Quantcast
Channel: Steven Spielberg – hard.in.the.city
Viewing all 11 articles
Browse latest View live

Gold Rush: BFCA Critics’ Choice Awards Nominees & Winners

$
0
0

Another day, another smattering of kudos from an organization most filmgoers don’t even know exists. This list keeps Hugo and The Artist on top of things, as will as giving The Help a little more awards-wind beneath its wings.

See the full list below.

(Updated with winners italicized and bold.)

BEST PICTURE
The Artist
The Descendants
Drive
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

BEST DIRECTOR
Stephen Daldry – “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”
Michel Hazanavicius – “The Artist”
Alexander Payne – “The Descendants”
Nicolas Winding Refn – “Drive”
Martin Scorsese – “Hugo”
Steven Spielberg – “War Horse”

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
“The Artist” – Michel Hazanavicius
“50/50” – Will Reiser
“Midnight in Paris” – Woody Allen
“Win Win” – Screenplay by Tom McCarthy, Story by Tom McCarthy & Joe Tiboni
“Young Adult” – Diablo Cody

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
“The Descendants” – Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
“Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” – Eric Roth
“The Help” – Tate Taylor
“Hugo” – John Logan
“Moneyball” – Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, Story by Stan Chervin

BEST ACTOR
George Clooney – “The Descendants”
Leonardo DiCaprio – “J. Edgar”
Jean Dujardin – “The Artist”
Michael Fassbender – “Shame”
Ryan Gosling – “Drive”
Brad Pitt – “Moneyball”

BEST ACTRESS
Viola Davis – “The Help”
Elizabeth Olsen – “Martha Marcy May Marlene”
Meryl Streep – “The Iron Lady”
Tilda Swinton – “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Charlize Theron – “Young Adult”
Michelle Williams – “My Week With Marilyn”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh – “My Week With Marilyn”
Albert Brooks – “Drive”
Nick Nolte – “Warrior”
Patton Oswalt – “Young Adult”
Christopher Plummer – “Beginners”
Andrew Serkis – “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Berenice Bejo – “The Artist”
Jessica Chastain – “The Help”
Melissa McCarthy – “Bridesmaids”
Carey Mulligan – “Shame”
Octavia Spencer – “The Help”
Shailene Woodley – “The Descendants”

BEST YOUNG ACTOR/ACTRESS
Asa Butterfield – “Hugo”
Elle Fanning – “Super 8”
Thomas Horn – “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”
Ezra Miller – “We Need to Talk About Kevin”
Saoirse Ronan – “Hanna”
Shailene Woodley – “The Descendants”

BEST ACTING ENSEMBLE
The Artist
Bridesmaids
The Descendants
The Help
The Ides of March

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
“The Artist” – Guillaume Schiffman
“Drive” – Newton Thomas Sigel
“Hugo” – Robert Richardson
“The Tree of Life” – Emmanuel Lubezki
“War Horse” – Janusz Kaminski

BEST ART DIRECTION
“The Artist” – Production Designer: Laurence Bennett, Art Director:
Gregory S. Hooper
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2” – Production Designer:
Stuart Craig, Set Decorator: Stephenie McMillan
“Hugo” – Production Designer: Dante Ferretti, Set Decorator: Francesca
Lo Schiavo
“The Tree of Life” – Production Designer: Jack Fisk, Art Director: David Crank
“War Horse” – Production Designer: Rick Carter, Set Decorator: Lee Sandales

BEST EDITING
“The Artist” – Michel Hazanavicius and Anne-Sophie Bion
“Drive” – Matthew Newman
“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
“Hugo” – Thelma Schoonmaker
“War Horse” – Michael Kahn

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
“The Artist” – Mark Bridges
“The Help” – Sharen Davis
“Hugo” – Sandy Powell
“Jane Eyre” – Michael O’Connor
“My Week With Marilyn” – Jill Taylor

BEST MAKEUP
Albert Nobbs
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
The Iron Lady
J. Edgar
My Week With Marilyn

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8
The Tree of Life

BEST SOUND
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Super 8
The Tree of Life
War Horse

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
The Adventures of Tintin
Arthur Christmas
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

BEST ACTION MOVIE
Drive
Fast Five
Hanna
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Super 8

BEST COMEDY
Bridesmaids
Crazy, Stupid Love
Horrible Bosses
Midnight in Paris
The Muppets

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
In Darkness
Le Havre
A Separation
The Skin I Live In
Where Do We Go Now

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Buck
Cave of Forgotten Dreams
George Harrison: Living in the Material World
Page One: Inside the New York Times
Project Nim
Undefeated

BEST SONG
“Hello Hello” – performed by Elton John and Lady Gaga/written by Elton
John and Bernie Taupin – Gnomeo & Juliet
“Life’s a Happy Song” – performed by Jason Segel, Amy Adams and
Walter/written by Bret McKenzie – The Muppets
“The Living Proof” – performed by Mary J. Blige/written by Mary J.
Blige, Thomas Newman and Harvey Mason, Jr. – The Help
“Man or Muppet” – performed by Jason Segel and Walter/written by Bret
McKenzie – The Muppets
“Pictures in My Head” – performed by Kermit and the Muppets/written by
Jeannie Lurie, Aris Archontis and Chen Neeman – The Muppets

BEST SCORE
“The Artist” – Ludovic Bource
“Drive” – Cliff Martinez
“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross
“Hugo” – Howard Shore
“War Horse” – John Williams

*

Last year, the Broadcast Film Critics Association awarded David Fincher, Aaron Sorkin, and The Social Network. You know, instead of The King’s Speech. So overall, I say, they’re good people.

With such categories, this is basically a warmup-Oscars. This is a pretty good list, not skewing too heavily artsy or mainstream. Go critics! I’m happy to see some minor love for Hanna and a strongish showing for Drive, amongst a few other things.



Twenty ’12: The 20 Most Anticipated Films Of 2012

$
0
0

It’s a brand new year, which means brand new movies. Largely, 2012 promises more of the same — more sequels, more comic book adaptations, more prestigious literary adaptations, more zombies and vampires. But at least a few motion pictures look to break the mold this year.

January’s a little early to be looking all the way ahead at next fall, when most of the awards season hopefuls are released, but the tentpoles are set in place, and amongst them are some highly qualified filmmakers taking on material that, in other hands, might not be so inviting. For me, it’s all about who’s making it, who’s in it, and what the story is. I’ll avoid some films like herpes, while others I’ll be drawn to like a moth to a really good movie.

So without further ado, these are the most anticipated film of 2012, based on filmmakers, cast, premise, and any marketing materials that have surfaced thus far:

*

20. The Bourne Legacy (August)

Tony Gilroy (writer of all the Bourne movies, director of Michael Clayton) takes the reigns from Paul Greengrass, who made the last two (excellent) entries in this franchise. Joining the delectable Joan Allen (where, besides the Bourne movies, has she been lately?) are Edward Norton, Rachel Weisz, and Jeremy Renner — three reasons to be more excited than I otherwise might be. (Although the absence of Matt Damon may be a difficult obstacle to overcome.) Ordinarily, I might fear that in its fourth film, this series may have overstayed its welcome, but as Brad Bird’s Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol proved, sometime’s the fourth time’s a charm.

19. Vamps (TBA)

The good news: Amy Heckerling (director of Clueless) and Alicia Silverstone reunite! The bad news? It’s a comedy about vampires, a subject about as fresh as Dracula himself. So here’s more good news: Sigourney Weaver is also in it. Obviously, this one could really suck (hey, if the poster can make a “suck” pun, then I can too), but for now I’m just going to pretend it’s Clueless with fangs. Way harsh, Tai.

18. Savages (September)

It’s been more than a minute since Oliver Stone directed a decent movie — instead, we got the impotent W., the atrocious World Trade Center, and the snoozeworthy Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. The last truly good film Stone made was way back in 1999, Any Given Sunday. So why am I holding out hope for this one? Well, it’s about marijuana growers facing off against a drug cartel, which hopefully means Stone has stopped trying to be blandly topical as in the above-mentioned films and is back to playing his strengths. At least he’s got the cast right: Uma Thurman, Benicio Del Toro, Emile Hirsch, Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Johnson, and Blake Lively. (Also: John Travolta. No comment on that one.)

17. Rock Of Ages (June)

I haven’t seen the Broadway musical, so I’ll make no claims about how promising this story is for a big screen adaptation (looks semi-hokey). Movie musicals tend to be hit or miss, and it’s been a spell since we saw a truly great one. But this one features a respectable lineup of acclaimed actors — Bryan Cranston, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Paul Giamatti, Alec Baldwin, plus more unusual choices Malin Akerman, Russell Brand, and Mary J. Blige — plus Tom Cruise, possibly back in Magnolia mode? Directed by Hairspray‘s Adam Shankman, it features guilty pleasure 80’s music, which is a step above most showtunes, if you ask me.

16. Life Of Pi (December)

Previously attached directors range from M. Night Shyamalan to Alfonso Cuaron, and now it’s official — Brokeback Mountain‘s Ang Lee is taking the reigns. Based on Yann Martel’s much-lauded novel, it’s about a zookeeper’s son who finds himself stuck in a lifeboat with a tiger, a hyena, an orangutan, and a zebra. From a filmmaking standpoint, this presents obvious challenges — no CGI, please! — so it’ll be interesting to see how this tale translates to screen. Ang Lee is one of few directors I’d trust with this.

15. The Paperboy (TBA)

I was only so-so on Precious, and only partially because it insisted its full title was Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire. But Lee Daniels’ follow-up intrigues me — and not just because it’s not called The Paperboy: Based On The Novel The Paperboy By Peter Dexter (though that helps). I’m still not convinced Zac Efron can act, but if he can, here’s the movie to prove it, alongside Matthew McConaughey and John Cusack. Something about this cast in a thriller set in the sticky Florida heat is making me hope for something like the trash-tastic Wild Things. It also features a fantastically pulpy poster and Nicole Kidman returning to To Die For femme fatale territory. Yes, please!

14. Looper (September)

Brick director Rian Johnson reteams with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has proven himself a force to be reckoned both in smaller independent films and colossal ones. The story is about time-traveling mobsters and co-stars Emily Blunt and Bruce Willis (playing Gordon-Levitt’s older self). The advance buzz is good, so let’s hope it delivers. It’s been awhile since we saw a really good sci-fi movie of this sort. (Well, since Inception, anyway.)

13. Gangster Squad (October)

We haven’t seen a really good gangster movie in quite some time, either — Michael Mann’s Public Enemy, starring Johnny Depp, fell short of expectations. This one comes from Rubin Fleischer, director of the surprisingly wonderful Zombieland, is set in 1940’s LA, and stars Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Josh Brolin, and Sean Penn. How can you not be enticed?

12. Django Unchained (December)

Say this for Quentin Tarantino — he’s never boring. And whatever he’s cooking up is bound to get people talking. After taking on Nazis in Inglourious Basterds, now Tarantino’s putting his own spin on slavery with a tale of a slave-turned-bounty-hunter (oh, that old chestnut?). The impressive cast includes returning Tarantino vets Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, and Christoph Waltz, plus newcomers Jamie Foxx, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Leonardo DiCaprio. Whether or not it’s a great movie, it’s bound to be a fascinating one — but there’s every reason to believe it might be great.

11. Magic Mike (June)

This year’s “what the fuck, that’s actually a movie?” entry is a film based on Channing Tatum’s real-life experiences strip club, directed by Steven Soderbergh. Ordinarily, a movie about a bunch of male strippers starring Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Joe Manganiello, Matt Bomer, and Matthew McConaughey would sound like a G-string train wreck, but this is Steven Soderbergh, who has made more out of less. (He turned a movie about a call girl, played by a porn star, into something quite memorable in The Girlfriend Experience.) The fact that the Warner Bros. is even making a movie about male strippers takes… well, balls. It may be too much to hope for something in the realm of Boogie Nights, but it’s Soderbergh, so you never know.

10. Titanic (April)

The trailer almost made me cry. If ever there was a 3D rerelease to entice me to pay $15 to see a 15-year-old movie I already saw four times in theaters back in the day, it is Titanic. That is all.

9. The Cabin In The Woods (April)

Yes, this could turn out to be total horror-schlock nonsense. But it’s produced by Joss Whedon! The trailer promises at least a few unexpected twists on the ol’ “young people alone in the woods” scenario, and it is written and directed by a Buffy The Vampire Slayer staff writer. I have faith.

8. The Amazing Spider-Man (July)

I only mildly enjoyed Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, so normally I would have only a small degree of interest in a too-soon reboot of the franchise, save for two factors: 1) Peter Parker is now played by one of my favorite young actors, Andrew Garfield, who many will recognize from The Social Network but delivered even better performances in Boy A, Red Riding, and Never Let Me Go. 2) The film is directed by Marc Webb, who brought us one of the best (un)romantic comedies of the last decade, (500) Days Of Summer — and the fact that he, of all people, was selected to helm a big superhero blockbuster is 500 kinds of awesome. Hopefully, this means the characters and humor will be as sharp here as they were in (500) Days — not so in most movies of this sort. Also, Emma Stone is the new love interest, which should be plenty of fun.

7. Prometheus (June)

Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel might just be a return to form for the director and the franchise, which lost its way with the bleak Alien 3, the campy-fun but not quite up to snuff Alien Resurrection, and whatever those Alien vs. Predator movies were. The trailer promises copious thrill and chills; if Prometheus is even half as good as the first two Alien movies, I’m all about it.

6. Cloud Atlas (October)

An acclaimed novel, a buzzy director — this list is starting to sound repetitive, isn’t it? Well, Cloud Atlas is still on my reading list, so I can’t speak for the quality of the book yet. But Run Lola Run director Tom Tykwer brings us this adaptation of an epic story that leap-frogs through time and place, starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, and Jim Broadbent, which means this could either be a sprawling, bombastic mess or a masterpiece. We’ll see.

5. Lincoln (December)

Steven Spielberg essentially operates under two modes — the Oscar-worthy heavy stuff and escapist blockbuster fare. This year, he released one of each, but War Horse found sort of a middle ground (as in, it wasn’t too serious). So it’s about time the ‘Berg delivered another one in the vein of Saving Private Ryan or Schindler’s List (just hopefully not Amistad). I might have some reservations about this project if it didn’t have Daniel Day-Lewis as frickin’ Abraham Lincoln. Hopefully, DDL is already making room on his mantle for another Oscar. Also, here’s Joseph Gordon-Levitt again as Lincoln’s son! When does this guy sleep?

4. Gravity (November)

After Children Of Men, the third Harry Potter, and Y Tu Mama Tambien, Alfonso Cuaron could direct another High School Musical and I’d still be there opening day. I have yet to get a handle on what this film is really about — Sandra Bullock and George Clooney play astronauts stranded in space — but there’s buzz about it pushing boundaries with some mind-blowing new special effects. I care less about that, and more about the fact that Cuaron is one of the most viscerally exhilarating filmmakers we’ve got. Combine that with a terror in outer space, and I’m floored.

3. The Hunger Games (March)

Repeat after me: The Hunger Games is not Twilight. I know it’s tempting to compare them because they are both beloved book series aimed at young adults featuring female protagonists torn between the love of two equally strapping young men, but The Hunger Games has so much more going for it. As does its movie equivalent. For one — Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss (who’s no mopey, helpless Bella Swan, mind you — she kicks ass). It would be quite a shame for this film to not live up to the potential of these addictive books, so fingers crossed — wouldn’t it be great if the next Twilight-esque beheamoth was something that sentient adults could tolerate, too?

2. The Dark Knight Rises
(July)

“There’s a storm coming, Mr. Wayne…” Bet you thought this would be #1, didn’t you? As the third highest-grossing film of all time, The Dark Knight‘s footsteps will be hard to follow — especially since it spawned a legendary incarnation of a classic villain thanks to Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning performance. But the trailer indicates that Chris Nolan is more than up to the challenge of besting himself with spectacle to spare and a pitch-black atmosphere that hasn’t been toned down any. (If anything, it’s been kicked up a notch.) Other reasons to be jazzed: Tom Hardy appearing as Bane and Anne Hathaway as Catwoman — plus, hey! Joseph Gordon-Levitt! There’s a name we haven’t heard for awhile…

1. The Avengers (May)

Kicking off the summer movie season is yet another superhero movie — rather, the mother of all superhero movies, featuring Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, and plenty more. Normally, such an overblown cast might signal a rather unwieldly movie — The Avengers wouldn’t have made this list at all were it made by some second-rate hired hand — but this one is directed by Joss Whedon, who is perfect. To date, the Buffy maestro’s only feature film is a continuation of his own TV series FireflySerenity, which was pretty spectacular. Now we’ll see if he can deliver on a larger canvas, using a story with its own intricate mythology, plus millions of fans around the world hoping that The Avengers is the ultimate comic book movie of all time. But no pressure!

Noteworthy absences: The Hobbit trailer looked almost like a parody of a Lord Of The Rings film. I’m not that excited about it. The dueling Snow White films both look moderately wretched in their own ways. Men In Black III feels about a decade too late — Men In Black Orthopedic Shoes seems more fitting. Battleship, starring Rihanna — is this a Saturday Night Live sketch or a summer blockbuster? I think I’ll hold out for something a little classier, like Adele starring in Balderdash. Pixar’s Brave seems disappointingly ordinary, while the Sacha Baron Cohen vehicle The Dictator looks extraordinarily tasteless. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? Well, the title makes fun of itself, doesn’t it? Skyfall might be fun, as it’s directed by American Beauty‘s Sam Mendes, but how worked up can I get about the zillionth James Bond flick? I can’t get too excited about another zombie movie either, even if it does star Brad Pitt, so sorry, World War Z. And Baz Luhrman doing a 3D Great Gatsby just sounds so wrong in so many ways.

Oh, and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 juuust missed my cut-off at #21. I swear.


Yay Or Neigh?: Spielberg Ponies Up Two New Family Films

$
0
0

(Movies discussed in this post: War Horse, Attack The Block, X-Men: First Class, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Paul, Super 8, The Adventures Of Tintin.)

From The Artist to Midnight In Paris to Hugo and a number of others, 2011 is a big year for nostalgia for all sorts of mainly things — but mainly, for old movies. Hugo and The Artist display it most blatantly, but it’s everywhere — take the romanticized look at growing up in the 50’s (not to mention nostalgia for the creation of Earth) in The Tree Of Life, or the paranoid Towering-Inferno-meets-21st-century-paranoia star-killer Contagion, or the retro heroics of Captain America: The First Avenger, or the 80’s kitschiness evoked by Drive, or the surprising success of a prequel to a campy 60’s movie, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes. Even the latest Mission: Impossible embraced a silliness that felt borrowed from old spy TV series rather than John Woo-style theatrics.

And because of it, you can hear audiences breathing a collective sigh of relief: “Oh, thank God. We’re allowed to have fun at the movies again.”

