Rating: 
Summary: Somewhat flawed, read the book first
Review: Shrtly before this film came out, I wrote an article on the actual Rosewood and Tulsa massacres. The film shows the destruction as being far worse than what it actually was and that business about John Voights affair with Miss Bousia and the character of "Mr. Man" never happened. This was dramatic license. However, if you want the real facts about the Rosewood Massacre, read Michael D'Orso's "Like Judgement Day" upon which this movie is based.One of the other reviewers asked how many other Rosewoods were there. The answer was THOUSANDS between the 1860s and 1960s. Read Ralph Ginzburg's "100 Years of Lynchings" for similar stories in other cities and towns. Also read Scott Ellsworth's "Death in a Promised Land" about the Tusla Massacre of 1921, which has yet to be filmed about aside from scant mention in some documentaries.
Rating: 
Summary: History that needs a better retelling
Review: So much talent, so much time (& hyperbole) to recount this horrifying event, one that was big and awful enough to compel with a less "blockbuster," more succinct approach. I cried at the fates of several characters. But Singleton was desperately in need of some serious restraint, some even-handed editing. The movie is far too long. The added plotlines (the romance between Saucy & "Man," the family life of Jon Voight (the shopkeeper)'s character, the shopkeeper's extracurricular activities) just add to the overload; the sledgehammer preaching of WHAT WE SHOULD FEEL about the bad guys/good guys. The added "Man" character (an unbelievable cross between Road Warrior and Superman) strains receptivity beyond the breaking point. It feels like 5 people wrote the script and couldn't agree on which plot lines to drop, so all were kept. Some of the dialogue is godawful, as in the repetition of the painfully obvious "We're in the trenches now." The awful truth is that, about 1/3 of the way through, the story transmutates into caricature. Not-quite saving graces include the marvellous Esther Rolle, the believable chutzpah of Don Cheadle's character, and the dependable acting of Voight. While "To Kill a Mockingbird" erred a bit too much in the other direction (white man as savior of grateful blacks), the film managed to combine pathos with restraint and art. For its' time it was effective. This insult to intelligent people of every color surely isn't.
Rating: 
Summary: HMMM!
Review: the good guys seemed too good, the bad guys too bad. i found it hard to accept as an unbiased version of what really happened. being half Japanese and half Irish i know something about prejudism and i am sure that like other mental processes like denial, it can be subconscious. And perhaps this is what happened when the script was written.
Rating:
Summary: Shameful Democrat past once again rebuked
Review: This film reminds us of the horrors that the Southern Democrats inflicted upon African Americans. As Wayne Perryman reminds us in his book, "Unfounded Loyalties",
"One party and their abolitionist supporters believed the Bible instructed them to lay down their lives for the slaves, the other party and their supporters believed the Bible gave them the right to take the lives of blacks if they rebelled against being slaves.
...
"One party was heavily influenced by the Abolitionists and the radical wing of their party ... and the other party was influenced by the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups.
"One party and its supporters started the Freedman's Bureau and other programs to help build communities for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices to hinder those efforts and to destroy those communities (Wilmington, North Carolina).
"One party and its supporters established quality schools and colleges for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices that attempted to close some of those schools or diminish their quality.
"One party passed laws and Constitutional Amendments (13th , 14th , 15th) to include blacks as part of mainstream society, the other party passed laws to exclude them from the mainstream (Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes). ..."
Sadly, many do not know that that "one party" was the Republican Party, while the "other party" was the Democratic Party. I myself didn't know at the time I watched this stirring film. I suppose burning crosses make us assume the bad guys are aligned with the religious right. Unfortunately, the "other party" used a nonsensical interpretation of the "curse of Ham" to justify slavery; fortunately, "one party" saw through it.
This film is also a great example of how history is being rewritten or dumbed down. While many films have shown lynchings and other abuse of African Americans, they usually leave you with the impression that the bigots were "Bible bashers" ... as you can see, this is only half the truth. Very rarely are we reminded that it was Republicans who laid their lives on the line to defend blacks, based on their Christian faith.
We are all sinners. Perhaps the shameful past that the Democrats are trying to forget - indeed, most youngsters today do not need to forget, they haven't even been taught - will spur them onto greater deeds that may even outshine the "one party".
Rating:
Summary: Shameful Democrat past once again rebuked
Review: This film reminds us of the horrors that the Southern Democrats inflicted upon African Americans. As Wayne Perryman reminds us in his book, "Unfounded Loyalties", "One party and their abolitionist supporters believed the Bible instructed them to lay down their lives for the slaves, the other party and their supporters believed the Bible gave them the right to take the lives of blacks if they rebelled against being slaves. "On the issue of slavery, one party and its supporters gave their lives to expand it (to Northern states) and the other party and their supporters gave their lives to ban it. "One party was heavily influenced by the Abolitionists and the radical wing of their party ... and the other party was influenced by the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist groups. "One party and its supporters started the Freedman's Bureau and other programs to help build communities for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices to hinder those efforts and to destroy those communities (Wilmington, North Carolina). "One party and its supporters established quality schools and colleges for blacks, the other party and their supporters engaged in practices that attempted to close some of those schools or diminish their quality. "One party passed laws and Constitutional Amendments (13th , 14th , 15th) to include blacks as part of mainstream society, the other party passed laws to exclude them from the mainstream (Jim Crow Laws and Black Codes). ..." Sadly, many do not know that that "one party" was the Republican Party, while the "other party" was the Democratic Party. I myself didn't know at the time I watched this stirring film. I suppose burning crosses make us assume the bad guys are aligned with the religious right. Unfortunately, the "other party" used a nonsensical interpretation of the "curse of Ham" to justify slavery; fortunately, "one party" saw through it. This film is also a great example of how history is being rewritten or dumbed down. While many films have shown lynchings and other abuse of African Americans, they usually leave you with the impression that the bigots were "Bible bashers" ... as you can see, this is only half the truth. Very rarely are we reminded that it was Republicans who laid their lives on the line to defend blacks, based on their Christian faith. We are all sinners. Perhaps the shameful past that the Democrats are trying to forget - indeed, most youngsters today do not need to forget, they haven't even been taught - will spur them onto greater deeds that may even outshine the "one party".
Rating: 
Summary: Must-See,no matter how painful or shameful it makes you feel
Review: This is a fantastic movie of which I knew nothing until a clerk in my rental accidently gave it to me, instead of a movie I wanted to rent. I noticed her mistake when I got home, but after watching this film I was only glad that she made that mistake and pulled this movie from a drawer, where it was stuck. It was not put on the shelves, I must say.... One of the reviewers already gave brief synopsis, so I'll just add that I cried throughout most of the film. I felt angry, sad and heavy with grief, but I forced myself to watch it, no matter how much pain or shame I felt. I am neither white american nor black, but the pain and the shame I felt are universal emoitons.... two emotions all people should feel, after watching this film...in this case these emotions are about humongous injustice that passed unnoticed for so long... Apart from a lesson to be learnt, this film also works well on all cinematic levels: story is told well, actors are good, etc. Very powerful!
Rating:
Summary: This movie makes me mad at America
Review: This movie got me hot. It mad me mad at the way black people were treated back in the past. Watch this movie if you want to get heated and ready to knock the s**t out of somebody. Never forget your past, or you'll be doomed to repeat it.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie I have ever seen
Review: This movie is about the massacre and destruction that occured in 1923 in Rosewood Florida. It is a superb movie that I highly recommend. END
Rating:
Summary: Speachless
Review: This movie is breath taking. From beginning to the end you are always on the edge of your seat to see what will happen next. Ving Rhames plays a fantastic character. A must see movie!!
Rating:
Summary: VERY EXPLOSIVE AND SAD
Review: THIS MOVIE WILL MAKE YOU MAD, MAKE YOU CRY, AND MAKE YOU LAUGH A LITTLE. IT WAS A VERY GOOD MOVIE BUT TO BE A PERSON OF COLOR IT WAS NOT FUNNY AT ALL IT HURT HOW AGAIN A WHITE LIE CAN DESTROY A WHOLE TOWN OF COLORED PEOPLE AND CATCH THE END ONLY A FEW CHILDREN WERE SAVED THAT MADE YOU FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER. MR. MAN SAVED THE DAY HE WAS THE HERO HIM AND THE WHITE MAN THAT GOT THE TRAIN.
| 
