Loudmouth

The official description from the studio suggests that this documentary might actually delve into the controversy of the eponymous "loudmouth". This would make sense as Sharpton is infamously disdained for his self-serving antics and reputation for bigoted remarks and inciting violence.

Instead, the documentary is just a lot of Sharpton praising himself as he loves to do. When they cover incidents where Sharpton lied about events, they don't mention the true facts - they just go along with his fiction then as an alternative history today.

I get that most docs take an angle and I figured that this one was obviously going to lean in Sharpton's direction. But this doc is a love letter to the man so why did they name it "loudmouth" and write a description that suggests it might at least pretend to offer some critical thought? If you're one of the handful of people in the country who is actually a fan of this huckster, than you might like this film. For the rest of us, it'll leave you feeling a bit nauseous.

In "Loudmouth," a documentary about Reverend Al Sharpton, we see the public advocate's journey through archival footage. The film touches on some of Sharpton's controversial cases, including the Tawana Brawley incident, but does not quite delve into his personal life or other controversies. The footage shows Sharpton's growth as a leader and his dedication to fighting for justice for Black people. Despite its lack of new commentary, the film offers a fascinating look at Sharpton's history and impact. Those familiar with his work may find it insightful, but those who are not may find it superficial.

Full disclosure: I'm a middle aged black man who grew up in NYC. I remember Sharpton from the start.

A couple decades ago there was an ABC documentary about him which covered his criminal activities and subsequently becoming a snitch for the FBI. Why isnt that covered here?

The Twana Brawley incident put him on the map but its glossed over. So is the Howard Beach incident. Both have been proven to be false racial incidents that he turned racial.

Sharpton has gotten rich with race baiting and this so called documentary just glosses over everything he's done to divide the nation.

Total Puff Piece.

Rev. Al Sharpton is one of those figures who people either love or hate. Some say he's a passionate advocate for civil rights, while others contend that he's a self-promoting opportunist who's "in the civil rights business." Regardless of what one thinks, though, there's general consensus that he's an undeniably outspoken force, one whose candid character and personality live up to every bit of this documentary's title. Director Josh Alexander's profile of this often-polarizing presence seeks to present a definitive look at Sharpton's life and work, but, unfortunately, it misses the mark in several respects. To begin with, the material is poorly organized, jumping around without a well-defined sense of direction and weighed down by an excess of narrative minutiae and incidental archive footage. (There's quite an irony in that, too, given that Sharpton contends in one of the film's monologues that minority concerns are often muddled in the media, a problem itself echoed in the content of this offering, much of that attributable to those aforementioned issues.) Moreover, there's not much in the way of a backstory here, providing viewers with little meaningful insight into Sharpton the individual, his motivations, the influences that drive him and his life outside the public eye, elements that undoubtedly play an important role but that ultimately receive little more than passing attention. Consequently, by not digging deeper, the picture comes across largely as a somewhat overlong checklist of career accomplishments and a diluted examination of the more significant messages for which its principal stands. Also, without a more scrutinous analysis of the concerns of the protagonist's critics, and with the regular inclusion of what could be seen as self-congratulatory monologues, the film tends to lean toward being a work of deftly spun, well-polished adulation. That's not to suggest such admiration is undeserved, but, given the often-divisive nature of this highly visible public figure, its arguably one-sided presentation in this regard feels somewhat unbalanced. "Loudmouth" could have indeed been a compelling look at an iconic individual, but it instead comes across as a tribute that's more concerned with being respectfully reverential and not offending than with providing meaningful, sincere enlightenment.