Panther

How interesting it is that some of the supporting comments regarding the politics of this movie come from Ireland and England. The comment regarding Patty Hearst, especially intriguing. The error by the poster gives you an idea of how flawed people's perceptions of the Panthers were and still are. Hearst was kidnapped by Sinque, who was purported to be an ex-Panther member.

The Panthers were an interesting phenomena borne from the rough streets of Oakland,California, my hometown. They brought ideals of self-awareness, pride and self-defense. Some say that the theory of J.Edgar Hoover dumping drugs into the black neighborhoods to bring about its downfall was preposterous. As a resident of Oakland, it was absolutely factual that drugs were put into the community to destabilize it. COINTELPRO had insurrectionists cast into the Black Panthers as well as Campus student movements.

The FBI sought the downfall of Martin Luther King, and celebrated on the day of his assassination. Not all parties were in cahoots, but he was thought of as a communist agitator. Funny how no major motion picture of him was done following JFK, isn't it? Some aspects were quite fictitious, the "Judge" character and the shootout in the warehouse as well. The Panthers were considered an enemy to the established order and it was seeded with "inside" people to ferment internal conflict. The film may not be completely historically accurate, but it does portray the need then and now for a Black Panther Movement. The concept of Government conspiracy isn't new; see Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. this was a flawed, but intriguing film about an organization that sought to improve the conditions of the community. And how the establishment created methods to destabilize and destroy it.

I am actually watching Panther as I write this. Thus far it has borne the flaw of every historical/political film dealing with complex issues, there is a lot of talking, a lot of montage and things are definitely simplified. However, looking through the comments by users there is at least one major error in a prior comment. Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army, a tiny ultra-left wing sect. As to Eldridge Cleaver, he indeed was not a pleasant person by all accounts. His failing do not mean that every Black Panther was so misogynistic or brutal. In many cases, the Panthers were more sinnned against than sinning-the major sin being the existence of a massive and legally and morally dubious COINTELPRO program which seeded the Party with agents provocateurs and informers, and which seems to have coordinated a number of violent incidents agianst Panther officials and supporters, including fatal shootings. That destroyed the Party, and destroyed the lives of many associated with it.

Very little can be told about PANTHER, which amazingly didn't capture the attention of so many. Based on the past turbulent history of 1967-68, it shows off its mean-spiritedness and hatred on the screen. It's a disturbing account involving brutal, racial violence during the era, and a story of the Black Panthers Party who finds truth for justice. There is just one small point of huge proof: an average "blaction" movie that's made as simple-minded entertainment. A far better directing job would have made it stand out with its head held high over the surface.

...this film receives a TEN. No other movie captures the fire of the Panther better than that of Mario van Peeble's production. However, just as well for entertainment purposes, some facts were tampered and skewed to fit into the film. This isn't a documentary, folks. Nor is it a bio about Huey P. This is a historically correct film based on a NOVEL. If that doesn't tell you enough about what you're in for, I don't know what will. Historical fiction is what this is. If you're looking for a interesting, socially conscious film that will keep you on the edge of your seat, this is it. If not - you may as well keep moving, jack.

How is it possible that anyone can like a movie like "Braveheart" (a "fact-based" movie about Scottish people in the Middle Ages taking a stand against the tyranny that was going on) and then have the idea that this "fact-based" movie is any different?

Here were people in bad living conditions (to put it very lightly) and, along with using their Constitutional Right for a Well-Regulated Militia to Bear Arms for Necessary Protection, did all sorts of other things to improve their communities. The Black Panthers were mostly exposed as angry Blacks running around with guns, but that would be like saying the operetta version of "Les Miserables" is about a little girl named Cosette who dreams of a "Castle on a Cloud". As was shown in the film, they also had free breakfast programs and, in some areas in the country, free lunch programs so they could send the kids to school on full stomachs and thus be able to learn better. There was also the medical care they provided, and educational programs, etc. It was also shown that it went downhill once the founding members were in jail and were unable to run the show, so to speak.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, keep in mind that anybody during that time who asked "What's wrong with this picture?" (let alone did something about it) had FBI files started on them. And, in this extreme case, given that at the time the country was still in the crawling stage of getting used to the idea of equality of all races and sexes (among other things), is it really that hard to believe that "Big Brother" would flood the place with narcotics and other means of self-destruction? All I can say is "Well, DUH!"

Anyway, if you like movies based on history that deal with groups of people at the bottom (and in a worst case scenario) struggling against those up high to improve their situations, then just like "Braveheart", you should enjoy this film.

It's uncomfortable to watch at times, but, as we all know, there's no comfort in struggling; that's what makes victory more appreciable, assuming we achieve that victory in the first place.