White Man's Burden (1995) User Reviews

Script plenty of reversed premises and first-rate performances

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 13 November 2007]

This film is set in a rare alternative world where the African-Americans have all the power and health. The priors live into luxurious residences and white men live in slums, inner city ghettos and with high poverty-level. A Caucasian blue-collar named Louis Pinnock(John Travolta)working in a chocolate factory is fired by his boss(Tom Wright) due to a misunderstanding.While he was delivering a package for Thaddeus Thomas(Harry Belafonte), he's mistaken accused as voyeur his wife(Margaret Avery). Meanwhile, he's beaten by policeman(Michael Beach) and skinheads, furthermore, his family, wife(Kelly Lynch) and sons are evicted from their house. Driven by desperation, Pinnock takes a gun and kidnaps wealthy Thaddeus, asking justice . Louis is justly helped by an old vagabond(Tom Bower).

The movie gets a politics critical about reversed stereotypes with anti-racism parable. Gimmicky plot is proceeded with slickness and intelligence. The original premise makes a real impact, adding the excellent acting by two main actors and magnificent secondary cast. John Travolta is top-notch as desperate worker driven by anger,demanding justice and extraordinary Harry Belafonte as cocky member of social elite. Supporting cast is frankly awesome, Kelly Lynch as affectionate wife, Tom Wright as bigoted chief, besides, Margaret Avery, Tom Bower, Carrie Snodgress,Sheryl Lee Ralph, among others. The picture displays atmospheric cinematography by Kurant and appropriate soundtrack by Howard Shore(Lord of Rings,The aviator),usual David Cronemberg's musician. The flick is well produced by Laurence Bender(Reservoir dogs,Pulp fiction). The motion picture is professionally directed by Desmond Nakano, a prestigious screenwriter. However failed in the Box-office and Nakano only directed another picture titled American pastime and again with no success.

Good concept, bad movie

[noress · 5/10 · 23 January 2002]

I didnt know anything about the movie when it was sent on Danish television, and to begin with I found it quite surprising; it made me think a lot. -A great way of describing the social problems in the USA. The only problem with the movie was that it lasted for more than half an hour; after that it was just a cliche of a movie..very predictable. Its obvious that the movie was produced basically because of the good concept. Then suddenly they had to write a script too, and they simply forgot to be original, resulting in a story which is lousy even compared to television.

Brave attempt at inverting social prejudices, falls just short of hitting the mark.

[philblyghton · 5/10 · 8 April 2005]

I expected good things from this film as I tend to admire directors and screenwriters who take a visually arresting premise and manipulate it in order to prompt self reflection in the audience (The Elephant Man for example). In addition, I am a big fan of Travolta and the role seemed an artistically sound one for him to undertake. Initially, the widespread symbolism is interesting and inventive, yet becomes overbearing relatively quickly, and to me it seemed that the director underestimated his audience's perception and continually rammed home his point with the subtlety of Dolph Lundgren.

The film ultimately left me frustrated because I thought the idea was a good one but the story simply wasn't multi-faceted enough to be engaging. Aside from the characters played by Travolta and Belafonte, most of the supporting cast was very underwritten, particularly the families of both men. However, the performances were very good, and I thought Belafonte conveyed the defeatism and inherent arrogance of his role particularly well.

Overall though, I thought this was pseudo-art: it masqueraded as a deep and meaningful examination of the social relevance of race, but ended up as a very simplistic story disguised by delusions of self worth.

5/10

different twist but still a cliché

[kosherpig18 · 2/10 · 21 November 2005]

just because the movie reversed the roles that blacks and whites play in society did not make the movie any less clichéd. it was the same tired story of a poor man trying to overcome all of the obstacles that life lays in front of him. if his "normal life" weren't hard enough something happens to make him even more desperate. just when he sees fit to do the right thing... i thought that John Q was a much better version of this theme. additionally why did john travolta have to speak in some sort of Ebonics? is it because people are poor and oppressed that they speak that way? there were so many things that did not make sense about the movie. i understand that the writer was trying to make a point of showing how it is for blacks in a white society. most dolls and action figures in U.S. society are white making it difficult for African_Americans to find roles models for their children. so in the movie they were black instead of white. but why was every single policeman black instead of white except for one white female cop at the very end? why was every single personality on the TV shows black? pardon the pun but it was so black and white that it offended my intelligence. i could have figured out the point had it been done in more "realistic" terms.

Good intentions, lost cause

[sweetakatude · 7/10 · 3 December 2001]

It is JUST a movie!!! geez... you all are giving this movie too much power. It is meant to ENTERTAIN. The movie's soul purpose was to illustrate many popular stereotypes. Any mature audience would recognize that it was only meant to do this and NOT to properly represent either role for the sake of being politically correct. However, it is apparent that many of you find it offensive or brutal because you feel that "your race" was being misrepresented. Speaking as an African American female, I understood that this movie was ONLY meant to open my eyes to society's view of race roles of blacks and whites in America. Sure black people dont walk around with duck-tape on their jackets (as in the scene with the thugs at the restaurant) and little black girls do not have easy access to a revolver that they are permitted to use in the case of an emergency (as in the scene where Belafonte's character hid in a white person's home for safety) and LORD KNOWS a white man will NEVER bring a black girl home to meet his family. *haha* --kiddin'. ("disturbing" comment, huh?)

Well anyways, I think the movie was good for rousing up these feelings of disturbance, however it lost me when the whole kidnapping took place. It became the focal point of the movie and confused many of its viewers. Other than that, the movie was ok. I give it a 8 on a scale from 1 to 10, only because I have never seen such a bold attempt to deal with race roles as this one. Therefore, I enjoyed the movie.

two movies

[brokenglassband · 3/10 · 5 March 2016]

.

This is really two movies. The first one is the race role-reversal gimmick that demands your attention as the main theme. The second is a crime story about a decent guy caught up in a crime situation.

The race movie is lame. For a role-reversal to work, it needs to be fair in its analogies. Instead of complicated race relations, we get a world where good and evil are crystal clear (in black and white, one might say). It isn't US society of today, or even of 1995 - the racism is more like Jim Crow. Consequently, instead of offering insights and maybe teaching a lesson, it just polarizes viewers into taking sides and finding fault with the analogies. This could have been so much better with a less ham-handed story and more realistic characters. The race reversal was a good idea and that's why I watched. But the execution was poor.

The crime story was OK. Not great, but as good as most TV crime stories. A good man is trying to get ahead and instead he unjustifiably gets fired and his life is ruined. So he reacts without thinking it through, and the situation snowballs until he has no real possibility to resolve it. After you've tried to forget about the silly race angle, you can appreciate the predicament and try to imagine how you might resolve it yourself. You know it will end badly.

So, as race parable, the movie fails miserably. As crime story it is not great but perhaps worth watching when there's nothing better on.

.

Oh dear...Woefully executed morale lesson alert

[Aidan McGuinness · 20 February 2002]

"White Man's Burden" has a (reasonably) neat premise: society is reversed so the black man is in the white man's current place. The idea is this allows us to tackle our prejudices and preconceived notions about society. Does it work? No, it's too busy being laughable or boring.

From the opening I felt chills. Was this chocolate factory scene, brown being poured on top of white, some horribly clumsy use of imagery? I feared so. The film looked set to be heavy-handed, and it was. The movie's flaw is that it over-does it's premise - nearly all the white people are poor and rundown, while all the black people come across as elitist snobs. The underlying message of course being that in "our reality" the situation is reversed and this gives a horribly, simplistic, and downright irritating attitude towards race. It's completely simplistic and infuriating - not because you're angered that it's right but because it's done so poorly and with a preachiness that grates.

