Movies-TV

Poor drama with no point

It really does worry me when I read comments like "10/10 great acting, very moving". This is very poorly made drama that lacks any depth or emotional punch. Generally I don't like Spielberg movies as they're quite childish and are aimed at a broad audience, but then along came ‘Schindlers List', which in my opinion was handled brilliantly. I then heard about Amistad and expected more of the same, but I was very disappointed.All the characters were cardboard stereotypes of what people should be like.
The performance by Mathew McConaughey was a repeat of his performance in a ‘A Right to Kill' and seemed very unbelievable. The only performance with any credit was the excellent Hopkins who brought some drama and believability to his character. The token black, Morgan Freeman, seemed to just pop up every so often and didn't really add anything.Because of the bad direction and acting even the horror scene's lacked any emotion and just appeared as a sequence of melodramatic typical slave scenes.A strange film with no real point, badly made, unbelievable and surprisingly unmoving.

Reality and Art

There are two things that one must remember when watching film and that is that it is only the illusion of reality and that sometimes reality is altered for the sake of art which ultimately film is. Yes, this film is about 45 minutes longer than most humans on this planet have been trained to tolerate, and yes, the reality of what happened with the Amistad Africans has been altered. To say, however, that this film is flawed for either one of these reasons is totally missing the point. Why is it that we can tolerate and even praise the over 3 hours of Schindler's List with it's equally depressing and just as vivid depiction of it's subject matter, but are more than willing to find fault with this one? I have noticed that most of the film critics with any notariety tend to be middle-aged white men. I don't want to make generalist statements, but could we somehow be embarrassed by events of that time period just as a German citizens might be embarrassed by the events in "Schindler's List"?Whatever the cause of the Civil War (state's rights, economic factors,etc.)slavery will always remain the main cause in the minds of most Americans. Largely because today the differences between the different types of people in this country remains still the bone of contention. Who is meant in the Declaration of Independence as the men who are created equal? Artistically, it is a beautifully shot film. The detail in this film is incredible. It is a wonderfully acted and directed film. Anthony Hopkins especially turns in a wonderful performance. There is a famous photograph of John Quincy Adams at the end of his life and Hopkins brings this photo to life as if Adams had stepped out of it. If one must find fault with anything the only thing would be that the script itself tends to drag in portions. One day this will be a classic film."Titanic" has nothing on this film.

Good, but flawed, film

Well, I have tried to avoid Amistad as long as possible. Being a true film lover, though, I know that I will end up watching the films I'm sure I'm not going to like eventually so there's really no need trying to avoid it. (Haven't seen 'Jurassic Park' yet, though, but it's just a matter of time.) So, I rented "Amistad" a couple of days ago to get it over and done with and to a certain extent I was pleasantly surprised. It *was* better than the rumours I had heard and it was an interesting story and the ending was a total surprise to me (I'm not American so that particular event in American and Spanish history was not familiar to me). I thought I knew how it was going to end, but it didn't end that way.So, the film was good. The acting was also good. Morgan Freeman, Stellan Skarsgård, Nigel Hawthorne... Three of my favourite actors all of them. Anthony Hopkins seemed to do his usual routine, though (I'm thinking about "Legends of the Fall" in particular), and Matthew McConaughey was not good at all. Djimon Hounsou impressed me the most though, he was excellent.The major flaw in this film was its lenght. It was *at least* 45 minutes too long, sadly it was hard to keep up interest for that long. That has nothing to do with the story, of course, rather with the script and the directing.(6/10)

too many stories here and I wish Spielberg had picked one

`Amistad' **. (1997, USA, R, 152 min. Directed by Steven Spielberg with Morgan Freeman, Nigel Hawthorne, Anthony Hopkins, Djimon Hounsou, Matthew McConaughey). `Amistad' is based on the historical account of an 1839 revolt by Africans on the slaveship Amistad and their subsequent trial when the ship ends up in the United States. There are a number of stories in the movie, some factual, some the product of literary license. A problem with the movie is that Spielberg never decides which story. There is the heroic story of Cinqué (Hounsou) the leader of the slaves. He is the first to break free and he leads the revolt. He learns to communicate with the lawyers and helps with his and the other's defense.There is the story of the Grishamesque young lawyer (McConaughey) who is willing to sacrifice all for the cause. He is able to outwit the court and the prosecutor, talk Ex-president John Quincy Adams (Hopkins) into appearing before the Supreme Court all-the-while he's loosing all his clients and receiving death threats. This lawyer story line provides the scriptwriter the chance to write in a couple lawyer jokes. There is the history lesson movie. The court case is real. Slaves kidnapped in Africa revolted on their way to the Americas. Rather than finding their way back to Africa the ship ends up in America and court battle ensues. The Queen of Spain wants the ship and cargo (that is the slaves back so they can be tried for murder and piracy. The captain of the ship that found and brought in the Amistad claims ownership of the abandoned cargo. The leaders of the abolitionist movement claim Cinqué and the other slaves are in fact free men because there are treaties that outlaw the capture and enslavement of Africans. (Men who were slaves at the time of the treaty or who were born as slaves remain slaves. It's only against the law to enslave free men.)There is the dramatization of the slave trade. African villages are overrun; the villagers captured with nets, chained together and sold in a market. After the sale, they are chained into boats and shipped to the Americas for resale. The scenes are quit dramatic, especially the open ocean scene where the Amistad's captain realizes he's under provided and have to lighten his load. Fifty slaves are selected, chained to weights and pushed over board.There are too many stories here and I wish Spielberg had picked one.
`Amistad' is available on video and there are a lot of things worth seeing but there's too much not to recommend. A marginal thumbs down from me.

Absorbing

I applaud "Amistad"'s decision to tell its story from the point of view of the Africans. We see the United States, and the local politics, through their eyes -- chilly, contradictory, and often downright silly. Not enough can be said about Djimon Hounsou's screen presence. He dominates the film's opening and closing shots, and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the scenes.

The rest of the cast is a glorious assemblage. Dozens of veteran character actors are almost shoehorned into the piece, tripping over each other to steal the show. Arliss Howard, Austin Pendleton, and Harry Groener are all lurking in the background, for those who pay attention. The big-name stars, the faces on the movie poster, are also a draw: Anthony Hopkins, again playing a US President, is dazzling. Pete Postlethwaite fortunately gets ample time to strut his craft as the leering District Attorney.

I'm a little puzzled by the courtroom scenes, most notably the lengthy oral argument Hopkins gives before the Supreme Court. Granted, this film takes place in 1839, but the Court doesn't interrupt Hopkins once -- not a single question! Retired Justice Harry Blackmun appears on the bench, although he doesn't say a word.

Matthew McConaughey plays the standard Spielbergian lawyer. Unlike the poor fellow in "Jurassic Park", the attorney Baldwin is given time to grow and develop - but he's still played by Matthew McConaughey, so the character perhaps lacks some of the realism he so richly deserved. He says less in thousands of words than Postlethwaite does with one tilt of the head.

There's a lot in "Amistad" to appeal to moviegoers of all stripes. I don't think the movie was meant to be as powerful as "Schindler" -- the American politics are too one-dimensional, the political machinations almost done for laughs -- but for the most part it's a symphony of filmmaking and a movie to be seen more than just once.

Black Mischief

Yeah, that's right! We Hispanics are to blame for America's history of slavery! Oh yes, and the Portuguese too! Americans were only innocent victims of our perfidious lust for blood money. You see, we tempted them and they inadvertenly fell for it. After all, they were merely human, forchrissake! (we, on the other hand, weren't).

