The Birth of a Nation (2016) User Reviews (143)

Historical and epic film about ¨Nat Turner's Rebellion¨ , it was a slave rebellion that took place in Southampton County, Virginia, during August 1831

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 30 March 2017]

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.

A film that wallows in the shadow of it's story and never really escapes it.

[trublu215 · 6/10 · 17 July 2016]

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.

The Birth of a Nation

[Ryan_Aldworth · 7/10 · 25 February 2017]

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

Birth of a Nation might not be perfect but it is a competent retelling about a catalytic moment in the black freedom struggle.

[LloydBayer · 6/10 · 4 January 2017]

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.

Does Justice To The Legacy Of Nat Turner Despite A Few Shortcomings.

[CinemaClown · 24 January 2017]

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.

Easier to watch than 12 Years A Slave and one that is very much worth seeing, but nothing earth shattering either.

[cosmo_tiger · 6/10 · 10 January 2017]

"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.

solid slavery drama

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 4 June 2017]

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.

Written, produced, and directed

[SaritaLW · 7/10 · 17 October 2016]

Not bad for Nate Parkers first written, produced and directed film. This film had good and bad reviews, by word of mouth that is. People were saying they are tired of slave movies and others were finally happy to see slaves rising up and fighting back, seeing as a lot of slaves in those days did fight back. I personally enjoyed the change of story. Nate Parker plays Nat Turner, a slave who was taught to read and becomes a Preacher for other slaves. Turner is taken on a trip to preach to other slaves for profit for his "master" and during this time he is beginning to see how brutally mistreated they are and begins to lead a rebellion. Unfortunately as things start to look hopeful they go South real quick and this is where I start to lose hope in the movie. Although this movie was based on a True Story, I couldn't help but want them to succeed in the battlefield and escape into the forest free slaves. But I guess that was too good to be true.

A History That Must Be Remembered

[lavatch · 8/10 · 16 February 2017]

There is a twofold irony to the title of the film "The Birth of a Nation." On the one hand, the film recalls the title of the D.W. Griffith silent film of the same name, based on the Thomas Dixon novel "The Clansman." On a deeper level, the title stresses the contradictions between the fledgling democracy of the new American republic and the abhorrent practice of slavery.

The film is successful in placing a human face on the story that is given a paragraph or two in most American history textbooks. In the film, we see unfolding the gruesome violence and daily humiliations of slaves in the Chesapeake in the early nineteenth century. The white slaveholders depicted in this film are some of the most repellent screen characters in recent memory.

Much credit must go to Nate Parker in his multiple capacities as writer, director, and actor. The location filming and, especially, the lighting design effectively recreated the historical period. The ensemble cast was also stellar.

Some viewers (and historians) might object to the film's one-dimensional religious motivation for the Turner revolt. Still, the film provided an unforgettable portrait of an important part of our history. This was a film that had to be made. And it would be difficult to improve upon Nate Parker's effort.

Competently made, but rather safe and predictable

[Marx_Bros_Fan86 · 6/10 · 10 October 2016]

Nate Parker's Birth of a Nation made headlines at the Sundance Film Festival, but now that it's been released to the public it is getting a mixed, although mostly positive reception. I don't believe this is purely due to Parker's rape controversy. While Parker's retelling of Nat Turner's infamous slave rebellion has some emotional and powerful moments, it is ultimately a pretty routine slave movie. I don't know why it got such rave reviews at Sundance.

Parker took the title of D.W. Griffith's landmark and appallingly racist silent film for his directorial debut movie, and it serves as a rebuke to the racial stereotypes promoted by that film (that plague us to this day, I might add). Parker plays Nathaniel (Nat) Turner, a slave on the Turner plantation. The wife of Nat Turner's owner takes a liking to him and teaches him to read the bible. Eventually Turner begins to preach to the slaves on the plantation. Soon, the Turner family sees a potential financial opportunity in Nat's talent and they rent him out to other slave owners to preach obedience and good servitude to slaves. Nat is uncomfortable with this new role, and as he witnesses more and more atrocities on the plantation, including the rape and beating of his wife, Cherry, he decides to start a violent rebellion.

Nate Parker gives a good performance and all of the key scenes are directed pretty effectively. I thought his relationship with his owner was interesting as it was of the more paternal relationship for most of the film. The owner, played by Arnie Hammer, wasn't a one- dimensional monster. A worse director might have gone down that safe route. To the film's credit, despite the heavy subject matter, it didn't bombard you with overly emotional, depressing scenes every five minutes, which you would think a movie about a slave rebellion would do.

And yet, despite these welcome decisions by Parker, the movie does rely too much on common story telling tropes that we have seen since Glory. From the whipping scenes to the rape scenes, they've all been done before. As a revenge movie, the fictional Django Unchained had more edge. As a movie about a repressed people fighting for freedom, I don't think this movie went anywhere that we haven't seen before. This story, to me, never really gets that interesting.

