Emancipation review: Will Smith’s grueling slave drama is as shallow as a Louisiana bayou
Smith plays a Civil War-era slave on the run from a villainous Ben Foster in a genre exercise from Training Day director Antoine Fuqua
Film Reviews Smith
This is only speculation, but the cast and crew of Emancipation, Antoine Fuqua’s Louisiana bayou chase movie disguised as a Civil War slave drama, probably slogged through the mud and muck under the assumption they were making a prestige picture on the order of 2013’s Oscar-winning 12 Years A Slave. But watching Will Smith, as a real-life escaped slave named Gordon (rechristened here using the other name he was known by; Peter or “Whipped Peter”), wrestle an alligator and stab a slave catcher with a cross necklace, we realize the film is actually Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained (a film that Smith famously turned down) had Tarantino played it with humorless historical reverence. Or maybe Smith is trying to one-up Leonardo DiCaprio’s physical and spiritual debasement in The Revenant. Either way, this leaden beast of self-importance traffics in the kind of ultra-masculine action movie clichés that Fuqua (Training Day, The Equalizer) should have set aside for something subtler. So a drama that aches to connect with the George Floyd era is more like amped-up misery porn, a Will Smith vanity project that pales next to more accomplished films about Black suffering that better remind us of our nation’s ongoing shame.
Not much is known about the historical figure Smith is playing, so screenwriter Bill Collage (the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen comedy New York Minute and the video game adaptation Assassin’s Creed) punts the idea of Peter being a three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood character and instead crafts an action-packed story whose narrow focus reads as a lack of imagination rather than a narrative necessity. What we do know is that two months after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the real Gordon escaped a Louisiana labor camp and went on the run through the unforgiving bayou for 10 punishing days before being rescued in Baton Rouge and joining the Union Army. At the army camp, a pair of photographers took a photo of Gordon’s horrendously scarred back, its disturbing array of crisscrossing welts a testament to years of merciless whippings. The image, which came to be known as Whipped Peter or The Scourged Back, became visual proof of the injustice of slavery and it gave a crucial boost to the abolitionist movement.
In Emancipation, what happens before and after the taking of this influential photo (first published in Harper’s Weekly in July of 1863) is justifiably invented but unjustifiably fraudulent, a pedestal upon which Smith can foreground his virtuousness and Fuqua can flex his muscular style. Smith, his charm deeply buried and his lower jaw thrust defiantly forward, gives a grim, committed performance that elicits our sympathy since he’s mostly asked to convey suffering and perseverance as he fights off snakes, bees, dogs, alligators, and the men who relentlessly pursue him. He’s also firmly in A-lister territory, which adds an unwelcome air of award-me ostentation to the whole affair. Only Peter has the courage to stand up for the other slaves, during combat he’s unimpeachably courageous, and his comforting whispers of “go to momma” are enough to send a dying soldier to his reward. The latter moment, which comes during a thrilling battle towards the film’s end, is in line with the Christian faith that keeps the fire of Peter’s resolve raging. It’s mostly lip service, however: had Peter taken even a moment to question a God who would allow slavery to happen and not merely and once-too-often noted his devotion to the Lord, Emancipation could have kicked into a higher spiritual gear.
Yet the priority is to put Peter through a gauntlet of indignities which begins when he’s torn away from his wife, Dodienne (a gently powerful Charmaine Bingwa), and children and taken to a Confederate labor camp where he helps lay railroad tracks. When Peter overhears that Lincoln has freed the slaves, he makes his escape with three other indentured men. Their plan is to travel through the Louisiana swamps to Baton Rouge and meet up with the Union Army. When Emancipation shifts into chase mode, with Peter and the others followed by a posse led by a stock villain named Fassel (Ben Foster, doing his stoically evil thing), Fuqua is more at home. But that’s hardly a compliment because the more arduous Peter’s slog through the bayou and the more suspenseful his near-miss encounters, the more the film plays like a slick genre exercise. In this gravest of contexts, Fuqua’s natural proclivity for blunt force violence reduces some of his depictions of slave life to being too visually performative.
Given that he’s conceived as near-messianic, Peter survives the bayou and finds his way to Baton Rouge where he joins the all-Black 1st Louisiana Native Guard. The ensuing battle, where Peter is led by a Black captain (Mustafa Shakir), serves as a stirring update to 1989’s fact-based Glory where a white colonel (Matthew Broderick) led an all-Black Civil War infantry regiment to their honorable deaths. Here, Peter marches in uniform alongside only Black Union fighters and then almost singlehandedly wins the battle, another nod to reductive hero cinema that masks the satisfaction of Peter taking up government-sanctioned arms against those who’ve tormented him. This blood-soaked final battle is the capstone to cinematographer Robert Richardson’s top-notch contribution. He moves the camera in wide, swooping motions to capture the enormity of production designer Naomi Shohan’s bleakly authentic Civil War battlefields. These drone and crane shots are risky because they break the intimacy of hewing so closely to Peter but they’re too hauntingly beautiful not to work. The film’s palette is mostly black and white with only occasional tufts of color peeking through. In one of the film’s most disturbing moments, a young white girl dressed quite visibly in red yells “runner” when she sees Peter trespassing on her family’s plantation.
