why rating so low


Are 4.9 score is based from original? We know the original one is racist althought we know as one of the greatest silent film. But compare the new one with the old is very childish I think, because this new is not racist, but based on the original one, not like old version. I wonder if this movie have won or nominated by academy, it will be one of the lowest rating on IMDb who nominated for best picture. And we know who will blame for this. I mean "come on, people! It is just based on" sorry if I'm wrong!

reply

Because the director/star is a rapist who should be in prison.

reply

Childish answer

reply

So because you can't accept a persons answer it makes it a childish answer? You are the childish one here Matt_Dammit.

Drive is pure cinema.

reply

answer with logic and reasoning! if so please give 3-5 reasons with details on each reason.! or up to you but with details on each reason! I think you don't! I can accept anything answer, but please answer with details in every reason! Not like that..!

See jjvz1989-224-63907 Answers, I want answer like that! no matter he/she agree or disagree with me!

reply

See jjvz1989-224-63907 Answers, I want answer like that! no matter he agree or disagree with me!

reply

If the answer above is accurate - the rating number is so low because people are giving artificially low numbers based on the behavior and history of one of the filmmakers - then it is not a childish answer. It is a true one.

If the answer is inaccurate, then the answer is not childish. It's just wrong.

What you seem to be saying is that it is childish to rate a movie based on the past behavior/actions of its filmmakers/participants. And while I'm not sure that I'd call this "childish", I do agree it is wrong and not in the spirit of rating a movie.

reply

What???

"Because the director/star is a rapist who should be in prison." Is a VERY childish sentence (period!)

It's an assumption, as if the person who wrote it is judge and jury in the trial of the man in question - who has already been tried and found not guilty.

There are many ways to convey your dislike of N. Parker (based on hearsay, I suppose). But why would anyone want to defend that sentence and say it's NOT childish?

"Because people believe he's a rapist and give the film bad reviews"
"Because I believe the director is a rapist, and I'm not going to see the film for that reason"
"Because... Pretty much every sentence that starts with Because... would have been LESS childish.

Grow up people!

reply

Have you read the court documents, have you seen the reason for his eventual acquittal. Do you feel that the jury in question had erred. It is unfortunate that the lady in question susequently committed suicide, the one thing that is clear is that he has shown remorse for his past irrespective of whether it was consensual or not. I feel that the picture itself is unfairly and harshly judged for the past of the director. If you don't want to be hypocritcal, I suggest you start downvoting Roman Polanski films (arguably the greatest director and is wanted for sexual crimes committed in the 70s), Matthew Broderick films (unintentionally killed another human being), Mark Wahlburg films (he almost beat a man to death, left him crippled) and Mickey Rourke films (beat his spouse). That is just the beginning of the list and solely kept to film itself, if you were to raid your cd collection, chances are you will find many more that have either been convicted or accused of many crimes not even to speak about the majority of athletes.

In essence, the man was not convicted and in America, that meant 12 individual people interpreted evidence as to point to the contrary. Again we don't know what hapenned that evening, I have trouble finding the court documents on the internet so I cannot interpret it. The fact that the lady in question committed suicide does not neccesarily mean that justice was not served that day, she committed suicide almost a decade later. We do not know her true reasons and neither does her family. We are merely speculating and the media is exploiting this to their advantage. He has been acquitted and unless you have read the court case and feel the contrary, don't make throwaway comments and don't judge people. It is difficult for me to even speak about it in such a manner as I know that I will be judged. Why I take this stance I have seen many people being falsely accused of something they never did and I saw the way society treated them. It does not matter how many times, you proclaim your innocence , they already judged and you can imagine the dilemma regarding an apology. An apology will mean that you admit to something you may not have done.

reply

I have now found a website claiming to have am summary of over 100 pages of legal papers. you can find the link here, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html?via=newsletter&source=DDAfternoon. I have read through everything and I have my theory.

reply

I see no reason to lump in Matthew Broderick. The key word in your description of what happened is "unintentional". Not even negligent, he wasn't drunk or anything, just unintentional. As in it could have happened to anybody.

