The Green Mile (1999) User Reviews

It's not a great film just because they made you cry.

[Dr. Don-2 · 1/10 · 24 December 1999]

Nice packaging, but too much of it. Typical Stephen King story, well-told but not much weight. Full of stereotypes and predictable good guy/bad guy stuff. I loved Tom Hanks in "Philadelphia" -- that was a challenging role and he performed it magnificently, with depth of character, pathos but no sentimentality. Ever since, though, he's taken on one interchangeable role after another. Enough, already. The sad thing is that I truly CAN believe that almost 50% of the IMDB voters so far rate this very average and over-long film as a "10". Excellence apparently is a function of the volume of tears they make you shed. I say, "make you", because I think this film fully intends to manipulate emotions -- the emotions of white, comfortable, middle class Americans who enjoy cheering for the oppressed, simple but pure of heart big black man who is abused by Southern crackers. Aren't we glad we're not like that? Yet again, a black man gets to be a parody, not a person. We white folks don't have to be afraid just because he's big and black, see, 'cause he's really a Jesus figure ("J. C.", his initials). What a relief. Still wouldn't want him living next door, though, would we? All in all, good actors playing two dimensional roles. In the real world, as Kosovo and Northern Ireland and Rwanda show, we're all just a hair-trigger away from being cruel. Let's have more films that recognize that there are few good guys and bad guys, just a whole lot of us doing the best we can and trying to do it right. That's too complicated for most Hollywood types, and doesn't usually make much money. "Dead Man Walking" was ten times the film that this one was, and even it wasn't a "10".

"Besieged" and "The Informer" were so much better than "The Green Mile" that to mention Oscars without naming those films is ridiculous.

And that's all this middle-aged long-time and ardent lover of films has to say.

Crap !

[Doc-Zucker · 1/10 · 17 April 2006]

Hard to believe that so many people seem to believe that this cheesy movie is a masterpiece or even the best film they've ever seen. I borrowed the DVD recently and I seriously can't remember having seen a worse picture from beginning to end in quite some time. Everything about it is phony, predictable, stereotyped and contrived.A corny pseudo-moral tale that can be embraced by everyone who enjoys being manipulated in the crudest way. To go into details about all the flaws this movie has to offer is not worth the time, I already wasted more than three hours watching it. If you like to entertain yourself with a film worth watching, pick up something else.

Horrible!

[ronjart · 1/10 · 25 January 2000]

This must have been the worst movie I have seen in a long time! As I sat in the movie theater watching the people around me starting to sob I really wondered if everybody had gone insane. First of all, I really didn't like how this movie dealt with the topic capital punishment. I hardly doubt the atmosphere in a death tract depicted in "The Green Mile" is anything like that in real life. Guards and inmates are buddies? (Except for the one BAD guard and the one BAD inmate, of course!) They're cracking jokes and having fun with a little mouse? Oh please! I had a feeling this movie was bad when it started in that nursing home with that sentimental looking old guy but when John started to cough up that what-ever-it-was-horrible-computer-animation-stuff I knew it was just terrible. The movie is overly sentimental, has a horrible constructed plot (sure, the real killer just happens to be in the cell across to Johns) and lacks any creativity and imagination. I read somewhere that Michael Duncan did a great job in this movie. But frankly all he did was cry and sweat and supporting the horrible stereo type of infantile, good, maybe innocently wise but not very clever blacks.

a terrible would-be successor to "The Shawshank Redemption"

[zza99tmk · 1/10 · 6 March 2000]

