Amistad (1997) User Reviews

Whoever tells the best story wins

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 4 May 2006]

Amistad is a very well crafted, well acted, and well told story. It is also mostly true to the history of events surrounding the Amistad 'mutiny', and the defense of the Africans responsible for it by John Quincy Adams and a young lawyer named Baldwin. I put the word mutiny in quotes because it is absurd to think of people fighting against murder, enslavement and rape as any form of crime. The film is unabashed about showing us the brutality and outrageousness of the covertly institutionalized slave trade that haunted one of America's darkest, most retrograde periods, and pulls no punches about the cultural differences between its victims, its culprits, and those who felt that it was not their problem.

Amistad ranks as one of McConaughey's finest performances, perhaps his best. But nearly the entire cast is blown off the screen by the passionate, sensitive and profound performance of Djimon Hounsou. Hopkins is good as Adams, but what else is new? Though the film does not have a literary feel - it is pure cinema - it is a truly great story featuring bold characters and a deep and simple emotionality which draws its audience in. Alistad has a spirit that can only be described as truthfulness.

Despite his detractors, Spielburg proves again and again that morally decent films with positive messages can be entertaining and artfully crafted.

Highly recommended.

The glossy horrors of Amistad

[excalibur107 · 7/10 · 24 July 2018]

Beautifully told, it also made me go back to History books to double check or to confirm. That's what good movies also do, they provoke you into wanting to know more. I loved Djimon Hounsou - a sensational film presence and his soulfulness permeates the whole journey. Anthony Hopkins is a remarkable John Quincy Adams. The great Steven Spielberg doesn't shy away from the horrors and some of it is truly harrowing but even then the preciousness of the image protects you from excesses. I don't know if that is a flaw or just a grand commercial concession. I couldn't help trying to imagine, this story even the same script in the hands of an Arthur Penn for instance. After all of that, let me say I enjoyed it, I was moved and I will see it again.

Powerful for Images of Slavery, but Only a Fair Portrayal of Legal Battle

[Barky44 · 8/10 · 12 February 2006]

I am a fan of historically-based dramas. I enjoy the genre, and Amistad did not disappoint me. It is well shot, the look and feel is quite right, and it pulls no punches in its cruel depiction of the slave trade.

Amistad shows this terrible business better than any other film I've ever seen. It portrays all the horrors: the capture of Africans at the hands of rival tribes; the abusive loading of slaves onto ships; the deplorable conditions; the murder and violence conducted in the name of economics; the hopelessness of the slaves' position; the crass indifference felt by the traders, auctioneers, owners and passers-by. Spielberg pulled few punches, only darkening the worst scenes to keep it from degenerating into some Rob Zombie horror film (thereby retaining an audience).

The film also does a good job with the portrayal of the heroes, the slaves who fought for their freedom aboard the schooner Amistad. You can really feel their anger, confusion, and frustration as the events unfold. They are a people pushed from one holding cell to another, subjected to trials and procedures incomprehensible to them (both for language barriers and for the inanity of it all).

One part the filmmakers did a fine job with was the communication barrier. Some of the best scenes involve the ignorance of the Connecticut gentry as they stare blankly at the Africans as they speak their tongue; incompetent linguists stating the obvious and disguising it as "science"; lawyers trying to figure out the slaves' stories; and finally the leader of the escaped Africans declaring "Give us free!" That part really stood out for me.

There are a few criticisms I can lay upon this film, however. Firstly, they didn't do that great of a job in portraying courtroom drama. Filmed in '97, this film predates some great television courtroom dramas (Law & Order, The Practice). Much of what happens in court is either boring or confusing or pointless. I think if Spielberg was able to study some of these great courtroom dramas, these parts would have had a lot more "punch". Having said that, Anthony Hopkins did some fine delivery as John Quincy Adams...

Another element I disliked was the clumsy interweaving of the "Big Slavery Picture" elements. There's a scene at President Van Buren's state dinner where Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina shows up and makes threats of civil war. The scene was really just thrown in there to try to put in some jeopardy, but the film was doing just fine without that. The intrigue between Van Buren and the Spanish girl queen was really nice, however (a very young Anna Paquin!).

The last element that didn't work too well was Morgan Freeman's character, Joadson. He really comes across as little more than an extra. He's such a fine actor, the script doesn't do him justice.

For the most part, this is a fine, and important, film. It just misses a few marks that would have made it a great film.

8 out of 10.

Powerful, gripping drama from Spielberg

[Sridhar · 11 August 1998]

What is freedom? How does one determine who is free? In 1839, those questions were more difficult to answer then they are now. Yet, the mistakes of our forefathers must be examined in order to rectify current situations.

That is, in essence, what Steven Spielberg's gripping drama "Amistad" is about. Through its various dramas, Spielberg presents a case about a group of Africans, who, after being seized from their home, were forced onto a ship and sent to the United States aboard "La Amistad". On their way there, the slaves, led by Cinque (Djimon Hounsou), rebelled, killing off part of the crew. However, the ship was still directed towards the United States, where the Africans were brought to trial under murder.

