Pajiba

Hey there buddy. I happen to know some white folks that are very nice. In fact, some of my best friends are white people. They don't all make movies for and about themselves. I'm sure my white friends would, but they don't own a movie studio.

The most important reason not to watch this movie is not a bad review, but the fact that Warner Brothers used and lied to a bunch of impoverished child amputees for publicity.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10232006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm

Hey, there, Bianca Reagan. Jeremy included himself in that group of white people and brought up very good points in general and in reference to the movie. By the way, from a regular reader who is neither black nor white, bravo to you, movie reviewer. Bravo.

Leo is a great actor, one of the best of his generation, and Jennifer is equally talented, but it always seemed like Djimon's story was more just context for Leo and Jennifer's story. That never did sit quite right with me. I was excited for this film when I first heard about it and still plan on seeing it and enjoying it.

Yes, Ann. He did all of those things. That's why I'm recommending his review on my blog today. :)

I can't begin to describe how frustrating this movie is to read about. From DiCaprio's lousy accent to AGAIN the continued need for Hollywood to insert a white protagonist into a struggle that has nothing to do with him... it's just... argh! I'm frothing at the mouth. And I *loved* DiCaprio in the Departed. But this is just wrong. First - ok, fine, you must put a white person in... couldn't we just find a South African actor? I'm from there, I know they exist. And second, why have him at all? Is it so hard to believe that people will see a movie with an all black cast that isn't Big Fuckin' Momma's House? It's fucking insulting is what it is.

*deep breath*

OK. That got a little to carried away. I actually started this rant in the theater, when before seeing The Departed, they showed the Blood Diamond preview. I started to lose my shit until my wife finally said "maybe this movie isn't for you". She's probably right.

My name is TK, and I approved this incoherent ranting.

"My name is TK, and I approved of this incoherent ranting."

Go for it, Edelweiss. I think there's something in the water today, so have out.

I've mentioned this before in another thread, but as annoying as the "white" POV is in studio films about Africa, we're bound to see the POV of the filmmakers--that's generally how art (or "art" in the case of some of this stuff) operates. It's human, and quite frankly it's the function of art in and of itself (self-expression). There really isn't, at bottom, anything wrong with that, and it's very very VERY hard to get around (and when people try to, they're often accused of behaviours just as negative, e.g. "co-opting".)

But still, folks like you and me are irritated because we have an over-representation of "white colonial" or (more recently) "guilty white colonial" art dancing around in the West after several centuries of it. It would be great to see more African-made films coming at us--then we'll see _that_ POV writ large onscreen. I think large studio wide-distrib non-Afrikkaner African POV films will be the last in the chain, however, as they're a lot harder to get off the ground than all the excellent African-generated literature (by non-white authors) that's been kicking around recently. The money--and priority--just isn't there relative to Hollywood.

I feel like I'm stating the obvious. Sorry.

Personally, I'm looking out for any film that doesn't romanticize the "noble savage" or demonize the "white devil" completely, but show the human beings portrayed on film as complex and, well, human. Alas, these seem to be pretty much the norm, not to mention insultingly reductive and dishonest. Westerners went from demonizing the [Michael Richard's favourite word] to romanticizing the kind-to-a-fault African. It kills me that someone representing another race can't represent it in more than one dimension...but what do we expect from studio films, which aren't exactly in the "reality" game?

Here ends my very overgeneralized and unoriginal musings (as I'm sure people will offer up a few exceptional titles that prove the rule, and I get that--they are out there. They just ain't usually found playing at your local multiplex.)

That first paragraph? Thank you. Just....yes. I asked about that in the Last King of Scotland thread, as it is quite annoying. Yes, I know it's reality, but it doesn't make it any less irritating. And yes, I want to have Jeremy's babies. Of course, that's nothing new.

Damn, TK, get out of my head. Every time I come to post, you've beaten me to the punch. Took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Leo was wrong for the part. Maybe it's truly Revenge of the Trailer Editors, but I seriously wondered why the hell he was cast.

Hmmmm, not a lot of comments on this one. Must not have any grammar mistakes.
Ha! Good one.