I’d argue, though, that no movie this year was as big of a nod back to the Way Things Were than Steven Spielberg’s War Horse — not that some didn’t try. But with Spielberg, it’s effortless. He’s been borrowing from the past since his career began, while also defining the present and future of cinema. I’m not about to take us all through a big ol’ Amblin gush-fest here (though I could). Let’s just say it like this: when it comes to filmmaking, the man knows his shit.His latest epic is War Horse, adapted from the children’s story (and a subsequent play) that is about exactly two things: 1) war, and 2) a horse. If either of these two words appeal to you, you will probably find something to like in War Horse.

The story begins with young Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine), who may have been cast primarily for the way his eyes sparkle when very bright fake sunlight bounces off them. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he was blinded during the making of this movie. Albert becomes obsessed with a newborn colt he names Joey, whom his father purchases with more money than they’ve currently got for no apparent reason. War Horse asks you to accept right away that Joey is a special miracle horse and everyone around him can tell. If you cannot accept that, please exit this auditorium and proceed into the one showing The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.The opening half hour of War Horse is a little bizarre in its strict adherence to old-school moviemaking. You never for a moment believe that this is a real farm somewhere in England; these scenes are strangely lit and look quite fake, and since the peerless Janusz Kaminski is the cinematographer, we must believe that this is done intentionally. It’s the sort of set design and lighting that probably would have worked back in the 40’s in black-and-white, but in a 2011 release, it’s jarring. The tone, too, is almost cloyingly nicey-nice, to the extent that it makes the first Babe film look edgy. (There’s even a feisty duck to peck at the bad guys!) You half-expect Joey to burst into song while he plows the field.

Fortunately, he doesn’t. The film picks up steam once Joey is separated from Albert and War Horse becomes an anthology of various lives touched (or, more often, decimated) by the war. It strikes a curious balance between very adult drama in the battle scenes (they’re bloodless, but still brutal) and a more childish tale of the Brave Horse Who Could — this is Saving Private Ryan by way of Black Beauty. War Horse never quite seems to know exactly which audience it’s aiming for, but once it gets past that gawky, overlong opening sequence, it nevertheless works.Nobody stages spectacle quite like Spielberg, and he delivers here in a few jaw-dropping action sequences (some given away in the trailer). It’s unfathomable to imagine how he managed to shoot this without ever obviously resorting to CG horses. Everything looks amazingly real (which is unfortunately undercut be the aforementioned artificiality of the farm set). There’s buzz about Andy Serkis getting a Best Actor nod for his portrayal of a chimpanzee in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, but I’d just as soon nominate the horse who plays Joey.

There are a lot of terrific one-off dramatic scenes, too — the brilliant moment when one German and one English soldier form a truce in order to save Joey from some barbed wire is about as good as any character-based moment Spielberg has ever delivered, and in what might be my favorite vignette, two young German brother-soldiers go AWOL with Joey. In such moments, Spielberg does not hold back on the senseless horrors of war, even if the violence we actually witness is minimal. The impact is felt. As cutesy as War Horse can be in certain moments, it also cuts deep when it aims to.Back at USC, I took a class on the cinematic stylings of Steven Spielberg, and if I had been allowed an unlimited budget to make a final project that displayed everything I learned, War Horse would be my thesis. This is the epitome of Spielberg movies, one that encompasses nearly all of his tropes. Boy searching for approval from his flawed but well-intentioned father? Strong mother figure? Innocence lost? The horrors of war? Man versus beast? Beast versus technology? Nearly every theme the man has ever touched on, he touches again here.

Spielberg has been criticized at times for being emotionally manipulative. But all movies are. The only time it’s a problem is when there’s an attempt that doesn’t work. War Horse is perhaps his most earnest film yet, and that’s saying something. It’s so straight-faced, it’s naked — and at first, you might feel embarrassed for it, perhaps even encourage it to cover up before everyone starts laughing. “Quick, War Horse, put on some cynicism! Wink at the audience! Let them know you’re not really that sentimental! How about a fart?” But the war horse does not fart.There are moments of humor, but all the while War Horse has its heart proudly displayed on its white-socked hoof — in a way that may be shocking to modern audiences. Particularly in its final scene, the film is awash with cinematography reminiscent of revered filmmakers past, most noticeably John Ford — but the real pastiche here is the film’s old-fashioned tone. The movie’s subject is World War I, and if not for the technical wizardry, you might think it had been made sometime around World War II for all its straight-forwardness. They simply don’t make movies like this anymore, mainly because they think jaded 21st century audiences won’t accept them. I might have agreed, except the audience I saw War Horse with seemed to enjoy themselves quite a bit. They were totally into it. How you’ll respond to this film likely to depends on how you generally respond to Spielberg, because — for better or worse, love him or hate him — War Horse is the ultimate Steven Spielberg movie.

But if War Horse seems to be Steven Spielberg’s self-conscious effort to make the ultimate Steven Spielberg movie, he’s not the only who tried last year. It was not nostalgia for the John Ford aesthetic, but rather nostalgia for the Steven Spielberg aesthetic that led J.J. Abrams to make Super 8, which knowingly and intentionally recalls films like Poltergeist, E.T., The Goonies, and Jurassic Park to tell the tale of a small town plagued by… something.The opening scenes of the film recapture that old Spielberg magic, at least in a superficial way, as they introduce the young gang of misfits who band together make a movie the old-fashioned way — on an old Super 8 camera, natch. (Back in my review of Hugo and other 2011 films centered on wayward youths, I mentioned that such misfits either tended to find an unlikely adult role model or team up to fight aliens. These were the two most pervasive courses of action for young misanthropes in 2011 — and this, of course, is an example of the latter.) The young cast is full of remarkable finds like Joel Courtney, Ryan Lee, and Ryan Griffiths, plus the better-known Elle Fanning, who is marvelous. It’s not often you see a blockbuster in which the characters are more interesting than the movie built around them, and their banter is more entertaining than the action set pieces. But in Super 8, that’s exactly what we get. I’m not exactly complaining.

A few early suspense sequences come off quite well, if a bit too derivative of similar scenes in the first two Jurassic Parks. They invoke Spielberg’s famous Jaws rule — what you don’t see is scarier than any mechanical or CGI monster. Unfortunately, Abrams abandons this in the film’s flawed final act, unwisely shifting gears from Jaws and Jurassic Park to the more family-friendly tone of E.T. and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind. (There’s a reason Jaws didn’t end with the Brody family frolicking with the misunderstood Great White at Sea World, J.J.). It’s actually quite like Spielberg to flub his finales in otherwise great movies (see War Of The Worlds, A.I., and Minority Report, to name a few), but I seriously doubt this homage was intentional.Which is why I’m glad 2011 offered us another kids-versus-aliens movie in Attack The Block, the movie Super 8 only wishes it could be. Attack The Block doesn’t winkingly credit Spielberg for any of its thrills or chills, but it’s actually a much better example of the kind of movie he was making back in his late 70’s/early 80’s heyday. (Though it owes more to the Spielberg-produced Gremlins than any of his directorial efforts.) The film’s premise is genius: extra-terrestrial monsters descend upon London, but all we witness of this is what happens in the projects, when the neighborhood hoodlums have to contend with the fanged space beasties. (We’re meant to believe that things turned out quite differently for the posh kids who had to contend with said creatures. You just don’t fuck with these kids.)

Attack The Block gets a number of things quite right — first of all, not all the kids survive, which establishes some real stakes for these characters. Also, the creature design manages to be both campy and terrifying, as is the tone of the entire movie. As they’re introduced, the street punks are menacing and indiscernible (it takes awhile to get a handle on who’s who), but gradually the film gives these characters layers and backstories of their own, allowing us to root for them. There’s a bit of social commentary on how the rich treat the poor, but mostly, Attack The Block is just pure popcorn-munching monster-movie goodness. What’s most impressive is that the film, written and directed by Joe Cornish, was made for only $13 million (and unfortunately has not made its money back). Though it does not actively convey any sense of nostalgia, Attack The Block does harken back to the spirit of the 80’s with its humor and low-budget special effects — Aliens and Tremors may come to mind while watching it, and that’s a very good thing.

Less successfully aping the Spielberg ouvre is Paul, a nutty but obviously overpriced comedy that throws just about everything at the screen, hoping something will stick. Not much does — particularly the expensive-looking action set pieces, which Universal almost certainly regrets. The story follows two British geeks (Nick Frost and Simon Pegg) as they encounter a wisecracking extra-terrestrial named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen). In fact, the alien is exactly like Seth Rogen in every way, except green and thinner and marginally less attractive. (The CGI isn’t very convincing, which is only the first in a laundry list of problems.) The film primarily relies on space-related TV and movie references for humor, such as the scene where Paul is on a conference call with — you guessed it! — Steven Spielberg. Apparently, just about every movie ever made about aliens was Paul’s idea. Say it with me now: “Womp. Womp.” (Paul doesn’t merely rip off E.T. and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind for jokes, but also cribs actual shots from Spielberg movies, too.)

A number of skilled talented comedic actors appear — Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Jane Lynch, and Jason Bateman, to name a few, along with Sigourney Weaver (get it?). They’re all doing their own schtick, which works… sometimes. Not shockingly, Kristen Wiig comes away looking the funniest, since she’s playing a Jesus freak who unravels once Paul tells her there is no God. There’s a hilarious scene in which she smokes pot for the first time and rapidly and exaggeratedly experiences every common side effect; of course, this has nothing to do with the overall premise of the movie, suggesting that a spin-off featuring this character would have been better than this movie. Paul just seems desperate to get a laugh wherever it can, without much concern for a story. The British humor doesn’t mesh well with the high-concept Men In Black stuff, and Seth Rogen merely being Seth Rogen, replaced by a CGI creature, is not inherently funny. The fact that the alien is named Paul gives you an idea of just how clever this movie is. Is Paul really the funniest name they could come up with? Is that supposed to be hilarious? Apparently, somebody thought so.One of the best things Paul has going for it is its collection of misfits against the esgablishment. Did Steven Spielberg invent the kids-banding-together-against-the-elements movie, or merely capitalize on it? Probably the latter, but nowadays such films are so common, it’s hard to really pinpoint where Spielberg ends and other filmmakers begin. And since Spielberg executive produces so many of the movies that ape him (including Super 8) it’s especially hard to tell who’s feeding off who. We watch most modern blockbusters now without really feeling his influence, but can you imagine X-Men: First Class, for example, existing without Spielberg’s early works as a precursor?

X-Men: First Class gives the franchise a jolt back to life by giving us a glimpse back at the mutants’ roots, introducing several of the characters we met in Bryan Singer’s films as youths. The series showed signs of exhaustion with Brett Ratner’s X-Men: The Last Stand and particularly X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so setting the story back in the 60’s during the Cuban Missile Crisis was exactly the breath of fresh air it needed. It doesn’t hurt that A-list actors like Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Kevin Bacon, and Jennifer Lawrence were called upon to play the mutants; the 1960’s time period allows for an extra level of old-school James Bond kitschiness that serves the story well (especially in January Jones’ Bond girl-wooden performance). It’s a curious dose of nostalgia that we didn’t know we needed in these movies — the cinematic equivalent of checking out a spouse or close friend’s baby pictures. Our reaction is, “Aww, look at those mutants! They were so cuuute when they were kids!”Where X-Men: First Class really misses the mark is in its social commentary, which has always been an inherent part of the X-Men universe (with the mutants standing in for any minority that has been oppressed, most evidently displayed via Bryan Singer’s gay analogy in X2). Considering that this film is set during the emerging African-American Civil Rights movement, amongst other milestones, it could easily have used that historical background to provide a more allegorical exploration of the mutants’ “otherness.” What a missed opportunity! Hopefully the next X-Men film corrects this oversight and weaves social upheaval into the storyline — hmm. X-Men at Woodstock, anyone? It would have elevated the film from B-level summer entertainment to something a little greater.

It’s a bit unfortunate that X-Men: First Class has so much story to tell, because not all of it gets the fleshing out it needs. The younger characters like Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Beast (Nicholas Hoult) get painted in fairly broad strokes (those played by lesser-known actors, even moreso), and at least one of them undergoes a major character transformation at the end that doesn’t feel in the least bit earned. As in his previous film Kick-Ass, director Matthew Vaughn seems a little too busy zipping around from set piece to set piece to worry about how his characters might actually feel about what’s happening to them. What should be rich and complex on an emotional level feels rather surface-y instead, though there’s more to like than dislike. Plus, there’s at least one truly excellent action sequence when the young mutants are attacked by the bad guys — and don’t all survive. X-Men: First Class might have been a stronger film to hone in on these teen characters and let the story be theirs, more in the vein of Harry Potter. Though I have mixed feelings about any suggestion that results in less of Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy in a movie.

And speaking of Harry Potter — fortunately, we didn’t need X-Men: First Class to emulate it, because here we got the real thing. Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 seems to possess its fair share of that old Spielberg wizardry (as do the seven films that came before it). It’s no coincidence that Spielberg was at one point attached to direct the first Harry Potter; it begs the question, would the world even know Harry Potter without Steven Spielberg? Certainly, the frustrations of a child (or child-like creature) against authority have come through in a number of his films, from E.T. to A.I. and so much in between; War Horse, too, tugs heartstrings by pitting an innocent horse against a big, bad tanks, amongst other cruelties. See, unlike X-Men: First Class, the Harry Potter films have always managed to strike just the right balance between sentiment and spectacle, as most of Spielberg’s do, too. It’s a balance that so few other filmmakers get right.

The final film in the series is one of its best — though somewhere in the middle, they started to blur together into one very long movie, with plot elements incomprehensible to anyone who isn’t well-versed in J.K. Rowling’s novels. That didn’t make the adaptations less enjoyable, though, and Deathly Hallows provides a satisfying conclusion. The series’ strongest conceit has always been the Spielberg-like wonderment of seeing relatable young children up against the most dire of circumstances; after a decade, Harry, Ron, and Hermione are as familiar to us as our favorite characters in a long-running TV series, and fortunately all three of these child actors grew into capable adult performers as well. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint all pull out the stops for this last entry, having carefully crafted each of these characters over the years into something special.I could retroactively criticize, if I wanted to, the eight-film franchise’s pacing, or the way information was parsed out between all the movies. But why bother? These movies are what they are, and each one delivers enough on its own terms to warrant its existence. Maybe I wish they’d all been more individually distinct, as Alfonso Cuaron’s The Prisoner Of Azkaban was, even if just so I could remember which events happened in which movie. I can’t. Episodes 4 through 6 are a blur for me, dawdling the way Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers did as we bide time before the big showdown. And what a showdown it was! (Though I found the lack of focus on other Hogwarts students disturbing, since presumably many of them died. No one besides the lead characters is shown reacting to all the chaos and destruction, or the climactic victory. But this certainly isn’t the first movie to suggest the deaths of scores of people without explicitly showing any.)

What I wish director David Yates (and J.K. Rowling, for that matter) had learned from Spielberg is that putting younger actors in old age makeup for a coda to an epic story almost never works out quite properly. It was the weak sentimental link in Saving Private Ryan, and it’s an unfortunately awful end to an otherwise very good Harry Potter movie. I know the book ends this way, too — but at least in a book you can imagine that the characters actually look the ages they’re supposed to be, and not merely as convincing as your average high school production of Fiddler On The Roof. Also perplexing — Harry’s attraction to Ron’s sister Ginny and the fact that Hermione ends up with Ron. Did this really work in the books? Because it in the movies, it’s incredibly obvious that Harry and Hermione are meant to have sex and then babies, because they clearly have chemistry (whereas neither of Weasleys manages a drop of it with their supposed soul mates). I can’t for the life of me see what Harry Potter, savior of the world and magician extraordinaire, finds attractive about Ginny; in my mind, he and Hermione totally start having an affair right after that terrible epilogue.

Of course, part of the appeal of this final Harry Potter film was our nostalgia at having watched these kids grow up; as filmgoers, we were these children’s collective parents, only instead of “baby’s first step,” we witnessed “baby’s first ‘stupefy!'” and so on. In my review of the few acceptable blockbusters of year (find it here), I intentionally neglected to mention both Harry Potter and X-Men: First Class because they seemed thematically closer to Super 8 and Attack The Block and I knew I’d discuss them separately. “Nostalgia” has quickly shaped up to be the cinematic buzzword of the year and certainly it’s found within all of these movies one way or another. Originality is an endangered species in Hollywood, which is nothing new in 2011; but now more than ever it’s alarming how many movies are looking back instead of forward. Take a look at the most likely Best Picture contenders so far — The Artist, Hugo, The Help, War Horse, and The Descendants. The only one set in present day and made in a modern style is The Descendants, and even that has a non-starter of a subplot about the ancestry of the protagonist’s family.

Which brings us right back to Spielberg, who released not one but two films within days of each other in 2011. In many ways, they couldn’t be more different; in most ways, they couldn’t be more the same.The Adventures Of Tintin is Spielberg’s first foray into motion-capture animation (or animation of any kind, for that matter). In every other way, it is absolutely a Spielberg movie — a globe-trotting adventure story that recalls Raiders Of The Lost Ark in tone, and a tale of a plucky young lad and his curiously intelligent animal sidekick (hey, remember War Horse?). Both The Adventures Of Tintin and War Horse are family-friendly (the former moreso than the latter), but while War Horse stubbornly bucks modernity in favor of over-the-top pastiche of very old movies, The Adventures Of Tintin is an advancement toward the (possible) future of movies. Which may not be a good thing.

The story hardly matters. Based on a beloved comic book character mostly unknown here in the States, it stars the voice of Jamie Bell as Tintin and Daniel Craig as the cookie-cutter sinister villain, plus the cute pup Snowy (a total scene-stealer). Beyond that, Andy Serkis voices the drunken sea captain Haddock — the closest thing we get to a fully-developed character in this movie. (I was going to say “three-dimensional,” but since the film is presented in 3D, I guess that’s confusing.) The plot is the typical treasure hunt nonsense so many adventure movies are, and the film’s pacing is pretty much nonstop action. It’s been lauded for one extremely long take in which the “camera” zooms from one character to another in the midst of a big action set piece, but to that I say, so what? One “take” in an animated film is considerably less impressive than the same thing done in live action. You simply draw it that way. Am I on the record about 3D yet? I don’t much like it. The Adventures Of Tintin is actually the first 3D feature I’ve seen since Avatar, so I was curious as to how I’d take to it. And after the initial razzle-dazzle of the first few minutes (“Ooh! It’s like the characters are coming right out at me!”), I mostly find it as much a distraction as it is an enhancement. I always feel like I’m just sitting right up in front of a TV screen. I’m also not a fan of motion-capture animation, which I find pointless. If you’re struggling so much to make the animated characters look real, why not just shoot real people? It seems like a lot of effort for naught.

Sure, there are a number of moments in The Adventures Of Tintin that would have been exorbitantly expensive to shoot in live action, but none that couldn’t have achieved roughly the same effect done the traditional way. The Adventures Of Tintin sold me on neither motion-capture nor 3D, and I will happily continue to watch live-action movies in two dimensions from now on. (Sorry!) The problem audiences have with motion-capture is often referred to as “the uncanny valley,” because it looks so real but not quite real that our brains get confused and reject the whole idea altogether. Maybe that’s part of it, but my main problem with The Adventures Of Tintin has nothing to do with either 3D or motion-capture: it’s the fact that nothing in this story has any weight to it, and nothing seems to matter. The action feels madcap and random, the characters are thin to the point of being transparent. Spielberg could have taken a helping of War Horse‘s overcooked sentimentality and included at least one scene here where we care about somebody, but I had about as much attachment to Tintin and company as I have to a Super Mario Brother. The Adventures Of Tintin is a lot like a video game, which works for some. But not me, unfortunately. I spent most of my two hours fascinated by Tintin’s snazzy CG haircut and not much else, and wondering if maybe Spielberg wasn’t hitting the anti-alcohol message a bit too squarely on the head. The only character arc to speak of is Haddock getting sober, which feels like a weird choice for this movie. At times, it feels like most expensive after-school special ever — in 3D!

As it turns out, I like my Spielberg the old-fashioned way, erring on the side of too much emotions rather than too little. Accept no substitutes.

Attack The Block: Shoulda been a blockbuster.

War Horse: Giddyup!

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2: It took awhile to get here, but it was worth the journey.

X-Men: First Class: Maybe not quite first class, but even second-class X-Men will do.

Super 8: Not totally super, but a few moments of old movie magic make it worthwhile.

The Adventures Of Tintin: It’s one continuous two-hour long special effect.

Paul: Only for those really craving a close encounter with a CGI Seth Rogen.


The Reel Me: Unmasking The Man Behind The Mockery

$
0
0

Any cineaste worth his salty popcorn knows the legend of the Lumiere brothers’ 1895 short Arrival Of A Train At La Ciotat, one of the first films ever screened. (Back in 1895, they preferred titles to tell it like it is — no fancy-pants The Upside Of Anger or Broken Flowers.) The Parisian audience settled into their seats awaiting a charming new form of entertainment and, as said train arrived at the aforementioned station, they collectively jumped up and bolted out of the theater for fear of being run over.

Now that’s effective filmmaking.

Cut to a century and change later. You won’t see today’s media-savvy audiences running scared from what’s projected up on that screen (unless they greenlight Catwoman 2). Nor will they line up for too-straightforward titles like A Game From Your Childhood That Has Nothing To Do With Aliens Is Now A Movie With Aliens or Bourne Is Off Doing Amazing Stuff Elsewhere, But Here’s This Other Guy.

Oh how I hate to sound jaded — but the studios just make it too damn easy. Despite the flurry of aesthetic bells and whistles meant to distract us from the actual content of their movies, there’s no escaping the sad fact that we’ve seen it all before. After all, wasn’t the late Tony Scott’s 2010 action flick Unstoppable just an amped-up remake of that 1895 classic? The sense of spectacle that caused moviegoers to panic over a century ago is long gone, try as they might to replicate it. What with 3D, digital projection, and the ever-more-ear-shattering surround sound, nowadays you’re more likely to hear about an audience that actually did get hit by a train — because they thought it was just a movie.Point being, it takes a lot to impress the been-there/done-that consumer in 2012, and even more to impress me — for, as someone who aims to make a living writing movies (and writing about movies), I’ve had an awful lot of face time with Hollywood product. Now I’m just another cine-cynic, cloaking himself in sarcasm to better affront the industry’s typically uninspired status quo. The internet handily allows small-time bloggers like me to ridicule the bigwigs shrouded in anonymity — we’re a lot like the anti-establishment antiheroes that populate comic book movies like The Dark Knight or V For Vendetta or The Watchmen, fighting for truth, justice, and whatnot in a corrupt corporate world. And though we like to see ourselves as lone rangers out to right Tinseltown’s wrongs, we’re really just victims of pop culture overexposure like everyone else, cracking wise to avoid cracking up.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, though. Underneath our sardonic armor, there’s a secret identity — a little boy or girl who, like those panicked Parisians oh so long ago, was once genuinely thrilled by movie magic. Because there was a time for even the most seasoned cinephile when it was all new. Genuine suspense over whether or not a meet-cute necessitated a fade out on a kiss. Real surprise that a trusted mentor could turn out to be the villain of the piece. And, yes, the sudden urge to bolt from the theater. Over the years movies have inspired me, angered me, comforted me, and perplexed me…

But before all that, they scared the shit out of me.My first theatrical moviegoing experience was a re-release of Bambi. While my sister squirmed the next seat over, my eyes were glued to the screen. Cute animals! Catchy songs! On the biggest TV ever! (The sugar rush wasn’t bad either.) It was a good time. Then came that oh no they didn’t! moment every child contends with — a cinematic rite of passage as cruel as the Santa Claus ruse. You know it — that heart-wrenching scene in which Mommy Deerest is gunned down by the big bad hunter. Pretty gutsy, for a kiddie cartoon.

One minute, there you are, sitting in a seat that’s way too big for you, snacking on some Jujubees. There’s music, there’s frolicking, everything’s peachy. And then? Bang. Even at the tender age of four, I had to respect the awesome power of the movie gods, immersing us in a delightfully perfect world and then snatching it back so ruthlessly. Disney giveth and Disney taketh away. What better life lesson on mortality could a child possibly receive?From then on, I surmised not even the cuddliest of characters was guaranteed a safe passage until credits rolled. I grew intensely suspect of those volatile pictures of motion, big screen and small. Michael Jackson’s horrific “Thriller” video gave me weeks of nightmares… I begged my dad to take me home during the ominous opening scene of Tim Burton’s Batman… my parents literally held me down and pried my eyes open to get me to watch Spielberg’s E.T. on VHS because that little alien puppet gave me the frickin’ creeps. No, I was not a brave youth. But in each case, my enthrallment overpowered my deep-rooted terror. (Well, except with “Thriller.” That still freaks me out.) I kept watching.

Then, in June 1993, the tables turned and I was never the same. My parents deemed Jurassic Park “too scary” — unaware that denying a prepubescent male the chance to see a T-Rex on the big screen was tantamount to withholding food and shelter. Now I was begging to be terrified at the movies… to no avail. Indefatigable, I bought the action figures and reenacted every gory scene from Michael Crichton’s book, in anticipation of the glorious day when I’d be deemed man enough to step through those big wooden doors into Jurassic Park. (Yes, I had a replica of the doors.) But I feared it would never come.When school started in September and I still had no frame of reference for the oft-quoted “Hold onto your butts!”, I might as well have shown up for fifth grade in leisure suit. I was a social pariah. (And it has ruined me to this day.) Becoming best friends with the boy who “spoke raptor,” and would only squawk at me as he stalked around the playground during recess, didn’t make me any cooler. (Hard to believe, right?) It was to be a short-lived bromance.

Finally, that fall, my parents relented — nearly four whole months after the film’s release. After bracing for graphic depictions of velociraptors ripping out intestines, I was surprised to discover the film wasn’t nearly as violent as my imagination (and Crichton’s book) had had me believe. It wasn’t terrifying at all — it was awesome.

In later years, after conquering true thrillers like The Shining and The Exorcist, I got my kicks from more taboo fare. My grandest act of teenage hell-raising was sneaking into the Oscar-nominated Shakespeare In Love at age sixteen. (Yeah, I was a rebel.) On my seventeenth birthday, when at last I obtained equal standing with parents and guardians in the pitiless eyes of the MPAA, I went straight for the earliest showing of American Beauty to observe my emancipation. Pity me if you will — these were the greatest thrills of my formative years. Is it any wonder I ended up in film school?

Like Bruce Wayne, Charles Foster Kane, and Sigmund Freud before me, I faced my childhood demons — the ones that go bump in the night in Dolby Surround — and made them part of my identity. Filmmaking is a rough business — in fact, it scares the shit out of me — and that’s why I’ve never been able turn away.

In the spirit of Arrival Of A Train At La Ciotat, someday I’d like to thrill people so much they run screaming from the theaters. (Or at least sit all the way through the end credits.) ‘Til then, I hide safely behind my cynic’s cape and cowl with all the other jaded journalists out there, an arsenal of irony and razor-sharp wit at my side (they don’t call me dangerous for nothin’). From the shadows, I mock to make the world safe for quality and good taste once more. Or if nothing else, to leave them wondering…

“Who was that sarcastic film student, anyway?”

*


Trailer Trash: Steven Spielberg // ‘Lincoln’

$
0
0

The Oscars are coming!

The Oscars are coming!

Okay, yes, I know, the Academy Awards are not technically until February, and that was a Revolutionary War reference, which is inappropriate for a movie set during the Civil War. But the movies that will be nominated are on their way in hordes, starting this month with the strong contender The Master, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who led one Daniel Day-Lewis to the podium with his last film, 2007’s There Will Be Blood.

I like The Master‘s chances at a slew of nominations come January, but if there’s one movie this fall that just screams “Oscar bait!”, it’s this one — Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as the man you know from such gigs as “the penny” and “the five-dollar bill,” and also possibly something about slavery.

Lincoln trailer

Lincoln looks like a remake of War Horse, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as the horse. (Come to think of it, I’m not certain that the horse wasn’t also played by Daniel Day-Lewis in that film.) It’s got that epic sweep, a very well-known historical figure at its center, a wartime setting. There is absolutely no higher pedigree of filmmaking possible than the combination of Abraham Lincoln, Steven Spielberg, and Daniel Day-Lewis. But the film co-stars Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jackie Earle Haley — basically, only people with three names are allowed to be in a film this important — as well as Sally Field and every other serious actor you’ve ever heard of. Of course, Spielberg’s past historical epics have been hit (Schindler’s List) or miss (Amistad). Expectations for Lincoln are both sky-high and also, rather cynically, that it will be a bloated Oscar-grab that can’t possibly live up to the hype.

Based on this trailer, yes, this does look like a Very Serious Movie. Seeing Daniel Day-Lewis all gussied up as Abraham Lincoln is both awe-inspiring and super creepy. They may as well hand out the Best Makeup Oscar to Lincoln now, regardless of whether or not the film itself is any good.

Honest Abe is having a surprisingly big year at the cineplex, having also supposely offed a bunch of undead creatures in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Somehow, I think it’ll be Spielberg’s film that racks up more nominations, however.

As someone who grew up captivated by Spielberg, I always give ol’ Stevie the benefit of the doubt, because he’s made more good films than bad ones. I even liked War Horse pretty well, though I hope Lincoln is better. Like, Oscar-good. And almost Best Picture-good, but not so good that it beats The Master. Because dude deserves a turn at the podium already, right alongside Daniel Day-Lewis, who basically just has to sit there in this awesome makeup and do nothing if he wants another Oscar. (But most likely will do plenty more.)

I cannot tell a lie — this looks pretty damn good.

(Damn, that was a George Washington reference, wasn’t it?)

*


Abe Is Enough: ‘Lincoln’ Emancipates Spielberg From His Usual Tricks

$
0
0

Four score and seven years ago, it was 1925. That’s not really relevant, but it seems difficult to write a review of Lincoln without including the man’s most famous phrase, even if not that many people even know how many years “four score” is, and even if that’s the least important aspect of his Gettysburg address (and yet the most enduring).

So then, with that out of the way, let’s talk about a movie that is only partially about the events of 1864-1865, at least on a subtextual level. Technically, there’s no reason Steven Spielberg couldn’t have directed Lincoln a decade ago, in exactly the same way. But it wouldn’t have been the same movie — not by a long shot. Lincoln is a curious thing — a movie that takes place 150 years ago that might be more relevant now than it ever could have been before.

Okay, sure, a Lincoln movie during the 60’s might have been pretty relevant, too. But there’s something particularly moving about the one that comes in 2012, just a couple of weeks after we reelected Barack Obama. When Lincoln opens, Honest Abe has just been reelected too, and the men have a few things in common. Abraham Lincoln could be featured on posters emblazoned with the words “Hope” and “Change,” too. A Lincoln movie in 2008 could have had a similar impact, but there’s something about the fact that we kept both men around for a second term that is particularly poignant. Lincoln is all about moving forward, making progress — but only the progress you can afford to make at the time. Lincoln knew, as Obama surely knows, that you can only ask for so much at a time without losing the majority.I can only guess how much Obama was in Tony Kushner’s mind while writing this movie — the post-election release date isn’t an accident, but no one, of course, knew for sure who would come out as victor of the 2012 election. Seeing Lincoln with Mitt Romney as our president would’ve been a bitter pill to swallow, but instead the movie takes on a narrative that can’t possibly have been entirely planned. We’re always moving forward, even though we occasionally take a few steps back. Seven score and seven years ago we abolished slavery, but balked at the idea that a black man could vote. Now there’s one in the White House.

And yet, for as far as we’ve come in that sense, we are still having the same debate regarding other issues — in particular at the moment, marriage equality. Not everyone will read into that message upon seeing Lincoln, since the race issue is most obviously front and center. But the irony is there. We’re still learning the lessons Abe himself was trying to teach us so long ago, and while we’ve come far, we’re still working at it. The message of Lincoln is one of hope, and one that wouldn’t have worked had Romney won the election. It’s so obvious now, to nearly all Americans, that slavery is wrong, and yet other prejudices stand. If we’re to believe what Lincoln preaches, those too will continue to be challenged, and eventually overcome. But for now, we can surprisingly identify with the core debate at the heart of Lincoln, even though the matter at hand is long since settled. The conversations in Lincoln are not unlike those we’ve been having for the past few years.But that’s all subtext in a movie that’s pretty straightforward. Lincoln is an obvious contender for Best Picture and Best Actor, with Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field also likely to be recognized. It’s probably unnecessary to extoll the virtues of Daniel Day-Lewis’ uncanny transformation into Abraham Lincoln, but how can you not? The combination of his makeup and acting is, quite simply, astonishing in its resemblance to Lincoln, or at least, how we imagine him to be. The other period details all feel just as right. Lincoln is sumptuous as nearly all Spielberg’s historical films are, though it’s not quite as gussied up as War Horse. That film was an obvious pastiche, the most Spielbergian movie imaginable, while Lincoln is a bit of a departure the old pro — talkier and with much less spectacle. Sure, there are some very earnest moments, a couple that are borderline sappy. But his direction is mostly invisible, letting Day-Lewis and Lincoln steal the show.

Lincoln is talky, almost entirely concerned with the politics surrounding the passing of the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery. There are a couple of juicy scenes, like a thrilling scream-off between Abe and Mary Todd, and another tense moment between Lincoln and his son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). But mostly, it’s politics and speechifying and earnest sentiment, with a lot of moments of wry humor thrown in to lighten the mood. Abraham Lincoln is fond of telling stories, and even as the audience, we may grow weary of them at a certain point. Spielberg’s Lincoln never misses an opportunity to say something profound.

Luckily, as written by Kushner, these moments do tend to be fairly profound, and insightful. Lincoln isn’t a terribly deep movie, as far as the characters go — most characters, we never see more than one side to. Taken at face value, it might not have much impact. But with the added implications imported from 2012, it ends up being about quite a lot, and on a technical level, it’s a masterpiece. Certain shots already feel iconic.

Will Lincoln sweep the Oscars? It may be a little too slow-moving for that. I’m not sure how much the general public will be into the detailed politics, lots of talking strategy in a room, with little in the way of conventional action. (Plus, roughly half the audience that voted for Romney may feel slightly uncomfortable about having slavery supporters as their proxy.) The cinematography and art direction and such will be serious contenders, and of course it’s hard to imagine Day-Lewis not winning Best Actor.


OMGzilla: The Latest Lizard Epic Has That ‘Jurassic’ Spark

$
0
0

t-rex-godzilla-jurassic-parkSummer movie season is officially underway, everybody, and you know what that means: I’ll be writing weekly reviews of each and every blockbuster that Hollywood throws our way.

Just kidding! What am I, made of money? I sure don’t have the funds to shell out sixteen bucks for all of the mindless crap the studios hope teenage boys and Chinese people will like enough to put them in the black for the year.

Nor do I have the time. Last summer, I saw one lone “summer movie” in theaters, which does not mean I didn’t see any movies during the summer. I just preferred to spend my summer hours on the likes of Blue Jasmine, The Spectacular Now, The Bling Ring, Much Ado About Nothing, I’m So Excited, and Before Midnight, all of which appealed to me more than Man Of Steel or Star Trek Into Darkness or The Lone Ranger.

This summer is a little better. The season kicked off early in April with the better-than-expected Captain America sequel The Winter Soldier. Next week sees the release of a promising X-Men movie, Days Of Future Past, with the return of Bryan Singer. And while there are a handful of obvious thuds on the horizon, like Blended and Transformers 4 and Let’s Be Cops, we can be cautiously optimistic about a number of titles including Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes, 22 Jump Street, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Cinematically speaking, I’m looking forward to this summer.bryan-cranston-godzillaThis past weekend brought us the behemoth reboot of Godzilla, last spotted wreaking Independence Day-style havoc on New York City in Roland Emmerich’s largely reviled 1998 version, which had the bad luck to be released after Steven Spielberg’s The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Unleashing a Tyrannosaurus Rex on the mainland was a no-brainer for the blockbuster dino franchise, but the T-Rex’s rampage through San Diego was not a part of Michael Crichton’s book, and admittedly the sequence was randomly tacked on at the end of the movie as a bonus fourth act. I didn’t mind. It was basically Spielberg’s way of giving Emmerich’s Godzilla the finger (if T-Rexes had a middle finger…), beating the Americanized Asian monster to the punch by having him stomp through hordes of innocent civilians.

And why not? Emmerich’s Godzilla definitely stole a page or two from Spielberg, with a more T-Rexiified lizard than the traditional Japanese fatty and lil’ ‘zillas that were, no doubt about it, velociraptor rip-offs. Emmerich’s movie even had us feeling sorry for the big mama bitch, the same way we developed some feels for the mama-and-papa T-Rex duo in the Jurassic Park sequel. To be fair, Spielberg probably owes some kudos to the Japanese Godzilla movies, so this whole cycle is basically one giant lizard eating its own tail. In the years since, we’ve had Cloverfield, which was a rip-off of Godzilla‘s rip-off of Jurassic Park (and we all know JJ Abrams loves ripping off Spielberg!). And now we’re back with both a new Godzilla and next year’s highly anticipated Jurassic World. (Is anyone else starting to feel old, witnessing multiple reboots of the same franchise within their lifetime?)

It’s no surprise, then, that the latest Godzilla owes as much to Spielberg as it does to the Japanese B-movies of yore. The hero’s name is Ford Brody, for crying out loud! (That’s Ford as in Harrison Ford, AKA Indiana Jones, and Brody as in Martin Brody, the hero of Jaws. Because, I guess, “E.T. Goldblum” was just a bit too obvious.) Ford’s wife’s name is Elle Brody, not so far from Ellen Brody (also of Jaws), and for that matter, not so far from Ellie Sattler of Jurassic Park, either. The film opens with a picaresque helicopter sequence that we can only wish had a lush John Williams score to go along with it, and at one point, a soldier is pointing his flashlight beam dangerously close to a monster’s eye, and I’ll be damned if I didn’t want to jump up and scream, “Turn the light off! Turn the light off!”godzilla-school-busMoreso than these aesthetic similarities, however, what Godzilla really borrows from Spielberg is its pacing. It’s a good long while into the movie before we set eyes on the title titan, and before we do we see his “fins” poking out of the water (hello, Jaws) and his big ol’ legs (hello, T-Rex). Godzilla spends its first hour primarily on scientific-speak, which is not nearly as riveting as Jurassic Park‘s rather nerdy and utterly convincing discussion of just how dinosaurs were brought back to life, but posits what is probably the most plausible explanation for how Godzilla and perhaps a few other behemoth beasties have been hiding out unnoticed on Earth for the past however many years.

This pseudo-science buildup all might be a bit more riveting if it hadn’t been done (rather badly) back in the 90s, except with Vicky Lewis and Matthew Broderick instead of the award-winning likes of Juliette Binoche, Bryan Cranston, David Straitharn, and Sally Hawkins. Like Jurassic Park, Godzilla casts a caliber of actors we don’t normally see in a major summer blockbuster like this one, though none of them are really able to transcend their one-dimensional characterizations. Bryan Cranston has the most to do, emotionally, though he’s unfortunately not playing a meth kingpin (that we know of). Indie darling Elizabeth Olsen plays a W.I.J. (Wife In Jeopardy) and as such gets to do movie-wifely things like frown at the news, leave frantic voicemails, and then wait in some kind of crater for the army to rescue her. Protagonist Ford Brody is played by the newly buff Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who seems to have traded in his acting chops for biceps. I’m not sure the buff body really suits him; wasn’t he better off when he was quirky and scrawny? Wasn’t that kind of his niche? Does the world need another Taylor Kitsch? I dunno, these days Aaron Taylor-Johnson looks like he’s perpetually posing for a selfie.godzilla-aaron-taylor-johnson-selfieWhat director Gareth Edwards gets right in the latest Godzilla is that Spielbergian sense of awe and spectacle. Does anything match the Spielberg face goodness of Jurassic Park? Of course not, and no movie probably ever will, because back in 1993, seeing a CGI dinosaur roaming the Earth was about as novel as seeing a real one. Nowadays, we’ve seen too many monsters causing havoc on the big screen, and there’s not too much in the 2014 Godzilla that we didn’t see in Jurassic Park or Pacific Rim or some other Godzilla movie, which is the problem with these frequent reboots (it’s even more “been there, done that” in The Amazing Spider-Man). But these creatures are genuinely ginormous, way bigger than a T-Rex, and Gareth Edward’s Godzilla could probably step on Roland Emmerich’s. (He’s more or less gone back to the original Japanese design, big fat cankles and all. You’d think that would be cheesy, but it actually works.)

There are some genuinely awesome moments in the new Godzilla, the kinds of moments we can’t take for granted in a blockbuster these days. Several feature Spielbergian flourishes, like when a monster stomps idly under a bridge as Brody and a fellow soldier lie very, very still — because it can’t see you if you don’t move! There are also several children in jeopardy — at one point, a whole school bus full of ‘em. Edwards does not forget to ground all this mutant mayhem in the real world, in the context of what people’s reaction to this next-level chaos would be. (Not that we couldn’t have used a little more, especially from Elle Brody.) The scale is massive, proposing apocalyptic WTF reactions from the little people being stomped on like so many ants, and that’s at times genuinely unsettling. (Which is appropriate for a franchise that started off as an allegory for nuclear threat.)godzilla-elizabeth-olsen-spielberg-faceWhat doesn’t work so well is the large amount of screen time given to the military, almost always the most useless subplot in a city-in-peril blockbuster. (Spielberg knows this, but Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay, and countless others seem to think we want numerous cutaways to what some admiral or general thinks we should do about all this.) Making Ford Brody an expert at dismantling nuclear weapons is a tedious and ultimately pointless choice — the whole point of these movies is to spend time with the clueless, hapless, scared-shitless civilians, because that’s us. Martin Brody and Alan Grant may have some know-how, but when it comes right down to it, they’re just regular dudes who make Spielberg Face just like the rest of us would if presented with the gaping maw of a great white shark or a T-Rex. They’re relatable, you see. And Aaron Taylor-Johnson seems incapable of making Spielberg Face. (Either that, or he’s making it all the time. I can’t tell which.)

A few of the action set pieces are disappointingly brief, including a Hawaiian tsunami and especially an attack on Las Vegas, which could have been a whole ten minutes longer (because how much fun is it to see a monster take down that tacky city?). Edwards seems a little hesitant to dwell on mass destruction until the end, which basically obliterates San Francisco. The multi-monster battle at the end is suitably epic. The overall filmmaking is rather impressive, with a style and mood that isn’t matched by many movies of this ilk. There’s a parachute sequence that is hauntingly beautiful, and the images of burned and destroyed cities evoke the devastating blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that kicked this whole franchise off in the first place; it’s rare to see these disaster movies evoke such gravitas, and it’s much-needed. GODZILLAGodzilla has already been deemed worthy of a sequel, something its 1998 predecessor never was granted. With a hefty slate of blockbusters on the horizon and rather tepid word-of-mouth, though, it may not end up being quite the smash Warner Bros. is hoping for. Why aren’t people more favorable to Godzilla? It could be the weak characters, or the lack of humor, or the Godzilla-free first half of the movie — which may prompt some audience members to channel their inner Ian Malcolm and inquire, “You are planning to have Godzilla in this Godzilla movie?” — or maybe we’ve been so bombarded by Transformers-style mish-mash in the years since Jurassic Park that we’ve forgotten how to have patience with smart, slow-building spectacle.

It isn’t quite Spielberg, thanks largely to a rather dull cast of characters and an unfortunate lack of humor or levity to even out of the gloom and doom. (Not a single line approaches “Hold onto your butts”-level memorability.) But it’s also not Roland Emmerich.

In other words? We might wish life had found a way for the studio to spare no expense on a more clever girl to write the screenplay… but at least it’s not one big pile of shit.    godzilla-sally-hawkins-ken-watanabe *


The Tens: Best Of Film 2005

$
0
0

mysterious-skin-cereal(A “Then & Now” perspective.)

This Top 10 is actually a 20, because sometimes ten just isn’t enough.

Actually, it’s because that’s how I wrote it back when it was originally published a decade ago, and if I’m bothering to re-post it I may as well re-post the whole thing, right?

This stop on my time-traveling Top Ten tour takes us back ten years to 2005, to what is probably my most controversial #1 pick ever. (And also one of the most controversial Best Picture winners of an Academy Award ever, too.) I won’t spoil it here, but if you’re familiar with the year (and my tastes), then you probably know it already.

And you know what? I still stand by that choice a decade later. Looking back on these lists sometimes make me want to rearrange things, and occasionally makes me want to omit a choice entirely in favor of something else. Something that seems great in the moment doesn’t always stand the test of time. There are movies on this list — and any list — that don’t end up provoking much thought down the line, that I never bothered to watch again, while others are still as viscerally amazing now as they ever were and have been rewatched several times since.

Of course, picking the best films of any given year is not an exact science, especially when you’re in the moment, rather than looking back on the year with some context at a future date. So, on that note, you’ll read what I had to say about each film then, and I’ve also decided to include notes at the bottom of each entry explaining what my relationship to the film is now, and how my opinion may have differed.

Got it? Okay. Let’s go back in time.

*
MCDNEWO EC005
20. THE NEW WORLD

True to his trademark, Terence Malick meanders through his narrative and lingers on gorgeous shots sometimes too often and sometimes too long. But at its best, the film is lyrical and beautiful, and Q’Orianka Kilcher (fifteen years old, ladies and gentlemen!) is a marvel as Pocahontas. When Malick uses Richard Wagner’s “Vorspiel” as score when his characters discover lands they’ve never known, it really does feel like he’s unveiling a whole new world (and painting with all the colors of the wind, too).

(I haven’t revisited this film since its release, probably in part because I do remember it being slow and rather slight. This is probably the Malick film I’d be most curious to revisit, however.)

19. HUSTLE & FLOW

For a movie so immersed in its authentic, down-and-dirty Memphis locale, Hustle & Flow makes it look awfully easy to get out if you just have a dream. But what the film lacks in plausibility, it makes up for in kinetic fun, and the rap tracks are awfully catchy. (It is, indeed, hard out here for a pimp.) Terrence Howard, as the pimp-turned-musician, shows again that he’s an underrated actor.

(A decade later, Howard is enjoying a bit of a renaissance, and this is another film I haven’t seen since 2005. I wasn’t impressed with much of what Howard or director Craig Brewer did afterward, though I think for #19, this is in the right spot.)

18. NINE LIVES

Rodrigo Garcia tells nine separate stories of women (not cats, as you might think from that title) that unfold in a single take. The most brilliant thing is that we barely notice. Robin Wright Penn, Holly Hunter, Kathy Baker, Glenn Close, and Dakota Fanning are just some of the names in a uniformly superb cast.

(I love me some Rodrigo Garcia, but this is the film of his I remember the least. I’d recommend Mother & Child and Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her before this one.)

17. ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

Miranda July wrote, directed, and stars in this quirky indie piece about a kooky performance artist and the equally kooky people around her. With material that in any other movie would feel edgy, July simply makes us laugh. A lot.

(I remember July’s The Future better than this one, probably because I saw it more recently. The thing I remember best is that it inspired a particularly nasty Cards Against Humanity card, which I suppose should count for something.)

16. THE CONSTANT GARDENER

Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz bring more gravity than usual to the standard “big bad corporation kills people” thriller. The urgent direction by Fernando Meirelles is definitely above par… it’s a classy movie that makes us feel smarter for watching it. And maybe we are.

(To be honest, I barely remember anything about this movie. I’ve been meaning to rewatch it, but it’s not something you hear a lot about these days.)
lisa-kudrow-jesse-bradford-happy-endings15. HAPPY ENDINGS

That the film’s title refers more to an illicit way to end a massage than to a cheerful conclusion to this story is telling of the film’s sense of humor. Early on, Lisa Kudrow’s character is hit by a car, but a title card tells us not to worry, “she doesn’t die.” (Lisa Kudrow being hit by a car tends to be funny, and can also be found in Romy & Michele’s High School Reunion.) Happy Endings is the kind of indie ensemble that requires a good deal of explaining to give a sense of what it’s truly about, so I’ll just mention who’s in it — Kudrow, Laura Dern, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Tom Arnold, Jesse Bradford, and Kevin (son of John) Ritter — and promise that they are all very good. (Yep, even Tom Arnold.) The film presents likable characters in very unusual predicaments, and watching them play off each other is alternately funny and touching. As for a happy ending, well… see for yourself.

(Aha! Finally a film I have seen again since 2005. Happy Endings has held up really well, in my opinion, and if I had it to do over it would probably be in my Top Ten.)

14. HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

As I’ve heard from Potterphiles on several occasions, J.K. Rowling’s fourth installment in the series is meant to transition into darker, more adult themes. Whoops! Alfonso Cuaron did that last year with the excellent Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, conjuring directorial panache that made the story’s magic come alive in ways Chris Columbus never did (and making the series a treat for older audiences, too). British director Mike Newell takes a step or two back with more traditional (though still competent) direction and less urgent pacing. Goblet of Fire still delivers all the Potter goods, from the three engaging leads (aging well, I must say), a colorful ensemble of stalwart British thesps, and razzle-dazzle to spare. Though the film’s climax doesn’t have quite the punch it should, it certainly leaves me eagerly awaiting the next installment.

(The only Potter film I’ve seen more than once is Azkaban, and it remains my favorite. Most of these middle entries tend to bleed together in my memory, up until the 7th and 8th, which came across as more distinct.)

13. TRANSAMERICA

Felicity Huffman gives the year’s best performance and goes a long way in making this occasionally convoluted story compelling. As Bree, a pre-op transgendered male-to-female, Huffman disappears into her role in a way that not even Charlize Theron was able to do in her Academy Award-winning turn as Aileen Wournos in Monster, nor Hilary Swank in her Oscar-winning role in Boys Don’t Cry. It’s almost too bad Huffman is a household name thanks to Desperate Housewives, or else people would be wondering whether she was, in truth, a man or a woman. Bree is not the carefree, in-your-face, take-no-prisoners character you might expect (and surely have seen) from a story with a transsexual protaganist — she is a mild-mannered, righteous person who would be very at home at a ladies’ garden club meeting if not for her penis.

As the title suggests, Transamerica is a road movie in which Bree gets to know the son (Kevin Zegers) she never knew she had, whose highest ambition is to be in gay porn. The dynamic between Bree and her son Toby is pitched just right and it’s what makes this movie work. What so easily could have been cheaply melodramatic and preachy becomes emotionally affecting and very watchable instead, and if the story itself isn’t always convincing, the characters sure are. What the screenplay and direction lack the actors more than make up for, transcending the material and providing entertainment that urges us to just accept it for what it is.

(This movie still strikes me as a little shaggy around the edges, and fairly hovers outside my Top Ten. It’s particularly interesting to look at it during what has been the biggest year in trans visibility to date, with Transparent and Bruce Jenner dominating awards shows and magazine covers. Transamerica is the first film I know of that got this ball rolling, and deserves some credit for that.)

12. SERENITY

Joss Whedon turned a failed movie into a hit TV series with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Here, he attempted to do the opposite and did not succeed. Apart from fans of the cult sci-fi series Firefly, audiences stayed away from Serenity, which is too bad — with rousing action, witty characters, smart direction, genuine surprises, and laughs and scares alike, it’s the movie Star Wars Episode III should have been. A space odyssey in which we actually care about the characters? Now that’s out of this world. This is the year’s best popcorn movie.

(Joss Whedon certainly did alright for himself, didn’t he? Serenity was a necessary step on the ladder that rather quickly landed Whedon The Avengers… which turned out to be a very good popcorn movie, too. Although I think, for what it is, Serenity might be even better.)

11. CINDERELLA MAN

Preachy marketing and an inappropriate summer release date kept Cinderella Man from being a bona fide hit, and Russell Crowe’s real-life can of whoop-ass overshadowing subject Benjamin Braddock’s didn’t help either. But what audiences missed were spectacular performances from Crowe, Renee Zellweger, and Paul Giamatti, solid direction by Ron Howard, and a true feel-good story (that is not quite as ra-ra America as the initial marketing proclaimed). Script, cinematography, performances, direction, and everything else come together to tell this story just the way it should be told. Sometimes the big studio dramas really do get it right.

(And sometimes you completely forget about them. I haven’t seen Cinderella Man since its release, and to be honest, I haven’t really had an urge to. This particular brand of Hollywood movie doesn’t age well in my mind, though I’d have to watch it again to confirm that fairly.)

And now for the real Top Ten…

the-40-year-old-virgin-restaurant-steve-carell-catherine-keener10. THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN

In a year in which critics and audiences hailed Wedding Crashers, a ribald comedy that, in terms of cohesive, coherent storytelling, simply wasn’t very good, we can be extra grateful for The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which tells a solid story that would be good even if there wasn’t a single laugh in it. (Fortunately, it’s hilarious too.) The script and direction are shaggy and imperfect at times, but at its center is a sympathetic and (dare I say) believable protagonist who consistently encounters the dark side of casual sex that is so often overlooked.

Steve Carrell must face the obscenely drunk girl, the raging whore, and other frightening foes before he finds the woman of his dreams, played by the wonderful Catherine Keener (who goes a long way in making this movie so likable). Yes, there are some raunchy parts, and the script is skewed toward a male demographic, but at its center the movie is sweet and charming — the off-color laughs being a fortunate bonus. As a crowd-pleasing comedy, The 40-Year-Old-Virgin is the rare one that actually delivers.

(I still think this is Apatow’s best work.)

scarlett-johansson-naked-bed-jonathan-rhys-meyers-shirtless-sex-scene-match-point9. MATCH POINT

There’s something very sexy about Nola (Scarlett Johansson). More than her husky voice, more than her smoldering looks, more than that predatory confidence she displays, there’s a vulnerability behind it all that makes her irresistible (though we all know it’d be much wiser to resist her). Chris (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) certainly sees it, and if he’s a little sketchy as a character it’s because we’re meant to identify with him as he marries into the lifestyle of the rich and fabulous. That lifestyle, of course, comes at a price — the price being that his wife is too perfect, and things are a bit tedious when he’s with her. He wants her upper crust life but can’t identify with it — instead, he identifies with the similarly-classed Nola, and fixates upon her.

Match Point is a movie about wanting what we can’t have — or at least shouldn’t have, for then we must pay the price… and Allen is clever enough to know that even acceptance from the mighty isn’t quite enough to ever belong. That is the basis for the fatal attraction between Chris and Nola. The well-to-do are completely clueless about the ambitions and desires of the have-nots in this movie, and it’s just as well — they’d rather not know. Certainly one of Woody Allen’s darkest films, this one displays his long-dormant talent for compelling characters and sharp dialogue. Gone is the typical neurotic, rambling Woody character he often portrays himself, though Chris is not too far off — chasing an ideal. The difference is, Chris is ruthless enough to have it, whereas Woody never has been. ‘Til now.

(I haven’t revisited this film in a long time, though it did mark an important turning point for Allen. He still misses as often as he hits, but he’s made a few very worthwhile films in the vein of this one, whereas his frothier comedies are not usually so compelling.)

anna-paquin-jesse-eisenberg_the_squid_and_the_whale8. THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

This film is a good film, but the title is the main reason why it’s on my Top 10. It is the reason I went to see the movie. Don’t get me wrong — the film is good enough to belong on this list, and that is partly because its title so neatly defines what this movie is about — a clash of the titans. To outsiders, the spats between Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney would seem nothing more than lovers’ quarrels between two people who are no longer right for each other, but experienced through the eyes of their two sons, their battles are epic, larger than life.

The Squid And The Whale gives each member of the family equal consideration, and equal importance—somehow we see things through the naive eyes of its adolescent protagonists and also see the truth beyond what they can see in the thick of things. The parents are flawed people who make real mistakes, and this is the unusual film that does not ask us to like or dislike them as people. The same is true of the children. There are no conclusions to be drawn from this simple, honest, truthfully-acted film, and no lessons to be learned. It is merely a study of a family falling apart and coming together, again and again, the way real families do.

(Sorry to be redundant, but I haven’t seen this one again either. I’ve really enjoyed some of Baumbach’s subsequent work, though — Frances Ha in particular — so I’d love to go back and revisit this.)

good-night-and-good-luck-david-straitharn-murrow7. GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK.

There’s quite a lot left out of Good Night, And Good Luck that most writers would have included — the film almost feels too slight for its own good. But George Clooney’s luminous drama about the McCarthy era depicts what is on screen just right — complete with fine acting and a convincing atmosphere, all in glorious black and white. David Strathairn’s performance is certainly Oscar caliber, and the shadowy cinematography sublimely reflects a society scared into silence.

Journalism is the central character in this film, with real news footage edited into the film’s depiction of behind-the-scenes politics at CBS, and at the end we feel grateful for bold journalists like Edward R. Murrow. Without their opposition the course of our nation might have been dramatically altered… and we’d never see a movie like this.

(This is still the peak of George Clooney’s career as a director, although he’s certainly made himself a staple at the Oscars one way or another ever since. That said, this film is not discussed often, and I’m guessing that the look and Straitharn’s performance remain its most notable attributes.)

history-of-violence-cronenberg-viggo-mortensen-maria-bello-ashton-holmes6. A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

The film’s title could very well speak for the career of the film’s director, David Cronenberg, who also has a history of weirdness in his films… and this one is no exception. The world in A History of Violence is just this side of reality, though its dramatization of the innate violence inside us is utterly truthful. Viggo Mortensen portrays Tom Stall, a man who has successfully contained the aggression within — until a holdup at his diner compels him to kill again.

That one act of violence, though in self-defense, triggers a chain of further bloodshed… people act out in ways they didn’t expect of themselves, unleashing inner demons they didn’t know they had. Tom’s son gets into fights at school, Tom and his wife engage in some very aggressive love-making… it’s not just the heroes and villains who’ve got a history of violence here. For delving deeper and darker into these characters than most stories would, A History of Violence is one of the year’s most compelling films. Is it better to confront our true nature or deny it and live in a contained harmony?, the films asks, but never quite answers.

(I still haven’t caught up with most of Cronenberg’s early work, but I’ve seen every one of his films since this one, and I always appreciate the off-kilter weirdness he brings to stories that could be much more straightforward in other hands… he ended up on my 2014 Top Ten, too. This is still probably his best film of the bunch.)

Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in a scene from BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, 2005.5. BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

It’s ironic that such a quiet, introspective film has received so much publicity for its unapologetic portrayal of a homosexual relationship. Ennis and Jack certainly wouldn’t want such a fuss. Brokeback Mountain, in fact, should be applauded for how revolutionary it isn’t — it makes no compromises for the fact that its romantic leads are men, nor does it add anything to the story that wouldn’t be necessary if it was a romance between Heath Ledger and Maggie Gyllenhaal. It is like any other story of doomed lovers, and the combination of the time, the place, and their gender just happens to be what keeps them apart.

As directed by jack of all genres Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain uses the ambling pace and wide-open, spartan iconography of typical Westerns to ground the story, leaving all traces of progressiveness to the media coverage. Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are both convincing, thankfully without “playing gay.” Much is made of Brokeback Mountain being a love story, and it is… but I prefer to think of it as a buddy movie with benefits.

(Brokeback Mountain is still iconic, largely because Ledger passed away just a couple years later, and this was his defining performance up until The Dark Knight won him an Oscar posthumously. It’s both a romance and a tragedy, an important sign of its time, when homosexual pairings were still viewed much more suspiciously than they are now. It’s kind of amazing to view this movie as a response to that, and see how different things are just a decade later. That said, I never thought this movie should have won Best Picture, though it certainly would have been more symbolically significant.)

reese-witherspoon-johnny-cash-joaquin-phoenix-walk-the-line4. WALK THE LINE

Joaquin Phoneix’s performance may be less showy than Jamie Foxx’s Academy Award-winning turn in Ray last year, but that’s part of what makes Walk The Line such a great film. Phoenix embodies Johnny Cash so naturally, you forget you’re watching a biopic… you’re watching a fascinating character who just happens to come up with some of the greatest country songs ever recorded along the way. Sure, the typical musician biopic staples are in place — childhood trauma, disapproving parents, womanizing, drug abuse — but what helps Walk The Line rise above that is that, at heart, it’s a real love story between two dynamic people (and not just checking the “love story” box off the biopic checklist).

Reese Witherspoon shows off her acting chops as June Carter, an equally compelling character who is afraid to be with Johnny for the same reasons she loves him. The songs featured in the movie are not just placed there because Johnny Cash sang them, but are actually fueled by June and Johnny’s relationship; they help move the story along. It’s refreshing to see a movie about a musician that seems like it would exist even without the iconic artist in question. Walk The Line contains not only love for Johnny Cash the musician, but who Johnny Cash was a man — lonely, brooding, and one of a kind.

(This movie gets a bit of flack for being too biopic-y, but I still love it. I wouldn’t want to take Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar away, given his untimely death, but I do prefer Phoenix’s performance as Johnny Cash.)

munich-eric-bana-shirtless-ciaran-hinds3. MUNICH

Munich is no Schindler’s List, and that’s one of the best things that can be said about it. Though the heavy subject matter isn’t far from his 1993 masterwork, Spielberg does not attempt to recreate or outdo his Oscar-sweeping triumph and instead delivers a taut thriller that resonates with moral ambiguity to prove that, even as the best-known filmmaker of the past several decades, he’s still maturing as a storyteller.

Munich takes place in 1972 but, even better, feels like it was made back then, when studios spent big money to let autuers tell large-scale, lengthy masterpieces (and people went to see them). We empathize with the assassins in Munich, though we do not necessarily believe what they are doing is right, or what anyone is doing is right. The characters sometimes question whether what their actions are helpful, without questioning whether or not they should carry them out. Violence begets more violence, vengeance begets more vengeance, and at the end there is not more peace, but more bodies. There is no trace of the too-saccharine Spielbergian ending that marred this year’s otherwise-excellent War of the Worlds… there is no conclusion at all, the only fitting ending to a story with so many wrongs and no right.

(This film holds up pretty well in Spielberg’s canon, a cut above more recent efforts like War Horse and Lincoln. It’s his best film in the last decade, though I’d like to see him outdo it, since it’s still not amongst his top five or maybe then top ten.)
mysterious-skin-joseph-gordon-levitt-brady-corbett-gay-romance2. MYSTERIOUS SKIN

While Brokeback Mountain will go down in history as 2005’s groundbreaking gay love story, Gregg Araki’s haunting, little-seen Mysterious Skin is, for my money, edgier, deeper, and far more affecting. In the film, two eight-year old boys are molested by their Little League coach one summer; by the time the boys are 18, one of them is a prostitute while the other has convinced himself the “missing hours” from his life are attributed to an alien abduction. Neil and Brian don’t know each other; the film tells their stories separately until Brian begins to remember another boy who may have been “abducted” too.

The film covers all its bases without resorting to tired cliches about sexual abuse — from what we know about Neil, it was almost inevitable he’d become a hooker with or without his coach’s influence. He remembers that summer fondly. Brian, however, internalizes his trauma to the point of asexuality. By showing us two widely contrasting characters dealing with the same trauma, the film wisely avoids an oversimplified, after-school special mentality. Araki is fearless, delving into the film’s darkest material headfirst to show how a sexual predator might charm his way into the life of a boy under the guise of a father figure.

The performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Brady Corbett are some of the best this year. Gordon-Levitt, in particular, should be commended for making what might have been a teen-whore caricature real and vulnerable. When the boys finally meet again in the film’s haunting final scene, it suggests that the most intriguing, most hopeful part of this story lies just beyond the closing credits — we can only imagine how their lives unwind from here. The need they have for each other at that moment is far greater than love and certainly not motivated by sexual orientation — it’s something even Ennis and Jack could envy.

(I still think this is one of the great underrated indies of the past decade. My admiration has only grown. It was the first real display of Gordon-Levitt’s chops, which have been much heralded since, though I wish Araki would make another film that lives up to this one.)

thandie-newton-crash1. CRASH

Everyone’s a little bit racist. Cowriter/director Paul Haggis takes this hot-button issue so head-on, some critics and moviegoers felt sideswiped… and listening to lovers and haters try to defend their Crash position is one of the year’s best cinematic debates. In any event, that this is one of the most divisive films of the year only proves that Crash is doing something right.

Crash, like many films before it, takes a group of barely-connected strangers and weaves them together on a string of coincidences — here, the forum is race relations in Los Angeles. What many of its detractors missed is that Crash is a metaphor — the characters say blatant, bigoted things to people of other races, things that are often left implied but unsaid in today’s PC world. They’re speaking what is unspoken… the characters experience the world not the way it is, but the way it seems.

Take the film’s most powerful scene, during which a black woman (Thandie Newton) is trapped in a burning car, and a white police officer (Matt Dillon) tries to save her. She tells him to go away — why? Because this is the man who molested and humiliated her the night before. It is unlikely that the exact same man who harassed the woman less than 24 hours ago would find himself pulling her out of a burning vehicle, but it is very likely that the woman, having just been violated by a white policeman, would refuse help from a white officer even when her life depends on it. But during this crucial moment, a new relationship is formed… she is a person who needs help, he is a person who can help her. In a matter of life and death, both put aside their preconceptions and do what most people, no matter how bigoted, would. They fight to preserve human life.

Some call Crash preachy because the white officer “learns something” in this scene — but who could come so close to death and learn nothing? Does he feel guilt now for molesting this woman the night before? Probably. Does it change his life? Does it make him a nicer person afterward? We don’t know, but I bet not. Crash expertly does what it sets out to do, and it is a touching, funny, suspenseful, scary, tragic, superbly acted, beautifully shot, and balanced film, with not one but two of the most emotionally affecting scenes in a movie this year. I could speak volumes more praise for Crash, but suffice to say you either buy into it or you don’t. Trust me on this, though… those of us who do are the lucky ones.

(Yep, I still really enjoy Crash, and I’m still on board with it winning Best Picture in this roster. While it gets a bad rap for highlighting flaws in the Academy, people tend to forget it was a tiny-budget indie that would ordinarily fly under the radar, and it’s kind of amazing that such a small movie could soar to such heights. I find that inspiring, to be honest. I still find myself defending Crash all the time. Every time I watch it, the emotional beats always land just right… except one, involving Ryan Phillippe’s character. I think the film is very misunderstood, and in terms of Best Picture winners, there are certainly more egregious upsets in the years since… Argo and The King’s Speech, for starters.)

*

And now, my awards for the actors, writers, and directors. These awards aren’t wildly original this year. A lot of my picks are already the frontrunners in their races, or at least in the running. A year in which the most deserving people actually get awarded? It’s crazy!

kevin-zegers-shirtless-felicity-huffman-transmaericaBEST ACTOR
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk The Line
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck.
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Jeff Daniels, The Squid and the Whale

BEST ACTRESS
Felicity Huffman, Transamerica
Reese Witherspoon, Walk The Line
Q’Orianka Kilcher, The New World
Laura Linney, The Squid and the Whale
Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Terrence Howard, Crash
Brady Corbet, Mysterious Skin
Matt Dillon, Crash
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Catherine Keener, Capote
Scarlett Johansson, Match Point
Thandie Newton, Crash
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Amy Adams, Junebug

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash – Paul Haggis
Match Point – Woody Allen
The Squid and the Whale – Noah Baumbach
Nine Lives – Rodrigo Garcia
Me And You And Everyone We Know – Miranda July

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Munich – Tony Kushner
Brokeback Mountain – Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana
Mysterious Skin – Gregg Araki
The Constant Gardener – Jeffrey Caine
A History of Violence – Josh Olson

BEST ENSEMBLE CAST
Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Me And You And Everyone We Know
Happy Endings
Munich

*

And in case that wasn’t enough, here’s every movie I saw from 2005 in order of greatness (or suckability, as we get toward the bottom).

2005 MOVIES

(in descending order)

1. Crash
2. Mysterious Skin
3. Munich
4. Walk The Line
5. Broke back Mountain
6. A History of Violence
7. Good Night, and Good Luck.
8. The Squid and the Whale
9. Match Point
10. The 40-Year-Old Virgin
11. Cinderella Man
12. Serenity
13. Transamerica
14. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
15. Happy Endings
16. The Constant Gardener
17. Me and You and Everyone We Know
18. Nine Lives
19. Hustle & Flow
20. The New World
21. Junebug
22. Red Eye
23. Cache (Hidden)
24. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
25. Syriana
26. In Her Shoes
27. Capote
28. An American Haunting
29. Ripley Under Ground
30. War of the Worlds
31. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
32. Jarhead
33. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
34. King Kong
35. November
36. The Island
37. My Summer of Love
38. March of the Penguins
39. Sin City
40. Memoirs of a Geisha
41. Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride
42. The Upside of Anger
43. Batman Begins
44. Proof
45. Dark Water
46. The Interpreter
47. Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic
48. Gunner Palace
49. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
50. Rent
51. Kontroll
52. The Family Stone
53. Prime
54. Dear Frankie
55. Sahara
56. Pretty Persuasion
57. Hitch
58. Tell Them Who You Are
59. Flightplan
60. The Libertine
61. Winter Solstice
62. Monster-in-Law
63. Four Brothers
64. Dot the I
65. The Wedding Crashers
66. Just Like Heaven
67. Dust to Glory
68. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
69. Be Cool

*



Border Line: International Relations Get Tense In ‘Bridge Of Spies’&‘Sicario’

$
0
0

We’ve heard many times that the so-called “War on Drugs” really is an actual war. Traffic, a Best Picture nominee from way back in 2000, remains the cinematic authority on the topic, and probably had more influence on the aesthetic of modern movies than almost any other film. Nowadays, plenty of dramas and thriller look like Traffic. Back then, only Traffic did.

Sicario, the latest film to take us south of the border to the war zone, shares a lot of DNA with its predecessor in terms of its look and feel — not to mention one of its stars, Benicio Del Toro — and a focus on of good cops feeling powerless against the forces of evil, weighing the pros and cons of compromising their values. Sicario might be the first of the films to tackle this subject, however, that actually feel like a war movie.

The film’s unsettling percussive score by Johann Johannsson is our first clue. There are drums beating constantly underneath the action in this thriller from Denis Villeneuve, who takes the bleak dread of Prisoners and Enemy to a new height (or is that a new low?) in Sicario. It’s rare to mention a film’s score before its plot, stars, or director, but it’s as major a player in Sicario as anyone else. The music raises our pulses during several ultra-tense action scenes, as a good thriller score should do, but I also think we’re meant to hear these war drums as a call to arms the same way these characters do. Thousands of people are being senselessly murdered by unseen, seemingly unstoppable forces. The various law enforcement officers in Sicario know they stand little chance of defeating this enemy in total, but also know that if they don’t fight back, no one else will. And it can only get worse. In their hearts and heads, the drums of war beat constantly, just as they do on the soundtrack.

Emily Blunt stars as FBI agent Kate Macer, who is persuaded to “volunteer” for a mysterious mission that aims to cripple the Mexican drug cartel. The film’s opening scene sees Kate and her task force raiding a home in Arizona, where it is suspected that hostages are being held, only to discover something much, much worse inside.SICARIO Day 01

Kate must answer to Matt Graves (Josh Brolin), supposedly of the Department of Defense, though she suspects he’s actually CIA, along with his “partner” Alejandro (Del Toro), whose origins are even more shrouded in secrecy. Graves won’t tell Kate what their true objective is, and the film doesn’t let us in on their secrets for a long while either. We know what Kate knows, which is not much. She’s just a soldier.

Eventually, Kate’s superiors take her to ground zero — Juarez, Mexico, the kind of place where seeing naked, decapitated bodies hanging under overpasses is routine. Kate and her team enter the country in swiftly moving snack of black vehicles, not stopping to present their passports or for any other formalities, because their task exists outside the law. It’s similar to a scene like “Ride of the Valkyries” in Apocalypse Now, or any depiction of troops heading into battle. Rules don’t exist here, except the rules set by the cartel. There’s a very real danger that Kate and her teammates could be killed at any moment, just as in combat. It’s easy to see why Kate feels the urge to fight — everything the Juarez cartel touches turns into Hell on Earth.

Watching Sicario the first time around is an almost unbearably tense experience. As in the rest of Villeneuve’s body of work, oppressive dread hangs over every frame. We witness a few highly unpleasant moments; what happens in this film’s denouement could be troublesome in a slicker Hollywood product, but Sicario earns its misery by establishing the stakes of this war. As long as people continue using drugs, there will be someone to sell drugs to them. These drugs will come from places like Colombia and Mexico, and the price paid by the people who live there will be steep. According to Graves, intervention by the United States is mandatory, or more and more bodies will keep piling up on both sides of the border — what they’re doing circumnavigates much of the law, but again: this is war.Sicario-benicio-del-toro-badassKate is our eyes and ears as we enter this world and witness the many horrors even she is stunned by. It’s not crucial that the lead of Sicario be a woman, but it does create an interesting dynamic. Matt and Alejandro have no respect for Kate’s role on their team, which may or may not be because she’s a woman. Kate is out of her depth in dealing with the horrors of Juarez, but not because she’s a woman — because that’s not her field, and because Juarez is fucking terrifying.

Kate’s morals butt up against Matt and Alejandro’s elusive interests, and she is visibly terrified through most of the movie. (Who wouldn’t be?) In some senses, this is behavior we’d think of as “typical” for a female character. Matt is almost disturbingly cavalier about his mission, seemingly shrugging at the fact that he could die at any moment. Without giving too much away, Alejandro reveals himself to be a force to be reckoned with, to say the least. In some movies, it would be problematic that the lone female is relegated to the weak “good cop” role, but this film also takes the time to fully develop her as a character. Sicario is well aware of its own gender politics, without drawing too much attention to them. Kate’s gender surely has something to do with her role as the pawn in this mission, but not everything. Ultimately, Sicario has its female protagonist wrestle with morality in a way that is probably somewhat different than, but not less equal to, the way a male protagonist would. At this moment in time, that’s probably more interesting than presenting her as a badass “tough girl” who’s just one of the boys.

Beyond Traffic, Sicario reminded me of two other films — Silence Of The Lambs and Zero Dark Thirty. The former has been pored over in gender studies in cinema classes, with Clarice Starling emerging as something of an icon for capable women in a male-dominated workplace, while the latter drops its female protagonist into a war zone she’s not quite ready for, just like Sicario. These films all feature women in the FBI or CIA struggling to prove their competence against men who’d prefer them to play nice and pipe down, though thanks to the work of its predecessors, Sicario is less concerned with having Kate “prove herself” and be the one who saves the day. It’s not a “take that, boys!” kind of movie. (All three films also have memorable and significant night vision sequences. I don’t know what to make of that connection.) The cinematography is courtesy of the legendary Roger Deakins, and it shows.benicio-del-toro-sicarioAt the opposite end of the spectrum is the new Steven Spielberg movie, Bridge Of Spies, which gives its few female characters absolutely nothing to do, in large part because when it comes to high-stakes international politics, women weren’t given a whole lot to do back in 1960 either. Amy Ryan, a powerhouse actress capable of great things, is totally sidelined in the “supportive wife” role. Bridge Of Spies is definitely a boys’ club, but again, so was 1960.

Bridge Of Spies is comparable to Sicario only in the sense that both explore U.S. intervention in global affairs, and it’s kind of interesting to think about how our role in such matters has changed (or not changed) from 1960 to 2015. Tom Hanks is a lawyer who begrudgingly represents a British man, living in Brooklyn, accused of being a spy. (And he is a spy, as the movie lets us know in a quietly masterful opening sequence.) James B. Donovan’s defense of Rudolf Abel takes up the first third or so of this film, which has a knowingly Capra-esque, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington feel to it (and who better to cast as a Jimmy Stewart type than Tom Hanks?). It’s really just an extended prologue for the real story, though, when Donovan is asked to covertly travel to Berlin to facilitate the exchange of an American spy captured in Russia for Abel. The governments themselves can’t be involved, so Donovan agrees to perform this very dangerous task on behalf of his country.