In the court, various factions claim ownership of the slaves, and therefore try to seize them away. The United States government, led by President Martin Van Buren (Nigel Hawthorne), and Secretary of State Secretary Forsyth (David Paymer), try to ship the Africans to Spain, where an 11 year old Isabella II (Anna Paquin) wants them back. The two Spaniards who own "La Amistad" want the slaves for themselves. The American ship that found the slaves also wants them. In the midst of this are two abolitionists (Stellan Skaarsgard and Morgan Freeman), who want the slaves to be free. They enlist the help of lawyer Matthew McConaughey, who tries to free them. Through various legal proceedings, the case appears before the Supreme Court, where it is argued by ex-President John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins).

The film itself is a visual wonder. Spielberg favorite Janusz Kaminski sets the film in a dark, somber mood when appropriate, and a visual setting when appropriate as well. At times, the film is very slow, and very methodical. Spielberg is not at his finest here, the courtroom scenes have a tendency to lag. But Spielberg's finest work in the film, the opening scene, a scene of Cinque's family, and the brutal voyage of the slaves to America, is altogether stunning. It is this emotional force that carries the film. McConaughey is superb as the lawyer defending the Africans, Hopkins is sensational as the old Adams, Freeman is outstanding when used (Spielberg vastly under uses his supreme talents), and the rest of the cast is stellar. The movie, however, belongs to Hounsou. His emotional intensity is brilliant. Spielberg manages to make even the slowest scenes sparkle with focus on Hounsou, and the film's extraordinary power is simply captivating. The film is flawed, for most of the supporting characters are merely cardboard. But that doesn't matter. The story is a gripping one, and one of extreme importance. Kudos to Spielberg for finding it, finding the right men for the job, and letting the audience listen to the words of Cinque. A good job all around. ***1/2 out of 4, or an 8 out of 10.

Uneven film with many great elements

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 18 January 2017]

'Amistad' is not one of Steven Spielberg's best, in the way that 'Schindler's List', 'Jaws', 'ET' and 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' are. He has however done worse, with the likes of 'The Lost World' and '1941'. Instead it's around solid middle when it comes to his films.

Starting with the positives, the best things are the production values, coupled with the handsome and evocative period detail and the rich, searing cinematography there are some really arresting images here, and the sensational debut of Dijimon Hounsou, a performance of blistering passion and grave sensitivity.

Throughout, especially in the first three-quarters, 'Amistad' boasts moments that are harrowing (the brutal voyage of the slaves), powerful (the opening scene) and moving (most of the film). The script is well-intentioned and thoughtful, if sometimes a bit over-sentimental and heavy-handed (especially Adams' big speech, that could have been stirring but didn't seem to know how far to go to make its obvious point, so it felt preachy). Much of Spielberg's direction is impeccable, with enough of what makes his direction so great in his best films.

Hounsou isn't the only great actor here. Anthony Hopkins gives his all in an authoritative and stirring account of Adams and Matthew McConaughey shows more engagement and charisma than he does in some of his later films. Morgan Freeman is underused but is as you expect.

On the other hand, 'Amistad' is a long film (not a bad thing necessarily), but could have been about 20 minutes shorter with less characters and some of the final act being trimmed. Some of the latter part of the film drags, and the score disappointingly is over-emphatic and gives a heavy-handedness. Despite being brilliantly delivered by Hopkins and clearly written with thought and good intent Adams' big speech just went too far making its point.

In conclusion, a brave attempt at bringing a significant, if not as well known, event to film that works very well in a lot of elements but just misses the mark of completely working as an overall film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The most un-Spielberg film of his oeuvre.

[OttoVonB · 10/10 · 22 April 2003]

Dismissed on its release as a dry civics lesson or as "Schindler's List with slaves", which is a shame, because there is so much intricate stuff going on here that fans of Spielberg and his normally in-your-face approach might not grasp the moral ambiguity and more subtle touches that roam beneath the surface. In a year dominated by Titanic this was publicly dismissed as too serious or arty...

Why is it un-Spielberg? Ponderous pacing replaces storytelling fluidity and speed, his normally active camera is replaced by more painterly compositions.. Instead of having stuff jump at you, you have to search for it or feel it without truly realizing it: touches of genius are very present, but differ from the original style (like the brutal insurrection scenes, cargo dumping scene, etc).

The story itself focuses on a mutiny aboard a transatlantic slave ship, led by Cinque. The ship is intercepted by the American navy and a messy trial ensues to see who has rights regarding the cargo, Spain, America... or are the slaves not "legal" slaves after all? Cue abolitionists hiring young property lawyer Baldwin. These events, based on facts, occur before the Civil War.

I can feel people sighing from here. "Oh, no: not a courtroom drama...". Labelling it as such would be missing the point by a mile. It is so much about context and moral ambiguity, and ultimately the tragic ridicule of the situation. Amistad is also a technical marvel. Janusz Kaminski's (SPR, Schindler's List, AI, Minority Report...) photography is superb, a dark study in sepia browns. The acting is magnificent, mainly two amazing performances. One by Anthony Hopkins as former president John Quincy Adams (an unusual turn for him, where he really soars), and the other by Djimon Hounsou (later cast as Juba in Gladiator) as Cinque being the true gem.

