I thought it was an excellent movie. I also saw it in the theater, and I was reminded of how much better an experience it is to see a big movie on the big screen. Hopefully, we can return to those days in the near future.
The performances were first rate. Kaluuya as Fred Hampton, was powerful and very real. I found myself getting emotional during the rally scenes. Stanfield as O'Neil was understated, but equally as good. You could feel his emotional conflict. Your point about the fact that Hampton was only 21 and O'Neil was just 17 struck me as well. This didn't come through on screen as much as it should have because both actors are pushing 30. Imagine if they could have found 21 and 17 year old actors that could have handled the magnitude of these roles. ...
I strongly recommend this film to everyone.
To your discussion points:
- The Black Panther movement was multifaceted. It was an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's; where a younger generation of African Americans were embracing self-help and self-determination, mixed in with a rebellion against the non-violent protest tactics associated with the Civil Rights movement. It was more of a "we may not start the fight, but if you come at us, we will fight back by any means necessary." This attracted an interesting mix of people. The movement faded over time for a number of reasons. (1) it was made up of younger people that didn't have the wherewithal to keep the complex mix of social services alive, (2) because of some of its violent rhetoric, it never captured the heart and soul of mainstream African American society, (3) as shown in the movie, it faced an aggressive crack down by Federal and local law enforcement where many of it's leaders were jailed around the country
- I don't know if Mitchell was a real person or not. I viewed him as a stand-in for the changing attitude of the FBI. Hoover firmly believed that the Civil Rights movement was a threat to America (it has been said that he only engaged the FBI in the Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner murders -referenced in the move- because of pressure from LBJ) . So, he spied on MLK and Malcom X and others, and worked to dissuade the movement. By the early 70's, those tactics were becoming out of favor.
- It's been awhile since I've seen "Malcom X." That movie had a powerful performance by Denzel Washington (at the time I thought it was Oscar Worthy). If I remember right, it was also 3 hours long. So, it was able to give full picture of Malcom's life. Judas and the Messiah was not a movie about Fred Hampton's life. It was a movie about a snapshot in the lives of two characters that had life altering consequences for both characters. Overall, I would rate Judas as the better film. Spike Lee's movie was somewhat self-indulgent (ie, casting himself in a meaningless role); whereas Judas was a very tight movie
- Besides the movies you listed - Sidney Poitier made a movie in the 60's called "A Patch of Blue". It doesn't get the attention it deserves...."New Jack City" is a cult classic drug crime movie that touches on some of the themes. If you want to see another good Denzel movie from his prime, I suggest "Mo' Better Blues," it's a Spike Lee film about a jazz musician...TV: "OJ made in America" is an excellent documentary that uses the OJ trial to highlight racial divisions in America.....and of course "The Wire."
- Agree, the title was fitting....but my take on O'Neil is less harsh. As you said, he was only 17 at the time, a kid. Spoiler Alert: Remember he was arrested for grand theft auto and impersonating an FBI agent. He was facing major prison time. The FBI used that to get him to be an informant/spy. He tried to get out at least one time in the movie, but the FBI told him he would go to jail for his past crimes...That's typically how the FBI would get someone to cooperate - he was in a compromised position. The film did a good job of capturing the conflict that he was in. Like Judas in the Bible, O'Neil was compensated for his efforts, but you could feel his guilt
I thought it was an excellent movie. I also saw it in the theater, and I was reminded of how much better an experience it is to see a big movie on the big screen. Hopefully, we can return to those days in the near future.
The performances were first rate. Kaluuya as Fred Hampton, was powerful and very real. I found myself getting emotional during the rally scenes. Stanfield as O'Neil was understated, but equally as good. You could feel his emotional conflict. Your point about the fact that Hampton was only 21 and O'Neil was just 17 struck me as well. This didn't come through on screen as much as it should have because both actors are pushing 30. Imagine if they could have found 21 and 17 year old actors that could have handled the magnitude of these roles. ...
I strongly recommend this film to everyone.
To your discussion points:
- The Black Panther movement was multifaceted. It was an offshoot of the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's; where a younger generation of African Americans were embracing self-help and self-determination, mixed in with a rebellion against the non-violent protest tactics associated with the Civil Rights movement. It was more of a "we may not start the fight, but if you come at us, we will fight back by any means necessary." This attracted an interesting mix of people. The movement faded over time for a number of reasons. (1) it was made up of younger people that didn't have the wherewithal to keep the complex mix of social services alive, (2) because of some of its violent rhetoric, it never captured the heart and soul of mainstream African American society, (3) as shown in the movie, it faced an aggressive crack down by Federal and local law enforcement where many of it's leaders were jailed around the country
- I don't know if Mitchell was a real person or not. I viewed him as a stand-in for the changing attitude of the FBI. Hoover firmly believed that the Civil Rights movement was a threat to America (it has been said that he only engaged the FBI in the Chaney, Goodman, Schwerner murders -referenced in the move- because of pressure from LBJ) . So, he spied on MLK and Malcom X and others, and worked to dissuade the movement. By the early 70's, those tactics were becoming out of favor.
- It's been awhile since I've seen "Malcom X." That movie had a powerful performance by Denzel Washington (at the time I thought it was Oscar Worthy). If I remember right, it was also 3 hours long. So, it was able to give full picture of Malcom's life. Judas and the Messiah was not a movie about Fred Hampton's life. It was a movie about a snapshot in the lives of two characters that had life altering consequences for both characters. Overall, I would rate Judas as the better film. Spike Lee's movie was somewhat self-indulgent (ie, casting himself in a meaningless role); whereas Judas was a very tight movie
- Besides the movies you listed - Sidney Poitier made a movie in the 60's called "A Patch of Blue". It doesn't get the attention it deserves...."New Jack City" is a cult classic drug crime movie that touches on some of the themes. If you want to see another good Denzel movie from his prime, I suggest "Mo' Better Blues," it's a Spike Lee film about a jazz musician...TV: "OJ made in America" is an excellent documentary that uses the OJ trial to highlight racial divisions in America.....and of course "The Wire."
- Agree, the title was fitting....but my take on O'Neil is less harsh. As you said, he was only 17 at the time, a kid. Spoiler Alert: Remember he was arrested for grand theft auto and impersonating an FBI agent. He was facing major prison time. The FBI used that to get him to be an informant/spy. He tried to get out at least one time in the movie, but the FBI told him he would go to jail for his past crimes...That's typically how the FBI would get someone to cooperate - he was in a compromised position. The film did a good job of capturing the conflict that he was in. Like Judas in the Bible, O'Neil was compensated for his efforts, but you could feel his guilt