Customer Reviews

Amistad (Widescreen Edition) [VHS]

5 star:		(76)
4 star:		(42)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

This review refers to the Dreamworks Doby Digital Edition.....
Based on actual events, Steven Spielberg and Debbie Allen collaberate to bring us one of the many heartwrenching stories of the plight of Africans,during the illegal slave trade of the 1800's.
A group of African people who were brutally draggged from their villages are being transported for slave trade. Only knowing that they are chained and mistreated one man,breaks loose and leads a rebillion against the ship's crew. In order to ensure their own freedom they must take the lives of their captors. They are discovered in American waters, and a trial ensues as to the question of murder.
It becomes an international case. Everybody from the queen of Spain to the owners of the ship "Amistad" are claiming ownership of these men and women. Being pre-civil war, the abolishionists are also making a case for their freedom.This is a case that could lead America one step closer to Civil War.
One property lawyer who has never worked on a case of this proportion, takes on the task of trying to prove that these are not plantation slaves,but citizens of Africa taken by force and did what they needed to do to be free, as any American would do the same. His task is a difficult one,but as the tragic story of these people unfolds he is able to put on his defense. They also get some help from the ex-president John Quincy Adams,whose eloquence puts the Declaration of Indepence to the test.
This is a magnificent piece of cinema in all respects. Spielberg brings to our attention yet another important piece of history that was cruel and inhuman,one of American history that we were hardly aware of.It is an epic film that will wash over you with several different emotions, and you will want to watch it again and again.
No big introduction needed for most of the cast who seemed perfectly fitted to their roles. Matthew McConaughey outstanding as the lawyer, Sir Anthony Hopkins is brilliant as Adams, Morgan Freeman and Stellan Skarsgard are totaly believable as the abolishionists,and Pete Postlethwaite perfect as the lawyer for the prosecution. Also in a sterling performance is Djimon Housnsou as Cinque, the spokesperson for the Africans. His portrayal of the enslaved man who only wants his freedom will captivate you.I must also make mention of Nigel Hawthorn and David Paymer for their wonderful performances.The cinematography is breathtaking. The music scored by John Williams and especially the African music will stay with you long after the movie. You will also be impressed with the costume designs. The film was nominated for four Academy awards,including one for Best Supporting for Hopkins.
The DVD is top quality.The Widescreen(Anamorphic) gives us an incredible view of everything going on in the courtroom scenes and on the ocean voyages. The picture does justice to the great cinematography. It is clear and crisp, colors are vibrant. Nighttime scenes are vivid as well. The 5.1 Dolby Dig surround fills the room. It can also be viewed in the 2.0 stereo. The special features,including a behind the scenes featurette are informative as well as entertaining. There is closed captions if needed.
You will not be dissapointed with either the film or the DVD transfer, it is one that will be a great addition to your collection. Watch it again and again.......Laurie

also available in this Spielberg 2 pack:Saving Private Ryan/Amistad

Have the critics of this film's historical "accuracy" never heard of "dramatic license"? If they had, then they would understand that Spielberg, like most of his profession, slightly alters history to make for greater theatrical effect or even heighten the events of the story. "Amistad" achieves both with scenes of horror combined with those of great poignancy that make for a total movie experience.

While there are times when the film drags, the performances and the engrossing story itself make up for the few inadequacies. Though stars Morgan Freeman (especially riveting in the inspection of the Amistad scene), Anthony Hopkins, and Matthew McConaughey perform well in their respective roles, the best acting belongs to Djimon Hounsou, Razaag Adoti, and Abu Bakarr Fofanah as three of the Africans, and the underrated Pete Postlethwaite as prosecutor Holabird. Nigel Hawthorne, as the inept President Van Buren, and Peter Firth as a conscious-ridden British ship captain are also memorable.

Spielberg skillfully balances a movie that is a courtroom drama mixed with an indictment against the slave system of America's past. The scenes of the events of the cursed "Middle Passage" are as graphic as is possible within the confines of Hollywood filmmaking.

John Williams contributes a beautiful and understated score, just below the surface of the on-screen events, providing just enough to carry the story along.

This is an important video to see. Based on the historical incident in 1839 of a group of 45 slaves who took over their ship, the Amistad, and wound up in Connecticut. This is a the story of slavery as only Steven Spielberg could tell it. And it is also the story of the United States of America headed toward civil war, the story of petty politics, and a serious debate in front of the supreme court with Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams.

The film is full of those modern touches that make it so typical of movies of the late 1990's. Subtitles are used as the slaves speak in their own language and the Spanish crews speak in theirs. This adds an authenticity to the story. In contrast, another 1990s touch that detracts from its authenticity is that the slaves all look as if their well-muscled bodies were toned in modern gyms.

The scenes of the Africans on the slave ship are the most moving that I have ever seen filmed. The chains are heavy and real, the terror and despair excruciating, the entire ordeal brought to the screen in horrifying detail. Contrasted to this are the Americans in Connecticut, doing their best to create this new country. There are abolitionists spouting moral values, lawyers debating whether the Africans are slaves or free people because of details of law, and an international treaty with Spain that is rife with politics.

The video is three hours long, which could have been trimmed by at least an hour. The speeches get a little pompous sometimes and go on much longer than they need to. Morgan Freeman plays a role that has obviously been written in to show that there were some wealthy free blacks in that era, a role which should have been either expanded or eliminated.

Although not perfect, this video should be seen. Sometimes it's easy to forget how young the United States actually is and how rooted in the past our politics are. Armistad certain deepens our understanding of this heritage and enlightens us about some unpleasant truths. Truths that we, as a people, need to look at.

I was immediately drawn into this movie, and stayed drawn in; I wanted to know what the fate of the Africans would be. The fact that this case really happened, and that it generated such disturbing political issues, mark it as an important story in U.S. history. And because the plot was based on a story which did happen, I cannot agree with the criticisms of those who faulted the movie because it portrayed whites saving blacks. I cannot see how to make the story otherwise and remain true to the original case.

On the other hand, the scenes where the whites triumphed on behalf of the blacks were indeed maudlin and sentimental in presentation, and did seem to send a message of "See? Not all white people are so bad." Nonetheless, the portrait of Van Buren and the political scene of the time were strong reminders that there were plenty of whites at fault..........As for the criticisms by Hispanics that the movie portrays Spanish/Cuban people as villains, I do not see that.....As a person with Cuban ancestry, I think the movie portrayed pretty much what happened.....should Spielberg have tried to make the 2 Cuban slavers look sympathetic so as not to hurt Hispanic peoples' feelings? How should he have portrayed the queen of Spain? The Spanish royal family has always been subject to criticism, much of it from within Spain: look at the portraits painted by Goya of the Spanish court. The corruption of that institution could fill volumes.....

In viewing this film and then reading the reviews, one thing has become very clear to me: that both whites and minorities in this country still view history through their own special racial/ethnic lenses, and with a great deal of defensiveness....to move toward the values which Spielberg tried to put forth in Amistad, we must all strive for a little more objectivity.....

Amistad may be seen by some as another Spielberg tale that gets lost in itself, but the film ably captured a number of notable characters from US history, particularly John Quincy Adams, played exceptionally well by Anthony Hopkins, and President Martin Van Buren. The oafish presentation of Van Buren to the audience may seem to be a smack in the face to the Presidency, but Martin Van Buren really was that bad. My only disappointment was that Cinque was depicted as learning only a very short speech in English ("Make us -- us free!", but the historical counterpart actually became quite versed in the language and wrote an empassioned letter to JQ Adams enlisting his support in their cause. While the movie minimized this element for dramatic purposes, I think it diminished the dignity of the character of Cinque in the process. Overall, the performances and the presentation were compelling, and the story holds up well. Although some of the elements, such as the geography lesson in the dirt floor of the cell, may seem a bit contrived, they establish the feelings of the characters. Anyone with an interest in American History certainly should see this film, but it is also entertaining in its own right.

