marno@ihuxm.UUCP (Marilyn Ashley) (02/07/85)
Has anyone seen a preview of Harrison Ford's new movie "Witness"?
render@uiucdcsb.UUCP (02/11/85)
[]
Just saw witness friday night, and I have to say that I enjoyed it very much.
It was directed by Peter Weir, who also did Gallipoli and Year of Living
Dangerously (I think), and stars Harrison Ford.
** M I N I - S P O I L E R **
The Plot: Harrison Ford is Philadelphia homicide detective
John Book, who must investigate the murder of an
undercover police officer. The sole witness to
the killing is a young Amish boy, Samuel, who, with
his mother Rachel, is on his way to visit relatives
in Baltimore (the murder occurs in the restroom of the
Philadelphia train station). Circumstances force Ford
to flee with the boy and his mother back to their home
in rural Pennsylvania, where they try to escape the
killers.
Review: a very enjoyable film. The film moves steadily and has
a very involving relationship developing between Ford and
Rachel, the boy's mother. Ford lends a lot of presence to
his character, and the female lead (sorry, I can't
remember her name) is also fine. The cinematography and
general atmosphere are beautiful (as expected from Weir),
although at times it seemed as if there were too much time
spent on setting the mood and not enough on dialogue. If
you are expecting a Dirty Harry film, it's not, and if you
expecting an Indiana Jones movie, it's not. It is an intri-
guing look at the growing involvement between two very
different people under very harrowing circumstances. I would
give it three stars. ***
Hal Render
University of Illinois
{pur-ee, ihnp4} ! uiucdcs ! render
render@uiuc.csnet render@uiuc.arpajab@uokvax.UUCP (02/11/85)
/***** uokvax:net.movies / ihuxm!marno / 1:59 pm Feb 7, 1985 */ Has anyone seen a preview of Harrison Ford's new movie "Witness"? /* ---------- */ Yes. It's about a cop who's murdered in a train station and the little Amish (similar to Mennonite) boy who sees it. Harrison Ford is the policeman who is investigating, and when the kid identifies one of the murderers to Ford, word gets around. The murderer (I'm deliberately avoiding saying more) then goes after Ford, who then retreats to the Amish settlement with the boy and his mother. This is a well-made film that is drawing quite a crowd at the cinema where I saw it; I recommend it highly. Good cop thriller. Jeff Bowles Lisle, IL
richl@daemon.UUCP (Rick Lindsley) (02/11/85)
I've seen it, and would have to rate it a 3 1/2 of 5 stars. The plot is good and the tension and suspense created by the main premise is well balanced by occasional glimpses of the Amish way of life as Ford tries to blend in. I'd have to say that this movie should cause viewers to forget that Harrison Ford is Hans Solo and Indiana Jones (which are, if you think of it, somewhat shallow roles), and think of him as an actor. My only objection to it is that it appears they stuck excess violence and nudity into the movie only to give it its R rating. I think the film could have stood by itself quite nicely without a couple of scenes, but those scenes are most certainly what made it an R rather than a PG13 or even a PG. The violent scenes are brief but not to be viewed by the squeamish. I guess it is a commentary on what movie-makers perceive their audience wants. Rick Lindsley
pwhite@spock.UUCP (Patricia White '88) (02/18/85)
Witness is a good demonstration of the conflict between the old and
the new worlds. It shows Harrison Ford caught between these worlds and
able to make the decision about which one he can live in. The homicide
case that he was investigating, however, keeps haunting him.
Ford plays a Philadelphia detective that is investigating the
murder of a police officer. A Quaker boy is the sole witness and knows
who the killer is. When Ford discovers who the killer is he must
protect both the boy and himself. He goes to the boys town and stays
there to hide from the Philadelphia police, as they are after him for
discovering corruption within the narcotics bureau. Ford fits in well
until the young boy discovers Ford's gun. The boys family re-realizes
that this man is an outsider. Ford decides to leave after he finds out
his partner was killed "in the line of duty". Then comes the showdown.
I won't say the ending 'cause it's a bang.
This is a good movie for Harrison Ford. You find out he can act in
roles other than a cocky adventurer out for a good time. Out of a scale
of 1 to 10, I'd say that this is an even 8.
Patricia White, the Choate School.leeper@ahutb.UUCP (04/05/85)
Comments on WITNESS
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
This is not a review; it is only some comment on WITNESS. While I
liked the film mildly overall, most of the positive things I would say about
the film have been said before. What I do not remember anyone mentioning
about the film is its essential hypocrisy. The basic story here is how a
big city policeman becomes a part of an Amish community and learns to see
them as more than just people in funny hats.
This story has been slapped together with the umpteenth re-telling of
the police corruption plot. You know, "Policeman uncovers corruption in
department; tells other policeman he trusts; trust is betrayed; crusading
policeman becomes fugitive from his own buddies." You saw it in BLUE
THUNDER, in SHARKEY'S MACHINE, in BULLITT. It's been done to death. The
two seem brought together so that a film that shows the gentle ways of a
modest people will have sufficient violence and nudity to attract an
audience.
