Amistad

Rating:
Summary: A Magnificent Story in Search of a Good Script
Review: It is difficult to believe that the same man who made Schindler's List could have made this painfully earnest, hopelessly editorialized "version of events." All this [true] story needed was to be told, simply and straightforwardly. It's been crying out to be told ever since the issues it raises were [somewhat] settled by the American Civil War. But the minute I heard that disembodied chorus of voices on the soundtrack, always reserved for the most solemn subjects, I could tell Speilberg was floundering. Schindler's List was so chaste, so reticent in its presentation of the [true] story, that it was Speilberg's greatest triumph that he managed to tell it without any of his usual filmic flourishes - lavished on his usual trivialities. The tale of Amistad deserved the same care and reticence - after all, the story could easily tell itself. What Spielberg lacked was a script. An A for effort, though.

Rating:
Summary: Quantitative Evaluation
Review: Audio Merits:10/10; Video Merits:8/10; Scenerio Merits:10/10; Cinematographic Merits:10/10; Musical Merits:10/10; Overall Artistic Performance:10/10; DVD Extras:7/10; Recording Total Quality: 10/10. Professor's Recommendation: Apotheosis of Movies ever made

Rating:
Summary: ARROGANT TRY...
Review: This director is so arrogant, that it makes me furious. THis is clear in this movie, that just doesn't take off anytime. The depth of character is much less than "SCHINDLER'S LIST", and it is obvious for anyone who watched this movie that Spielberg was aiming for a lot of OSCARS! Há, há, há! He didn't get it, because the plot is weak.

Rating:
Summary: Powerful if not completely accurate...
Review: I've never heard of the slave ship "La Amistad" or the story behind it. I remember that when this movie was released during the holiday season in 1997, there were those critics who said that it was less than faithful to the actual story. That may be true but if you choose, just accept this as a powerful and moving work of "fiction" then. The exact account of what happened may be in question, but the film displays quite well the effects of slavery and what it feels like to be ripped from your family and your homeland, only to be brought over to a strange country with confusing language. The performances were all good, (Anthony Hopkins wore too much make-up), and despite the controversy, was worth my time. As a Black person in America, I do not consider myself an African-American. Just an American. Watching this movie, I acknowledge the sins of America's past. But I love it here and am thankful to be a part of it. I wouldn't want to be anywhere else in the world... not even Africa.

Rating:
Summary: Unique film in the annals of American cinema
Review: Whatever case can be made for Spielberg's oversimplificiationof the actual events, _Amistad_ champions a largely unexploredcountry: pre-Civil War America. We tend to look all too often at either the American Revolution or the Civil War, but never in between. It is as if those years leading up to the Civil War didn't happen or didn't matter. In addition to bringing us the first serious examination of the horrors of slavery conditions since _Roots_--and maybe the only lengthy filmic examination of the slave trade itself--this film looks at the state of American society in the interwar period and shows us that, yes, indeed, it was possible to stand against slavery before the Civil War made abolitionism fashionable.

I'm willing to bet, too, that these are the only screen portrayals of John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren available on film. For that curiosity alone the film's worth adding to your historical fiction collection. While I think Van Buren, like all the do-nothing or pro-slavery elements in the film are insufficiently characterized (we know nothing about them except that they are obviously bad), Anthony Hopkin's Adams is wonderfully more complex--despite the fact that the script has him principally making speeches. There is something entirely mezmerizing about watching a man whom one feels has been largely defeated by life suddenly rise to prominence at the end of his life to say what was on his mind all those times he bit his tongue. Though some may feel the final speech was "grandstanding", I was deeply moved by it. Not only is Hopkin's performance of that final speech deeply emotional--especially when he catches a glimpse of his father's bust--there is something deeply heartening in discovering that people of influence, even in that obscure part of American history we rarely discuss, did find the courage to speak against it.

To be sure, there are flaws in the joint vision of Steven Spielberg and Debbie Allen. The ultimately redemptive message of the movie would not have been sullied by rounding out the pro-slavery elements in the society of the time. Indeed, this would've more accurately shown why this institution we find so peculiar today had such a lock on the country back then. From a dramatic standpoint, too, fleshing out Van Buren and the forces arrayed against Adams would've made the film entirely more tense and heightened the impact of that final speech.

But in the end what matters is that this important story got told. And though there might have been better ways to have told the story, this certainly wasn't a bad one.

