Hey folks, Harry here. This is the movie I've been dying to hear about. THE GREEN MILE. Over a year and a half ago I predicted this would win BEST PICTURE for 1999, based upon the script. Now we get to see how the first test screening has gone. It went very very well overall. The movie has a lot of fans in Scottsdale, Arizona... and them lucky folks have seen a print that none of us will ever see. Now before you launch into reading these two reviews let me set it up for ya here. I heard from a good amount of people. Just about all of them loved the movie and wrote a couple of lines about the movie. But... I like to run fuller opinions about the films. It should be noted that this is the first time the film has been screened, and it is highly probable that Darabont is nowhere near done working on this film. There is some nip and tucks to tweak before this film becomes the locked print. Something we'll be covering. There was no final score in place, and for folks that remember Frank's use of music in SHAWSHANK... well... it was fantastic. This is my highest anticipated film for the holiday season, and folks... The critical comments I've heard closely mirror the critical comments in TITANIC. Early on at that initial test screening the problems were with overall length and that some of the modern day bookendings just didn't really flow great. There are spoilers in the reviews below... so if you don't want to know... Run along and know that the movie is very very good (so far) and if you want to hear it all... by all means... continue...
My friends and I were the last three to get into the Scottsdale screening of "The Green Mile" Tuesday night. Felt like I'd won the lottery. I've read the book, but not in about a year, and am a big fan of King's work. However some subpar film adaptations had me a bit worried about this project.
First of all, it looked complete, except for a few temp tracks and no credits. Despite the usual pre-screening talk about unfinished color corrections and effects, the effects seemed complete. There were only a few fuzzy shots.
That covers the technical elements. The film was three hours long, and very faithful to the text. One subplot was removed, but the film didn't suffer because of it. The acting was also uniformly superb.
One element of King's writing which translated well to the screen, for the first time in awhile, was his comic timing. Within the same scene, I could laugh and be moved.
The only thing I could say I didn't much care for was the frame story, which didn't translate to film as well and felt a bit forced.
Anyway, when it comes out I'll be interested to see it again. I
Buffy
Alright, Harry here again. The above was the typical reaction I got. People really loving the film and performances... but having some problems with the bookending sequences of the film. It should be noted that this part of the film has been the toughest on Darabont. Whether or not to go with Hanks in make-up or an older actor. The make up was apparently fantastic in a couple of angles... but sometimes made Hanks look dead, or so I was told... So they went with an older actor... Something that when it works (TITANIC) it is fantastic... But the makeup can also be wonderful (ie EDWARD SCISSORHANDS with Ryder) Also the 3 hour running time is not the final running time of the movie. Below is Krumlee's report on this screening and he goes into far more detail...
Hi Harry!
Call me Krumlee. Love the site! I saw The Green Mile at a test screening in Scottsdale, Arizona last night. As I was signing the obligatory papers saying I won't leak anything to a website or any other news source, I immediately thought of your site and began taking mental notes.
I had not read the Stephen King version before attending the film, so I was in the dark about the story. I'm assuming if you have read the King version, you'll know all the plot points of the film, but I'll still try not to spoil it for anyone.
For those not in the know: it's the story Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks) and his years as the boss on the green mile (Death Row) in 1930s Louisiana. One of his inmates is John Coffey (Michael Duncan) a very large, black, simple-minded man in prison for the deaths of two little girls. It is discovered that Coffey has healing powers (and is most likely innocent of his crimes) and the guards have a moral dilemma on their hands when it gets closer and closer to an execution date.
Where to begin? Well, this movie could generate some Oscar gold. Not for Hanks (more on that later) and probably not for Best Picture, but for Michael Duncan and possibly for Doug Hutchison who plays the deliciously evil guard Percy Wetmore. Michael Duncan is absolutely amazing. This guy played nothing but bouncers until Armageddon. I doubt he studied at Juliard or spent years on Broadway honing his skills, which makes his acting in this film all the more impressive. And skills he has. He has a perfect Louisiana Cajun accent, cries in a lot of his scenes, and even moves his huge body with an uncanny grace. His joy upon being released from his cell (for a short time and for a specific reason) is palpable. You see this huge giant of a man, but you see a little boy. I really can't imagine anyone else in his role.
