Search
Search results
Robert Englund recommended Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated War of the Worlds (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a summer season of grand blockbusters, War of the Worlds” is perhaps the biggest dud in years, and is a failure of epic proportions. The film is a remake of the classic 1953 film of the same name which like the new one is inspired from the H.G. Wells novel of 1898.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
JT (287 KP) rated The Sweeney (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Nick Love’s take on the ’70s TV cop show of the same name packs every bit a hard knuckled punch as you would expect it to. The director of such films as The Football Factory and The Business even manages to stay clear of Danny Dyer and cast a slick and talented bunch of individuals, led by Ray Winstone.
Regan (Winstone) and Carter (Drew) are a pair of detectives on the flying squad, they don’t play nice or appreciate authority and when it comes to nicking thieves they go in armed with an array of unique weapons including pick axe handles. Quite simply put they “do the things you can only dream of”.
The plot is a little thin on the ground at times, and centres on former villain Allen (Paul Anderson) making a return to Regan’s patch, of which he doesn’t take too kindly when he has to let Allen go after having pulled him in for questioning in relation to a bank job that ends with an execution.
Regan himself is under the watchful eye of not just his boss Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) but internal watchdog Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) who has a greater reason than anyone to note Regan’s movements, with Regan sharing more than coffee with Lewis’s wife Nancy.
The action is well choreographed from the opening heist to a shootout through Trafalgar Square (of which annoyingly they can only hit innocent bystanders), the film’s climactic car chase is a bit of a let down however. After all that proceeded before it I was expecting something a little better than a blast around a caravan park.
The chemistry between Regan and Carter is good, a father and son styled relationship is pushed to breaking point at times, but beneath the hardened exterior lies a mutual respect for each other that is followed through to the very end.
Winstone looks battle weary and sounds more cockney than ever (if that could be at all possible), he’s like a bulldog that won’t let go of a bone or come when called. Drew is a fresh casting choice and I enjoyed his performance in Harry Brown, but here he seems to deliver his lines in a slow and laborious manner.
The sweeping landscape of London is painted in cold grey light, panels of sun laying across pavements and car windows trying to brighten the mood. It’s a violent mood, twinned with colourful dialogue that is more than to be expected. It’s a decent enough effort and certainly Love’s best film to date.
Regan (Winstone) and Carter (Drew) are a pair of detectives on the flying squad, they don’t play nice or appreciate authority and when it comes to nicking thieves they go in armed with an array of unique weapons including pick axe handles. Quite simply put they “do the things you can only dream of”.
The plot is a little thin on the ground at times, and centres on former villain Allen (Paul Anderson) making a return to Regan’s patch, of which he doesn’t take too kindly when he has to let Allen go after having pulled him in for questioning in relation to a bank job that ends with an execution.
Regan himself is under the watchful eye of not just his boss Frank Haskins (Damian Lewis) but internal watchdog Ivan Lewis (Steven Mackintosh) who has a greater reason than anyone to note Regan’s movements, with Regan sharing more than coffee with Lewis’s wife Nancy.
The action is well choreographed from the opening heist to a shootout through Trafalgar Square (of which annoyingly they can only hit innocent bystanders), the film’s climactic car chase is a bit of a let down however. After all that proceeded before it I was expecting something a little better than a blast around a caravan park.
The chemistry between Regan and Carter is good, a father and son styled relationship is pushed to breaking point at times, but beneath the hardened exterior lies a mutual respect for each other that is followed through to the very end.
Winstone looks battle weary and sounds more cockney than ever (if that could be at all possible), he’s like a bulldog that won’t let go of a bone or come when called. Drew is a fresh casting choice and I enjoyed his performance in Harry Brown, but here he seems to deliver his lines in a slow and laborious manner.
The sweeping landscape of London is painted in cold grey light, panels of sun laying across pavements and car windows trying to brighten the mood. It’s a violent mood, twinned with colourful dialogue that is more than to be expected. It’s a decent enough effort and certainly Love’s best film to date.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted in Books
Mar 15, 2018
With movements like Black Lives Matter at the forefront of society right now, and multiple documentaries about wrongful convictions such as Steven Avery and The West Memphis Three out, there has never been a better time for this book to come out and be read. This topic is <i><b>so important.</i></b>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
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.