Rating: 
Summary: AN AVERAGE FILM THAT DRAGS ON FAR TOO LONG
Review: I'm not saying "The Green Mile" is a bad film.
I'm not saying that at all.
I am, however, disgusted that people can say this is a better film than "American Beauty," and here's why.
"American Beauty" was an incredibly filmed, superbly written film that shined a mirror on too many American families...possibly why some didn't like it.
"The Green Mile," however, was a hybrid of sap drama and far out sci fi. This isn't a good hybrid either; not like a mule, more like a three legged dog. First of all, it is far, far, far too long. There are about seventeen too many scenes with the way-overrated Michael Clarke Duncan moping around or mumbling or weeping or grabbing someone and healing them. Someone needs to learn that compelling drama + science fiction = this movie = drawn out, melodramatic bore. It's not all bad. The ideas are, for the most part, original. (Isn't originality what sci-fi is all about?) But as original as they get, it can't compete with the overall quality of the film. This movie makes too clear the edges between good and bad, black and white. What we need is more movies like "American Beauty" to show us the utter vastness of that gray area. The lines between good and evil are clearly seen here, too. (Paul vs. Percy, Coffey vs. Wild Bill, etc.), making it far too sugary sweet to be enjoyed long enough.
In my opinion, Hanks would have been a better Best Actor nominee than Duncan a Best Supporting Actor nominee; how overrated can a performance GET? I would bet 4/5 of his scenes feature him cowering in his cell block, mumbling incoherent babble, or grabbing Hanks between the legs. Why do grown men crying touch people so? I could get up there and act as John Coffey (if I was a bit older and taller), and so could almost anyone here that's faked a few tears in their day.
It's certainly worth watching, if for no other reason than writing a bad review just like me, but don't be fooled and expect too much.2.5/5 Stars (I have 2/5 of there, would have been unfair to round to 3, but my real rating is 2.5/5)
Rating: 
Summary: Good, Not Great
Review: Tom Hanks is such a superior actor that almost any movie in which he appears will be worth seeing. Add the fact that this film is brought to you by the same team that did the outstanding film, "The Shawshank Redemption," and I thought I was in for a masterpiece. This film is not a masterpiece. While it is worth seeing, and finely crafted throughout, there is simply no good reason for it to be over three hours long. Three hours can work in the movies (see, for example, "Braveheart," "Schindler's List," and "Dances with Wolves). But the story must be consistently engaging with a multitude of rich characters. This film comes close, but doesn't quite pull it off.
Rating: 
Summary: Sheer Excellence
Review: This film has it all! Great cast and wonderfully written! Don't let the length of the movie keep you from choosing this movie. It has all it needs to keep you entertained.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling
Review: Absolutely one of the finest films I have ever seen, spellbinding. I thought Hanks did a great job in 'Saving Private Ryan', but in this film he rose to new heights.
Rating:
Summary: Overlong prison drama-fantasy shines in spots
Review: Both Michael Jeter and Michael Duncan give stellar supporting performances as death row prisoners during the Depression in this odd mixture of drama and fantasy - the latter was deservedly Oscar nominated for his performance as the man with miraculous powers. At three hours this is a vastly and needlessly overlong film and Hanks is wasted in the lead. It was surprisingly nominated for Best Film (not deserving) and Screenplay as well as the nod to Duncan. It is a very odd and unconvincing film with some very nauseating scenes of realistic electrocution deaths (why God made the fast forward button)- be warned. A true oddity.
Rating:
Summary: The unseen facet of life behind the cold, iron bars
Review: With the ever-skyrocketing crime rates which plague the nation and countries abroad, it is often with little wonder that innocent civilians often view criminals placed behind prison bars as savages, deserving of their punishment and consequence. Quite often, these prisoners are considered as tough, apathetic individuals, rid of all conscience and empathy toward their fellow man. This viewpoint, however, is solely focused upon the surface veneer and "first impression" which these convicts shed upon the naive eyes of the viewer. What the viewer does not see however, are the concealed emotions which these convicts hold. In an attempt to instill a glimmer of realization into these prisoners' lives, renowned author Stephen King has once again emerged with a thrilling and touching film, "The Green Mile," which centralizes on the life of a wrongly convicted man. In respect to the viewer who has not yet viewed the movie, I will not place a summary, but instead will share my view(s) of the film. It has always been told to me by my mother that "in all evil there is some good." How true this is, especially in the context of the film. For a majority of people, it is difficult to imagine an individual on death row to possess or display such pure, unadulturated love and fascination toward such a simple organism as a mouse--yet this holds true in the film. In addition, emotions of love, happiness, joy and innocence radiate through, casting its beams upon all of us and illustrating that regardless of who we are or where we reside (whether it be in prison or in the comfort of our own homes), deep within us we are all mortals, each possessing our own fears and fascinations, left to travel our own path of life.
