Saints and Soldiers: The Void (2014) User Reviews

Decent film

[hypersonic8999 · 6/10 · 8 October 2014]

The movie isn't as bad as I expected from a low budget film (and it shows it's low budget). The acting isn't half bad, but it's not the greatest either. Some of the dialogue is cheesy and feels out of place sometime. The plot and story are interesting though.

2 US tank destroyers are caught in an ambush by 3 Wehrmacht tanks in a no-man's land area. The German ambush had previously caught 2 trucks transferring liberated POWs and the only survivors are one of the drivers (who is an African-American) and a British captain. Now they must all fight together to take out the Germans, before an unsuspecting US General, on his way for an inspection, as well as any other Allied forces are caught by the Germans.

The story focuses a lot on racial disputes in the US army at that time. You have the African-American sergeant who is the most experienced of the lot, trying to take charge of the situation, while 2 men from the tank crews are bigoted against him. The British captain goes on to mostly fight by himself as he's trying to avenge the death of his fellow prisoners. All in all, some of the characters are interesting. The delivery of the message it wants to convey is kinda blunt towards the end, but it's still worth the watch. The movie is more focused on action than previous films in the Saints and Soldiers series.

6/10

Saints and Soldiers - The Void: I liked it

[niutta-enrico · 6/10 · 28 November 2014]

There is always some controversies, when it comes to low budget and Indie films, about the right way to rate them in comparison with regular productions. Somebody feels that since you must judge the overall result, if it is manifestly lower than a similar film made by some Major, you have to state it. Plain and simple.

Some others think that since it's obvious that they cannot meet bigger productions standards, you have to appreciate the good things they show (if any) and be happy with it. I don't know where to stand but I'm more inclined towards this second party, at least for the present movie.

I found this film entertaining and even if they had just four tanks, two trucks, one house and one tent, they had very good dialogues and did an overall good job. All the gear looked stunningly brand new and this may be the way things looked back in 1944, I don't know, surely it appeared to be a precise artistic choice which I won't judge.

If you would compare it to a major production its correct rate would be 4. If you ask yourself what would anybody be able to do with the same stuff, then I think it deserves an 8.

Jessie Owens was a Tank Commander? Seriously?

[scndform · 5/10 · 8 September 2019]

War films are astronomically expensive to produce so I actually admire what this film company was able to do with limited resources. I am well aware that many historical films often veer from historical accuracy regarding the events and personages they portray in the name of "artistic license." I also get that the filmmaker was attempting to stress the discrimination faced by African Americans in a segregated military, however, deciding to make up a totally fictitious account of four-time Olympic Gold Medalist Jesse Owens is not the way to achieve this goal.

Jess Owens spent the war years working as a liaison for a national fitness program sponsored by the Office of Civilian Defense and for the Ford Motor Company overseeing relations with black employees. Owens never served in the military in any capacity much less as the commander of a Hellcat Tank receiving the Silver Star as the script would have you believe. In a film that was striving for realism this was about as believable as F.D.R. piloting a B17 over Berlin. There literally hundreds upon hundreds of African-American soldiers who served in tank divisions as well as around 6,000 black soldiers assigned as truck drivers in the "Red-Ball Express." How difficult would it have been to do a little research and create a character based upon the experiences of some of these men? It would have made for a far more plausible film.

This film really did have a lot of potential. A credible script would have made it a pretty decent movie.

Really, really bad writing

[gbvinluan · 1/10 · 11 December 2020]

Even A-list actors would not have been able to salvage this script. The motivation of the characters is mystifying but it's totally not the director's fault; it's the script.

The actors' makeup was too clean-looking and unrealistic. Someone else said the vehicles looked fresh out of the factory and they are right: no way they looked like they were airlifted or came off a landing craft and driven across France: no mud, no scrapes, no faded insignia.

Finally, I don't disagree that the racism and hatred in a segregated US Army was real but the way it is portrayed in this movie is just too ham-handed, preachy, and one dimensional.

A movie for M18 buffs

[blackhawk5150 · 7/10 · 8 January 2015]

This movie, while not horrible, is obviously low budget. That said, the Saints and Soldiers series do an admirable job of creating realism with excellent props, especially when considering the low budget. The acting, for the most part is campy, preachy, and over the top. A few of the guys do fine jobs, but most could be much better.

But let's be honest, where this movie shines is in getting to watch two beautifully preserved M18 Hellcats and a Pz.III in action. Which brings up one minor gripe; In WWII, armored vehicles were nearly unrecognizable due to the amount of crap they had on them. From backpacks, to wooden ammo and ration crates, to tarps, to sandbag and log armor, etc. These vehicles looked like they just rumbled off the showroom floor.

But all in all, I gave it a 7. For WWII armor buffs, you won't find a better movie out there that features Buick's beautiful tank destroyer, which was well loved by it's crews. For those who like fast, light US armor, also check out The Bridge at Remagen, for some incredibly fun M24 Chaffee action.

WW2 Amateur Hour

[grrg63 · 3/10 · 13 September 2017]

OK acting for the most part couldn't overcome corny, ham handed writing and plot, especially the the parts concerning racism. The actors spouting technical factoids about guns and equipment seemingly meant to impress WW2 nerds was dumb. The most egregious failings were the unrealistic appearance of equipment (fresh of the assembly line - no mud, dents or wear whatsoever), and uniforms (suede leather shoes fresh out of the box; no dirt, stains, smudges or rips on the clothes).The actors spend most of the movie freshly shaven until someone finally realized how ridiculous they looked. The racist guy goes from clean shaven to having 3 days growth in the middle of a scene. Amateur hour. I will say that Owens relating the experience of black units with combat experience being relegated to rear guard service and support duties was a common occurrence and a realistic touch.

Bit too preachy

[myplane150-128-721664 · 7/10 · 9 October 2014]

For a viewer with interests in WW2 and it's weaponry, this movie was not too bad. For anyone looking for another Saving Private Ryan, look elsewhere.

Both of the S and S movies have been fairly decent. The first was more dialog than action and this one leaned more toward the action. At least until it became kind of preachy about racial harmony, etc... The part I liked best about this series is the accuracy of the era the creators have, well, created. All of the vehicles and weapons are period accurate. They did a great job with the props. The 'cats' (how many times did the actors say Hellcat in this movie?) were awesome and the fact that they seemed to have gotten an early model Panzer Type 3 is really cool. What I did not like was when the movie became a lesson for potential WW2 hobbyists. All the talk about the M18 caliber and ammo types got a little bit educational when people just want to see it shoot. Also, the panzerfaust would easily cut through the armor of a Panzer 3 from pretty much any angle. So, for a movie that seems to pride themselves on accurate depictions that wars weaponry, the shot with the panzerfaust was a bit of a stretch. Still, I am a huge WW2 buff and gave the movie a 7.

Sermon tanks should have been the title

[draciron · 3/10 · 20 April 2015]

I liked the previous Saints and Soldiers movies. As long as the combat is realistic and the plot good I am not to worried about special effects. This movie was one long sermon on how racist Whites are. I can understand introducing the idea but devoting an entire film to the concept got old really quickly. Every time you thought the plot was going to get going in came yet another sermon. I managed to watch the whole movie but barely. If I want to be preached at I'll go to church not watch a war movie. I do not care much about people's skin color and I think every living American is abundantly aware of the prejudice in America prior to the 60s. No need to go on and on about it until you start rooting for the Germans just to shut the guy up.

A different & decent WWII film

[joebloggz · 7/10 · 15 October 2014]

As has been said...yes it's a low budget film (explosions/FX etc lack realism)...however, that being said it shows a different side of WWII & (as I assume) some of the extras are perhaps re-enactment enthusiasts, a lot of the uniforms & equipment is pretty much spot on (for a change) although mostly all (including the tanks) are in a lovely new condition - not worn & battle-hardened at all.

There are a few plot holes & some acting is a little wooden / obvious & characters frustratingly lack a little 'get up & go' with each other, but it's not a bad film all in all, good to see some tank vs tank & anti-tank battles, as well as a bit of humanity thrown in between Axis & Allied troops/civilians. Well worth a watch.

Good basic premise; historically fantastic

[JBThackery · 3/10 · 21 August 2017]

The principal thrust of the movie is to resolve racial tensions and barriers. The film does this well. However, it is historically laughable to present Jesse Owens in a military capacity. Surely, he was a hero in sports, and social advancement in the USA, but he was never in the military. Blacks were also not generally allowed near the front in World War II, mainly to protect them from capture by the Nazis who would execute them on sight. The film does get around this obstacle, however, presenting a logical excuse for a black soldier to be at the front. But the social message, valuable as it is, could have been made without claiming the black character was the Olympic hero, Jesse Owens, which simply did not happen.