Ultimately, Amistad's greatest strength is that it avoids offering any easy answers and in that sense, does to subconscious issues about race and slavery what Kubrick's 2001 did to space travel and progress, albeit with more humanity and more accessible drama. It's a shame this film is never talked about.

I Got This Wrong

[slightlymad22 · 7/10 · 1 May 2018]

Continuing my plan to watch every Steven Spielberg movie in order, I come to Amistad.

I hold my hands up, and say I was totally wrong on this movie. It did nothing for me the first time I watched it. Yet, when I rewatched it I was blown away. It's not perfect, its historically inaccurate and Morgan Freeman is surprisingly under used. We get a lot of shots of him looking on, but not actually doing a lot.

All the cast are great, and Spielberg knows how to tug on the heartstrings.

Amistad was mostly ignored by cinemagoers upon its release the 50th highest grossing movie of 1997. With a $44 million dollar domestic gross.

A film unfairly compared to box office winners that should have received far more recognition.

[BACK-2 · 10/10 · 10 December 1998]

I do not attend more than a handful of movies a year at a theatre. I rent far more videos, Amistad being one of them. As I recall, Amistad did not wow the theatrical audiences big-time. But the expression "big-time" seems to indicate numbers of dollars and attendees. I am also a big fan of Anthony Hopkins and remember him as a compelling actor long before his Oscar role. I believe that he and the African actor Djimon Hounsou should have been seriously considered for acting awards. I don't recall that any were given or even suggested. The cinematography, set decoration, lighting, and editing were extraordinary. I was reminded that interior spaces in the 1830's were not garishly lit Hollywood sets with dramatic shadows. Perhaps the costuming was a bit overdone. Many of the actors appeared "dressed". The most emotionally devastating episodes for me were the barbaric transporting and drowning of the slaves. I literally held my hands over my face as these scenes unfolded. I hope this film lives on to become a classic. My respect for Spielberg's artistry has been taken to another level. Other viewers have commented on static qualities of this film. Well, folks, This was not "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Judgement at Nuremberg"; it was historic filmmaking in more than one way. It was accurate, literate, and not politically correct or incorrect. Bravo, Dreamworks!

Interesting, but much less so than the history it revises.

[Curtis-23 · 6/10 · 5 September 1999]

Movies about historical subjects often fictionalize. Amistad has a strong ideological slant and revises history accordingly. A review essay in the February 1998 issue of Commentary Magazine describes the movie's bias and offers examples. Here are others. (An excellent historical account is "Mutiny on the Amistad" by Howard Jones.)

The film consistently overstates the black and understates the white role in the effort to free the Africans: 1. The historical role of Dwight Janes (a white New London abolitionist) of alerting American abolitionists to the arrest of the Africans is transferred to Joadson, a fictitious black abolitionist.

2. The historical role of Baldwin and Tappan (both white abolitionists) in requesting the help of ex-president John Quincy Adams early in the case is transferred primarily to Joadson, whose appeal is portrayed as more intellectually and morally cogent than Tappan's. 3. The historical role of Adams in helping defense counsel to improve their case by peppering them with legal questions is transferred to Cinqué, the African leader.

4. The historical pressure from white public opinion in the North, widely favorable to the Africans, is omitted. 5. The film gives no sign of the impressive intellectual strength in the white abolitionist ranks, e.g., the speed and acumen with which central issues in the case were grasped. Within a few days of the Africans' arrest, Janes had outlined the argument in their defense that would be adopted by the Supreme Court. Within two weeks, Seth Staples and Theodore Sedgwick, white abolitionist lawyers, had addressed a memo to President Van Buren, reinforcing the Janes analysis and arguing powerfully against any executive move to take the case away from the courts.

Fictions are employed to suggest that the story's blacks are sharper and wiser than the whites: 1. Joadson's opinion that the destruction of slavery is necessary to complete the American revolution, rudely put down by Adams at their first meeting, is echoed and vindicated by the close of Adams' argument before the Court. Here a person who never existed is represented as making an argument in a meeting that never took place, supporting a thesis that Adams never adopted.

2. Cinqué's superb intelligence enables him to figure out what Baldwin means by drawing lines in the sand, to raise a host of possibly relevant legal points and to teach Adams the perspective that crowns his argument. The divination, the legal advice and the crowning argument were all fanciful.

The film also misleads by anachronistically positing the danger of civil war if the Africans won in court: a fictitious warning by the Southern Senator John Calhoun that their release would be a long step toward war and a fictitious willingness by Adams to accept that result as completing the American revolution. This grossly exaggerates the portentousness of the case. People were not predicting or threatening civil war, despite events far more divisive than a Supreme Court decision based on the illegality of the transatlantic slave trade. The beauty of this case for the abolitionists was that the men who claimed to own these Africans were not Americans. Here actual slavery could be vigorously and triumphantly combatted by the substantial body of white opinion that considered slavery and the slave trade morally wrong, but did not wish to press abolition on the South.