From 1977’s Roots to 12 Years A Slave, the best works in this still-vital and necessary genre have a powerful simplicity, as a lone slave struggles to free himself from an unimaginably vast and cruel system designed to ensure his eternal bondage. He’s not a symbol. He represents only himself. Emancipation is Smith as a superhero who can “survive things most men can’t” and an icon “who taught us to hold on, hold on to each other!” Ultimately then, Emancipation is not the story of Peter, it’s the story of Will Smith playing Peter. Gordon’s actual journey feels in the service of a Hollywood star dreaming of an Oscar, less than a year after his supremely ill-advised display of racist-emboldening Black-on-Black violence at the 2022 Academy Awards. It’s a testament to Smith’s formidable abilities that his performance, as uncelebrated by Oscar as it’s destined to be, will make you forget The Slap. Unfortunately, Fuqua’s unshakable dependence on chase film tropes will make you forget the movie.
143 Comments
Well, this review is a real slap in the face. *bows*
Here’s your star, now get out!
Keep this movie’s review OUT your fucking MOUTH!
This review is wrong. I will never, ever, forget the Slap.
I guess that’s why Will flees in the summer, he didn’t want to see Autumn…
August. He didn’t want to see AUGUST. Christ, man…
Well shit, should have checked that one first. Can’t remember my Hollywood affair names, damn Kinja wish I could edit.
Robert Gould Shaw was the white colonel’s name and he actually existed, led the 54th, died with them and was buried with them. The “corrective” you’re speaking of is a made-up story correcting actual history.This fucking place
I shudder to think of what other “stirring correctives” to actual history that this reviewer would like to see in film.
Plus “correcting history” has been Tarantino’s thing for a while now.
no it hasn’t.
“We would not have his body removed from where it lies surrounded by his brave and devoted soldiers. … We can imagine no holier place than that in which he lies, among his brave and devoted followers, nor wish for him better company. – what a body-guard he has!”From a letter written by Col. Shaw’s father regarding removing his son’s remains from those of his fellow soldiers. The Shaws were good people.
I will always love that letter. Its the ultimate your insult was really a compliment. I’m sure it pissed the Confederates off to no end. Shame that Fort Wagner is now underwater due to the passage of time.
Shaw didn’t want to take the command at first, not because he didn’t want to command black soldiers. But because he figured the Army wouldn’t send that unit near combat and he didn’t want to leave the front line.Bad. Ass. Mother. Fucker.And as you said, when the scumbag General Hagood threw Shaw’s body in the general trench, thinking it was an insult, the Shaw family took it as an honor. (Hagood later became governor of South Carolina and helped end Reconstruction – of course, they named a football field after him down there)But sure, let’s have a made up story written by a guy who got his start writing lines for the fucking Olsen twins and acted by a fucking moron like Will Smith be the “corrective” to Shaw.
Also, the famous Shaw neighborhood in Washington DC, often referred to as Black Broadway because of the historical Black live theaters located there is named in Robert Gould Shaw’s honor.
I went to Howard University in the Shaw neighborhood of Washington D.C. and lived there for 10 years after graduation, and I never knew this. Very interesting.
Yeah what the actual fuck on that – I thought this was common knowledge about that movie. If anything this movie has it ass-backwards, since Glory was correct that black soldiers weren’t allowed anywhere near the front lines for a long time, nevermind right at the start of the war.
I will listen to arguments that stories about black soldiers no longer (and never should have in the first place) need white central figures like Shaw. Ebert said that in his review of Glory.
But I’d counter with this: Because Ferris Bueller and Westley from Princess Bride agreed to be in a movie, Denzel got an Oscar winning part, Andre Braugher got his big break and Morgan Freeman got another amazing role (an a nomination)
Boseman’s big break got made because of Harrison Ford. Djimon Honsou’s because of Hopkins and McCounaghey. Morgan Freeman had a late career breakthrough playing a fucking pimp.Sometimes, it’s OK to get the movie made and then gain from that, even if half-wits 35 years later shit on it without even reading the fucking Wikipedia entry.
Oh I agree about the need for a white lead in general, but if you’re trying to make a down and gritty Civil War historical drama, at least get the fundamentals right.
Yeah, that overrated film should have been called 12 Years No Agency. I find it hard to imagine the real person who recounted the events the book/movie was based was just a quiet passenger hoping the closest white guy would save him multiple times.
