Other
The movie attempts to portray the moving tale of 53 Africans held under horrendous conditions on the Spanish slave ship La Amistad.
Amistad: Spielberg’s Hit and Miss of the Year
Amistad, a documentary about the Spanish slave ship, had the potential to reach greatness, but missed desired target completely by focusing on tedious technical Hollywood aspects instead of the awe inspiring story of a fight for freedom.
Amistad was released in 1997 and was directed by Steven Spielberg. It runs for around 145 minutes, and is rated R for violence and adult content.
The movie attempts to portray the moving tale of 53 Africans held under horrendous conditions on the Spanish slave ship La Amistad. These men, who had been snatched from their homes in what is now current day Sierra Leone, manage to break free and murder the majority of their captors. They attempt to force two of the survivors to take them home, but the ship is captured and the Africans find themselves in America, imprisoned again and involved in a massive legal battle that lasted for decades to come. The Amistad cases were a turning point in the history of African Americans, and need to be shared with the American public. This is why it was a disappointment to watch Steven Spielberg miss the point of the story completely.
Spielberg did manage to do a magnificent job with a few of the dramatic scenes in the movie. A prime example of this would have to be the opening of the movie, which illustrates the revolt on the ship. The scene is very dark, and is able to convey the pure brutality of those crucial moments aboard the La Amistad. What made the scene so compelling was how it delved right into the human psyche through its cinematography and direction. It was able to really capture the very real and desperate need for freedom that those 53 men must have been feeling during the mutiny.
The cinematography and acting were what could have made this movie essentially great. The movie starred Djimon Hounsou, who played the role of Cinque, the only African slave the audience is introduced to in any depth at all. Hounsou plays the role of a leader who thinks that he is not worthy of the title with remarkable conviction. His qualms, uncertainty, rebelliousness and courage put us in the shoes of the character, and allow us to be a part of that historical night. Other main characters include Matthew McConaughey (the lawyer representing the Africans), Anthony Hopkins (President John Quincy Adams) and Morgan Freeman (a former slave turned abolitionist), who all play significant roles in the legal scenes which seem to take up more of the screen time than required.
Sadly, the solid acting and cinematography were overshadowed by what truly made this movie a disappointment to film buffs everywhere. Spielberg seemed to be trying to tell the audience exactly what to feel at all times and was not able to let the passionate story of these courageous young men and their battle for freedom do the talking for itself. Each scene in the movie is choreographed in a very conventional, almost pompous, Hollywood fashion. Even the scene depicting the Africans' horrible existence on the slave ship loses some of its impact because Spielberg tries to organize every second in a more demanding way than is called for. Since the scene was so powerful on its own, it would have been more effective if it was allowed to play out without too much unnecessary direction.
Another downside to the film was that it strayed too far from historical accuracy. Spielberg sugarcoated the relationship between the American courts and slavery too much in that the film ended up giving off a misleading impression. The film portrays that the Supreme Court was convinced by President Adam’s speech to renounce slavery and take a major step towards abolition. However, in reality the case didn’t affect slave trade in America at all because it was a foreign case that revolved around the Atlantic sea trade. Therefore, it did not have any major impacts on slavery inside the United States where the movie takes place.
Amistad had the potential to be a great film depicting a significant moment in the African American heritage of slavery. If Spielberg had realized that he could have let the incredible journey talk for itself rather than overpower it with Hollywood effects, the movie would have reached its full potential. The gripping narratives of the slaves on La Amistad are what the film should have focused on, but the audience barely gets to see them play out. As an alternative, they get a bunch of bells and whistles, with lawyers preaching while the main African characters are left in the sidelines.
Amistad has some great moments, but not enough to hold the entire film together, and in the end left film goers craving much more.
Genius parody of the modern day era
Plot?
Pure postmodern art. The story follows in non-linear fashion the separate lives of mobsters and petty thieves which all intertwine with one another in the backdrop of a Los Angeles setting. Focus is upon the characters’ perspectives of life; often humorous but ultimately dark.
Verdict?
Stereotypical roles are appointed to Travolta, Jackson and Thurman in the form of hard-line gangsters and the sexy femme fatale.
Here through such a comfortable set of acclaimed actors one would never expect such an uncomfortable arrangement of postmodern reflection. Yet, said in pure postmodern style, here we learn to expect the unexpected.
Settings are saturated with huge excesses of junk food, junk culture, drug overdose, and unwarranted killing. Intense dialogue submits passionate opinion about but does not chastise modern obsessions; displaying them as humorous- uncertain. If you are trying to search for a meaning here sorry to disappoint, but there is none to be found. No realities, truth or closure bind the films ending and instead we are provided only with an anti-climatic jilt, concluding in the setting where it all began, without resolution.
An car company employee and a soap salesman start their own form of "therapy."
Looking at the title for this movie you probably think the genre should be under action/adventure, but if you watched it you would understand this movie has multiple layers in it. David Fincher (the director) has a reputation for doing films that are visual masterpieces and that have deep storylines. Edward Norton gives (in my opinion) his greatest performance and Brad Pitt follows up strong. But I think Helena Bonham Carter did the best. Why? Because she not only gives a VERY believable performance but she owns that character.
I think that narration should never carry the story. That should be the job of the on screen actors' job. But in this movie the narration makes the story unique and special and when the "turnover" occurs everything falls into place. There is so much to say about this movie that I just don't have the time to do.
On a side note: Make sure to watch very carefully before they introduce Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) into the movie and turn your volume HIGH on the ending scene. It'll knock your socks off!!!
It's the victory of queen Elizabeth I against Philip II of Spain
FILM REVIEW
Most of us think that the film was interesting. There are some things that we liked more than others. For example; we all think that the film was too long, on the other hand, we liked the approach of the plot and we think that it is a very good way to see how people lived in the XVI century. We could understand the film better because we had studied before the history of this period, so we knew how the events happened and why they happened. All this facts helped us understand the characters,
Apparently, this movie review is for a teenager’s but it is actually, for everyone.
The history is about the queen of England (Elisabeth I), and the political situation of her country in the XVI century.
Some characters that appear in the movie are Sir Walter Raleigh who comes from the America, The New World and Elisabeth falls in love with him but her personal situation and her political condition made the relation between them become difficult and criticized.
The young Bess Throckmorton also falls in love with the young man .
The war between Spain and England plays an important role in the film.
The actors and actresses of the film are Kate Blanchett (Elisabeth I) who is the protagonist of the film and we think that she is a very good actress, because the role that she has to represent is very difficult and he makes you see how Elisabeth’s personality was and see how she reacted in front of the different situations.
Bess Throckmorton (Abbie Cornish) is an important character in the film too, because she is the lady-in waiting and the queen tells her all about her feelings . She falls in love with Sir Walter who also falls in love with her. Sir Walter (Cive ower) he is like a character out of his time, because he has gone to America an he sees a very different
People and ways of living. He is a very good actor but his interpretation is not very liberal. Sir Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) is a very important character in the film, because hi is the second of the Queen. He acted very well but we think that he doesn’t appear very much in film.
The movie has a unpredictable plot. Apparently, the light is good but sometimes it’s dark because the situation needs the that type of light, for example when they are in prison.
On the other hand the music is very nice, the music was created for the movie, it classical music.
Adria Pinto
Marta Torres
Miguel Rodríguez
Kim Barba
This movie is outstanding!!!! I can't wait to go see it for the second time. It is definetly a movie that hits your heart. You feel the emotions and embrace each character. I highly recommend watching it on the big screen, then running out to the store to buy it as soon as it becomes available.
