especially as a directorial debut, but you know what they say about the road to hell...

Movie has a bit of flaws back and forth, but you got to admit it took us 101 years to get a feature film of this bad boy and it actually worked. Despite whether it pulls facts or not, you got to give it a chance and watch it.