Am I Missing Something?

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

One of the classic theatrical dramas is from a modern playwright whose Broadway credits are the types of stories that creates legendary theatrical experiences. I've seen two stage versions of this brilliant play (only just over 60 years old) and every ounce deserving of classic status.This is a story of the lusts that tear young women apart, so in love that they turn to the dark arts to get the man they want. Rumors of witchcraft spreads through the small village (where a ton of locales seem to congregate), and events which they do not understand they blame on the powers of the darkness and set out to destroy anyone and everyone who may have helped raise the level of evil. From gossip comes paranoia. From that comes injustice, and from that comes unjust executions while the young girls, as lead by the determined Winona Ryder, desperately try to keep each of the names clean, even at the expense of somebody else's life.The seemingly quiet but vindictive Ryder has intense feelings for farmer Daniel Day Lewis, secretly flattered but determined to remain faithful to his wife (Joan Allen). Easy to blame is African servant girl Charlaine Woodard (treated with disrespect even though she's presumably a paid servant, not a slave. The tension explodes thanks to the malicious flapping of the tongue, even striking down Rebecca Nurse (Elizabeth Lawrence) whose reputation for compassion and good deeds is known way past the town. By the time this occurs, the girls are all twittering like attacking birds.With a modern retelling but every inch in the era of the real Salem witch trials (1692), it is a reminder that early colonial America suffered from many of the same hypocrisies that caused the Europeans to flea to a new world in the first place. This is outstanding in practically every detail, an issue that still rings true today.

The Crucible is a drama and a 1997 film adaptation of Arthur Miller's play of the same name. The play (and the movie, by extension) is set during the Salem Witch Trials and is an allegory for the Red Scare. Being a victim of the Red Scare, it's natural that this story was personal to Miller, and it really shows in how polished and well written the play and movie are. And before you misconceive anything, the movie was actually still written by Arther Miller and he basically adapts it very accurately. The only differences tend to be new scenes added in to update the play and improve it.The first thing I have to talk about is the acting. Everyone here does a fantastic job, especially Winona Ryder, who really owns her character. When they are supposed to be deceptive, they feel deceptive. When they are supposed to feel melancholy, they do. When they are supposed to be happy, they are. This cast really runs the gamut of amazing performances, and as I said, I absolutely love Winona Ryder in this.The characters are all incredibly interesting or likable. Daniel Day-Lewis's John Proctor (arguably the main character) isn't some white bread dude. He's made his mistakes, he's failed, but at the end of the day you can still tell he's a good guy and understand his actions, even if you don't always agree with them. Outside of Abigail Williams and maybe John Proctor, I also adored Giles Cory for his personality and stubbornest. The dialogue fits the time period, making it feel authentic. And it's still wittily written and can get a few laughs here and there.As far as the costumes and sets go, they are wonderfully well done. It all fits the time and looks authentic. It still looks great regardless too, and there is no CGI or any bullshit to ruin the look of this film. The atmosphere is incredibly dark and tense, though I wouldn't say on Deathtrap levels of intensity.The plot is incredibly well written and makes sense from beginning to end. The characters never feel like they're changing just because the plot needs them to. Instead, they evolve and develop rather naturally, and it's really believable when you see some guy who was naive at the beginning to understanding exactly what's going on at the end. I also have to give massive props to the romance in the film. It's not often that I ever praise romance in a film, as I inherently tend to dislike the element as it's not often particularly well done, but the Crucible goes the whole nine yards. While couples like the Proctors undeniably have chemistry between one another, they still fight and they still have to deal with other problems with their relationship the whole way through, and the fact that it never feels forced deserves massive kudos.The musical score isn't amazing, but it's definitely fine. It's your standard, sweeping orchestral soundtrack with nothing really new to spice things up. Surely serviceable, but it's also surely worth mentioning.It's not often that I bother to mention cinematography, but this film is beautifully shot.The Crucible is undeniably one of the greatest drama films I've seen-- it's up there with V for Vendetta, it's that good. I truly have no real criticisms to level at the Crucible. It's just an amazing ride and kept me interested the entire two hours. If you see it around sometime and you like some good drama in your films, definitely check it out. The Crucible gets a 10/10.

It's a message movie and it resonates. Willful belief in absurdities plagues the town of Salem, Massachusetts, in 1693. A handful of young girls, caught dancing in the woods, begin to claim they were possessed by the devil and they make accusations of witchcraft. It leads to more than twenty hangings and other deaths by execution.When Arthur Miller wrote the play in the early 50s, it was his way of speaking out against the communist witch hunts of his time. And indeed the trajectories of the movements bear similarities. It starts with someone craving attention, first blaming someone who is not only harmless but marginalized -- insane people, the senile, the very poor. Then it leads to overreach. The dozen hysterical girls of Salem begin to claim that spirits of a higher caliber have haunted them at night -- the spirit of the preacher's wife, for instance, which goes a little too far.Historically, Senator Joseph McCarthy began with real spies and real suspects but his claims grew more and more outrageous until he inspired the John Birch Society to consider President Eisenhower nothing more than "a communist dupe." And then McCarthy accused the US Army and General George Marshall of harboring communists. It was all a bit much for the less than insane among our own citizenry.Now, of course, we can all cluck out tongues at such fantasies -- while presidential candidates now running would build an unscalable wall across the Mexican border and hunger for a wall across the Canadian border as well. The president is a gypsy changeling from Africa. Our strongest leaders turn into carnival barkers and we cheer them. That's not to mention worms in McDonalds' hamburgers. I guess -- I hope -- the less insane among us will reintroduce us to reality some day.In any case, that's the end of my spiel. I will now stand down from the speaker's platform if someone will give me a hand. Thank you, but you don't have to be so eager.The acting and the milieu are finely done. Winona Ryder does very well as the lustful young traitor and she handles the stylized speech all right. It's only when she's excited that a bit of Wynona, Ohio, peeps through Abigail Williams.In 1693, these were all Brits, not Americans. So Paul Scofield can enter the movie as a judge who wants to be fair but is himself possessed by his interpretation of the Bible and his loyalty to what he perceives God to be. Those baggy eyes and that pebbled chin are just villainous enough.Joan Allen as an innocent victim is a fine actress but she doesn't have much to do except look made of stone. Make up has turned her face sere and gray. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the better actors of his generation but he's stuck in the part of the audience proxy -- the man of principle, guilty only of having boned Winona Ryder in the barn, who sees through the fraudulence of the accusations, the trial, and the ensuing executions. He sees the foolishness. We can see it too, even if we can't see our own.There's a much less lavishly budgeted story of the witch trials around too, "Three Sovereigns For Sister Sarah," I think. It's well worth catching.

Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" is a very important allegory that is as relevant today in the post-9/11 world as it was in the 50's during the height of McCarthyism. Yet despite the relevance of the play, it's hard not to view the movie as a letdown. It has Daniel Day-Lewis (perhaps the greatest active actor) in the lead role and the film's voice of reason John Proctor, but even he can seem to make his character wholly believable. It seems as though nearly every character in the film inhabit roles of symbols, rather than real people. The characters act only to underscore Miller's political commentary rather than to deliver a nuanced study of humanity. Characters so quickly devolve into a state of hysteria that it's nearly impossible to believe. Miller and the film's point with this are to show how mob mentality and the basic human instinct to find a culprit in inexplicable circumstances lead people to behave irrationally. But these scenes are completely inorganic and only serve the film's themes, which badly harms its credibility. Despite the seriousness and intended importance of this film, it's hard to take a film seriously that features a dead-pan Daniel Day- Lewis surrounded by dozens of screaming, hysterical individuals. Unfortunately, this film will likely inspire more unintended giggles than deep conversations about human nature.