Bridge Of Spies is the ultimate 21st century Spielberg movie, nestling right up alongside titles like Munich, War Horse, and Lincoln. Janusz Kamiński shoots it as beautifully as he shoots every Spielberg movie, and the maestro is (still) at the top of his form as a director, composing shots and sequences like no one else. As with so many of his films, this one features a family man on a moral mission — if Hanks’ character were anymore decent, he’d be playing Jesus Christ himself. The climactic sequence scrapes up some tension, just in time for a slightly too long, slightly too sentimental ending (a Spielberg staple), but mostly this is a talky film with grand political ideas like Lincoln, though the script also contains plenty of wry humor to offset the earnestness (perhaps because it was co-written by the Coen brothers). Bridge-Of-Spies-tom-hanks-austin-stowellIt’s all pretty great, but somehow the flawlessly executed pieces don’t add up to a totally gripping whole — perhaps because the story’s scope is so massive. Bridge Of Spies gives us a grand total of three spies (or suspected spies) to care about, with about half the movie set in Germany just as the Berlin Wall is going up, plus all those Cold War shenanigans. Aside from the tense scene in which American student Frederic Pryor is harassed and imprisoned by German soldiers, Bridge Of Spies doesn’t generate a palpable sense of danger for its characters. (In that sense, it reminded me of the very similar Argo.) It’s not a fatal flaw, but spending more time with the Americans imprisoned in Germany and Russia might have raised the stakes and gotten us more invested in the outcome of Donovan’s dealings. Donovan continually states that he “just wants to go home,” and after a while, it starts to feel like that really is the extent of the stakes of this movie.

Both Sicario and Bridge Of Spies are beautiful to behold, thanks to their unparalleled directors of photography, and masterfully directed by one incredibly promising filmmaker, relatively new on the scene, and one of the all time greats. In their own ways, both speak volumes about current events. I’m not about to surmise how Sicario should be interpreted regarding the Mexican-American border’s role in recent political debates; nor does Bridge Of Spies‘ sentiment about how foreign prisoners should be treated feel like a topic that needs exploring in a review of the film. One is shockingly violent and bleak as hell, the other a throwback to more optimistic times, and you can probably guess which one ends much more happily than the other. Bridge-Of-Spies-tom-hanks-rain-umbrella*


The Tens: Best Of Film 2001

$
0
0

memento-pictureThis is it. This is my final retroactive Top 10 list, because it is my first.

This was the first year I was in film school, and the first time I saw nearly enough films in any given year to feel qualified to weigh in. I was a teenager at the time, so maybe my taste wasn’t quite so refined — but hey, it was a lot more refined than most 18-year-olds, I’d wager.

These lists are a time capsule. Some of these films have aged better than others. Others that I’ve seen since — Mulholland Drive, Donnie Darko, Before Night Falls, to name a few — might have been in contention, but aren’t found here. Because you can’t see everything.

I wrote this list without ordering my picks, so I’ve ordered them as seems appropriate now. Another caveat: I didn’t do any write-ups then, so these are my current thoughts about these films. Some of these movies I love even more now than I did then, and others I’d probably happily leave off this list were I to go back and start over. But you can’t do that, because it defeats the whole purpose of encapsulating your favorites in a Top Ten!

(For other Top Tens from other years, click here.)

Left to right: Heath Ledger, Sean Combs, Billy Bob Thornton in a scene from the motion picture Monster's Ball. --- DATE TAKEN: rcd 01/02 By Jeanne Louise Bulliard Lions Gate Films HO - handout ORG XMIT: PX64576

10. MONSTER’S BALL

There’s a lot of misery going on in Monster’s Ball. Hank is a son of a bitch whose wife killed herself, and early in the story, his son kills himself, too. Then there’s Leticia, whose husband is executed on death row early in the film, and whose son is later killed in a car accident. But hey, at least there’s ice cream!

Yes, this film lays on the “chocolate versus vanilla” symbolism thicker than hot fudge, because Hank is white and Leticia is blank, and Hank is also pretty much a racist. It’s basically tragedy porn, and is mostly notable for winning Halle Berry her Oscar for Best Actress, which was also the first (and, to date, only) Best Actress Oscar to go to a black actress. Unfortunately, Berry’s career since 2001 has been, shall we say, less than optimal, with duds like Gothika and Catwoman following her win and somewhat sullying her appeal. She hasn’t been great in a great movie since. Director Marc Forster’s career has been spotty, too.

But Berry is really good in Monster’s Ball, and despite its retroactive inclusion under the Lee Daniels Meloadrama Umbrella, it’s not a bad film, if a tad overcooked. Billy Bob Thornton, Heath Ledger, and even Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs turn out fine performances. This isn’t a film from 2001 I’ve revisited often (I may be a masochist when it comes to bleak movies, but I’m not that much of a masochist), but it’s not a cinematic blight, either, even though Monster’s Ball doesn’t have the greatest of reputations anymore. (Funny how consensus on certain films just sours sometimes, largely when its key players turn out subpar work in subsequent ventures.)

British actor Jim Broadbent is shown in a scene from the film "Iris," for which he was nominated for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role at the 8th Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards Nominations, in Los Angeles, CA, 29 January 2002. The Awards will be presented in Los Angeles 10 March 2002. AFP PHOTO/SAG [PNG Merlin Archive] ORG XMIT: POS2014031909134325

9. IRIS

I suppose it’s fitting that my most forgettable movie of 2001 happens to be about Alzheimer’s. I certainly don’t want to dismiss the film — I liked it enough to rank it among my favorites of the year, of course, and it was nominated for three Oscars, all for its performances. Not too shabby.

Jim Broadbent won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, even though I’d say his role is more of a lead (as you’ll see in my acting awards below). No matter. As Bayley, the mild-mannered hubby of the titular Iris, played to perfection as usual by Dame Judi Dench, Broadbent is heartbreaking. Broadbent is the kind of stalwart character actor who isn’t often recognized by the Academy, or at least rarely wins against more formidable (and famous) opponents. For this role, he was up against Ben Kinglsey, Ian McKellan, Ethan Hawke, and Jon Voight, all of whom are more recognizable to audiences. And Iris also has a supporting turn from Kate Winslet, which is never a bad thing.

Dench and Winslet have had plenty of other memorable roles, and Broadbent has proven his worth in many roles since, but it’s nice that this movie earned him his due… even if I’m feeling a bit Iris-like, in that I remember very little about the story of the film itself…Fellowship-orlando-bloom-arrow-LOTR8. THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

Speaking of Ian McKellan! This was the film that started it all, for better or worse. It’s actually rather unfortunate that Peter Jackson went on to direct his bloated Hobbit trilogy — which (to be fair) I haven’t seen — because the original trilogy was held in such high regard by both audiences and critics, back in the day. The third installment managed to sweep the Oscars in 2004.

These films still have their place in the hearts of many fans (and I suppose the Hobbit films do too, of a much smaller group), but since 2001 we’ve seen a lot of imitators — not so much in terms of fantasy stories, but definitely in terms of spectacle. Few of these are anywhere as good as Fellowship Of The Ring.

Give Jackson his due for adapting a difficult book series into something that fans old and new cherished, something of high enough quality to be nominated for Best Picture all three times, and utilizing such magnificent actors in these iconic roles. There is so much to praise in these movies, and yet… and yet… I find it hard to muster much enthusiasm for them now, because I’m exhausted by what they left in their wake.

Sorry, Mr. Jackson.gosford-park-ryan-phillippe-kristin-scott-thomas-sex7. GOSFORD PARK

Before there was Downton Abbey, there was Gosford Park. The cast features more or less every British thespian who was noteworthy in 2001 (many who would become even more noteworthy later), including Helen Mirren, Kristin Scott Thomas, Jeremy Northam, Emily Watson, Clive Owen, Charles Dance… I’m getting tired of listing them, but there are lots more. Enough to compete with Hogwarts. Also… Ryan Phillippe!

Gosford Park is like an Agatha Christie novel come to life, paired with Christopher Guest-ian humor. (Or maybe that’s just the presence of Bob Balaban leading me to think so.) Directed by the legendary Robert Altman, this takes the auteur’s trademark comfort with colossal casts and loose narrative and puts it to work, in the pitch perfect setting of a posh English manor, where there’s been — dun dun dun — a murder!

The story is a classic “upstairs downstairs” type, where we see things unfold both with the upper crust and the servants. The film is wryly funny and the mystery is satisfying, and — no surprise here — the cast is superb all around. I haven’t seen Gosford Park in a while, but I should correct that. It’s Altman at his best (or close to it, at least).josh-hartnett-black-hawk-down6. BLACK HAWK DOWN

We’ve seen a lot of movies that resemble Black Hawk Down since 2001, but they may never have been made if Black Hawk Down didn’t get there first. Ridley Scott was hot off the Best Picture-winning Gladiator, with the hot lineup of Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Orlando Bloom, and Eric Bana, amongst others. (You remember when Josh Hartnett was a thing, don’t you?)

Black Hawk Down was the most intense war film since Saving Private Ryan, set in a much more recent era (Somalia, 1993). Up until this year, it was probably also the best regarded film by Ridley Scott since Black Hawk Down, as his output has been hit or miss otherwise. (A Good Year, Kingdom Of Heaven, Body Of Lies, Prometheus, Robin Hood, Exodus: Gods And Kings, American Gangster, The Counselor… definitely a mixed bag there.) Hans Zimmer pulled out a pretty fantastic score, and the film won two out of the four Oscars it was nominated for. Black Hawk Down also feels like a necessary precursor to films like The Hurt Locker and American Sniper that depict more recent war zones than the usual WWII varietal.   MCDROTE EC0215. THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS

Wes Anderson has been assembling casts of weirdo “families” (biological or otherwise) since 2001, many times using the same actors. (I know Bottle Rocket and Rushmore did this to an extent earlier, but I’d say it was The Royal Tenenbaums that really cemented the full Wes Anderson formula.) I am sometimes charmed by Anderson’s sensibilities, and sometimes not. Occasionally, I get a sense of quirk overload, to the extent that I’ve had to skip a few of his films.

It helped that back in 2001, we hadn’t really seen this sort of thing before. Gene Hackman is a hoot as the gruff patriarch of a fractured family whose only method of getting back in his loved ones’ good graces is to pretend that he’s dying. Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Luke Wilson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Danny Glover, and Bill Murray are basically an immaculate lineup for Anderson (the dour, secretly smoking Margo is Paltrow’s best-ever performance). Like all of Anderson’s films, there’s an underlying sadness beneath the mega-stylized surface, but in this one, it feels earned.

memento-guy-pearce-carrie-ann-moss-mirror4. MEMENTO

I mentioned having forgotten a lot about the Alzheimer’s drama Iris above, but Memento is far less forgettable — even though it is similarly all about memory loss, albeit in a much more mysterious fashion. While not technically Christopher Nolan’s first film, it is the film that put him on the mainstream map. While still best known for his Batman films, the unique vision Nolan put forth in Memento carried on in bigger original films like Inception and Interstellar, which are mainly notable because hardly anyone gets to make big budget original stories anymore.

In Memento, we have a story that is nothing new — a man trying to hunt down the man who wrong his wife. The twist, of course, is that this man has anterograde amnesia, so he forgets everything he does and everything that happens, making him vulnerable to certain predators. Taking place in alternating scenes of chronological and reverse-chronological order, one in color and one in black-and-white, Memento is a post-Pulp Fiction pushing of the limits of narrative storytelling, one that — like Pulp Fiction — has prompted plenty of copycats in the years since.

tom-Wilkinson_in-the-bedroom_sissy-Spacek3. IN THE BEDROOM

This film is a lot less kinky than it sounds. In fact, it’s not kinky at all! The titular bedroom shenanigans refer primarily to grief, loss, estrangement, and other such unsexy things.

Tom Wilkinson and Sissy Spacek are Matt and Ruth Fowler, living an idyllic life in Maine with their son Frank (Nick Stahl)… until he begins dating an older woman, Natalie (Marisa Tomei), who has two children and a hot-headed ex husband. That ex ends up killing their son in a domestic dispute, and because there are no witnesses, he ends up going free. Matt and Ruth cope in different ways, the absence of Frank palpable between them. Eventually, Matt comes to believe that the only way they can move on is to take eye-for-an-eye vengeance, leading to a tense finale.

In The Bedroom was the first official Sundance selection nominated for Best Picture, and certainly not the last. A number of independent films with similar stories and moods have been released in the years since, but In The Bedroom remains one of the most sparsely elegant of all, powered by powerhouse performances from Spacek and Wilkinson. The fact that it lost Best Picture to the lighter-weight A Beautiful Mind is a predictable shame in the Academy Awards record books, but this one holds up far better.

ghost-world-thora=birch=catwoman2. GHOST WORLD

Of all my 2001 favorites, this is probably the film I’ve re-watched the most, and it only gets better with age. Following their high school graduation, BFFs Enid (Thora Birch) and Rebecca (Scarlett Johansson) hang out and fill their last summer of freedom in that idle, aimless manner you can only get away with as a teenager. Their primary preoccupation becomes with Seymour (Steve Buscemi), a lonesome sad sack, whom they prank by setting him up on a fake date. Then Enid starts to feel sorry for Seymour and begins spending time with him, and the longer she’s around Seymour, the more she realizes they have in common. Being a snarky outsider is fine and dandy in high school, but that’s the sort of attitude that could see Enid growing up to be as lonely as Seymour.

Adapted from a comic book, Terry Zwigoff’s offbeat comedy is plenty clever and contains a number of indelible comic moments, but like The Royal Tenenbaums, the comedy bubbles up in a sea of melancholy and human truth. The relationships between these characters are flawless and fascinating — Enid and Rebecca, as their friendship falls apart post-high school, as teen friendships tend to do, and Enid and Seymour, whose relationship is tender with some underlying romantic tension that’s never as creepy as it easily could be. Ghost World captures the tender age between childhood and adulthood perfectly, with a level of stark, sobering truth that’s rare in a “teen movie.” (This is one of those only in the most technical sense.) It’s one of the best comedies of the past 15 years… or maybe ever.

ai_moon-jude-law1. A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

This might be one of Steven Spielberg’s more divisive movies — in more ways than one. In it, you can feel Spielberg’s sentimental instincts grappling to stay buoyant while tangling with Stanley Kubrick’s more nihilistic worldview.

It is the story of David, an artificial intelligence in the form of a sweet-faced boy. (You didn’t get more sweet-faced in 2001 than Haley Joel Osment, hot off his iconic turn in 1999’s The Sixth Sense.) David is programmed to love his adoptive family, but these humans, of course, are not programmed to love him back. When their own child awakens from a coma, their fear of David’s synthetic origins overwhelms the complex feelings they’ve grown for him, and he is abandoned. That’s where the family drama ends, and an entirely different sort of adventure begins.

Based on the short story “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long,” A.I. is like a fairy tale, but not the sweet Disney-fied rewrites we remember. We’re talking original Brothers Grimm style stuff. Its depiction of the future is both awesome and hellish, and absolutely one of my favorite cinematic imaginings of the future. And how can you not love a story about a lost little boy and his talking teddy bear that has them meet up with a gigolo for the rest of their adventures? Though there are blatant echoes of Pinocchio in the text, A.I. also feels like a fucked up version of The Wizard Of Oz, as a child meets up with an array of unusual friends on his quest toward the big city.

It comes as no shocker that Jude Law makes a pitch perfect male prostitute, because in 2001, who didn’t want to sleep with him? But this is also one of his best and unheralded performances. The whole movie, in fact, is underrated despite coming from one of the highest profile filmmakers out there — it earned only two Oscar nods in a year where more people were focused on the first of Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings movies. (Though as you can tell by these ranking, I find Spielberg’s vision of A.I. a lot more compelling.)

It may take a few viewings to fully appreciate the brilliant and beautiful strangeness of this story, but it ranks amongst Spielberg’s best work. Even coming from such a blockbuster auteur, it’s one of the most creative and memorable pieces of cinema from this era, and I’m not alone in holding it in even higher esteem now than I did upon its release in the summer of 2001.in-the-bedroom-sissy-spacek-tom-wilkinson

BEST ACTRESS

Sissy Spacek, In The Bedroom
Halle Berry, Monster’s Ball
Judi Dench, Iris
Jennifer Connolly, A Beautiful Mind
Thora Birch, Ghost World

BEST ACTOR

Jim Broadbent, Iris
Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums
Tom Wilkinson, In The Bedroom
Billy Bob Thornton, Monster’s Ball
Denzel Washington, Training Day

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Marisa Tomei, In The Bedroom
Maggie Smith, Gosford Park
Kate Winslet, Iris
Gwyneth Paltrow, The Royal Tenenbaums
Cameron Diaz, Vanilla Sky

jude-law-ai-artificial-intelligence-haley-joel-osmentBEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Jude Law, A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Steve Buscemi, Ghost World
Ben Kingsley, Sexy Beast
Ian McKellen, The Fellowship Of The Ring
Peter Boyle, Monster’s Ball

BEST SCREENPLAY

Gosford Park
Memento
The Royal Tenenbaums
Ghost World
In The Bedroom

BEST DIRECTOR

Peter Jackson
Ridley Scott
Robert Altman
Steven Spielberg
Christopher Nolan

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Fellowship Of The Ring
Black Hawk Down
Moulin Rouge
Vanilla Skymask-tom-cruise-vanilla-sky-club

*


An Indisputable Ranking Of Every Steven Spielberg Movie, From Fine To Phenomenal

$
0
0

spielberg-faceLet me tell you about a guy named Spielberg.

In my estimation, Steven Spielberg is the most popular, successful, and recognizable filmmaker of all time. He has more films in the AFI 100 than any other director. Adjusted for inflation, four films he directed are in the top 25 highest-grossing of all time (five if you give him credit for Jurassic World). His worldwide grosses are almost $3 billion ahead of his closest competitors, including Peter Jackson and James Cameron. That’s even more impressive when you give him credit for the diversity of his oeuvre. Most filmmakers make their bank delivering films in the same series — The Lord Of The Rings films, Transformers, or Star Wars, for example. Spielberg has multiple franchises under his belt, along with an impressive array of stand-alone successes. He hasn’t ever really directed a true flop. And if you start adding in the films he’s produced, the numbers just get stupid successful.

And that’s just box office. The caliber of quality you get in a Spielberg move goes above and beyond what you’d normally get from a blockbuster maestro. Spielberg is of an extremely rare breed of filmmaker that can do popcorn spectacle as well as he can sweep the Oscars, sometimes doing both in the same year.

There. Now you know who Steven Spielberg is.

Okay, so, this isn’t exactly news. But it is an important reminder, because as the top dog, Spielberg sometimes gets undermined as a filmmaker. He’s popular and successful! So, he must be terrible… right?

Wrong! With all this pop culture relevance asunder, it’s not a surprise that the internet would be all about ranking the Steven Spielberg filmography. The Hollywood Reporter did it. Buzzfeed did it. Vulture did it. Rolling Stone did it. Why follow suit? Well, the problem is that these lists are wrong.

I mean, they’re not that wrong. There’s a lot of good things about these lists. They get a lot of things right. But then they get some things wrong, too, so I figured I’d better go ahead and correct them, just for posterity.

So get your Spielberg face on, bitches. It’s gonna be a hell of a ride.

1941-belushi29. 1941

Yikes!

If I were being truly fair about this list, I’d give 1941 another chance to see if maybe I missed something when I first watched it at age 18. But I’m not willing to do that to myself. This is the only Spielberg movie I would never volunteer to watch again, except maybe out of morbid curiosity. Here, we see the beginnings of Spielberg’s affinity for World War II, but virtually any Spielberg fan out there will gladly say this is amongst the worst of the bunch. There are much better things in store when it comes to wartime and Spielberg.

I’m not saying that it’s not possible to make an uproarious comedy about the attacks on Pearl Harbor — Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor is halfway there, am I right? I’m just saying that, based on 1941, if you were looking to make a comedy, you may want to explore some actually funny scenarios before you go for war. The film opens with a Scary Movie-caliber spoof of Spielberg’s own Jaws. And then it goes downhill.

In retrospect, it’s difficult to see what drew Spielberg to 1941, and easy to see why it was the wrong choice. Spielberg clearly loves wartime story and there’s plenty of military hardware for action sequences, but he’s working far outside his comfort zone. Coming on the heels of massive successes (and Best Picture nominees) Jaws and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind in 1979, 1941 is just a total fuck up for Spielberg. He was apparently going for a Kubrickian Dr. Strangelove vibe, but this film played more like spoof than satire.

From what little I recall, this slapstick war comedy is borderline unwatchable and comes in at an interminable length, but most of it was happily blocked from my memory long ago. There’s a reason Spielberg never attempted and out-and-out comedy like this again…the-terminal-tom-hanks-zoe-saldana28. THE TERMINAL

…Although the only other Spielberg movie to broach being a “comedy” is The Terminal, about a man from a fictional European country who gets stuck at JFK airport for a long time. I mean, like, a really, really long time.

Let’s get this out of the way upfront — no Spielberg movie is actually bad, with the possible exception of 1941. This is an enjoyable enough tale in ways, though it’s sort of a weird story to build a whole movie around, and it’s less substantial than just about everything else Spielberg has done. I don’t want to say it’s beneath him, but the man is better when he’s tackling more ambitious material. 1941 was no fluke. The Terminal is mildly amusing in moments, but never hilarious. Yet it never strives to be taken that seriously as a drama, either. Lots of Spielberg movies have strong comic moments, but that’s not the reason they exist.

The Terminal touches on post-9/11 anxieties surrounding immigration and airports, but here the conflict is mostly weightless, thanks in large part to the fact that Tom Hanks’ character hails from a fictional country. You can imagine a more nuanced drama exploring this subject, especially if the character were Middle Eastern instead of fake European. To add insult to injury, it’s partially based on a true story about a man who was Iranian. Perhaps 2004 wasn’t the time for a story about a Middle Eastern man in a New York City airport, given its proximity to 9/11. But at least it would’ve had some punch. (The film should earn some kudos for a very diverse supporting cast, but that doesn’t erase the sense that this tale has been sanitized and whitewashed.)

There’s nothing wrong with Hanks’ acting, but it’s impossible to buy the all-American everyman as a befuddled European. The movie just screams “artificial,” and the airy rom-com touches involving Catherine Zeta-Jones as a flight attendant don’t do much to ground the film. (Airport puns wholly intended.) Also: if Zoe Saldanda is your best idea for a gruff, world-weary TSA agent, perhaps it’s time to find a new casting director. (What, was Kristen Chenowith busy?)

Fortunately for us all, Spielberg will have better luck with a movie that spends time in airports further up this list.Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull-shia-lebeouf-harrison-ford-karen-allen27. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

This revival pre-dated more recent “next generation plus original cast” sequels to retro blockbusters like Star Wars and Rocky. Does that mean we can thank Spielberg for The Force Awakens and Creed? Probably not, but at least he got there ahead of the curve.

I more or less enjoyed this movie upon its release. It’s not as bad as people think. But what sticks out most in my memory are images like Cate Blanchett’s blunt black hairdo and Shia LeBeouf swinging from trees like a monkey, so that probably isn’t a good sign. Plus, the movie loses points just for having such an awkwardly long mouthful of a title. (Couldn’t it just have been Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skull? Or… something better than that?)

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull gets a few things right, like bringing back Karen Allen as Marion and not letting Shia put on Indy’s hat in the end. There’s also a pretty grotesque sequence involving swarms of ants, which digs up this franchise’s adventure-horror roots. (There is some seriously nasty stuff in each film in this series, though that is sometimes forgotten. Hearts ripped out of chests, skin and muscle deteriorating to give way to a skull underneath. That kind of thing.) But come on — did we really need aliens in an Indiana Jones movie?

No, we sure didn’t!

Ultimately, Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull loses major points for its lame-o, shark-jumping ending. (Since this is Spielberg, I will clarify that there is no literal shark-jumping, although if there were I may be tempted to bump this higher up the list.)

And speaking of sharks…

tintin26. THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN

Just kidding, this movie has nothing to do with sharks, I just wanted to give someone a heart attack thinking I was going to put Jaws at #26.

If I wanted to be stupid, like all the other Spielberg lists, I would put an obviously great film much lower down the list than it should be. But I’m not stupid, so Jaws is much, much higher, and here, where it belongs, is The Adventures Of Tintin.

Some people found this computer-animated adventure film charming. I don’t. I don’t necessarily have anything negative to say about it, except that the charms of the original Belgian cartoon don’t fully translate to 3D animation, for me at least. There’s a lot of imaginative, zany action, but I’m not one who is easily impressed by action scenes in animated movies. I also rarely truly enjoy 3D.

In theory, there are elements here I should like — an intrepid boy-journalist! A cute dog named Snowy! (You would think Tintin was the dog’s name, not the boy’s, huh? At least, you might if you watched 1950s TV series about German Shepherds instead of reading Belgian comics.) The official title of this film is actually The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn, which sounds promising, but guess how many unicorns with dark buried pasts are featured here? Zero. The unicorn is just the name of a ship, and that’s disappointing.

This is Spielberg’s stab at a Robert Zemeckis-like animated version of an Indiana Jones-style story. It’s not a particularly bad one, but I’m not a particular fan of Zemeckis’ animated works, either, so all in all? This is just not the film for me. Next!always-spielber-holly-hunter-richard-dreyfuss25. ALWAYS

These days, Steven Spielberg almost never chooses a project that makes us go, “Hmm… really, Spielberg?” But back in the 1980s, he used to do it all the time! (Okay, three times.)

Spielberg reteamed with his Jaws star Richard Dreyfuss for this 1989 film about an aerial firefighter who dies and comes back as a ghost to help his girlfriend find love with someone else. It’s a weird mix of comedy, drama, romance, action, and the supernatural, the kind of genre mish-mash studios used to get away with in the 80s and 90s. (These kinds of ghost stories used to work then. Now, not so much.)

Always is a remake of the WWII film A Guy Named Joe, one of Spielberg’s favorites, though neither film actually contains a guy named Joe. (“Joe” refers to the main character being a soldier, AKA a “G.I. Joe.”) Spielberg is usually so in command of his material, but this feels more like some of his earlier works, before he had quite mastered tone. (He’s often — but not always — shaky when his films have strongly comedic elements, though this can’t quite be labeled a comedy with so much else going on.)

Moment by moment, the film is pretty good, though it doesn’t really hang together as a cohesive whole. Holly Hunter is winsome as always, John Goodman provides solid comedic relief, and “Smoke Gets In Your Eyes” is used effectively (and ironically, given that these characters are firefighters). Bonus: Audrey Hepburn shows up as an ethereal ghost barber! (What!)

Always is a noble enough effort, but ultimately this is a remake that would probably have best been left alone. The fact that Spielberg made this charming but inconsistent film just four years before Schindler’s List is mind-boggling, considering how “retro Spielberg” it feels.

amistad-djimon-hounsou-shirtless-spielberg24. AMISTAD

In 1993, Spielberg pulled a magnificent one-two punch, releasing one of the all-time great blockbusters, Jurassic Park, and then deservedly sweeping the Oscars with Schindler’s List. In 1997, he tried again, releasing The Lost World: Jurassic Park that summer, then unleashing Amistad just in time for awards season. But 1997 was no 1993. The Lost World was a hit but predictably no match for the original Jurassic Park, and Amistad was nominated for four Oscars but won zero, and didn’t get nods for major awards like Best Director and Best Picture.

Amistad has a lot in common with Spielberg’s other Big Message movies, Lincoln in particular, except for one key fact — it’s just not as entertaining. And, sure, you could point out that a story about the legal ramifications of a slave uprising shouldn’t be “entertaining,” but that’s the magic of Spielberg. Schindler’s List may not be a carefree romp, but it’s riveting and very, very watchable. Despite the harrowing subject matter, I’ve gladly watched it several times. Amistad, on the other, is probably not a film many are eager to revisit over and over again.

There’s a lot to admire in Amistad. It’s easy to forget just how brutal the sequences on the slave ship are — more horrifying than anything we’ve seen on the subject since, even in 12 Years A Slave. Moreso even than anything in Schindler’s List, perhaps, it’s excruciatingly painful to watch.

I don’t deny that the racial questions Amistad grapples with are vital and affecting (they feel even more relevant now than they did in 1997). It’s horrifying to think that people were once treated this way. (And probably still are, in some places.) Amistad doesn’t shy away from the most revolting acts, its characters subjected to such inhumane treatment because they were believed to be subhuman. The rest of the film is essentially a courtroom drama, with the entire climax essentially comprised of a lengthy monologue delivered by Anthony Hopkins. Performances by the likes of Matthew McConaughey, Morgan Freeman, and especially Djimon Hounsou are all-around solid. (Fun Fact #1: I bet you forgot that a young Anna Paquin plays Queen Isabella of Spain!)

Amistad is a respectable and well-intentioned film, even a good one. But when held up with Spielberg’s subsequent output, it feels more like a lecture than a movie. It’s probably a lecture we could all stand to hear, but may be best suited to high school classrooms instead of Saturday nights on Netflix. (Fun Fact #2: As of press time, Amistad was currently the only Spielberg movie available on Netflix.)indiana-jones-kate-capshaw-monkey-skull23. INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

This was my favorite Indiana Jones film as a child, for some reason. Maybe that should tell you something.

This is the film responsible for the PG-13 rating, because it was released in 1984, also known as the era when you could show someone’s still-beating heart being ripped out of their chest and still earn a “Parental Guidance” rating. (Weirder still is that the blood-gushing nastiness of Jaws is still stamped with a PG rating. Nowadays, you’ll rarely find anything but Alvin And The Chipmunks and Kung Fu Panda sequels rated PG.)

Spielberg met his current wife Kate Capshaw making this film, so at least he got something out of it. The rest of us? Debatable. This film is both more violent than it needs to be and more racist, and Capshaw’s ridiculous screaming doesn’t help matters much. (It was all downhill after Karen Allen in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.) There are child slaves, gross-outs, Asian stereotypes, and a human sacrifice, plus Capshaw eating out of a monkey skull. (Yum!)

Asian culture has generally not fared too well in Hollywood cinema, so you can’t blame Spielberg or The Temple Of Doom too seriously. Can we blame George Lucas instead? I don’t see why not. (Weird fact: this film was originally meant to include dinosaurs.) This film doesn’t really get the cultures it depicts right, nor does it nail the proper tone of an Indiana Jones movie. This was meant to be the Empire Strikes Back of the trilogy, but it’s not. It’s the Return Of The Jedi. Fortunately, there were better things ahead for Dr. Jones.

(And also worse things. Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is obviously the Phantom Menace, though we were thankfully spared a third trilogy.)

hook-robin-williams-peter-rufio22. HOOK

There you are, Peter!

At Slot #22, which is arguably even higher on this list than you deserve to be, thanks largely to childhood nostalgia. Bangarang!

Yes, Hook gets a bad rap, and maybe it’s deserved. The film is made for a family audience, meaning that plenty of the humor is juvenile. (Spielberg has said in interviews that he doesn’t even like this movie.) Several Spielberg movies are aimed at young audiences, but no others feel quite so juvenile. (Appropriate, given that it takes place in Neverland.) Hook is quite comedic, and I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this yet — when Spielberg attempts a comedy, the results range from subpar to adequate.

From a conceptual standpoint, Hook is a pretty clever update of J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan mythos, posing the scenario that Peter actually left Neverland, grew up, got married, had kids, and buried his magical past deep in his subconscious so he could be a boring workaholic.

Oh, and he’s a terrible father. (Every father in every Spielberg movie is at least partially terrible.)

Nearly all family films from this era involved parents who were constantly talking on cell phones, because cell phones were evil in the 1990s. (Probably because that was before we learned how to play Words With Friends on them. Nothing you can play Words With Friends on can be that evil.) In so many ways, Peter Pan is the role Robin Williams was born to play, and though he overdoes some of his shtick here (as he so often does), it mostly works. Dustin Hoffman is an appropriately hammy Captain Hook, and you know what? I like Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell, so shut up. (How can you not love a pixie cut on an actual pixie? Someone give this stylist a raise!) Plus, “When You’re Alone” is one of the greatest musical moments of the 90s! (When you’re eight, anyway.)

Hook may not be a total masterpiece, but any movie that spawned so many memorable moments — from “Ru-fi-o!” to “Run Home, Jack!” — can’t be all bad. I imagine that rewatching it now would reveal too many bits to be treacly, so I’ll just not rewatch it and remember it fondly. Goldie Hawn, William Atherton21. THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS

This is one of the least Steven Spielberg-y of all Steven Spielberg movies, though it’s still plenty Spielberg-y under the hood. I won’t be much good at talking about it, since I only saw it once over a decade ago, but here goes nothing.

It’s not immediately clear what drew Spielberg to this material, as he doesn’t often tell stories about antiheroes. Then again, this was released in 1974, back when antiheroes were all the rage in cinema. (This was also Spielberg’s first theatrical film, so he didn’t exactly have the clout to make whatever he damn well pleased — which he definitely does now!) The story centers on a couple of accidental outlaws who go on the run to rescue their son from foster care, eventually taking a highway patrolman hostage. Their hijinks incite a media frenzy, as car chases and hostage situations tend to do. It’s also a nice chance to check out a young Goldie Hawn as one of these hapless outlaws.

Despite its saccharine title, The Sugarland Express has a darker ending than most Spielberg joints, and feels like an entirely different sort of movie than the ones he’d come to be known for. But it does center on a fractured family and has plenty of action, so it’s not a total anomaly. (It might’ve been a more standout film had it paid less attention to the motor vehicles, and more attention to the people in them.)

As with many of the films on this list, the fact that it isn’t ranked higher isn’t a testament to this film’s quality so much as it is to the fact that so many other Spielberg movies are so good — and hey, something has to be left out of the Top 20.war-horse-movie-image-jeremy-irvine-0120. WAR HORSE

If you make a sentimental movie about a horse, you’re bound to get made fun of a little, especially if the title kind of rhymes, and War Horse is the recent Spielberg film most likely to be mocked by detractors, even though it’s far from bad.

Poor War Horse is a bit of a punchline these days, for no good reason. It’s no Saving Private Ryan, but its depiction of war is emotionally involving, particularly in its most memorable scene, which has a British soldier and a German soldier temporarily joining forces to save the titular war horse. Par for the course with Spielberg, the filmmaking is excellent, and the leading horse performance is seriously on point. The cinematography is pretty but sometimes over the top, especially the John Ford-inspired sunset at the end, but it’s never as bad as something called War Horse could be.

War Horse could have been an extremely silly movie, and somehow managed not to be. (The source material probably helps, though this movie has a whole different feel to it, thanks in part to using a real horse.) As Spielberg movies go, this is in my bottom third, yet it was still nominated for Best Picture, so that should say something about the caliber of the Top 20 Spielberg movies, which has War Horse dragging up the rear.

(Okay, yes. It could also say something about the tastes of Academy voters, since they nominated Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close this same year. But seriously, it’s not a bad movie!)

Bridge-Of-Spies-tom-hanks-rain-umbrella19. BRIDGE OF SPIES

Another Best Picture nominee! You’ll hear a lot of that in this list, since, not surprisingly, Spielberg has quite a few of these under his belt. (Ten, to be exact, the second most of any director.) This one is currently in the running for an Academy Award, but one of the least likely winners. (Better luck next time, Steve.) This film is so recent, it’s impossible to know exactly how it’ll hold up in the Spielberg oeuvre, but it already feels like this one belongs aside War Horse as an enjoyable, well-made film that misses the mark of being truly essential.

As a spy who does at one point need to cross a bridge, Mark Rylance is fantastic in a performance that does justice to the word “understated” by seeming like no performance at all. Rylance stays as still as possible and barely speaks, but he manages to have more screen presence than Tom Hanks. (Not that there’s anything wrong with Hanks here either.)

Hanks is a lawyer who gets caught up in trying to arrange a trade of spies, hoping to free a couple of unlucky Americans. The script flubs the structure a bit, introducing these spies a bit too late in the game for us to get truly invested in, and it totally wastes Amy Ryan as a doting wife. Not surprisingly, there’s an overly rosy finale, too, which undercuts what else the film might have had to say about international relations. It all plays pretty well, but this is never quite as sharp or engaging as you’d hope something co-written by the Coen brothers and directed by the maestro would be. It nearly misses being a near-miss, which is still a recommendation.

empire-of-the-sun-christian-bale18. EMPIRE OF THE SUN

Aww, look. It’s Baby Batman!

Most notable as the introduction of future Dark Knight Christian Bale, Empire Of The Sun is one of the curiosities in Spielberg’s closet, a strange but mostly enchanting World War II story about a boy separated from his parents in Shanghai after the Pearl Harbor attack, then placed in an internment camp.

Some of the film feels uneven, but certain moments are incredibly evocative and reminiscent of Spielberg’s later work in A.I., which also centered on a child protagonist facing a very dark situation. (This ain’t no E.T.) Bale sees the detonation of the Nagasaki atomic bomb going off and thinks it’s the soul of a departed friend, and a Japanese teenager is also killed in brutal fashion. Empire Of The Sun doesn’t skimp on the horrors of war, though it’s a shade lighter than Saving Private Ryan.

