I think many people do not take a chance and find out the truth for themselves. In regard to movies, they depend on reviewers to take the chance and do the work for them. Doing so gives power to reviewers, which is an evil thing. Those very people who give away their rights will think that, since Roger Ebert dismissed 'Tru Loved', it is not a good movie and will not go to the trouble of finding out for themselves. And this confirms their prejudices and makes them feel secure.
'Tru Loved' is a very good movie indeed. So why did he dismiss it? Why dismiss a movie that deals wisely with two of the most difficult aspects of human relationships, sex and race, in an entertaining and unifying way. That has a fine story. That has excellent acting which is natural and convincing (Najarra Townsend, as 'Tru', is inspiring). That has the priceless effect on the audience of goodwill and fellowship. That is pure and genuine.
Why dismiss such a terrific movie? I think the reason is that Mr. Ebert did not give the movie a chance to unfold. As a result, he missed the whole point of 'Tru Loved'--which is human unity. Then, in response to criticism, he went back and justified his position, still missing the point.
Why did he miss the point that 'Tru Loved' is about human unity? Because of unconscious fears, distaste or antagonism? Because of physical illness? Because it reminded him of other movies he didn't like? Because it didn't taste like his cup of tea? Who knows why?
Personally, I love 'Tru Loved'! I think it is a marvelous movie! I recommend it to all my friends.
That's my review. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.
'Tru Loved' is a very good movie indeed. So why did he dismiss it? Why dismiss a movie that deals wisely with two of the most difficult aspects of human relationships, sex and race, in an entertaining and unifying way. That has a fine story. That has excellent acting which is natural and convincing (Najarra Townsend, as 'Tru', is inspiring). That has the priceless effect on the audience of goodwill and fellowship. That is pure and genuine.
Why dismiss such a terrific movie? I think the reason is that Mr. Ebert did not give the movie a chance to unfold. As a result, he missed the whole point of 'Tru Loved'--which is human unity. Then, in response to criticism, he went back and justified his position, still missing the point.
Why did he miss the point that 'Tru Loved' is about human unity? Because of unconscious fears, distaste or antagonism? Because of physical illness? Because it reminded him of other movies he didn't like? Because it didn't taste like his cup of tea? Who knows why?
Personally, I love 'Tru Loved'! I think it is a marvelous movie! I recommend it to all my friends.
That's my review. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself.