AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

MisterWhiplash There is so much to unpack about Born in Flames after a first viewing (much belated I must say, I feel regret this wasn't there or I didn't find it when I was younger), but the first thing that comes to mind about it is television and media. Where do all of these "issues" - I put that word in quotes for almost ironic purposes, as worker's rights" equality for women, equality for *black women*, homosexuals and other women who have been made to become second class citizens as their quasi-original sin based on their gender and/or who they were born to in society - intersect and become amplified, or have the chance to? You gotta be on television, dummy! Borden's use of TV as this dangerous, insidious medium, where the great damage is really/often by these men (and sometimes bourgeois white women) in their glasses and suits seeming to have authority when dismissing attitudes and just ideas of the other, is staggering. I think this, even more than the title song, is the glue and spine of how this all can stick together.I say stick since this is, really, experimental and punk rock cinema at its fiercest and dirtiest. Borden at first gives this the appearance of a documentary - Chris Hegedus and DA Pennebaker turn up in the credits, though the latter I think was a special thanks it shouldn't be underestimated his influence here - but it is not quite that. Sure, that is blood flowing through this stylistically, but there are many scenes shot and meant to be scripted with actors as well. Then you throw in archival footage of demonstrations and other things - actual marches, police beatings and rages against the system, from what appears to be the past ten years - and it takes on a shape that is all its own. It's like if you had dropped Peter Watkins in the lower East side, and he hadn't been born Peter but, well, a woman, and one who understands her place is total shit in society.Is it messy as all get out? Could any bits be cut? Im sure if I saw it again id find a place or two. Would I dare tell her where? Not a chance. This has the energy of revolutionary cinema, and I dont mean that more polished but didactic kind one may have seen from Godard in the 60s, albeit that sense of ambition is there. This has a big cast of characters, from the black section of the women's army to the (white, middle class seeming, including Kathryn Bigelow?!) journalists trying to meet the women halfway, to the agents hounding the women on their trail (these scenes carry the kind of authenticity that made me think of how the FBI also infiltrated and tried to put the kabosh on the Black Panthers, which was also full of women), and the women in the pirate radio stations giving fuel to the fire on the streets and so on. Sprinkled in are vignettes showing right at street level women being oppressed economically and with their bodies. Early on the first action taken by the womens group is to bicycle around to police attacks when no one else will. And then, well, the guns become a necessary evil for them.Is there some wish fulfillment and flights of fantasy? I'm sure there are. At the same time everything is of the same piece which is Borden saying: there is already economic suffering for everyone, but if you don't come to our help, there cant be equality in a country - regardless of if this post "liberation" as this is meant to be set ten years after (I thought of Hunger Games, except Born in Flames would eat that dystopia for lunch) - whether it is construction workers or sex workers or a waitress or whomever. And Borden goes goes the extra provocative step of... Violence is not something preferable but, well, what else is there to do if you men wont stay by our sides in the fight against the corporations?One might say that this isn't as relevant anymore; the women's marches last and this year were full of men not only supportive but possibly empathetic to the struggle which is constant in an America that values wealth and whiteness and the MALEness and all that horseshit bag of chips (just look at the president). With the exception of the last scene, which hasn't aged well for what will be obvious reasons to anyone who's been alive since this film came out, it actually is even more relevant than ever. When a piece of science fiction satire about the falsehoods and depravity and decay of society is made it's about when it is written - 1984 is about the 1948 Orwell was in, Huxley in 1932 with Brave New World, many of Dick's works, Hunger Games too to a lessor extent - and Born in Flames is Borden looking at Americans in the time of that "New" America of Reagan saying "no, things aren't right, things are really worse despite the women's movement that did little, and if you don't see the class issue above all else then you'll never come to see through our eyes."In other words, any of the technical amateurism here (acting too, though theres more good and natural performing than not, especially from the black actors) is all not of concern when substantively this is one of the richest works of volcanic-hot, Pompeii-the-Earth satire that has existed from an American filmmaker.

Red-Barracuda Made over six years between 1977-83, this film reminded me strongly of the films labelled the No Wave. These were underground lo-fi movies made primarily in New York in the late 70's / early 80's. They often had political messages and were uncompromisingly uncommercial. I'm not sure but I would think that Lizzie Borden's feature Born in Flames must surely qualify as one, as this is a wilfully challenging and direct bit of underground cinema which is a rallying cry to women generally. It has a sci-fi premise. In the near future, America is celebrating the tenth anniversary of a socialist revolution but despite this, many issues remain the same, such as racism, homophobia and sexism. A militant group called the Women's Army have been formed, they take direct action to fight for women's rights. Their leader is arrested for a minor offense and mysteriously dies in custody in prison, leading to further revolution.I'll come out and admit it straight away that I didn't fully enjoy this one. Not on ideological grounds but merely because I did not find the film fully engaging due to its fragmented experimental presentation. Having said that, I do respect what it was doing and it does have an unmistakable energy to it which I found interesting. It's clearly low-budget as underground films always are but it definitely has ambition for sure. It takes the form of a pseudo-documentary and mixes in some real news footage in with staged material. The actors are all amateur but this does ensure the feel remains more radical and less watered down. It focuses on feminist politics primarily and it does have to be said that many of the issues discussed still exist today so it does still have a relevance in terms of what it is saying. I also enjoyed the punk soundtrack which had a sort of proto riot grrrl feel to it. So, while I cannot pretend to have fully engaged with this one, I do respect it and admit it has a certain unique feel.

Quag7 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.

litlcreaux 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.