More important, the film creates a false impression re the kind of arguments presented to the Supreme Court in behalf of the Africans, and the basis of their victory. It suggests that the captives were freed because Adams persuaded the court to stand tall with the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers. But in fact only a few seconds of Adams' eight-hour argument referred to the Declaration, and the argument that counted with the Court was made by Baldwin.

According to the Court's opinion, the question was whether these Africans were owned by the Spanish claimants. The decision that they were not was based on a law and a fact: the Spanish law banning the Atlantic slave trade, and the fact of fraud in the ship's papers identifying the Africans as ladinos.

The injustice of slavery is now so central to our moral code that it may be hard for people to understand how any Supreme Court decision could stop short of it, if the justices were responding to the merits. But the Court was applying the positive law of its time. It accepted the rationale argued by the abolitionists from the beginning (Janes to the abolitionist leaders, Staples and Sedgwick to Van Buren) and presented by Baldwin as his second argument. This rationale protected mutinous blacks, provided they had been illegally held as slaves.

In his first argument, Baldwin sought a wider protection, a rule under which the status of a black fugitive would be determined not by the federal government but by the state to which he fled. By this proposal mutinous blacks fleeing places other than the American South could be declared free on their arrival in a free Northern state, regardless of their slave status elsewhere. But this argument (which the Court's opinion ignored) was as firmly confined to positive law as the argument that triumphed. In an early sentence, Baldwin invoked "the great principles of the Revolution," the Declaration of Independence and "the genius of our institutions," but he did not profess to derive his legal conclusions from these premises.

Adams made JUSTICE in caps a continuing theme of his speech, but he was not thereby referring to any provision of the Declaration or any position on the morality of slavery. He was arraigning the Van Buren administration in detail and at length for favoring the Spanish claims when justice required impartiality, and for intervening in ways that justice would have barred. An ex President exposing the machinations of the current chief executive, a former Secretary of State examining and scolding every step and misstep of the present Secretary!

Yes, a helluva story: - the reality much more interesting than the transmogrifications!

Freedom's Cry

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 15 February 2006]

I can say that back when I was a lad going to school in the Fifties and Sixties in Brooklyn, New York USA, we never learned of such things as the Amistad revolt. For that matter we learned nothing of Denmark Vesey's or Nat Turner's slave revolt. We learned about the Civil War and what led up to it. But the plight of the slaves themselves, not a word.

So when Steven Spielberg did this film about an incident known to serious historians, but not to the public at large, I say BRAVO to Mr. Spielberg.

What has to be remembered here is that the while slavery was legal, the importation of slaves had been banned for quite some time by 1839. The Africans depicted here are forbidden to be slaves in the first place.

It was hoped that when the Constitution got going in 1789 that slavery might die on its own accord. But unfortunately a guy named Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which was a device for picking through the pesky seeds in the cotton fibers. That made cotton THE crop of the south and gave slavery a new lease on life. And as you see in Amistad anything that threatened the life of what the south was pleased to call it's "peculiar institution" was a call to arms.

Amistad gives us the portrait of two United States presidents. The current one in 1839 is Martin Van Buren who's probably best known for being the real founder of the Democratic party political machine. He succeeded Andrew Jackson on March 4, 1837 and promptly was greeted with a bank panic that led to a depression. His chances for re-election in 1840 were not looking good to start with and he was exceptionally vulnerable to southern pressure. Ironically enough his last bid for public office was in 1848 as the third party presidential candidate of the Free Soil anti-slavery party. Nigel Hawthorne captures Van Buren, a man who always played his cards close to the vest.

A very different sort was John Quincy Adams our sixth president from 1825 to 1829. His presidency was probably the least successful time in his whole public career which starts as teenager during the American Revolution. He undertook a series of diplomatic assignments culminating with being Secretary of State under James Monroe from 1817 to 1825. Of course he was the son of our second president John Adams and like his father refused to do even the normal political things that could have gotten him re-elected.

As an ex-President he was serving in the House of Representatives in 1839 one of only two whoever went back to Congress after their presidential term was up. By this time he was a passionate abolitionist and the pleading of the cause of the Amistad slaves was an opportunity and a challenge. Anthony Hopkins captures the man who was now called Old Man Eloquent down to his clipped New England speech.

What happens briefly is that a cargo of Africans on a Spanish slaver revolted mid sea and killed all but two on board. Those two were preserved because the Africans didn't know anything of seamanship. The two remaining steered the ship Amistad to Long Island where the whole story is discovered. The Africans become a legal and political football all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Other performances to note are Morgan Freeman as black free man Theodore Joadson, Stellan Skarsgaard as abolitionist Lewis Tappan, Matthew McConaughey as attorney Roger Baldwin and most of all Djimon Hounsou as Cinque the leader of the African's revolt.

Before his story is told the attorneys have to learn the language and Spielberg graphically portrays their struggle for communication. Hounsou's portrayal of a man in an alien world who's only desire is to go back where he came from will sear your very soul.

Amistad is grand entertainment and a needed history lesson about man's need for and willingness to fight to be his own master.

Good

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 18 July 2009]

While I don't know everything about the actual events, I understand that this isn't entirely historically accurate. That is to be expected, with it coming out of Hollywood. Worse still, this was made by Spielberg(competent director though he may be, the way the man views the world, you'd think those glasses were made of sugar), and there is, indeed, some sap and sentimentality, but it is actually fairly limited. Also, this has brutality and disturbing content. It of course(given who put this on the silver screen) in the end boils down to a banal and easy to memorize moral, then again, too many people still, to this day, don't get it, so it does need to be said. This is engaging and evokes genuine emotion from the viewer. The plot is well-told, and develops in a satisfying way. Pacing is spot-on, this is never boring, and it doesn't move overly fast, either. The writing is quite magnificent. All of the characters are credible. Every single acting performance is excellent. There are quotable and marvelous lines of dialog in this. This is effective and well-done. Production value is beyond reproach. There is a little nudity, and a moderate amount of violence, neither being gratuitous. The DVD holds a theatrical trailer, and a 25-minute behind-the-scenes featurette. I recommend this to anyone interested in watching it. 7/10

"Where you almost mean what you say? Where laws almost work? How can you live like that?"

[classicsoncall · 10/10 · 9 November 2006]

Another reviewer on this board made a good point; history classes in the 1950's and 60's were quite devoid of true life cases that helped shape American politics and policies prior to the Civil War. In my case, it was as if not much occurred between the presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, with names like Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk and Fillmore relegated to the dustbin of history. As we learn in the "Amistad" story occurring in 1839, the country was already bracing for a conflict over the slavery question. Senator John C. Calhoun (Arliss Howard) was flexing his oratory muscles for debate on the issue, and the scene where he challenges President Van Buren (Nigel Hawthorne) at the dinner table is particularly compelling.

The performances as well as the film itself appear award worthy, and the movie seems to have been overlooked somewhat in that regard. In a year when "Titanic" was destined to overwhelm in terms of sheer spectacle, I find it hard to imagine that a title like "The Full Monty" was deemed more worthy than this. I suppose that shouldn't really surprise followers of the Academy Awards, as recognition doesn't always follow quality.

Speaking of performances, this is one film where the actors dissolve into their characters better than most across the board. Matthew McConaughey acquits himself well as lawyer Baldwin, and Djimon Hounsou is riveting as the slave Cinque. I would have liked to see Morgan Freeman delivering more power to the story, but within the parameters he was given, he's solid as ever. The tour de force portrayal of course is given by Anthony Hopkins as former president John Quincy Adams, his speech before the Supreme Court is mesmerizing to help turn the tide for the slaves on trial. Brilliantly done.

It was also interesting to note how newspapers of the era were as editorially slanted as those of the present day. When we see the first pass of the New Haven newspaper regarding the slaves of the Amistad, the caption reads 'Massacre At Sea'. Quite different from the way sympathetic readers would eventually get to see it - 'Freedom Fight At Sea'. In all aspects, the film brilliantly conveys the innate resonance and power of language.

Spielberg needs the events to have previously happened to avoid it being too much of a blockbuster but for what it is, Amistad is still pretty good.

[johnnyboyz · 7/10 · 13 July 2008]

It's difficult to consider Steven Spielberg and out and out director in the sense he aims to entertain more so than he does inform, educate or combine his own vision(s) with films that revolve around themes and issues. I consider Spielberg an entertainer more so than I do a filmmaker, what else can you do with the man who, in Jaws, invented 'the blockbuster' and, in Star Wars and Indiana Jones, helped pioneer 'the franchise'? In Amistad, there is a film that revolves around several things at once: yes, it's clearly political but part of the problem is that it's so obviously so. Yes, it's an American period piece that needs help from incorporating many other nations from the era to create a story and yes, it does threaten to slip in and out of other genres too often.

But this is Spielberg as a filmmaker. His speciality is to deliver a smash-bang experience and in Amistad he does so while touching on certain subjects of ownership, human rights and political tensions but these come across in individual scenes or moments that impacted on me less-so because of the 'should-be-there' themes and more-so because they were sudden and perhaps out of place. It is easy to stun an audience; Hitchcock's 'Psycho' is a good example with the shower scene in particular: it's a film in 1960; a woman showers; someone comes in and suddenly we are bombarded with a scenario that jolts us. Amistad is like this with scenes of slaves in boat holds being fed and unneeded slaves being thrown over-board, only the film as a whole does not build or 'carry on' from these scenes like Psycho did with the shower scene, but merely uses them as shock tactics to evoke an emotional reaction (which they do) and to get us to feel more empathy for the slaves on trial.

