Michael_Elliott Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971)** (out of 4)Male prostitute Sweetback (Melvin Van Peebles) gets tired of seeing a black man getting beaten by two white cops so he kills the cops. Sweetback takes off trying to evade the police who are hot on his trail.Thanks to its classic title and the fact that it's a historically important film, SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG has become somewhat of a folk/cult movie. There's no question that the film was a very important one for black cinema because it kick-started the blaxploitation genre but it also showed a different type of black man on the screen. White audiences were used to seeing Sidney Poitier and his kindness but none of that was to be seen with this film.Instead of taking it from the man, Sweetback decided to give it to the man and kill any white person who tried to hold him back. I'm sure a lot of people would watch this film today and call it all sorts of things but I think it's important that people realize that this was released just a few years after black people were still being beaten by the police and had water hoses turned on them. There's no question that Melvin Van Peebles broke all sorts of new ground and he deserves a lot of credit delivering this type of movie.With that said, there's still no question that the film itself isn't all that good. Basically we get a 97-minute running film where we see the hero bang several women, kill a few others and then he runs around the entire time. There's no question that the low-budget actually works for the film but at the same time everything is extremely slow and rather boring as well. Van Peebles is good in the role. He's given very little dialogue but that look tells you everything you need to know.SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG isn't a masterpiece but it deserves to be called a classic since it did break through so many new levels.

Smoreni Zmaj Strong message, interesting story-line, explicit sex and violence, beginning that promises... and then very fast movie transforms into unwatchable crap. Stretched, full of unnecessary "parrot" repetition, too chaotic, mediocre acting and, for me, terrible directing. Director, who is also screen writer, must have been either on heavy drugs or VD reached his brain. Movie is made with just 150.000$ from his own pocket, so I have no objections on production, it's OK for such small amount of money, but even with that budget and only 3 weeks of shooting it could have been done much better. This way he just ruined awesome idea.

angelsunchained I saw this film in Los Angeles in 1971. I was 13 and my cousin was 15, but we got into the theater, located in a lousy neighborhood without any problem. The film was really gross and trashy. But, people in the theater were cheering and going crazy when Sweetback was beating the heck out of the cops or banging away. Seemed to me the whole theme of this film was fu_k the establishment anyway you can. This movie was made and released at a time when the whole country was a total mess of rebellion, protest, and revolution. This worthless garbage got caught up with the movement and became a mega hit and a "groundbreaking work if film art." If released today, the movie would be a complete failure at the box office. The acting was horrible; the people involved looked like skid-row drug addicts. The best actor was the 250 pound man sitting on the toilet wearing a shower cap. Enough said. Pure trash. Trash that made over 16 million dollars. Only

MartinHafer This film, according to IMDb, is the first blaxploitation film. However, unlike the second ("Shaft"), this one is super-super low-budget and is a major chore to watch. That's because, quite frankly, the film is rougher and less polished than even the earliest John Waters film. In fact, there's almost nothing positive I can say about the movie--and it's light-years worse than the worst thing Ed Wood ever produced! Yes, folks, it's that bad! And, after having seen several dozen films in the genre, I think I have some idea what I'm talking about in this review. I've seen Mexican Mummy and Luchador films and "Sweet Sweetback" is SIGNIFICANTLY worse!Let's talk about the cinematography...if you can even call it that. It's obvious that the cameraman tried to be adventurous and arty, but it ended up looking horrid. The film stock appeared to be, at best, 16mm and it was very, very grainy. The edits, it appears, were done by Ray Charles. I have never seen a more amateurish bit of camera-work--and I've reviewed over 8000 movies! As for the acting...oh, the horror! Melvin Van Peebles says almost nothing and does almost nothing in the film--like it is a zombie film. Most people under anesthesia emote more than he did! The only thing close to acting that he seemed to do was have sex repeatedly--with very unattractive women. I assume most of his budget went to hire ugly prostitutes for these scenes. The rest of the actors were also horrible...but at least they were more animated and interesting that this writer/director/actor. He simply sleep-walked throughout the film.Speaking of nude scenes, the film begins with a bit of child pornography. Mario Van Peebles, the way underage son of the director, engages in a very, very realistic sex act with a woman of about 30 years of age. They are both VERY naked and he appears to he having intercourse with her. How the film maker got away with this legally is beyond me. I assume Melvin was motivated by heroin or battery acid or a massive head injury which allowed him to make such an irresponsible scene.As far as the plot goes, this could have been good...but wasn't. Plus, all too often, the plot was buried among sleaze. The first 10 minutes of the film consisted of having Melvin having sex in front of groups of people. You assume he's some sort of prostitute and he's about as far from Shaft (perhaps a bad choice) or Hammer or the other black heroes of the 70s as you can get. Eventually, the police arrest him and some other innocent man and start working the other guy over even though they know neither had anything to do with a crime--and the cops even admit this! They randomly picked a couple black men to beat up just to make the chief happy! But, while they are pummeling the other man, Melvin turns on them and beats the crap out of them. The rest of the film consists of the cops trying to catch him.I am sure this was very satisfying for black audiences of the day, as they were probably very well acquainted with police brutality (a national sport up until the late 1960s) and Van Peebles was capitalizing on this resentment. But, with so many more competent blaxsploitation films out there, I suggest you try them first. In fact ANY other film of the genre is better than this film. In fact, ANY film is better than this one. In fact, staring as a toilet for 90 minutes is better...the film is that bad! Just because it's first doesn't mean it's best. It's horribly incompetent and looks like a film made by crack-heads. And, when you watch the director on the accompanying DVD extra, you assume this was the case.