More like, The "OK" Debaters. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty that's "great" about this movie, but not enough for me to get too excited about it. The cinematography is great, the performances are mostly solid, the period design is believable, and the direction is pretty good. The main beef I have with this film is the script and Denzel Washington's performance.

The script is a bit schizophrenic for my taste. The story is basically a sport-movie format set in the Jim Crow South about brains instead of brawn. That's all fine and dandy, but the script wanders from character to character faster than a Tarantino script. Just when we're getting to know and like a character, the story shifts to someone else. Then by the end of the film, few of the character's dilemma's are really solved. I suppose this is to be accepted in what I can only call an "ensemble" piece. However, the film is never really sure which character is the glue that holds them all together. And is there really any glue to begin with? Enough about glue. My point is, there's never a single character that is given to us to latch on to. We sympathize and resonate with various aspects of each character, but it's never enough to really involve us emotionally...with the exception of James Farmer, Jr. (played by Denzel Whitaker) who is the character son of Dr. James Farmer, Sr. (played by the real-life Father of Denzel Whitaker -- Forest Whitaker).

This father and son performance and story-line were the most interesting of the film. They could have (and maybe should have) made this story completely from the perspective of Jr. and created a bitter-sweet coming-of-age story about the Jim Crow South. To the filmmakers' credit, this seems like what they were trying to do, but ultimately couldn't stay on track. James Farmer, Jr. is a smart, chubby, nerdy kid with a strict minister father. We start to see and feel for him as he dreams about his beautiful new debate partner Samantha Booke (played perfectly by the lovely Jurnee Smollett). But sure enough the story cuts away only to return with an uncertain feeling that the story "has" to come back to James Farmer, Jr., but it's never sure why. But on that note, the actor who would've stole the show if they'd given him a real story line would be that of Forest Whitaker. Somehow in the last several years, he's lost that "Forest Whitaker Thing" he does in most movies and has emerged a -- dare I say -- brilliant actor. His performance is subtle, controlled, and believable set against the often overdramatic performances of Denzel Washington.

I've come to accept Denzel's performances as well...the "Denzel Way." Which isn't to say he over acts, but he's definitely the type of actor you need to be in the mood for. In my book, his peak performances were in Malcolm X and Training Day. His naturally powerful screen presence was perfectly suited for each of those equally powerful roles. But what Denzel Washington often forgets is that not every scene needs to be a powerhouse of verse and reaction. Take a cue from your good friend Forest Whitaker who nailed his role by being subtle and sensitive to each word coming in or going out. Each line of Denzel is tainted with some inner need of his to dominate each syllable. Like I said, in many of his roles, this is precisely what's required, but here, it just felt like Denzel cast himself in his own film because he could -- despite the fact that he wasn't necessarily the best choice.

Which brings me to the strange and misguided sub-plot of the film. Not only is Denzel a fine debate coach, but it seems he's also a leftist union organizer. Ok, so on paper this doesn't sound so strange, but in the context of this brainy sports-film, this odd departure is detracting from the Jim Crow picture this film set out to paint. It then becomes about lefty politics (white or black) and the introduction of unions. On one hand I appreciate the depth this gives the character and the story, but it's a depth that is completely misplaced in the story. Only by the end of the film are we told that the events and characters were based on real life. So, maybe their real-life stories weren't as clean-cut as a Hollywood film should be, but that still doesn't change my movie-going experience.

To be fair, there were a few emotional high-points that really pulled me into the film. The film's portrait of the 1935 South was what I can only assume was spot-on. It's hard to image such a backwards time and place not long ago and not far away. The blatant hypocrisy and ignorance of Southern white culture is bizarre, surreal, and shocking to say the least. The scenes where the characters confronted these horrors were the most emotionally engaging scenes of the whole film. You felt just as scared and horrified as the characters (and real-life people) must have felt. That being said, the remaining "emotional impacts" were left flat and shy of their potential. Each victory by the team, or life-lesson realization seemed to just miss the mark somehow. That being said, the one final debate scene is the one saving grace of the film. It's perfectly set, delivered, directed, and written. Was it Steven Spielberg who said something like: as long as you wow the audience in the end, you can do whatever you want before that. The final debate really hit home (and even made the woman behind me cry), but I can't say it salvaged an otherwise schizophrenic film.

Hats off to Forest Whitaker and his son. Hats off to Jurnee Smollett for a camera-loving performance. And hats off to an attempted coming-of-age story. I give it 3 stars only because of the final debate. Otherwise, this can only be called The "OK" Debaters.