I’m not sure where you’re going with the 12 Years a Slave thing, but even that flawed movie gave us the goddess that is Lupita Nyong’o.
I took TigerNightmare’s comment about 12 Years a Slave to be a sarcastic criticism of the idea that character and story arcs of real-life historical figures should be rewritten to suit modern audience sensibilities.
So what you’re saying is for a Black actor to breakthrough, he needs to be the Best Black friend to the White lead or play a sketchy character like a dirty cop, psycho pimp, or s taught how to enjoy fried chicken by a White guy? That’s good to know.
This seems more of an indictment of how screwed up Hollywood’s casting works than of the talents of the actors.
Maybe not so much anymore (that’s still debatable) but definitely back in 1989, which is when the movie the reviewer shits on took place.
Fact is. Chadwick Boseman took playing Jackie Robinson into becoming Black Panther. And that Robinson movie doesn’t get made if Harrison Ford doesn’t agree to play Branch Rickey
You can piss and moan all you want. That’s the deal.
So the deal is “let’s accept racism because it pays”. Tell me you’re white without telling me you’re white.
Tell you what. You go find Chadwick Boseman’s grave and say that he accepted racism because he took a role where Harrison Ford was the headliner. Then, after he comes up from the grave and slaps the fuck out of your stupid mouth, ask him what he thought of Black Panther 2.
My man, acting like it’s foolish to complain about racism is not a good look
Relatively unknown black actor getting breakthrough role because movie got financed after one of the most bankable stars in history of medium took role is a funny definition of racism.
Yes all black people should bow down and praise the Great White Brother for deigning to acknowledge their existence. You’re fucked, dude.
That would indeed be awful if I’d said anything resembling that.
You’re literally saying people shouldn’t complain about a status quo where black people have to rely on white people to be successful
Oh fuck. Just saw the screen name. Why didnt any of you tell me I was engaged with this fuckmunch?
Only ad hominem responses, got it
If I wasn’t so tall, my jaw would have hit the fucking floor after reading that.
People don’t really seem to care about actual history anymore, they just want stories to make em feel better and fit their current beliefs/wishes.
“anymore”? This is some sort of a *new* attitude for humankind’s self-reflection?
Well i think people used to care about it more.
Exactly. Good lord, the laziness
No lie, I visited Boston about 5 years ago and I was moved to tears by the monument to the 54th in Boston Commons. It’s beautiful. There’s a lot of white savior bullshit out there, but Shaw deserves his flowers, as do the rest of the regiment.
“Corrective” refers to a compensatory change in perspective or focus, not a change in record (“correction”). Centering a Civil War story entirely on a Black perspective would be a corrective (but not a correction) to the historical focus on white protagonists (including Shaw).
“compensatory” <- that’s the issue. Glory is a real story, and told fairly truly, and has great black characters.When will we get the “corrective” for The Woman King?
Thank you! Jeez.I have to say, even the trailer for Emancipation was embarrassing. He can’t possibly be nominated, can he? Maybe by Overactors Anonymous?
Was about to comment the same. Cheers.
“Joe Wright’s fictitious ‘Winston Churchill’ – a suitably on-the-nose British name, likely named after the teacup company, because Brits love tea, geddit? – leads Britain through WWII in the the dramatic what-if in Darkest Hour.”- Mark fucking Keizer, probably
So much of this movie is in slow motion. It must be hooouuurs long.
It’s a testament to Smith’s abilities that his performance, as uncelebrated by Oscar as it’s destined to be, will make you forget The Slap.I can read this two ways: it’s either an amazing performance in an otherwise mundane film, or it’s so Razzie-worthy that even something as ignominious as the slap pales in comparison.
More like Emancipaysh-NO!Best I’ve got.
how aboutThis movie is really testing my Emanci-PATIENCE
Nopantsification?
Does Fuqua have a single actually good movie beyond Training Day (which IMO is still largely carried by Hawke and Denzel’s balls to the wall performance)? I’m looking at his filmography and it’s almost like a Michael Cimino career.
What, no love for his work on the music video for 3 Doors Down’s National Guard anthem “Citizen Soldier”?
I’m OK with King Arthur. But I held on to my Owen and Gruffudd stock way too long and now they are as about as valuable as bitcoin.
