The only thing this movie lacks from is more mainstream actors but would a mainstream studio publish this movie? Love it or hate it, this is a movie made for an audience of African descent with the intentions of bridging the gap between both sides of the Atlantic while simultaneously forcing African Americans to question their ways and identity. The perspective of the film maker can be questioned. One could complain that slave owners and Christianity was portrayed in too brutal of a light, as many of the other viewers have done. But must a film produced to explore the dehumanizing aspects of slavery along with the attempts by the slaves to reclaim their humanity also be one that reconciles the image of the enslavers? Of course not. This film was not published in a bubble. It is a part of a larger canon of slavery films, many of which have already highlighted the benevolence or at least mixed feelings of the master (see Roots, the Patriot by Mel Gibson, or even worse Jefferson in Paris).<br /><br />In all, this film was a brave attempt at complex and fairly unveiled aspects of slavery. It has its flaws but the biggest flaw is that many of these topics still go unrepresented on the big screen. Imagine how amazing a film of Nat Turner's Rebellion or the Hatian Revolt would be?