Focus Features | Release Date: August 10, 2018
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 200 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
157
Mixed:
19
Negative:
24
Watch Now
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
namelessAug 11, 2018
It is part Spike Lee, a solid filmmaker, and it is part Michael Moore. Spike Lee channeling Michael Moore kills everything that goes before it. It is so weird because he uses the audience's intelligence in the beginning to make connectionsIt is part Spike Lee, a solid filmmaker, and it is part Michael Moore. Spike Lee channeling Michael Moore kills everything that goes before it. It is so weird because he uses the audience's intelligence in the beginning to make connections and then by the end he treats the audience as if they must told everything. Go see "Inside Man" again to see the director at his best, this is not it. Expand
12 of 27 users found this helpful1215
All this user's reviews
1
Humboldt1337Aug 25, 2018
SJW movie by racist Spike Lee. Absolute garbage. Spike Lee just makes movies where he blames "white people" as an entire group for the self-inflicted problems of the thug community. Do yourself a favor and never see this.
7 of 20 users found this helpful713
All this user's reviews
3
defdog99Aug 11, 2018
Wow. Was this movie bad. So yeah the story was fine and Washington has a ton of charisma... but Spike was obviously trying to make a Quentin Tarantino movie. He was aiming for a 70s cop show vibe with blaxpoitation movie references (evenWow. Was this movie bad. So yeah the story was fine and Washington has a ton of charisma... but Spike was obviously trying to make a Quentin Tarantino movie. He was aiming for a 70s cop show vibe with blaxpoitation movie references (even going as far as showing 70s movie artwork inside the movie!). A hitler salute watching a movie (ala Inglorious Basterds)?? Check. Spike should have went with a different style. Quentin is a master of the fine-line of a talky with hyper violence with cultural allusions with comedy. Spike tried but instead his comes off as agenda instead of entertainment. Mediocre music and sound effects especially the 2nd half. Come on man, its the 70s. He must have rushed it to get it released on the Charlottesville anniversary. Expand
8 of 24 users found this helpful816
All this user's reviews
2
beels1Aug 29, 2018
Clumsily written, uneven in tone, repetitive, obvious and didactic, this film felt like a very rough draft without editing. The klan and police characters were cartoonish and the attempt to state the obvious parallels with the Trump era feltClumsily written, uneven in tone, repetitive, obvious and didactic, this film felt like a very rough draft without editing. The klan and police characters were cartoonish and the attempt to state the obvious parallels with the Trump era felt superfluous and condescending to this viewer. The musical score was intrusive and further trivialized the story. A waste of time and effort. Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
0
ViajeSep 14, 2018
Can you really be "entertained" or "educated" when you're immediately aware the film you're watching is intentionally biased to manipulate you to a political paradigm not based on the truth? Think about it.

Instead of providing serious
Can you really be "entertained" or "educated" when you're immediately aware the film you're watching is intentionally biased to manipulate you to a political paradigm not based on the truth? Think about it.

Instead of providing serious treatment of the subject matter, at best, the "Blackkklansman" functions as a parody of "true events," or even worse, a lousy derivative of "Undercover Brother (2002)." That's right, "Undercover Brother," starring Eddie Griffin, Jr. and directed by Spike Lee's cousin Malcolm D. Lee is superior to "Blackkklansman" with a better script, direction, editing, and acting, plus it's also "Blacker."

The script failed to detail fact-based images of Stallworth conducting surveillance to document actual criminal activity being performed by the KKK, and instead the film took "artistic license" to present: (1) chronologically incorrect social and political rhetoric; and (2) stereotypcial degrading images of Black and White people. Remember, this film is based on a "true story," but instead of dealing with the truth, Spike Lee ignored the veracity of historical facts and intentionally made-up a bunch of crap.

As the first Black police officer for Colorado Springs, Stallworth (John David Washington) was directed to go "undercover" to inflitate an upcoming speaking engagement by former leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and "Honorary Prime Minister" of the Black Panther Party (BPP), Kwame Ture, who was formerly known as Stokely Carmichael. The film completely ignored the fact that Kwame Ture was NOT a threat to "White rule," and in particular, that every so-called major "Black militant" from the 1960s had already been assassinated, or incarcerated, or in college completing a Ph.D, or in Russia receiving an honorary Ph.D., or an escaped felon living in Cuba, or as with Kwame Ture, on a book tour. By 1979 the threat of "Black militancy" had already been eliminated.

Art direction by Marci Mudd, set decoration by Cathy T. Marshall, and costume design by Marci Rodgers were all poorly executed. The early 1960s to the early 1970s were volatile times for Black people, but 1979 was no where nearly as volatile, because White people and disingenuous Black people had already successfully killed the threat of "Black militancy." So, why did Spike Lee have his cast of characters wearing large militant-looking afro-wigs, leather jackets et al especially when in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s chemically processed "jheri curls" had largely replaced the afro? Spike Lee could have easily "fact checked" the aforementioned by watching that classic scene in Eddie Murphy's 1988 film, "Coming to America," where oily glyserol from three jheri curled Black people dripped and stained the couch.

The "real" Ron Stallworth clearly looked more like former boxing heavyweight champion Larry Holmes than the "supersized and militarized" version Spike Lee trust upon an unsuspecting film audience. Is "Blackkklansman" a "Blaxploitation" film simply because it's directed by and features a predominately Black cast? If so, what about "Black Panther (2018)?" Sadly, it's typical for the White controlled media is to completely ignore the fact that until the early 1960s and throughout the United States, in both Southern and Northern states, many if not most Black people were prohibited from entering White owned and controlled theatres, or required to sit only in the balcony or at the very back (of the bus - get it). So, to provide films for Black people, in 1916 Noble and George Johnson of Omaha, Nebraska formed the first all-black movie production unit in the country, the Lincoln Motion Picture Company, which included a network of places (local social halls, churches, schools, Black-owned theatres, etc.) located in Black communities to showcase their product. As with the Negro Baseball League, the Black film production industry was very successful throughout the 1930s and 1940s as hundreds of movies including musicals, westerns, crime dramas, romantic comedies, etc., with all-Black casts were produced and released. As with the Negro Baseball League, integration eventually killed the Black film industry.

The purpose of seeing a movie is to be "entertained" or "educated," right? Perhaps, in an attempt to "entertain" and "educate" (Black people?) Spike Lee sought to give "Blackkklansman" a 1970s "look and feel," but if true, that was a mistake because by 1979 the production of films targeted to Black audiences was nearly over, but the need for truthful, fact-based films about the Black experience in America never disappeared. "Blackkklansman" only used the "truth" for source material, but not as a linear, fact-based docu-drama. Can you really be "entertained" or "educated" when you're immediately aware the film you're watching is intentionally biased to manipulate you to a political paradigm not based on the truth? Think about it.
Expand
1 of 10 users found this helpful19
All this user's reviews
2
AxeTAug 30, 2018
Spike Lee is at his best as a talented moviemaker delivering for the audience and at his worst as a preachy activist pandering with his tired obsessive skewed overkill agenda, and this no surprise veers heavily toward the latter.Spike Lee is at his best as a talented moviemaker delivering for the audience and at his worst as a preachy activist pandering with his tired obsessive skewed overkill agenda, and this no surprise veers heavily toward the latter. Stylistically he lazily goes with his tendency toward self conscious post modern filmmaking here (random insert cuts from other media, actors staring straight into lens, etc.) even though he's quite capable of making the point by more difficult to do narrative craft, or at least he used to be capable of that. Based on a true story that is pretty funny, damn crazy and yes timely again now; but instead of being ripe with its inherent suspense this shoddy effort is full of logic flaws, sloppy period colloquial errors, and cartoony didactic dialogue in a silly heavily re-manipulated plot to tie into perceptions of today's America that all rings anything but true and worse is boring.

His best joints: "Do the Right Thing", "Summer of Sam", "Inside Man"
Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
2
SimpsonsSep 7, 2018
This movie only proves that Spike Lee is a shadow of his former self. Far distant from his greatest moments like Do The Right Thing, Clockers or Inside Man, this movie is nothing more than political pyromania and hysterical activism thatThis movie only proves that Spike Lee is a shadow of his former self. Far distant from his greatest moments like Do The Right Thing, Clockers or Inside Man, this movie is nothing more than political pyromania and hysterical activism that blantly decontextualizes footage from D.W. Griffith' Birth of a Nation for pure demagogic reasons. Lots of cliches and a militant overexcitation which is expressed in a misplaced way instead of shaping and transmitting naturally the story. Paltry movie, with a redudant and simplistic vision only to continue at full steam the 'agitprop' which is intoxicating USA. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
3
bjdesantisAug 30, 2018
Unfortunately the official files were all destroyed, so suspension of disbelief drives this embellished "true" story. It's too bad since since otherwise recently CIA declassified files are making such great true stories on TV and in theUnfortunately the official files were all destroyed, so suspension of disbelief drives this embellished "true" story. It's too bad since since otherwise recently CIA declassified files are making such great true stories on TV and in the movies these days. Please be warned that unwarranted anti-Trump and anti-police propaganda videos are tacked onto the end of this movie. I prefer when Hollywood leaves its secret political agendas checked at the curb before making/releasing movies for the public, but alas here it is. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
1
FrankieGSep 27, 2018
A weak movie, fully of illogical plot holes. Advertised as a comedy whereas it's quite a slow moving cliched movie.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews