As in the original release, Sounder is the story of a family of Black sharecroppers in the so-called Great Depression. For those unfamiliar with what a sharecropper is, they were people that lived on someone else's land and worked a large plot of land-having to give a large portion of the harvest to the landowner. The concept was based on the idea that the work equated to your rent and goes back thousands of years in history. The problem for the worker is that the ratio is set so that you never get ahead, and can't aspire to anything more than this form of economic slavery.

In any case, the family barely makes it in the harsh times but find comfort with the love of the family. Hard times or no, they have each other and will make it through by supporting each other. The problem sets in when food gets especially tight so that even hunting doesn't provide the extra food needed to sustain the family. Dad goes and steals food figuring he's "owed" by the boss. Needless to say, the boss disagrees as does the law. Dad gets to enjoy the accommodations of the penal system and this sets in motion the journey of a young man to find his father who's been transferred far away to an unknown location. Along the way, he encounters deep set racism of the South and a ray of hope in a teacher that wants to show him how to read (played by Paul Winfield, who was the father in the original movie).

I really liked the original release as it taught me a lot about life. For one, I learned to never become a sharecropper and end up an economic slave. This remake stressed the fact and I tip my hat to both. Other than that, it paled in comparison to the original in so many ways that I'm not sure I can remember them all. The acting of the original was excellent whereas the people here often could've phoned in their lines as often as not. If it's unfair to compare the rich and full abilities of the original performers to the largely unknown cast here, so be it. Perhaps the 30 years between the two movies was enough time that the newer cast didn't have the firsthand, or maybe secondhand, knowledge of how oppressive such a life was. In the original, I'm sure that a number of those involved with making the movie lived during the hard times in the movie, or at least their parents did. That gave them a lot to draw from in terms of their performances.

Another weakness here is that the story seemed watered down somewhat as though it were made specifically for television, perhaps cable television, and ended up losing much of the texture that brought home the original. I'd have had less problem with this one if it had a suggestion, in big block letters at the beginning of the credits, to either read the book or watch the original movie. I believe the director/producer, Kevin Hooks-a proven television commodity, to be a capable talent but he was either short on budget, time or under great duress to make a easier to swallow version of William Armstrong's novel. That he played the son in the original movie made me wonder why he thought he could do a better job directing this remake-certainly an interesting piece of trivia but to what end?

So if the story and acting were weaker than the original, the technical matters must've been better, due to advances in film technology, right? Sadly, this is not the case. During many of the night scenes, the grain was horribly obvious as was the color bleeding. The sound was okay except that in a number of cases, the bass was boomy without precision (not the tight, concentrated bass a higher budgeted movie would have).

Had I never seen the first release, and therefore would've been unable to compare the two, I might've been able to suggest this as a something other than a Rent It but with the far richer tapestry woven by the original (which would rate much higher and can be found online for much less), even that might be a bit generous. Read the book or see the original movie if you want the best experience with Sounder.

Picture: The picture was presented in full frame 1.33:1 ratio color. The daylight scenes typically looked clear but the night scenes were very grainy, as if the movie were shot with low-grade videocameras and not enough light, and the color bleeding was distractive as well. Further, there were a lot of compression artifacts which made this one problematic to watch.

Sound: The sound was presented in 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround and was generally pretty good except for the previously mentioned bass problems. The bass sounded distorted a number of times (I lost count) which made me think it was shot in Canada (it was).

Extras: none, not even a paper insert

Final Thoughts: The story is a solid recount by a writer who lived the experience. The original movie from 1972 took a few liberties itself and purists had issues with it so imagine a movie that was a watered down version of the movie (each step away from the original book gets you further off track). It's good enough to rate a status of rental but could've been so much more. Everything about this remake screamed "low budget quickie" which may well have been made in an attempt to either release it in time for the 30th anniversary of the original (it missed), or in time for Black History Month (February). Had the source material been any weaker, I'd have suggested this as one to skip so it squeaked by with a rental.