OCACIA-1

The Corporation-- seen it, End of Poverty --Seen it. Inside Job--seen it This social conscious genre is starting to all having in the same exact people saying the same exact things done the same exact tired way. Even the cover art is like the Corporation. How many more films on Sub-prime immorality?

The Voice over and the script for the narration is solid but let down by the format. And the same face contribute very little to the story to make this unique. The best themes seem under explored. The old ones over explored (again).

Someone said it was shot on a budget, but you do not need much money to shoot talking heads on a black background. How many times will this try cookie cutter filmmaking format visit us?

Let me start by saying, one thing about Somali people is they are know for being very handsome. I leave it there. And we get to see the Western take on poor Africa crop up in the politics of this film. I mean these 4 little boys against the Entire US army/military and Seals and one Capitalist ship that did not contain any food for Africa, only products made from African raw materials that our silly leaders buy.(off topic) people in the West don't like those kind of films.

This film only needed to be 15 minutes long. And even then the story is so weak and without any real tension. Those baby pirates are scary like Santa Claus. Where are the Real Bad Boys? 1/2 the film is in some life boat.

What I am confused about is the rating, and the hype from the critics. I think they buy them off, because we did not see the same film. No way we did just watch 4 little pirates vs the US whatever in a little yellow boat and said it was "Amazing", "Thrilling", edge of my seat--not.

I wonder if Hollywood would be interested in my script which features all the pirate ships that actually get paid and America loses?

Seen some really bad write ups on this film. Everyone is a Wold expert these days. But after seeing The Grey (Liam) I did some research and Wolves are not Pussies. Those puppies are pretty mean. I think human beings think we are more than meat on bone so we think the animal kingdom exempts us from lunch on the bases of our "humanity"--not so.

I mean is this film realistic. Obviously not. But I gave it a 7 because compared to the garbage I have seen in 2012 and 2013 the film is not that bad. Maybe 6/10 is more realistic.

And in fairness how are you going to get a 3 person + wolves film moving without some unrealistic stuff happening? Then people would complain how boring it was. so which one? Realistic or fiction?

The end was too rushed. too easy almost. Wham bam and it ended. Like if they had another film to make. It is not the worse.

confusion, disconnected, junk. Very upset with Fincher. Those stories of the two characters remained separate for so long they might as well have made two different films and split the change. Just tell one story or the other. Do not care for the book because I didn't pay money to see the book, I paid money for the film.

It would be better to betray the book and make something worth seeing, other than a 3 hour Apple advert, than try to copy a good book and mess it up.

Sex comes out of the blue, as expected in Hollywood. And let us not discuss the ending that would not end, except started to mutate into another film. Sometimes you look back on the Rambo/Die Hard endings and miss the old days. Blow it up - Roll the credits. finito.

The film was weak the minute it started. The script is sub-standard. It is not the fault of the book (guessing as I have not read it), but the fault of the script writer. It has in so many redundant scenes that serve no purpose at all in constructing the narrative. The prolix debates about religion have no serious connection to the story. They serve absolutely no purpose. The church scene, the issues around Jesus, poorly written, poorly introduced into the narrative. Very unrefined in transmitting a spiritual message. It is certainly not deep, and they had a million ways to introduce the multi-religious themes.

The ship cafeteria vegetarian scene why was it there? The Japanese guy talking about his dish, why was it there? The scene when his father teaches him about the Tigers ways made perfect sense to the narrative.

So after all of that redundant time wasting we get into the meat of the film. Which was okay. Hardly original, You seen Tom Hanks you seen Avatar fuse them together. Tom Hanks on Avatar Island.

Some of the music, esp in the opening did not gel at all. I was shocked by the opening title credits it was absolute devoid of impact. It was like we do not know what to do, let us do something.

And even after making head way they had to go an spoil everything with yet another redundant anti-mood scene in the hospital with anew story. His mother being eaten by sharks, I am like? Why? what did that entire redundant scene tell us? What for. Leave it as it is, the family comes home the titles come up. Weak story telling, Weak subtext, weak editing, weak directing, nice CGI, some nice tension. not well stitched together, maybe for kids.

500 Years Later is more than a film but rather a transcontinental discussion between some the greatest and most articulate thinkers of the African global nation. The film deals with the position of the African Diaspora 500 years after the forced migration of Africans from the continent. The sensitive direction of Director Owen 'Alik Shahadah and perceptively of Writer M.K. Asante Jr., get to the crux of the problems that continue to affect the melanin race of people despite their background or national affiliation.

Interspersed between the learned words of cultural activist Dr. Maulana Karenga (Founder of Kwanzaa), Writer Dr. Francis Cress Welsing (Isis papers), Dr. Molefi K Asante (Father of "Afrocentrity"), Andrew Muhammad (Author "Hidden history), among others, are conversations with laypeople who reflect the conflicts of racial inequalities in their own lives. The film is tied together by an array of images from the coast of West Africa, to the city pulse of London, to the shores of Barbados and the environs of America with haunting melodies by composer Tunde Jegede that pluck at heartstrings and sing the audience into a realization of their past and present self.

"500 Years Later" is not a film to be watched twice, three, or even five times, instead it is a timely audiovisual reference book that illuminates the challenges of continental Africans and that of the Diaspora. The poignant symbology that separates the chapters and the clear messages from the cast reveals new information with every frame making it a film as relevant as a dictionary on global Pan-African thought. "500 Years Later" is a work of courage that should be instituted in schools, churches and community centers urging leaders and children to play a more active role in the growth of a stable foundation for future generations to stand.

The film goes past explaining the problems of people by incorporating within it a glimpse of hope into the future. It is an apt dialogue between laymen, scholars and philosophers about the similarities of experience born from a segregated and demoralized kind of man. '500 Years Later' serves not only as a healthy reminder of the strength of the global African but also a caution against the defeatist nature that has sunk beneath the barrier of skin. A quandary that can only be erased with time, patience and education, ensuring a stronger kind and race of Human that will transcend the definition of color and nationality and ultimately embrace the beauty of differences and learn from the undiluted knowledge of ancestors.