As for the above posted link on amputee child exploitation, that's really, really sad. And unsurprising. Which is even more sad.

Because the atrocities in Sierra Leone are well communicated in this film (visually but viscerally), I still think the world is better off that this movie was made, white protag or not (I saw a sneak last Saturday.)

Leo's character is not some Jesus-like figure who descends from Manhattan to save the savages. His character fits the context of the story (he is one of the white people in the distribution chain that profits from blood diamonds). Djimon Hounsou is clearly the far better person, if still a supporting character. But I don't think he's strictly a foil either- his character is given sufficient screen time and has his moments. Frankly none of them are that well-developed, simply because this is largely a chase suspense type movie.

Actually, the most ironic thing I found about BLOOD DIAMOND is that the movie is only nominally deeper than the 10-second CNN sound bites that Jennifer Connelly's character disparages. But...like I said I think the world is better off seeing BLOOD DIAMOND this weekend than some other big-budget schlock. The most shocking parts IMO involved how Djimon's son was gradually brainwashed by the rebel army. In a mainstream Hollywood way, it was a great way of making more personal to the audience what we might quickly scan over without thought on the news, and also played a signficant part in the plot.

As far as asking why not cast a real African rather than Leo...that's absolutely fine, but that's a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MOVIE. This was a big budget movie intended for wide distribution and needing a good box office gross to get made. It goes without saying that you're going to need a name cast. And it got a very good one-bad accent or not. ;-)

There's no reason a smaller, more thoughtful and penetrating movie could not be made about the diamond trade. But that's simply a different movie. You may as well ask Edward Zwick to become a LPGA golfer instead- not gonna happen. At least this movie isn't going to give anyone wrong ideas about culture and history (like LAST SAMURAI).

I've read different stories about the program for the amputees. I don't think it's as black and white as it's made out to be, but I have no personal knowledge of course. Hopefully the assistance will ultimately finds its way to the recipients.

The thing about this movie is that I would've jumped to see it if it were not for those tidbits of Leo and Jenny about to do the no-no. It looks, and (most likely would) feel out of place for this type of movie and I don't understand why hollywood insists on always having a love interest in every freaking drama/action movie.

This rant is coming from a female. Make the fucking movie about the damn conflict and leave the slobbering and fucking on the cutting room floor for once.

In otherwords, I'm netflixing.

Saw the movie last night. Yes, it is an overproduced, poorly acted (well, Leo, but Jennifer and Djimon were wonderful)piece of Hollywood crap, BUT, I will always go see a movie like this over something like Holiday. Why? Because I and many other like me that have worked in Africa, in Latin America, with refugees and the victims of conflict, love to see movies that bring awareness to certain issues, no matter how poorly done they are. Beyond Borders sucked, but I still went to see it. The Interpreter also fell short (fake country and language? they couldn't find a real conflict in Africa?), but I still went to see it. The only movie of late that I feel adequately addressed both the issue and a touching love story was The Constant Gardener.

Anyway, my point is that at least Hollywood is trying. I have never owned a diamond and never will, and while I understand that diamonds and other raw materials do provide much needed income to many developing countries, this dependence on an artificially bloated market price to finance a country, instead of structural changes and microfinance development products that will induce real GDP growth per capita, is dangerous. There is an entire theory of conflict that states that countries with single commodity dependence are more prone to conflict; while parts of this have been discredited, overall it remains true. But my point, again, is that even a superficial introduction to blood diamonds can only help to expand the minds of many Americans that don't even realize this is an issue.

"The only movie of late that I feel adequately addressed both the issue and a touching love story was The Constant Gardener."

rachael, I would suggest you see "Hotel Rwanda". If you have and it was just an omission on your part, you're forgiven:) If not, rent it immediately. No white hero, just an extremely well done film about the Rwandan genocide, and a love story thrown in as well.

Also, Steve, if you're interested, check out Paul Collier's work.

Elizabeth- it's hard to argue with you there about those other examples. I guess we can just thank our lucky stars that Edward Zwich didn't get his hands on the HOTEL RWANDA script.

I guess this is a very half-full/half-empty argument. You could ask 'Why make a movie about conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone and turn it into a big-budget Hollywood action vehicle?' Or the other end is, 'Well, if they're going to make a big budget action vehicle, at least put it in a relevant setting that can create some awareness of world events, of which most Americans are generally lacking.'

The more horrifying prospect would have been if you grafted the storyline from LAST SAMURAI and put it in BLOOD DIAMONDS- Leo comes to Africa and kills Djimon and other villagers but eventually switches to the other side, leads the rebellion, and eventually comes back to woo Djimon's wife. See- it coulda been worse! ;-)

(sorry, last post on this movie)

I just don't get this DiCaprio as "one of the greatest of his generation talk" reaaaaaally? is that the best his generation can do. If so, then I weep for the future.

Nothing against the guy personally, but I like my actors to have the capacity to transform, when I watch him and all his ilk I'm just seeing the "insert name here" as whatever character he/she is supposed to be playing. There is no transformation, no craft, if you will.

BarbadoSlim, what actors would you consider to have the capacity to transform, if you don't mind me asking? And what other actors would you include with DiCaprio, i.e. "his ilk"?

Please note the names on my list reflect the work they did at about the time they were Dicaprio's age.

Oh, and I will add most, if not all the cast of Fast Times at Ridgemont High (they were about that age)and most of the original Brat Pack from the eighties, many of them are sucking major ass at the moment, but back then they were putting out quality work, Oscar level when compared to this new generation or Idiot Pack (or pack of idiots)

Blood Diamond sucked for all the reasons stated above but mostly because it is way beyond insulting for one of the most horrible and insulting lines to ever be allowed in film and to have the African present it was the icing on the cake. And to put the cherry on top, the context and the empahsis on the "Your Digger" seconds after the unexcusable insult is just unforgivable. This movie should be pulled from all theaters. Don't waste your time or money unless you are a pure racist!!!!

Completely off topic (I mean, I know nothing about the whole blood diamonds/Sierra Leone situation, so I feel that it would not be right for me to comment on it) and I think that Djimon Hounsou is a fantastic actor, but I have a really hard time watching him ever since I realized that he is a bouncer on an repeat episode of "Beverly Hills, 90210".

And yes, I'm a complete loser for knowing that, but I was in shock.

Barbado: "Off the top of my head I can mention Timothy Hutton, Sean Penn, Esai Morales, John Cusack, Johnny Depp, Robert Downey Jr. you know, ACTORS who act. Not little celebrities who look and "act" the same in everything, meaning almost every young actor working today from DiCaprio to Lohan, to Harnett to Scarlett(I have the same look in my face all the time)Johanwatchamacallher....and the rest of their ILK."

I'll allow that Leo DiCaprio is the right actor in the right role, and sh!t in the wrong role. "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" was phenomenal; he looked so out of place in "Titanic," it was ridiculous.

However, you can't say that he's the same in every role and then claim that John Cusack actually "acts." While I like him, he's Lloyd Dobler in every single rom-com they put him in, whether he's romancing Kate Beckinsale, Julia Roberts, Diane Lane.... he has done a few different films ("Midnight in the Garden" or "John Malkovich") but seriously, does he have more than one facial expression?

I haven't seen this, but I want to. Honestly, while I do appreciate the social/political/racial issues inherent in these movies, I'm also concerned with being entertained. My $10 has to be worth something...

I must admit, I do think DiCaprio is fairly under appreciated.

Also, I'm white and I caused the tsunami in Indonesia and Hurricane Katrina. How? Never mind how. Its a white person secret *winks*.

I think I'm going to check this movie out, if nothing else because the last movie about Africa I saw was Tears of the Sun and I have a free movie ticket.

"I'm white and I caused the tsunami in Indonesia and Hurricane Katrina. How? Never mind how. Its a white person secret *winks*."

I confess, I don't get the joke in the context of these comments. 'sokay though.

In all honesty, I don't have a problem with DiCaprio. I thought he was outstanding in the Departed, I enjoyed The Beach and Basketball Diaries, and even like Gangs of New York, when it wasn't getting completely silly, and when Cameron Diaz wasn't on screen. I just get frustrated when movies about other cultures are unable to use someone of that culture as a lead. And it happens in particular with movies about Africa, Hotel Rwanda notwithstanding.

I'm tempted to quote Public Enemy's "Burn Hollywood Burn" in its entirety for some strange reason.

"Bill Paxton stunk up the screen, as usual."

You've clearly never watched "Big Love." Bite your tongue.

Saw it last night and I couldn't disagree with you more, Jeremy. First of all, DiCaprio's performance had far more depth than you give credit (full-frontal ab shot aside).

Second of all, while the relationship with Jennifer Connelly was perhaps a bit contrived at times, at it's core were frank discussions of their role in all the madness of T.I.A. It did not stoop to the god-awful level of romance you described, unless you read faaaaaaar more into it than I did (which, given your review as a whole, I would say that is a fair assessment).

I agree that the white guy was inserted to give a relative position to the white folks in the audience. I agree that ther was no reason to go with an American when there are perfectly good African actors that could fill the shoes. I do not agree, however, that his inclusion in the film represented an attempt to make the white folks look good. Yes, he had his moment of absolution (or death-bed repentance, if you like), but ultimately his actions throughout the film served as a reminder that this is what men do to make a dollar on the backs of the oppressed. He was a cold, cruel, and calculating individual, and I would hope any viewer would recognize that.

But that's all just my opinion, as was yours, so no hard feelings.

Merry Christmas!

"In America it's called 'bling bling' here it's 'bling bang.'"
Ugh. That's just such a stupid line. Also, his accent is MESSED up. Oh, and Warner Brothers is a piece of shit for what they did. I'll never see this movie. NEVER!

White people suck and thats a proven fact

Ok, you people are actually listening to reviewers who comment on the movie like they haven't even seen it. DiCaprio's character (Archer) is seen as basically a mercendary with a rough past (Rhodesia during the insurgencies in the 70's for those of you who know your history) and who is basically a heartless, scumbag out to get his buck. The entire movie he is using Solomon, not saving him. This movie portrays how terrible of an effect white people have in Africa. Oh and his accent was completely fine throughout the whole movie. Seems like critics nowadays all want some fake fanatical love story that would never happen in real life. Fucking ridiculous. I stopped listening to critics after I realized they have IQ's that float around room Temperature. Personally Fox, I think you are a complete fucking idiot and should stop reviewing.

This movie is completely worth seeing, its not "overthought" and the script is amazing. Only cheesy thing in the whole movie is the 3 minutes of talking between Connelly and DiCaprio half way through it. Yes its violent, and so is Africa? It's like people are afraid of shit that is going on in Africa and don't want to admit its happening, so they always give negative reviews to movies about Africa. Fucking idiot critics, you piss me off.

I LOVED THIS MOVIE. It was moving, it was realistic. The movie made you care about the main characters, which I was grateful for. It had a romantic aspect, sure, which detractors say cheapens the film. But it doesn't. The romantic aspect is there for you to identify with, and in identifying with the characters, you care more about what happens to them, you become more involved with the film, and you go home thinking you've watched something humane and worthwhile since it made you think and feel something fundamental about yourself.

I think the movie was scathing towards the diamond industry (the message of the movie, I imagine). It showed the brutality of the rebel soldiers (SPOILER AHEAD) so that you hated them in the end and completely sympathized with Solomon Vandy's utter hatred as he screamed while beat the living shit out of his son's captor with a shovel. (END SPOILER) But the movie stops short of judging these rebels, many of whom are children who have lost families and are drugged our by their leaders. It talks about a war in the 70s, which I am unfamiliar with, in which black and white Africans fought alongside each other. Against whom? I'm not sure.

The filmmakers judge what is wrong with Western culture -- the blind eye, commercialism, the diamond industry -- but it doesn't lump white people together. The movie judges what the rebels do as wrong, but doesn't hold them accountable as much as it does the viewers, who are told that it is up to them to stop the violence by insisting on diamonds from conflict-free zones.

I don't see how this movie is supposed to be pro-white just because it cast Leonardo DiCaprio. And I don't see what is wrong with casting Leonardo DiCaprio instead of a South African if the intention of the movie is to make money.

