It's not a great film just because they made you cry.

Rating: 1/10 (24 December 1999)

Nice packaging, but too much of it. Typical Stephen King story, well-told but not much weight. Full of stereotypes and predictable good guy/bad guy stuff. I loved Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia" -- that was a challenging role and he performed it magnificently, with depth of character, pathos but no sentimentality. Ever since, though, he's taken on one interchangeable role after another. Enough, already. The sad thing is that I truly CAN believe that almost 50% of the IMDB voters so far rate this very average and over-long film as a "10". Excellence apparently is a function of the volume of tears they make you shed. I say, "make you", because I think this film fully intends to manipulate emotions -- the emotions of white, comfortable, middle class Americans who enjoy cheering for the oppressed, simple but pure of heart big black man who is abused by Southern crackers. Aren't we glad we're not like that? Yet again, a black man gets to be a parody, not a person. We white folks don't have to be afraid just because he's big and black, see, 'cause he's really a Jesus figure ("J. C.", his initials). What a relief. Still wouldn't want him living next door, though, would we? All in all, good actors playing two dimensional roles. In the real world, as Kosovo and Northern Ireland and Rwanda show, we're all just a hair-trigger away from being cruel. Let's have more films that recognize that there are few good guys and bad guys, just a whole lot of us doing the best we can and trying to do it right. That's too complicated for most Hollywood types, and doesn't usually make much money. "Dead Man Walking" was ten times the film that this one was, and even it wasn't a "10".
"Besieged" and "The Informer" were so much better than "The Green Mile" that to mention Oscars without naming those films is ridiculous.
And that's all this middle-aged long-time and ardent lover of films has to say.