 "Educational and Entertaining!" | 2008-06-27 |
| - Reviewed By athenian1 |
The film brings to the screen the 1839 Amistad incident when a slave ship experiencing a rebellion was seized by the U.S. Navy and towed into an American port. Subsequently, a trial will commence with the Cuban slavers, the Spanish government, and U.S. naval officers all vying for custody of the slaves while pitted at the same time against those supporting their release and safe return to Africa. The film provides for a very good description of the pre-Civil War era along with people and events slowly tearing at American society and by extension the country as whole.
In contrast to Amazon.com's narrow minded reviewer, Dave McCoy and his failed, off-the-target review, the movie actually does an excellent job of transporting the viewer to 19th Century United States and presenting important people like J.C. Calhoun, Martin Van Buren, and John Quincy Adams, groups like the abolitionists, institutions like slavery outside the USA as well the more "humane" American version of slavery, notions like Sectionalism, international law/treaties, international relations, the American judicial system, the American political system and much more.
Anthony Hopkins, Morgan Freeman, Matthew McConaughey, Djimon Hounsou, and the rest of the cast, have carried out their performances very well
Steven Spielberg's Amistad is very well written and very well presented allowing for a thought-provoking movie that will provide food for thought well after it is over as it offers valuable insight into a very important period of American History.
|
| |
 "More of a personal experience, than a review" | 2008-04-18 |
| - Reviewed By movinupintheworld |
Historically accurate this in your ganeckdagazoink. It is like the intellectuals who pan 'Troy', either 1. because its not accurate historically,or 2. because it was a travesty to have Brad Pitt play the greatest warrior ever. That is neither here nor there, however magic comes sometimes when you least expect it. I believe firmly, that in the movie industry it is hardly ever about how talented you are, you can always, for the most part, hone the craft, but more about luck, as most professional actors (or struggling ones for that matter) will tell you. The right place, the right time, the right look, the exact moment you make a gesture in the hallway waiting for your 3 minutes to read two lines for a Dial Soap commercial and the casting director just happens to see your brow go up a certain distinct way, and Monday morning your agent calls you and you have the gig. Luck, hmmm it came crawling my way one brutal winter in New England.
It was around five months after my return from film school in Manhattan, a good one too, I was arriving at 4:25 in the morning in my town I had lived in for 2 some-ard years, for make-up. Of all the movies I could have been in, of all the places I could have been that year, (I travel a lot), of all the names I would have loved to have graced the screen with, and of every director I would have love to have sat in awe and watched, I, (and it could have been eternal bliss from there if it were the last), was going to be in a Speilberg film. Cliché? Eh? Well I certainly hope so.
It is very hard to detail to words the feeling on my skin, the way my shirt felt against my chest that day, the way my heart would actually sing as it beat inside my cocoon, walking up the long spiral staircase in the old city hall building which was made into a court house, knowing that on top of that building, somewhere in the oogles of background extras and the crew, lights and stands and sticks and gaffers and goffers and the like, I was in my element. I didnt tell anyone I went to film school, and that I had my DVD collection at home alphabatized by directors last name (lol), what did it matter, it didnt. But I Knew them all. Janusz Kaminski was on set, (Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan cinematographer), Kate Capeshaw (Indiana Jones) Speilbergs wife was there, Debbie Allen, and her husband Norm Nixon, of course Matt McConaughey (who was unbelievably professional, it was stunning, as I was watching him in character prepare before entering for a movement take; wow it was as if he had left the physical and whoosh to another place al together, now that is preparing), Morgan Freeman (who was utterly rude to EVERYONE including the poor make up girl), David Paymer (Searching for Bobby Fischer) Stellan Skarsgard, and of course, mostly standing on the ledge overlooking Newport Harbor with a cig swinging from his fingers, was the elegantly voiced, Pete Postlethwaite. Oh Pete, I thought to myself, my shining star, that wonderful bliss that I was so young routing for you at the Oscars for In The Name of the Father, how much I was passionate about his craft.
I will never forget one scene, and if you are familiar with the movie you can relate, when Jjimon Hounsou, the leader of the Africans slaves aboard La Amistad, has to rise above the orderly law and back and forth rebutalls, to say in English, I'm free, I'm free. We must have did that take 30 or 40 times, probably five or six hours, and the mood in the courthouse was so intense, so amazing that everyone was simply stunned by the power of a few words, and when he had all the camera angles he needed and Djimon finally nailed it, Kate was in tears as was Debbie Allen and Speilberg, in a room filled with a silent hush that seemed to last for days, was the solitary word of wow.
As a principle extra for two months, not only in RI but also in CT, there was one moment in particular I would like to share with you, when the AD jetted all the non principals out of the courthouse, I somehow remained behind. My beard was designed in a pork chop way, where I sort of lingered behind with the principles and no one shoed me anywhere, and while Janusz and his crew reset the lighting for the next take, Matthew walked over to him in a poster size rolled tube, and he opened it slowly from the top, placed the white top cylinder on the old courthouse table, and opened a fairly large print of Empire of the Sun. I almost gasped aloud. That too, was my favorite film of all time, that too ss what set me west young man, go west, and eventually to waiting tables and studying the craft at night waiting for the big break back in NY. He handed Steven a black sharpee and he signed away on the top left corner. I wonder all these years later, nearly 10 years plus, if it sits atop his mantle in his home in the hills or somewhere in the country. I was there that day, I was with some of the most brilliant minds in the film industry. I too, wonder if Matthew was inspired to be an actor from Empire. The Speilberg haters (which is the most ludicrous bunch of whack-jobs imaginable) can have their spew and vitriol, but being part of something tangible like that, and having someone like Steven as a mentor, albeit unknowing my whole life, made it something I will never forget for the rest of my life.
Amistad alone tells a story, and one that is very difficult to relate to its audience. The courtroom scenes are tiresome and rough for a lot of movie goers, but if you can look past that for just one moment and see the raw, pinnacle acting that only someone that directs giants could produce and the immaculate word salad at the end of the film, that only Hopkins could achieve. The brutal, opening sequence alone, is enough to set you up for the often jaded slowness the movie can provide, but all in all, there are scenes where life itself can spew forth and invigorate all of us, like it did so many years ago, for myself,
|
| |
 "Great story drowned in syrup" | 2008-04-12 |
| - Reviewed By duibuqi |
What an opportunity for a great film: the drama, the tragedies, the historical crossroads, the meaning for US history in the state of birth...
I am often opposed to remakes, but this story would deserve a competent serious new version without the cute little Hollywood cliches and without the music that envelops everything in sugar coating.
I am not sure which parts of the tale are historic and which are added by the script writer or Spielberg. I find it hard to believe in John Quincy Hopkins, and if the real man did make this speech, it was a great one and would have deserved to be acted without the horrible sentimental soundtrack. The whole part is such a terrible cliche, it almost does not matter if it is historically correct. The esthetic conventions of inferior Hollywood productions should be banned from serious subjects.
(Was Martin van Buren really this awful as President?)
I would still say, the film is worth watching, but it is so unsatisfactory. |
| |
| "amistad" | 2008-03-26 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3DAWET5A1UP7G |
| dvd came in very short time, in great condition, and played extremely well, with no skips, interruptions. |
| |
| "Hisotical fact over entertainment" | 2008-03-19 |
| - Reviewed By jem711 |
Over the years since this film first came out it has received something of a love hate relationship with viewers. Amazon have provided their own review filled with the sneers and sarcasm that have resulted more from critics knee jerk pandering to the masses than serious critical review. Others have pushed the old "political correct" Motive behind the film (For anyone who doesn't know, political correct roughly translates as "Something I disagree with, usually something I deem to be either left wing regardless of whether it is or not)
What should not be taken for granted however is the level of emotion still felt by many African Americans regarding the trans Atlantic slave trade. I first watched this film at a cinema in the United States and can recall (I assume) a black American walking out during the film with tears in his eyes clearly emotionally distressed at what he was seeing (It was during the scene describing the trans Atlantic journey when many were whipped, beaten and the sick thrown overboard.
I seriously doubt however, that Spielburg under estimated the feelings of black Americans and while this film is certainly not of the quality of Schindler's List it certainly isn't ET. To make that kind of comparison is frankly absurd. My guess is Spielberg went for something based loosely on historical fact similar to Saving Private Ryan.
While the argument that the characters may well be one dimensional I assume a previous reviewer did not bother the watch the film before he reviewed it and declared it "politically correct" because the film clearly shows that Cinque was kidnapped by Africans and sold to Europeans.
Spielberg does try to show the diversity of ethnic groups such as Muslims and Animist, one man seems to be taken by Christianity (a convert no less in such harsh circumstances!) The men speak in different languages and at times are argumentative amongst themselves (A comparison can be made to the imprisonment of Jews during WW2 and the disputes that arose between Jews of various nationalities)
Speilburg tries hard. He shows that the Spanish and Portuguese were the main participants in the slave trade (The British admiral giving evidence and yes, Britian did send out ships to attack Spanish and Portuguese slave traders) The conflict within the United States itself regarding slavery and the divide between north and a south that still relied heavily on a slave work force.
Morgan Freedman provides us with the character of a black man born in the United States with no concept of slavery himself and no direct links with Africa. An abolishinsist non the less.
Yes, the film may be less than accurate in regards to specific events but I believe Speilburg was attempting to provide the viewer with an overview of what slavery was and the struggle against it. |
| |
| "Now More Relevant Than Ever Before" | 2008-02-25 |
| - Reviewed By oriensilva |
AMISTAD is as relevant today as it was when it first came out in 1997. In at least one respect it is now even more relevant.