Rating:
Summary: long superficial tale
Review: The Green Mile,' since it is based on a Stephen King novel, emerges as a death row prison story with a sci-fi twist. Chances are the viewer will either be swept up in this tale of life, death and spiritual renewal involving a group of characters working and languishing in a 1930's prison cell block - or dismiss it as a prime example of sentimental hooey. Like the similar (and similarly overrated) Stephen King-inspired prison epic, `The Shawshank Redemption,' this new film provides far too sanitary and romanticized a vision of prison life to be either entirely convincing or particularly meaningful. Indeed, `The Green Mile' goes a step further into the realm of parable by ascribing to one of its main characters the power of miraculous healing. Unfortunately, however, a parable is, almost by definition, supposed to be short, pithy and to the point. The story here - which runs a presumptuous 3 hours and 8 minutes - is so overstuffed with subplots and subsidiary characters that it actually works to weaken the emotional effect generated by the plight facing John Coffey, the innocent messenger from God condemned to death, and Paul, the prison guard assigned to run the death row cell block, who comes to learn of Coffey's innocence. `The Green Mile' certainly has its heart in the right place, but it divides its world too evenly up into good guys and bad guys. Perhaps the decision to cast Tom Hanks in the leading role of Paul accounts for the fact that the character seems far too genial, soft-spoken and humanistic to be a man dedicating his life to dispatching convicted murderers to their just (or unjust) rewards. Coffey, a mountain of a man in the form of actor Michael Clarke Duncan, ranks as the oldest cliché of all: an uneducated, marginally imbecilic lug of a guy whose innocent, childlike heart and mind, though trapped inside a behemoth's body, provide the clean vessel through which God is able to work his wonders. Except for this last fact, Coffey's pedigree descends from a whole multitude of earlier characters, including Lennie in `Of Mice and Men' and even Frankenstein's monster. Is this possibly why `The Green Mile,' in deference to the former character, features a mouse in a prominent role? Similarly, one doubts it is mere coincidence that the crime for which Coffey is convicted is that of raping and murdering two little girls, an echo of Frankenstein - albeit, in this case, Coffey, of course, is innocent; after all, having him be guilty of the brutal murders would muddy up the moral waters and make it a lot harder to elicit tears from a sentimental, happily rheumy-eyed audience. Also, this allows the authors to pound home the Christ figure qualities of Coffey (John Coffey - JC - get it?) to an unsubtle fare-thee-well. In addition to dying innocently for another's sins, Coffey gets to heal the sick and smite the evildoers (the latter, more in keeping with Jehovah perhaps than with Christ per se). Nor are the filmmakers much more successful with their villains. Amidst all this amazing good will between condemned killers and supportive prison guards, there has to be some vinegar to cut the sweetness. This comes in the form of a too neatly balanced duo, one a guard, the other a far-from-model prisoner. The guard, Percy, is a craven, sadistic coward who delights in antagonizing the prisoners, taunting and torturing the men at the moment of execution and, most monstrously of all to the animal lovers in the audience, squashing a pet mouse on the eve of its owner's death. The evil prisoner, Wild Bill, provides a similar two-dimensional quality to his wickedness, serving as a too-obvious foil for the other pure-as-the-driven-snow condemned men. By so neatly divvying up the characters into clearly delineated categories of good and evil, the filmmakers rob their film of the moral complexity that might have lent it some real meaning. As to the film's rather startling and, initially unexpected, flights into fantasy, they serve mostly to further soften the edge of this already overly idealistic and mawkish story. `The Green Mile' is certainly not a `bad' film. It sports a number of excellent performances, generates some moments of genuine emotional power and, though languorous at times in its pacing, admirably refuses to hurtle ahead as it patiently gathers the strands of its story together. As with a good long novel, one approaches it with a sense of patience and goodwill. We want to give it the benefit of our attention. Therefore, we regret even more that the makers of the film too often settle for the easy path of cheap emotionalism and simpleminded sentimentality. Those of us willing to dedicate more than three precious hours to this particular cause deserve better.
Rating:
Summary: Ummmm......Wow
Review: This is hands down the best movie I have ever seen. Being a basketball and baseball player in high school, it's hard for me to cry during a movie. But man did this one get to me. I mean you just feel John Coffey and you want him to stay so bad and you see all the security guards crying....it's truly a sad movie. Tom Hanks does a great job (as always) and Doug Hutchison (Percy) also does a good job of making you hate him. Another reason why Stephen King is the best. Keep up the good work!
Rating:
Summary: HANDS DOWN, one of the 2 best movies of the year!
Review: Another collaboration with Director, Frank Darabont and Writer, Stephen King. Their last movie together was The Shawshank Redemption, which also should have won Best Movie in 1994 (or Pulp Fiction), but was robbed by Forrest Gump! I'm tired of hearing "well..the book was better then the movie!". Well of course it is, otherwise it would be a 12 hour, made for TV movie. Instead, they shrunk it down to 3 hours. Hands down, this should have won Best Movie for 1999 (or The Insider). Tom Hanks plays Paul Edgecomb, who runs death row at Cold Mountain Penitentiary. The supporting cast includes James Cromwell, Mr. Jingles and of course, oscar nominated actor, Michael Clarke Duncan. Duncan plays John Coffey, an inmate awaiting his walk on The Green Mile. Coffey brings the "Magic" in the movie. The story finds a very similar path to The Shawshank Redemption. (1)It takes place in a jail, (2)someone is wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit, (3)someone that is a witness to the actual crime dies, so there's no proof to what had happened, (4)there is a main bad guy that you just want to hate, (5)the main character has found the peace that they're lookinf for! This is a must see movie that is beyond words!
Rating:
Summary: A great film - well worth watching. Where are the awards?
Review: Truly, this film ought to have won a few awards. The performances, especially by Tom Hanks and David Morse are superb. They offer warm portrayals of caring prison guards working on death row during the depression. It's a welcome departure from the stereotypical characterization of prison guards as ruthless, evil people. The film was perhaps a bit longer than it needed to be, but it is nevertheless enjoyable. Cinematically, I didn't care for the flies (or whatever they were supposed to be) coming out of John Coffey's mouth, but it will be hard to find a viewer who won't be moved by this tale.
|