Uh, yeah… The Equalizer (2014) is very good, and its 2018 sequel is also pretty good (but not as good as the first movie). The Jake Gyllenhaal movie Southpaw (2015) is also very enjoyable, and the soundtrack is great too. I’m also a big fan of Shooter (2007) with Mark Wahlberg and I was somewhat impressed by Tears of the Sun (2003) with Bruce Willis. But Willis was the worst part of that film, since he was just starting out his “I don’t care about acting anymore” career phase, and so he and Fuqua famously didn’t get along very well.Your comparison with Michael Cimino is misplaced. Antoine Fuqua has made way more films than Cimino, including films of multiple varying genres. Fuqua has more higher scoring films than Cimino across the board, specifically because he’s made more films, and while Training Day is his best and most notable movie, he has put out some other really well received stuff. The best thing Cimino ever did was The Deer Hunter (1978) and while that is a… good film? It’s an incredibly problematic movie that doesn’t have a great legacy. Then his career folded after Heaven’s Gate (1980) and Year of the Dragon (1985) failed to do well at the box office, and he basically quick filmmaking after putting out just 7 films. While Antoine Fuqua did struggle to make some really good films after Training Day (2001), he did make a comeback and started putting out some really cool stuff like The Equalizer.
I have not enjoyed his output post Training Day nor seen much acclaim for those films, but I thought a bit and I agree with you that the Cimino comparison was unnecessarily harsh to Fuqua. I feel sorry for making it.
Michael Cimino won a best director and there was also a best picture Academy Award for The Deer Hunter. That’s kind of a big deal.
The whole film won 5 Oscars… in 1979. But that doesn’t excuse its incredibly racist portrayal of the Vietnamese or the ill-fated popularization of Russian Roulette. It notably had a ton of issues surrounding its release… The deaths of approximately twenty-eight people, who died playing Russian Roulette, were reported as having been influenced by scenes in the movie during the year of its release. Michael Cimino was also heavily criticized for one-sidedly portraying all the North Vietnamese as sadistic racists and killers. Cimino stated that his film was not political, polemical, literally accurate, or posturing for any particular point of view. Producer Barry Spikings regrets the way the Vietnamese were portrayed, saying: “I don’t think any of us meant it to be exploitive… But I think we were ignorant. I can’t think of a better word for it. I didn’t realize how badly we’d behaved to the Vietnamese people.” As the Oscars drew near, the backlash against the film gathered strength. When the limos pulled up to the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion on April 9, 1979, they were met by demonstrators, mostly from the Los Angeles chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The demonstrators waved placards covered with slogans that read “No Oscars for racism” and “The Deer Hunter a bloody lie” and thrust pamphlets berating Deer Hunter into long lines of limousine windows. The Deer Hunter is also one of the earliest examples of successful ‘Oscar baiting’ in order to maximize box office performance. When the first test screening turned out disastrous, the studio was unsure how to market a movie with such grim and depressing subject matter. As a consultant, they hired veteran producer Allan Carr, who realized that the movie would only attract an audience if it received recognition from the Academy. He gave it a very limited release in two theaters near the end of the year, for an audience of critics and Academy members, and for the period that would qualify the film for Oscar eligibility. The film was then pulled from distribution, except for a few screenings on a cable network that catered to cinephiles. When The Deer Hunter received critical acclaim as well as nine Oscar nominations, it was given a wide release and a promotional campaign that underscored the artistic success, leading to a substantial box office success.So, if your point was to say “Michael Cimino won and Oscar and Antoine Fuqua didn’t…” Then I submit this list of filmmakers who also share the designation of having no Oscar wins or nominations: John Carpenter (Halloween, Escape From New York, The Thing), Wes Craven (Nightmare On Elm Street, Scream), Brian De Palma (Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables, Carlito’s Way), The Wachowskis (The Matrix), David Cronenberg (The Fly, Dead Ringers, eXistenZ), Sam Raimi (Spider-Man, The Evil Dead, Army of Darkness), Park Chan-wook (Oldboy, The Handmaiden, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance), and Paul Verhoeven (Total Recall, Robocop, Starship Troopers, Basic Instinct). Oh, and then there this list of people who never won Best Director before: Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Sidney Lumet, Pedro Almodovar, Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Lee, Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Sofia Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, David Lynch, Ridley Scott, and Akira Kurosawa.Now I never said that The Deer Hunter wasn’t a big deal… Because it absolutely was for both good and bad reasons. I honestly also kind of enjoyed it when I first saw it (though it wasn’t very easy to sit through). But I can acknowledge that it is a historically problematic film. The praise it received has waned, and Cimino’s work after that film lends proof to his overall inexperience in releasing audience approved films.
Fuqua has always been more of a journeyman who dabbles in various genres, rather than an auteur who would leave an unmistakable stamp on everything they shoot. Yet, there are good, even great, journeymen, especially in the studio era, people like Michael Curtiz, Richard Donner, Robert Wise, Robert Mulligan or George Roy Hill who may not have some very distinctive style, but still had some fine track record. And there are directors such as Ron Howard or Joe Johnston who still maintain this legacy. Even an heavyweight such as Sidney Lumet, who tended to serve the script and the cast rather than bringing additional flourishes, wasn’t really regarded as an auteur, with few recurring patterns in his filmography (outside of the thrillers, chiefly the ones involving Al Pacino or police corruption)… until people noticed the amount of great films that he had directed.Also, it’s hard to take Fuqua seriously in France, the country responsible for the auteur labelling, because Southpaw was unfortunately translated as La Rage au ventre, literally Rage in the Stomach, and Fuca (which has the same prononciation in French) is a very popular brand of laxative pills.