So if Spielberg is more-so an entertainer, it would seem only natural for a Spielberg film to cover a vast array of genres or to cover a lot of ground in an epic tale of this and that. That said Amistad is a period piece; a courtroom drama; an historical tale; a biopic of some sorts; at times, a comedy and also a film that threatens to break out into the war genre when so many nations disagree and argue over what's right and wrong. Amistad is a film that does not do too many different nations too many favours. Most of the Americans in the film are kind and understanding but the slaves are presented as remaining hostile, as seen when during a hostile handshake and the shouting at another character through a courtroom window. But Spielberg doesn't have to take sides because this is based on true events so when the American high court judge is replaced, we see them to be presented as perhaps cheating and somewhat conniving, it shows Spielberg is not afraid of including details of that nature that do not flatter the government of the United States.

But then again the lead defendant is American and the reminder of America's victory over the British is accompanied with plenty of flag waving throughout. Also, the Spanish queen Isabella II, played by Anna Paquin, is shown in a less than flattering light although the feeling of immaturity and juxtaposition of situations between these slaves on trial facing death and young royalty in a far off nation with everything available to her works rather well. Then there is the clever inclusion or mentioning at least of Sierra Leone's capital named 'Freetown' and how the British renamed it so thus stopping incidences like the one that transpires in this film from ever happening.

But there are lots of basic things to be had out of Amistad, be it through the cast of specific actors and acting performances or whatever. For me, it was an interesting journey more than anything, through an historical subject (ie; the slave trade) that I do not know too much about. The film's premise is overshadowed by its actual unfolding of ideas and general plot, with the film playing an ace it establishes it has very early on and that is the power and knowledge of Anthony Hopkins' character named John Quincy Adams. Towards the end, the film is in search for a plot point and whilst the 'getting there' is eerie as well as horrific whenever told through the eyes of Cinque (Hounsou) in flashback mode, Adams' re-emergence and long, courtroom finale feels just as forced as it does uplifting.

If there's anything to get out of the film, it is the brutal establishment of a situation that could've escalated into something really disastrous; a series of scenes that disregard human life in a nasty manner; an intriguing and thought provoking court battle and a finale that wants to be reminiscent of 1991's JFK but doesn't quite make it. Amistad is brutal in some scenes, threatens unnecessarily to be humorous in others but maintains a balanced and interesting air throughout.

A Painfully flawed film.

[Rigor · 3/10 · 9 November 1998]

Steven Spielberg has created a painfully flawed film about the Amistad rebellion. Part of what makes this film a difficult, even at times offensive experience is the way the film is more interested in white male subjectivity (should this surprise us based on the creative teams identities) over any subjective concerns about the African characters. Real hard questions need to be asked about the historical inaccuracies and distortions and how these are used to suggest that there was a much larger white reaction against slavery than really existed at the time of the rebellion. It is difficult to not compare this film to Schindler's List and to see what Spielberg can do with a film about a holocaust. The "fictionally" created Black abolishionist character portrayed by Morgan Freeman is so utterly under utilized and under dramatized that he could be removed entirely from the film without in any way disrupting the narrative. The actual historical facts of this fascinating rebellion and the legal struggle to free the African prisoners is so much more interesting than anything the entertainment team has come with in this horrible, offensive, mess.

Powerful History

[mermatt · 30 July 1998]

I arranged for the students at my school to see this film last winter. It is a powerful piece of history presented in a powerful way. The incident which is portrayed in the film should be part of American history courses since it led, directly or indirectly, to the Civil War.

Everyone in the film gives an excellent performance. The real power comes from Djimon Hounsou (Cinque) and Anthony Hopkins (John Quince Adams). Hopkins' summation at the trial defines what America is all about.

Original idea

[Kakueke · 7/10 · 4 December 2001]

"Amistad" is a good film, presenting an interpretation of a real-life 1839 mutiny aboard a slave ship and the resulting trial in the U.S., with the freedom of the slaves hinging on the outcome. What I like is the original idea--choosing this little-known but interesting event during the Presidency of Martin Van Buren (who?), having non-English-speaking black slaves defended in court by "John Adams" (Quincy--who's that?), and the legal concepts involved.

Both the plight of the slaves and the events in their quest for victory are dramatized well, moving and evocative. Slave leader Cinque (Djimon Hounsou) is a sympathetic protagonist, and Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams is stolid and staid but very eloquent in court. Stately Morgan Freeman is citizen intermediary rather than a slave. As for the critics who insist Steven Spielberg was trying to portray this event as a significant precursor to the Civil War rather than for its own sake, I say, give me a break. There is nothing in the film that suggests that (gee, the mere mention of the Civil War?). They need to say something to make themselves feel important, but the only way to get the answer to what Spielberg thinks is to ask him, and reviewers do not do such things.

Another historic masterpiece from one of the greatest directors ever

[philip_vanderveken · 8/10 · 27 May 2005]

There is one thing that I've never understood about Hollywood. When it comes to historic and realistic movies, they have used about every possible subject. Think of the American Civil War, the Hollocaust, the Second World War, the Vietnam war,... Each of these historic subjects has been used in a movie at least once. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as it is done properly and accurately, because these movies are often the only source of new knowledge for a lot of people once they have left school (and even at school they hate history classes because they don't seem to understand the importance of it). But why aren't there so many movies about the slave trade and the plantations? Are the studios afraid of that subject or are they so racist, that they have never been able to come to terms with the abolishment of slavery?