I love how the reviewer calls the film a gross oversimplification of the matter of blood diamonds, making no effort to enlighten us readers of the REAL complexicity of the situation, while stubbornly insisting that the movie was about how long Leo and Jennifer were gonna play hide-the-salami. Cute, but no go. I learned about 8000% more from this multi-million dollar movie than I did from reading this review and the posts of peons who wear bitchiness as a badge of honor. GG.

African, you said it right. I read through all these comments, wondering if anyone would point out the fact that the Evil Whites wouldn't be able to pull off their crimes against humanity without the aid of Africans...and yes, villifying the white people involved MORE than the black people involved is condescending and unjust, and indicates that you believe that white people should be held to a higher standard of behavior...which means that you believe white people are superior.

You guys are idiots, this movie is awesome. All you black folks stop trying to make everything racial and give a great movie a bad rating

This Movie Reviewer is dead wrong! His reviews mistakens what the plot is about and gives his subjective views and passes it off as the actual plot of the film. I just saw the film and contrary to one's assumptions, the characters and the plot aren't predictable nor plays on stereotypical hollywood characters whatsoever! There isn't even a sex scene nor a steamy romance! I'm baffled what the Movie Reviewer and some of the reviewers are referring to by the "salamy." There is a clear central plot--how conflict diamonds are exported, that runs throughout the movie. I loved it, DeCaprio gave a great performance and learned alot about the war in Sierra Leon. I think watching this film will make you a better person b/c it shows how we are all interconnected and our actions affect others. Yes, we're a global society and have some responsibility towards each other.

What people tend to forget is that's it historically accurate to cast a white guy as the main character in an African story! I'm a white South African, and let me tell you there are plenty of us down here. If it was an American as the protagonist, that would have been an outrage!

But white Southern Africans (which includes all the ex-colonial countries at the tip of Africa) have been here for generations. The movie would be historically incorrect if the lead was black.

Thus, although I do think Hollywood is guilty of super-imposing Americans in foreign stories, Dicaprio's character is spot on.

this movie sucked... it was obvious B.S. crying about a people that are being exploited by the whites or the powerful or who the fuck ever. so what, who isn't being exploited? sure, maybe the common folk of europe and america arn't being killed but jesus fing christ we're all being used by our governments and others in power. get used to it and play their game. other wise you can't win bc they control the rules, not us.

Isn't Archer from Zimbabwe? I'm not married to a South African but I do feel like Leo's accent wasn't very far off from my South African friends. Obviously, though, it won't be the same seeing as his character is from a different country...

I know this is like catching a ghost train, but this review is one of the few I did not enjoy in the two?three? years I've been reading and recommending this site.

First of all, the two white characters in this movie were more the kind of white person who has this "Fuck Y'all" mentality: who only embraces their race when it fits the tactics in any given situation. An American who does not go home to America and an African opportunist-in-the-dark who is white; these do not seem to be the thrust of the story. I almost did cringe when the thought of these two kissing appeared about to enter the conflict. I give much props to this movie for not looking for the audience to be its lover or a friend. I hated the Last Samurai for doing this, and for insulting Japanese culture.

I admit that I have no idea what a Rhodesian sounds like, but the truth is, if Jeremy or none of the rest of you has ever done anything to ameliorate the troubles of Africa, you have done worse than this movie. At worst, Zwick is the kind of magazine journalist that "just writes about it," relenting his job is to provide the interest for others. If you believe that the movie maker can change people (as I do), then you scoff at the stultifying effect a film made out of a deadly serious idea can have. If the average movie-goer doesn't decide to give a shit, then this is a far more tragic movie than the swelling synthesizers present. And that is sad.

I understand the scathing bitchiness thing, I just think that this movie deserves better. The "white people" are not heroic. They actually are advantaged. The black dude is not cliched beyond those of a terrified person and father. Their stories are intertwined. Soapboxing is and should have been kept to a minimum. Do something now that the movie is over, motherfuckers.

Djimon Hounsou delivers stronger than he did In America or Amistad. Leo DiCaprio is continually proving he's DeNiro calibre. (I did hate The Aviator). I believed him for all but a couple minutes. Only the son and the scarred commander were weak, but that's what you get with squirts and lumps.

I wouldn't give this nine stars on that scale thing, but do not agree with JCF this time, either.

I whole-heartedly agree. Blood Diamond sucked. It was so campy I thought that they could have inserted songs. And the caricature-making of the Africans were downright racist. It pained me to watch a film about such an important issue be so silly--it discredited the issue.

Jungle Kitty> There were probably thousands of white Africans in Sierra Leone during the war! Especially mercenary types. It is you who needs to get your facts straight! White Africans are often involved in these wars, like Mocambique and Angola, etc etc.

Mac> White Zimbabwians sound almost identical to South Africans.

We have many different English accents, some sound more British (areas like Durban have strong British influence), some are very strong Dutch-like sound to them (like the Afrikaans area of Pretoria), and some inbetween, like Cape Town.

So although Leo's character is from Zim, it's perfectly fine that he does the South African accent. They're indistinguishable.

I think it's unfair to call Zwick a racist as some people are (more or less) doing above. Yes, he makes films about other cultures with white protagonists. But more often than now, as in Blood Diamond and The Last Samurai, the white character is someone who goes into the situation as a user or a mercentary and then learns about honor or trust from the other culture. Yeah, it's a bit of a whitewashing, but Leo, Tom Cruise or Matthew Broderick (Glory) put asses in seats quicker than Honsou or Watanabe do. Look at the great actors who get denser roles as a result of his films. The cast of Glory is a great example of this.

I think he uses a white main character's perspective to shine a spotlight on things that we might not see from where we live. The white character is the "in" to a another culture but the other culture is the true star.

In case all of you complainers didn't notice, the movie DID criticize the journalist's job as well as Leonardo Dicaprio's character. They criticized how these "white people" seem practically from another world.

If anything, this movie should make black people feel liberated. EVERYONE, no matter what their race or gender, was a slave to someone at SOME POINT. If you're so appalled to be around white people, feel free to go back to the Congo and be slaves to people of YOUR SAME RACE.

There will CONSTANTLY be a group of people to complain about SOMETHING. This movie was exactly what it was supposed to be... A MOVIE. If you want to watch a DOCUMENTARY, there's this wonderful thing called "The History Channel." And, honestly, what are you guys really bitching about anyway? The race thing? I'm sure it must be extremely difficult to be a black person in the USA as opposed to actually in Africa. I mean, really, if you want to complain so much about white people, feel free to go take a trip back to "your roots." My guess is you wouldn't last one day.

The movie was entertaining, enlightening, and very well-made. Oh, gee, sorry there was a white person in there. When, really, it was quite an accurate portrayal. White people DO live in Africa, and if anything this movie made white people the bad guys if you want to committ a battle of the races. Think about it: the journalist who did nothing, the diamon smuggler who was selfish beyond belief, and the corrupted troops. I've got news for you: people of BOTH races can be bad, and Leonardo's character was not some typical male-role trash.

In case you didn't notice, Solomon wanted to save HIS life, not the other way around. How would you guys feel if people referred to all black people as, "I'm sick of black folks." The minute someone says that, they're in trouble. For some reason, though, it never works the other way around.

Just enjoy the damn movie, stop bitching, and stop looking for an excuse to twist EVERYTHING about how totured the black race is. Give me a BREAK.

Jen> A South African actor would have been perfect for Archer! South Africans have a lot more in common with Zimbabweans than Americans do, including an identical accent.

The movie begins and ends with discourse about the mechinisms of the diamond trade. White-African Leo is the liason between the western world and Africa. Drugs=Diamonds=hyper-inflated value of a product because of controlled distribution=Van Der Beek.
Hotel Rawanda is a better story because it is mostly based on fact.
While Blood Diamond is a impersonation of a situation.
Hotel Rawanda and Blood diamond has similiar backgrounds since they both involve countries that were once part of western colonial empires. AND about how western powers after leaving are ignorant and unsympathetic to the chaos they have left behind and are to blame for the respective violent civil wars that each country was subjected too. Weather it be the random division of people into Tutsis and Hutus or the purchasing of Conflict Diamonds to feed western greed that also funds arms purchases for a rebel force.
"Blood-Diamond" lacked the clearity to drive home it's most moral issues: Child Soldiers, Civil War, and etc.
But there was important information to be had from it while enjoying it.
Just in case anybody was wondering Hotel Rawanda's 17 week-box office gross was 25 million .....Blood Diamond has 50 mil in 7 weeks. That is the power of LEO.
Even though in my humble opionion Hotel Rawanda was a better movie.

sshakes:
Think they talk about him being 9 when his parents were killed and that's when he meets the Colonel? I understood that as meaning he was a child soldier as well.

"This rant is coming from a female. Make the fucking movie about the damn conflict."

Absolutely.

I just saw Blood Diamond last night. Ok, so it did depict the suffering well - but why the hell was there this parallel love story going on between Leo and Jennifer? It's ridiculous, that's not what the fucking movie is supposed to be about.

I'm not saying that I'm not happy about the fact that someone has come along and done a movie on an important topic but why is it that I get this feeling that it wasn't made for the majority reason of getting the message across. As someone said further up - Kanye West's song Diamonds From Sierra Leone starts of great and strong and then just tapers off really. Same with the film. I would recommend seeing it, but why they couldn't just focus on the thing that actually mattered instead of some of the other crap. If it had been guided by Hotel Rwanda it would have probably been a lot more focused. In contrast to Hotel Rwanda it felt a lot more like the film was exploiting these people's plight for good and shocking watching. That's not right.

Go and watch a documentary like Cry Freetown - made by a Sierra Leonian camera man, who put his life in danger to really expose the issue. It's all very well the director of Blood Diamond saying that he wanted to get the word out but, with all due respect, it was a lot easier for him considering the fact that the civil war was no longer going on. Something like Cry Freetown would be more worth your while if you really care about the issue.

Having said that, anything that helps to bring an issue to light can't be bad I guess. And the acting by Djimon Hounsou (Solomon) and Kagiso Kuypers (Dia) was fabulous.

Thanks for letting me know that Mokopa, I was not aware of it. I guess I should have been less hasty with my judgement, but don't get me wrong, I was never trying to imply that movies should be documentaries. I accept that movies are, in some respects, artistic expression. I guess I just resent some americanised ideology that often shines through these types of films. If Sorious Samura advised the film then that's great. I think what I probably should have said, and really meant, was that anyone who sees the film (and it should definitely be seen) should always verture further in order to really gain scope on the whole issue.

I don't what the problem is. I loved this movie. who cares if Leo had a bad accent or if he is white. I never gave blood diamonds or Africa for that matter ever a thought but I will now. I think your time should have been better used in actually learning the lesson of the movie instead of worrying about accents and the color of peoples skin

I think the reviewer and and lot of comments here are typical examples of black racism so popular all over in the States lately.

Imagine what would happen what white man would say "i'm sick of all this black people". National outrage and death threats would continue.

But now that black bigot call Jeremy can lash a tirade against whites with no reason whatsoever except "i dont like whites, want black people on the screen!" and everyone listening.
Oh guys you're so HYPOCRITES back there in the states!!!

Hmm if only such passion were directed at the real issue: our rampant need to consume with no thought to the real cost.

I had never even heard about conflict diamonds until this movie was released I am ashamed to say and i thought I was a fairly well educated person in regards to global issues.

so - in the end the real issue is not what you think about the movie (by the way I challenge the idea anyone could 'sit back, relax and enjoy' a movie like this) it is about how we all choose to respond. We can either bitch about the acting, debate the autheticity of accents, get cranky about stupid romance story lines OR we can take the action this movie ultimately aims to inspire.

I increased my monthly donations to Save the Children after watching this film, unsure of what else to do to help child soldiers......

by the way, I have a friend from Zimbabe (which is where leo's character waas from) and I think Leo nailed his accent perfectly, with all the interesting phrases and inflections. My mate from Zim agrees.

i do not understand why people get angry at all the little things that don't matter that much.
the movie is trying to show us that when we argue about crap than it does nothing anyway it just wastes time. the movie showed what is and has been going on in africa becuz of the greediness of man.
thats the only important thing here