I am a fan of historically-based dramas. I enjoy the genre, and Amistad did not disappoint me. It is well shot, the look and feel is quite right, and it pulls no punches in its cruel depiction of the slave trade.

Amistad shows this terrible business better than any other film I've ever seen. It portrays all the horrors: the capture of Africans at the hands of rival tribes; the abusive loading of slaves onto ships; the deplorable conditions; the murder and violence conducted in the name of economics; the hopelessness of the slaves' position; the crass indifference felt by the traders, auctioneers, owners and passers-by. Spielberg pulled few punches, only darkening the worst scenes to keep it from degenerating into some Rob Zombie horror film (thereby retaining an audience).

The film also does a good job with the portrayal of the heroes, the slaves who fought for their freedom aboard the schooner Amistad. You can really feel their anger, confusion, and frustration as the events unfold. They are a people pushed from one holding cell to another, subjected to trials and procedures incomprehensible to them (both for language barriers and for the inanity of it all).

One part the filmmakers did a fine job with was the communication barrier. Some of the best scenes involve the ignorance of the Connecticut gentry as they stare blankly at the Africans as they speak their tongue; incompetent linguists stating the obvious and disguising it as "science"; lawyers trying to figure out the slaves' stories; and finally the leader of the escaped Africans declaring "Give us free!" That part really stood out for me.

There are a few criticisms I can lay upon this film, however. Firstly, they didn't do that great of a job in portraying courtroom drama. Filmed in '97, this film predates some great television courtroom dramas (Law & Order, The Practice). Much of what happens in court is either boring or confusing or pointless. I think if Spielberg was able to study some of these great courtroom dramas, these parts would have had a lot more "punch". Having said that, Anthony Hopkins did some fine delivery as John Quincy Adams...

Another element I disliked was the clumsy interweaving of the "Big Slavery Picture" elements. There's a scene at President Van Buren's state dinner where Senator John Calhoun of South Carolina shows up and makes threats of civil war. The scene was really just thrown in there to try to put in some jeopardy, but the film was doing just fine without that. The intrigue between Van Buren and the Spanish girl queen was really nice, however (a very young Anna Paquin!).

The last element that didn't work too well was Morgan Freeman's character, Joadson. He really comes across as little more than an extra. He's such a fine actor, the script doesn't do him justice.

For the most part, this is a fine, and important, film. It just misses a few marks that would have made it a great film.

8 out of 10.

Another reviewer on this board made a good point; history classes in the 1950's and 60's were quite devoid of true life cases that helped shape American politics and policies prior to the Civil War. In my case, it was as if not much occurred between the presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, with names like Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk and Fillmore relegated to the dustbin of history. As we learn in the "Amistad" story occurring in 1839, the country was already bracing for a conflict over the slavery question. Senator John C. Calhoun (Arliss Howard) was flexing his oratory muscles for debate on the issue, and the scene where he challenges President Van Buren (Nigel Hawthorne) at the dinner table is particularly compelling.

The performances as well as the film itself appear award worthy, and the movie seems to have been overlooked somewhat in that regard. In a year when "Titanic" was destined to overwhelm in terms of sheer spectacle, I find it hard to imagine that a title like "The Full Monty" was deemed more worthy than this. I suppose that shouldn't really surprise followers of the Academy Awards, as recognition doesn't always follow quality.

Speaking of performances, this is one film where the actors dissolve into their characters better than most across the board. Matthew McConaughey acquits himself well as lawyer Baldwin, and Djimon Hounsou is riveting as the slave Cinque. I would have liked to see Morgan Freeman delivering more power to the story, but within the parameters he was given, he's solid as ever. The tour de force portrayal of course is given by Anthony Hopkins as former president John Quincy Adams, his speech before the Supreme Court is mesmerizing to help turn the tide for the slaves on trial. Brilliantly done.

It was also interesting to note how newspapers of the era were as editorially slanted as those of the present day. When we see the first pass of the New Haven newspaper regarding the slaves of the Amistad, the caption reads 'Massacre At Sea'. Quite different from the way sympathetic readers would eventually get to see it - 'Freedom Fight At Sea'. In all aspects, the film brilliantly conveys the innate resonance and power of language.

It's 1839, and the slaves imprisoned on the Amistad revolt against its crew. The slaves take over, but the two remaining crew tricked the Africans and sail the ship to America. There the Africans are imprisoned with various interests coming to fight over the slaves in court.

The slaves are led by Cinque (Djimon Hounsou). Djimon does a powerful job. At first, the abolitionist led by Tappan (Stellan Skarsgård) are more interested in martyrdom than the slaves' freedom. A small property lawyer Roger Sherman Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey) takes over the case. It's McConaughey's performance that provide the perfect partnership to Hounsou. The best emotional scene is when the slave tries to interpret the story of Jesus from illustrations in the bible.

Eventually the case goes to the Supreme Court where former President John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins) takes over the defense. That's where the movie struggles. Adams is reluctant at first, long winded, and superior. He does not form a compelling character. He talks like a politician. The story climax earlier then sidelines both McConaughey and Hounsou in favor of Hopkins.