In all, there are no wasted characters in this film. Everybody has some connection with everyone else here, even in the slightest involvement in a crowd of jailed inmates egging on the nocturnal whimperings of newly-jailed convicts to the lunch table dialogues and field hand work. The exchanged looks, downcast eyes, or brutal and grim determination of the guards all make this film seem real.
For instance, in Brooks the Librarian, each convict sees their potential fate. A man has been put under lock and key for so long that he's lost all touch with the world outside... or the world outside has lost all need for him. He only has meaning within the prison, and as a final punishment he's stripped of that respect and meaning and tossed out as a used-up old husk into the world.
Why this movie is so powerful
Besides the wonderful acting, rich characters, and powerful dialogue, this movie's got some of the most impressive sets and scenery I've seen for a prison movie. The lighting has just the right shadows and shafts of light, the cell blocks are grungy and grimy and oppressive to the right degree, and the people have taken on a cast like the walls and rocky fields that contain them.
This movie may be centered around prison conditions in the forties, fifties, and sixties, but the lesson still holds true for today's cells and wards - how is it that a prison is supposed to reform what is considered a dangerous criminal? What does it mean to be reformed? Is it enough just to put certain kinds of people away and just wait for them to grind each other up to the point where they lose all hope and all spirit... is it the hope and spirit in these people that is the part that is considered dangerous?
Here's the big question the movie asks: Is there such a thing as a human spirit? From Hadley's perspective, the human spirit is defined by that thing he sets out to break in each and every prisoner under his charge. By Andy Dufresne's definition, it's that thing that keeps him going to matter how long it takes him to get himself free and give every one of his tormentors their comeuppance. It is that thing which cannot be broken.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Excellent review - hardly twisted at all, and I love the line, "but it was on."
2 - Kevin Murphy
Great review, great movie.
I thought the movie was really about the relationship of Red and Andy, and the titular redemption was Red's -- Red didn't suffer Brook's fate because of Andy.
I put the DVD on my Christmas list last year and didn't get it (I did get Groundhog Day), so I'm happy TNT still shows it.
3 - Stephen S. Power
I would argue that another movie which was better than its source text was JURASSIC PARK.
True, the book was a huge bestseller and I, for one, couldn't put it down. But the movie improved it in two crucial ways.
One, the character of the park owner. In the book he was portrayed as your standard evil corporate head who must, according to the morality of popular entertainment, die in the end. And he does in a way so contrived it's ridiculous. But in the movie the character is more complex. He has corporate ambitions, but a good heart, the latter embodied in his grandchildren. Thus he's brought into conflict by the events of the movie, which is shown beautifully by him eating ice cream alone at night while the dinos rage around JP HQ. He doesn't die in the end because he comes to a good decision in the movie. He's portrayed as redeemable and he redeems himself, whereas the character in the book is beyond redemption.
Two, the narrative. In the book there's a long, pointless digression (nearly 100 pages as I remember) through a pterodactyl "cage." This served only to show off Crichton's research and to stuff more dinos into the book. In the movie, the whole section is removed, tightening up the action in JP. Nicely the section is reworked for the second sequel, where it makes some narrative sense. It can't save that movie, though from being lame in comparison.
4 - Stephen S. Power
I would argue that another movie which was better than its source text was JURASSIC PARK.
True, the book was a huge bestseller and I, for one, couldn't put it down. But the movie improved it in two crucial ways.
One, the character of the park owner. In the book he was portrayed as your standard evil corporate head who must, according to the morality of popular entertainment, die in the end. And he does in a way so contrived it's ridiculous. But in the movie the character is more complex. He has corporate ambitions, but a good heart, the latter embodied in his grandchildren. Thus he's brought into conflict by the events of the movie, which is shown beautifully by him eating ice cream alone at night while the dinos rage around JP HQ. He doesn't die in the end because he comes to a good decision in the movie. He's portrayed as redeemable and he redeems himself, whereas the character in the book is beyond redemption.
Two, the narrative. In the book there's a long, pointless digression (nearly 100 pages as I remember) through a pterodactyl "cage." This served only to show off Crichton's research and to stuff more dinos into the book. In the movie, the whole section is removed, tightening up the action in JP. Nicely the section is reworked for the second sequel, where it makes some narrative sense. It can't save that movie, though from being lame in comparison.
5 - your mom
whos your daddy and what does he do?
6 - your sister
whos your mummy and what does she do?
7 - your dad
whos your sister and what does she do?
8 - your brother
whos your brother and what does he do?
9 - cornell wallace
i played laundry leonard in the film and it was the most amazing experience.frank nicki and morgan were terrific.please write in support of a sequel