Rating: 
Summary: Actors triumph in dark, cynical film
Review: The Green Mile is the second collaboration between director Frank Darabont and novelist Stephen King. The first was The Shawshank Redemption, a 1994 movie which bombed commercially, then went on to become a cult classic on video. It was generally well received critically and was nominated for seven Academy Awards. Both movies take place in prison, and The Green Mile is, if anything, even grimmer. This new effort managed to garner only four Academy nominations, but the producers were smart enough to snare Tom Hanks for the lead, which assured commercial success both here and abroad. ... The Green Mile refers to the corridor that leads to the electric chair in a Louisiana prison in 1935. The man in charge of death row is Paul Edgecomb [Tom Hanks], a fairly affable and thoughtful guy. He has a likable and loyal crew, except for Percy Wetmore [Doug Hutchison], a sick kid who does as he pleases because his uncle is the state's governor. One day, a new prisoner arrives, a huge, hulking black man called John Coffey [Michael Clarke Duncan]. He has been convicted of murdering two little white girls. [Ah, Hollywood! Does nothing ever change in your world?] While the guards are totally intimidated by John's size, they soon discover that he is mild, gentle and soft-spoken. Later, after Paul discovers John has the gift of healing, he begins to doubt John's guilt and begins to look for answers in the case. The performances are all great. Darabont is said to be very picky about casting, and he chose actors who could create memorable characters. The problem for me is that all these characters seem to be floating around in Stephen King's dark, ambiguous world. The movie is neither a horror piece not a thriller. It is more of a mystic story, yet King gets truly cynical at the end. I won't spoil the plot, but there is a scene in which certain key information is revealed. This should change everything, but it doesn't. The characters keep plodding along, mindlessly determined that the story will end in a certain way. The result is that the last hour of its monumental three hour plus running time feels every so manipulative.
Rating: 
Summary: THE STAR IS A MOUSE
Review: Arguably not for everytaste,this supernatural story about a black convict who did not kill the two girls that will send him to the electric chair gets better if you are patient enough to go through it's shakey and long first half.We've got to give TOM HANKS credit for his pick of roles;he is always fun to watch in almost anything.This type of story will always find detractors who can't cope with this kind of storytelling in a movie.A story that has a mouse that lives eternally is after all quite special,even in our time.Don't you think?
Rating:
Summary: Powerful, moving, and compelling
Review: It's difficult to sum this movie up into a few paragraphs...the acting, direction, casting, sets, and locations were all excellent. Michael Clarke Duncan's performance as John Coffey is overwhelming; the depths he reaches portraying Coffey's compassion is simply amazing. He brings a vulnerability to this giant character that not many other actors could find. Tom Hanks, James Cromwell, David Morse, and Michael Jeter all turn in great performances as well. While the "surprise" isn't much of a surprise at all, it's the journey through the story that's important. King's horror devotees won't find his usual style here, but those who loved "The Shawshank Redemption" will be very pleased. If there's a dry eye in the house at several dramatic points of this film, be sure to check for pulses. The DVD features are similarly wonderful - the behind-the-scenes footage is great. There's a bit between Hanks and Duncan in Coffey's cell during which Hanks is almost entirely off-camera, but to (roughly) quote the director, "Tom's giving this Oscar-winning performance, and he's not even on-camera! He's giving Duncan everything possible to make his performance as real as possible." That brought tears to my eyes as well - Tom Hanks is truly extraordinary. "The Green Mile" is a deeply touching story, brought to vivid life by this great cast and crew. It will be easy to recall scenes from this tale long after you've seen it, simply because they etch themselves into your brain. There is the best and the worst of humanity in here, and each extreme leaves a lasting impression.
Rating: 
Summary: like the drink, but spelled different
Review: One the best book-movie adaptations I've seen in a long time!
This and 'The Shawshank Redemption' are two of King's best.
Thumbs up!
