Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Not even bad in a good way

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

This film is low-budget and cringe-worthy in its lack of subtlety and realism.But worse than those flaws is the skewed narrative on which a hardened mass murderer who went to his grave refusing to admit to his multiple murders is painted as a Nelson Mandela-like figure.The film departs from reality so much that it must be seen for what it is: historical revisionism with a heavy dose of Evil Whitey.That the film has the gall to present multiple cold-blooded murders (including the shotgun killing of a family for some cash) as "internalised racism" is infuriating.The murders are brushed over and barely mentioned, the actual details of which paint a very different picture of the man.Stan "Tookie" Williams went to his grave refusing to actually redeem himself and confess to his murders, he refused to help police by giving insight into the Crips, he continued to associate with Crips in prison.I cannot even relate to the level of naivete required to buy this narrative.I would urge anyone to read about Tookee's crimes, racial hatred and appeals based upon racist treatment from juries.The only reason I would watch this movie again is to tally up how many scenes have an over-the-top hate-filled white guy making poor Tookee's prison life difficult.Shame on the Nobel committee. I do not blame Jamie Foxx, he was early in his career and was probably desperate for a role. He was actually great but the character was intolerable.

This movie should be viewed by anyone who has been in trouble with the law; especially young, school aged children who are susceptible to joining gangs. It proves that rehabilitation is possible, in spite of what the media reports. Jamie Foxx gives an outstanding performance as Williams and Lynn Whitfield plays a superb leading lady. The movie was done in good taste and did not glorify gang life. Instead it offers a perspective that could, finally, explain why gangs exist and what can be done to eliminate them. Profanity was kept to a minimum and so was the bloodshed which is a huge achievement in this day and age of extreme graphics. Redemption should be viewed in every grade, middle, and high school in America.

I'm a resident of the bay area and I'm I was in the East Crip life for about 4 years since I was 13. I have recently been jumped out. This movie to me shows how flawed the justice system is. Anyone who has ever gone to court know that the death penalty is only for those who can not be rehabilitated but Tookie was rehabilitated and also help make me realize that things that I have done were wrong and people didn't deserve what I did to them. He helped me get out of the gang but now that hes been executed I have been jumped back in and have helped bust on the bloods and scraps. Yall all messed up for executing him. You will see what happens

This is not the movie I thought I'd see tonight, but…Even when I didn't want to, for the first time in a while, I doubted the intentions of a film. Doubting is not a negative thing, though, but it is in a lot of ways related to disappointment. "Redemption" is a well made TV film, and it has lots of elements that don't make it disappointing I will talk about, but again; the intentions. To explain the intentions I have to take myself back to the film itself, but I won't do that. When I refer to intentions I mean what the piece tries to generate on the viewer. This is stronger when the film is based in biographical or true events, as this feature. I don't know how much of exactitude this has with Stan Williams' life, but if you are trying to reach someone with something that actually happened, you have to keep it real.Many parts in "Redemption" were unconvincing to me. I would like to research about "Tookie" Williams, the Crips, the Nobel Prize nominations…I would like to read biographies, the books he wrote…I would like to find out about who he was, what he did, how he did it; knowing that this is likely impossible, and having just seen a movie that should have explained it all. I wonder if it is possible for a man with no culture or education, having been a gangster half of his life, to learn the most difficult words, write with a capacity enough to be awarded, think philosophically and profoundly, and literally become a wise-ass just because of being locked up and having none other thing to do.The story, despite having occurred in real life, follows common plot lines used in most of movies of the type today. The journalist who wants to write about a prisoner, and first thinks of it just like a job and as a chance of expressing herself, but eventually after getting to know the man behind bars, gets to involved with him and his thoughts, which might be dangerous for her life, etcetera. This is just the general overview, because the film covers different aspects, with flashbacks of Williams' (Jamie Foxx) past, situations in the journalist Barbara Becnel's (Lynn Whitfield) personal life, a glance at the society.With all this the movie still seems unfinished. First, the movie introduces Williams as a leader and violent individual destined for prison. Then, when he ends up in prison, eventually isolates from the world, reads the definition of the word "redemption" out loud and meets Barbara Becnel, J.T Allen's screenplay presents him as something similar to a Buddha; with glasses, a long haircut that inspires peace and expressions that in occasions out limit the journalist's knowledge. The screenplay also contains phrases that don't seem honest, but convenient and intends that we think, for example, that Williams has one powerful talk with his mom almost at the end of the film, when supposedly she has been visiting the man for years. This does not mean the scrip is flawed but that of course, it is manipulative and not many will buy that.Vondie Curtis-Hall's direction is way too noticeable for a TV feature. He is not fond of the still shots I witnessed constantly during "Everyday People". He prefers the constant movement, and expresses this during the whole movie, where a shot doesn't stay still during more than ten seconds. He puts the audience to think too, in a lot of instances. Consider the movie's most interesting scene, when Stan is working out and suddenly has a dream…I don't know if Williams ever dreamed that or something similar, but Curtis-Hall made me meditate about it. The director's work isn't disappointing and neither is the main actors'. Lynn Whitfield left me speechless. Besides her eyes being full of expression, almost about to cry and her power in the most stirring scenes, she reminded me of a live person I know. Her face, her ways, made me think of this person in the future.Blame me, but this is just the fourth time I've regarded Foxx's work. I first saw him in the underestimated "Shade" and thought he overacted; then I watched "Collateral" and I was truly amazed by his gifts; and before this film, I was taken to the past, where in Ice Cube's "The Players Club" he seemed like a relaxed and natural actor. However it was last year when he became word everywhere. "Ray" is a movie I must see, but then here he looked a lot different than in "Collateral", and he achieved a different performance.Here, the softness in his voice remained, but it was the manners of this more certain and confident man and the strength of this fighter that marked this portrayal. I think the industry may have rushed with him, and that we need to see what he does next. I hope he isn't just an actor who chose some right roles but then looked the other way. He recently starred in a science fiction film alongside Jessica Biel. He'll have to prove the talent to me in a movie like that, I mean; Halle Berry got it for "Monster's Ball", but look where she stands now.