The Great Debaters (2007) User Reviews

The Great Denzels

[ClaytonDavis · 9/10 · 28 December 2007]

In his sophomore effort, actor-director Denzel Washington has created one of the best films of the year, The Great Debaters. Never trying to be the cliché coming of age tale of student-teacher relationship that becomes like a bad aftertaste like past efforts, as Mona Lisa Smile; the film takes a high road to transform its narrative into a beautiful canvas for Washington to paint on like forgotten masterpieces like Stand and Deliver and Dead Poet's Society. Adapted from a Tony Scherman article by Robert Eisele and Jeffrey Porro, the film follows an astonishing pace and never forcing anything down the audience's throat rather, uses images and manifestations for its armor.

Washington's achievement here is pulling the performances of this new, unknown young actors. Denzel Whitaker as the innocent, curious James Jr. is wonderful in exposition of character and gives the best child performance of the year. At 17, young Whitaker should have no problem coming into his own as a great young leading man in the future. Nate Parker in a momentous breakthrough performance indulges the audience as Henry, the angry young college student dealing with the inequalities of African-Americans in the South. In the end it's the tenacious performance by the beautiful Jurnee Smollett that holds the emotional premise of the film together. Not only dealing the racial barrier, but the barrier of being a woman, a woman running away from her past and trying to settle into a world dominated by the differences of her own. Smollett's debate speeches are felt with every word, every expression, and every influential command. Smollett's performance is the ignored performance worthy of consideration for awards of 2007.

Not expecting too much from last year's Oscar winner Forest Whitaker probably helped him in watching the film. Whitaker reminds the viewer of how great he was for years before The Last King of Scotland. This is a true superior work on the actor's resume. So how Denzel Washington do in directing himself? Not glossing as much as Clint Eastwood and Kevin Costner past works, Washington does an admirable effort and takes the supporting role (yes it's supporting) and acts as the film's right hand man. Adding his charisma, potency, and veteran thespian persona, the film is a success.

In terms of Oscar's chances, costume designer Sharen Davis nominated for her designs in Ray and Dreamgirls is worthy of citation. David J. Bomba's production design is quite easy on the eye and captures the era of tyranny and persecution. With the potential to be a late surge to the Academy Awards race, The Great Debaters delivers on every level encompassing the richness of love, the evil of oppression, and the beauty of triumph.

Grade: ****/****

You do what you have to do, so you can do what you want to do.

[lastliberal · 8/10 · 26 December 2007]

This wasn't about my Texas, although I am familiar with many of the topics in this film. I have been to Marshall in my travels over most of the highways in Texas, I know about Paul Quinn College and Prairie View A & M University. This wasn't even about my Daddy's Texas, as he was just a small boy at the time. It was, however, my Grandfather's Texas. he typified the characters in this film.

With Denzel Washington directing and acting, I expected an outstanding film. I was not prepared to be so emotionally taken in that I left the theater wiping tears from eyes. This was a powerful statement about the differences in American. Differences that were typified by Franklin Roosevelt's affirmative action program for whites - the New Deal; differences that would be repeated twenty years later after WWII when the whites again received affirmative action in the form of the GI Bill. Robert Eisele's story really brought home the pain and deprivation of being Black in America, and how some could overcome that deprivation with the right help, but could never overcome the pain.

Besides Washington, there were outstanding performances by Forest Whitaker, Nate Parker, Jurnee Smollett, and Denzel Whitaker, as a 14-year-old in college.

Tears in my eyes, I will long remember this film as one of the best of the year and of many years.

The Beginning of Civil Rights Legislation

[Casablanca3784 · 7/10 · 31 December 2007]

Of course the title deals with debating but it goes far deeper than that. Forest Whitaker, playing a true academician in every sense of the word, has both a precocious and gifted 14 year old son played by the brilliant Denzel Whitaker,no relation, and that son is none other than James Farmer Jr.,whom 7 years later becomes the founder of C.O.R.E., the Congress on Racial Equality. Thus began the beginning of the end of segregation as well as the vicious Jim Crow laws of the South which made it as difficult for a Negro to live and thrive there as it did for the Jew in pre-war Third Reich Germany. Yet, the film was basically not political in theme.

It deals with a small black college in Texas,Wiley,that had a poet plus a political agitator played by Denzel Washington as many students' mentor. Denzel, knowing that if given the chance, a few gifted students could form a debating team to challenge any college team in the nation and he sets out to prove it. Keep in mind that the main theme of the Civil Rights Movement was "if given the chance" and so the film builds on it and does the kind of damage to opponents as did the great "Brown Bomber," Joe Louis.