I really wanted to like this film, I really tried to. But in the end I heavily regretted having seen it and personally I think of "The Green Mile" as the first appalling film of this year. This saddens me the more as the director of that film is Frank Darabont who brought us the wonderful "Shawshank Redemption". The parallels to his debut from 1994 are obvious: a prison story full of optimism(a friendship between the two main protagonists (one black, one white)) written by the same author (King) and again overlength (this time you've even got a running time of 3 hours+).I would argue that already the story itself is problematic in its conception: the characterisation is implausible. The prisoners (with the exception of one) are all portrayed as good natured men who obviously could do no harm to other people. It makes the fact that they've been sentenced to death for heinous crimes the more unlikely. For a grim and dark place like a prison the green mile is a unusual harmonistic place.This depiction of a prison and the characters is not just naive and almost laughable, it also reminded me of how more realistic and appropriate in such terms "Shawshank Redemption" was. People could say that the film generally is not very realistic since John Coffey has supernatural powers but I honestly think that capital punishment is a too serious subject to treat it as an element of a fairy tale. Moreover the film never questions the death penalty, the message rather seems to be that death row is a necessity. Again I was reminded of an another film, Tim Robbins' "Dead Man Walking", arguably one of the best and most important american films of the last decade(if you want to see an appropriate and artistic convincing account of the death row, then you're in for a treat).There's basically nothing to say against an optimistic approach when you're talking about such a sad, disturbing and important issue, but what made me really upset about "The Green Mile" is the unbearable extent of sentimentality and naivety in the film. Sure, "Shawshank Redemption" was emotional, too; but there it felt right, there Darabont managed to find the right tone - here it is just pure kitsch. When Coffey says towards the end something along the lines that people shouldn't treat each other badly and that he wants a peaceful world, I almost started to giggle. Moreover the contrast between the harmonistic, light- hearted scenes with the mouse and the execution scenes doesn't work at all, it destroys the film. Moreover these three scenes (particularly Percys revenge on Delacroix) are not just

disgusting(and believe me, I can really bear a lot),they perfectly fit into this unpleasant mixture of feel good- mentality and pathos. There were good performances in the film (Doug Hutchinson, the "Polaroid Man" from Chris Carters "Millennium", Michael Duncan Clarke, who made the best out of his cliche role), but in the end I didn't care about the one or two good things I could say about this film. And Tom Hanks? Well, Hanks should really try something new-he's played the clean, good-natured guy so often, that it starts to get on my nerves and not just on mine.I just can't put into words, how much better, how superior "Shawshank" was than "The Green Mile". The difference is not just striking, it really hurts. When I was watching "The Green Mile" I heard people in the audience crying - I was tempted too, but not because I was moved, no, in my case it would have been out of sheer disgust. What a missed opportunity...

SUGAR COATED, SHALLOW, INFANTILE, PATRONISING, OVER-LONG HUMBUG

[jjcanty · 1/10 · 11 April 2001]

This is the worst film i've seen all year, in fact I thought it was aimed at children. How anyone can call this a piece of uplifting cinema is beyond me. Okay, Tom Hanks gives a pretty good performance for a one-dimensional do-gooder, but the rest of the film is pantomime of the cheesiest kind, Puss-in-Boots at my local theatre was less predictable. The characters are cliched stereotypes bar none. We have good kindly guy, comedy good guy, insane bad guy, nice but dim black guy (particularly offensive for this millennium) which leads us to a tedious sermon on good v evil of the most simplistic sort . The director is clearly living off his reputation, having directed the excellent 'SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION' and poor old Stephen King must be turning in his bed (hopefully he's recovered now). The best thing about the film is Mr Jangles the comedy reincarnating mouse who makes a glorious reappearance in the final reel with slightly longer fur. The death of Mr Jangles earlier on in the proceedings probably arouses more sympathy from sentimental American audiences than the sight of nasty prisoners frying in 'Old Sparky'. Please go and watch 'Midnight Express' instead for a slightly more realistic representation of prison life. Risible.

Terrible

[kchigg · 1/10 · 27 February 2001]

I believe I am alone in my dislike of this movie. In fairness, the acting and cinematography are excellent. That said, the story and directing of the characters was extremely problematic for me.

Here we have this man who has an incredible gift to heal others and the audience looks on in amazement as he performs miracles but at no time do the characters on screen seem freaked out, excited, or exhibit any emotion other than "Hey lookey what he can do. Let's get him to cure my wife." That ruins the whole picture for me because it was no longer believable. If I witnessed such visually stunning miracles(stuff coming from the mouth etc.) I would be telling everyone I knew, calling scientists, papers, etc.

The other characters also didn't seem too hurt that they were going to execute an innocent man. Unbelievable! Especially an innocent man with extraordinary powers. In the real world many fight to keep real killers on death row alive and spare their lives but nobody fights for this man. Hogwash!

Cookie cutter Christ-story, not what expected.