Yeah. Tears of the Sun, Shooter, The Equalizer, and Southpaw were all well received by critics/audiences.
But everyone here has done their career-best work and shouldn’t be penalized for Will Smith’s harmful actions!
The R rated cut of King Arthur is underrated.
Is this rodent alone in thinking Training Day is over-hyped and over-acted?
I’ve watched it a couple of times, and it never did much for me.
(the Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen comedy New York Minute and the video game adaptation Assassin’s Creed)
What a CV.
So bad there wasn’t even any snark necessary. It speaks for itself.How did everyone else involved in this film look at all the available options and decide “yep, him!”??
To be fair, the author seemed to take his first credit and his last credit and called it a day. He also has screenplay or story credit for: The Tower Heist, that Egyptian Gods movie with white people, one of those Allegiant/Divergent/Flatuent/Cromulent/etc… stories and that Transporter thing Ed Skrein used his 12 seconds of actual clout to try to make.
I mean, not great, but a little wider. To be fair to the author, it would be very difficult to avoid leaving out the Olsen twin thing.
What one might call a self-own putting that on the resume.The Olsen thing was a no-brainer, but other than maybe Tower Heist I don’t see that any of the rest would have been much of an improvement.
Tower Heist is such lazy writing they couldn’t even come up with a title for it, just a vague descriptor.
If a writer doesn’t have the benefit of family connections or possibly a time on the Harvard Lampoon they’re going to be writing a lot of bottom of the barrel shit when they try to establish themselves in Hollywood. A lot of talented writers never get to break out and spend decades taking whatever they can get. I’d never dismiss someone based on the work they did for hire, especially if it’s at the beginning of their career.
Fair points. I didn’t meant to dismiss them. I was mocking the reviewer for highlighting the Olsen thing and the video game adaptation instead of listing more recent things.
Totally. I’d be the first to dismiss a guy whose résumé appears to consist of Scary Movie 3 and 4, Superhero Movie (which he also directed), The Hangover part II and III, or The Huntsman: Winter’s War (the Kristen Stewart-less sequel to Snow White and the Huntsman), in addition to being accused by James Gunn of butchering his script for The Specials, which he directed in 2000.Yet, Craig Mazin was still a much beloved figure in the writers community, as shown by the podcast he has with John August, and he finally delivered with Chernobyl. Today, nobody would find strange that they handled the adaptation of The Last of Us to the guy who wrote the script of Identity Thief.
Yeah… I’m not sure why anyone expected, well anything from the screenwriter of that stuff!
To be fair, Assassin’s Creed was a pretty wild adaptation of New York Minute.
the fundamental issue is that, while his intentions are good, he still will always want to be the most popular kid in high school
Predictably going to be review bombed just because of the Will Smith slap controversy. It’s not even out yet till December 9th but 50% of the reviews on IMDB are 1/10 even though it’s unlikely to be that bad… Giving it a C rating, which would be like a 7.3/10 on the US grading scale, feels pretty accurate for something penned by Bill Collage—a white guy that also wrote New York Minute, Accepted, Tower Heist, Exodus: Gods and Kings, The Transporter Refueled, Allegiant, and Assassin’s Creed. That’s literally his entire career or written work and it’s baffling as to why he would write this movie… Jokingly, I would say it’s because 2 of his most notable scripts (Exodus: Gods and Kings + Assassin’s Creed) were heavily whitewashed in their casting choices.But I digress. This movie is obviously going to suffer blowback because of the slap, and that is a damn shame because genre films like this do have a place in cinema. This review from AV Club confirmed that Will Smith’s work cannot or will not be critiqued or talked about without mentioning the “supremely ill-advised display of racist-emboldening Black-on-Black violence at the 2022 Academy Awards” as they so colorfully put it… And again, that is a damn shame, because pretty much every other film in this genre (Amistad, Glory, Roots, 12 Years A Slave, Django Unchained) are all pretty good.I can’t speak for this film itself just yet, but I’m prepared for it to be not nearly as bad as people say it is.
Tl;Dr“I think the score this review gave it was about accurate, but also this movie is being treated unfairly.”
well it’s clear that unless brad pitt is producing your black prestige film, it’s a wash.
Fun fact: black people can make bad movies. In fact Will Smith has made a bunch of them.
In Emancipation, what happens before and after the taking of this influential photo (first published in Harper’s Weekly in July of 1863) is justifiably invented but unjustifiably fraudulentWhat in the world does this even mean? In what sense is an “invented” story different from a “fraudulent” story?
I think the construction implies that a story can be both invented and broadly true to life in the way it reflects inter-personal dynamics, broader social factors, etc, while, on the other hand, there are invented stories that ring false because they don’t accurately reflect those factors.In this specific case, Mark is basically arguing that it’s fine for a movie to invent a story around the character’s escape (since we don’t actually know any of the real details), but the movie tells the story in a fundamentally “fraudulent” way. Peter is a figure of nearly Christ-like patience and dignity, who is both kind and possessed of superheroic strength and determination. Meanwhile, the people chasing him are stock villains with no dimension or depth. I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know if that’s an accurate description of the story, and I don’t know if I would all of that “fraudulent,” which is a word that carries more moral weight than a movie should maybe be expected to carry. But that is how I understood that passage.
Putting on my AV Club glasses, which involves taking a shit, not wiping and then contorting yourself to look into your own asshole, I think it means:
“They are justified, hell, almost required, to make up some details about this guy” but “they didn’t do it how I liked”
I’d say the difference would be “invented” is plausibly filling in the blanks, while “fraudulent” heads into wildly implausible territory. In this case there’s very little known about Gordon’s 10 day journey to escape. He did say he was initially pursued by Lyons, along with some of Lyons’ neighbors, and that they had bloodhounds. Expecting they would bring out dogs, Gordon took onions from the plantation and rubbed them on his body to try and throw the dogs off his scent. An undoubtedly harrowing journey, but the film takes it far beyond that and turns it into an action-fest of alligator knife fights, other slaves there to be killed like action cannon-fodder, fights with his pursuers, killing with his cross necklace and just wackily implausible action tropes. The film also makes it so that the man pursuing Gordon was the same man who had whipped him, when Gordon himself said that overseer was dismissed from the plantation, but the film apparently thought the story wasn’t harrowing enough and had to have a more typical action movie bad guy.
Will Smith has never made a good movie. He sucks.
I need to mention something about the history. The weird phrasing about Col Shaw has already been addressed below, but I need to explain that the 1st Louisiana Native Guard is a unique unit. It was originally a Confederate unit, and it was made up of mixed race creole men who were considered the upper planter class and not slaves. This is basically the only Confederate unit of this type entirely due to New Orleans uniquely weird history, black Confederate soldiers weren’t really a thing. Anyway, the moment New Orleans falls in 1862 to the Union, the Native Guard immediately switched sides and fought with the North until wars end. So this isn’t quite just an all black Civil War unit. Its…. more complicated.
Black people need new material.
Why does everybody bitch about “Glory” so much? A white guy being in charge DURING THE CIVIL WAR isnt weird.
Because they think it makes them sound like good people.
I thinks it’s the fact that there are other stories and great films that don’t even make it to the writers room THAT DONT HAVE A WHITE SAVIOR OR WHITE PERSON IN CHARGE! That’s the problem. Most don’t know arriot Tubman led platoons in the Civil War. Most don’t know the stories of Harry Washington. And you can forget about a Nat Turner movie. The problem isn’t the story of glory. The problem is that the story of some where some white supposedly found a place in his heart for some lowly negroes is the only types of stories getting made and getting looked at.
We had a Nat Turner movie. Birth of a Nation (2016) – Nate Parker made it. It didn’t make a fucking dime.
I don’t think you can divorce the movie’s lack of success from the controversy surrounding Parker. That movie was being talked about like crazy after Sundance. And then Parker’s past came out and then that was being talked about.
Just because there are other movies you think should be made, that doesnt affect Glory at all.
Harriet Tubman didn’t lead shit during the Civil War. This reminds me of when some dickhead posted a picture on twitter of Liz 2 changing a tire claiming she served in WW2
A reality that doesn’t, alas, require the narrative to revolve around him.
You have bad opinions
No, your opinion of my opinions is bad. You probably are, too.
Yes, that’s true.But… stay with me… No one forced anyone to make the movie ABOUT the white guy.You’re lying about what most people are upset about – deliberately – to make them sound dumber. Rather than trying to understand their point.
Smith has an interesting pattern of not reading the room. His lack of genuine interest in his own culture implies he never really embraced or understood their anguish and suffering without putting blame on them in some form. I imagine because it was white people that gave him his career.
Remember Bright?
It’s mostly lip service, however: had Peter taken even a moment to
question a God who would allow slavery to happen and not merely and
once-too-often noted his devotion to the Lord, Emancipation could have kicked into a higher spiritual gear.
Are you familiar with many accounts from former slaves? The incompatibility of a benevolent God with the existence of evil in the world was not a common view at the time.
And how are they even incompatible to the reviewer as well?A lifetime of suffering, hell even 1000 years of suffering is an amazing deal when the upside is *eternity* of paradise.
this review was annoying drivel, but I want to say: it’s funny that Will Smith is getting bad reviews now. He’s been cranking out absolute dogshit for at least 20 years but you’d have no idea based on the critics. This latest turd is right at his usual level, but now he’s one of the bad celebs that we do NOT stan!