Rating:
Summary: The Best Film i've seen in a very long time
Review: Before I started to watch this film I thought will I be able to sit through a 3 hour film? I need'nt have worried it was the best 3 hour viewing I have ever seen.Tom Hanks was eccellent,and to say it was the first time I had ever seen Michael Clarke Duncan I thought he was amazing.I viewed this film with my husband and daughter and by the time it was finised we were all in tears!I would recommend this film to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but Watchable
Review: I have to admit to a certain indignation toward Stephen King when he brought out the book The Green Mile in serial form--it seemed to me an outrageous and blatant attempt to gouge his fans--each chapter cost approximately half the price that the entire novel normally would have. And when one chapter seemingly advanced the plot not at all (The Mouse on the Mile) and not only strained credulity but broke its back and left it for dead--please, that a MOUSE would excite so much attention in a Louisiana prison in the 1930s is less believable than John Coffey's miraculous powers! --I even stopped buying the books from the used bookstore and they have remained off my shelves. But there's always been a little nibble of curiosity there, partly my own amazement and disbelief that Steven King could go so wrong, and partly the grim curiosity of a passerby at an auto wreck straining to see how bad it really is. So when the film of The Green Mile came to Hong Kong cable television on a night I had nothing better to do, the terms seemed right for me to give it another chance. That chance wasn't fully deserved. While there were some genuinely touching moments and a nice little twist at the very end (poorly played out, though), the whole was far too obvious. There is no art in writing lines that tell the attentive audience member immediately what will happen: if a prison guard says that you don't wanna forget to put the wet sponge on the person to be executed, anyone who's ever seen a Hollywood movie knows that somebody's gonna get it just that way. The second you learn that the Warden's wife is sick with a mysterious headache, you know she's going to have an inoperable tumor and if the instant you discovered John Coffey's powers you didn't know he was going to cure her, you weren't paying attention. This isn't foreshadowing, it's bludgeoning. There is no suspense, and without the suspense, I have to wonder why the movie took so long. Character development? These aren't complex guys--they are straight out of Stereotyping 101! Tom Hanks, David Morse and their buddies are all real good, upstanding folks; Doug Hutchison plays the sadistic but cowardly guard. Michael Clarke Duncan, as John Coffey, had perhaps the most complex and rewarding role; but the screenplay gave him little to do except look tortured. That particular look, in fact, is the number one expression in the movie, and everybody gets a shot at it. Unfortunately they overact so much I can only imagine director Frank Darabont off camera shouting "More! Give me more! Imagine your dog dying! Your Mom! Your AGENT!" And with those Godawful "Southern" accents, he must have done much the same. I'm from the South, and I've never heard anyone talk like this. Nevertheless, there were some redeeming touches. The film dips and occasionally wallows in sentiment, but not so much that a traditional happy ending is forced on us. I'll not comment further on Coffey's fate except to say that his final moments in the prison are the film's highlight. Furthermore, the brutality of the electric chair is manifest throughout, and this horrifying pervasiveness mitigates the sentimental aspects of the movie. Although camera shots do not linger on the victims, each execution is conveyed with real emotion--so much so that The Green Mile can be seen as a powerful statement against the death penalty. And finally, that Coffey's healing powers are not only a miracle but also a curse gave the story some complexity. For all its flaws, The Green Mile is worth watching; but wait for it to come to TV. That way you can give the book's author a little "payback" for his original attempt at price gouging.
Rating:
Summary: One of 1999's Best Pictures.
Review: Frank Dubant directs this Faboulous and touching motion picture from Shawshank Redemption Author " Stephen King". It's about
a Guard ( Tom Hanks) who discovers that the new inmate named
John Coffey ( like the drink except it's not spelled right, is
played by Michael Duncan) that has special healing powers to cure
people of whatever problems they have. It's a three-hour Tour
of Emotions, some laughs, Tears, and what life in Prison is like. If you like Shawshank Redemption, see this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Keeps you at the edge of your seat right to the end.
Review: A compelling script and incredible acting -- particulary by those who play the death sentence inmates and the sadistic prison guard -- keeps the viewer absorbed. I was surprised when I found out the movie was just over 3 hours long! The Green Mile has a similar tone and rhythm of Shawshank Redemption with a hint of the "Saving Private Ryan-esque" flashback and ofcourse a pinch of the supernatural of Stephen King. There is even a Forrest Gump/Apollo 13 reunion of Tom Hanks and Gary Sinese!
Rating:
Summary: Very much a King film
Review: This is a bittersweet tale with many moments that make you laugh and others that make you grin as the evil get their just desserts. Good movie.
Rating:
Summary: A quarter mile too long
Review: When we say that a movie is too long, we mean one of two things: It is so inept and boring, that time appears to slow down while we're watching it, making it seem too long. Or The filmmaker's had some good material to work with, but not enough to justify the extended length. "The Green Mile" falls smack dab in the middle of category number two. So, how could it have been shortened, and thus made better? My first suggestion is to get rid of the old people. Or, tidy up their scenes. I understand the need for this hackneyed framing device (it becomes clear in the end), but somewhere between concept and execution, the idea falls on hard times. Firstly, the old people they cast are horrible actors. It appears that the crew set up shop in a nursing home one afternoon, handed out copies of the script, and rolled film. Every emotion is artificially heightened, every line reading is stilted, and no one comes across as believable. Second, I don't think the prologue / epilogue adds anything to the film, except to give the filmmakers an opportunity to once again spell out their message, in case one or two members of the audience missed it the first forty times. Okay, so we edit out the old people scenes, and that cuts off, what, fifteen minutes of screen time. Next, we have way too many executions. They're all done well, bringing the right amount of pathos to the proceedings, without ever being manipulative (well, one is, but it kind of had to be to make its point). But overkill (pun intended) is still overkill. We have three executions, shown in their entirety, plus a couple of dry run trial executions (I hate being the one recommending Harry Dean Stanton should wind up on the cutting room floor, but here we are). I say, show the bare bones only of the first one, show bits and pieces of the trial runs, show only the important bits of the second one (this should be obvious), and lay it all on the line for the third one. That should cut another ten or so minutes from the film. There's a scene where Tom Hank' Paul Edgecomb goes to visit Gary Sinise, the lawyer who represented John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan). It does nothing to further the story, or Paul's perceptions of Coffey, and can be exorcised neatly. Plus, it tries to fuel the fires of an issue (racism) that until this point hadn't been brought up, and, given the film's tone, really didn't need to be brought up so explicitly by a secondary character. We can see that racism is a factor without Sinise's blatant pejorative. Okay, so that's another five minutes lost. Finally, there are two characters here who get way too much screen time, much of it redundant. Doug Hutchinson's Percy is a cowardly little skunk. We get that information from his first couple scenes. Then we get it over and over again. I'd have him in the background, only emerging for his confrontations with Michael Jeter's Del (and then for Del's execution). Hutchinson does a fine job with the role (you will hate Hate HATE Percy), but he was too big a part. Sam Rockwell, as Wild Bill, a newly arrived inmate, also serves a purpose, but to less a degree than his screen time would justify. Rockwell, in some scenes, is allowed to go off for pages and pages of rambling and nonsensical dialogue. He's a whacked out hard case. We get it. Move on to the story, please. Okay, that should trim another ten minutes or so. Which means we have a nice, lean two hour and twenty minute film. Probably still too long given the story they're telling, but not unbearable by any means. Okay, so why does "The Green Mile" fall into category two instead of the dreaded category one? For a film that feels so much like a stage play (the minimalist sets, unlike the realistic and tarnished prison from "The Shawshank Redemption", felt too clean and too pure to represent anything from the real world) it's got to be about the actors. Hanks, of course, is just solid. Paul is not a hero by any means, and, as most have said, he probably makes the wrong choice in the end. But it was his choice to make, and Hanks ably shows the angst it took to make that choice. Plus, he gets to play pain and indignity, as Paul has a wicked bladder infection throughout the film's first third. Paul's men, played by David Morse, Barry Pepper, and Jeffrey DeMunn are all excellent. Morse is every bit Hanks' equal in the tough scenes the two have together. Pepper is good at playing the wide-eyed innocent, just starting out on the job, unaware of the horrors he's about to see. And DeMunn is mainly about quiet dignity, and in the end, confusion as to what the right thing to do would be. Michael Clarke Duncan, as John Coffey, did an excellent job, although for the most part he was nearly unintelligible. Sure, that's the character (uneducated, talking in backwoods slang), but between the mumbled dialogue, and the 1930s jargon, I had a tough time figuring out what he had to say. To remedy this, I recommend turning on the DVD's subtitles. This fixes one problem, and brings about another. Even though Coffey is supposed to be touched by God, his speeches were way too poetic for a man of his education. And other times, he lacks any poetry in his speech at all. He's an inconsistently written character. Credit should go to Duncan, who does a fine, charismatic job bringing this hulking but innocent man to life. While not nearly as good as Frank Darabont's last Stephen King-in-a-prison adaptation, "The Green Mile", while tremendously flawed, has just enough going for it to make it worth seeing.
|
