Q: This movie was a fascinating look at creole culture and society that few African Americans are aware. My own two children are by products of a paternal grandmother whose father was a member of the gens de couleur libre and a black skin woman whose parents were ex-slaves. He married outside of and against his culture and was cut off from all of his family except for one sister who took pity on her brothers plight; raising 8 children during the great depression of 1929; providing the family with food whenever she could. Of course she clandestinely aided this family fearing for her own ex-communication. My daughter was fascinated by the movie. We have made it a part of our library. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Maybe this isn't fair, because I only made it about halfway through the movie. One of the few movies I have actually not been able to watch due to lameness.

The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. For example - during a coke deal, the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase - I'm no expert, but I think people generally put it in a bag.

They use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it's that over the top 'crunching' sound" and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects.

Worst movie ever. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Ask yourself where she got the gun? Remember what she was taught about the mark's mindset when the con is over? The gun had blanks and it was provided to her from the very beginning.

When the patient comes back at the end she was SUPPOSED to see him drive away in the red convertible and lead her to the gang splitting up her 80 thousand.

The patient was in on the con from the beginning.

Mantegna does not die in the end - the gun had blanks.

There - enough spoilers for you there? This is why people are giving it such high ratings. It's extremely original because of the hidden ending and how it cons MOST of the audience. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive