Too much of everything

Lack of good storyline.

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There are a lot of overrated movies. And this is one of them. But still it is a good movie that almost lived up to the hype. Some movie do not ever get close to the hype Like The Godfather or the The Godfather part II. or The Silences of the lambs. Or The Godfather part III. This a good movie. It is kind of sad. But it did have a good story line. It also had good acting. If you like history dreams this is a good movie to see. PS. to the haters. Women and children are not always so innocent. I am white and have to say the slave owners got exactly what was coming to them. It is a shame there didn't kill more and get way with it.

I cannot understand the hate this movie has received. The mere 6.3 rating (as of June '17) this movie received is far below what it deserves--in my opinion an 8, but a 9/10 would be perfectly understandable. I think it's mighty ironic that switched halfway through the boring Star Trek Beyond (7.1) to watch this riveting drama.Disclaimer: Perhaps it is due to the fact that I am black that I find slave movies fascinating for all the exact reasons I find World War II movies fascinating: the existence of a distinct, clear, and unforgivable evil in our history being shown on screen, as well as the pathos evoked by the victims of such evil. These stories become the ultimate drama, incapable of being considered melodramatic because of the real horror they portray. I like to think that the critical art consumer in me sees past this movie preference and can rate the film objectively.So why does this movie deserve an 8 or 9 out of 10? Excellent acting, a fantastic score, and the unapologetic and accurate brutality depicting a story of unquestionable heroism. Nate Parker becomes Nat Turner, a slave preacher in the 19th century who led a slave revolt. The pacing is excellent, you follow each rise and fall of multiple characters until Turner is pushed over the edge to commit his acts. It's been compared to Braveheart in other reviews (e.g. Matt Seitz at rogerebert.com) and I think that comparison is apt: it's bloody, inspiring, and perhaps too kind to the hero, but not in a way that ruins the movie. All of Turner's actions in this movie really happened, it's just the omissions that make it less than perfect.So this movie would deserve a perfect 10 were it not for some minor historical inaccuracies. For example, Turner's revolt also killed children, and while the slaves are shown killing women, they omitted the killing of kids. They omitted many of his "visions" that may have been signs of his mental illness. His death happened slightly differently. It's hard to think these revisions were done for any other reason than to make him seem flawless. But even those who opposed the violent evil that was slavery should be depicted for who they really were. This brings it down to an 8 for me. The overall movie is mostly accurate and incredibly well-told.I can speculate why this movie was rated poorly, even by those who haven't seen it; I urge those who would rate this movie lowly to please watch it anyway.

The problem is that it is too long. The first hour is too long explaining things we already know. Romance has too much importance for me. I'm not interested in romance as much as the story that will tell us and it takes a long time to get started.The actors, Nate Parker is the worst. He wants to get a lot on the screen. He does not know where to cut himself. At times it is too overrated and comes out too much at some point. The others are all great.The symbols he tries to show, I love these things, he does not manage to carry it out well. It does not convey what it should, you see it and it influences you but it does not overwhelm you.You have a great picture. Get to convey that you are in that moment and gets you into the story.It's set, great. From the cotton fields, the large mansions, the nightlife with fog.The management does not convince me, for all the errors commented and why I do not like how it narrates with the camera. He does not know how to compose and for certain moments would have been very good. He does not know it's long..Spoiler: For example when we see the slaves tied and their teeth are broken, it is quite well achieved, something reconciles you inside. You believe it and it comes to you. However when they are going to whip it, it closes the plane so much and it does not prepare you so that it arrives to you, although you see the whip by the ground, like saying it comes already, but it manages to arrive.The moment the girl leaves with the slave pulling the rope is a moment that would have to be very cruel, but I think she does not know how to pick it up, from the point of view of the camera, the slow camera, which comes very Well, is not well employed, and does not have enough time

Nat Turner (Nate Parker) grew up a slave in Virginia. It was better than most slaves and he was taught to read the bible by Elizabeth Turner. His father ran away after killing a slave catcher. Raymond Cobb (Jackie Earle Haley) is one of those evil slave catchers. With fears of a slave revolt, Reverend Walthall suggests that the debt-ridden drunk Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) hire out Nat's preaching to soothe other restless plantations. Nat talks Samuel into buying and saving Cherry-Ann. Nat witnesses and experiences countless injustices. When he dares to baptize a white man, he is whipped. Finally, he organizes a slave revolt.This is competently made. It is sincere but it doesn't have that extra something to put it over the top. Nate Parker is a good actor but Nat Turner is a passive character for the first half of the movie. He could have made more with the religious aspect. That would be a different angle to get at this subject matter. Whatever it is, the movie needs a new spin to angle this shot.