Although a bit slow moving and at times, pretentious, the film was very skillfully done in bringing to light the efforts accomplished by the African Americans to do away with the perniciousness having pervaded this nation from the time the first slave ship landed on our shores. Without delving into the ultra-political, nevertheless we are made to see for ourselves how prophetic became the words "We can overcome".

Who wrote, "And the youth shall guide them?" Truer words never written. Those Wiley College kids, without anything but minds for weapons, caused a revolution from the mid '30s to the present--kids who put real meaning into the Emancipation Proclamation.

Though I speak with the tongues of angels, but have not love....

[intelearts · 10/10 · 24 December 2007]

"The Great Debaters" is a very fine film.

It reminds us of what it means to be excellent, to stand for something good, to love with all our hearts, and to shine.

The performances, or the cinematography, historical care, or directorship all lift it out of the ordinary.

And in its difficult subject: racial tension and the education and discovery of values by the three young debaters from Wiley College, one of the oldest colleges in America, it creates real excitement and interest.

But the real reason that this is a fine film lies in is its plea that in education lies the reasoning, the power, and the will to change history. That learning lies not just in knowledge but also in applying that knowledge to better yourself, your world, and all of humanity.

The very significant point of the film is at the end. I can forgive the slight drag here and there because the ending is magnificent and explains something crucial about American history by its finish.

From an era when bigotry, racism, and degrading behavior was a wretched norm to our era where values are mutable, where dumbing down has no limits, and taste little place; "The Great Debaters" stands out as being a story that stands against all of these things.

The rating says it all: excellent.

Exceptional Film, Extremely Talented Cast

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 17 December 2007]

Although "The Great Debaters" does not open until Christmas, I had the good fortune of seeing it at a preview -- and I can recommend it without reservation. It is a great story, based on real events that most of us never heard of, about a debating team from Wiley College, a small black institution in rural Texas, that performs extraordinary feats because the kids are good and the team is taught by Mel Tolson, a real person, acted by Denzel Washington, who also directs. Forest Whitaker, like Washington an academy award winner, plays James Farmer Sr., the school president and the father of one of the debaters, James Farmer Jr. (yes, that James Farmer Jr.). The participation in this enterprise of Washington, Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey and the Weinstein brothers should draw crowds (provided the film isn't cursed by being described as "uplifting," though it is). The revelation in this film are the performances of the three principal debaters: Jurnee Smollett as Samatha Booke (with an "e", as she proclaims when she tries out for the debate team), Nate Parker as Henry Lowe (also with an "e" as he announces in response to Samantha's declaration) and Denzel Whitaker as James Farmer Jr. (It's an amusing coincidence, but he is unrelated either to Denzel Washington or to Forrest Whitaker.) You may have seen Jurnee Smollett earlier in her career when she was a "cute kid" and a promising actress. This film could be her portal to stardom. In addition to being a gorgeous young woman, she's also an accomplished actress, ready for bigger parts in the future. You'll also be impressed with her colleagues, people whose names you may never have heard. You don't have to be black to find this film engrossing; I'm not. All you need to be is (a) a human being and (b) someone who appreciates a good movie. I hope it makes a ton of money at the box office but it is, above all, a quality film. It just happens to be about a difficult period in American history, the rural South in the 1930's. It just happens to be inspirational and uplifting and all that good, boring stuff that cause your eyes to roll when that's how the critics describe it. But it's better than uplifting. It's GOOD and it's REAL.

Great Sophomore Film by Denzel as a Director

[desiplaya · 23 December 2007]

Two words perfectly sum up this movie - inspirational and uplifting. I have not seen Antwone Fisher, but I will be sure to check it out after seeing this.

Before watching this, I had never even heard about Wiley College or what it did in the '30s, so not only is it great entertainment but it is also educational. I don't know how closely the movie follows the actual events so I can't point out the flaws, but it doesn't matter because the movie is brilliant and moving. This is an underdog movie and you'll be rooting for the Wiley College team throughout the movie. The acting is marvelous by all the actors, but recognition has to be given to the three stars that portray the debaters, Denzel Washington, and Forest Whitaker. Not only is Denzel great as an actor, he is even better as a director. As other reviewers have said, out of all the actors Denzel Whitaker is the star. His portrayal of James Farmer, Jr. is outstanding and this role will certainly further his acting career. Forest Whitaker doesn't have a huge role to play, but he performs his parts beautifully (for example the hog and the sheriff scenes).

Overall this is a very inspirational and uplifting movie. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets a few Oscar nods.

9/10

No excuse for mistakes

[sxct · 7/10 · 31 December 2007]

Extremely uplifting and very well acted. It also has a few important flaws which, in my thinking, took a film that should have been rated a 9 to a 7.

I heard Denzel Washington say on radio that two "poetic license" changes were made. One was that Wiley College did not defeat Harvard but rather U. of Southern California. This change was made with the permission of both schools. He also said that Wiley College did not, as shown in the film, lose a debate. They went undefeated but felt it would be more dramatic if they gave them a loss.

There are two other problems that I had with this film. One was that it was never explained how Professor Tolson made it to Cambridge since he was required by law NOT to leave the state of Texas.

The second, and in my mind most glaring, is when Professor Tolson asked his team who was the first African-American to earn a PhD. and from what school? I can't remember the name he gave but he said that he graduated from Harvard. In fact, the first African-American to earn a PhD. and the sixth ever in the United States, was Edward Alexander Bouchet and he earned it from Yale and not Harvard. Why is this important? Because there are a tremendous amount of people who are seeing this film and are taking these statements as fact and I think that something as important to a culture as this should be correct.

Other than a few other flaws of much less importance, the movie should be seen and enjoyed for the terrific acting performances of the entire cast.

You should see this film

[Phillipcgolub · 10/10 · 20 December 2007]

I say this because: 1) The acting is remarkable. Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, Nate Parker, Jurnee Smollett, Denzel Whitaker, and Kimberly Elise are all stunningly good 2) The cinematography is very well done and the score is beautifully and uplifting. 3) The story is great. It has multiple underdog themes which when watching, you root so much for the underdog it actually hurts :). These would be: a) the black people in the south in the 1930s b) little Wiley collage (especially when they are vs Harvard) c) the 14 year old boy James P. Farmer Jr. (Denzel Whitaker) who is seemingly incapable at first of debating. Do yourself a favor and see "The Great Debaters". You are going to love it.

Triumph ... and Treacle

[cliffs_of_fall · 6/10 · 10 January 2008]

Sometimes you can enjoy every second of a movie, every frame, and be phenomenally moved by it, and cry a happy tear … and yet, when you ponder the film afterward, you feel disappointment, a sense of "why couldn't this film have been braver?" For me, this was that kind of film. There's just no subtlety in it and situations are stock.

Best things: the design of the film, the cinematography, the casting of the primary characters, and, most importantly, the inspirational theme of debating, of speaking well as a way out and up. I hope it inspires young people of all races to clean up their bad speech habits, speak up and be heard. As the Samantha character says at one point, in wonder, "I didn't need weapons, I had words!"

Worst things: predictable plot line, the fact that the speeches themselves, while well delivered, are not always well formulated, and the deliberate decision to end with an unalloyed triumph when the actual situation was less glamorous and more poignant; other postings here have explained why. As someone pointed out, the white characters are demonized (I would say "stereotyped") and not only by cretinous pig farmers in Texas but by the young Harvard debaters whose delicate features and snooty bearing make them seem like Stepford Scions. Oh, well … black characters in films have often been stock but one must ask, if that was wrong then why is this right now?

Oprah is a soft-hearted person with an aspirational dream for her people. That's nice but it doesn't necessarily lead to great art.

Elucidating entertainment

[msims1 · 8/10 · 28 December 2007]

THE GREAT DEBATERS is a movie-going treat, with young people exemplifying truth, respect, pride and dignity. In an entertaining way, with some preaching, this movie shows four African-American debaters succeeding in the face of adversity, growing stronger with success AND defeat. Their debates are lively and thought provoking.

However, before, during and after these contests, other serious and complicated issues are revealed. Two of these issues deal with a confrontation on the road between two farmers and a minister, and a lynching in the middle of the night. Both are reflections of the time, unsettling and disturbing to those in the movie and in the audience.

This is not family entertainment, nor is it mindless entertainment. It has no gratuitous sex, but there is a hint of romance. It is fast paced, but the action is verbal – not physical. THE GREAT DEBATERS lives up to its name in that it has something for everyone, and not everyone will like it. I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a quality film that will be debated by all who see it!

Pulitzer-Prize Winning Screenwriter, Academy Award Winning Director, Academy Award Winning Actors and Editor, Made-For-TV Movie

[colinbarnard-1 · 6/10 · 4 January 2008]

The Votometre doesn't show decimals, but really my number rating is 6.9. Today, anyway....I may change my mind tomorrow.

Knights of the South Bronx, Akeelah and the Bee, Glory Road- we've seen this movie before, and we've seen the same themes before. A feel-good underdog story with the typical American cinema's portrayal of Blacks centred one-dimensionally on how they are forced to relate to the issue of "race" in a racist and classist society.

At least the characters in this film get to display their full humanity and are not reduced to one-note caricatures, centred on their "race". These characters are not stereotypes, but fully realized human beings who have decided that not only education, but intellectualism, is as much their birthright as any American.

There are major problems with the script and/or the editing of this film that will hopefully be rectified in the DVD edition. There are several character arcs that have no logical building, just a juxtaposition of problem and solution later in the narrative. Forest Whittaker's humiliation during the pig incident, and his subsequent redemption in his son's eyes when dealing with Denzel in jail- there's dramatic stuff missing in the middle that makes me think that this is a three-hour film. Ophrah has been known to do those, so why not here?

We all know Ophrah Winfrey is full of good intentions. But as a film-maker, whether in front of the camera, or behind it, she has a very limited repertoire of themes that inspire her. We all know that the poor lady practices counter-transference in everything she does, but funding a $30 Million psychotherapy session should not be one area of her practice.

By fictionalizing a true story (not Harvard), you rob the narrative of its one true virtue- it really happened. And by fictionalizing it, you make it merely product to stand with the other films of identical theme. I don't buy the film-makers claim that by altering the venue from USC to Harvard they are able to show the magnitude of the Wiley team's achievement. Some careful exposition through the film could have easily made USC do quite nicely.

No, Harvard is the symbol of the white eastern intellectual elite, of white class and privilege, and that is why the film-makers chose Harvard. I am not sure that this is a legitimate reason for me to complain, though. As the Harvard Chancellor says in introducing the Debaters, Harvard is the school of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and numerous other US Presidents. Harvard IS America: the Debators are knocking at America's door and saying "we coming in 'cause we live here, this is our home".

The characters in the film certainly are enamoured with the possibility of being associated with Harvard. The device of the black butler at Harvard is not fully explored, but the choice to include him accentuates the viewers' perceptions of Harvard as a racist institution, and a locus for racial oppression.

Part of the problem in North American education (in Canada and the U.S.) is alienation of certain groups by not telling their stories, rendering them 'invisable' to themselves and the wider society. When you fictionalize an important human story, you are essentially saying to everyone that the real history isn't good enough. And it IS! It seems to me that that can be potentially damaging, because you are saying that the real story isn't worth being told. And it IS!

Note to Denzel- take the training wheels off, you did "Antoine Fischer", you didn't have to film it twice, and please don't do it a third time. Antoine was a much more self-assured and cinematic work.

This film would have worked far better as a stage-play- not surprising since it was written by a Pulitzer-prize winning playwright. The actors do their best to "elevate the material" and are actually the reason why the film is worthwhile to watch and engaging: the actors are uniformly charming and charismatic. It is their feelings and common humanity that I empathize with on screen.

This film is set in the Great Depression. This is of little consequence to the main characters of the film. But, Denzel's Communism seems to be a throw-away theme, as are the plight of labourers and share-croppers themselves. "Of Mice and Men", or John Sayles' "Matewan", or even the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" are films that explore these themes with much more authenticity.

Social injustice is portrayed in this film as racism, not as the poverty that creates an underclass, regardless of skin colour. In the climatic debating scene, political reaction to racism is the theme, provided by the debaters own experience of witnessing a lynching.

Yet, racism has its roots in classism, and economic oppression that could have equally been cited in this movie. It seems to me that Denzel's communist character could have made better use of this avenue of social commentary. But perhaps, being an American film, nobody wants to hold capitalism itself responsible for racial oppression, and therefore, the larger issue.

The central characters are middle class, even in a racist society. And it is worth remembering that even in the Depression, the employment rate was 70%.

Does civil disobedience have a place in today's society? Or, is that theme used in this film as a precursor to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's? With Barack Obama less than 12 months away from his Inauguration, Stephanie Wilson sitting on Harvard's Board of Governors, and Ophrah the richest woman on the planet, memory of injustice should be memory of fact, and anger at injustice directed towards the present, and focused on eliminating that injustice.

