ypandalove Rachel who has lost his husband and his son, Samuel plan to go to village where their relative live. However, Samuel observes murder at the station on the way. John Book who is the detective in charge of the murder case brings the mother and the child to a police station. Samuel sees a newspaper clipping there and he notices that one of the murderers is o detective in the police station. John Book is informed on it and he faces up to make a stand against their army to solve the case. I think that this film involves not only suspense but also the theme of romance, because John Book and Rachel are in love each other. Most film has double theme like suspense and romance in John Book. So I believe that we should watch movie from multiple angles to find the deep theme in that film.

zkonedog Of the many movies I have reviewed on Amazon thus far, "Witness" is a strange one in that while it does contain some great scenes, it is (at its core) quite formulaic and very much a product of its times (i.e. doesn't hold up quite as well over time).For a basic plot summary, "Witness" is a story about a young Amish boy named Samuel (Lukas Haas), who witnesses a police officer murder another man in cold blood. Along with mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis), Samuel is put under the protective custody of Detective John Book (Harrison Ford), where they ultimately end up back in the Amish settlement.There are, indeed, quite a few great moments in this movie. The concept in and of itself is fascinated (a closer look at the Amish), and in this respect the acting of Harrison Ford is truly the stalwart quality of the entire film. Some of the best scenes, including the now-iconic "ice cream cone scene", involve Ford's character trying to fit in or adjust to the foreign (at least to his way of thinking) Amish society.The reason this film is no classic, though, is because it is very paint-by-numbers in many respects. It was as if the studio sat down and said "Harrison Ford is big right now and McGillis has the sex appeal factor...we need to make a movie to capitalize on these two things". While there is nothing wrong with that of thinking, per se, it is not the kind of creative thinking from which masterpieces are usually created. A ridiculously out-of-place McGillis nude scene is an example to prove my point.Overall, "Witness" is a decent flick that is too "stock" to ever sniff greatness. Enjoy Ford and the uniqueness of the Amish, but don't go looking for all that much more.

Parker Lewis Australian director Peter Weir has a knack for bringing a fresh perspective to established actors. Here it's Harrison Ford, and in the 90s it was with Jim Carrey in The Truman Show.I love Witness and the performances of all. Danny Glover was a corrupt cop here, before he became a clean cop in Lethal Weapon a few years later. Also Patti LuPone shines, a few years before she featured in Life Goes On, one of the best TV series ever.One of my favorite scenes is when John Book (Harrison Ford) punches out the teenage gang who pick on the Amish. That is a YouTube moment big time!

frogsaroyan It is easy to see why Witness took home the Oscar for Best Screenplay. In the first 15 minutes, fewer than 20 lines are spoken, and they are all inconsequential. Even the first full line of the line of the film spoken by a recurring character is just a joke about a horse's prowess. Nothing is said, and yet everything is so clear. Too clear. We see everything and feel everything, just like the boy. It takes a very good screenplay to say so much with next to nothing. The scenes where Samuel takes the train and wanders through the station could be its own short film... "Amish Boy Takes The Train." I don't think that these moments, and the beautiful shots of Pennsylvania country, should be taken for granted. This film was made with care. I believe it's a visionary film, and I was transfixed. It is a film about a boy, as the title suggests, not about Harrison Ford. Samuel is part angel, witnessing the deeds of humanity, and he is human, witnessing how we share our sins. We learn from this boy, as do the other characters.The most important detail is this... the little boy witnessed a murder. This isn't something that will go away for him or be given compensation. Some reviewers have said they don't like how certain scenes and characters appear smarmy. Well, to a little boy with innocence, any person who doesn't have the highest personal integrity and truthful intentions appears smarmy. The murder itself is messy and mean, because that's what most murder is. It isn't some slick and stylish operation carried out by highly intelligent hit men. About the music. It sounds like the score by Maurice Jarre was influenced largely by Aaron Copland. Jarre was regularly hired for visionary films; ones with a "person who sees the value in what other people don't" theme like Gorillas In The Mist and Dead Poets Society, or ones with religious themes like Almost An Angel and Witness, or supernatural themes like Ghost and Jacob's Ladder (and Prancer!). The synthesizer is dated, yes, and therefore it's slightly unnerving, but if taken at face value and in context you can hear the "otherworldly" effect that Jarre is going for. It is music for strings, but airing in sampled sounds... so what you hear are the ghosts of the strings, the echo, the strings reincarnated. It's eerier. Besides that, the music is complex, sophisticated, and it's front and centre. It isn't in the background, nor should it be. I believe that for the average moviegoer who doesn't regularly enjoy listening to a variety of orchestral music, the score might seem like "too much" and therefore distracting. It's too bad that some people can't admit that complex orchestral music isn't too their taste, and instead they judge the music as "bad". It most certainly isn't bad. Perhaps in places it really is "too much", but there are places where the movie overall is too much, music aside. Easily forgiven.