Reviews

Right, first things first, this is not meant to be "Schindler's List". There is no way that Spielberg could give the same emotional power and dedication. It is a shame, as "Schindler" was a great film, Amistad is not. Although it is another issue movie, it doesn't have the same power, the same emotion.

One of things that i asked myself was why should this film have been made by a largely white production set up and cast. Surely this would merely create the myth that africans needed white support in order to have what was rightly theirs. I would agree that the primary african lead was superb, but it all seemed overly contrived. Maybe this film should have been made by a different set up, after all Schindler was very much Spielberg's story, but amistad?

I have to say that it was entertaining, but Hopkins was slightly hammy, then again, he always is. McChonnahay was good again, and Morgan Freeman was understated. The trouble was, I don't think that it was meant to be entertaining, at least not at the outset of the film. I feel that is was an issue movie gone wrong. Films such as "Silkwood" and Schindler" were powerful, and long lasting. I saw those films and felt sick, they were so gut wrenchingly powerful. I left Amistad laughing at the ironic portrayal of a Royal Naval Captain. "Ensign, take a note...."

It's a shame the Spielberg's film did not have the accuracy of the Royal Navy's gunnery officer, otherwise, he might have made another schindler's list, as it was, he was quite a long way off target.

The choice of Mitchum for the lead role really did work. The novel suggest a tired Marlowe, who has had enough of being "detective to the stars". He wants to get out of his seedy little life, and change things, but instead, he gets wrapped up in another case. Mitchum's hang dog expression and tired wise guy act sums up the depression of the fallen hero. This is not the smooth talking Bogart, not the finely clipped and smooth Powell, but a harder, more experienced Marlowe, a man more aware of his own downfall. As he says to knulty, what he need is a nights sleep, what he needs is another drink. After watching this truly excellent recreation of late forties LA, I'm not sure that I couldn't agree with him.

Ah yes, and Charlotte Rampling and the sometime Thelma really was "cuter than lace pants"

This remains one of the all time great films. What is interesting is that the year before it was released (1945)Hawks showed US troops a first version of the film. In itself it was much tighter, more faithful to the original novel, and most significantly, had less of the steamy Bogart and Bacall sequences.

The troops said that they wanted more of her, it was said that there was a need for more atmosphere in the film. This was noted by hawks, who then re edited and shot the film into the version that is known today. What he created was a near perfect example of what became known as "film noir". Chandler, the novel's author, when asked what he thought of the film replied in his curious mixture of English/american (he was born and educated in Dulwich, Sth London) "wonderful, but who did it?". What Chandler said is a valid point, but to be honest, who cares?

What Hawks created was a masterpiece of style, atomsphere and dialogue. Bogart was rarely better than this, and Bacall simply oozed sexual tension. As ever there was good support, but this was not an ensemble piece like "Casablanca", the film rightly belongs to the two leads. I've read the book and seen all three movie versions, but even now, I struggle to say, who did it. All I know is that it was a great film, and we will never see its like again

Casablanca remains one of the best loved films ever. made at a time when the world was in crisis, it shows that the affairs of some little people actually can amount to a hill of beans. There are of course moments of superb dialogue, much of which is taken by the supporting characters Louis (Claude Rains) and also Urgarti (Sydney Greenstreet). Lines such as (I'm only a poor corrupt official" and "I'm shocked, shocked!" have not become as famous as Bogart's "of all the gin joints..." line, but they always manage to raise a wry smile, worthy of Bogie himself. Of course it seems slightly clichéd, but imagine how terrible it would have been, were it not for the wonderful acting, and often stiring direction of Curtiz. The McTiernan of his day, Curtiz manages to keep the film moving at a quick, but not too quick pace. We bleed with Bogart, sing with Sam and idolise Henried. When I first watched the film, I longed for there to have been a sequel, but that would have missed the point. "Casablanca" was a one off. It could not have been repeated, as it was a curious mixture of atmosphere and something impossible to define. It is easy to imagine falling in love with Bergman, but it is impossible to imagine the torn identity of Blane. We do not live in a world such as this, and perhaps no one ever did. Casablanca is a fairy tale. If it were not, Berger would have shot Rick, but he did not. It is a clichéd tale about love, redemtion comradship and war. It is also a wonderful film, which MGM should release at the cinema one more time.

Altogether now..... "You must remember this......"