This film is essentially Bill Cosby and the Huxtable Family on television in a major conflict.
The story would have been far better had it dealt with an impoverished white or black family. Instead, we're dealing with an upper class family whose father abandoned them 6 years ago and has now returned following the death of his father. What are we trying to prove here? We have heard time and time again from sociologists about the missing father in African-American families and how this hurts their socio-economic status in society. Now, we're given the missing paternal figure with a wealthy family of African-Americans.
In addition, someone should tell Cicely Tyson to stop playing Miss Jane Pittman over and over again.
All this aside, there are some very good performances by Michael Beach, as the headstrong brother as well as the gentleman in the title role. The two young children convey the idea of a lost father whose presence they need so badly in their lives.
While I praise Beach's work, how could the writer coincidentally use the reappearance of the father at the same time that the brother (Beach) proposes to his sister-in-law only to learn that she never filed the divorced papers? That seems very tacky to me.
The story would have been far better had it dealt with an impoverished white or black family. Instead, we're dealing with an upper class family whose father abandoned them 6 years ago and has now returned following the death of his father. What are we trying to prove here? We have heard time and time again from sociologists about the missing father in African-American families and how this hurts their socio-economic status in society. Now, we're given the missing paternal figure with a wealthy family of African-Americans.
In addition, someone should tell Cicely Tyson to stop playing Miss Jane Pittman over and over again.
All this aside, there are some very good performances by Michael Beach, as the headstrong brother as well as the gentleman in the title role. The two young children convey the idea of a lost father whose presence they need so badly in their lives.
While I praise Beach's work, how could the writer coincidentally use the reappearance of the father at the same time that the brother (Beach) proposes to his sister-in-law only to learn that she never filed the divorced papers? That seems very tacky to me.