As most viewers realize early in this film, it was not designed to provide audiences with pleasant entertainment. Rather, it is a kind of didactic drama, serving--like Euripides' ancient Greek play THE TROJAN WOMEN (415 B.C.E.) and the recent George Clooney film SYRIANA (2005)--both as a reminder of a nation's flawed past actions and as a plea to be better in the future. Insofar as racism and racial violence are still thriving in our country--often encouraged by some politicians and pundits in low places--AMISTAD's main message is still needed, and the film is still an effective means of awakening people to the injustice of granting some citizens a place of special privilege while other citizens are kept subordinate.
By a fluke of historical fate, however, this film can draw our attention to things that were not in the forefront of its makers' minds at that time. Viewing AMISTAD in the winter of 2008, I was struck by the repulsive actions of President Martin Van Buren, who hungered so strongly for a second term that he repeatedly tried to deny justice to the wronged men and women of the slave ship--even intervening to have their favorable verdict overturned by the Supreme Court (which at that time seemed to be stacked in his favor by a margin of 7 to 2). Do our presidents ever commit such immoral acts nowadays? Does anyone of any party doubt it? And do the members of our Supreme Court ever make their decisions on the basis of "party loyalty" despite what our laws and our Constitution may say to the contrary? Are we ever in danger of having a majority of such false justices making vital, life-altering decisions? Has such a thing happened within living memory? Does anyone of any party doubt this? Does anyone believe that President Van Buren was the very last president to try to manipulate matters as far as laws and the separation of our government's branches are concerned? If any of us disagree on the answers to these questions, it is only about the names of the guilty parties and/or the relative degrees of their guilt.
And yet, within this film we are shown that, on the issue of human rights and "the belief that all men are created equal," 8 of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court in Van Buren's day had the intelligence and integrity to vote to uphold what our Founding Fathers had promised our citizens and had stated about human beings everywhere. And while I found many other parts of this film deeply moving--the parts which had been scripted, directed, and acted to press my emotional buttons on the issues of slavery and the rights of all human beings--in my recent viewing of this film I was also very deeply moved by the sight of our nation's much criticized Supreme Court doing the right thing. In line with the other messages of the film, this suggests that our citizens have a right to expect AND a duty to demand no less from our present Supreme Court as well as from all future Supreme Courts.
The British politician Edmund Burke is supposed to have said, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men [and good women] to do nothing." Although no one has ever been able to verify where or when he may have said this--or whether some other person said it who has been wrongly forgotten--it is still a valid maxim, one well worth remembering whenever we are tempted to let someone else do our thinking or fighting for us.
And now, coming down off my soapbox, here is one tiny piece of art trivia: the biblical illustrations shown in AMISTAD were done by a French artist named Gustav Doré. And although the main action of the film takes place between 1839 and 1841, Doré was not born until 1832, and his biblical illustrations were not published until 1865 in French Bibles--and were published three or four years later in English Bibles. Does this destroy any of the fabric of the film? No, of course not. Does it make me think any the less of this film? Certainly not. Its central message remains intact--and its new and unintended message about our presidents and our courts needing constant vigilance to keep them working properly is not affected in the least. |
| |
| "Great movie" | 2008-02-18 |
| - Reviewed By ganjavi |
Great movie
Painful scenes of the terrible treatment of our African brothers and sisters, and a sad reminder of the brutalities of slavery.
|
| |
| ""Based" on a true story" | 2008-02-18 |
| - Reviewed By kjpc12 |
Amistad is a powerful movie about a real incident that had a bearing on history. Let's start with some of the many positives: Spielberg is one of our era's most talented filmmakers and his skills are certainly on display here. The film is well acted by the entire cast, especially Hopkins as former president Adams and Freeman as an abolitionist businessman. These 2 actors are always good and Amistad is no exception.
Where the film falters is when Spielberg takes "dramatic license". Putting it simply, when he lies. The real story should have been enough for a great movie so the truth shouldn't have to be stretched to overdramatize events. The slavetraders were lousy human beings without a doubt but they didn't dump half the slaves in the ocean. Adams never met any of the Africans he defended so well and their presence in a courtroom is not believable. The speeches made in the film do not reflect 1839-40 attitudes, they reflect current ones. This could have and probably should have been great. As it is, it is a well told story with too many half truths. 3.5 Stars. |
| |
| "Historical !" | 2008-01-07 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2HQOHJP5JQ8TB |
I've used this in both the classroom and on trips
to New England to introduce the historical Mystic
Seaport for chartered bus tours. |
| |
| "A story that needed to be told" | 2007-12-08 |
| - Reviewed By User: A1YS3I3BIO5M7B |
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 Shopkeeper |
| |
Expedited Available
