I genuinely liked the film as well but am surprised some have complained the film embellishes what happened at the hotel. I mean it's clear that men were killed, others were tortured right? If even some of that is true, then I would be disturbed by it.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/uMrky7pGk5w

CraigJamesReview--

Thanks for your reply, Mr. James. I clicked on the link to your channel and enjoyed your review.

I don't think the film embellishes anything; police brutality was clearly a problem back then, as it is now.

I will say that one of the complaints from the black community leading up to the 1967 riots was the fact that you had an almost-entirely white police force patrolling a city that was, at that time, at least 50% black, and that to many of the black residents, it felt as if the police were an occupation force, and not a force that was there to "protect and serve."

Contrast this to now, where the city is about 85% black and has had a majority-black police force for decades . . . and during that time, there have still been complaints about police brutality, from black citizens against black (and white) police officers.

One of the problems has been police training, or I should say lack of it. Until recently, Detroit was unique among big-city police departments in that, as far as baseline educational requirements, it only required a high school diploma to get hired on as a police officer. Other departments of equal or larger size generally have required at least a two-year degree in criminal science or a related field, and many require a four-year degree. The DPD has since increased its educational requirements, as well as given more training related to the proper use of lethal force. Previously, the DPD was criticized for not giving its officers much training on how to deal with a dangerous situation other than to "go for your gun." In recent years more training has been focused on non-lethal de-escalation.

Does any other group in this country riot?

Havent seen the film. Probably wont since I feel like this is just Hollywood propaganda. Also a director trying to reach for another Oscar. But I heard they put text at the end saying that they cant prove that everything happened in the film...wow. That just seems like they just went with the old and true Hollywood formula of taking a real even and making things up for dramatic effect. :/

I thought the film was really well made. The performances and story were really strong. My only issue with it was I thought it was too long. They took to long to get us to the Motel and then I think they lingered too much on the aftermath. But regardless it was still a very good movie.

It's good, but not great. As mentioned above, it's a little too long due to the final 15 minutes, even though they were necessary to complete the story in a way. But the final 15 dragged. I actually thought it was over at the 2 hour mark, and I think it would've been even better if it was, actually.

Once it got in gear it was a a gritty and riveting drama. That's what I was in the mood for: an engaging, serious, no nonsense drama, by one of my favorite directors, and it did deliver.

However, as a whole I felt like it fell short from true greatness, and I wouldn't want to watch it again. I think it will deserve a few Oscar nominations for this year though.

I also didn't think it hugged any one side of the aisle necessarily politically, for people who are afraid its propaganda. For what it's about, I thought it cut pretty much straight down the middle, and was more a realistic telling of the story. It's more of a work of art than a political statement, in my opinion.

I gave it a 7/10.

@OddRob said:

Havent seen the film. Probably wont since I feel like this is just Hollywood propaganda.

How so? It's based on a true story.

@cswood said:

@OddRob said:

Havent seen the film. Probably wont since I feel like this is just Hollywood propaganda.

How so? It's based on a true story.

Based on a true story just means they picked what facts they wanted to use and filled everything else in with typical Hollywood fluff to make a cohesive story that is semi true and semi not. Hollywood does it all the time.

@OddRob said:

@cswood said:

@OddRob said:

Havent seen the film. Probably wont since I feel like this is just Hollywood propaganda.

How so? It's based on a true story.

Based on a true story just means they picked what facts they wanted to use and filled everything else in with typical Hollywood fluff to make a cohesive story that is semi true and semi not. Hollywood does it all the time.

But you could say that about any story ever. The love story in Titanic wasn't real but it helped people care more about a story they knew the ending to.

I'm still not seeing the propaganda in Detroit. What do you consider propaganda?

@cswood said:

@OddRob said:

@cswood said:

@OddRob said:

Havent seen the film. Probably wont since I feel like this is just Hollywood propaganda.

How so? It's based on a true story.

Based on a true story just means they picked what facts they wanted to use and filled everything else in with typical Hollywood fluff to make a cohesive story that is semi true and semi not. Hollywood does it all the time.

But you could say that about any story ever. The love story in Titanic wasn't real but it helped people care more about a story they knew the ending to.

I'm still not seeing the propaganda in Detroit. What do you consider propaganda?

Oh of course you can. Hollywood loves to throw the 'based on a true story' tagline. And than manipulate the facts and throw in some drama/none facts for the story and to make it more dramatic. Not to mention the final shot of the movie is basically a massive disclaimer about how liberties were taken with the events...so what does that say about the film?

Steven Crowder has a pretty good review of the film. I dont always agree with what he says but I enjoyed this one. 'DETROIT' MOVIE REVIEW: Pure SJW Propaganda!!

@cswood said:

But you could say that about any story ever. The love story in Titanic wasn't real but it helped people care more about a story they knew the ending to.

I'm still not seeing the propaganda in Detroit. What do you consider propaganda?

There was no third class celtic fest breaking cultural taboos on the real voyage. That's just Hollywood. There were liberties taken with this film as well.

For example, the police depicted in this film were either white hats or black hats with no middle ground whatsoever. The three cops at the hotel might as well have had SS bolts on their collars, whereas the police officer who found Larry Cleveland was pretty much Florence Nightengale, whispering sweet nothings into his ear as he gave him immediate care.

John Boyega's character was, too me, the most interesting because he struggled with his own authority as well as his affinity toward the black experience.

@volkstraum said:

@cswood said:

But you could say that about any story ever. The love story in Titanic wasn't real but it helped people care more about a story they knew the ending to.

I'm still not seeing the propaganda in Detroit. What do you consider propaganda?

There was no third class celtic fest breaking cultural taboos on the real voyage. That's just Hollywood. There were liberties taken with this film as well.

For example, the police depicted in this film were either white hats or black hats with no middle ground whatsoever. The three cops at the hotel might as well have had SS bolts on their collars, whereas the police officer who found Larry Cleveland was pretty much Florence Nightengale, whispering sweet nothings into his ear as he gave him immediate care.

I still don't see what the big deal is. There was no Jack Dawson on the real Titanic. Half the stuff in Argo didn't happen in real life as depicted in the movie. The Imitation Game had various inaccuracies. Most of the films based on real events have some level of creative liberties that most people seem to overlook, why exactly is this film being picked on when, as far as I can tell, it was mostly keeping with the series of events as they are believed to have happened and created a very tense and engaging story?

I'd say this was at least 45mins too long and it didn't engage me at all. Disappointing as I usually quite like Bigelow's work. This was a slog for about the last 90mins and the portrayal of a bunch of idiotic goons reacting to the discharge of a firearm by another idiotic goon (at a time of sniper activity), followed by a bungled trial didn't inform me as a viewer about US society at the time or entertain. A film has to do at least one of those two things to hold my attention. The film appeared to promise social insight with the hand drawn opening, then didn't follow through.

I think the film would have been much more impactful if it had used an example of systemic corruption, prejudice and/or social injustice (of which I'd imagine there'd be many, like the shocking scenario of Ahmaud Aubrey and inital police inaction and sympathy for murderers). Or, if those elements were felt to be present in this case, if they'd been portrayed in a more convincing manner than having various police and non-police characters (most of whom weren't present at the incident) voice their anger at what had happened.

3/10