That's why you see us portrayed in Mr. Spielberg film as sadistic murderers of women and children, lecturing Americans against their judicial system while pampering a most cruel infant queen (no wonder she was Queen of Spain!). The fact that Spain ended its slave trade back in 1650 -way before any other European nation did- is of no consequence whatsoever, since everyone knows we're a race of liars! And so are the Portuguese! Didn't you hear them speaking Spanish throughout the movie?

Luckily, the Americans had British righteous blood within their veins, so they soon saw the foolishness of their mistake and mended it in no time by freeing all slaves. Oh yes, they did! John Quincy Adams did, in the year 1837, with a rousing speech in which he invoked the spirits of the Founding Fathers (none of them slaverers, mind you), while Heaven itself played angellical music in the background! Oh, mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord!

So next time you are confronted with the horrific issue of slavery in America, and you start asking yourself one more time the always-guilt-ridden question "How could we?", don't worry anymore! According to Mr. Spielberg... You didn't! T'was us, see? (I mean, sí?)

very good movie

I can relate the movie to our situation here in the Philippines before 1986, during the Marcos regime, that we are not totally free.The movie is about the right to be free. And freedom is not inherited or given, it is an inborn right as emphasized in the movie.This is a must to all freedom loving people, and to those people with oppressive tendencies. A very good movie. Congratulations Mr. Spielberg!

sentimentalized distortion of historical events

Full of stereotypes, cliches and bad acting. This movie relies on the viewer having a strong sense of entitlement and thus being aloof of the less than subtle insults aimed at caucasians. The film notes the African's language had not developed abstract words such as "if". The script tells us the Africans are morally superior and thus their language does not need the word "IF". Because "you either do something or you don't", the African leader sagely informs us. Who are the buffoons in this film? The Christians who devote their time to protest against slavery are depicted as useless and referred to as "those miserable people". Good music, scenery, and comic relief were not featured in this film.

A great movie.

In this movie, the director tries to capture the emotions of the movie watcher. The costumes are a bit overdone, but the directing, the script and the acting of this movie are all spectacular. Morgan Freeman, Djmon Hansou and Anthony Hopkins all put up very strong performances towards this great tale of slavery and survival during the mid 19th century.The picture and the cinematography are so well done in fact, I actually felt I was present in the movie. It is a masterpiece with a touch of class.

So what if history is made more entertaining?

Have the critics of this film's historical "accuracy" never heard of "dramatic license"? If they had, then they would understand that Spielberg, like most of his profession, slightly alters history to make for greater theatrical effect or even heighten the events of the story. "Amistad" achieves both with scenes of horror combined with those of great poignancy that make for a total movie experience.

While there are times when the film drags, the performances and the engrossing story itself make up for the few inadequacies. Though stars Morgan Freeman (especially riveting in the inspection of the Amistad scene), Anthony Hopkins, and Matthew McConaughey perform well in their respective roles, the best acting belongs to Djimon Hounsou, Razaag Adoti, and Abu Bakarr Fofanah as three of the Africans, and the underrated Pete Postlethwaite as prosecutor Holabird. Nigel Hawthorne, as the inept President Van Buren, and Peter Firth as a conscious-ridden British ship captain are also memorable.

Spielberg skillfully balances a movie that is a courtroom drama mixed with an indictment against the slave system of America's past. The scenes of the events of the cursed "Middle Passage" are as graphic as is possible within the confines of Hollywood filmmaking.

John Williams contributes a beautiful and understated score, just below the surface of the on-screen events, providing just enough to carry the story along.

Great Movie

This is a Beautiful movie in every sense of the word. The cinematography was fabulous and the actors are superb. The opening sequence is one of the most intense scenes ever made. Buy this movie, or at least rent it.

The North Atlantic Slave Trade

There is a wealth of potential feature films that can be based on the black experience in the North Atlantic slave trade of which this is one of them. Anthony Hopkins puts in a noble appearance as the barrister who speaks for eight hours non-stop in the defence of the defendant, and Morgan Freeman also plays a noble supporting lead.

Worth Seeing

You don't watch television if you're wanting to know the truth about current events -- likewise, you shouldn't watch a film to learn about history.Although not entirely accurate, Amistad addresses an important (but neglected) event in our young nation's history. Don't expect Spielberg to tell you exactly what happened, but you can expect for your interest to be piqued. I have no idea why this saga was completely left out in my high school or even college textbooks. That's a lesson in and of itself.Especially considering that this was the first time most people had even heard of the event, I think Amistad is a solid and thought-provoking film. It's a reasonable period piece; The costumes, sets, and dialogue aren't perfect but they pass. The acting is excellent. It's more than worth seeing -- it should probably be part of the American high school curriculum.

SPECTACULARLY WRITTEN

THIS MOVIE WAS VERY HEART-BREAKING! I CRIED. I LAUGHED. I CRIED. I MOSTLY LAUGHED! WATCH THE SLAVES GET TIED TO ROCKS AND GET THROWN OVERBOARD! THAT WAS SO FUNNY! TOO BAD THE REMAINING SLAVES GOT THEIR FREEDOM! DAMN! MAYBE NEXT TIME WE'LL GET HIM! I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS FAMILY! OH, YEAH! THEY DIED! AWW, TOO BAD! BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME CINQUE!

Powerful Drama

Yet another winning performance by Morgan Freeman. Realistic in everyway, great for all who love a good drama, filled with emotion.

late Saturday night review of a flawless piece

I just finished watching this alone on a Saturday night and I was AMAZED! The story, the acting, the cinematography, EVERYTHING! I cried and cried and covered my face as well during the scenes of the slavery on the boat from Havana. It was one of those movies that I have always wanted to see but it never seemed like a good time- tonight was that time and I was not disappointed. I highly recommend this to anyone and everyone. Spielberg at his best and most compassionate. L.Rathie

A story that needed to be told

I have to admit, I'm partial to this film because I have spent years studying Roger Sherman and his progeny. Roger Sherman was one of the Founding Fathers, and is mostly forgotten today. Despite the obscurity, the Sherman family is one of the most powerful political families in American History. What does this have to do with Amistad? Matthew McConaughey played Roger Sherman Baldwin, the grandson of Roger Sherman. Since the Shermans play prominent roles in two of my novels (Tempest at Dawn & the soon to be released Shut-Mouth Society), I have a vested interest in this film.

Was I disappointed? Not in the historical portrayal of Roger Baldwin. The basic facts around his involvement are accurate. I was disappointed in McConaughey's portrayal, however.

The important issue is that this movie tells a piece of our history that has been swept away, probably from embarrassment. The production values are excellent and the acting superb. The script moves a bit slow at times, but story is strong enough to hold the viewers interest.

The Shut Mouth Society
The Shopkeeper

movie opinion

Amistad is a film about slave trade on the middle passage, it's about these slaves which are caught on the Ivory Coast in Africa and are taken to America on a boat. These slaves are being taken to America in very bad conditions, they are beaten if they are ill or misbehave. The slaves make a rebellion on the ship, and take over the ship, leaving two Spanish ship mates which they will take them back to Africa. At last they end up in America where a judgment takes place, deciding whether the slaves are freed or not. This movie will be out on your cinema on the 4th of December of 1997.The movie was written by Alexs Pate and directed by Steven Spielberg.The behavior of the actors is quite realistic, but in some parts they don't show so much realism because they act as if they know things they're not supposed to know, for example, when Cinque 'wants free' when he's in parliament. Spielberg seems to avoid exaggeration; because the movie is quite attractive, we can see no reason why things couldn't have gone this way, but if Spielberg would have exaggerated, this film wouldn't make so much effect on you because you would notice that he's exaggerating and that it's all a fake Hollywood.The setting, and costumes were very realistic, the scenery had nothing that could make someone think it was filmed in the 1990s because it's all so realistic. Hollywood has made a very good film, Amistad, but the problem is that it only tells the story from the point of view from one person; this only gives us one point of view. The film would've been better if there were more points of view so that we don't only get the point of view from one person, but we get the point of view from more people, so that we know not only what one person thinks but what the majority think. I think Hollywood didn't exaggerate the violence, I think slaves were actually treated the way they were on the middle passage, but the reason why is because Hollywood didn't exaggerate hardly anything, if there were too much violence and deaths, I wouldn't believe it. Spielberg obviously couldn't make a movie three or four months long, so he has to cut scenes out so people don't get bored. But Spielberg could have put more detail into the film because he wastes a too much time on parliament scenes instead; he could have put more detail on the middle passage. It seems as if he Spielberg has invented a few parts to make the movie longer, but it is nearly impossible that Spielberg tells the entire truth, not because he doesn't want, but because he can't tell exactly what was going on because there is no source (as far as I'm concerned) that explained with full details, describing what happened with the slaves on the Amistad.There is no reason why not to invent some new characters in the film, because it doesn't affect the story line to introduce invented characters unless they don't fit in, but the characters fit in.Spielberg is American, so we can't really say that he tells the whole truth because if he exaggerates he would leave America in a bad way because people would think America was taking a big role in the slave trade.Spielberg has obviously researched a lot to get so much information about the Amistad. I think he got the information (if it was him who got it) of the internet or historians which I think give more information than anything or books, which show sources of information which you could otherwise maybe not get. I think that he set the scenery quite well, because the houses and the clothes looked very realistic. The locations where the film takes place are very well chosen because; they are very adequate to the film. The civil war at the end shows why the war took place, and how much banning the slave trade affected America.The court was very realistic, and the way everything worked and how they set it up was good. But when Cinque shouts out 'we want free!' things start to get a little fake because he is African and what does he know about English? On the middle passage, the slaves were treated extremely badly, they only gave food to the slaves who were healthy, and they whip them, and throw them over board and treat them as if they were bugs. The way they treat them could be a bit of an exaggeration, but we don't know what happened so there is no way we can know if how they treated them on the boat is true or an exaggeration.The movie shows sadness in a very hard way because if you think about how hard it needs to be, to be kidnapped from your village to be sold and having to work without being paid, especially if you're a child, a mother or a father, leaving your family behind or being born into slave trade, like the baby on the boat. And what if they kidnap the whole of your family but when you get to America, you are all split. The happiness of the African people when they are finally freed, makes you happy in the way that you feel well because the people which have been suffering so much, are finally in what they had always been, freedom, even though it's only a film.The reaction of the white people when the slaves were freed was happiness, because slaves with human rights had been freed and finally taken back to their homes.

Matthew McConaughey. Awful.

Why do people continue to cast McConaughey? In every scene, in every film he's in, he is exactly the same. I suspect what I find most distasteful about him is the arrogant smirk viewers often see curling at the corners of his lips, present throughout the court scenes in this too-long film. He is SO full of himself, it stains all those about him. Hopkins is, as usual, excellent, but Freeman's role obviously wasn't well thought out. He gives the impression of hanging around with no real purpose in the film other than to be a symbolic educated black man.The film itself is surprisingly poor, particularly considering the director. It doesn't hang together, as though the seems are visible in a poorly made dress. The court scenes are both dull, over-acted by McConaughey, and seemingly endless. I confess I gave up when I learned they were going to appeal the decision made by the second judge. I couldn't go though it all again. The scenes pertaining to slavery after on one or two occasions powerful, but again on other times badly constructed. Not recommended. Not recommended at all. Perhaps the directors heart wasn't in it, unlike Schindler's list.

Surely a master piece from Spielberg

I gave it 8 of 10 because of the great story the acting especially from Anthony Hopkins and the great point in this movie. A must see!!! Enjoy it...