atlasfalcon

There are many reasons to watch Amistad. It's visually perfect and tackles interesting historical questions. But the film is also seriously flawed. Like too many other films which are about the Black Experience in America, the film stars almost exclusively white actors in the key roles. Take another look at how you might describe the cast of the film: "Amistad is a film about black history, starring Matthew McConaughey, Anthony Hopkins, Nigel Hawthorne, Pete Postlethwaite, Stellan Starsgard, oh, and Morgan Freeman and Djimon Hounsou and a bunch of other slaves whose names are not important."

As far as the plot goes, the flashback scene depicting the wretched nature of slave ships is the most compelling in the film, if not one of the most compelling scenes in film history. Unfortunately, this scene is in the dead center of the film. You first have to watch preparation for trial, which is nowhere near as interesting as what follows. There should have been much more from the Africans' point of view, right from the beginning. Also, having one token slave character (Hounsou) almost trivializes the whole point.

Of the acting, Hopkins is likeable but very silly as former president J.Q. Adams, approaching senility (rapidly). McConaughey is just unlikeable. The role (the token role in which someone has to learn and become a changed man) is a bit beyond him. Hounsou is likeable, but his character is all wrong. Being the only "Important Slave," he has to carry any and all issues that the slaves confront in the first and final thirds of the film. The would-be cathartic scene in which he repeatedly shouts "Gives us free!" [sic] in pidgin English is manipulative and almost insulting (or funny). But he did the best with what he had to work with.

It should not be taken from this review that Spielberg intentionally made a "racist" film. There are problems that go beyond him -- most notably in the script. It doesn't need to be said that he is a masterful director. But, as such, he should have caught some oversights that prevent the film from being as powerful and intelligent as it could have been. In essence, this is not the equal of "Schindler's List" or even "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Rather, it's an example of a good film by a brilliant director... that could have been so much more.

Few people need to be explained the impact of "Star Wars." It rightfully belongs amongst the most influential works of art of the 20th century. It was an overwhelming commercial success. Nearly everyone who's lived at all during the past 26 years since its release has probably seen it -- at least once. It started the merchandising tie-in trend that has started to this day. It was a critical success --witness its Oscar nominations and wins and its win for Best Picture from the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. People are fanatical about it and have fallen in love with the characters, story, and themes.

But is it "good?"

There is a lot to admire about "Star Wars." It is an audacious film. For example, it starts at "Part IV," outright saying that it's portraying the history -- not the (fictional) story, but the REAL history -- of another universe. (And many moviegoers choose to believe that it IS real.) The special effects continue to impress. The story is as exemplary a myth as any.

But the acting is just about terrible. Alec Guinness is, well, Alec Guinness, and the rest of the cast stands in his shadows. Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher do their job, but Mark Hammill is just disgraceful. (It doesn't help that his character is whiny and annoying -- or is it just in the portrayal?) Adults, if you haven't seen the film in awhile, try watching it again without laughing when our boy Luke is whimpering "What's that flashing?" Besides which, most of the drama is really melodrama.

Ok, so these are perhaps petty gripes. "Star Wars" is far from the best film ever made, but neither could its importance ever be underestimated.

Although this film has a lot of great elements working for it -- great technical aspects and masterful performances from Jude Law and Paul Newman -- somehow it doesn't add up. The mood is confusing and suffers from unnecessary bouts of comic relief. The character development is inconsistent, and the viewers simply have to take certain things for granted. As is too often the case, Tom Hanks underplays a character, and his absent performance is misinterpreted as "understated." (Much was made of the fact that he played a "bad guy," but really his character was the most moral in the picture, save that of the son, and besides, he's played unpopular before, and better, in "A League of Their Own.") Jennifer Jason Leigh's talents are wasted. Hopefully director Sam Mendes has something better on the horizon.