Blood Done Sign My Name 2010

Critics score:
50 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Sam Adams, AV Club: In spite of the material's regional origins, Stuart's movie still feels like a Hollywood vision of the rural South, less syrupy than some but no less vague. Read more

J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader: Along the way there are many fine, precisely observed moments showing what race relations were like in this little tobacco town at the turn of the decade. Read more

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: Half cardboard and half flesh-and-blood, the film version of Tim Tyson's memoir Blood Done Sign My Name reminds us just how difficult it is to tell a story without that story turning into a storybook. Read more

Cary Darling, Dallas Morning News: Beautifully shot and well-acted, if earnest, overlong and unfocused. Read more

Tom Long, Detroit News: The story is well-told and well worth telling. Read more

Elizabeth Weitzman, New York Daily News: Though it can't quite transcend its filmmaker's earnest intentions, this solemn history lesson offers several powerful moments. Read more

Kyle Smith, New York Post: The movie punches up the kinds of scenes you've seen done better 100 other times -- church sermons, a sham trial, a Klan meeting. Read more

Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer: Blood Done Sign My Name may not be great cinema, but it nonetheless deserves attention. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: No fancy footwork. No chewing the scenery. Meat and potatoes, you could say, but it's thoughtful and moving. Read more

David Fear, Time Out: You can't deny the inspirational qualities of the story or Parker's screen presence, any more than you could accuse the film of subtlety or of masking its conspicuous pro-Christian agenda. Read more

Ronnie Scheib, Variety: Comes off as a painfully old-fashioned, flatly directed exercise in passionless historical reenactment. Read more

Melissa Anderson, Village Voice: Too often, the film props up caricatures and constructs in its superficial gloss on history. Read more

Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: Its intended audience is anyone with enough heart to be horrified by the events it depicts, but also with enough plausible deniability to point the finger of blame at someone else. It's a movie you can feel good about feeling bad about. Read more