worthy, but not what it could have been

Rating: Null/10 (31 January 1999)

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.