It might all be OK if there was a story to support it. There isn't. Reeking of TV movie-of-the-week, John Travolta is playing a desperate factory-worker who kidnaps his ex-boss in a bid to get the money he lost from being fired unfairly. *Yawn*. There's no suspense and no tension in their scenes. There's the boring, trite situation where the boss, played by Harry Belafonte, starts to understand Travolta's cause. Far too obvious in coming. There's even the hilariously poor moment when Belafonte's son takes home a white girl to a look of distaste from his mother - bang that message-hammer on our heads Mr Nakano (the script writer). I'm reminded of a moment from "Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood" when the character is similarly preachy and the postman turns to the screen and says "Message!" pointing out how morale messages are weakly delivered. In fact the only decent bit is about two minutes from the end, and even that's ruined by the (incredibly) obvious follow-up final minute. *Yawn*.

Travolta does nothing for this picture. This film was released after his sudden re-emerge in "Pulp Fiction", but I imagine he made it while still wandering around the Turkey Farm. His performance is as forgettable, as is usual with him and Belafonte is just OK.

Nothing can make me recommend this piece. If you want a movie about race issues why not watch the infinitely superior "American History X". This movie has a dreadful plot, weak acting, and destroys a promising premise by being both heavy-handed and insultingly simplistic. Avoid. 2/10.

Underrated

[mattymatt4ever · 7/10 · 15 September 2002]

"White Man's Burden" is a compelling, low-key film that probably won't be remembered because of its lack of melodrama. It's a brutally realistic look at a world, where the roles are reversed: the whites are working-class people living in rough neighborhoods and the blacks are upper-class people living in mansions. There's a lot of movies that deal with racism, but this movie deals with reverse racism. Believe it or not, there is a good deal of whites who are on welfare and work in factories and have other manual jobs. And believe it or not, there is a good deal of blacks who are very wealthy and work in big business. This movie plays against all the stereotypes. And that's what I found fascinating. None of that cheesy, exploitative "White people bad/Black people good" crap. Though Harry Belafonte's character is a close-minded racist in the beginning, he develops a healthy friendship with John Travolta as the film goes on and eventually he changes his views. Just like some white people should realize that not all black people are low-class idiots, some blacks should realize that not all whites are high-class snobs. There is no such thing as a "superior race."

Travolta and Belanfonte give splendid performances. This is a fine example of Travolta's versatility as an actor. He doesn't just play the smooth-talking, chain-smoking villain. This is obviously a low-budget film, so I imagine Travolta didn't get paid much to do this movie. Kelly Lynch is compelling as his wife, and there's a very disturbing scene in which she's forced by two cops to change clothes in front of one of them.

"WMB" has a good message, but doesn't deliver it in a melodramatic, in-your-face fashion. It's a brutal, realistic, touching character study that I think most people should check out. It's one of those overlooked films that really deserved more attention.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

A burden to watch

[aschachte · 3/10 · 25 November 2006]

Minor Spoilers On the plus side, it was believable. It had good acting. I especially liked Harry Belafonte getting irate at the inept white cashier for not helping him get robbed by John Travolta. That was a nice touch to add some twisted realism to the movie. I laughed at that one part. But the rest was just so depressing, and that story line (apart from the racial switch) has been done to death. Take Boys in the Hood and switch the white and black people around. There was no real point other than the fact that racism exists in our world and that it's a darned shame people get discriminated against. Really? Wow! Who knew? So if you want to be miserable and your favorite Blues radio station has been taken over by the Dance Mix Syndicate, go rent White Man's Burden. Otherwise, don't.

Reversal of fortunes

[trimmerb1234 · 7/10 · 26 February 2008]

This is an exceptional and courageous movie which risks offending the majority of the potential audience. The premise is completely straightforward: black people's lives are played by whites, white people's lives are played by blacks. It is otherwise an entirely ordinary kind of drama: A hard working honest blue collar family man, John Travolta, is struggling to support his wife and two children. He happens to inadvertently offend a very wealthy man (Harry Belafonte) with the power to have him instantly dismissed. What follows is a believable catastrophe that might befall a black family. The whites played by blacks) talk as whites tend to do. The blacks (played by whites) behave and are treated as blacks tend to be.

What makes the movie stand out is that a white audience could easily watch - not callously but simply as a believable example of the way a black family might get treated. However the fact that the family is played by whites gives the white viewer the instinctive sense that they are being exceptionally roughly treated - that there is something not at all nice going on.

If, as surely is the case a white audience feels instinctive revulsion at the harsh treatment of the white family then only one thing follows. That is the uncomfortable realisation that there are dual standards when it comes to race. "White guilt" does not come into it.

It is a very rare movie indeed which puts an audience in that very uncomfortable position. Each (white) audience member is thus forced to come to terms with their feeling of discomfort either by acceptance - or some kind of more or less elaborate strategy of denial.

It is on the surface a completely uncomplicated and even obvious film (as is its message). Yet the strange misunderstandings seen in the reviews attest to the unpalatability of its message. Even the UK's leading liberal newspaper review gave it the following oddly flat and neutral review which makes no mention of the movie's entire reason for being:

"Drama set in an alternative America where black people are members of an elite society and their white counterparts inhabit inner-city ghettos. John Travolta stars as a lowly factory worker who is mistaken for a peeping Tom and beaten by cops, leading him to kidnap a prominent black businessman and demand justice."

It does not make saints of an entire race - indeed Travolta's struggle to bring up his family is made more difficult by the drug-dealing (whites playing blacks) low-lifes who are his neighbours. Just that the central character is a good man who only comes to public attention when for the first time in his blameless life he is driven off the rails.

Although set in the USA it could have been set in the UK but with a less extreme storyline. The British newspaper review hints that it would also produce discomfort - and denial - there also.

Role Reversal . What Role Reversal ?

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 27 February 2008]

Alternative history is certainly one of the more compelling aspects of speculative fiction . Anyone who has seen the DOCTOR WHO story Inferno would be hard pressed to forget it , Robert Harris's Fatherland is a unforgettable novel and whilst I have no wish to read any of his books Harry Turtledove is a very popular author . In short premises featuring alternative planet Earths' and their different histories are thought provoking to say the least and when it was announced that John Travolta ( Let's not forget how massive a star he was then after PULP FICTION ) was going to be starring in an alternative future film where the roles of black and white are reversed the studio execs would have quite rightly tapped themselves on their shoulders knowing they were making a massive hit

Strangely I'd forgotten all about this movie until it was broadcast on BBC1 a couple of nights ago and it's not difficult to understand why it's an obscure flop . The film starts with a black family gathered at the dinner table where patriarch and businessman Thaddues Thomas states his dislike for white people and their problems . Cut to Louis Pinnock who who works for Thomas company and lives in a rough area where his neighbours all seem to be pecker woods . Later due to a series of contrived , not very well written circumstances Pinnock loses his job with the company and decides to kidnap Thomas

The problem with WHITE MANS BURDEN is that this is an alternative world where Black Americans are at the apex of social hierarchy while whites are at the bottom bu this scenario is never ever explored . In fact the only things were shown that things are so mightily different is when someone is flipping the TV channel that show amongst other things a western where all the calvarymen are black . I know this was made in 1995 but is director Desmond Nakano saying there's no white equivalent of Morgan Freeman , Condaleeza Rice or Colin Powell ? For goodness sake we're even shown a black golfer on TV . Is this version of America without a white golfing prodigy called Alpine Woods ?

So that's the main problem and an unforgivable one where we're told that everything is different but as the plot rolls along we find ourselves asking what is actually different ? The audience are shown a couple of black cops being confronted by an angry white mob ( This doesn't happen in " our " America ? ) , a white man with a black companion are threatened by pecker woods ( This doesn't happen in " our " America ? ) etc , etc . At no point is the premise used to explore how anything would be different in " our " America . If you made a film set in " our " America where a disgruntled white employee kidnaps his racist black boss then you would not have to alter one single word never a single scene from this screenplay . And disgruntled employees kidnapping nasty employer type redemption plots we never all that compelling in the first place

Eye opening, even to a black man

[kingrexxx · 8/10 · 12 April 2005]

I think the ending was sad. I felt sorry for Travolta, even his son. But I disagree with the comment about "whats the point" because it shows what I go through weekly. I mean, some of it is extreme, but true. And when Belafonte remarked, "well, most of them don't have father's" in response to his wife's comment about the white kids discipline, it was... I'm at a lost for words. I'm watching it again tonight, and I think every white man needs to see the movie, and every black man. It was a trip seeing the roles flipped. But the movie is truly, "a trip". I mean, when Belafonte talks about the "socially crippled, genetically inferior" whites, its a trip, just hearing that. I study psychology, and all these theories are pervasive, and they relate to science by the genetic concepts of the 20th century, i mean, eugenics and it is really wild. Anyway, this is a must see movie. You must see it. I'm mad I didn't know it existed for the last ten years.

A profound premise and message is a little bit lost in the clutter but I see where it's going

[Robert_duder · 7/10 · 24 August 2007]

White Man's Burden is the type of film that if written by some stellar world Author and directed by the Hollywood Artistic elite and housed some of the world's finest actors it might have been an Academy Award darling. I don't mean to downplay any of the fine cast or director/writer Desmond Nakano who doesn't really have a lot of experience but I think really did try his best with this low budget production. He has a message that he's really trying to convey with this film and it's undoubtedly a powerful and important message but the question is...what is it? The message on the surface you'd think is that what it would be like for the white race if they were in the position that the black race is in and has been for years? But I honestly don't think that is the message because the film doesn't tip toe around anything. In fact if that is the message and I were a person of African American descent I'd be a little offended because most of the white people (99%) are portrayed in Ghetto's, committing crimes, being beaten, a lower class, sub-intelligent, well meaning group of people but clearly nowhere near the standard of the elite race (in this cast the black race.) I think his message is something different entirely but it's hidden amidst a bit of a muddled story and an unclear premise.

John Travolta is a terrific screen presence. He has had his ups and downs but I think he's a terrific actor and really captures a character and has a great time and the best part is I always find him very down to earth, he's a regular joe and I'd love to meet him some day. His performance, I think, is very good and one of the more powerful in the film as down on his luck white guy Louis Pinnock. Pinnock cares about his family and he's just tired of the way the world is working because he's been busting his butt for years to get on the good side of things. Some suggest that his performs seems to show Pinnock has a lack of intelligence and I don't disagree but I think that might be where the character is supposed to go. I think he lacks book smarts, and maybe he's a little slower hence why he goes to these rash ends to help his family. He's a man at his breaking point and I think he is terrific in the role. Harry Belafonte is terrific as rough around the edges but part of the wealthy elite Thaddeus Thomas. Travolta and Belafonte have good chemistry which is vital for this film. It's not perfect and I think their chemistry and relationship could have been better portrayed but it's done decently. I would have loved to have seen a black actor with a little more experience and talent perform the role (Morgan Freeman perhaps?) The supporting cast are decent enough including Kelly Lynch as Pinnock's wife and Margaret Avery as Thomas' wife. Also in a really good performance is the young Andrew Lawrence (of the Lawrence brothers) as Pinnock's son who really does a terrific job in the birthday shopping scene.

There are some truly powerful scenes in the film including the above shopping scene where young Donnie Pinnock chooses a popular 'Black' Super Hero toy over a less expensive white one. The world they live in is not entirely different from our own with the exception that it would seem as though the white race is a lesser class. I read one review that suggested Nakano's message was that things wouldn't be different for any other race had they had the same situation that black people have had. That message seems to ring true throughout the film. It still is a message about acceptance and understanding a man fighting for what he believes in the only way he knows how. It's an interesting film but just doesn't have the power and the backing that it could have or should have had. Still it's a very interesting watch especially for Travolta fans because I think his performance was very good. The film is an interesting and very different story which is always a good thing. 7.5/10

An Embarassment!

[TheHG · 1/10 · 7 May 2000]

Given its stated satirical premise, I was hoping this movie would have some redeeming social value. The reversed world of this movie does not make sense because it does not adequately answer human motivations for opressing and maltreating fellow humans. What is the point of this movie? Is it to open the white man's eyes to his wrong ways by asking him to put himself in the oppressed group's (i.e blacks) shoes and suffer society's ills? Why? Why must this wheel be reinvented? This is an approach that almost always reverses or negates any progress that has been made in social and political areas. If this movie had even a single positive point to put across to us, I would have at least given it a passing grade. Unfortunately, I think that this movie's net effect is to perpetuate existing stereotypes. To think Belafonte was lured out of semi-retirement from moviedom for this piece of balderdash!

Horrible movie

[crosenblum-271-508344 · 1/10 · 15 November 2013]

Well I have nothing but the utmost the respect for the actors in this crap movie.

However, trying to make current American citizens guilty for the evil crimes of slavery that occurred over 100+ years ago, is just purely wrong.

John Travolta is a good to fair actor, and there are many other good actors in this movie.

If we truly want to encourage better treatment of each other, the best way is not about endlessly reminding us of the evil's of the past.

But to encourage, promote and reward people for treating people fairly.

This movie concept is horrible, execution is horrible.

There is no remote redeeming value to this movie.

I am very sorry to say that.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Movies Like These...

[susan_mj · 3/10 · 31 October 2013]

This movie started out with good intentions, but the premise became lost far too quickly.

The beginning scenes were beautifully crafted to show life on the flip side for both races, like the scene where a small white child is flipping through channels on TV with nearly every station and show being predominantly black. Not long after though, the whole thing takes a left turn someplace and the message gets watered down so much it's no longer recognizable.

As much of a fan as I am of John Travolta I must concede he was just terrible. Terrible acting, and that terrible awful "black voice" he used.

The dialogue was outrageously offensive because although blacks and whites speak differently the basic emotions are still the same. For example, on the phone with his wife, was what should have been a tender moment but went like this: Her -"I miss you" him - "I'm horny too".

No idea who wrote this screenplay but it was either a white person whose only experience with blacks is what they see in bad movies or on white media news outlets, OR a self-hating black person.

Movies are either entertaining or thought provoking, this is neither. Its a movie that leaves you waiting to see if it WILL be either one but then it ends, which was probably the best part, not the ending itself, but just that it ended.

A strange movie!

[alkiss · 7/10 · 25 September 1998]

White Man's Burden is based on a radical idea-it's a story of a man who loses his job and kidnaps his boss in order to get the money he believes he deserves."What's radical about that" you might say...Well in this movie white people are in the place of black people. It's not the best film you've ever seen,but certainly it's not "a disgrace to society".You should see it-i think it's interesting.

What was the point?

[arelia · 2/10 · 22 February 2001]

If the roles were reversed yet again, or if the roles had not been reversed in the first place, this movie would still be unrealistic. I can accept that all of the white people were poor and all of the black people were rich if the movie is supposed to focus on two specific families and a worse case scenario. But the film doesn't even do that right. Black people in Louis' situation would not necessarily be so unkempt and rude at work (check the scene when he was fired). They wouldn't be so irrational either. White people have come up with much more unfair/racist reasons to fire blacks than accusing them of peeping. The movie showed white people being inferior. What it should have done was show that white people weren't inferior but that they were still being treated as such. THAT would be realistic and meaningful. The movie is simple and offensive. The stereotypes and the portrayals are weak. The concept of role reversal might have potential, but White Man's Burden does not do that concept justice.

This movie was a burden on my eyes and my intellect

[view_and_review · 2/10 · 29 January 2007]

I was very close to giving this movie a 1 but since it's been a while since I've seen it I didn't want to be too harsh. Let me start by giving this movie the one bit of praise that it deserves, and that is that it was a wonderful concept. As an African-American, the idea of a wide scale role reversal between Blacks and Whites is an interesting one to explore... when done correctly. The events that happened to Louis Pinnock (John Travolta) were tragic and disheartening to say the least. I don't have a problem with the amount of unfortunate events that occurred to him (which are supposedly typical events that occur to black men in the ghetto), but I do have a problem with the events all happening in about a day!! I mean, does Desmond Nakano really believe that this is a regular bad day for a black man? Stretch it out over time why don't you. At least spread the doom over a week. I just thought this movie was poorly executed and it exaggerated a real problem (that being inequality) thereby mocking it.

Excellent because of its ability to disturb.

[Pates · 8/10 · 1 January 1999]

Although on the surface a stupid, simplistic and "unrealistic" film, there is much more to the film. If the roles were reversed and every black character was played by a white and every white by a black I would be bored to tears, the film would never have made a dime, and we'd all hate it with justification. However, it was this very realization, during the film, which made me respect its message. Because the roles are completely and totally reversed, swapping black and white character for character, the film is disturbing. It's almost painful to watch. Ask yourself while you're watching how you're reacting and how the reaction would be different if there were no race reversals. Maybe that's because of the stereotypes we have in place and the roles we do play in the world - if it were just another story about a black man down on his luck we'd all yawn but because it's a white man and all of society is reversed, we watch, we wonder how it will play out, and we're bothered by it. I analogize the film to Planet of the Apes in some ways because of its ability to make us step back and take a look at society in a different way entirely. It is not as well done as Planet of the Apes but is worthwhile.

A terrible film

[JJN · 1/10 · 1 December 1998]

This is a terribly acted and thoroughly ridiculous film. The film revels in its stupid gimmick of changing the positions of whites and blacks and beats the audience over the head with heavy handed "lessons" about racism. The movie is so un-subtle that it almost makes you laugh. Don't waste your time watching this movie.

Usual 'concept movie' prob's

[busstnactgrp · 24 July 2004]

Just watched this film tonight on TV and if I were asked to sum the film up I would say "it conveys an important message, but one feels oneself constantly checking the film for the 'real-ness' of the scenario it is trying to portray". I say this because even a fantasy film such as this - and fantasy is precisely what it is - has to be real to make sense. In the event it felt at least partially real, granted, but as a viewer I felt that this aforementioned 'checking' got in the way of getting emotionally attached to the characters, which would have helped get the message across. It wasn't a bad film but watching it was a decidedly strange experience. Maybe that was the intended effect. I don't know.

one of the worst ones

[toreadore · 1/10 · 3 July 2003]

I saw this movie several years ago, and i can't quite remember it in details. but whenever people ask me which is the worst movie i've seen, this is the first one that pops up in my mind. harry belafonte did some horrible acting and travolta hit an all time career low. nuthing like "attica, attica!" in Saturday Night Fever

What was the point?

[CharltonBoy · 4/10 · 23 February 2002]

White man's burden definately had an interesting premise in the fact that the white man in the US was the oppressed and the minority race instead of the black man. So why didnt they make a film that was thought provoking and had any relivance to the above concept? What we got was a lame story about an employee who is unfairly sacked and who tries to get justice by getting the money he is owed from the boss of his company. The most stupid thing about the story is not the fact that it does not go into black white reversal enough but the fact of the Travolta character actually get his boss after 5 minutes to give him his money and his job back ,so why did he not accept that and go home? A pointless movie that is desperate to make a point.

Another of John travolta's turkeys. 4 out of 10