shakercoola Detroit is a dramatisation of a tragic chapter from America's past, a provocative period piece. More than 40 people died during the so-called "Detroit rebellion", most of them African Americans, many shot by the police or national guardsmen. The writers aimed to convey underlying truth. Any viewer aware that the film takes poetic licence will have some doubt what is true and what isn't. It's an immersive experience which places the viewer at the heart of the unfolding chaos. The cinematography is brilliant. Vintage lenses are used to capture multi-angle digital footage interweaving seamlessly with archive material. However, there isn't an authenticity of dialogue, a charge that the screenwriter accepted. John Boyega gives a careful performance as the security guard who is caught between his race and his uniform. Will Poulter succeeds in characterising a corrupt, racist cop, 'Officer Krauss', a fictional character said to be a combination of a number of different officers from the Detroit Police Department who were present at the Algiers Motel that night. Detroit isn't immune from its critics. It is told in a mode disengaged from the cultural and systemic forces in America that led to that kind of police brutality in 1967. Leaving the viewer feeling angry was the director's intention, and it succeeded.

robynsegg3 (I will try not to do just repeat other, better comments)'Detroit' paints a very dim picture of racial bias at the time and does an excellent (if drawn out at times) view of both the racial bias of the time and area of the US, but it also makes us question both law enforcement and the justice system (perhaps both should be in italics?). More to the point, it brings to mind our current climate with its widening intolerance and injustice not just at black (negro) people but anyone that is 'different from us' (white Christians).

Neil Welch Race tensions are running high in 1967 Detroit with the National Guard joining city and state police in trying to quell riots and looting. The sound of shots result in the police bursting into the Algiers Motel, killing one man, and subjecting a group of others (including two white girls) to an ordeal including constant imminent fear of death. Most are beaten, one of the girls is stripped, and two more men are killed. In the aftermath, three police (and an innocent black security guard) are tried for murder.Katherine Bigelow has made a dense, gripping and eye-opening drama from a an incident which actually happened, but where the details are dependent on trial transcripts and recollections. What we see on screen is representational rather than literal. This dilutes the dramatic impact a little, since you can't be confident that this is actually what happened. It does seem likely, though. It is harrowing stuff thanks to Bigelow's direction, a fine script (Mark Boal), and superb performances from all concerned, but especially young British actor Will Poulter as out-of-control cop Krauss. This young man has got better and better in everything I've seen him in, and this film must surely see him nominated for an Oscar.This is neither a short (143 minutes) nor an easy watch, but it is a film I'm glad I saw.

zkonedog When I started seeing promotional material for "Detroit", I thought that it really had the chance to be something special. It is very timely in today's social/political climate, and director Kathryn Bigelow always takes such care in her films to portray the truth. While this seems to indeed be the case in "Detroit" as well, the film comes off as lacking a clear focus in terms of what it wanted to accomplish short of "showing the facts of what happened".For a basic plot summary, "Detroit" tells the story of the 1967 race riots that tore through the city of Detroit, MI. While the first half of the film looks at the riots as a whole, the second half focuses in on one specific incident where the Detroit PD roughs up a group of African American men (and two white women) in trying to find a weapon that was fired from that location. The shocking brutality and subsequent trial are all chronicled in the back half of the film.There are two things that I really wish "Detroit" would have done different:1. It almost seems to be two different movies, and I wish Bigelow would have stuck to the first one, so to speak. As I've mentioned, the first half is really gripping, showing the beginning of the riots and what they might mean for everyone. I was really "into" this movie, as it truly does parallel many similar themes and problems even today. When the film switches to the one Algiers Motel incident, however, I felt like it bogged down and never really recovered. Perhaps had the film focused on that single scene from the beginning it would not have been so jarring of a switch, but as it stands I didn't like the focus going from wide-angle to pretty strict zoom.2. I know that Bigelow likely wants to remain a-political in her filmmaking (from what I remember, a similar thing happened in "The Hurt Locker"), but I also feel like this isn't a story that can be told without taking a bit of a stand. That doesn't happen here, though, and the movie has less of an impact because of it. Instead, this is very much a "just the facts, ma'm" approach that, at nearly two and a half hours, becomes hard to get through.There is enough in "Detroit" to make it a watchable movie, as the acting performances are great and the general atmosphere of the whole piece is pretty chilling. Plus, Bigelow does a great job of subtly showing how similar race issues continue to plague black/police relationships. Basically, it does a great job of showing how the problems often remain even after the actors change.So, while not a bad movie by any stretch, "Detroit" is one that I was quite underwhelmed by. I wanted a more consistent storytelling approach and a bit more of an impactful, articulated message within it. It's worth a watch if you are interested in the type of topics it delves into, but it likely won't vault to the top of your best-of lists.