[gasperud · 1/10 · 4 January 2000]

I went into this movie expecting a gritty drama or something about conflict of morals in a prison guard on death row. And this was reaffirmed by the fact that the director also directed Shawshank Redemption. What I got was a Stephen King-esq novel movie overflowing with lame symbolism and un-explained superpowers. In fact I know the exact point the movie turned for the worse. The first time John Coffey used his "magic healing" powers, I realized how lame this movie could be. Although I should have realized the clishe trip i was going to take when the movie opened with a flashback. This movie included most every dramatic clishe it could, including: old guy flashback, good natured guy (tom hanks) in a horrible place (the prison), and finally a christ story. But then what did you expect from Stephen King, an original story? This movie was a far cry quality wise from the excelent Shawshank Redemption, and shows that while Stephen King CAN write well a lot of times he DOES NOT. This movie was by far the worst of the christmas 99 releases. Save your money folks.

Long, Boring, Predictable, Lame Ending

[BBQPork · 1/10 · 1 June 2000]

I can't believe that an actor with the credentials Tom Hanks would star in this film. It was so slow, my family & I were praying for it to end. The plot didn't go anywhere, and the ending was so weak I threw my hands in the air and just asked, "why?" How could they drag the movie out that long for such a stock plot and predictable ending? And the execution scenes seemed to be there for shock value only, and were quite gruesome and gratuitous.

I like Tom Hanks, but I refuse to like a movie he stars in simply for reason that he is in it. There has to be a plot, and The Green Mile came up short. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, in fact I rate it as one of the worst (and overrated) big budget films of 1999 (and probably this decade).

Artistic, Epic, & Genius! I say Annoying, Long, & Retarded...

[starscreamforicecream · 1/10 · 27 February 2010]

I hate this over-hyped movie. It tries to make you believe it's a heartfelt, honest, gritty tale about a case of a poor old wrong place, wrong time man who is wrongly sent to death row. In the end, he is okay with dying a death he doesn't have to because that's what will make the audience cry. This is a great movie if you like watching Tom Hanks trying to urinate with a tract infection, Stereotyping black people as being dumb, and male to male crotch grabbing. I can't stand the content in this film. I find nothing redeeming about it. This movie is trash. I also can't stand that IMDb forces you to write ten sentences about a movie. I have nothing left to say about this piece of sh**. You'll really enjoy it if you are into sappy, nonsense garbage, that solves nothing in the end and only exists to try to make you feel sorry for some stupid character who won't help himself. Yes, that and the aforementioned. Garbage.

Insulting

[mail-25 · 1/10 · 20 February 2000]

This movie very subtly hides it's ideology: sadism is not okay, but death penalty and the system that supports it are okay. Criminals are criminals, the death penalty is shown as the most natural consequence on earth. Like fate. Eye for an eye. The criminals are shown as kids. It's a perverted sitcom situation in a death row, with Tom Hanks as the father figure. Disgusting. And there's racism, too: John Coffee is Uncle Tom, has the mind of a 3 years old. A white man must reflect what's happening with Coffee, a white must command him.

The "spiritual" events are only superficial. They distract from the basic questions this movie cowardly avoids. About crime, punishment, remorse, duty. And why a Christian society thinks that it is okay to kill criminals.

Highly overrated and self-important movie

Oscar? Ha!

[holly9golightly · 1/10 · 18 December 1999]

If you go to see "The Green Mile," be prepared to laugh. A lot. And not because the film's intention is for the audience to laugh--it's just that bad. It has all the outward appearances of a very moving, emotionally charged film that will make you leave the theater saying "Wow." (The subject concerns Death Row inmates, Tom Hanks stars, and the director is of "The Shawshank Redemption" fame). But I just left the theater laughing, because the movie had become so predictable in its plot and dialogue that the woman behind me had begun to recite the lines along with the characters. (And the sad thing about THAT is that I saw it on opening night).

But its predictability is not even remotely one of "The Green Mile"'s major problems, and those are an overly corny, hokey story and script that are nearly impossible to buy (especially those particles that fly out of John Cofee's mouth whenever he performs a miracle--what is THAT?), acting ranging from mediocre to downright bad (no wonder John Cofee was given so few lines), and a complete inconsistency in tone. A movie about Death Row inmates should NOT cut from a scene of a man being executed (of which this movie shows about three) to a scene of the guards cooing over a cute little mouse (which appeared in the movie so much that the damn thing should've been named after the mouse). The execution scenes are of such a brutal nature that directly juxtaposing them with light-hearted prison follies completely degrades the seriousness of execution and is outright jolting for the audience.

"The Green Mile" left a bad taste in my mouth from its opening moments which never really left. Once I began to get a feel for how limited it was in hitting the real issue of the film, however, I was able to view it as one of those happy "drama-turned-comedy" accidents. I can only say that any recognition for "The Green Mile" for any more than it actually is--a piece of cheese that never deserved to see cinematic daylight--is a not-so-happy accident indeed.

