Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Edith Hobbart 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.

Eka Herlyanti This movie was actually cool, but it lacks emotion in some scenes. I can't feel the glory of their winning and the spirit. The opening was so scary, made my mind thinking what could that black thing be? I'm so glad that slavery is, I think, over now. What they did to Africans were so cruel and sadistic.

jimbo-53-186511 Amistad is a film about the 1839 mutiny that a bunch of slaves held whilst on board a ship that was heading from Havana to the northeast coast of America. The slaves hold a mutiny, but are subsequently captured and the slaves are sentenced to death for their crimes. The Spanish make the claim that the slaves belong to them and that they are legally their property, but the likes of lawyer Roger Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey), feels that there may be some holes in their argument and is determined that the slaves get the fair trial that they deserve.I always take films based on historical events with a pinch of salt as it's very rare that you'll come across one that is 100% truthful (I understand that 'artistic licence' comes into play quite a lot). If I am unfamiliar with the history involved with a film then I tend to ask myself one question; what effect did it have on me overall? Clearly with a score of 7 out of 10 I was fairly impressed...Spielberg doesn't hold back here and goes out of his way to make sure that we witness and feel the pain endured by the slaves; there are several moments in this film that are brutal and tough to watch. Many of the courtroom scenes are excellent as well, but this is mainly due to the many talented actors that were brought together here. Although the subject matter is treated seriously here, screenwriter Franzoni does inject some humorous moments into the film from time to time which I always feel is a nice touch. McConaughey is a Lawyer in this film, but he also has to turn detective here to try to learn more about those that he's representing and again this aspect of the story is engaging and quite amusing and complements the courtroom side of things well.Impressive production values and a good screenplay are nothing without the actors and what a cast we have here; Hopkins, Freeman, McConaughey and Hounsou were all superb here and really brought the story to life. If I was to single anyone out for praise it would be Hopkins who I think is one of the best actors around. Hounsou comes in a very close second and I personally think that he's one of the most underrated actors in the business - his performance here and in Blood Diamond is powerful and convincing.Casting a critical eye over this then there were a few things that bothered me; firstly I felt that the scene in the middle of the film where we essentially witness how the slaves were captured could have been used to start the film and then we could have just moved on to the mutiny after they leave Havana. It seemed odd to me that we had a long introduction at the start to set-up the Mutiny only to then have elements of it re-hashed later in the film. Combining the two elements at the start with some editing would have improved the overall structure of the film and would undoubtedly have reduced the rather generous running time. Secondly, when Baldwin needed some who could speak the language of the slaves,it seemed a little contrived that he happened to find an ex-slave who could speak their languages as well as being able to speak fluent English in the first place that he looked? It also doesn't show much from the perspective of The Spanish which is even more odd when you realise the impact that the verdict of the trial had on the Spanish several years after the trial.So yes there are some flaws here but it's a powerful film with an interesting story that was certainly worth telling. Those who enjoy historical dramas or Courtroom dramas would be well-advised to check this one out.

ericando Despite historical inaccuracies and some sloppiness in the acting Amistad remains a great film.The depiction of this group of slaves, dehumanized by the processes involved with slavery, may not be totally historically correct, but it gave a good visualization of the horrors of slavery that most probably hadn't seen. At the time of this uprising, slavery divided our entire country, and was easily the most pressing issue to deal with. During one scene, President Van Buren faces the harsh reality that his re-election could be based on the decision he makes on this case. Incidents like what happened on La Amistad are what lead our country to civil war, because neither side wanted to budge on what they believed was right.When the film begins, you see a slave struggling, desperate to get a nail out of the floorboard so he can unshackle himself. He breaks free, and releases a group of other men and they take knives and murder several crew members on the boat and take two hostage. The scene cuts after you watch a struggle between a slave and a crew member, and the slave repeatedly plunges his sword into the mans stomach while shouting as loud as he can. At this point you see these slaves as savages and murderers, who can't speak any language but their primitive slave language. However it isn't until well into the trial when Cinque tells his story that we see what he went through to get to that point. He was captured with a net, beaten with a club, he had to watch public whippings, people being thrown into the sea to drown, he was crowded into a tight room with at least a hundred other slaves, most completely naked, and forced to fight for food, with people defecating everywhere. None of this was uncommon during the days of slavery. Kids had to watch as their parents were beaten, killed, raped, etc. This gives the average Joe Shmoe a visual on how horrible slavery truly was, as apposed to reading it in a textbook. Spielberg depicts this scene at the bottom of the ship, crowded with men, women, and children struggling for dear life, being treated like animals, amazingly. For me that was one of the most moving scenes in the movie, and reminded me what slavery really was.Another great scene was early in the trial, the prosecuting lawyer stands up before the court, and says how inhumane the slaves were to slaughter the crew. This is completely and totally ironic because of the dehumanization of slaves and the cruel and unusual treatment they have to suffer. This shows the attitude people had towards slavery at the time. Overall I thought that Spielberg did an amazing job with this story, and it would have been a 9 or 10 out of 10 had it not been for some historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies