Search
Search results
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Extra Ordinary (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020 (Updated May 1, 2020)
Ghosts, hell demons, possessed animals, sex, a car chase, people exploding, ware-wolves (Kind of), Extra Ordinary has it all. Is it some kind of Hollywood blockbuster staring Benedict Cumberbatch? No, it's a small independent Irish comedy staring little known actors, and Will Forte of course.
The film begins by introducing us to Rose Dooley (Maeve Higgins), a very single driving instructor in a small town who has a “Talent”. She can talk to Ghosts. After the death of her father when she was a child, Rose no longer uses these talents though. She spends her days teaching the locals how to drive, and her evenings with no trousers on, eating microwavable meals for one and ignoring messages on her phone from people asking for supernatural help. That is until she gets a call from Martin Martin, who is being haunted by his dead ex-wife, and her journey back to the exorcism business begins.
What this film does best is keep the ordinary and the supernatural events very grounded. Instead of screaming angry spirits howling in the night they see messages like “You must pay ..... The car tax” or “Dog has worms”. The dead don't stick around to terrorise, they are here to make sure we're doing the recycling properly, or donating enough money to charity. Even Christian Winter (Will Forte) the satanist pop-star dubbed “One hit Winter” seems like an every-day man, doing the ironing and making cups of tea between sacrifices and demon summoning.
As the films big-bad, Will Forte does a decent job of keeping the film flowing, even if it is almost identical to his Last man on Earth performance. It's Rose and Martins relationship that really pulls the film forward. After Martins Daughter starts floating in mid-air, he reaches out to Rose for help. Directors Mike Ahern and Enda Loughman succeed in making Rose and Martins journey through the mysterious, humorous yet believable, a will they-won't they without the cheesiness.
Overall this is a very funny, well made film, not afraid to take the time from driving the plot to include some great, if possibly unnecessary scenes, Christian Winter's driving lesson is a particular highlight. Everybody involved has done an excellent job making a great film. It's absurd, it's funny, it's weird, it's well worth a watch.
The film begins by introducing us to Rose Dooley (Maeve Higgins), a very single driving instructor in a small town who has a “Talent”. She can talk to Ghosts. After the death of her father when she was a child, Rose no longer uses these talents though. She spends her days teaching the locals how to drive, and her evenings with no trousers on, eating microwavable meals for one and ignoring messages on her phone from people asking for supernatural help. That is until she gets a call from Martin Martin, who is being haunted by his dead ex-wife, and her journey back to the exorcism business begins.
What this film does best is keep the ordinary and the supernatural events very grounded. Instead of screaming angry spirits howling in the night they see messages like “You must pay ..... The car tax” or “Dog has worms”. The dead don't stick around to terrorise, they are here to make sure we're doing the recycling properly, or donating enough money to charity. Even Christian Winter (Will Forte) the satanist pop-star dubbed “One hit Winter” seems like an every-day man, doing the ironing and making cups of tea between sacrifices and demon summoning.
As the films big-bad, Will Forte does a decent job of keeping the film flowing, even if it is almost identical to his Last man on Earth performance. It's Rose and Martins relationship that really pulls the film forward. After Martins Daughter starts floating in mid-air, he reaches out to Rose for help. Directors Mike Ahern and Enda Loughman succeed in making Rose and Martins journey through the mysterious, humorous yet believable, a will they-won't they without the cheesiness.
Overall this is a very funny, well made film, not afraid to take the time from driving the plot to include some great, if possibly unnecessary scenes, Christian Winter's driving lesson is a particular highlight. Everybody involved has done an excellent job making a great film. It's absurd, it's funny, it's weird, it's well worth a watch.
Anand Wilder recommended Nuff' Said! by Nina Simone in Music (curated)
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 96 Minutes (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 96 Minutes starts by introducing us to all the characters involved, we have Lena (Serratos) a young woman questioning her relationship choice, Raymond (Martin) working hard at school and a job for Duane (Oyelowo), Kevin (Trautmann) an angry young man who doesn’t enjoy his life where his mother has caused problems, Dre (Ross) a young man that is finally achieving his grades but won’t leave his past behind him and Carley (Snow) a student that is studying law. All of this is leads to a carjacking gone wrong.
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
The carjacking includes an injured Lena being cared for by Carley after Kevin gets into the mind-set of trying to impress the local gang that Dre gets dragged into supporting his friend.
96 Minutes is a drama thriller that shows the effects of one wrong moment in life, we see how these four people are trying to start something in their lives but when they clash each person’s life will be changed. The film shows how the four characters are average everyday people that shows us how easily anyone could fall into the events. The story does bounce between showing us the normal lives of our characters and the carjacking which shows the character’s mind-sets are through each situation. This is a very powerful drama that is very good to watch.
Actor Review
Brittany Snow: Carley is the law student that is about to graduate but without her father seeing the important part of her life. She finds herself on the wrong end of a carjacking where she must tend to the wounds Lena has received. Brittany showed she can pull off a serious role to go against her more commercial roles.carley
Christian Serratos: Lena is a fellow student that is having an awful day when she discovers her boyfriend is seeing someone else, she then wrecks her car and just wanting to go home she finds herself injured during a carjacking. Christian is great in this role even with half of the film she finds herself injured.
J Michael Trautmann: Kevin is an angry young man who lives with his constantly abused mother while trying to impress the local gang. He is good friends with Dre who tries to calm him down but this only leads to him jacking Carley’s car putting Dre’s future at risk too. J is also great in this role showing how easily young men can be pushed into committing crimes.
Evan Ross: Dre is a young man from the wrong neighbourhood who has achieved something by graduating and wants to show Kevin the future he could one day have. He ends up being the driver in the carjacking but wants to do the right thing. Evan gives us a great performance where he shines through.dre
Support Cast: 96 Minutes has a supporting cast that really works well with our main four characters.
Director Review: Aimee Lagos – Aimee gives us a powerful drama that keeps us on edge wondering what is happens next.
Thriller: 96 Minutes keeps us wondering what will happen to our characters next as the story unfolds.
Settings: 96 Minutes shows the two worlds clashing with two boys coming from the wrong side of town trying to make their own future while the girls show where the next stage will be.
Suggestion: 96 Minutes is one I think everyone should watch at least once. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances are brilliant.
Worst Part: Jumping between the two sometimes comes off confusing.
Believability: Inspired by true events.
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes
Tagline: Out of options. Out of control. Out of time.
Overall: Brilliant drama that really sucks you in to see one life changing events.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/05/31/96-minutes-2011/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.