But yes, I do avoid movies from the others you mentioned. I don't know enough about Parker to pass judgement on him, but I wasn't going to watch this movie until I saw some legit reviews on it and heard back from others who actually watched it anyway.

reply

To become drunk or high and then proceed to drive is reckless. To get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle in another country that drives on the other side of the road and then drive in the wrong side of the road is negligent. The unintentional unlawful killing of another human being is still a crime (culpable homicide in some countries). To only pay 175 dollars is simply riduculous. Lets be honest with each other if someone was to come up to you and state that their mother and sister was killed in a car crash by a foreigner, who drove on the wrong side of the road, and all he got was a fine, you would be disgusted in the American justice system. This was 1987 Beuller fever was running high and as a result nothing too bad happened to him. He did not even show up to meet a surviving family member.

reply

But kudos to you, we might not agree on Broderick and that is fine. At least you are willing to wait for an actual opinion on the film before deciding wether to watch it or not.

reply

Well Said jjvz1989-224-63907! Bravo and I concur completely!!!

reply

That's your personal opinion!

reply

Because the director/star is a rapist who should be in prison.


yes.

reply

[deleted]

So Nate Parker is falsely accused of rape, then is found innocent, and for THIS reason the Morons on IMDB rated his film low.

SMDH...

reply

And here lies the double standard. Woody Allen is still praised for his work. Roman Polanski, who fled the country because he had sex with a very young girl (13 or 14 I believe) is heralded for his films, and many people felt it was long ago and he should be let back into the country. Woody Allen is married to the adopted child he had sex with. And yet, no one gets up in arms when these directors (both white) make movies. Many white directors have spent no time whatsoever for what they did to women and girls on the casting couch.

The double standard is what is annoying here. Would he get this treatment if he were white? The Daily Mail had an article about old Roman. "In October, a Polish judge denied a request to extradite Polanski to the US - arguing that the request had legal flaws and that the 82-year-old had already served 42 days in jail under a deal with a Los Angeles judge." Wow. He served 42 days for raping a 13 year old girl!

What about such rock greats like...Elvis Presley and Priscilla. How old was she when he got started with her? Why is he not condemned? Gary Lee Lewis? Oliver Lynn (who married a 13 year old Loretta).

Should we forget Brock Turner who was given 6 months in jail for raping an unconscious woman and leaving her half naked body behind a dumpster? The one whose father thought he had been given too much time for only 20 minutes of action and felt his son endured enough by losing sleep, not being able to eat his favorite food (steak)? Double standards. He would have spent a couple decades in prison if he were black.

The court let a 16 year old who killed 4 people with drunk driving off due to the made up illness of "affluenza", coined by his attorney. It was laughable. But the judge though this poor, rich, white boy would suffer enough not having access to the rich toys he was used to. Double standard. What black boys get off for a "poorenza" defense? Double standards.

Look at the director who committed adultery with Kristen Stewart. And who got the brunt of the blame? Kristen Stewart.

And, like it or not, Nat Parker was acquitted. So should he donate all his money to charitable rape causes to appease angry fans? Has Woody? Has Roman?

I looked up the Hollywood Casting Couch, and found an article that featured 12 stars. Corey Feldman was one of them. In an interview with Nightline he said, "I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry … It’s the big secret.” He added, “I was surrounded by [pedophiles] when I was 14 years old … Didn’t even know it. It wasn’t until I was old enough to realize what they were and what they wanted … till I went, Oh, my God. They were everywhere.” Feldman, now in his 40’s, released a memoir in 2013 that detailed the sexual abuse that him and the late actor, Corey Haim experienced as child actors in Hollywood."

Everyone writes off that child stars that grew up to take drugs just couldn't deal with not being popular anymore. Maybe it had more to do with what they endured in order to be in a show or movie?

The victims should always come first. But only with black men? And in this case, a black, acquitted man?

reply

Most intelligent post of the week.

Also I think the low overall rating may have more than a little to do with racism

reply

Agreed.

reply

Also I think the low overall rating may have more than a little to do with racism


In what way?

What is your definition of 'racism' and how does it relate to this film (specifically the low rating)?

reply

Exactly. And America's old fave Jack Nicholson has quite a few shady skeletons in his closet, as well (shared with Roman, and a few others).

reply

That is not what the evidence says..

reply

lol dont act like you care about rapists, why do Woody Allen's movies then have such high ratings? There are literally so many famous people who are rapists but have a blind eye turned to because their fans still adore them, but now you wanna act like this is the reason you're rating this movie so low?

There's a simple answer to the rating, which none of you want to admit: racism.

reply

[deleted]

no because many black movies make lots of money


These are Black COMEDY films, and not historical documentaries.

______
 = 
For More Information, Click On My Profile.
http://in-correct.blogspot.com/

reply

So's Roman Pulanski but most of his films are rated high. And he admitted to raping a 13 year old and then fled the country. He still makes films, highly successful ones, etc.,

So that can't be it unless there's more to it than that?

-Nam



I am on the road less traveled...

reply

Nah, he is innocent and your comment is crap.

HARLEYS R4 YUPPIES
(my bumper sticker)

reply

he was acquitted but I'm not surprised white america finds any way to hide their guilt

reply

I suppose Woody Allen and Roman Polanski should be his cellmates?

reply

Yep, just like Roman Polanski and Gerard Depardeau.....Oh wait...they didn't go to prison so director gets a pass. Smooches!

reply

Good answer!

reply

Because America wants reminders of it's racial past to very much disappear.






No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

reply

Or more realistically, Americans are fed up with being expected to artificially like a film merely for the sake of political correctness.
Having seen the film at an early release last night, I found it to be just as pretentious and cartoonish in its characterizations as I expected it to be. There was nothing that I found to be noteworthy about the story line, perhaps since this same story line has been repeated over and over and over and over. There was nothing terribly creative in the camera work, which was disappointing because the scenery offered so much potential, but it was muted by overused, washed out cinematography. The pacing was tedious, and the sound track was bombastic to the point of distraction. Most notably, nothing made me believe the story. Everything was black and white -- literally. Apart from the main character, everyone else is a two-dimensional stereotype, and even the main character failed to win me over to his vision.
Your comment, however, reveals that you are one of those who thinks any filmmaker pushing a certain agenda should be granted universal applause, and anyone not doing so is a racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. No doubt you are also a fan of the Ghostbusters reboot.

reply

People that have not seen the movie giving it a 1 because if Parker's real life allegations. Has zero to do with the movie

reply

Because they twisted the story to make the guy look like Martin Luther King which is very wrong from the real story. He slaughtered innocent white women and children and got a lot of blacks killed needlessly. Plus they use the title to a famous KKK movie? why would they do that? MLK said the "truth shall set you free" this is far from the truth and just a bunch of bullsheet.

reply

A lot more innocent black women and children were killed during slavery. How do you feel about that?

reply

[deleted]

Two wrongs make a right?

reply

Of course two wrongs don't make a right. But this wasn't about two wrongs. This was about what happens when one race screws over another so bad that the other race finally has enough and will seek revenge along with fighting for their freedom. It is about cause and effect.

So when did they teach you in school what white slave masters and their wives (and often children, too) did to slaves? How many masters raped the black women and girls and by law were allowed to? How many crying children were taken from their mother's arms and sold off? How many hundreds of thousands of slaves or more died aboard the slave ships, their bodies dumped in the ocean (yes, this included women and children, many number in the hundreds of thousands)?

It's easy to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right". But lets suppose YOU are the slave. Your slavery has been for your whole life, day in and day out, toiling in a hot sun, improper clothes, food, housing. Branded and treated and numbered with the livestock. Maybe you came to America aboard a slave ship, lying for months chained to other slaves, packed in like sardines, unable to sit up, stretch, vomiting and defecating in that spot, next to each other, rats on you and all sort of vermin. If you live, you then are sold off on an auction block. Maybe you watch your wife and children sold to different plantations. Maybe you watched your wife and little baby die on that ship. Or as often happened, the babies were thrown overboard to start, or even killed on the march to the ships, which may have been many weeks walking in painful chains. The people running that ship are all white. These are your enemies.

You have been beaten, tortured, maybe mutilated or seen others beaten, tortured, mutilated or murdered for trying to escape. Your parents, siblings, spouses, and children separated and sold off at any point in time. You are enslaved. Powerless. White people having the right to do anything they wanted to you and get away with it. And did. Your whole future is locked up in enslavement to a man. And even if he is a "nice" master, you are under a dictator nevertheless with no ability to live free, pursue a dream or a goal of your own, or raise a family and keep them safe. You are only made to live to toil to make another rich while you remain beaten down, poor, and alone with no hope in sight. This is your reality each and every day of your life from birth to your death. You live in hell. The owner of hell is the plantation master and his family, his whole darned privileged family. All enjoying the fruits of your misery.

And then you see an opportunity for freedom, by someone willing to stand up and fight for it. You know this is a fight to the death, because it is kill or be killed. You have a chance to deal a horrible blow to the people who have made your life a living hell. You feel hatred for these people and all the horrible things they do and represent. You lash out in anger against those who have enslaved, beaten, raped your wife and young daughters and sons (your children). You have seen your children beaten by masters and mistresses. You may even have seen them die at the master's hands. You have had them sold away from you, as if you are not a human with the capability to love your children as much as they love theirs. You cannot fight against your oppressor or go to court.

Is it so hard to see why they would lash out and kill the families of those who have done what they have done to them? How long do you think a society can crush and oppress other people without them finally revolting against those who have taken away their lives utterly and completely? If so you really haven't taken a good hard look at slavery.

