Panther

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.

1960's inner city America. Tired of non-effective prayer meetings, vigils and pleas to God, a group within the black community decide to take more direct action. Taking the principles of Malcolm X, the group study their rights and begin to bear arms and take a stand against the inequality and the brutality towards their community.

The subject is worthy of a film and is an interesting piece of civil rights history but this film is not the one to do it. The blame for much of this much sadly rest with Peebles in his role as director. If Spike Lee and Denzel Washington could be seen as the black A-list, then Peebles must be very much a C-list star, and his films are often worthy of B or C grades. This is the problem here, the film is not great as a film. It is told in a simplistic, fist raising way that takes away from the impact of it as reality. The focus on Judge's involvement rather than the story of the movement itself, turning the film into more of a action film than one of historical interest.

This is a shame as, even embellished with pro-black slant, the subject would have been interesting. As it is, the fact about whether this was true or not didn't matter to me because I didn't get the impression of history, I got told a story of a man who tries to act as a mole for the group, while some militant group spreads throughout the country. It's a real shame - cause that's not the story I was hoping to be told.

If Peebles is a C-list member, then the rest of the cast comes across like very much a second rate version of Malcolm X. Hardison is a poor comic, never mind requiring him to do a dramatic role. Chong is OK as Huey but he isn't really well served by a film that doesn't pull back well enough and see what the panthers grow to become (and the `finally' bit at the end doesn't cut it). Generally the cast feel like they wouldn't be out of place in a TVM and their performances mostly reflect that. Again, it is a shame but it's hard not to blame the material for their inability to rise above it.

Overall this film was a major letdown for me. I was expecting or hoping for a film that had some historical context and would have the force and impact of Malcolm X. Sadly I was expecting too much from it and this would have been better enjoyed as a thriller that happens to be set in the middle of a Panther cell rather than anything else.

Panther (1995) is not to meant to be a dead on account of the Black Panther Party. This is what they call historical fiction. That is when you make up a story involving real life characters. The book this movie was based upon was writing a few years back by Melvin Van Peebles. The story is nothing more that a fictional account dealing with real life people.

It's a movie. Not a documentary. So please keep this in mind when watching it. But the dramatic elements and acting were quite good. I enjoyed it as a drama. If you want to learn about the Black Panther Party this is a good launching pad. From here I suggest you go to your local library and study up on these revolutionaries who tried to make some decent changes to the poor communities but were sabotaged by the F.B.I. and their army of rats and snitches.

I thought it was a bold step for Mr. Van Peebles to try and make a mainstream movie about a group of local heroes who have been buried by the mainstream and the far right. Stars Kadeem Hardison, Bokeem Woodbine, Joe Don Baker, Courtney B. Vance, Chris Rock, Bobby Brown and Angela Bassett. Directed by Mario Van Peebles. Co written by Mario and Melvin Van Peebles.

Recommended.

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.

Panther's depictions of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and the opposing white establishment are perhaps a bit simplistic; nevertheless it made the movie no less thrilling.

Mario Van Peebles uses television footage from the civil rights struggles in the 1960s to demonstrate why the Black Panther Party came into existence. The scenes of police brutality and the Party standing up to the police were shot well and enable the viewer to grasp the fear as well as frustration of the times. Whether or not the film portrays an accurate account of history and the reasoning behind the creation of the Party is debatable. Of course, no film is completely historically accurate, and most producers, writers and directors have their own agenda when making a film. However, all that being said, it is not difficult to believe that the 'white' establishment behaved either exactly or near to the way it is depicted in the film. We need only read our history books, newspapers and watch footage (some of which was shown in the film) of the 'white' establishment's appalling actions during that period and indeed for centuries before that to determine that the depictions of overt racism and inhumane treatment dished out by the police and others in the film were not far fetched.

One other fact to consider is that the Panthers were considered an enemy to the established order and therefore the propaganda surrounding the history of the Party depicts them as worse than they actually were. The film, I believe, breaks those negative images down. It goes beyond the headlines of the time and depicts the problems facing black Americans then and indeed to some extent now. Indeed the most impressive aspect of the film is how it portrayed the need for the Black Panther Movement. One finds it difficult to advocate violence; however when one's life is on the line and those who are meant to protect are the perpetrators, then the right to defend oneself is the right of every person. The most powerful message this film sends is that the Panther Party was the result of a need not simply a desire.

The film may not be 'completely historically accurate;' however it does present a different view of the Panther Party and its objectives, one that is long overdue. This film is a must see!