Sounds like you didn’t read the reviews for Gemini Man.
Or Seven Pounds and After Earth.
I saw a bunch of people crowding together to keep warm on Twitter saying how Will Smith paid his debt to society by apologizing for the only bad thing he ever did, and are eager to happily spend $20 to see Emancipation. I told them, “For your sake, I hope it’s actually good.”Glory is one of my favorite films. If you must see a Civil War era film, see the one with one of the best ensemble casts, Denzel’s performance that won him his first Oscar, and unbelievably captivating music from James Horner.
Here here with the Horner soundtrack. The gospel singing I can still recall from memory and I haven’t seen Glory in years. Hell of a film.
“I saw a bunch of people crowding together to keep warm on Twitter saying
how Will Smith paid his debt to society by apologizing for the only bad
thing he ever did, and are eager to happily spend $20 to see
Emancipation.”The only consideration should be if the movie is good or not. I mean, I can’t tell people what they should and shouldn’t be mad about, but one dude slapped another dude. He apologized, the other dude accepted. Sometimes even adults do dumb shit motivated by unthinking emotions, this wasn’t particularly damaging, let’s all just move on. Not because Will Smith is especially deserving, but because there may well come a time when we ourselves fail to think through an emotional reaction and do something dumb and embarrassing.
I never assaulted anyone, and I always consider the consequences of my actions. It’s not difficult, it’s the bare minimum. If people are forgiving, fine, but the instinctual need to protect some rich guy by supporting his mediocre work is really fucking questionable. Fandom is terrible.
I can’t think of any time where, in my adult life, I’ve hauled off and struck someone because of something they said to me. I can think of a few times where I’ve actively not done that, though. I’m not advocating that actions no longer have consequences, but I am saying that maybe consequences should be tailored toward discouraging negative behavior from people without being life-altering to the point where they embrace bad behavior. It doesn’t have anything to do with being a fan of Will Smith (at least from me), and everything to do with the idea that the proper response to this should be “Whoa, not cool. Will should apologize and then make an unflattering joke about Chris, and then Chris smacks Will and accepts the apology. Then shake hands and we all move on.” Yeah, Will Smith is a centimillionaire, he doesn’t need me or anyone else to carry water for him. But I don’t think that he should lose money from a dumb-ass slap at a party any more than I think that a dude who works part-time at a garage should.
Why are you so interested in dictating why people should be allowed to choose to do or not do things in their spare time? Things that don’t hurt anyone?The whole entire exercise of stardom (from the business side of movies) is: does the public like this person. To pretend that isn’t a big reason why most people watch movies is a weird and a bit disconnected from reality.
If I recall correctly, Chris Rock didn’t accept his apology, he said, and I quote, “Fuck your hostage video.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/sep/05/chris-rock-will-smith-public-apology-was-a-hostage-video
Here’s a star for ”I saw a bunch of people crowding together to keep warm on Twitter…” Maybe that phrase is in the either, but I’ve never heard it before and quite like it.
I saw Glory when it was first released, twice in one week. What an amazing movie. Amazing score too.
Yes, as Americans, you should have to watch one movie about slaves. But if you choose Birth of A Nation, you have to watch 2.
I appreciate the review, but I disagree with Mark Keizer’s sentiments here:
“From 1977’s Roots to 12 Years A Slave, the best works in this still-vital and necessary genre have a powerful simplicity…”
There’s nothing “vital and necessary” left in the slave genre. It peaked in 2012-13 with Django Unchained and 12 Years A Slave and everything since has just been more of the same old same old: Nobly suffering Negroes running for their lives from eeeeeeeevil white slaveowners. Insert the stirring musical score, dirty up the extras, cue the angelic choir and wait for the award nominations to come rolling in because Hollywood just can’t resist this kind of story.
The genre has become cliche. It’s been strip-mined for every last nugget of Black pain, humiliation, and death. It’s the go-to move for actors in search of Oscar bait or to chew the scenery. There may be somewhere new, bold and imaginative remaining in this tapped out well, but nothing I’ve seen or read about Emancipation leads me to believe Fuqua and Smith have found it.
Its crazy the Holocaust and Slave are movie genres. But I guess awards aren’t gonna win themselves.
I’m 45 and have never heard of “Peter”. Whether this movie is good or not, this genre as you call it is far from tapped out. This due to the HUNDREDS of years of chattel slavery in the USA.
While it’s true there are hundreds of years of chattel slavery in the USA, it is also true there have been a shit ton of slave flicks. Black history did not start with slavery or end with civil rights, but only films with Negroes Suffering Nobly is the era and genre Hollywood feels most comfortable wallowing in.
