User reviews

Before writing this review, I read the four comments that were already posted- by tvspace, zumlinz, seabiscuit, and bartman. Their ratings ranged from two stars to ten stars, and one reviewer here (in addition to Manhola Dargis of the NY Times) hailed it as a masterpiece.

After viewing the film this afternoon at the IFC Center in Greenwich Village, I have to say that all four reviewers have valid points about the film.

It certainly has an "amateur" feel to it, including the acting of some of the smaller roles, as one of the previous reviewers pointed out. But I found much that was beautiful about it, and saw a sort of perfection in its lack of polish- polish and formula that is so commonplace today in not only big studio pictures, but many independent films as well.

While certainly not about "nothing," it does lack a conventional narrative, as was pointed out previously as well. But it is this absence of an obvious agenda (other than to portray typical, everyday life in Watts from the point of view of one family) that allows the film to work so well as a loosely structured, poetic slice of life. It is an amazing mood piece, and it made me feel quite sad. Yet there was humor, warmth, and hope scattered throughout the generally melancholy film.

I think this is the kind of film that will effect people differently, as is already evident from the first four reviews. If you don't catch this film in the theater this time around, it will be available on DVD in the fall and is well worth watching. Nowadays it seems to be in vogue with hotshot filmmakers to recreate the specific,unique look of older films, using all sorts of advanced technology to turn back the clock. Here's a chance to see the real deal-something raw and authentic from a talented filmmaker as he emerged.

For the life of me I wonder what prompted the people at the London Film Festival to screen this film at the NFT.

Filmed sometime in the 70s in Black & White it's the story of a family told over maybe two days and is strangely compelling.

There's no typically Afro-American Urban film scenes just a story about a family and what do. Children play games, dad goes to work and mum looks after the home, an everyday story of life. But don't let that put you off because the film really draws you in somehow. It features a great soundtrack of tunes taken from the 30/40s and some strange (to my mind) editing.

Do try and see this film if it's at a Festival near you because you too will be drawn into it as I was.

Weirdly Wonderful Film.

Black Narcissus

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14198203

Raw American Poetry. Killer of Sheep takes the immediacy of Italian neo-Realist cinema and shapes it into a dreamy, beautiful montage of everyday life in Watts, Los Angeles, California, in the 1970s.

The revelations, in the year 2000, are surprising: black kids in the middle of the Ghetto acted up and goofed off exactly the same as white kids in small towns across the midwest...but not like black OR white kids today. The folks in this movie have an innocence about them that survives, along with their dignity, regardless of the social decay around them. You are left with a simple fact: these are still country people, who happen to be living in a city.

For anyone, like me, who grew up in the 1970s, the movie aches with a sense of a lost era, when being a kid meant building forts out of left-over construction materials, throwing dirt clods, and laying down big fat skidmarks with your bicycle.

And all this is just the subplot. The main storyline, of a slaughterhouse-working father trying to run a stable family in the midst of urban decay, is simple, understated, and powerful. The musical sequences inside the slaughterhouse rival Kubrick's ability to juxtapose music and image in a manner that creates infinite levels of meaning and irony. You can only sit with your mouth half agape and think, 'aaah.'

Like La Jetee, this is a movie that will allow you to see life anew, with children's eyes. Never pass up a chance to see it.

One of the things I found interesting and original about this film was the ironic and off-kilter use of music. The underscoring includes whistling and other disconcerting sounds that go against the standard, traditional cinematic grain. While black children play in the desolate Los Angeles cityscape we hear on the soundtrack Paul Robeson's recording of "The House I Live In," a song from 1945 that deals with the ideal of racial harmony in America; what a contrast between this high-minded song and the brutal reality of 30 years later. A scene of children throwing rocks at a passing train looks like a newsreel from one of any number of modern African countries in the grip of civil war and poverty. Director Charles Burnett faithfully and accurately captures the texture of daily life in a 70s slum where life is merely existence sustained by a vague but constant hope that things will improve one way or another. The domestic scenes are painful to watch, so barren and stunted are the characters' lives. Similar territory has been explored surrealistically by David Lynch (ERASERHEAD), satirically by John Waters (PINK FLAMINGOS) and with wry formality by Jim Jarmusch (STRANGER THAN PARADISE) but Burnett treats it as cinema verite.

Unfortunately the technical level of this film is only so-so (yes, I realize this was a student thesis project). Although the shots are interestingly composed, usually starting with a close up that makes you wonder what you are looking at and then widening to give you a context, the uneven sound recording and poor diction of several performers distance the viewer.

I think that for showing us the reality of this particular cluster of humanity at this particular time in history KILLER OF SHEEP deserves the attention it has been getting,

Around the seventies, when films like Annie Hall, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Saturday Night Fever ruled the age, Charles Burnett silently crafted Killer of Sheep, his thesis film for UCLA. Thirty years it has eluded us—that is, until now. The result, although aging those thirty-years, is a masterpiece; an authentic and one of a kind piece of raw American poetry that simply and silently observes life in the Watts ghetto of Los Angeles.

An unshakable and insightful study of citizens living right above the poverty level, Killer of Sheep is both open-ended and observatory. The magnificent fly-on-the-wall observes the life of a slaughterhouse worker, Stan (Henry Gayle Sanders), who grapples daily with poverty, misbehaving children, and the allure of violence. Stan is a simple guy, diligent, smart, and fatigued. He has a family including two kids, both entirely the opposite of the other. Stan's daughter (Angela Burnett, the director's child—one of the most preternaturally talented performers I have ever seen) is the playful and learning type, while the other—his son—is never home, discourteous, and always getting himself into trouble. The characterization in Killer of Sheep is both extraordinarily untouched, but it is meticulously observed and felt; every single character—although not all are important—has an underlying purpose and reason for being where they are.

The camera work in Killer of Sheep, much like the film itself, is perfect, like if one could be observing the town through his/her DV camcorder. Shooting in 16 millimeter and operating it himself, Burnett's camera observes everything, and is seemingly everywhere. Everything is important too, because every close-up and tracking shot only brings us closer to the undistinguished characters themselves; the more the camera observes, the more one feels closer to them.

Burnett shot Killer of Sheep over a series of weekends on a shoestring budget of just under $20,000, using friends and relatives as actors. This needn't be a reason to demean the film; if anything, one must take it as a sheer pleasure: the acting of his family members essentially makes the film beautiful sans outside reason, making it truly fathomable. Yet again, Burnett's camera simply observes; much like the Italian neo-realism age, Killer of Sheep's milieu speaks for itself—one could even call it American neo-realism.

At its core, Killer of Sheep is masterfully comprised of evident economic denial, hidden desire, and pure living; in other words: untainted life. There are many scenes in Killer of Sheep that demonstrate this; the most memorable demonstrating the cruelty of Stan's son towards his sister: while Stan drinks coffee at his table with a neighbor, his son aggressively asks his daughter where his bee-bee gun is. The daughter, wearing an unforgettable dog mask, shrugs. The response from the brother is, of course, hurting her. Stan gets up and starts chasing the son; he's already out the door.

In 1990, Burnett's opus magnum was declared a national treasure by Congress. 17 years later, it has finally gotten a spot on the big screen, a DVD release date also due for later in the year. Easily one of the finest observational films ever made, Killer of Sheep more than lives up to its official designation as a national treasure: it lives up to life itself.

Stan works in drudgery at a slaughterhouse. His personal life is drab. Dissatisfaction and ennui keep him unresponsive to the needs of his adoring wife, and he must struggle against influences which would dishonor and endanger him and his family.

Film critic Dana Stevens describes the film's plot as "a collection of brief vignettes which are so loosely connected that it feels at times like you're watching a non-narrative film." There are no acts, plot arcs or character development, as conventionally defined.

What happens in this film is not a documentary, but in many ways it may as well be. How many films really focus on the black community anywhere at any point in time? Very few. And this one does that, in all its gritty and glamorless reality.

Somewhat reactionary to the black exploitation films that usually define the Black cinema experience in the 70's, Killer of Sheep presents a realistic portrait of a Black urban L.A. community. Burnett's method of telling a story, using the camera in the most unobtrusive manner, enlivens the film and draws the viewer into a world not frequently seen on film. Stan, the depressed insomniac lower middle-class worker struggles to provide for his family, love his wife and maintain responsibility to his community while haunted by the historical futility and impotence of the African American male. In Killer of Sheep, Burnett aptly demonstrates his knowledge of the cinema aesthetic and his proficiency with the camera while telling a most compelling story about the Black experience in America.

I'd never heard of "Killer of Sheep" before, but it sounded interesting after doing some research, so I went to a screening. It helps to know that this was a student film and should be judged accordingly. The good news is that there are some well composed shots and the material was handled with care; one could tell the filmmaker had an affinity for his subject. There were also some good performances by the lead actors. The bad news: no story beyond the daily existence of ordinary folks; poor sound quality; some bad acting; and more than anything, a real lack of editing; the pacing could have been better. I've subsequently read several reviews; some over-rated, some disparaging. This film is more an abstract portrait of a place and time and less cinematic storytelling; take from it what you will. Rating on a student film scale, I'd give it an 8 for ambition and execution. Properly edited, maybe 10.

This film was written,directed,produced,etc. by a UCLA film student in 1973, but only given a brief run in theaters four years later, after which was plunked back in the can to sit on a shelf for nearly 30 years. I just had the opportunity to see this grainy, kitchen sink black & white film at one of my local art cinemas. I admired the visual look of this film (very do it yourself), and admired the concept of an ensemble piece ('tho without the use of Altmanesque over lapping). I admit, I found some of the dialouge unintelligible (due to the poor recording of the soundtrack---I'm guessing who ever operated the microphone picking up dialouge didn't have much experience in this field). The use of music in this film was well implemented (which ranges from classical to soul to blues and beyond). 'Killer Of Sheep' is a flawed, but none the less, watchable film that should be viewed by any & all serious film fanatics (and should also be screened during Black History Month, as a timeline of creative black cinema).

I have to admit that I found "Killer of Sheep" to be more interesting as an historical artifact than entertaining as a film.

This famous no-budget movie from Charles Burnett has been credited with influencing the entire independent film movement, and it put black people and a black story on screen in a year that saw people flocking to movies like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "Star Wars," "Annie Hall," and "The Turning Point," films that might as well have been taking place on a different planet (and at least one of them did). For that alone, "Killer of Sheep" is worth seeing, but it's not very pleasant to sit through. But then a film whose purpose is to show a slice of life for poor black people eking out an existence in an L. A. ghetto doesn't have "pleasant" on its mind.

Any person who's into the actual study of film rather than a casual movie goer needs to see this, but I won't lie that it does feel a bit like homework.

Grade: B.

When I finished this movie, I was left wondering why there had been no substantial content. There are scattered scenes of thematic or emotional significance, but I ultimately cared not a bit about what happened to any of the characters.

The movie has no definite beginning or end that ties into a plot. There is no obvious climax, no scenes produce suspense or excitement, and the dry portrayal of the monotony and hopelessness in poor, mostly black communities is lost amidst the banality.

This movie is definitely NOT a movie to see for entertainment purposes. It may possess some value as an object of cinematic study, but I can't recommend it to anyone.

Yes, can be cold. Young, soon too old. What a wonderful song and film as this song.

This is the picture here; a life of drab, interminable drudgery, hard work when it does come by and small pleasure, perhaps only the slow dance before the window. They will tell you the attempt here is for neorealism, and you will maybe note how the palette and commentary has been later studied by other prominent directors, black or not. Not so here. Our gain is that it's by a filmmaker who still hasn't learned too much about the craft to lose the innocence of looking and the commitment to keep doing so. Who doesn't have a hell of a lot to say and just wants to film. And who maybe knows this life and neighborhood intimately enough to take us to where it's ordinary and real.

All things considered, it's an evocative portrait of life at the outskirts. It's raw and affective in ways that Malick had to train himself over the years to accomplish. And that Jarmusch and Gordon Green (George Washington) only mechancically repeated in later years. It is about nothing in the sense that every life is, there is no story outside what we choose to remember as one.

So this earth can be cold. But maybe not so bitter after all. It's a moment of happiness that new life is finally on the way. Are they crazy? Who'd be happy to bring a child into this? Things don't work when they should, it's all an uphill struggle to even drive to the racetrack. Love grows distant and sullen. But the kids are playing everywhere you can find them. Young, soon too old. But happy that each one gets to go through it this once?

1970s Los Angeles, young black kids playing in the dusty streets, punks stealing TVs, families working to get by. Killer of Sheep is a slow and simple portrait of life in the LA slums, but a carefully considered one. The camera doesn't move all that much and the edit is minimal, almost lazy. It's poetic in its realism. Stan works in a slaughterhouse. The sequences in which we witness his day there are intimate, with the feeling of a musical interlude. There's no score with most of the film left in stark silence, depicting the honest but impoverished environment. Stan works hard. Kids make their own entertainment. Paul Robeson occasionally joins the soundtrack. Stan is an honest man, decent and proud, but struggling with his depressing world and an inability to get a grip on his emotions at home. I can't say it's an enjoyable watch. It feels private and watching it voyeuristic, but there's some interesting shots and it's easy to feel empathy for Stan, his family and his world filled with hurt and the harsh realities of getting by. There's no flash. No glamour. Very little 70s swagger. Everyone's in the same boat. There may be money somewhere, but it's far from here. Leaving our cast trying to make a little extra money. Trying to spend a nice day with the family. Always trying, but it's hard. I'm glad it's shot in black and white, even without the colour, some of the slaughterhouse scenes are pretty punchy. That's the whole premise here though, not to pull any punches, so say it how it is, no embellishments. There are a few needle drops of sweet soulful songs that give this a little lift on occasion, but if Charles Burnett is trying to tell us anything, it's that life here can be a slow grinding slog.

It's not about blacks, it's not even necessarily about the poor, it's a piece of humanity through the eyes of a sensitive filmmaker, and as such is a subtle and delicate thing. Unfortunately, all the 'hooplah' (Library of Congress, student film, etc.) about the movie I think basically buries the beauty of this movie for many viewers.

The beauty of this movie are in the subtle details that Burnett catches. The film has been described as being 'documentary' in style, but to call it that misses the deeper beauty of many of the scenes. To call it a 'slice of life' may be a bit more accurate, but even that doesn't sit well with me- it implies a sort of haphazard, random, cutesy story meant to seem ordinary but 'mean' more, or end up wrapping itself around a common Hollywood plot and message (love conquers all, try hard and don't give up, etc.) This movie is more like a wonderfully telling and sensitive and subtle piece of poetry. Without a significant plot line, all there may be are details, but the devil is in the details. Details captured from real life, not clumsy metaphors to assigned like a color-by-number picture.

I don't like giving ratings, especially too soon after I see a movie. But I'll rate it a 9 for now, and perhaps revise later (though I doubt I will ever lower my score.) A movie like this can be challenging to watch. There's no parts to piece together or 'figure out', there are no big character arcs or big dramatic moments. I'll leave it to each own's opinion whether this is a good or bad thing, but all the hyperbole aside, in my opinion this is a great movie.

Delightful not to watch a cliché-filled movie about African-Americans talking about oppression and dealing criminally. Instead a very harmonious and scaled-down view of urban poverty by following a family and its everyday life. A warm and human film that at the same time holds deep social criticism. The balance is fine, personal fate and universal thought, serious poetry and humour side by side. You get sympathy and liking for the characters just because they are so real, it's almost like a documentary. But the sympathy you have is nothing Burnett needs because the characters are themselves and need no one to improve the story, it does not help but just adds in some way. Stylish in its simplicity, composing and photography.

I couldn't wait to see this movie when it came to town. I only read about it in magazines. I've never knowingly seen a movie before that has been declared a national treasury by the national film registry.

The first thing that stood out for me is the way the kids were playing. I pictured myself playing those games and wearing those clothes. The editing of the film is nothing like what happens in todays movies. Our attention span is much too short. There is a scene where two men are carrying an engine down a flight of stairs and into the back of a truck. The camera holds while the men struggle to carry it, pausing in mid-flight for a rest and then continuing on. This film is very real in the sense of how the neighborhoods looked back then and the struggles with money and staying on your feet. Even though I am not from the area, this film reminded me in some ways of how I grew up. I wasn't born yet when this film was in production.

My expectations were set very high for this film because of its previous awards. I started to wonder why it was selected for the national film registry. Possibly because it showed what the area looked like in the post-watts riot era, or was it a film that was created in the blaxploitation era but set itself apart from other films, or did it have to do with watching how kids grow up or how African-Americans were living at the time. I could be unfairly trying to compare this film with the movies that are block busters in our current time. Make sure you see this film.

I've seen this film twice. I thought it was unwatchable the first time, but based on all the glowing reviews, I had to give it another chance. I have concluded that these reviews are motivated out of a pretentious sense of political correctness. Every positive review comes from some need to relate the plight of the black man. If you want to see life in a downtrodden neighborhood, go visit one. I am sure there is one within a half hour drive of where you live. Set up a camera, let it run for a day, and edit it. There's your movie (make sure it is B&W or it would lose its appeal).

I find it curious that there are very few negative reviews of this film. It doesn't have a conventional plot, and that is OK. The problem is that the film lacks character development or any connection with the audience. The acting is easily the worst I've ever seen. At times, I sincerely thought the actors were intentionally doing a poor job because I couldn't believe what I was watching. If (or when) you see this film, imagine it shot in color. Admittedly, that's not what the director intended, but a film shot in B&W cannot instantly be revealed as garbage with the mere introduction of color. But with Killer of Sheep, the faux sense of art is gone, and the movie is revealed for what it is.

Oh I have been watching a lot of "nothing" movies recently haven't I?

Although I still don't think I'm particularly fond of these types of films, unlike Bait, this film works much better in black and white with its miserable, drab environments, rather than a sunny beachfront in Cornwall, and unlike Easy Rider, it feels like a film that has a point to being a "nothing" film, instead of one trying to make a grand point and ending up as a "nothing" film.

But while it is brilliantly acted and shot, I still can't say I was very enthused by it either. While it seems to be making the point that this is just how life is for these characters, and this is how life will always be for these characters, it then makes its own point completely moot because one of the subplots is the protagonist being offered another job that might make him less miserable, soooooo...

And honestly, if you don't give your main character anything except "he's miserable because he kills sheep all day" and he never changes or gets more developed in anyway, then I probably won't care at all about him. Sure, it makes the point it's trying to make (if you can ignore the fact that it also shot it down with that subplot), but it's just not an interesting point at all to me.

It's certainly impressive to make an indie movie on such a budget, especially in 1978, and especially as a black man, with an all-black cast, but I can't pretend I found what was done with that budget all too interesting.

Also this was apparently my university's choice for an example of blaxploitation. I won't pretend to be an expert on blaxploitation but I'm pretty certain being directed and written by a black man and starring an all black cast is not exploitation of blax.