Doug Hutchison is so evil in this movie, you can't help but truly hate him. I was surprised there was nowhere to rate his performance on the report card they handed out at the end. Maybe because the audience hated him so much, although I thought his acting was incredibly impressive. I doubt they'd both be nominated because I think they'd be in the same category of supporting actor. I'm putting my money on Duncan. This film is going to change his life.
Tom Hanks won't be nominated for an Oscar for this role. And I don't think he was going for it. That's not to say I don't think he gave his all for the performance, I'm sure he did, but it was like watching Mark McGwire somewhere in the middle of the season versus the end of the season when he's trying to break all kind of records. Still a great show. Hanks does the Cajun accent well and he's believable in his part, especially when he's trying to pee with the razorblade pain of a urinary tract infection. (Yes, we get to see Tom Hanks pee about four times in this movie. And one of those times is really played up for laughs.) Hanks looked a little chubby, which I don't know if it was purposely done for this role or if he's just gotten a little chubby or if he was beefing up for his role in Cast Away in which he later gets super skinny.
There were a lot of laughs in this film. I was surprised that a movie with such a dark setting had so much humor. The humor was necessary, yes, but some films forget that the audience needs a laugh after seeing a guy's head burst into flames on the electric chair (because Percy purposely didn't wet the sponge that goes between the skullplate and the inmate's head.)
During one of the rehearsals for an upcoming execution, Harry Dean Stanton (playing a non-death-row inmate) is in the chair and they go through the motions. The guards ask him if he has any last requests. He starts going off about how he wants Mae West to sit on his face because he's such a horny SOB. All the guards bust up except Hanks. He gets pissed and tells everyone to shut up. You figure he's just being the boss and trying to maintain some sense of respect for what they're about to do. One of the other guards says, 'You have to admit it was pretty funny.' Hanks says, 'That's the problem. Do you know how hard it is to keep a funny thought like that out of your head when you're in church? You can't help but laugh. I don't want to be thinking about Mae West sitting on someone's face when we're about to execute someone. I'll start laughing.'
In another scene we hear Tom Hanks making love to his wife after his urinary tract infection is cured. The scene fades to black (as a bunch of them do in this film), when it fades up into the next scene, the audience was howling with laughter.
There are three electric-chair executions. The first one was pretty tame. The second one was the most horrific, when the character of Percy purposely leaves the sponge dry on the inmate's head. The inmate screams and bursts into flames. The audience of the execution (in the movie) flees from the terrible sight and disgusting smell. People keep yelling at Hanks to stop the execution (which has gone on for a few minutes), but he keeps saying, "He's still alive! You want me to stop it while he's still alive?" He's not being cruel. It would be cruel to stop it. Finally, the guy dies, his flesh burned off his face. I went with my fiancee and there was another woman sitting next to her. They both said afterwards that they almost walked out. For me, it wasn't that bad. And I don't normally like gory movies. The third execution isn't really seen onscreen.
I was tense for a lot of the movie, mostly due to a scene in which Hanks visits John Coffey's defense attorney played by Gary Sinise! There's Forrest and Lt. Dan (or Jim Lovell and Ken Mattingly) speaking in Cajun accents to each other, but the scene is not meant for laughs (and rightly so wasn't funny). Hanks asks Sinise if he thinks Coffey is guilty. Sinise makes a racist comment about how "'niggas' are like dogs. You treat them well, feed them, they do good work for you, they're loyal and then..." he calls his son over. He shows Hanks his son's right eye, which has been clawed or bitten out by the dog. He says, "For no reason, the dog decided to attack my boy. I gave it no second thought when I grabbed him by the collar and shot him in the head." From then on, even though you like Coffey and believe he's good deep-down, you're still never 100 percent sure he's innocent and you're expecting him to snap.
The movie is book-ended with footage of Paul Edgecomb as an old man in a nursing home. The old Paul is played by a different actor, not Tom Hanks in makeup. I had a problem with it: I didn't believe the old man could have ever looked like Hanks. He spoke with a different cadence, used his facial expressions differently, everything. And if you've read the King version, I suppose you know there's a little bit of a twist ending. It didn't really work for me. Without giving it away completely, I can say the old Paul Edgecomb is supposed to be over 100 years old. Not convincing. And it seemed like a shortcut by the filmmakers and King (if it is indeed in his version) to put an ending on the thing.
The strengths of this film are its acting, its cinematography (you don't get bored looking at the same cells over and over) and its humor. The weaknesses are a so-so ending and it's long (3 hours.)
