samanthacato Can you imagine that I am a British woman of colour, in my 40s and this is the first time I've actually taken the time to find out what the actual story was about. My first reference to Uncle Tom's Cabin was from the dance scene in the King and I with Yul Brynner. That was over 30 years ago. This film is a simple adaptation. Dated. Would be considered in this day and age to be very politically incorrect however, in comparison to the reality and the truth of the days depicted, it is tame enough to watch. At the same time I was still emotionally invested enough to understand even more the brutality of slavery. Some very good acting all round. Famous faces that we know to this day. It was truly better than I expected and so sad.

Syl Uncle Tom's Cabin was brought back to life with a stellar cast including Danny Glover, Kate Burton, Phylicia Rashad, Bruce Dern, Paula Kelly, Edward Woodward, and Samuel L. Jackson just to name a few. I don't remember much of the story itself apart from reading it a long time ago. In the 1980s, television movies were a class apart. They were inspired by actual true crime or literature like Uncle Tom's Cabin into a movie with television stars. Anyway, the television movies of the past have long disappeared onto cable stations and PBS programming if possible. The quality of this television movie is worth watching for students. I now remember why television movies stopped being so good. It was because major television networks had the audiences to watch them. It's a lot cheaper to do reality series or program unfortunately. The audiences of the eighties have a lot more choices now. The major networks ruled prime time with the finest quality. Sometimes, quality should not be outnumbered by quantity.

dylman91 .:::*MINOR SPOILERS*:::.We watched this movie in English class. It is one of my teacher's favorites. All I can say is that none of us students feel the same way.I didn't think Uncle Tom's Cabin was a good movie at all. I understand what they were trying to do, and I think they executed it poorly. The acting at times was laughable. The story had potential, but it got off track too many times. I know it was a low-budget TV movie from 1987, but they could have at least used a blood capsule in some parts, instead of showing no blood at all. One example would be when one guy gets shot in the shoulder. Not a single drop of blood. The only part I remember with any blood was when Tom was being beaten, which was also the only part I thought was okay.It seemed like it wanted to be a serious drama, but it mostly seemed like a soap opera to me, and I don't tend to take soap operas seriously. If it had acted more seriously, I might have liked it more.I now want to read the novel by Harriet Breacher Stowe. A lot of times, movie adaptations aren't half as good as the book. I know the story has a lot of potential, and I am convinced it could work somehow.But, unfortunately, this movie didn't work.1/10.

Hans C. Frederick Never having read the original work,I don't feel qualified to comment as to how closely this adaptation follows the story.Nonetheless,I feel compelled to comment as to some of the casting. Bruce Dern has always been known,especially during the 50s,60s,and 70s,for his portrayals of lunatics,psychotics,and psychopaths.His villains were the most vile and loathsome that could be imagined.Repulsive is perhaps too kind an adjective.In later years,he mellowed his image to a great extent,playing quirky,off-beat,and eccentric supporting roles.So why,in this film,does he portray the tender,loving,sensitive Mr. St. Clare-unless they really wished to cast him against type?if that's the case,they really did a great job. And Edward Woodward's image is that of a suave,polished,sophisticated gentleman and man of the world.Even as a villain,he wouldn't be rude or vulgar.And Legree is one of the archetypal American brutes.The coarseness of Richard Boone or Neville Brand is necessary for this character.Was the director out of his mind when casting this part?