An Extremely Well-Acted, If Syrupy, Look At The Jim Crow South

[zkonedog · 9/10 · 12 March 2017]

In order to fully enjoy a film like The Great Debaters, one must believe in the power of aspirational filmmaking. Sure, there are certainly times and places for gritty realism, but other instances/stories are best served by what could simply be defined as "the magic of cinema". The Great Debaters holds a lot of that magic, provided you allow yourself to be swept away by it.

For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of the small Wily College debate team in 1930s Texas (deep in the Jim Crow South). Under the tutelage of Melvin Tolson (Denzel Washington), the debaters take on all-comers--big or small schools, as well as black or white-and ultimately stare down Harvard in the climactic finale.

"Debaters" is far from a perfect film by any reckoning. Under the direction of Washington, it succumbs to some pretty standard tropes for the genre. Most (if not all) of the white characters are outright villains, and the other character archetypes are pretty standard/cliched: incorruptible idealist (Washington), overprotective strict father (Forest Whitaker), and even mustache-twiddling sheriff (John Heard). Also, the powerful and dramatic words uttered in the debate scenes don't always amount to much substance if examined up close (a little hollow, in other words).

So why have I immensely enjoyed "Debaters" both times I've viewed it? Because the acting is terrific. Apart from the usually-stellar Washington & Whitaker, the young debaters each stand out in nuanced performances. Jurnee Smollett, Nate Parker, Denzel Whitaker, & Jermaine Williams are delights both on the debate stage and simply interacting with each other. The chemistry between all of them is truly remarkable.

The overall production value here is also top-notch. Likely due to Washington's bankable presence, this is the type of film that sort of captures some lightning in a bottle with its combination of drama, visuals, score/soundtrack, and acting. In a way, the finished product is probably better than the sum of the individual parts here.

So, The Great Debaters is a film I can recommend to just about anyone who enjoys being immersed in the movie-watching experience. You may not take much concrete with you at the end of the day, but the messages of positivity and perseverance-combined with the dramatic bend and A-level acting-make it an experience you won't forget nonetheless.

Well made feel good story that is weakened by the use of some clichés that have been over used in recent similar films

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 2 January 2008]

Denzel Washington directs and stars in the fact based story of the debate team from a small black college in Texas that was so good it beat Harvard and went undefeated for 8 years. That may or may not be too much information, except that this is an Oprah production and is being billed as a feel good movie.

Well acted and well directed Denzel Washington clearly knows how to put a film together. For all intents and purposes we are in the south in 1935.We see what it was like to be both poor and/or black in the south at the time with the dangers of lynching and white on black violence possible at any moment. The film also shows the joy of having an education and of the doors that having one can open for anyone.

His cast of younger actors is excellent with young Denzel Whitaker (no relation (that I know of) to co star Forrest Whitaker coming off best, probably because playing a 14 year old college student he's given the widest range of things to do.

If the film falls down its because it follows the same path that every other feel good underdog story of recent years where the team comes together and over comes impossible odds and makes everyone feel good by achieving something no one thought possible. To be certain its dressed up more fancily and has two Oscar winners heading its cast, but at the same time it hits almost every cliché you can think of right down to the "banned" team coach, played by Washington, showing up in the back of the big final debate to see his team pull it out. I knew it was coming the minute he didn't get on the train. While I grant you there is only so many ways you could probably tell the story its a shame that the film ends up in the well worn rut of similar films, the film is so good in so many ways that it almost seems like a laziness that they didn't find away around the clichés, or at least dressing them up in a suit (however fancy) that was clearly a hand me down.

7 out of 10 more for the disappointment of not transcending the clichés. Probably should be a little higher. Comment on this

Classic Hollywood BS

[weeples09 · 5/10 · 26 January 2008]

I went into this movie and i liked it. A few scenes were bland where James tries to hit on Samantha. I thought it seemed pretty well done and especially with the job Denzel did with his acting. I wasn't as thrilled with his directing, but it was still a decent job.

Later that day i was looking up online about the story of Wiley College and i realized the script was highly inaccurate. The writer deserves all of the blame. During it, it was hard for me to believe that small Wiley College could get an opportunity to debate against the honorable Harvard, and now i know why. They NEVER faced Harvard, they faced USC and they barely won. However their victory was negated because they weren't a member of the national debate association, which further shows how hard it was to be black, which was the real reason it was taken away.

This was all "hollywooded up" as i like to say. It is a David and Goliath story, with Goliath coming out on top, during the time of the civil rights. This had the potential to be a box office hit, but not a success in my eyes. They are telling me a false, inaccurate story that is hard to believe considering that it was 1935 and not 1960. I wasn't moved by it at all. I feel if the writer had gone with the actual story, it would have not made as much money, but would have been more artistically effective and more moving, because the fact that their win was taken away adds more to the whole racism idea of it. I have no respect for the writer who destroyed an interesting story to make money.

Wow! Academy Award material for everything in this movie!

[jessie-39 · 10/10 · 28 December 2007]

Simply spectacular movie with every single cast member worthy of an Oscar. Be it Denzel Washington to Forest Whitaker to the entire debating team of fine young actors. Each is worthy of an Academy Award nomination. The Movie was well directed by Denzel. This period piece set in the 1930's had great costume and set designs that were done very very well. I would expect great things from this movie for all of the new young people and another notch in his belt for Denzel and more appreciation for Forest Whitaker. Don't miss it. Kids over 8 yrs old will also enjoy it. We have seen 71 movies this year and consider this to be one of the best. It surely is among our top 5 for 2007.

Gripping, educating and impressing! A masterpiece.

[gordianfrank · 10/10 · 23 December 2007]

The Great Debaters, taking place 1935 in Texas, is about a young debate team of Wiley College, a school which became famous as it won many debates against schools of any background in the 30's. Denzel Washington, playing professor Melvin Tolson, coaches this team to finally debate against Harvard University. Tolsen selects four young people who he trains in debating and who he strengthens in their resolve to fight for the civil rights. Melvin Tolsen also organizes the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, which contributes to him coming into constant conflict with the town's sheriff. The Great Debaters allows you to gain a great insight view of the lives of these four debaters (not to mention Tolson's life) and their family circumstances: For instance Hamilton Burgess (played by J. Williams) quits the team because his parents are too worried about the radical actions of Tolson and possible consequences of those.

The actors were perfect. Especially Denzel Whitaker (as James Farmer Jr.) who catches your attention when debating about the cruel conditions to be faced by blacks, delivers an outstanding performance. J. Smollett (as Samantha Booke) is chosen the first woman to ever debate and N. Parker (as Henry Lowe) is sort of the leader of the debaters yet plays a surprisingly small role in the showdown in Harvard.

Overall this movie is a masterpiece of the drama genre and definitely a milestone of Denzel Washington as Director. Hence, I am looking forward to more movies to come with him directing.

Very Good But Familiar

[northstop · 7/10 · 27 December 2007]

The movie was exactly what I had expected: a compelling story, strong actors and a great message. However, while Denzel delivers another stellar performance, you can't help notice that it has been seen several times before. You can mix the racial tensions of "Remember the Titans" with the underdog vibe of "Hoosiers," "Freedom Writers," and "Stand and Deliver" to understand where this is going. The story has solid pacing, a great cast and an easy to understand plot; a few minor side steps (talented but tormented student, first female student fighting both racism and gender issues, a younger than average student fighting for a father's love/respect while coming of age) but the message holds up and delivers an appropriate but completely unsurprising conclusion. A few frightening images for children need to be balanced with the powerful messages those images represent but overall an enjoyable movie but you will see the third act coming from a mile away....

Academy Awards for Everything Here!

[asmir · 10/10 · 23 December 2007]

One of the best movies I have seen in years. Every actor and actress deserves an academy award for their performances. The writers did an outstanding job. The research in the making of this film and the realness of the time period is excellent. As quoted in the movie "I am an Anglo-Saxon"..this is the real South in this time period..a very sad period..and I give the people who had to live the horrible life of fear and inequality..a standing ovation. The macho person that I am..this movie brought me to tears more than once. A great movie! A real movie! A true story that every person of all ages should see! Denzel Washington has showed us how great a director he can be. It also shows why Harpo is always on their "A" game. They do not put their name on junk, just to make a buck. They put their name on quality, a lesson other companies could use.

Debates

[swAppp · 23 December 2007]

I have just seen this new movie delivered to us from Mr Denzel Washington.

The movie concentrates on debates, equality and social justice. These three topics are really the main points in this movie, and the actors delivers them all quite nicely. Also, Denzel continues to impress me with a stunning performance - how can he be awesome in both director and actor seats?

The main idea of this movie is you have to do what you have to do in order to do what you want to do - you have to search for truth in order for others to act truthfully.. You have to stand and speak, just like the Spartans did stand and fight, if you don't want to fail or loose being nobody..

In my country, i'm also on the debate team, so I can even take some idea's from the movie and deliver them in my speeches. The speeches were pretty strange and simple, but it was still quite entertaining to listen and to compare to our own debates. Sadly, it was nothing like the real debates in USA looks - the speaker, who started the debates, also ended it? I don't know how creators would explain it, but never ever in debate tournament team gets benefit from saying more speeches than the other team.. In "The great debaters", it happened. However, it still can be just a little plot hole as they could have just skipped the last speech.. This is not like i want to spoil something or I didn't like the movie, i just think that even perfect movies are somehow imperfect..

Still, this was only a minor misunderstanding and i liked the movie very much. It's even marvelous for me.. Story delivers to a amazing and almost worth crying ending.. So watch it in theaters, don't hold back..

Great Movie, but not perfect

[TamPalm · 7/10 · 26 December 2007]

Another great offering from Denzel Washington (surprise, surprise). I'm not going to spend a heck of a lot of time on how good the movie was. Just know that it is definitely one you'll want to add to your DVD collection when the time comes. A "feel good" film for those times when you may need to be inspired.

Now, the criticism. I learned about the true history of the debaters from Wiley College when I came home from the movie on Christmas and started searching the net. I was disappointed to find a couple major points omitted or changed in the movie, moreso because adding them would not in any way have taken away from the quality of the film, or even significantly to its length. Turns out the Wiley debaters did not beat Harvard U as in the film, but rather USC, albeit still a momentous accomplishment. But also, the Wiley students were not allowed to even call themselves "victors" because racism did not allow their school to enter the same debate league as the White school. So technically they were victors only in sentiment, not on paper. Adding this element to the film would have certainly brought home how racist the times were and thus how monumental the victory from the Wiley students. I would add also that the writers could have easily (and I sooo wish they had) taken out the awkward, UNNCESSARY sex scene between two students and inserted the aforementioned historical material. That would have really added to an already quality--but not perfect--film.

Just a little gripe I had with an otherwise great movie. Go see it!

Denzel the Great Director

[jjcremin-1 · 9/10 · 14 December 2007]

I saw this at the WGA Theatre and Robert Eisele, a white man, Polish-German, if I remember right was in the house. Being a white American myself, I very drawn to race conscious stories, though I strongly believe the only race is the human race.

Eisele the screenwriter has teamed up with Oprah Winfrey, producer, and Denzel Washington, star-director, and the result is one of the best inspirational movies I've seen. I was impressed with Director Denzel before when I saw "Antoine Fisher." Very thought provoking that was and this one has multiple characters to root for.

In 1935, Jim Crow was still in effect and blacks were clearly living as second class citizens. Based on historical characters and events, a debate team from the South went on to become the undefeated champs for the next ten years.

Washington plays the college professor who coached and even wrote for the team but also was an agitator who used blacks and poor whites to join an union. Forest Whitaker plays a genius level minister who must cow down to whites to protect his family. It's fun to see the two Academy Award winners on the same screen.

While everybody is good in this period piece, special mention must go to Denzel Whitaker, the one who has visual daydreams for the female but it's unrequited but still able to raise above that to win the debate at the end. Even more important, he's the one who failed the first time which makes the final victory so sweet.

As the debate team is traveling, they narrowly escape whites when they witness a burning lynching from their car. Very believable done.

I highly recommend this movie and hope it has great success.

Not much debate, more of a small racial-issue epic

[CineCritic2517 · 6/10 · 13 January 2008]

While we are treated with great set-designs, acting and cinematography, I thought this film to lack focus and failing to communicate what it was supposed to be.

Someone compared the film to the Rocky movies and he or she surely had a point. But where the rocky movies tried to focus on the actual boxing, providing clear moments of tension, The Great Debate wasn't at all so much about the actual debate. And the way the debates took place, although maybe historical correct, was not really exciting to watch.

The film's focus lies fare-more on the subplots of racial drama which almost makes the debates feel secondary. And although the message is clear and important, it is not something you haven't already seen in dozens of other movies. The overall way the movie is structured is formulaic with a love-story here and a defeat for the debating-team there (Which is historically incorrect) and therefore makes it a predictable watch, especially in the last half of the movie.

All in all I felt that the movie could have been much more entertaining if they had focused more on the underdog position of the team and the actual moments of debate. The way they easily kept winning their arguments despite their background, made them not even be real underdogs. This resulted in a bit of a listless walk-through towards the inevitable tag-lined challenge against the Harvard Team with an outcome suiting a typical Hollywood production.