We see these types of revolts in all cultures when the one oppressing has finally pushed down hard and long enough. People reach their breaking points. And usually by then, they will be blind with rage and the need to extricate themselves to the point of taking out the enemy COMPLETELY if possible. They know it is kill or be killed. (And exactly why do you think white women were innocent of how the slaves were treated?)

What a joke to intimate it was just a few slave masters that might have been bad (someone else said that before you). That is a farce. Why did we drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were not women and children killed in that effort to stop the war and win? Were not women and children killed during the uprising in the French Revolution? What about the revolt against the Bolsheviks? In what uprising were not women and children killed? Whites know all about killing innocent women and children and babies. Just ask the Native Americans. I guess when they killed white men, women and children that was also a "two wrongs don't make a right"? Should they have stopped before killing a white baby as they watched their own babies murdered at the hands of their enemy? Should they have felt sympathy for the people who were slaughtering them, trying to eliminate them off the face of the earth? Would you in their situation? Native Americans do not celebrate July the 4th or Thanksgiving to this day. They have not forgotten.

The story of Nat Turner to me was a violent reaction over 48 hours in revolt to 400 years of violence at the hands of whites. Read a book, "Black Like Me". It is a true story written by a white journalist, John Griffin, you colored his skin to live in the south as a black man. That might give you an inkling what it might have been like 100 years prior to this book. Because life 100 years later was still atrocious for blacks. And lets not forget lynchings were happening 100 years after the Emancipation of slaves and whites still were getting away with murdering black men, women, and children.

You have got to get past the pablum they teach in school that leaves out the reality of the brutality and horrors of slavery in our country. It was as brutal as what the Nazi's did to the Jews, except for hundreds of years more. We get upset because 60 to 70 whites were killed, including women and children. Were the slaves wrong to do what they did? That is not something I can answer. You have never had to live like this and neither have I. Oppression will make people take actions they would otherwise not have taken. If the slave masters had set the slaves free, would that have happened to them? Doubtful. So who is more to blame? I would have to say it is more accurate to state one wrong (slavery) caused all the wrongs that followed. Including the hundreds of slaves and free blacks who were not involved in the revolt but killed by vigilante white mobs in Virginia and NC. So, a third wrong not making things right.

One post concerning the uprising stated:

"John W. Cromwell in a 1920 article in the Journal of Negro History, “Turner was skinned to supply such souvenirs as purses, his flesh made into grease, and his bones divided as trophies to be handed down as heirlooms.”

reply

Excellent post. Anyone who reads this and doesn't finally understand actually doesn't want to understand - or they do but prefer to pretend not to. They just want to play offense or defense when responding to topics like the one you're addressing. I see it on every forum about so-called "black films" without fail.

reply

After 500 years of virtually every second of American history being race, race, race and more race, the only POSSIBLE way to still be ignorant of that kind of all-consuming obsessiveness is to purposely try not to see and understand it all. That's the only way.






No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

reply

because this new is not racist


WRONG. The new movie is extremely racist because it condones and even praises Turner's involvement in the slaughter of women and children. If Turner wanted to make a statement about how slave owners sometimes mistreated slaves, then why did he choose to kill children who had nothing to do with any violence upon slaves? Someone like Turner who admitted to killing children to create an atmosphere of "terror" is a terrorist and his exploits should NOT be glorified in a movie.

reply

slave owners sometimes mistreated slaves


That right there pretty much tells us what you think of slavery. "Oh, it wasn't so bad!"

reply

slave owners sometimes mistreated slaves

That right there pretty much tells us what you think of slavery. "Oh, it wasn't so bad!"


WRONG. I never said that at all. History is complex and people like you want to oversimplify everything and just use generalizations. You would like all of us to believe that every single slave was beaten mercilessly every morning. That wasn't the case. Some were treated that way but others were not. It's historically inaccurate to ignore the details of slavery and it would be ignorant to fail to acknowledge that house slaves were traditionally treated less violently than field slaves.

It's ridiculous for you to twist my words when I was simply being historically accurate. When you read about slavery during the Roman Empire, do you interpret the historians' accounts as being endorsements of slavery? Of course not. Likewise, you should not jump to conclusions about me.

reply

You would like all of us to believe that every single slave was beaten mercilessly every morning.


And where did I write that?

do you interpret the historians' accounts as being endorsements of slavery?


No. But you're no historian, obviously.

reply

Many people seem to be debating whether or not this movie is racist. What is YOUR definition of 'racist'? And from that definition, how does it reflect/not reflect the reaction to this film?

reply

That's when the people who've actually seen the movie will rate it.

No doubt the racist trolls are coming down hard on this but if it's really a fantastic movie Parker doesn't have anything to worry about.

reply

I agree with you

reply

[deleted]