Bad, long movie about mice in jail

[juan-3 · 1/10 · 22 February 2000]

I just can believe this movie is a Best Film Nominee! How? A way too long story that actually supports death penalty and racism, in which the best actor is a mouse and the whole story is sustained on a ridiculous chain of miracles, failing to depict any of the sordid ambience of what the death row probably is in real life. Tom Hanks as himself (again), a mouse-induced 3 hours long flashback that serves no purpose within the film... All in all, the movie seemed to me like a 6 hour torture session. I was told later that the duration was just over 3 hours. My recommendation: avoid it.

Heavy handed

[MattB-5 · 1/10 · 5 January 2001]

Made with little subtlety, grace, or wit, suffers from the same disease as Shawshank in seeking profundity in every vignette. Whereas I could overlook some of the preposterous and contrived situations in Shawshank and just enjoy the movie, the Green Mile just seemed contrived except for a few scenes and characters. Of course it has redeeming qualities about it, namely Duncan's performance and the gripping execution scenes.

I like Shawshank alot despite its flaws, however The Green Mile is just plain mediocre, not one I would ever want to sit through again. It could have been a decent 90 minute movie. The far too long and frequent mouse vignettes detracted and cost the movie momentum, there is no need to show a guy pee 10 times in the movie, we understand that it hurts when he pees, enough already!. The evil prison guard was just far too simple and one-dimensional a character to the point of absurdity which eliminates the impact of his comeupance at the end, contrast this with the very satisfying end to Shawshank's prison warden (a far more interesting, faceted, and believable character). The end was diluted as well, I think the movie went a scene too far at the end into some fuzzy preaching, as a viewer it really wasn't necessary, the impact of Duncan's end on the Hanks character and the viewer is strong and moving and the movie should have ended there instead of having a scene to explain to the audience (as if to a slow fifth-grader) the truth of the moment.

This film is awful!

[ellenwettmark · 1/10 · 15 October 2002]

Contrary to what most people seem to think, I think this is one of the worst films ever. This is the worse kind of Hollywood trash (posing as a "serious" and "deep" movie), portraying only stereotypical images of good and evil. In this film the good people are GOOD and the bad people are so bad they deserve to be punished (preferably by death). I would go as far as to proclaim this as the ultimate pro-death penalty propaganda.

Wow! Very Overrated

[Lamprey · 1/10 · 2 January 2000]

This movie takes the cake for 1999. The Phantom Menace was highly overrated... but not as much as this stale movie that is only average at best. With little surpises, a bland story, and pointless tacked-on fillers at the beginning and the end, it would surprise me if anyone would want to see this movie twice. Not nearly as good as Shawshank. Almost all of the jokes fall flat, which becomes embarrasing to watch... Darabont didn't spend a lot of time on this script, by his own admission even. From Shawshank, I was expecting some stirring music and cinematography in The Green Mile. Neither were present. In fact, the cinematography was so bad it almost gave me a headache. I felt like I was watching a B movie, with all the non-stop close-ups, occuring at a methodic static pace. Would you watch this movie again? If not, how can you say it is the best movie of 1999? It hasn't made any top ten lists of critics, from what I've seen... I really hope this doesn't win the Best Picture Oscar, but it is gauranteed to get nominated, simply because it has been marketed so well.

This one has Oscar written all over it -- Oscar Meyer!

[Maxx-24 · 1/10 · 26 December 1999]

Think the movie was far too long for something so predictable. And please, that mouse! I think there was, however some good acting, but that was only Cromwell. He has real emotion dealing with his wife's illness. He deserves more notice than he's been getting, basically all the notice that Hanks is getting for a performance that was a little too flat and trite. There were times I swear he looked like he thought he had made a mistake taking on the role.

awful

[samuel_arraes · 1/10 · 24 September 2004]

awful, nonsense and stupid, for God sake ! I don't care if Tom Hanks is in the cast. He's a great actor....

but this movie is terrible. Evil guards and Heroic criminals... Yeah ! We're the bad people. Arrest us and set them free ! Look dear director, take a ride in a holiday in some south American jail to know something about executions and criminal people. Okay, Michael Clark has a good role and Hanks, too. They're excellent actors. But all in all the history lacks the credibility by using criminals taking a pee on one of the guards and spiting in the guard's face after...while the guard stay talking to him and choose to punishing him using water !!!...Come'on it's just one of the stupid chapters of this movie !

Terrible Movie!

[Artemus · 1/10 · 19 February 2001]

Painfully long and drawn-out movie which comes across like an "after-school special" for grown-ups. I was irritated by its transparent heavy-handedness and attempts at audience manipulation. The acting is quite good at all levels, but not good enough to make up for a story which carries on for three dreadful hours of ugliness. No redeeming (or entertainment) value here at all. A MUCH better movie set in the same time period is the Coen's "Brother, Where Art Thou?"

absolute waste of time

[aquietzone · 1/10 · 23 October 2007]

oh my God..the worst piece of infantile garbage I ever sat through...considering the expectations I had, I was just so let down...there are so many prison movies better than this (and NO, Shawshank, while a great movie, is not even the best)...the emotions manipulated by this film left me cold, a little nauseated, and I would have shut the movie off about 2/3 of the way through had I not been asked to watch this film by a few friends...I think Tom Hanks is one of the most overused actors (next to Harrison Ford) ever...I am probably one of the very few viewers out there who has despised anything associated with Stephen King....NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public....

I cannot believe this movie got an 8+ rating.

[yea_whateva · 1/10 · 2 June 2003]

Green Mile is just plain awful, one of the worst movies I´ve ever seen. Clichè, shallow, boring, pointless, overlong. If you got 2 or 3 working braincells left, do not watch this movie.

If you want a movie about people on death row, watch the documentary The Thin Blue Line, Dead Man Walking or Dancer in the Dark. If you want a Steven King Movie, watch Shawshank Redemtion. But do yourself a favour and avoid Green Mile.

1/10. No, this is not to lower the overall score, it`s really that bad.

A pathetic film

[rpchauhan · 1/10 · 18 September 2001]

When I would like to watch a film it must contain logic and coherence as well as good direction and acting. A good story would help as well.

The problem I have with the green mile is what is it about? I dont know at all. Whats the deal with the mouse and the bad characters as well, and the three hours? Why?

This film lacks in a million ways and I find a lot of user views quite laughable when there are many other great films available out there, the green mile is a very bad film which barely spreads any emotion at all unless you enjoy watching people on death row and extremely vile and horrible bad guys that are throughly unbelievable. In ending I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone at all. It is way too long and I feel if it was two hours long it would have been watchable and enjoyable. The film has no real story either ( is it about a mouse, an inmate, a prison officer, death row - can you really relate to such a film that has no cohesion). I feel people got carried away by the mouse really - other than that rent out something worth watching instead. Comparing this to the shawshank redemption is ludicrous as well.

save 3 hrs and 15 mins of your life and dont see this

[mdlfilm · 1/10 · 29 December 1999]

if you like filmmaking then dont see this "movie." this movie has created an entirely new category in the movie world, aptly named: "porno sympathy." it is like a dirty old man on the street who opens his coat to show you what he's made of. this movie hides nothing, showing you how very sympathetic a movie can be.

there is no challenge to it. the ending is inevitable from the start. at this point one could at least hope for good characterization, seeing that the movie is 3 hrs long. but i felt as if i knew the motivations of no one character any better at the end. if you are questioning your faith then this movie wont help you. if you have no faith then this movie wont help you. if you are blissfully excited by your faith then you dont need a movie to help you.

but alas, no movie is all bad. kudos to michael duncan clark but the rest of the cast are playing worn characters, esp tom hanks, with a very worn southern accent to boot.

Give me break!

[butchM · 1/10 · 28 July 2000]

Dull, corny, sappy, predictable .... Where have you ever seen such lovely death row inmates before! Don't kill him - he's just a mass murderer and he has a pet mouse! Hah! And what's with all the urine in this film ... some kind of weird fixation going on.

Way too Long for such a simple plot!

[Gradin99 · 1/10 · 15 January 2000]

The movie's acting was great, yet the film unfolded very very slow to such a simple script. Not was I was expecting. The Shawshank Redemption has more plot development than The Green Mile. Surely an OVERRATED film! My grade~( B )

what?...this sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[nuffsaid-1 · 1/10 · 17 October 2002]

why not tell the story in 90 minutes ? HUH!!!!! well????!!!!

movies should only last long if they can entertain............this film is one of the most boring films i have ever seen in my live !!!

a 1 for this one