Born in Flames (1983)

People are voting emotionally.

Load of rubbish!!

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

This is a very radical political film. As a black lesbian feminist, I could relate to the premise of this film. The plot unfolds in a semi-documentary style, making this film all the more interesting. Set against the gritty backdrop NYC, the film has a distinctly apocalyptic feel to it. This movie harks back to the militant, left-wing revolutionary fervor, of the 60s and early 70s. Despite the changes in society resulting from feminism, gay rights, and the civil rights movement in the last 40 years, this movie shows that there's still much work to be done, to achieve real equality for all. It's not surprising to me that the radical political movement in the film, is led by a working-class black lesbian. Women who happen to be lesbian, blue-collar, and of color, are still the most oppressed people in our society.Jean Satterfield is superb as Adelaide Norris, the dedicated member of the Women's Army. Jean conveys the militant stance of Adelaide, in a very visceral way. The supporting cast of this film, was also compelling. Especially Honey as Honey, the feminist revolutionary radio DJ. The film was slow-moving at times, but packed an emotional punch.Rights of the oppressed in society, have been rolled-back by right-wing conservatives for the past 28 years. So, we could use a radical political strategy that addresses the rights of the oppressed again, like we did in the 60s and 70s. History has been known to repeat itself. In this day and age, a radical uprising by women in pursuit of equality, is needed more than ever. This movie could very well be a sign of things to come, in that regard. I recommend this film, to all who take women's rights seriously, and want to become more aware of women's oppression in society.

Agitational left-wing diatribe or fantasy about a mostly lesbian women's army confronting the compromised "in-name-only" socialist government of the United States (there is a sort of bubbling-under anarchist sentiment in here).Yeah, you know what, it's a little out there, just run with it.My attention kept drifting because I felt this obsessive need to get into the filmmaker's head. I get, I suppose, radical socialism and I get radical feminism. As a straight white...dude...I guess I have trouble understanding radical lesbianism. I couldn't figure out why, given the fairly ludicrous premise for this movie, a women's army such as this would be "mostly lesbian." Is it because the people who conceived of this film were lesbians and this was kind of a political fantasy of theirs, or was it a comment on radical feminism, that only lesbians (for reasons I don't understand but kind of want to - if this is indeed the case) would be militant enough to get it together and get down to business? Or was it that the feminist struggle of the time resembled this in some way? I am, quite obviously, not the audience for this movie, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it interesting. The politics here are inescapable and unavoidable - if you can't tolerate the Left's extended cinematic trips (and this is one long one), you're not going to make it through - there's not much else to glom on to. It is impossible to suspend disbelief (or was for me), especially considering this film is really a polemic thinly disguised as a fictional drama. And I don't mean that as criticism. It is what it is. This film is about ideas, and it doesn't equivocate.The movie does have a (genuine) punky, indie, underground feeling to it that might appeal to some who otherwise wouldn't be interested in something this ideological. The soundtrack is interesting and kind of weird. Not *quite* punk but not quite anything else either (which maybe makes it more punk, I don't know.) Oh - I disagree with other comments that this movie is somehow confused or unfocused. It's not. If anything, it is as subtle as a sledgehammer. I mean, I, for one, know *exactly* where the filmmakers stand. The plot seems to be fairly logical, if strangely paced.This film is low budget (and wears it on its shirtsleeve), rough around the edges, and frankly I think this movie would be a complete failure if made with a big budget - if for no other reason than a large budget would sabotage (through overproduction and glossiness) the undeniably radical position the film takes. Possibly the film's most compelling attribute it is that it is wholly uncompromised (for comparison see The Spook Who Sat By The Door - which is not as low budget, but is similar in its revolutionary fervor).In any case, this movie is not for everyone. The summer blockbuster crowd isn't likely to enjoy this, and I doubt those on the right side of the political spectrum are likely to make it through (though I can imagine some of them, maybe, rubbernecking in a voyeuristic way - "so this is how the other half lives, eh?").Oh, and it ends with the World Trade Center being bombed (well, the transmitter on top), and Eric Bogosian shows up and has exactly one line, and I guess that's worth seeing if you're a Bogosian fan (I am).Anyway -- recommended, with strong reservations. If you like double meat and cheese on your ideological pizza, you'll probably dig this, or at least find it worth your time.

This movie or whatever you can call it, is bad. There is only a cheap generic ten minute plot and then random scenes and "interviews" from some television network. The whole plot of the movie is pointless, why is there a socialist revolution? The whole idea of a revolution makes the women revoloution in this movie seems pointless and the government doesn't seem to be different overall than it is now. Overall the "revolution" is pointless to this movie's overall goal. When women are arguing with one another over starting up the women's army, a few women point out that change comes slowly and that the government was already set up to change things. The Women's Army people just sort of wave this argument off without an answer. If the government was socialist every one would be paid regardless, just laying that one out there... The movie is too random and unclear for any point to come out clearly. The militancy that shows up really has no real foundation if the society is Socialist. The movie argues against problems of the current government. The good things that come out of it are the problems that women faced in the before, like the rape scene. It is a powerful scene and the only one in which the issue is clearly marked, but it just leads to male bashing not directed towards the rapists, but towards others. As a movie it is an interesting look at Feminist movement, but is too dated to be taken seriously now. If anything what I got out of this movie is that feminists are just jackasses, and there are women in the movie that I'd think would agree with me.

Not only have I had the luck to see this movie, I had the privilege of receiving it from "Honey" one of the lead actors. This movie is so important as it brings to life the struggle of not only women who were active in the 70's, but that the issues they brought forth still continue. If one thinks we have come a long way in overcoming gender discrimination, then take a fresh look at this film. I particularly appreciate the feminist analysis that seems to be missing today from women's activism and politics. Every activist ought to view and take heed of this movies message. This film parallels much of the social climate women endure today. It reminds one of the radical ideas that fired the women's movement and how they might be reignited in todays world.It is timeless, yet carries the rawness of movies made in the 70's. I highly recommend this film.