(It's worth mentioning as an aside that this DVD version has an especially intriguing making-of vignette, and that there's another version which doesn't. I'd also point out that while this film has an R-rating, there's nothing in this film, in my opinion, from which minors should be shielded. Far from it, this is the kind of movie that parents should share with their teenaged children.)

Rating:
Summary: SPIELBERG SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE MOTHER THERESA
Review: I almost fell asleep watching that movie, I was a huge bore. I was sorry to feel that way because I really admire Morgan Freeman and Anthony Hopkins. This movie wasn't convicing, too long, Many movies about afroamericans struggle were made and most of them were better. Even spielberg had done a great job with THE COLOUR PURPLE.

Rating:
Summary: Wheres the tae-bo?
Review: Im what you'd might call an aerobics junkie, therefore I was totally unimpressed by this video. First of all the basic exercises are rather vague, and aren't clearly presented. I was expecting to work my buns off with the guidance of Billy Blanks but instead i was treated to what appeared to be a heavy handed syrupy account of slavery. hey mr. blanks what gives?

Rating:
Summary: I am Torn by Stereotypes and Pathos
Review: Well, the movie certainly succeeds in evoking strong emotions from the audience. However, I fear that the intended audience is primarily limited to white Americans. Please do not think that I am biased in my opinion; I myself am white. Yet I must admit that throughout the movie I was overcome by the feeling that "Amistad" was in many ways a movie about how the enlightened white humanist was aiding the helpless black victim. Personally, I feel the movie would have been vastly superior if it had focused more on the non-white characters. Morgan Freeman's character and his feelings regaurding the whole affair are elements that I feel would have made for interesting hisorical fiction. In addition, the life of the Menday (I am not sure on the spelling) after they returned to their homeland to find their tribe torn apart is something that would have made for a more thorough and more tragic conclusion to a seemingly upbeat story. As it is, the movie relies to much on Hollywood happy-endings and racial stereotyping in regards to northern whites, southerner whites, Africans, Spanish, and people of power. Yet in the end, despite all my critiques, I still recomend that you partake in this movie and strive to gain meaning from the story.

Rating:
Summary: an interesting period piece, but at times a bit maudlin
Review: I was immediately drawn into this movie, and stayed drawn in; I wanted to know what the fate of the Africans would be. The fact that this case really happened, and that it generated such disturbing political issues, mark it as an important story in U.S. history. And because the plot was based on a story which did happen, I cannot agree with the criticisms of those who faulted the movie because it portrayed whites saving blacks. I cannot see how to make the story otherwise and remain true to the original case. On the other hand, the scenes where the whites triumphed on behalf of the blacks were indeed rather maudlin, and did work to make whites feel that they could now give themselves a pat on the back. Nonetheless, the portrait of Van Buren and the political scene of the time were strong reminders that there were plenty of whites at fault..........As for the criticisms by Hispanics that the movie portrays Spanish/Cuban people as villains, I do not see that.....As a person with Cuban ancestry, I think the movie portrayed pretty much what happened.....should Spielberg have tried to make the 2 Cuban slavers look sympathetic so as not to hurt Hispanic peoples' feelings? How should he have portrayed the queen of Spain? The Spanish royal family has always been subject to criticism, much of it from within Spain: look at the portraits painted by Goya of the Spanish court. The corruption of that institution could fill volumes.....In viewing this film and then reading the reviews, one thing has become very clear to me: that both whites and minorities in this country still view history through their own special racial/ethnic lenses, and with a great deal of defensiveness....to move toward the values which Spielberg tried to put forth in Amistad, we must all strive for a little more objectivity.....

Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the Converted
Review: Slavery is bad. That is the simple message of Spielberg's Amistad, which in its simplicity rises to the complexity of a 2nd grade history book. What a "Genius" like Spielberg clearly fails to understand is, if your going to try to educate an audience, you have to involve them first. Perhaps a real story, on a more intimate scale, with real human beings not "symbolic figures" would have been far more engrossing. Alas, Spielberg is way to important for that now, he has to "BIG" films dealing with "BIG" issues and in the process he misses the mark completely, becuase we are watching a lavishly produced, beautifully shot 2nd grade history lesson. Like the slightly better Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg is to busy making grandiose statements to care about real characters. Again John Williams cheesy(for a lack of a more accurate word) is intrusive and full of self importance. I am really glad Mr.Spielberg is going to do a Sci-Fi film next where he'll get to do some real film-making and not hide behind big issues. Note: For a much better look at the African-American fight for freedom, check out Ed Zwick's great Glory. Now there's a film.