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.

My goodness, this movie was a genuine trip. undoubtedly the film-makers were on something as well when they did this movie and I wish I could say it resulted in a great movie.The one and foremost reason why this movie is still considered to be a somewhat important one is because it is seen as the first true blaxploitation flick. And really, I absolutely love blaxploitation, no matter how bad and crazy those movies can get at times. It's because the movies are fun to watch, with its over-the-top characters and situations. I however got very little pleasure out of this movie. So while it perhaps was the first, it's also far from the best the genre has to offer.Maybe because it's the first, it's also obviously a far from polished and typical genre movie. Some classic blaxploitation ingredients are there, while the movie is also being filled with a ton of more stuff, that was completely redundant and helped to make this movie a way too odd one at times.This movie at times feels like a true psychedelic trip, with its odd scenes, crazy editing, visuals and music. It could had worked out if it helped to move the movie forward with but it really doesn't. The movie doesn't feel like its going anywhere and it really feels like a long sit as well, even though the movie is only about 97 minutes short. I most certainly was glad when it finally was over, since I was longing for the end, about 60 minutes in of it.Don't even ask me what this movie is all about. Yes, I know that Sweetback is on the run but why and for who exactly all remains a big mystery to me. I also really don't know what the character of Sweetback was supposed to be all about and why he got a movie based around him. The movie feels incredibly random with all of its scenes and developments. The movie has the occasional sex scene in it, no doubt all put in there so Melvin Van Peebles could allow himself to have some fun. He did not only played the main character but also directed and wrote the movie, among many other things. And believe me, at least some of the sex in this movie is real, since Melvin Van Peebles actually contracted gonorrhea from an 'actress' while shooting this movie.It was also weird seeing an 14-year old Mario Van Peebles having a sex scene in this, as a young Sweetback, with an adult woman. How did they ever get away with this? I doubt it was real sex they were having but still...they were obviously really naked and on top of each other.Because Van Peebles had to finance this movie himself, it most certainly isn't the most classy or best looking movie. The movie does not only has a cheap look to it but also a just plain bad look. At times it's really hard to say what's going on since the picture quality is too bad or a scene gets too dark at times to tell what's happening.I can most certainly appreciate and like a good old fashioned blaxploitation flick but this movie just isn't very good or fun to watch.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This is quite possibly the worst film ever made! The story behind the production and the intentions of Peebles may be inspiring, but the movie sure ain't. Sure, the backbone of it was a seriously slap in the face for the oppressive end of the white establishment which still resonates today - and rightly so. But the significant message this movie was conceived to communicate is utterly lost in an unbearably sloppy 90 minute montage of violence, running and f**king. As if that weren't poor taste enough, we even get to watch a guy taking a dump wearing only a towel - lovely.I have no moral objection to the film, but cannot get past the fact that it is utterly incoherent from start to finish. The plot is almost non-existent, and only about a third of the screen time has anything to do with the 'story' anyway. There are random scenes that have no apparent meaning or significance whatsoever.It looks dreadful, as if the cameraman was on speed and crack at the same time. Beyond this, the night sequences (which make up a large percentage of the film) are so dark that you literally cannot see a thing. Alas, that may be just as well, as it goes some small way to detracting from the mind-blowingly poor 'acting'. Sweetback himself just pouts and minces about, and he's the best 'character' in there. The sound is awful, often with two songs (the same two songs on a continuous loop) literally playing on top of each other.I really wanted to like this movie, and I still acknowledge it as a milestone in American culture and social history. As a side note, it was not the first blaxploitation film as is popularly believed - Cotton Comes to Harlem was a year earlier. That said, technically Sweetback isn't a blaxploitation film at all as it was financed and produced entirely by a black man. Moot point really, but worth mentioning.In case my point has been lost, let me recapitulate. Sweet Sweetback has to be one of the very worst films I have ever seen in my life. As a piece of cinema, there is absolutely nothing redeeming about it whatsoever.Approach this as a documentation of the shift in (black) American social consciousness as it related to popular culture of the late '60s and early '70s. Otherwise avoid it altogether, you'll thank me later.

Angry film about a black man who kills a white cop and is on the run from the cops for the entire film. Along the way he kills other people (all white) and has numerous sexual encounters.I saw this years ago at a revival theatre. I had heard it was an excellent, graphic and powerful film about racism. For the record I'm a white guy. What I saw was a dull, stupid, plot less, badly done movie with inaudible dialogue and scenes constantly going in and out of focus. The film makes it clear that white men are all racist jerks and have no problem with killing black guys. And white women should just be used for sex. This attitude might have seemed revolutionary in 1971 but it comes across today as sexist, racist (against white people) and more than a little questionable. This film might actually have been disturbing if it had been better made. The acting was lousy and the technical aspects of the film were so bad that it's really hard to give an totally accurate judgment of it.And the stupid tag line "Rated X by an all white jury" is ridiculous. Let's see...it opens with a young black kid (about 12) stripped down and forced to have sex with a woman. THAT alone should give it an X. And there's plenty of nudity, sexual acts and violence shown graphically. BTW it was lowered to an R in 1974.After about 75 minutes of this I walked out of the theatre. I was just so bored and annoyed I couldn't stay till the end. A lousy, disjointed period piece. Skip it.