Miracle at St. Anna

Touchstone Pictures | Release Date: September 26, 2008

5.4	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 70 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

QMar 24, 2009

Good start to the movie but after the shocking begining, the rest of the movie is a bore fest. First and for most, horrible acting! I can't emphasize that enough, the bad acting was so distracting and I thought the sets in Italy looked Good start to the movie but after the shocking begining, the rest of the movie is a bore fest. First and for most, horrible acting! I can't emphasize that enough, the bad acting was so distracting and I thought the sets in Italy looked fake. This movie totally lost me and it was painful to sit through. Way too much melodrama for me. Come on Spike, pick it up!… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful

JeremySep 30, 2008

It's time for Spike to get back to his courtside seat and watch basketball with his horrid Knicks. This movie is about equal to the number wins of the Knicks had last year. Watching this turkey is about as fascinating as watching Eddie It's time for Spike to get back to his courtside seat and watch basketball with his horrid Knicks. This movie is about equal to the number wins of the Knicks had last year. Watching this turkey is about as fascinating as watching Eddie Curry on the fast break. He needs a cane, some oxygen and a wheelchair. Spike perhaps you should be fired with your man Isiah. Not even worth a rental. Too much slow motion to suit me.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

TinaP.Sep 26, 2008

Nice try, however still really bad. OUCH!

1 of 1 users found this helpful

JohnSMay 27, 2009

This movie is horrible. I know the 40's were a racist time, but seriously. The entire movie is so filled with it I wonder why the movie is taking place in the field when Harlem or Chicago of the same time period would have been a better This movie is horrible. I know the 40's were a racist time, but seriously. The entire movie is so filled with it I wonder why the movie is taking place in the field when Harlem or Chicago of the same time period would have been a better setting. The film is disjointed, is discombobulated, and completely lacking in sense. A lot of the lines are confusing. I figure everyone is insane and just speaking the first random word that pops into their head. I can't find a theme, mostly because the movie can't seem to decide what it's about. It jumps around between so many storylines that they're all difficult to follow and all of them are so poorly executed I didn't really feel like following them. The real shame is that it doesn't look like its really that bad. It seems more like Spikey got carried away and became a little over ambitious. The scope is just to broad. I never got engrossed with the story, never cared about any of the characters (whose names I really can't remember) and the only things I took away from the films are: Nazi's are bad, but not mean. 1970's sexual innuendo have worked their way into the 1940's, the 92nd was the most poorly trained military unit I've ever seen (odd, I'm pretty sure they were a highly decorated unit -_-), and white people are the real villains. Guess being mean to people because of their skin color somehow trumps mass murder and genocide on the scale of evil. Who knew.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

JadeInTheATLSep 25, 2008

What a mish-mash! Way too many subplots. Someone needed to exercise a little control. This is one of those where maybe the studio would have been right to insist on the delivery of a 2 hour cut. Ten minutes in, I'm sitting there What a mish-mash! Way too many subplots. Someone needed to exercise a little control. This is one of those where maybe the studio would have been right to insist on the delivery of a 2 hour cut. Ten minutes in, I'm sitting there thinking, "Will they ever get across this river?" There's an entire elaborate sequence featuring John Leguizamo that I'm still scratching my head wondering why it is there. There is also the typical lack of subtlety by Spike where every point is front and center without possibility of misinterpretation. Still, I have to applaud his insistence in dwelling on the off-putting nature of the RESULT of violence. Like the opening credits sequence in Clockers, the violence is anything but glorified. Then as we are often shocked by the suddenness of death by gunshot, he often circles back to show the ugliness of a lifeless corpse that was, just second before, a vital living person. I've read some blogs decrying the fact that he after the great box office success of Inside Man, it was difficult for Mr. Lee to get financing for this one. Well, I've often thought that the basic problem of School Daze is that he had too much money to play with. (Why is there a Phyllis Hyman interlude in the middle of the movie?) I think this might have been better if Mr. Lee had had less money. I'm wishing for a "Director's Cut that is about 110 minutes long. jadeInTheATL… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

AndrewDJul 31, 2009

This movie is a huge missed opportunity. There is a great story to be told about the contributions of the 92 Infantry. A great narrative could have been found in exploring the lives of a group of young black soldiers asked to fight and die This movie is a huge missed opportunity. There is a great story to be told about the contributions of the 92 Infantry. A great narrative could have been found in exploring the lives of a group of young black soldiers asked to fight and die for a country and military that treats them like animals. We could have followed this group of men from basic training through deployment in Italy where they are treated as fellow human beings for the first time in their lives. The film could then culminate with these brave soldiers holding back a German advance by calling in an artillery strike on their location knowing it would mean their death. That would be an uplifting and actually true telling of the Buffalo Soldiers. Instead we get a lousy mess of a movie. The 92nd is portrayed as a bunch of bumbling fools. Each of the main characters are cliche caricatures none of which are particularly likable. The lone exception being a young Italian boy. My curiosity on what would become of him is about the only thing that kept me watching. I swear Family Guy offers a more accurate depiction of Italians (bobba da boopi anyone?) The story line is disjointed, the acting is terrible, and the dialogue is so over embellished and heavy handed it completing takes you out of the picture to wonder what kind of a self-felating writer could come up with this stuff. I swear the early exchange between a detective and a reporter is the most contrived spew of crap I have ever heard. It would be like me starting this review by saying, "Miracle at St Anna is as flat and uninspired as a boobs on a stick figure drawing." And then for me to continue on in the same manner in every sentence that followed. You know what McBride (Writer) sometimes people just say things like, "Sorry, I can't help you" or "Let me have a look at that" or simply "Yes" or "No". And the directing of the battle sequences is completely amatuerish. Perhaps instead of looking for critiques in Clint Eastwood's movies, Spike should of been taking notes. There is one saving grace for the DVD of Miracel at St Anna, there are 2 bonus features well worth watching. One is a 20 minute feature of the history of the Buffalo Soldiers. The second is a table discussion between Spike, McBride and veterns of the 92nd Infantry and the Tuskeegee Airmen. Those two bonus features are infinitely more worthwhile than the 2hr40min disservice that the main feature is.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

TheateraNerdJul 9, 2012

Honestly...I couldnt watch this. This is not Michael Ealy's best work. He did way better in Think Like A Man. It's not that this movie is horrible...it's just...incredibly dry...why I guess do make it horrible?..

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

HyperboleJan 17, 2012

Self indulgent, weird pacing, forgettable characters, odd wannabe cute moments, misplaced emotional scenes. It gets a 2 for the interesting opening and for some of the performances.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews