OH,please, if you think his film was bad, then you have NOT seen enough bad films,flat-out. Like the previous poster said, this is simply a look at a day in the life of regular working class folks living their lives. Redeeming values---hello, how about the scene where one employee talks the other out of robbing the place? If that wasn't a teachable moment, I don't know what the hell is. Talk about redeeming values---well, what damn redeeming values do these so-called fake-as-hell reality T.V. shows have? I mean, one of the cast on JERSEY SHORE got drunk,pregnant and gave birth,THE REAL HOUSEWIVES shows have nothing but rich b*****s who flaunt their material *beep* and these damn Kardashians,whose only claim to fame is that one of them made a sex tape and they're filthy rich white chicks who love them some black men?? I could say the same for garbage like SOUTH PARK and that whole Jackass series.
At least it wasn't your tired-a$$ stereotypical hood flick---it shows black folks as everyday,normal people doing everyday things--which we are,BTW. It's also a reminder that Hollywood had no problem making films about black people all the time because it was making them money--plus it was back them something new, fresh and different. Not like nowadays where the attitude is, "Oh, we don't make black films because they don't make any money," despite the fact that they only make a handful of black films a year, and barely even that. The most recent major studio black film, THINK LIKE A MAN, made 30 million or more at the box office, but I don't see Hollywood scrambling to make the sequel.
I also think Michael Schultz is one of the most underrated directors from that era--he always made movies that showed positive,but realistic portraits of black people, and he did this on a consistent basis. Plus he's still around working today----there's an interview and chapter about him in this book called BLACK DIRECTORS. He's rarely mentioned when the names of directors from the '70's come up, but practically everybody has seen at least some of his films--COOLEY HIGH,THE LAST DRAGON, KRUSH GROOVE,WOMAN,THOU ART LOOSED (I think that's what it's called.) He's long overdue for a retrospective,for real.
It isn't the message that I was referring to. The message is fine. No problems there. As far as the art of movie making goes, it is a total disaster. Schulz might be underrated for a good reason. Cheers.
"Enough"? What does it mean to not have seen enough bad films? Why would one want to see more bad films than they already have?