Home > Action >

Amos & Andrew

Amos & Andrew (1993)

March. 05,1993
|
5.7
|
PG-13
| Action Comedy

When Andrew Sterling, a successful black urbanite writer, buys a vacation home on a resort in New England the police mistake him for a burglar. After surrounding his home with armed men, Chief Tolliver realizes his mistake and to avoid the bad publicity offers a thief in his jail, Amos Odell a deal.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

BlazeLime
1993/03/05

Strong and Moving!

More
FeistyUpper
1993/03/06

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

More
Stoutor
1993/03/07

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

More
Gutsycurene
1993/03/08

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

More
Michael Neumann
1993/03/09

A noted black author (Samuel L. Jackson), mistaken for a prowler in his own house, is pinned down by the local Keystone Kops, and police chief Dabney Coleman tries to cover the goof by giving white trash petty criminal Nicholas Cage a loaded shotgun so he can pretend to hold Jackson hostage for a few minutes. Why Coleman didn't think to begin this unlikely charade at the moment of arrest is anyone's guess, but Cage (of course) plays it for real, with entirely predictable consequences. This is one of those strictly formula comedies built around an escalating series of misunderstandings, the first of which is the assumption that the average intelligence of its target audience is somewhere around the kindergarten level. Bright spots are provided by Brad Dourif in one of his reliable psycho supporting roles, and by Brad Balaban as a touchy-feely criminal psychologist (doing a perfect imitation of Fred Rogers crossed with Leo Buscaglia). Otherwise this witless farce offers further proof that you can't trust any movie advertised on the side of a bus: it's not even smart enough to qualify as dumb fun.

More
monkey-man
1993/03/10

Amos & Andrew (1993).Andrew Sterling (Samuel L. Jackson) is a rich and successful black man who buys a vacation house in New England.And as he is unpacking some of his belongs the Neighbours see him and mistake him for a burglar so they call the police.After the police surround the house and try to kill him they realize that they made a big mistake.So the chef of the police decided to use a man in jail named Amos Odell (Nicolas Cage) to fake a kidnapping of Andrew Sterling because he did not want bad publicity.I bought this movie a few weeks ago on a second hand video tape for a few dollars and i finally got around to watching it today.I never watched this movie before i bought it and i am glad i bought it because this movie is good and i can see myself watching this movie over and over again.Over all this movie is worth your time to watch and i think you will really enjoy this movie.My rating for this movie is 6 out of 10.

More
Boba_Fett1138
1993/03/11

The most funny thing about this movie is the concept. A man (Samuel L. Jackson) is because of his skin color mistaken for a burglar. When the police surrounds the house and realize the mistake they made they come up with the idea of letting a real criminal (Nicolas Cage) take the black man hostage and hold him for ransom to avoid the bad publicity. Sounds like a good concept for a comedy, unfortunately it sounds better than it is.Nicolas Cage is not the greatest comical talent and Samuel L. Jackson once again plays the role that he played so many times before, the black man who becomes the victim of white society. He plays the same role as he did in "Die Hard: With a Vengeance" and to be frank I'm getting tired of him playing this kind of roles. I really love Samuel L. Jackson but he should stop playing this kind of roles. Luckily Dabney Coleman and Brad Dourif still provide some good comical moments.For a comedy it certainly lacks some funny moments, there are some but simply not enough to make a good comedy. A nice effort but the result is a not completely successful and at times empty comedy.An OK comedy to kill some time with but not a must see.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

More
johnedit
1993/03/12

The reviews for `Amos & Andrew' are all over the place, from Leonard Maltin's `BOMB' to The Washington Post Style section critic's rave (though the Post's Weekend section reviewer gave it a devastating pan).Any movie that gets this range of reaction is not all bad, and `Amos & Andrew' has a number of redeeming values.Its racial satire (which can be serious as well as slapstick, often in the same minute) seems a natural extension of Stanley Kramer's `The Defiant Ones' (1958). In both films, a white and a black man are handcuffed together and escaping from the law.The differences between the films are telling, however. In `Defiant,' both men are racists. They know little about each other's race, except what they think is the bad stuff (if I remember the film correctly). But both are poor and, as the film reveals, have much more in common than they thought.In `A&A,' the black man is a third generation, college-educated upper middleclass professional. He has succeeded in a white world (Pulitzer-prize; well-paid for his books and screenplays; a celebrity and a college professor; and more). But he still dislikes and distrusts whites, with reason.The white man is a drifter and petty thief, but he doesn't dislike blacks; indeed, he probably knows them better than the black man. And he's as much an outsider as the black man.These ideas, and the comedy evolving from them, make `A&A' fascinating and, sometimes in a simplistic way, thought-provoking. The humor often is sharp and funny, though it can become too silly and off the point. So the film is both clever and stupid, original and cliché.I often found myself laughing out loud as the film piled on smart gag after smart gag, slowing down only at the obvious, familiar and overplayed ones.Some may find the basic premise, a black man thought to be a burglar only because he's seen in a house in an exclusive white neighborhood, as tasteless and offensive, or at least not played out with sufficient outrage.Others may be grateful that such a pointed idea was dramatized without self-righteous anger and superiority. To them, this modest, light touch conveyed the message much more effectively, especially to those who needed to hear it, than a harder-edged film might have.Overall, there's enough good stuff in 'A&A,' including the acting by Nicholas Cage (when he still was good) and Samuel L. Jackson to push the film to a 2 ½ to 3-star rating. It's worth a look.

More