I find it easy to believe that Australian aborigines would actually
approve of a previous Peter Weir film, THE LAST WAVE. Weir seemed to have
some sympathy for the aborigine in that film. There is little such sympathy
evident in this film. I think an Amish person told about this film would be
revolted by the violence. The scenes of an Amish woman bare-breasted,
trying to seduce Harrison Ford seem very out of keeping with the woman's
character.
So while I give this film a modest thumbs up, I cannot help but be
disappointed at how this film panders to a thrill-loving audience.
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!ahuta!ahutb!leeperpresley@mhuxj.UUCP (Joe Presley) (04/07/85)
> revolted by the violence. The scenes of an Amish woman bare-breasted, > trying to seduce Harrison Ford seem very out of keeping with the woman's > character. That's probably why the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom is trying to organize a boycott of the film. -- Joe Presley (ihnp4!mhuxm!presley)
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (04/08/85)
> What I do not remember anyone mentioning > about the film is its essential hypocrisy. I don't think the violence was hypocrisy. I saw it as an important part of the story; the contrast between the violent life and the Amish life. But I too am bothered by the inclusion of the "tit shot". This had nothing to do with the story and the behavior was totally out of character for both Rachel and John. It was included strictly to get the coveted "R" rating. How on earth did classic movies ever get made during the Golden Age of Hollywood, when the Hayes Office wouldn't allow tit shots? I mean, if Casablanca was being made today, it'd get a G rating and nobody'd take it seriously. I think it's time that the ratings people allowed a movie producer to change the assigned rating toward the more restrictive ratings. Then we can have "PG-13" and "R" movies without having to mangle the story. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (04/10/85)
> But I too am bothered by the inclusion of the "tit shot". This had > nothing to do with the story and the behavior was totally out of > character for both Rachel and John. It was included strictly to get > the coveted "R" rating. > Odd; my reaction to the lady's nakedness was completely different than either of yours. It seemed to me that Rachel was doing (for her) a completely ordinary thing: she was taking a bath. The naughty person was John Book, who was indulging in a little voyeurism. That long look she gave him after seeing him I interpreted as disbelief mixed with passion. IN any case, Witness gets full points for me for simply *NOT* having the "High Noon" approach to pacifism: it's all very well, but when the chips are down, a woman's gotta kill somebody to prove she's a man. In killing the three evil policemen, Book put himself irrevocably outside Amish society, and Weir didn't pussyfoot around that fact. The exploitation (if such it was) of Rachel's nudity was *nothing* compared to the exploitation he could have made of the child and the gun. That would have been true violence to Amish traditions. Betsy Perry -- Elizabeth Hanes Perry UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy CSNET: betsy@dartmouth ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay
malcolm@utcsri.UUCP (Malcolm MacPhail) (04/11/85)
> What I do not remember anyone mentioning > about the film is its essential hypocrisy. > I don't see hypocrisy, but instead think that the movie was intended to be a parable of two different cultures. Sure there were some cliches(as always), but (as in any good parable) there were some strange conclusions introduced. We get to see a gentle and good side of our world (why do you think the "loving family of the bad cop" scene was in the film?), and a darker side of the goodness of the Amish (i.e. the excommunication of those who don't follow the strict code of the Amish). What about the scene where Harrison Ford beats up on the town punks? I wanted him to do it, but can something so right be wrong too? It certainly blew his cover, if not already blown. (Don't start a vigilante/taking matters into your own hand discussion) As to the bathing scene, I think that was just a "nudity to bring in a few more movie patrons" scene and it is totally out of character. Vignette: My sister-in-law saw the film in Waterloo (where there is a good size Mennonite population around) and when Rachel (the Amish woman) saw John (Harrison Ford) watching her bathe, there was a loud "Oh no" from a member of the audience. The rest of the theatre chuckled quietly. End vignette Overall I must say that I enjoyed the film, but as far as I'm concerned anything that Peter Weir does is excellent (or at least very good). There is always somebody who can find faults in something, and sure it was the same old basic story, but I feel it rates up among the best films in a long time. Malcolm MacPhail
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (04/13/85)
> But I too am bothered by the inclusion of the "tit shot". This > ... was included strictly to get the coveted "R" rating. > Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug If this is true, then I'm pretty disgusted. Here's a movie with three people getting killed (one cut throat, one suffocated in a grain silo (at least that one's original) and one shot right through the body with blood on the wall behind him), along with a couple of beatings and a family being held hostage by a desperate drug dealer. And this would get rated PG? While we'd keep kids out of the theater in case they saw--(wait for it)-- a pair of breasts? Just what are our priorities?
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/16/85)
In article <2368@mit-hermes.ARPA> jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) writes: >Here's a movie with three people getting killed ... one suffocated in a >grain silo (at least that one's original) Hardly to the point of the original article, but, from the Department of Universal Plagiarism, getting suffocated in a grain silo isn't original, except by comparison. D.W. Griffith featured such a death in a short film made in 1914 (I think), called "A Corner in Wheat". A greedy capitalist corners the wheat market, causing many poor people to suffer. Ironically, he falls into one of his grain silos and is buried and suffocated by the wheat he has purchased. Griffith stole the idea from Norris' novel "The Octopus", which features a similar incident. It's entirely possible that Weir and his screenwriters never heard of either of these works, of course. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher