SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

makotoshintaro I started watching the movie without even knowing that it was based on Arthur Miller's 1953 play, but it all seemed quite theatrical, in a good sense. Although Miller changed some facts in his play, all the people who are portrayed in it were real accusers, "witches", reverends and judges during the Salem Witch Trials... Sometimes I have to say that I found the direction was quite...boring in a way, but all in all it was a movie to remember. I really do wonder though why The Crucible is a movie that Daniel Day- Lewis and Winona Ryder is not remembered for since they both were captivating.

andrewgill8675309 The Crucible is hard to adapt to the big screen. It's a long script, and has to be handled in a very particular way or risks being laughable. This production wasn't laughable, but what it was was middle-of-the-road in many aspects. The acting is pitch perfect in some scenes, mainly those representing Act 3 and 4, where the tension is high. However, at lower tensions various actors come across as somewhat bored (such as Joan Allen as Elizabeth Proctor, whos relationship with Proctor initially showed like a school play on screen, with very little chemistry) however this was picked up well by the end. Daniel Day Lewis wasn't perfect as the character. He displayed great care towards Abigail and virtually none for Elizabeth in their first scene together, which makes it look like Proctor wants Abigail more, the exact opposite of the play's intention. Various lines were delivered wrong, and various character interpretations felt contrived (Mary Warren does not start crying hysterically instantly when she sees Proctor, read the play Karron Graves.) but overall, by the end the acting feels balanced enough to be... just below good.The use of lighting, sound, and set was far too naturalistic for my taste. They could have really built up the tension with creative imagery, editing, some good score, a bit more style that would give the representation of Salem more substance. It all feels very normal, which takes away from the theme of hysteria that is supposed to have taken over the whole town. I'm not saying they needed a CGI extravaganza or a Zack Snyder "Sucker Punch" style movie (although the latter would be really interesting, actually) but a bit more flair was necessary. In my opinion, anyway.Finally, the addition of scenes: Again, very mixed in results. The scene in the woods? Well done, well shot, creates a good atmosphere and actually adds to Abigail's character early on. The end scene with the Lord's prayer? Really solid, interesting, poignant, and historically accurate to one person actually hung in Salem. The scene where Proctor confronts Abigail in the woods? No. That showed a complete lack of understanding of the text. Elizabeth being arrested in the play was a result of Proctor being selfish and NOT putting what was right over his desire to keep a good name and not to hurt Abigail despite knowing what she did was wrong, and this scene missed the mark so hard it wasn't even funny, it kind of made me cringe and say "No! You were going so well!"Like I said, it's moderate. The acting's okay, but not great (apart from Winona Ryder as Abigail. She, in my opinion, was perfect) the technical aspects are accurate, but very uninteresting, and the addition of scenes sometimes misses the mark. Was it as bad as some adaptations of great plays? No. But that doesn't mean it deserves more praise than it gets. The movie was fine, but the play was brilliant, and that's what stings the most about this movie.

James Hitchcock The Salem witch trials of 1692 have always gripped the American imagination, possibly precisely because they are something so un-American. America prides itself on being the "New World", modern, democratic and rational, yet the witch trials, and the superstitious, intolerant and authoritarian attitudes which produced them, seem very much of the Old World. Indeed, in some respects Americans of this period were more old-fashioned than the Mother Country. The last English witch trials had taken place ten years earlier, and by the 1690s belief in witchcraft was in decline. Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible" takes the witch-trials for its subject, but was also written as a critique of McCarthyism. Miller succeeded in his intention to such an extent that it is today difficult for any historian to write about the proceedings of the House Un- American Activities Committee without using the phrase "witch hunt", but whether this has done the play's long-term reputation any good is another matter. McCarthyism may have been a burning issue in the fifties, but today, at least to anyone under the age of eighty, the HUAC seems nearly as remote in time as the witch trials themselves. Moreover, the parallels that Miller draws between Salem and McCarthyism are not, in my opinion, persuasive. And yet I nevertheless regard this as one of the greatest tragedies written in English in the twentieth century. It has taken on a life of its own, independent of the political concerns that prompted it, and become a timeless work which still speaks to us today, not as a satire on a long-dead politician, but as a play about injustice and the struggle against it. Miller's hero, John Proctor, is a classic flawed tragic hero, a man who becomes involved in tragedy because of his human frailties. Proctor, a prosperous farmer, has been unfaithful to his wife Elizabeth with their maidservant, Abigail Williams, but has repented of his adulterous affair and, at his wife's request, dismissed Abigail from his service. These events come back to haunt him. Abigail is the leading figure in a group of girls and young women who begin to accuse their neighbours of witchcraft and who, in the prevailing climate of superstitious Puritanism, are readily believed by the authorities. Abigail, still obsessively in love with Proctor and consumed with hatred for his wife, accuses Elizabeth Proctor, who is arrested. Proctor's attempt to prove his wife's innocence backfires, and he is himself accused and sentenced to death. Told that his life will be spared if he confesses, he faces the dilemma of either saving his life by falsely confessing to a crime, or continuing to maintain his innocence, which means that he will be hanged. A French film, "Les Sorcieres de Salem", was based upon Miller's play in the fifties, but he had to wait another four decades before Hollywood plucked up the courage to follow suit. Miller himself wrote the screenplay, and Proctor is played by his son-in-law Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is one of the most reliable screen actors in the world today; I have never seen him give a bad performance, and seldom one which is less than compelling. He is also a versatile actor who has created a gallery of memorable characters all quite different from one another, unlike some actors who play essentially the same character in every film they make. Although he is British and Irish by descent, many of his best-known characters, from Hawkeye in "The Last of the Mohicans" to President Lincoln, have been American, and Proctor is another. Day-Lewis makes him both proud and sensuous, but a man of integrity who will fight to retain that integrity, even at the cost of his life, in a world gone mad.The modern play closest in theme to "The Crucible" is, in my view, Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons", also inspired by real historical events and with a hero who would rather forfeit his life than tell a lie. It is therefore appropriate that Paul Scofield, who famously played Thomas More in the stage and screen versions of "A Man for All Seasons", should also star in "The Crucible". Here he also plays a lawyer named Thomas, but a villain rather than the hero. Judge Thomas Danforth, Proctor's nemesis and the man tasked with investigating the allegations of witchcraft, is a cold, precise, bloodless figure, the sort of lawyer who is less concerned to see justice done than to see that if injustice is done it is done according to the strict letter of the law. A third fine performance comes from Winona Ryder as the spiteful, hysterical and vindictive Abigail, reminding us of just what a fine young actress she could be at her best, even if in recent years her emotionally troubled private life has received more attention than her acting. There are also good contributions from Elizabeth Lawrence as Rebecca Nurse, an old woman who maintains her dignity despite the absurd charges that are brought against her, and Rob Campbell as John Hale, a clergyman who initially supports the witch-hunt but who has enough integrity to change his mind to when he realises that the campaign has got out of hand and become an opportunity to settle old scores. The film was directed by Nicholas Hytner, also responsible for another successful historical drama of the mid-nineties, "The Madness of King George". "The Crucible" is not, however, made in the lavish "heritage cinema" style. In keeping with the Puritan aesthetic of the early Salem settlers and with the dark events which constitute its subject-matter, the look of the film is restrained and sombre. Hytner has produced a fitting adaptation of this great play. 8/10

vincentlynch-moonoi In the reading the reviews and comments here, I find it unfortunate that some of our reviewers seem to think that brilliant has to be exciting. It doesn't, and this movie is a key example of that. The writing is top notch, and the story and dialog show how hysteria and revenge may have been major factors in the incidents leading up to the Salem Witch Trails.The primary roles are extremely well acted. Daniel Day-Lewis is superb as the resident who ultimately gives up his life rather than be cowed by the judges. Winona Ryder...well...difficult to like her character, and I felt that sometimes she was overacting...but overall effective. Paul Scofield excellent as the head judge. Joan Allen good as Day-Lewis' wife, but she's been better in other films. Bruce Davison genuinely unlikable as the local reverend who acts simply to save his position. Rob Campbell, an actor with whom I am not familiar, was quite good as another reverend.There's no question that some will not like this film. It moves slowly, but surely through the plot. The cinematography is well done in the spartan settings. I would class this as a niche film -- the niche here being viewers that like a more realistic view of history through film. I enjoyed the film, but to be honest, I doubt that I will watch it a second time.