Why was my review declined?

It is extremely difficult for me to understand what IMDB's criteria is for declining a review. I have seen two sentence reviews that use no punctuation, are filled with spelling errors and often comment on what one of the actors looks like. But those reviews get accepted. 

Can someone explain to me why this review of "The Human Stain" was declined? I did use the word "Negro" -- but that is the word that was used in the film and one of the commonly used words at the time of this story. I also used the word "Jew" (and I am one) because that is the way that Ed Harris referred to Anthony Hopkins's character.

There are no words in caps, no vulgarities. I am at a loss to understand why this review was declined. 

Here is the reference number, followed by the review: #230926-102941-706204
____________

It is important to state off the bat that I did not read the book this film is based on. For those that read it, perhaps this film captured the book beautifully. But for me and my husband, we basically stared at it in slack-jawed amazement for its interminable length of 1 hour and 46 minutes, which seemed three times as long.

It is impossible, absolutely impossible, to buy the premise of this film. This story asks us to believe that the character of "Coleman Silk" as played by Anthony Hopkins, is actually a light-skinned black man who has been hiding this fact, and instead is presenting as a white Jewish man.

Huh???

Despite Mr. Hopkins's great gifts, he cannot present himself as either and fails miserably.

Next, we are asked to believe that Nicole Kidman, an extremely talented actress who can just about do it all, is supposed to be a woman who was raised wealthy, but after being violated by her stepfather, she spirals into a life of poverty, which she barely avoids by being a menial worker, and having sex with apparently any man she can, as long as they are old. I don't care that she liked older men, that is not the issue. The issue, as some other user review pointed out, is that if indeed she was raised in wealth, she could not convincingly portray a woman who now acts as if she's never had more than a dime in her pocket and doesn't seem to be that bright. Yes, she's emotionally damaged, but how that is supposed to translate into her becoming a poor working woman, as if that's all she's ever been? It's very difficult to understand.

Now, the story: I'm sorry, but it's impossible to buy any of it, I mean, about 98% of this film is completely, totally wrong, unacceptable, poorly directed, poorly written, unconvincing... I could go on, but I'll try to contain my rage.

First we have Anthony quitting from his position at some august university for using a racial epithet, which, as he points out, he did not use in the way he was being accused of. Then, when his Jewish wife learns that he has quit for reasons stated, she has a heart attack and dies.

This apparently kickstarts Anthony to do two things: One is to track down Gary Sinise ("Zuckerman"), another great actor, to write Anthony's story. But Anthony's story quickly becomes about the sex he has with Nicole Kidman, who he meets at a post office, and then later meets on the side of the road where her car has given out.

There are number of scenes where Nicole is lit beautifully, and she certainly knows how to play to the camera, but all of it is for naught.

Anthony (as "Coleman") seems to be fixated on asking all of his co-actors to "Dance with me." That includes Gary Sinise. In an absolutely bizarre scene, Anthony essentially coerces Gary to dance with him to "Cheek to Cheek." It wasn't funny, it wasn't necessary, it didn't move the story ahead, it didn't add anything except 4 minutes to a painfully dull movie.

Also, now that Harvey Weinstein is behind bars, we can say without a doubt that he and/or his henchpeople convinced Jacinda Barrett (who plays the young blonde woman that the young version of Coleman, played by Wentworth Miller, falls in love with) to do a striptease and show it all. This scene was totally, 1000% unnecessary. I felt sad for Jacinda that she was advised to do this scene, because there is no justification for it whatsoever.

The movie continues on, vacillating between Coleman's past and present. And like a semi-good (but predictable) Lifetime Movie, Nicole's crazy ex-husband (Ed Harris, of course) shows up to destroy her life and the "old Jew" she's sleeping with.

Ooookay.

There are so many other things wrong with this film that it doesn't matter what story points I share here. It should have never, ever, ever been made. Although Wentworth Miller was stunningly beautiful, and, perhaps, if his make-up had been a tad more convincing, I might have been able to buy him as a light-skinned "Negro" (that was the term that was used in the day), but even so, why didn't the producers just get a light-skinned Black man to play the part? Why didn't they even make the effort?

Sad, wrong, horrible, slow, painful, unendurable. Did I say wrong?

The 1 star is for some great movie music, courtesy of Rachel Portman, who was just trying to do her job. She had nothing to do with the casting or the screenplay, both of which should have thrown into the same fishing hole where Ed Harris basically threatens Gary Sinise's life at the end of the movie, after he, Ed, in essence, forces a car off the road into the frozen lake -- the same car in which Anthony and Nicole were ensconced.