C'est assez noir pour vous?!?

This documentary starts out interesting with lots of historic facts about the earliest black movies that were made, with lots of interesting interviews by big Hollywood names like Samuel L Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Harry Bellafonte and Sidney Poitier.

The bad: but after an hour this documentary veers of into all sorts of directions, becoming disjointed and long in the tooth.

It is as if this director simply had no control over his urge to namedrop as many film classics as possible and then start analysing what was wrong with them.

Recommended watch for the first hour, but I fear not many will stay focussed till the very end, because this documentary unfortunately peters out after the first hour.

This does cover black cinema from really the 1930's to 1980's. Everything outside of that is an afterthought at most.

Unfortunately, there are two major problems with this documentary. First is it skips over a lot. If not completely skipping it only skims the surface of those films, performers and filmmakers. Some of which it can be argued are more important that a lot that was included. Often they opted to cover & present as more influential fairly obscure films (never even released on DVD) rather than more successful films. Still what it did cover was entertaining.

Second, it made it sound like much of black cinema especially the 1960's to 1980's was only for black film goers. Some of these movies were successful because they also reached a white or other audience. Movies like Shaft, Coffey & others they mentioned were simply excellent movies with excellent performances, period. Funny they kind of mention that Motown music was only for black audience. Ridiculous. Even the Beatles recorded a couple of Motown songs.

I will rate this 7 out of 10, mainly for being entertaining. Plus I did learn about some films I've never heard of.

Is That Black Enough for You?!? Is a sharp, necessary deep dive into the history of Black cinema, specifically the seismic shift that happened in the late '60s and '70s. Directed and narrated by Elvis Mitchell, the film isn't just a documentary - it's a cultural critique, a love letter to Black artistry, and a long-overdue reckoning with Hollywood's treatment of Black creators.

Mitchell breaks down how Black filmmakers and actors fought to define themselves on screen, pushing past racist tropes and reclaiming space in an industry that never wanted to give them a real seat at the table. He doesn't just highlight classics - he contextualizes them, showing how these films weren't just entertainment but acts of defiance and self-determination. And the archival footage? Incredible. The interviews? Stacked. When you've got Samuel L. Jackson, Laurence Fishburne, and Whoopi Goldberg weighing in, you know it's legit.

Beyond the history, what makes this film so powerful is how it connects the dots to today. Hollywood still sidelines Black voices, still erases contributions, still acts like representation is a trend rather than a necessity. Mitchell makes it clear that these battles aren't new, and that's what makes this documentary so frustrating-but also so important.

If you care about film, Black culture, or just understanding why things are the way they are in Hollywood, Is That Black Enough for You?!? Is essential. It's eye-opening, validating, and at times infuriating, but more than anything, it's a reminder that Black cinema has always been about more than just movies - it's about power.

I watched this last night on Netflix, and found it often fascinating and informative, but sometimes frustrating, leaving me wanting to know more about Mitchell's views on certain films.

Basically, the issue here is that the film maker has decided that he wants to cover a LOT of Black films, which forces him to deal with some of them very quickly. One of the seven previous viewers attributes this to a desire on Mitchell's part to show off how many Black films he has seen, but that was not my impression. Rather, it's clear that he is fascinated with a lot of these movies, and intent on sharing his fascination and knowledge with us. That's hard to do in a movie, though, unlike in a book. Mitchell might have thought about doing what Ken Burns has done with some of his documentaries: focus on the most telling things in the movies themselves, and then provide the rest of the information in an accompanying picture book.

Books are good for annotated lists. Movies, not so much.

On the hand, because Mitchell sometimes seems like he is trying to be encyclopedic, some of the seven previous reviewers have criticized him for leaving out X or Y Black film or star. A few have a point, but others didn't pay attention. One complained that Mitchell left out James Brown, for example, which is not true. There is a very striking scene of Brown standing shirtless in a doorway, in all the glory of his virile, muscular, and very angry masculinity. It would have been nice to learn if he was offered roles other than those, but that would have taken more time than Mitchell had in this movie.

The same is true of some of the other previous criticism. Those viewers just didn't watch closely enough.

My take on this is that it was interesting for what it offered, but that it often left me wishing for more than just a tidbit on a given interesting movie. So, I guess, I would have preferred less encyclopedic coverage and more in-depth analysis of fewer movies.

On the other hand, I don't regret having seen any of what I saw.

Mitchell clearly knows this material. He should definitely treat us to an accompanying illustrated book, where he is not limited by time.

From Bill 'Bogangles' Robinson to Louis Gossett Jr. To Marlene Warfield to Denzel Washington (!), there are quite a number of major artists and performances missing. Yaphet Kotto is mentioned once, but his best performances ('Bone,' 'Report to the Commissioner,' 'Blue Collar') are not seen. Pearl Bailey is never mentioned and Redd Foxx is seen for 2 seconds. You would likely never know that Jim Brown and Fred Williamson were, in the 1970's, supreme sex symbol icons as well as icons of masculinity. Cicely Tyson's storied career is distilled to her Oscar nod for 'Sounder' and an appearance in one other film. Spike Lee's films (even his early work) gets glossed over. So, yes, I have some problems with it. However, I must admit that it is an admirable and sophisticated try. Should've been 3 hours long and they should've allowed the film clips to breath a bit more. A nice primer to whet the appetite of the film student. The initiated will find a number of cinematic holes and missed opportunities.