Panther (I) (1995) User Reviews

Mario Van Peebles, director and writer.

[Captain_Couth · 7/10 · 27 August 2005]

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.

For Entertainment Purposes...

[yazminduzit · 7/10 · 9 June 2011]

...this film receives a TEN. No other movie captures the fire of the Panther better than that of Mario van Peeble's production. However, just as well for entertainment purposes, some facts were tampered and skewed to fit into the film. This isn't a documentary, folks. Nor is it a bio about Huey P. This is a historically correct film based on a NOVEL. If that doesn't tell you enough about what you're in for, I don't know what will. Historical fiction is what this is. If you're looking for a interesting, socially conscious film that will keep you on the edge of your seat, this is it. If not - you may as well keep moving, jack.

a flawed, but intriguing premise

[sljones44 · 5/10 · 21 June 2005]

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.

You can't cheer for "Braveheart" if you can't cheer for this

[apkacdh · 18 January 2001]

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.

A controversial piece of history or just simple entertainment?

[emm · 5/10 · 10 February 1999]

Very little can be told about PANTHER, which amazingly didn't capture the attention of so many. Based on the past turbulent history of 1967-68, it shows off its mean-spiritedness and hatred on the screen. It's a disturbing account involving brutal, racial violence during the era, and a story of the Black Panthers Party who finds truth for justice. There is just one small point of huge proof: an average "blaction" movie that's made as simple-minded entertainment. A far better directing job would have made it stand out with its head held high over the surface.

So underrated

[Newsense · 10/10 · 7 January 2009]

This movie came and went during its run in theaters due to its nature. But I feel that it was an honest attempt to tell the story of the most controversial party in America: the Black Panthers.

The story is based on the Panthers and how they came to be. The party gets frustrated with the police brutality in America and decide to defend themselves with weaponry.

The acting is pretty good all around: Marcus Chong is great as Huey P Newton, Judge is Kadeem Hardison's best performance on screen point blank period. The same goes for Bokeem Woodbine's character in this movie. The only flaw is that they leave out a few key elements that lead to their downfall but other than that I have no real gripe with this film. I thought that Mario Van Peebles did the best he could with the material he was given but we have to understand that movies are edited just like books are edited so certain information that might have made a difference in the story are left out causing some scenes in the movie to be a little vague. You can always read about the Black Panthers if you want to know more about them. This movie is worthy of being in your collection despite the little flaws. If you can find it at a reasonable price, you can definitely check it out.

A silly and simplistic view of the Panthers

[Tiger_Mark · 1/10 · 28 January 2004]

Watching this movie had me on the verge of laughter and on the verge of anger. The laughter came from watching such poor acting and such a truly inane script. It is so funny to see the "totally good" Black Panthers and the "totally bad" white people do battle. Of course, the Panthers say things like "golly gee" and "nedo." It is funny. HOWEVER, it is also borderline revolting. Not to judge the Panthers, but they were a little more hardcore than this silly movie portrays them to be. They were much more militant and not quite the "goody goodies" Mr. Peebles so naively wants us to believe. It is actually somewhat insulting. This movie has the historical accuracy of a.....well, I am trying to think of something as inaccurate and can't do it.

Police Brutality & Corruption (same old)

[tidymuso49 · 8/10 · 25 June 2020]

Filmed in the 1990's, depicting the 1960's & still watching the same Police brutality in the 2020's.

This Is A True Story Is It ?

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 23 February 2004]

I`d never heard of the movie PANTHER until it was shown on Channel 4 tonight. I was under the impression that this was going to be a true story about the rise of the Black Panther movement but right from the opening titles the doubt was sown in my mind as the words " Screenplay by Melvin Van Pebbles based on his novel " appeared . Eh ? Novel ? By definition novels are works of fiction so if the screenplay is based on a novel that means it`s not a true story

Something else I noticed in the credits were some bizarre casting choices with well regarded actors like Joe Don Baker and Angela Bassett appearing alongside non actors like Chris Rock and Bobby Brown and as can be expected the performances are very hit and miss . In fact the casting matches Mario Van Pebbles directing perfectly since one moment it feels like a farcical comedy and the next moment a polemical diatribe on race and a moment later a docu-drama . I doubt if this was Van Pebbles intention , but I will give him credit since he probably upset everyone regardless of race by painting nearly every single white person as being racist while nearly every black person is an anchronistic home boy from the 1990s . Just as well no-one thinks this is a true story . Or do they ?

Flawed movie, a reply to a flawed comment

[gimme_ie · 24 March 2000]

I am actually watching Panther as I write this. Thus far it has borne the flaw of every historical/political film dealing with complex issues, there is a lot of talking, a lot of montage and things are definitely simplified. However, looking through the comments by users there is at least one major error in a prior comment. Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army, a tiny ultra-left wing sect. As to Eldridge Cleaver, he indeed was not a pleasant person by all accounts. His failing do not mean that every Black Panther was so misogynistic or brutal. In many cases, the Panthers were more sinnned against than sinning-the major sin being the existence of a massive and legally and morally dubious COINTELPRO program which seeded the Party with agents provocateurs and informers, and which seems to have coordinated a number of violent incidents agianst Panther officials and supporters, including fatal shootings. That destroyed the Party, and destroyed the lives of many associated with it.

Action that should have been drama.

[Buster007 · 4/10 · 9 October 2003]

Mario Van Peebles directs a conspiratorial and fictionalized account of the rise and fall of the Black Panthers in America in the sixties. While the subject is powerful and potent, and could have made a great movie, it is rarely allowed to shine through as it is treated as an action movie. There are shoot outs and fight scenes, and the whole thing looks too slick to be what it should have been; a gritty historical drama.

"Professional Critics" show their ignorance

[nobletraveler · 8/10 · 7 February 2020]

I am white. I watched this movie and found it to be intense and amazing. Very, very good - both acting and intensity. It showed what it was like back then and the Black Panther movement from an African-American point of view. The "Professional Critics" like on Rotten Tomato don't get it. They don't understand the African-American culture and the many events that brought about the Panther movement. While I never condoned the violence that the Panthers did, this movie explains many things to people that never really understood who they are and why they did what they did. The white cops back then - across the country - were indeed like that and many of these "Professional Critics" probably never took the time to read their Black History, or try to understand the African-American culture then and now! White privledged "Critics". Please! Before you "professionals" comment on a movie made from documentation, and ACTUAL events, and is well acted by all involved, and extremely well written by Mr. Melvin Van Peebles should have been nominated for an award - but alas, the "white critics" who know nothing, trashed this movie without taking the time to UNDERSTAND the movie. I guess they wanted something that made them comfortable like "Mary Poppins" maybe? What this movie, be open minded, try to understand the who and the why the Panthers were born and try to understand the rage back then. It wasn't pretty, but it was real - so is this fantastic and "in your face" reality movie. Watch, learn, understand and never forget. The same issues are happening today. If you forget history, you are bound to repeat it and we are repeating it TODAY!

Interesting topic, poor account

[georgegolembiewski · 1/10 · 7 October 2002]

This film is a disappointment though it is worth seeing. The white Police are always the oppressors of the noble black community. They refer to a large street crowd of black people as "pickaninies". When black people use dope it the fault of the white power structure. Never is individual responsibility expressed as a reason for failure. The history of these troubled times is not portrayed with a sense of balance you might see in a Spike Lee film. The research is as bad as Oliver Stone's JFK. If you see this film don't take it as an accurate representation of the subject matter.

PantherPride

[Montayj · 9/10 · 30 May 2018]

This is the type of movie that I love because it shows the oppressor fighting the oppressed, not fantasy like Black Panther 2018, which is why I believe the reviews on here are so low. Black people hate seeing on film doing something for selves unless it is false. Pantherpride.

You don't have to be paranoid to enjoy this movie but it helps....

[ianlouisiana · 4/10 · 15 March 2009]

Black Panthers never caught on in Britain but I remember some very large black blokes with black T shirts and necklaces made with rifle bullets larging it at a Stones concert in Hyde Park although they were rather upstaged by the Hell's Angels sitting round in large groups biting the heads off chickens.Ah,happy days - unless you happened to be a Rhode Island Red. Possibly because British blacks weren't brought over here by the millions in chains and worked to death in cotton fields they tend to be less militaristic.I would imagine that sort of treatment might cause any minority to look somewhat askance at their former oppressors. Hence "Panther" (1995-Mario van Peebles)a fictionalised account of the founding of a group of Freedom Fighters or Urban Terrorists depending on whether you're in the ghetto looking out or out of the ghetto looking in. So many myths have sprung up in the last forty years that it's virtually impossible to sort out the truth from the propaganda.Certainly many Panthers had had difficult lives,some were criminals happy to hide their criminality under the respectable cloak of "revolution",but many genuinely saw themselves as victims of an unjust social order. Unfortunately much of the sense of history being made that must have suffused the original members of the organisation has been marginalised by Mr van Peebles hysterical polemic.Its simplistic "Two legs bad,four legs good" stance is such that a more sensitive white person than myself might consider it almost racist.As well-balanced as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest,the movie clearly believes it is preaching to the converted.Instead,unforgivably,it comes across as almost a parody of the "blaxploitation" era. Mr van Peebles may well be an angry man,but in over-egging his pudding with "Panther",he has done neither himself nor his subject any favours.

Too glossy and revisionist to be objective but still watchable (but not as a historical piece in any way)

[bob the moo · 29 February 2004]

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.

You need more of the story

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 17 January 2023]

Mario Van Peebles directed and produced this adaption of Melvin Van Peebles's novel Panther and had his dad write the screenplay, too.

Kadeem Hardison Judge, a man who has returned home from Vietnam to find that Oakland is torn apart between crime and police discrimination against African-Americans. He soon learns about the Black Panthers and their leaders Bobby Seale (Courtney B. Vance) -- who said that this movie is "80 percent to 90 percent" untrue -- and Huey P. Newton (Marcus Chong).

This movie has a great cast, including Tyrin Turner, Joe Don Baker, M. Emmet Walsh, Chris Rock, Chris Tucker, Bobby Brown, Angela Bassett (who played Beverly Shabazz in both this movie and Malcolm X), Dick Gregory, Kool Moe Dee, Richard Dysart (who also played J. Edgar Hoover in Marilyn & Bobby: Her Final Affair), Michael Wincott, James Russo and both Marlon and Melvin Van Peebles.

Even if the movie is fictionalized, it should get you to read about the Black Panther Party and how they used copwatching to police the very cops who had pledged to protect their neighborhoods. In addition, the party created the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, education programs, and community health clinics. Hoover believed that they were "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" and part of a Communist plot.

The film never gets into the two different ways America still sees the Black Panthers, whether as a vital organization in the struggle of African-Americans or a criminal organization. Perhaps most dangerous to the status quo was that Huey Newton expressed his support for the Women's Liberation Movement and the Gay Liberation Movement, urging his followers to "unite with them in a revolutionary fashion."

If you get anything out of this, learn more about them and how people are still fighting for equality.

This movie is how you uplift our people

[jensyao · 10/10 · 4 March 2010]

You cannot deny the timeless performance done by our actors to portray the Black Panthers at their finest. The long lost quotations said by Martin and Malcolm buried in the sands of time has left our next generation watered down of its glory and deprived of our will to uplift our people. By revisiting the mentality of the Black Panthers, we are able to learn from the past and reiterate the fact that that there is always room for improving oneself as well as the community. Today's rap scene of glorifying gangs and portraying crime and violence has no place in society and leads to more people getting killed. We must show this movie to our teens so that they understand they come from a bloodline of proud individuals who want the next generation to carry on their legacy.

A movie filmed in 1995 about 1967-68 seems right at home in 2020

[view_and_review · 9/10 · 26 August 2020]

Sadly, I never heard of this movie until recently. I say sadly because I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some things were definitely dramatized, but the gist of the movie was true to the facts.

I had the pleasure of reading the tome, "Black Against Empire" by Joshua Bloom and Waldo E. Martin, Jr. It is essentially the complete history of the Black Panther Party: a 540 page whopper of a book with names, dates, events and more. "Panther" by Mario Van Peebles lines up very well with that book.

The entire production was brilliant. It's clear that there wasn't a big budget, yet they secured actors such as Courtney B. Vance, Kadeem Hardison, Bokeem Woodbine, Chris Rock, Bobby Brown, Angela Bassett, Roger Gueneveur Smith, M. Emmet Walsh, and Dick Gregory. I know some of these names won't blow your skirt up, but they're all established actors (except Bobby Brown, he was just a well known name).

So, to answer your burning question: yes, it is a favorable movie about the BPP which conversely means it is an unfavorable movie about the police and the FBI. But I'll tell you what, the police don't need much help painting unfavorable pictures of themselves these days. It's just amazing how a movie shot in 1995 about 1967-68 seems right at home in 2020.

simplistic but a thriller

[michelleaspence · 24 February 2004]

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!

Perfect movie for our times and detailed in our American history

[brutherford-90437 · 10/10 · 27 August 2021]

This movie was absolutely perfect. The actors were amazing and the true story was on point. Sad to say that this movie still relates to what we are all seeing and experiencing in our world today. Freedom, systematic racism and the right to bare arms is something every American should want and peacefully fight for (which I use peacefully lightly, depending on the circumstances). A must see movie.

POWER 2 THE PEOPLE!!!

[covington_c · 8/10 · 6 September 2020]

Great fact based account. It's not a documentary, so for people to be overly critical is absurd & ridiculous. Marcus Chong is GREAT as Huey P. Newton! Mario Van People's does a great job w/ directing. STRONG supporting cast. Great music! Thoroughly underrated entertaining sleeper of a movie! ENJOY IT!

A little left out, but still good

[drakelah_whip · 23 October 2000]

This movie does greatly leave out the true nature of some of the Panthers identified, but this is merely to avoid offending anyone. Huey Newton originally fled to Cuba. Still, Marcus Chong gave a splendid performance and I believe that he is an excellent actor.

History or histrionics?

[The_Film_Cricket · 13 September 2014]

The Black Panthers were a fascinating but enigmatic force of the 1960s. Here was a militant organization of black youths that captured the imagination of blacks in the 1960s who had grown impatient with Dr. King's stance of passive resistance. They brought with them the ideal of protecting their own and encouraging young blacks to have pride in themselves. Having said that I have no doubt that a great movie about The Black Panthers is yet to be made.

Mario Van Peeble's 'Panther' is not that movie. It's a bloated confused epic more intent on silly conspiracy theories then on facts. It purports to give us and inside look at how the party was founded and how the FBI brought it down but it wastes time on silly plot devices involving the Mafia.

The movie's first fatal flaw is that it is narrated from the point of view of a fictional character named Judge. That makes it hard for the viewer to get a foothold in the story. The opening scenes are very effective showing how Bobby Seal and Huey Newton met in a coffee shop one day and began to plan their strategy. I would like to have seen more scenes between these two then maybe I could have made my own assessments about them. We never really get to understand them or what fueled their fire. This movie is more interested in theatrics then in historical accuracy.

The movie uses the preposterous theory that J. Edgar Hoover dumped drugs into the black neighborhoods in order to bring about its downfall. The ending scenes are just plain stupid, a shootout in a warehouse with the FBI as they duck behind boxes. It seems easier to drag out an action scene then it does to create good drama. These scenes seem like a cop-out. In reality the party was brought down by pressure and by a conflict of ideas.

'Malcolm X', the best film of 1992, was about personalities and worked because we saw the change in Malcolm from the street hood to an inmate and ultimately a national leader. 'Panther' keeps us at arms length. We never understand the people that we see on screen. Who were these men? What were they fighting for? What motivated them? What went on personally between them that brought them down? These are questions that Peebles apparently doesn't know how to answer.

revisionist history, and badly done at that

[sychonic · 9 February 2000]

Revisionism of the sort trowelled out by the makers of "Panther" would be laughable if it weren't for the possibility that someone somewhere might take it seriously. The main point of the movie, made by the otherwise modestly talented Mario Van Peebles, is that the Black Panthers were just a bunch of do gooders being oppressed by a dictatorial government after having the temerity to stand up for their rights.

The movie is not without its sardonic side -- at one point (not much of a spoiler, still -- SPOILER -- just to be cautious) the early Panthers start selling books written by the Chinese Chairman Mao, mass murderer, worse than Hitler, to make money so they can buy guns. And who do they sell them too? Foolish white college kids -- it is sort of funny and ironic, black radicals selling a murderous communist book to phony revolutionary white upper class kids in a perfectly acceptable capitalist free market way to fund the purchase of weapons. It's sort of a hoot.

Still, you don't see their participation in their murder of an accountant who found problems with their bookkeeping, or the general mentality of Eldridge Cleaver who has said he has delighted in raping women and found it a politically liberating experience. The movie also gives credence to the idea that somehow the U.S. government purposely shipped massive amounts of cocaine into inner city neighborhoods in a conscious attempt to destroy minority communities--a laughable contention thoroughly at odds with the facts. The movie is such a shameless example of extremist pablum that it is easy to laugh at, but hard to completely dismiss since someone somewhere might take this for history.