Entertaining, compelling and action packed

[Mischief810 · 8/10 · 19 February 2015]

This film illustrates the brilliance of the nascent Saints and Soldiers franchise and after watching The Void, you'll pray that more installments are coming.

The first few scenes have some clumsy, cheesy dialogue that tries to develop the characters. That's on the director's shoulders. But stick around--the real character development and some quality acting comes once the shells and bullets start to fly.

This is a compelling plot--an African American soldier is, through no fault of his own, thrown in with a couple of tank crews with a few men who don't want him around.

I won't spoil a thing. If you can get through the first 20 minutes or so, then prepare for very good war story that shows what all men are made of in a foxhole.

The score is fantastic, too. This doesn't rise past 8/10 because of the cheesy stuff early on and some improbable scenes during firefights (plenty of those, too).

We can only hope that the S&S rights owners have many more such fine films in development.

A worthy effort in the low budget ranks - Ryan Little gets better every time

[azanti0029 · 7/10 · 22 November 2014]

For those of you unfamiliar with the Saints and Soldiers trilogy, these are low budget WW2 movies, set on the Western Front, the first was in late 1944, during The Battle of The Bulge, the second was set in the South of France during Operation Anvil and the 3rd, this one is set in 1945 in Germany and the plot isn't that much different from the bigger budgeted 'Fury' - A group of two American Hellcat Tank Destroyers are to scout an area known as 'The Void' (I can't find any reference to this area in history, but here the context is that its Indian country) meanwhile a group of troopers being transported by the Redball Express, driven by none other than Jesse Owens himself is ambushed by a squadron of dated German Mark III Panzers, an English Agent is in the group who make their escape - soon the Hellcats arrive and its a question of who can outsmart who in the skirmish that follows.

If you look through my other reviews you will see I like all kinds of movies but I am something of a WW2 buff and its always interesting to see these films, clearly made with love and care. Little here tries to put as much as he can in every shot to increase Production Value and it extra shots have been added to make the place feel more like Germany / Austria and less like Utah where it was filmed. For the most part this works, along with a heavy de- saturation of color in the edit suite, making you feel like the film is almost black and white and giving it the appropriate vintage feel. I recently also reviewed Allies and its easy to compare these two films, probably both having similar budgets and using resources from Tank Collectors and re-inactors. Allies is probably the superior of the two movies, but SAS - The Void is not without its great moments of action and tension. Some of the actors are good too but sadly this makes the weaker performances stand out all the more and these aren't helped by some very over stated dialogue. Little needs to team up with a good writer next time but also trust in his best actors to deliver more emotion with less words on some key scenes. Here and there dialogue is forced to explain things too much, but never the less what you have here is actually a great little film. Its well researched and feels bigger than it actually is, there is nice sense of scale and battle in the climax. Its biggest flaw is that its very hard to make a film shot in the States actually feel like Europe unless you can drop in some blue screen shots of European Towns or Villages (or Alternatively build one as they did in Fury) still with the obvious restraints of budget you have to commend Little's effort because it tries really hard with every shot to make the location feel European.

I think this is a great film, with good attention to detail that is let down by some aspects that were clearly beyond the control or means of the production financially but with stronger writing it could have been a stronger film still. Worth watching and I look forward to Little's next film War Pigs, which has some big names in the cast - he has earned his shot to make a bigger movie, that is for sure.

interesting Plot and story

[etienne-berbers · 5/10 · 24 October 2014]

As being a low budget movie you mustn't expect a "band of Brothers" or depth like "Saving private Ryan" feeling. It lacks a certain dramatic atmosphere. It doesn't 'pull' you in the movie as being one of them. The plot and story though are quite interesting.

2 US hellcat tank destroyers are caught in an ambush by 3 German panzer's in a no-man's land area (called the void). The German ambush had previously caught 2 trucks carrying US POWs and the only survivors are one of the drivers (who is an African-American) and a British lieutenant .

The story focuses on racial disputes in the US army at that time. On one hand there's the African-American sergeant Owens who is the most experienced of the lot, trying to take charge of the situation, while 2 men from the tank crew are bigoted against him. The British lieutenant fights his own private battle with the Nazi's just to avenge the death of his fellow prisoners. It all ends well, as you might expect. Sgt Owens saves the lot and the racial tensions seems to disappear...

All in all.. No dramatic filming as Band of Brothers or Saving Private Ryan No feeling of being part of the movie... difficult to relate to someone. but it had a nice story and for once.. the US as well as the German tanks are correct... (not the German uniforms though)...

Is it even possible to make a bad WW2 Movie ?

[quasides · 3/10 · 9 October 2014]

I can't remember to have seen a bad WW2 Movie, bad sadly that changed with this Movie.

This isn't much about the low Budget, which iam OK with, it's the Dialogs and the very bad Acting.

Specially the racial Disputes don't seem Real. You simply don't believe the Actors their racial hate and disregard. Its actually so bad that the hole topic is in great danger to become a laughing-stock and thats a shame.

But at the end the hole story looks like that. Nothing makes really sense or fit together, you simply don't believe anyone of them and their behavior is simply unrealistic.

Also the German translations are often definitely off (mostly not much but still).

So no neither the script or the acting works out here. Low Budget or not how hard can it be to write some believable lines, cmon guys who write this piece of processed Food ? I still give that Movie 3 Stars because its trying and I've seen worse so i know i can get worse and i need abit room to the bottom.

Educational, Entertaining, but Low Budget, Bad Acting.

[DMan_76 · 6/10 · 15 October 2014]

I want to start off by saying that I was a M1A1 operator in the US Army so I have a little bit of interest in watching films that feature tanks. The acting in this film was unsurprisingly, not great, due to the low budget and the lack named actors. It more or less reminded me of a made for TV movie on a low budget network. The story of the movie is actually pretty decent. Basically, two M26 Pershing tanks try to take out a Panzer tank that is taking out vehicles going down a particular road. While attempting there maneuvers, they run into a bit of surprise. The film offers a decent bit of action and taste of how African-American soldiers were treated during the WW2. I gave it six stars out of ten because of the story, entertainment, and the tank scenes. As previously mentioned, it is a low budget film with no named actors and should be viewed as just that. I highly recommend that you rent or Netflix the film first before going out to buy the Blu-Ray or DVD.

Hollywood, why you always lying?

[RogerBorg · 3/10 · 21 December 2020]

Jesse Owens as a black tanker in 1945? Oh, please. That relegates this from an historical movie to an execrably written revisionist fantasy piece, burdened by uniformly dreadful acting and pretty dire TV production values. Yes, the 827th did exist, and had the dreadful discipline problems shown here, but Owens was nowhere near it.

The movie is bombastically heavy handed on race relations, and based on risible lies, from Owen's ridiculous presence to begin with, to a clumsy and false story about his father being a war hero rather than a farmer and steel worker. The only logical conclusion is that the Owens shown in this movie is not Jesse Owens the athlete, but a lying fantasist grifting off of his name. How else can you explain it?

Cinematically, it's poor. They do the best they can with the small budget that they have, but good luck seeing any ejecting brass. There's even a scene where brass and links from an M2 are showing falling into... I don't know, the floor of the tank? The ammo box? when it's painfully obvious that it's not actually firing, and the poor actor is just shaking it for all he's worth.

The HD filming also really highlights the flaws - or rather, the lack of flaws - in the vehicles and uniforms, right down to completely scuff and scratch free goggles. Clearly all fresh off the shelf, or rentals that had to be returned in pristine condition. In some particularly bizarre scenes they even highlight this, featuring the soles of boots that have clearly never touched the ground, or a tanker complaining about sleeping in his mint condition uniform, sporting freshly pressed creases.

Continuity is poor, with facial hair appearing and disappearing in the middle of scenes, and firefights where dozens of rounds are fired into a room with a full sized window backdrop without a single pane of glass being hit.

Yes, it's got M18s, but the budget only stretches to a few mobile scenes and some fairly shoddy effects, or even lack of effects for the first M18 shot.

The research and period detail are decent enough, but there are some curious foibles like, uh, "Jesse" manually working the extractor on an M1 carbine (and the only brass to be seen in the movie ejects), then in the very next shot demonstrating that it's semi automatic. Why? One particularly jarring anachronism is the insistence of most of the cast of demonstrating modern finger-along-receiver trigger discipline, which is great until you remember that it was never done in period.

If you're interested in history then you'll be infuriated by the dreadful shoehorning of Owens into the narrative plus the constant flaws, and if you're not interested in history then there's very little reason to watch this.

An entertaining movie worth the watch

[Agedapocolypse · 7/10 · 23 December 2014]

For those looking for a massive budget film like Fury, this is not it. It has some very good Hellcats and Pzs and it was a real good show of how to take down a tank. I enjoyed the movie for the most part, but there were some pet peeves that got to me. Everyone on the American's side not using a sub-machine gun seems to be using an M1 Carbine or maybe an M1 Garand. If they were fighting on the front lines, someone would have been using a M1903 Springfield since it was the primary weapon given to those on the front until 1944. It's nothing major, but a little peeve I had that does nothing to detract from the rest of the movie. Another thing that sort of ground my gears was how slow the Hellcat seemed to move at all times. It was the fastest tank of WWII and one of the most maneuverable (the turret was painstakingly slow though and they kept that), so Hellcat drivers would drive like mad to get shots at the German tanks' weaker side and rear armor. They would not try to actively go head- to-head against any tank due to the fact that 1-inch armor is not very protective and so moving was its only means of surviving. Add into that that the 76mm cannon on the Hellcat was very finicky about penetrating the front of the Panzers and Tigers, they tried to avoid frontal assaults as much as possible. The later Panthers were impossible for a Hellcat to penetrate from the front because their armor was simply too thick so that meant having to move for side/rear shots. All in all, these are just my personal pet peeves and I find the movie to be very good and beyond my expectations.

Ho humm, and audio was terribly inconsistent

[js_lelievre · 3/10 · 26 December 2020]

Boring storyline, action intermittent, and audio quality was horrible. Turned up to hear dialogue, and then woke up my neighbors during firefights.....

Why am I the only one that found this movie horrible?

[KrisJohnson · 16 March 2015]

This franchise seems to get worse and worse with each film. What was "The Void" about? In the past all the other Saints and Soldiers seemed to have a Christian based theme, this was just... Random. The actors I thought were interesting, the scripts and the acting had, lets say, A LOT OF ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. Barely made it through the movie, hoping some redeeming factor could be found, but just like the whole movie, it continued to disappoint, in every regard. I expect more from Ryan Little and Producer Adam Abel, but everyone has a bad day right...or in this case a bad movie.

To clarify, this movie does have some wholesome values, not to give any spoilers away, but an important theme is touched upon, but not enough to qualify it like the first Saints and Soldiers installment did. Would love to see Jasen Wade back... if another one is up and coming.

THIS review is for SCNDFORM reviewer

[longhorn_bear · 7/10 · 30 January 2021]

The character Owens was not THE ACTUAL JESSE OWENS, but an solder named Jesse Owens. If you go back and listen, he says he could lap the ACTUAL OWENS. Writers would not make this obvious error about the ACTUAL OWENS.

Decent film for this WW2 buff, compliments on using correct tanks, however, the tanks look they are right off prod. floor though, not a tour thru Italy and Europe. Avg acting but like the moral of the story and the ending. And the young German soldier would not shoot his superior no matter what happened.

Basically, a TV-movie-level effort

[Wilsoncpu-605-474004 · 3/10 · 30 May 2021]

As many others have said: 1) Although the main character is named "Jesse Owens", the movie CLEARLY says right off the bat "no, not THAT Jesse Owens". So all the comments and reviews complaining that the "real" Jesse Owens wasn't in a tank unit in WWII were clearly NOT paying attention.

2) The movie is plagued by terrible art direction (everything looks new and clean, including the soldiers and their uniforms!), clumsy acting, uninspired writing, pedestrian direction, and merely adequate acting.

If I'd seen this as an episode of a weekly anthology drama on TV, I'd give it credit for effort. As an actual movie, not so much.

I stuck it out to the end, but I can't imagine bothering to watch it again.

Great backdrop, Authentic feel, Dialogue could be improved

[PBock124 · 8/10 · 23 September 2015]

If you come into Saints and Soldiers: The Void and watch it for what it is, overall you will be pleased.

(1)The Plot/Dialogue: From beginning to end, the story definitely has direction, as you'd be pressed to find a scene where the narrative feels like it has stalled or is not moving along. Character development is somewhat lacking at the start, but towards the end I feel that Little does a decent job of filling holes. Ben Urie as Lt. Goss and K. Danor Gerald as Jesse Owens do commendable jobs and perform their roles at very respectable levels. Where lines and script may have been cheesy or written poorly, the superb acting of these two cast members definitely cover it up. In total, there are many parts where there could have been extra speech, or could have been rewritten, but nothing too bad that would deter you from watching the film. The "whole concept" from start to finish was nicely done.

(2)Scenery/Setting: As always, Little does a magnificent job at taking the low budget and what little he has to work with and turning in a masterpiece backdrop. Everything from the prop guns, to the tanks, to the uniforms were period-correct and had a real, authentic look and feel. In my opinion, the explosions and special effects may not rival those on the big screen, but they were never anywhere close to looking fake. The blue/gray tint from editing really gives an old war-time look, which also adds to the realism. The only knock I have is some of the props would have benefited from a little dirt, as sometimes they looked to new and not battle-torn, but nonetheless impressive.

Final Thought:Ryan Little has proved once again that he deserves a shot to direct a bigger budget film, albeit with a better script writer, and more well-paid actors. The scenery was outstanding and the special effects were done very well for the budget. If only there were deeper-voiced actors that seemed more battle-tested and a better dialogue for the script, I may have given this movie a 10/10. Not a game-changer, but a credible war movie that does not dishonor the genre.

Pretty good

[terri-63519 · 6/10 · 24 April 2021]

It's a pretty good show. We prefer Band of Brothers and other movies/series like it, but this is decent.

But, if there was a Lifetime Movie Network for Men, this would be there.

Far too clean

[dcevison · 3/10 · 23 June 2021]

Make-up artist made them ready for a catwalk. Everything too clean from the uniforms, to the tanks., even the staircase at the mill. Obviously renting everything. 3 stars, try harder. Not believable.

Falls Short of Its Potential

[ETO_Buff · 3/10 · 1 October 2015]

Most people aren't going to like my review of this film, just like all of my reviews, but I'm not going to sacrifice honesty for garbage. Almost everyone that reads these reviews, myself included, have already seen the film. If your review doesn't agree with their opinion of the same film, they mark your review as not useful.

I wanted so desperately to see this third installment in the Saints and Soldiers franchise and say that Ryan Little learned from the heinous mistakes in "Saints and Soldiers: Airborne Creed". I have to wonder if my desperation has subconsciously influenced me into saying that this one is at least infinitesimally better than its predecessor, or if it is actually just as bad or worse.

When one of my re-enacting associates posted on Facebook that he enjoyed this one more than Fury, it dawned on me what this film is. It is EXACTLY like a re-enactment battle would be! Everyone is in clean uniforms that they are afraid to get dirty (we re-enactors have to pay for our own uniforms, equipment, and blank ammo, which are all very expensive, so we understandably don't want them to get torn or broken to the point where they must be replaced), operating clean, freshly painted vehicles, and speaking lines that are written to be an instructional narrative for the audience so that even those with absolutely no knowledge of the way things were during the war can follow along.

This is truly a re-enactment on film, complete with blow-dryer hair and blank ammunition that doesn't put the slightest mark on wooden barrels at point-blank range!

What actually makes this film potentially slightly better than its predecessor is the filmmaker's attempt to address the issue of the racist policies and prevailing attitudes in the U.S. Army during World War II (and the attitudes in the U.S. toward Americans of African descent). The problem is, it portrays one soldier out of a dozen or so as being racist, while none of the others share his contempt for Owens, the Negro soldier that circumstances have suddenly thrust in amongst them. The reason that I call this a problem is because in the 1940s, racism in the military and many states was mandated by law, and it was something that the majority of European-Americans grew up with culturally. Even if a particular American was not the type of person to automatically dislike people of African descent for no specific reason, he or she had still been taught that they were an inferior race, and most people just accepted that as being "the way it is". What I call "aggressive racism" ran rampant in the 1940s U.S. military, and those that were simply "passive racists" did not go out of their way to oppose aggressive racism. Very few people stuck up for "Negroes" in those days, and even fewer in the military did so.

Therefore, racism was not the "accepted exception" that this film portrays. Additionally, the inevitable conversion of the American racist and changing his attitude because of his interaction with Owens and being told of Owens' mistreatment and his father's lynching because of their race is even more far-fetched.

Aside from that issue, the film strays quite a long way from reality on multiple fronts. After all is said and done, my first impulse was to give it only two stars, but I'm giving it an additional star for taking on the issue of racism, even if it took it on in a highly simplified way.