The film would have been better if it had just stuck to the actual historical narrative. By all accounts, the rape of Cherry Turner didn't happen. There is no evidence that the rebellion was sparked by a particular act of brutality. Nat Turner decided to start a violent rebellion because he believed slavery was immoral and against the laws of God – it was as simple as that. He believed he received messages from God telling him that a race war was on the horizon and he was destined to lead it. As Leslie Alexander wrote in The Nation, slaves didn't need to endure rapes and beatings to violently rebel, just the mere fact of being a slave was enough (I'm paraphrasing here). This would have made for a much more morally complex and interesting film. Relying on rape scenes to spark rebellions is just clichéd at this point (Braveheart anyone?)

Relying on the historical narrative also would have done wonders for the character of Nat Turner, who is a pretty bland, generic hero. Grappling with the idea that Turner might be a religious maniac would have really given us something to think about. I think Parker was afraid to handle the subject matter in this way though. Parker clearly wanted to make a movie with a relevant message for the problems that black people face today. Some of the dialogue could have been taken directly from a Black Lives Matter protest. I'm not sure how successful he was in tying this movie to contemporary events though. I'm not sure what message he wanted to give other than "fight the good fight against oppression," as I don't believe Parker wants the BLM movement to take up arms against the U.S. government. For a movie about current problems facing the black community, watch the Netflix documentary 13th.

The Birth of a Nation is a competently made drama about an important event in American history and that's really the best thing I can say about it. Not great, but not bad.

Nate Parker's Ambitious Debut Chained to Conventionality

[yeayea-36102 · 4/10 · 28 January 2016]

Freshman Director Nate Parker creates a picture that is seemingly inspired by Best Picture winners such as Braveheart, Schindlers List and 12 Years of Slave, but produces a conventionally formulaic film lacking aesthetic cohesion, pacing, and subtlety.

The Birth of a Nation (2016) isn't a remake or reboot of D.W. Griffith's controversial and widely regarded groundbreaking masterpiece, but is instead Nate Parker's seemingly ambitious directorial debut-- a true story revenge tale about Nate Turner, an African American slave, referred to as "Prophet" by his followers, who led a Slave rebellion comprised of slaves and free blacks in Virginia in 1831, approximately 33 years before the Congressional passage of the 13th amendment and abolishment of slavery in all States. After a series of religious visions and certain atmospheric conditions, Nate Turner believed he was tasked by God to begin an uprising, his goal was to awaken the attitudes of whites to the reality of the inherent brutality in slave-holding and to spread terror and alarm amongst whites-- the rebellion did not discriminate by age or sex, until it was determined that the rebellion had achieved sufficient numbers.

Turner certainly accomplished that, but one could say in vain. The rebellion left around 60 dead white's- including many defenseless women and children-- and resulted in the state executing 56 blacks suspected of having been involved in the uprising. And unfortunately in the hysteria of aroused fears and anger in the days after the revolt, white militias and mobs killed an estimated 200 blacks, many of whom had nothing to do with the rebellion.

The fear caused by Nat Turner's insurrection and the concerns raised in the emancipation debates that followed resulted in politicians and writers responding by defining slavery as a "positive good". Across Virginia and other southern states, state legislators passed new laws to control slaves and free blacks. They prohibited education of slaves and free blacks, restricted the rights of assembly for free blacks, withdrew their right to bear arms and voting, and required white ministers to be present at all black worship services. So one could definitely say the revolt was ultimately an utter failure.

The story about Nate Turner has been something of a passion project for Freshman director Nate Parker, who-- for all intents and purposes-- had full creative authority on this production as the writer, director, producer and lead actor. In what is the most violent slave revolt in U.S history it definitely is a story worth telling on screen, but one better told accurately; and as far as violence is concerned Parker delivers a solid account in its depiction. But Parker certainly cherry picks his character development aspects and plays down Nate Turner's religious zeal and tries to show the rebellion as a success and skips showing us the post revolt brutality instead strangely delegating that duty to the end credits.

The washed out aesthetic to the cinematography looks cheap, and is accompanied by a soaring score that oftentimes is overbearing. Despite the beautiful Georgia landscapes and a few great shots, Elliot Davis mostly delivers conventional cinematography, instead of showing the dramatic material in a visually arresting way, wasting great opportunities to be a character in and of itself.

The dialogue is a bit cheesy and unconvincing. This includes a routine sentimentalism that keeps the movie grounded in a series of conventional beats. Turner's stump speech feels especially heavy-handed.

The weakest aspect is the pacing. Unfortunately there's a conventionality to the somewhat mediocre and predictable storytelling that remains monotonous throughout. Parker plays it a bit too safe, and wastes many opportunities to build narrative momentum.

Aside from Nate Turner the characters just feel a bit thin and underdeveloped and to some extent unbelievable. Parker fails to sell us on Turner's visions. The best aspect of this film is Nate Parker's solid performance but the rest of the cast delivers unmemorable performances with most filling stock roles.

All in all the delivery of the film seems a bit too heavy handed to seriously be considered a great film. It's like The Patriot or The Alamo more than Braveheart or Schindler's list in that sense. Nate Parker takes a great story but fails to deliver a memorable picture by using conventional storytelling methods in a bid to drive home an agenda that'll launch a debate instead of delivering a masterpiece to be remembered for decades. This film could have really been something amazing had a better filmmaker (less afraid to take risks) taken the reigns.

The rebellion that was forgotten will now be remembered forever.

[ajscarpino · 9/10 · 28 February 2016]

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.

The Birth of a Nation (2016)

[rockman182 · 7/10 · 21 December 2016]

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

A disappointment

[ofumalow · 5/10 · 4 October 2016]

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.

Worth seeing for its timeliness and performances.

[JohnDeSando · 6 October 2016]

"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.

Thank you Nate Parker for making your first movie about Nat Turner (cause no one else would have)

[subxerogravity · 6/10 · 8 October 2016]

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!

Not enough to give a recommendation

[bankofmarquis · 6/10 · 11 October 2016]

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)

Deep and dark truth.

[tomfunke-24930 · 7/10 · 7 January 2017]

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.

Book and non-violence versus weapon and upraising.

[Reno-Rangan · 7/10 · 14 March 2017]

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

An enthralling directorial debut

[dalente · 8/10 · 12 February 2016]

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.

Not your D.W. Griffith's version of things.

[Quietb-1 · 6/10 · 13 November 2016]

Here is an ambitious attempt to tell an important story. Nate Parker gets all the credit and most of the credits. It's the story of Nat Turner, a literate slave, preacher and leader of a rebellion.

The first ten minutes is outstanding story telling. After that nothing is subtle. The movie feels a bit long but that happens with the written and directed by syndrome. A movie that doesn't need or have much dialogue seems dialogue driven until the last half hour.

Nate Parker gives an award worthy performance. The supporting performances all work effectively. There isn't much of a score but what is there is unique and interesting.

The movie looks good on the big screen but it will play well on home platforms. The level of violence may put off some but it's a slave revolt not Mary Poppins. See it.

Over-hyped much?

[FilmPhanatic88 · 4/10 · 7 October 2016]

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.

An unflinching telling of history, the Sundance breakout of 2016

[cinemacy · 9/10 · 26 January 2016]

The title, 'The Birth of a Nation', is a reclaiming of the same title associated with the 1915 D.W. Griffith silent film. Griffith's movie was the first epic of its kind but is a blatant and spooky glorification of the Klu Klux Klan from today's lens. It's been a blemish that can't be concealed in cinematic history since its release. Nate Parker's story repurposes the title as a symbol of how this country was built on the backbones of enslaved Africans and their unavoidable connection to a country founded on the pursuit of freedom. It's a brilliant way to shelve Griffith's film, which is an important movie for historical and cinematic study but like the Confederate Flag has no place in today's world. Parker's 2016 film most certainly does. Turner was born a slave but early on was unusually taught to read from the Bible, and would grow up to become a preacher. Through studying the Bible while living in the midst of slavery (which as Parker put it, "allowed nobody to go to sleep without a guilty conscience"), Turner reaches a point where he can no longer stay silent about the cruel injustice that, in this world, is a daily routine. At a certain point, he is tired of the slave owners abusing scripture passages to make their slaves submissive and moves toward radical action as the only path to freedom. One area where Parker shines is his depiction of the women in this world. I would advocate for calling this a feminist piece, which will get overlooked given its a movie where race is the forefront of the conversation. A slew of strong women play pivotal roles in the cast: Turner's grandmother, mother, eventual wife, along with Mistress Turner, the white baroness of the plantation Nat lives on (Aunjanue Ellis, Aja Naomi King, and Penelope Ann Miller). Multiple other women are essential to the story as well. These women play a massive role in his life and are never reduced to bit roles. It's a rarity for a male director to make so much room for prominent female roles (not to mention especially in a historical film). Overall, 'The Birth of a Nation' strikes a chord that the industry needs to feel right now and that the audience will experience upon its release. In the wake of #OscarsSoWhite and the lack of media representation, Parker's unflinching telling of history invites the public to experience a part of this nation's formation and legacy that may not be well known to the general public, and as Paker emphasizes, reflect on why it matters today.

An attempt at being an American Braveheart, but misses the spot.

[SpoilerAlertReviews · 6/10 · 14 December 2016]

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

A Mediocre Semi-Accurate Historical Film

[DontHolocostMe · 1/10 · 9 October 2016]

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!