Thanks for mentioning Smith’s lower jaw. I’ve noticed that he has a “serious movie” face that appears to replace him having to actually act. It involves a glare and a severe underbite. He made the same face all the way through King Richard. Not sure why he thinks an underbite indicates to viewers that the movie is a drama, but that seems to be about as deep as Will Smith gets thinking about his roles. I’d love to see a montage of Will Smith making his serious movie face — kind of like those montages of Tom Cruise running.
My uncle is a cosmetic dentist and he remarked on Smith’s jaw at the Oscars before The Slap. There is an unfortunate trend of celebrities doing full veneers/ crowns on their bottom teeth now (gotta match the white chompers on top!) and it affects their resting face and the way they speak. Bad work is obvious (the entire Trump family) and Will’s is not great. At first I assumed he was on cocaine – bad work can give you a “coke jaw” look.Robert Downey Jr navigating his dental work was so noticeable when he inducted Duran Duran to The Hall of Fame that I could barely focus on what he was saying.Yes, it’s fun to have an expert in your family point these things out!
Just looked it up (thanks for the tip!) and what I couldn’t get over was his noticeable “Dana Carvey as Turtle Man” costume.
So true! I have a reaaally hard time watching Anna Kendrick in anything because all I can do is stare at the enormous white veneers that she can’t close her lips over. They look so unnatural and alarming.
This movie hits different
than what?
Old man take: this is one of the dumbest “new” turns of phrase
It totally slaps!
Does Will do a fun, title-track rap over the end credits?
It promises to be wicky-wicky-woeful.
Trying to bring down me, the champion?when yall slavemasters see it can’t be done?Understand me son, I’m the whippest there is I’m the quickest there is Did I say I’m the whippest there is?
I have a problem with the approach of this review which given the pedigree of the writer and director isn’t judged as an action/ thriller but rather Oscar bait drama. From the trailer it was clear this is a chase movie, but is this a good chase movie? Obviously it fails as dramatic Oscar fare but there’s nothing in this review that tells me whether I as a viewer who likes chase films which this is whether I would like it or not.
Lol. If you don’t think a movie titles Emancipation starring “desperate for an Oscar win” Will Smith*… I’ll pray that you never get scammed.*surely this project was greenlit before his win
A lot of people taking issue with this review’s content. I don’t ‘get’ some of the references people are complaining about. I just think that the writing is pretty good, so congrats. It’s a bit long though. You can’t say everything and readers don’t want to know everything.
Shot by Robert Richardson, same cinematographer as Django Unchained.Eh. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
Screenplay by Bill “Schizophrenic” Collage.
“As shallow as a louisiana bayou”So, not shallow???
I imagine Will Smith’s audition for this involved him wearing burlap pants, chains, and a hair clip over his eyes, chanting “I wish I was LeVar Burton. I wish I was LeVar Burton.”
Looks like something my mom is gonna love. She’s a big fan of the “triumph of the human spirit over adversity” genre, which not coincidentally makes her the target audience for much of the Oscar-tentpole-prestige product.
I have a sincere question. Since Smith has been banned from the Oscar ceremony for a number of years, shouldn’t he also be deemed ineligible for nomination, at least for the period of time of his ban? I know all of that is up to the Academy, but it only makes sense to me that if they deemed his behavior seriously egregious, he shouldn’t be eligible for their awards.
I think the only way that he’d be ineligible is if they removed him fully from the Academy, which they didn’t do.
Given some of the members who are still in the Academy, regardless of their misdeeds (here’s looking at you, Roman Polanski), their thought process is that if they start outright removing members because of the crazy shit they do, eventually they’ll destabilize the entire thing because of the sheer likelihood of many of the members being absolute fuck-nuggets in private. This would then open up a bunch of politicking and backbiting when it comes to nominations and awards if you, as a member, know that one of your competitors has done something heinous that would get them kicked out, thus paving the way for you and yours to get that nomination and/or win.
Not for nothing, while the slap was bad, it absolutely pales in comparison to some of the things current members have done, so unless they wanted to start a mass removal of members (which they’d have to do to not appear to be unduly biased against Will), it’s easier for them to do a perfunctory ban from appearing at the Oscars versus outright removal. It also gives them the freedom to nominate him for good performances, and on top of that, the winner themselves doesn’t have to be attending (most famously, Joan Crawford, Marlon Brando, Eminem, and most recently Anthony Hopkins all won Oscars without attending the ceremony).
You’re into deep. Swim up for air. I’ll rephrase…..why do you even care what the academy has already decided on?
Its a fantastic movie…..
Its so close…..nearly something better than Glory, it tries…. but its not. In the end it’s something less. My white savior guilt can’t make this better than it is, it’s a mess…
Please… make a better scene than Morgan Freeman and Denzel around a fucking campfire claping and singing…. I’m fucking waiting. Its iconic. Is it white? Maybe…. I guess…