eko123

It's surprising to see the number of rave reviews for this movie. As someone who is passionate and open-minded about all types of foreign cinema, I thought this movie was absolutely horrible with no redeeming value whatsoever.

Not only was it overly long, but it seemed like the director only had a budget of $10 to film what turned out to be nothing more than a meandering, incoherent, pointless piece of drivel masquerading as high art. This movie barely has any plot and NO characterization whatsoever. Sadly, the only memorable thing in the movie is scenes of actual animals being killed, which is terrible.

If, as other reviewers here have said this is how Africans see themselves, then is it any surprise African films don't get much exposure in the world market of cinema?

I also completely disagree with the reviewer who said that people with long attention spans will enjoy this movie. It's more like anybody who's accustomed to such basic cinematic elements as story or character development will not enjoy "Yeelen" as it features neither.

For a far superior film from a similar region in Africa, I would highly suggest Ousmane Sembene's "Moolaadé" from 2004. It too is filmed from an African perspective rather than a Western one...but it actually has a relevant, engaging storyline with fleshed-out characters for whom you actually care.

"Yeelen" on the other hand, is an excruciating, mind-numbing experience that I wouldn't even inflict on my worst enemy. It's as enjoyable as watching urine dry on a toilet seat.

This is probably one of the stupidest films I've ever seen. The stories were predictable and unscary, and the acting was atrocious. That last story, which featured the nude scenes and the deranged female killer, was particularly stupid in spite of its attempts to be erotic. You'd be better off watching an hour's worth of McDonald's commercials than this piece of drivel.

I don't understand why so many people seem to think this cartoon was excellent. Sure, "X-Men" may have been better than most of the other Marvel hero cartoons (e.g. Fantastic Four, Iron Man, and the atrocious Avengers cartoon), but it doesn't even come close to rivalling the Batman or Superman shows.

The animation was pretty unsophisticated and the plots could be overly preachy and simplistic. Worst of all, the characterization was often ridiculous and inaccurate at times, like Storm's constant over-the-top declarations every time she used her powers (something that she NEVER does in the comic book); I won't even begin to discuss the cartoon's horrific portrayal of the Canadian super-team Alpha Flight. The only good thing was that the show utilized many talented Canadian actors like Cedric Smith (Professor X) and Camilla Scott (Lilandra).

Then of course, there was the way in which the continuity was altered. I understand the difficulty of keeping everything exactly the way it is in the comic but some of the changes seemed drastic and utterly pointless. For example, why were Banshee and Black Tom Cassidy portrayed as brothers (in the comic, they're cousins), and why was Banshee the older one when the exact opposite is true. As well, what was the point of saying that characters like Bishop, Nightcrawler, Dazzler, Archangel, Havok, Banshee, Psylocke, and Colossus had never been members of the X-Men? You could simply have said they were reserve members! These needless alterations are extremely insulting to comic fans like myself. The only storylines that were reasonably adapted were "The Phoenix Saga" and the subsequent "Dark Phoenix Saga".

For the most part, the "Batman" and "Superman" cartoons are superior because they don't dumb down to viewers; in other words, adults can enjoy just as much as kids. "X-Men" on the other hand, is strictly kiddie fare. If you want to watch a better animated Marvel cartoon that's a little more consistent to the comic, watch the earlier seasons of Fox's "Spider-Man".