Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

nickymartin73 So sad that the child actor Bobby Driscoll lies in a paupers grave. Come on Disney do the right thing! He was also Peters voice in Peter Pan.

mark.waltz Only one thing in this film disturbs me: the implications of violence towards Brer Rabbit from Brer Bear and Brer Fox. First, they want to cook him alive, then Brer Bear with his big club wants to bash his head in. They stupidly forget their initial intentions of eating him by tossing him into a briar patch to supposedly bleed to death from the sharp thickets. I did not recall this from my only viewing of this back in an early 1970's rerelease but I think that part as an 8 year old would have disturbed me. I however was extremely touched by the affectionate friendship between young Bobby Driscoll and the sweet character of Uncle Remus played with great heart by James Remus. Obviously a former slave, Uncle Remus was either too tired to fight his battles, more concerned with helping young Driscoll learn about humanity by teaching him about dealing with real life rather than the racial tensions and hatred between adult whites towards blacks, now free if not completely liberated.I recall as a youngster having my own Uncle Remus with my preschool teacher, an elderly black woman, whom my parents would hire as a baby sitter. Like Uncle Remus, she told my siblings and I stories, played games with us, and embedded herself into my memory with her loving nature and humanity, subtly teaching us about the evils of racism without preaching or lecturing. She reminded me of a combination of Louise Beavers and Hattie McDaniel with her gregarious nature, and seeing the gentle but no nonsense performance of McDaniel here, confirmed my memory. Unlike her mammy in "Gone With the Wind", her character here isn't overly cynical, quite gentle and closer to Louise Beavers' character in the Bobby Breen folklore "Way Down South". While the bear and fox are the official villains, it's Driscoll's mother (Ruth Warrick) who is the human antagonist, ordering Bassett to stop telling Driscoll the same stories he had told her as a child. Warrick against the will of her own mother (Lucille Watson), as gentle a plantation owner that you can imagine, and a character greatly white washed, especially when she sweetly tells Bassett that she could never be mad at him. Warrick quickly realizes her mistake, setting up an emotional vigil when Driscoll is injured. The look on the face of Driscoll's young black friend Toby during this ordeal expresses the innocence of children who sometimes have more wisdom and sense than adults.Certainly, this film has its questionable moments, but there are so many timeless values to learn from this. Audiences today are smart enough to realize that life in the post-civil war South was not all singing and fun for the former slaves who were trying to make their own lives after decades of slavery. If you are not touched by the special relationship between Driscoll and Bassett, then try to open your heart to the final reprise of the Oscar-winning Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah when everything comes together and truly is satisfactual.

gilligan1965 I cannot understand why this movie is so despised by Blacks!?!?Besides being set in slavery times (as MANY other movies are), everything about this movie is lovely! The music is great; the performances by James Basket and Hattie McDaniel are both great and charming; the storyline is perfect; the animation is A++; and...everything else here is just so great!This movie has two Black actors who, at the time, were big stars - James Baskett became the first African-American male performer to receive an Academy Award; the very first African-American to win an Oscar was Hattie McDaniel for her performance in "Gone with the Wind" (1939). McDaniel also appears in "Song of the South" (1946).If I was either of these two magnificent performers, or, any other Black in this, and, my own race banned my movie...I'd be very, very upset!I just cannot understand what all the controversy is about!?!? "Roots" wasn't banned; neither was "Mandingo." Neither were all of the other slavery movies made over the years...not even "Birth Of A Nation" which was so racist that White actors portrayed Blacks.This movie never hurt anyone anymore than "The Teletubbies" when some clown claimed that the 'purple' Teletubbie is gay!?!? SO WHAT! Do children care about such trifles? NO! Only adults whine about such things!There have been a lot of movies I could belly-ache over -A.) Where the Vikings are all depicted as murderers (I'm Scandinavian);B.) Where the Germans are all thought of as Nazis (I'm German);C.) Where Christians are concerned as we orchestrated the Inquisitions and witch hunts that killed millions;and,D.) Where Christians were once treated by the Romans much as Blacks were by the slave owners...but, I don't whine - it's history that can never be changed!I love historically-based movies, and, this is one of my favorites...controversy be damned, as with "Blood Diamond;" "Zulu;" "Holocaust;" "Mark of the Devil;" "The Man Who Would Be King;" and, so many others. It's all part of history.What children see in this movie is a kind, storytelling and singing man who everyone seems to love, especially children and animals.

Lachlan J McDougall The bastard child of the Disney musical cannon Song Of The South has a history so littered with controversy that it is a rather difficult film to talk about. I mean, what is left to be said that hasn't already been said before?I suppose, however, a good place to start is to talk about why on earth I decided to spend my time watching it in the first place. Well, for starters I have to be honest and come right out with the fact that I threw this film into the player largely because it is so controversial. I mean, a movie that Disney has refused to release of home video within the United States, how could I go past that? Secondly, the movie does have a significant amount of historical value in the way in which it weaves live action footage (shot brilliantly in glorious Technicolor) together with animated sequences, and also in that it provides an interesting look at a particular part of society's revisionist version of the reconstruction period in the South.The plot itself is rather simple: a young boy (Bobby Driscoll) and his mother (Ruth Warrick) come down to Georgia to stay on a plantation where they meet Uncle Remus (James Baskett). Remus is a former slave and full- time story teller who throughout the film relates the old folk-tales of Bre'er Rabbit and Bre'er Fox to young Johnny in order to help the boy sort out his personal problems. Really, it's not the world's most interesting plot, but it serves well for the purposes of the film with Remus's stories sweeping from live action into animation with easy grace.The problems with this plot, however, arise quickly with the meeting of old Uncle Remus, who presents as an amalgamation of almost every racial cliché one could imagine. Not a good starting point to be sure. The other African-American characters too are presented in a very poor light, playing off the common prejudices around at the time. Their speech is hokey and sounds almost like it was torn straight from the script of a minstrel show, they sing traditional songs (with the director's showing no sensitivity to the cultural implications of such music) as they go about their work, and they are all costumed in the manner one would have expected from D.W. Griffith's The Birth Of A Nation (1915). The film also gives an incredibly naïve and revisionist view of black-white relations at the time, showing benevolent masters and servants contented with their roles of servitude.None of this is maliciously intended, I would wager, but nonetheless it is very problematic especially for an ostensible children's film, and I agree wholeheartedly with the NAACP's calls to boycott the movie when it was first released. I think the very fact that it not deliberately and maliciously offensive towards the people it marginalises makes it all ever worse. I mean, a child can easily be taught that hatefulness and overt racism are unacceptable, but to be shown such an insidious example from such a trusted source as Disney can provide a challenge for a parent to explain away. The movie contains no message or moral of equality, just a sly suggestion that 'certain people' should know their 'place'.I do not, however, agree with any calls to forget this film entirely. It has earned a place in the historical cannon of feature films and as such is deserving of study, analysis, and critical thought regarding its artistic merits. Song Of The South has a definite place in film libraries and the collections of students and historians, and I think that it is a place that needs to be preserved and not glossed over. I would just recommend that it be kept out of the hands of children.As an aside to this discussion of the film's problematic racial presentations I will also say that I have scored this film rather low for the simple fact that it is boring. It really doesn't quite reach the same heights of grand magic that Disney films often do. The story is fractured and episodic, making it hard to become invested in the plight of the characters, the songs (bar one) are not particularly memorable, and, to be honest, the primary protagonist is unlikeable. It's not poorly executed, in fact some of the location shooting and technical trickery is actually rather inspired, but it is poorly constructed as a film.So, in conclusion, I'm going to have to express my ambivalence towards this movie. It has some artistic merits, but these are tempered by a series of filmic shortcomings, and it has a definite degree of historical and cultural value, but that comes primarily from the fact that it is really rather racist.I suppose the only thing you can do is watch it for yourself and make up your own mind about how much value one can ascribe to this outcast from the Disney family.