6/10

Outstanding movie with an all-star cast

[gliderguy · 8/10 · 25 February 2022]

Not only did Denzel Washington and Forest Whitaker deliver memorable performances, but so did the supporting actors. This is about a real person, Melvin Tolson, who had an incredible record of 10 winning seasons as a debate coach. This movie covers the year they won the national championship (in the movie it was against Harvard, but in reality it was against USC). The advisor for the movie was one of the members of this exceptional team, Henrietta Bell Wells. She died two months after the movie was released, so was able to see the finished product.

The movie has some invented dramatic scenes, such as the lynching, that do not detract from the overall positive message of the film. The team also got the "good" side of each topic, even though this was not likely the case, but makes for a better story. In general, however, the movie stresses preparation as the key to winning debates.

BTW, Denzel Whitaker is not the son of Forest Whitaker, as another review claims (although he was named after Denzel Washington).

Great - if you don't mind fairy tales based on history

[jsorenson777 · 6/10 · 14 January 2008]

The direction and acting are first rate but the story follows the Hollywood formula for success - with very good good guys and very bad bad guys and the ending we all want to see. Too bad they didn't take the risk and use the real story (and quite possibly the original screenplay). There is a smell of script doctors here.

Nonetheless the cast was brilliant and many scenes were compelling. The film is definitely worth watching. It is good fiction but not a proper history lesson, unless viewed as pay-back for similarly slanted stories from the other side.

The ending brings up Hemingway's line, "Wouldn't it be pretty to think so."

Well-intentioned but formulaic!

[Turfseer · 4/10 · 18 November 2008]

'The Great Debaters is inspired by the true-life exploits of the all-black Wiley College debating team in Marshall, Texas in the 1930s. The script follows only the bare outline of the events that actually occurred. The debates themselves and the ideas behind them are a very small part of the picture. Instead we're treated to a series of snippets (or sound bites) with the Wiley team always taking the morally superior position and of course winning. At no time are they asked to show their real skills as debaters and take a position which they ethically and morally oppose. While the true Wiley College debaters of history were certainly admirable for what they achieved, there was no need to put them all on a pedestal by having them best the Harvard Debate team in the film's climax. In reality, Wiley beat USC; by depicting them as beating Harvard, the implication is that somehow they were superstars for beating the best (and hey maybe they were just excellent students who don't need to be mythologized).

The main character, Melvin B. Tolson (played by Denzel Washington) is based on the real Wiley College professor who also was a union organizer. In a scene that felt like it was more likely to take place in the 1960s than the 1930s, Tolson heads a secret meeting of black sharecroppers as well as whites intent on organizing against racist farmers. The meeting is broken up by a group of angry whites and Tolson escapes with his life (along with James Farmer Jr., the 14 year old member of his debating team, later to become a famous civil rights leader). The probability of this scene actually having happened in 1930s Texas is low especially the idea that there were progressive whites who would even consider attending a meeting together with poor black sharecroppers. Later, Tolson is arrested for organizing the union meeting. In reality,wouldn't he have been taken away in the middle of the night and dumped in a shallow grave? Or perhaps lynched? Here, the black community wields a lot more power than it actually had in those days, when a group led by James Farmer Sr., the dignified Wiley professor played by Forrest Whittaker, convinces the town's sheriff to release Tolson on bond. We never really find out the outcome of Tolson's arrest (which presumably is a fictional scene) but according to the end credits, he went on to live a distinguished life as an academic and poet.

The rest of the movie is taken up with a subplot concerning the romance between the team's only female member, Samantha Booke and the bad-boy character, Henry Lowe (who incurs Samantha's wrath by getting drunk and hanging out with another woman after witnessing a lynching). The aforementioned 14 year old has a crush on Samantha and must overcome his feelings of jealousy before he can best Harvard in the final showdown.

The film is not without its powerful moments. The most memorable is when James Farmer Sr. accidentally kills a boar while driving in his car with his family. He's forced to pay compensation to two racist whites by handing over his paycheck and is further humiliated when one of the racists drops the check and makes Farmer bend over and pick it up (it's scenes like this that are far more effective than the typical mob scenes of racist whites on the loose since they show the day-to-day humiliations which blacks had to endure across the country on a daily basis). There is also an actual lynching scene which Tolson and his debaters stumble upon while driving on a darkened road.

Despite this, The Great Debaters is a well-intentioned but formulaic project. Yes, it always feels good to be on the winning side but when drama becomes manipulative, art is subsumed by propaganda.