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 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.

The wills of an 11-year-old girl (Isabella 2 of Spain) battled the US Congress while the British emancipated captured slaves near Africa. Based on one of the earliest international court battles after the British Empire ended slavery whilst the Americans and Spanish were still working it out. Simplified but it may inspire some to read up on the deeper historical facts of the case.

All criticism aside, one of the most powerful statements against slavery and man's inhumanity towards his fellow man. It seems that when it comes to slavery and America's shameful past, we try to ignore that it ever happened. Too few films have portrayed the slave trade or the continued illegal slave trade, such as that of Spain's, that was still taking place then. No one wants to be reminded of that dark past, but we tend to stand tall concerning other issues, "lest we forget". And yes, Cinque was a man without a language in this foreign land, like any of us would have been. Hats off to Mr. Spielberg, for one of his most powerful works to date.

As with all movies about history, I review them from the perspective of the history teacher and leave all of the other particulars to the other reviewers. In this case, however, I'd like to address the Amazon review (written by Dave McCoy) as well. McCoy states that the director (noneother than Steven Speilberg) feels compelled "to entertain with beautiful images and contrived emotion . . . [and] . . . cheapens his grandiose motives and simplifies slavery, treating it as cut- and-dry genre piece. Characters are easy Hollywood stereotypes--'villains' like the Spanish sailors or zealous abolitionists are drawn one-dimensionally and sneered upon." For the record, I'll say that I agree wholeheartedly---but in this case, an excellent movie still unfolds and a story that SHOULD be told is told! Also, let me address a fellow reviewer's (Leon Washington) remark that those who slam this movie are guilty of racism. I don't necessarily think that those who give this movie bad reviews are categorically racist, but I do think they may be missing the "big picture" here. Alright, let's get on with the review.

High school and college history teachers---this movie is a must see for numerous reasons. For one, Anthony Hopkins does a superb job (as expected) of portraying John Quincy Adams. His performance is worth the price of admission alone. Yet, many students may find his performance a bit boring. Herein lies the problem with the real history---this movie is based upon a real-life courtroom drama. Much of the movie is set within the courtroom and let's face it, most high school students will typically begin yawning. This is not necessarily so, however, with "Amistad." You see, it's the very fact that Speilberg DOES create sensationalism---"Hollywood moments" if you will---that saves this movie from being a yawner! It may be true that some characters are oversimplified villains, but all good movies have some sort of antagonist.

Many reviewers have trouble with Speilberg's portrayal of the events aboard the infamous slaveship, Secora. I disagree completely. This is a realistic depiction of what could happen on any given day aboard a "slaver." ****Note**** While riveting with its "shock and awe," young viewers (under 12) probably should not see these horrific scenes for the usual reasons.

There's no doubt that Speilberg takes a bit of poetic license when presenting this film. Who cares? This is a story that should be told and Speilberg does so excellently. Even political science students should see this since it also serves as a testimony of U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy during the mid-nineteenth century.

High school teachers, please don't exclude this great movie from your list based upon the negative reviews of critics. You'll be glad you showed it and your students will be all the wiser! Please show it within it's relative time period as well. In other words, don't just show it during Black History Month.

So, what should students LEARN from this movie?

First --- Students should be able to parallel the events of this drama with the events that would soon unfold in America (Civil War). In other words, they should be able to see how the decision of the Supreme Court would have been a victory for abolitionists and a defeat for pro-slavery advocates like John Calhoun.

Second --- Students should discuss the Monroe Doctrine in relation to our treaty with Spain. Does the U.S. violate her treaty, or are we following our own self-revealed destiny?

Third --- Students should use this movie as support for a discussion of how Great Britain attempted to enforce its ban on slavery and how Spain and Portugal attempted to continue slavery in their colonies.