"Amistad" tells the story of a group of Africans who start a revolt against the crew of the slave ship La Amistad and get adrift for several weeks after this horrible event. Then they are discovered by some American marine officers, who bring the ship into harbor and hand over the slaves to the local authorities. Soon they have to stand trial for this revolt and the fact that they have murdered the crew. But a couple of honorable men, who want to end the slavery in the New World, will defend them with everything that is within their power ... even if that means that they will offend some other countries or start a civil war.

At the same time it's very easy and very hard to say what I liked about this movie. I liked almost everything about it, but explaining why will take some time. Let me start with the story on itself. The fact that it hasn't been told at least a dozen times makes it original, but doesn't make it easy to compare it to other similar movies of course. Still, the quality was more than OK and had a lot of variation to offer. It's clearly well-written with a good eye for detail and even though I'm normally not a fan of court room drama's, I must say that it didn't even bother me that a court room was the place where the biggest part of this movie was set. What I also liked was the acting. From people like Morgan Freeman and Anthony Hopkins you can't expect anything else but a fine performance, but it was the rest of the cast that offered me a nice surprise. Djimon Hounsou for instance still isn't a house hold name, even though he has played in a few excellent movies like "Gladiator" and "In America", but once again he proves that he's a talented actor and I sure hope to see him in many more big productions soon.

Even though a large part of this movie was shot in a court room, it also offered plenty of other sets. You'll get to see the fort in Sierra Leone where the slaves were brought together to be shipped to the New World, you'll see a nice representation of the American cities of those days, you'll see the ships of that time... And perhaps it's the slave boat and all the scenes on it that were the most incredible. I don't think the horror of the slave trade was more obvious as it was in those scenes. They certainly aren't suited for people who can't stand the sight of blood or very graphic violence, but excluding them from this movie would not only be a shame, it would harm the sense of reality. And it's that sense of reality that makes this movie so special. Of course Steven Spielberg knows exactly how to make a movie feel as real as possible. Think of "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", both movies that will always be in my list of the best movies I've ever seen, but with this movie he has proved that he can do more than telling a story situated in WWII.

In the end I can only say that this is a movie that every American and every European should see. The Americans should see it because the slaves ones were the reason why the plantations in the South prospered and the civil war was fought and the Europeans shouldn't miss it, for we should never forget that the slave trade will always be a dark page in our long history. This movie is for so many reasons worth to be seen (not once, but at least a couple of times), that it doesn't deserve anything less than an 8.5/10.

No justice for Africans in 1839 or today

[[e-mail] · 6/10 · 22 May 2005]

This movie is based upon a fundamentally false premise - that even African tribesmen, unable to speak a word of English, could obtain justice in the American court system. A far more accurate representation of the pre-Civil War "rights" of Africans in the American legal system can be found in the 1853 Dred Scott decision, which held that a lawsuit by a kidnapped African challenging his enslavement couldn't be heard because slaves weren't people. Although Spielberg should be congratulated for his stark portrayal of at least some of the ghastly conditions on slave ships with the unblinking realism he brought to Saving Private Ryan, the film ends on an entirely false note, with a sickening "God Bless America" speech by John Quincy Adams before the Supreme Court, which had absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues there, and certainly would not have been tolerated even of a former President in real legal proceedings. Ultimately, one cannot help but ask why the most important (or at least most expensive) film about slavery in America was about a handful of Africans who were freed by American justice, when millions were kept enslaved by that very same legal system. Imagine a feel good, big budget German film about the release of 50 Jews from Auschwitz by a Nazi court! Nevertheless, the slave ship scenes, as well as the portrayal of the African tribesmen, make the film worth watching - particularly for the bravura performance of Djimon Hounson, who in any just world would have been an shoo-in for a Best Actor award for his amazingly powerful and yet starkly controlled portrayal of Cinque, the leader of the kidnapped Africans. But this is not a just world for Africans, neither today, nor in 1839, and to the extent one leaves Amistad with a different impression, one has been profoundly misled.

This is a brilliant period piece by Spielberg that may be a step down from The Color Purple or Schindler's List but is still a must see

[kevin_robbins · 9/10 · 28 January 2022]

Amistad (1997) is a movie I recently rewatched for the first time in a long time on Hulu. The storyline follows a slave ship where the slaves revolt, free themselves on the ship and still arrive in the United States. Once they arrive they are recaptured with several stakeholder claiming the slaves as their own. A young lawyer and a former president will need to collaborate if the slaves are ever going to get where they truly belong - free and back to Africa. Is that possible in the current climate of the United States where Civil War may be inevitable and this may be the final straw that makes it happen?

This movie was directed by Steven Spielberg (ET) and stars Anthony Hopkins (Silence of the Lambs), Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond), Matthew McConaughey (Lincoln Lawyer), Morgan Freeman (Kiss the Girls), Pete Postlethwaite (The Town) and David Paymer (Get Shorty).

The storyline for this picture is so well told. The main storyline is filled with fascinating sub plots and inner struggles. The cast is absolutely amazing and every meticulous depiction of the character and circumstance is executed to perfection. The ship scenes are intense, detailed, sad and well done. The costumes, sets and attire were detailed and fit the film to perfection. The courtroom drama elements were also well paced and as good as you'll see and the ending is and isn't rewarding at the same time.

Overall this is a brilliant period piece by Spielberg that may be a step down from The Color Purple or Schindler's List but is still a must see. I would score this an 8.5/10 and strongly recommend it.

Great drama of failing accuracy

[Rammstein-2 · 6/10 · 11 January 2001]

This is a very good film that has been largely overlooked for some reason. "Amistad" twists the truth a bit for better drama, but the main reason to see this film is the amazing dialogue, at times very, very funny and very well imagined. The group of Mende tribe members make swift, down-to-earth judgments about their surroundings and the people that try to interact with them, and the inability to communicate results in another very clever touch: Joadson and Baldwin learn to count from 1 to 10 in Mende, and then walk around the docks trying to find former Mende tribe members. The dialogue of "Amistad" is very special and interesting indeed, one of the best I've had to good fortune to encounter. Another part that impressed me was the horrifying testimony that Cinque gives in the court room - as reported in the goofs section of this film, this testimony was in reality given after the Judge rendered his verdict and did not change the outcome. Either way, it's a extremely heavy part of the film, sickening and a very well portrayed depiction of the disgusting slave trade business.

The performances are stunning. Especially Hopkins and Hounsou are very convincing - Hounsou's confused anger and Hopkins' final speech are great to watch. Seeing Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella was very funny, but her character was almost too silly - I doubt that the queen of Spain was so childish at 11. Parts of the drama replaces truth, which is hard to forgive in this matter. After all, the real events of this story are dramatic enough for a film, there was no real need to dramatize further. But it is a very good film nonetheless.

An amazing story of history and freedom

[lastliberal · 10/10 · 16 February 2008]

While theatergoers in 1997 were being amazed by special effects on another ship, this magnificent story given to us by the master director Steven Spielberg gives us the true story of our country and what it means to be American.

We are not free as long as one of us is in chains. As John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins) so eloquently put it, "...what are we to do with that embarrassing, annoying document, The Declaration of Independence? What of its conceits? "All men created equal," "inalienable rights," "life, liberty," and so on and so forth?" The Civil War was, indeed, the last battle of The American Revolution.

What a cast! You can search for Fool's Gold or you can watch Matthew McConaughey in her greatest performance as the lawyer who risked it all.

Djimon Hounsou may Never Back Down this year, as he certainly didn't in this film.

Morgan Freeman certainly knows about "Freedom: A History of Us" and he helped the Africans find theirs.

One of the very best films I have ever seen.

good, but not great

[PIST-OFF · 6/10 · 22 November 2005]

over all the film amistad is well acted, directed, et cetera. it's a good movie on the whole, with no loss of technical mastery of the medium of film. it has anthony hopkins and morgan freeman, two actors who lend considerable weight to any movie (albeit here they are relegated to supporting rolls) and there are a number of other small but fine performances. nothing about the movie really stands out, much like numerous other historical pieces, it achieve quality but not superiority. One of the things about historical films like this is their tendency to cut and paste modern mentalities upon characters that would have had strikingly different world views. While the movie holds true about the moral crusade of the early abolitionists, it tends to gloss over the fact that few abolitionists would have considered africans as equal members of society to themselves. It also underplays the fact that some of the early motivation for the end of slavery was purely economic. These starkly contrast the usual narrative that pits everything into easily understood categories of good and evil. In history as in the world there are numerous shades of grey. A wonderful historical piece would be one that would present us with the questions involved in such complex issues in ways that would not be dumbed down, but instead unmitigated exploration of the conflicting values of an ever changing world. Plus it would feature some gratuitous nudity for the sake of entertainment.

6 out of 10

Another fantastic film from Spielberg.

[CharltonBoy · 9/10 · 3 July 2000]

Amistad is one of them films that when the credits roll you just sit there and think what a wonderfull film that was ,what a well directed and well acted movie i have just seen. The acting is some of the best i have ever seen. the performances from Mathew McConaughue,Pete Postlethwaite and Morgan Freeman are Brilliant but check out the acting from Anthony Hopkins and Djimon Hounson,they are superb. The story is gripping and moving at the same time. The scenes on the Amistad ship are quite distressing and really show you how repulsive the slave trade was but this just adds to the realism and wonder of this fantastic film. A masterpeice. 9 out of 10.

Powerful!

[Pat-54 · 7/10 · 30 November 1998]

Powerful film from the Cecil B. DeMille of our generation, Steven Spielberg. Matthew McConaughey is the only weak spot in the film. It's not his fault, however, the part is badly written.

The many historical inaccuracies (see Goofs sectio...

[jgfoot · 1/10 · 3 August 1998]

The many historical inaccuracies (see Goofs section) suggest that this is a liberal re-telling of history, more interested in making a commentary about race in the 1990s than in the history of this important event.