Empire Of The Sun feels most like a warm-up for a lot of Spielberg’s subsequent films on both the darker and lighter side, but it’s also weirdly haunting in its own right. What comes across most is Jamie’s shedding of childhood and loss of innocence, something anyone can relate to despite the specificity of the setting. This isn’t one of the very greatest Spielberg movies overall, but it contains a few of his finer moments. It doesn’t go down as easy as so many of his films do, which makes it a memorable anomaly in his oeuvre.

Indiana-Jones-And-The-Last-Crusade-alison-doody-harrison-ford17. INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

Look, let’s just get this out of the way now — I’m not really a huge Indiana Jones person, which will probably get me into trouble later on this list. Don’t hurt me.

Sure, I like Indiana Jones just fine, but if I’m doing Spielberg, it’ll probably be more in the monsters-and-aliens mode, or perhaps I’ll go for a riveting historical drama. That said, the third film in this franchise is the second best, adding Sean Connery to the mix so Spielberg can make sure to explore his requisite daddy issues, which pop up one way or another in just about every one of his films.

Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade is probably the very best example of what an “Indiana Jones movie” should be. Unlike the first, it was made after the character was already extremely popular, so Spielberg and Harrison Ford knew what they were working with. The film kicks off with a rousing opener featuring River Phoenix as young Indy, then teases us with a damsel (Alison Doody) who may or may not be a conniving bitch. (She ranks smack-dab in the middle of Indy gal pals, under Allen but above Capshaw.)

After the uneven Temple Of Doom, The Last Crusade gets the franchise squarely back on track… only to see it derailed again more than a decade later. (But you already heard all about that.) Maybe this really should have been the last crusade….

leonardo-dicaprio-girls-catch-me-if-you-can16. CATCH ME IF YOU CAN

Catch Me If You Can would’ve been the perfect title for Minority Report, which was released the same year; then again, it would be the perfect title for most Spielberg movies. (If I was clever with Photoshop, I’d redo all of his movie posters with that title. I feel like Jaws would be especially amusing.)

Spielberg isn’t necessarily a maestro at out-and-out comedies, but he is pretty swell at a drama with a light touch. Catch Me If You Can is a bit of an anomaly for Spielberg, in that it’s one of his lighter dramas that actually fully works. (As opposed to Always and The Terminal.) It’s the story of Frank Abagnale, Jr., a teenager who scammed people into thinking he was a doctor and a pilot, amongst other things. Leonardo DiCaprio was pitch perfect for the part of the handsome young charmer — in an era when Leo sometimes looked too young for the parts he was playing, this role was just right for him.

It’s also Spielberg’s second (and not final) pairing with Tom Hanks, who puts on a Bostom accent as the FBI man who is the “catcher” in the titular scenario. Plus we get Christopher Walken as Abagnale’s con artist father and a handful of actresses who would later find further fame, including Amy Adams, Jennifer Garner, and Elizabeth Banks. The film drags on a touch too long in the third act, as Spielberg’s films from the 2000s often do, but for most of the ride, it’s a total charmer, and a nice respite from the summer blockbusters and historical dramas we tend to get from Spielberg — even if it doesn’t 100% stick the landing.

Duel_truck15. DUEL

This is where it all began.

Kind of.

Catch Me If You Can would’ve been the perfect title for this one, but Duel isn’t bad, either. The guys who face off here aren’t using swords or pistols, though, but 20th century automobiles. Spielberg has become the poster boy for big screen cinema, so it’s somewhat ironic that he got his start on TV. Following a series of episodic television gigs, the man technically directed his first feature for the small screen, though there’s nothing made-for-TV about it. The film is short on dialogue and big on action, primarily a one-man show about a suburban dad who is menaced by an unseen truck driver.

At least, we can only assume there’s a driver in there. Spielberg would later employ the Hitchcockian power of suggestion with the shark in Jaws, but he does it to an even greater degree here by providing zero clues as to what this driver’s motives could be. Duel might as well be a monster movie with so many shots of that sinister big rig in pursuit of poor David Mann in his tiny red Plymouth Valiant. David grows increasingly, justifiably paranoid wondering which of the strangers he encounters in a diner could be the sadistic psycho who holds an inexplicable grudge against him, which works all the better because we never get the answer.

There are few frills here. It’s mainly a lean, mean ride with nonstop suspense, more streamlined than anything Spielberg has made since. The film works just as well today as it did back then, especially now that our TVs are bigger. It’s also a better indication of Spielberg’s talents than his next film, The Sugarland Express, which also had a lot of car-centric action, minus the masterful villain.Quality: Original Film Title: Minority Report. For further information: please contact your local Twentieth Century Fox Press Office.14. MINORITY REPORT

“Murrrrderrr…”

It may not quite be “redrum,” but Samantha Morton’s delivery of that singular word is pretty fuckin’ spectacular, and goes a long way in making this, in many ways, the eeriest of Spielberg movies. (Official Spielberg movies, that is… more about that further down this list.)

You could place Spielberg’s movies in neat little piles of films that resemble each other. Monster Movies, WWII Movies, Alien Movies, and Futuristic Movies would be some of the categories, and this is in that final camp, sharing some aesthetics with A.I. but also conveying a look that is all its own. Minority Report‘s vision of the future is pretty nifty, though we probably don’t want to actually live in a world where criminals are punished before they’ve even committed a crime. Cruise plays a cop who uses prescient “Pre-Cogs” who see murders before they happen. This is convenient, until he’s the one accused of a crime he hasn’t committed yet.

The movie has all the ingredients of an A-grade blockbuster — it’s a moody mystery, an exhilarating chase film, a slick sci-fi flick, and it’s intelligent to boot. There’s also a stellar gross-out scene in which Cruise gets his eyes replaced by a doctor with highly questionable ethics (and hygiene) — not for the squeamish. The third act takes Cruise out of commission for a spell, relying on an otherwise little-seen wife character, which is somewhat jarring — yet another finale that Spielberg doesn’t totally nail from this era, though it works better on repeat viewings.

Just as Catch Me If You Can could be the title of most Spielberg movies, Minority Report‘s “Everybody Runs” tagline would work for a hell of a lot of his movies, too. There tends to be a lot of running in Spielberg movies…

lost-world-jurassic-park-julianne-moore-jeff-goldblum-t-rex-roar13. THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK

Including this one!

There are people in this world who would like to convince me that The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a bad movie. To these people I ask — does this movie have dinosaurs? Does it feature multiple beloved characters from the first Jurassic Park? Do any of said beloved characters dream that said dinosaurs can talk? If the answer to the first two questions is “yes” and the last is “no,” then you have yourself a perfectly good Jurassic Park movie.

Let’s get a few things out of the way before I start reminding you of all the perfectly wonderful things you’ll find in The Lost World. Yes, Vanessa Lee Chester’s cringe-inducing gymnastics attack on a velociraptor is an ill-conceived moment. (“They cut you from the team?”) Yes, Julianne Moore’s decision to snatch a baby T-Rex and bring it inside the trailer with her is a pretty dense move for a supposedly brilliant scientist — a lame excuse for the awesome action sequence that follows. And yes, it kind of sucks that they felt the need to follow Michael Crichton’s “oops, sequel?” idea of having another dinosaur island, in secret, as backup for when things inevitably go really poorly on that first dinosaur island. (You know, just in case, as you do… at the expense of many millions of dollars.) The fact that Isla Nublar was actually not destroyed at the end of the first movie as it was in the books makes Isla Sorna rather pointless in the cinematic universe, but whatever. More dinosaurs!

Shove those few things aside and get past the ho-hum ramp-up, and you have a string of pretty awesome action scenes.  A T-Rex attacking a camp of sleeping dino hunters. Raptors stalking through the brush attacking said dino hunters. Not one, but two T-Rexes going ape shit on a trailer in a pitch perfect sequence of Spielbergian suspense. And, of course, Spielberg’s “fuck you” to Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla, which was released in the summer of 1998 but heavily touted long beforehand, totally undermined by The Lost World‘s T-Rex stomping through San Diego a full year earlier. From a purely plot-oriented standpoint, the San Diego attack is silly and unnecessary, but it’s also a sensational amount of fun and works better than absolutely anything in Godzilla. It’s Spielberg working at peak Spielberg, and I’d watch that sequence again before most sequences in most movies, including many of Spielberg’s best.

Also, no velociraptors warmly greet anyone, so that’s a plus. This is no Jurassic Park, but it’s absolutely the best Jurassic Park sequel.

War-of-the-worlds-justin-chatwin-tom-cruise-dakota-fanning12. WAR OF THE WORLDS

When is an alien attack movie not just an alien attack movie? When it’s made by Steven Spielberg.

This is one of three films Spielberg directed in a row that prominently feature airplanes or airports, just after 9/11. The first was 2002’s Catch Me If You Can, which Spielberg took on before 9/11 and doesn’t contain any significant parallels to September 11. (In fact, it’s the rare feel-good airplane movie.) The second is The Terminal, which definitely does explore American anxieties surrounding national security via airports, though in a fairly tame way. And the third is War Of The Worlds, which most directly and explicitly references 9/11 through the allegory of an extra-terrestrial attack.

The original War Of The Worlds was an infamous radio play from Orson Welles that confused some listeners into thinking the Earth really was under siege by Martians, so there was no more perfect exploration of our terrorism nightmares than this, which conjures up plenty of 9/11 imagery to make an extra-terrestrial attack feel truly nightmarish (unlike the slicker, popcornier versions of such events, offered by something like Independence Day).

War Of The Worlds is shockingly bleak and gritty for a summer action flick, which is exactly what a film of this nature needed to be in 2005. September 11 changed the way we view scenes of mass hysteria in urban settings, even if it didn’t stop Hollywood from making such films. Released the same year as Munich, which thematically and visually touched on the subject even though it took place two decades before 9/11, War Of The Worlds is only slightly marred by a preposterously upbeat ending, in which a character who should definitely not be alive is, miraculously.

Without this ending, this film likely would’ve cracked my Top 10. (The final five minutes of several Spielberg movies end up weakening them from being total masterpieces, including Minority Report above.) As it stands, this is a truly unsettling blockbuster, something we almost never get. I can’t think of any other mega-budget sci-flick in which the mass deaths are so harrowing. Plus, the neat biological twist at the end is far better — and far more believable — than any climactic showdown. As it is so eloquently put in another Spielberg movie: “Life finds a way.”

Eric Bana munich11. MUNICH

A lot of filmmakers make only the most harrowing of dramas. (Lars Von Trier and Michael Haneke, for example.) Maybe none of Spielberg’s movies are as grueling as all that, but he makes films all across the spectrum, from Tintin to Amistad.

Munich is like a mashup of both sensibilities. In some sequences, it’s a slick thriller, but the entertainment comes at an expense. First, you have to get through the opening sequence, which depicts Israeli Olympic athletes gruesomely slaughtered by machine guns. From there, Munich occasionally has the crackle of a spy film, but other times asks hefty questions about the nature of revenge. (Like, does it ever do any good? Answer: not really.) It’s fun to see a pre-Bond Daniel Craig in spy mode, though the drama delves deeper than any 007 film. This is basically what Skyfall would be like if James Bond consistently felt shitty about what he was doing.

The script is by Eric Roth and Tony Kushner. The latter is likely responsible for insightful dialogue about the cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Eric Bana plays a Mossad agent tasked with vengeance against the Black September terrorist group, but it’s a hardly black versus white. The whole film unfolds in a moral grey area, asking us to feel bad for every victim of violence we meet, whether or not they “had it coming.” Take, for instance, Bana’s flirtation with a female spy who ends up playing for the other side. Her execution is sad, shocking, and possibly the most “adult” sequence in any Spielberg film.

Munich was released in 2005, just six months after War Of The Worlds, and is, in its own way, just as much grappling with 9/11. One shot gives us a glimpse of the Twin Towers in the distance, a reminder of where all this violence is headed. You could view Munich as both the prequel and sequel to War Of The Worlds. They’re a perfect (and weird) double feature, which is why I put them side by side on this list.

Munich was nominated for Best Picture and Spielberg for Best Director, but it came away from the Academy Awards with zero wins. (It was up against Crash and Brokeback Mountain, which took the top prizes.) The film has aged well, despite the sex scene that some dismiss as ridiculous. (It mostly works for me, though it is a bit over-the-top.) This isn’t quite at the level of Spielberg’s most masterful historical dramas, but it’s just a hair under, and it’s a stellar thriller to boot.

raiders-of-the-lost-ark-karen-allen-harrison-ford-indiana-jones10. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

Like I said above, I’m not a huge Indiana Jones person. Raiders Of The Lost Ark made #1 on several of the Spielberg ranking lists, and #2 on others. It’s currently as #66 on AFI’s list of the 100 best American movies. It was nominated for Best Picture. Many claim Raiders Of The Lost Ark is Spielberg’s greatest film, earning a place alongside Star Wars as an iconic adventure story, and I’m not saying it’s not. Raiders Of The Lost Ark is a ton of fun, with Harrison Ford stepping into the character’s shoes for the first time like he’d been playing him for years. Karen Allen is definitely the best Jones girl, and in terms of iconic scenes, you really can’t beat the giant boulder. It’s probably the most iconic scene in any Spielberg movies, and this man knows his iconic moments.

So, yeah, I know putting Raiders Of The Lost Ark at #10 is blasphemy to many, but hey! It made the Top 10! That’s worth something! This placement means I really, really like Raiders Of The Lost Ark, even if I’m not attached to it the way I’m attached to some of the films ranked above it.

George Lucas’ original version named him Indiana Smith, by the way, and Spielberg was the one who told him that was a bad idea, which might be the man’s single greatest contribution to cinema. Indiana Smith? That movie would’ve made, like, twenty dollars. I don’t mean to rag on George Lucas, but it seems like the guy was talked out of more bad ideas than he had good ones. We have him to thank for the franchise, but I’ve an inkling it’s Spielberg who made magic out of it. (Two of the four, anyway.)

Poltergeist-heather-orourke-carol-anne-freeling-screaming9 1/2. POLTERGEIST

If you don’t know the behind-the-scenes lore, you might be scratching your head right about now, thinking, “Wait a minute — Steven Spielberg directed Poltergeist?”

Well. Depends on who you ask.

Technically, no. Officially, Tobe Hooper directed Poltergeist. That’s whose name appears in the credits as the film’s director. But the only reason Spielberg didn’t direct Poltergeist was because of a contract that barred him from working on another movie until E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial was released. So Spielberg wrote and produced Poltergeist, and showed up to set every day, and told the crew what to do, and set up the shots and… yeah, legend has it that he basically directed this movie. So I’m not officially placing it in my ranking of the best Spielberg flicks, just nudging it into an imaginary slot at #9.5 because it would be in my Top 10 if it really were a Spielberg movie.

Watching Poltergeist now, it’s impossible to deny that this is a Steven Spielberg movie in just about every sense. The Freeling family has a lot in common with Elliot’s kin in E.T. — it feels like they could be neighbors. The films were released a week apart in the summer of 1982. Both films feature families dealing with strange happenings in suburbia, and though E.T. is billed as a family adventure while Poltergeist is considered a supernatural horror movie, they both have plenty of levity, action, and underlying menace.

There are few moments in horror as good as little Carol Anne pressed up against the television, talking to ghosts through the static screen. (Our national anthem has rarely been so menacing.) Plus, there’s a killer clown doll — dolls and clowns are both creepy, and when you combine them, it turns out, it’s double-creepy. The film’s climax is more Indiana Jones-style “what next?” goofiness than it is truly terrifying, but that’s not such a problem. Like the best horror films, Poltergeist would tell a compelling story even if the jolts were excised — JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are hippie parents adjusting to life in the humdrum suburbs, and it’s not just the ghostly goings-on that prevents them from fitting in. (You don’t see a lot of suburban parents smoking pot in today’s cinema, do you?)

So good job, Tobe Hooper!

Lincoln-daniel-day-lewis9. LINCOLN

Few people can get asses in seats quite like Steven Spielberg, which is how a talky, action-free political drama went on to gross $275 million back in 2012.

I’m still mad about Argo nabbing Best Picture that year amidst the silly torture controversy surrounding Zero Dark Thirty, but it’s also hard to fathom how Argo trumped Lincoln (or how Chris Terrio’s Argo script won over Tony Kushner’s brilliant adaptation). The problem with a prestige picture like Lincoln is that everyone expects it to be good, and then it is — though Daniel Day Lewis’ ethereally uncanny leading performance eclipsed the movie’s many other virtues. Academy voters shrugged off Lincoln as “just Spielberg, being awesome again,” but looking back on it a few years later, Lincoln stands right up there with some of Spielber’s best dramatic work, as well it should. Abraham Lincoln is perhaps the most estimable and mythic American hero, so it’s only fitting that the most mythic American filmmaker would bring him to life on the big screen.

Spielberg and Kushner get their depiction just right, eschewing a lot of the tropes that bog down standard biopics. There’s not a lot of fat here — the film focuses almost exclusively on Lincoln’s political maneuvers as he attempts to ratify the amendment that will abolish slavery. There’s not a lot of suspense for us, since we know how this panned out, but the scenes still crackle with immediacy and vitality that are often lacking in “important” historical dramas, and just about anything set in a courtroom.

Day-Lewis is untouchable as Lincoln, deserving every molecule of his Oscar. Sally Field is a hoot as Mary Todd. The film’s one possible false note is its dramatic ending, which takes us through the assassination. A more powerful way to go might have been to cut it off right before, as Lincoln tells a valet that it’s time to go, but he would “rather stay.” It should never be a surprise that a Spielberg movie is a masterpiece, but this one displayed a new, more mature side of the filmmaker. Lincoln shows a lot of restraint in its storytelling, but is all the more sumptuous for it.

color-purple8. THE COLOR PURPLE

The Color Purple set a record at the Academy Awards — for not winning any. Of the 11 nominations it received, The Color Purple lost many — including Best Picture — to Out Of Africa, which ties it with 1977’s ballerina drama The Turning Point as most nods without a win.

That’s crazy, looking back on it now, because the film is so incredible on every level. There’s a trio of knockout performances, including the film debuts of both Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi Goldberg, as well as the commanding presence of Margaret Avery as seductive Shug Avery. (All three were Oscar nominated.) Given how known Goldberg is now for characters like her kooky psychic in Ghost, it’s easy to forget that she can deliver a performance this understated, but she’s phenomenal as the meek Celie who gradually, over the course of many decades, learns to take a stand for herself. It’s easy to imagine any three of these ladies winning an Oscar for these performances in mot years; in retrospect, it’s a head-scratcher that none of them could. (Goldberg won a Golden Globe, though.) Leave it Hollywood to nominate a beautiful, stirring drama about black people in the American south, and then bestow all the prizes on the movie about white people in Africa. (Africa does make a quirky cameo in The Color Purple.)

While the film (adapted from Alice Walker’s book) is about overcoming the unkindnesses people do unto each other, The Color Purple is a more intimate and narrowly scoped film than most of Spielberg’s. It does span decades, but deals with just a handful of characters. There’s no war, no major historical event to provide an action distraction as there is in most of Spielberg’s other dramas. The film also neglects to define clear-cut heroes and villains — we need only to see a few hints of how black people were treated by whites in early 20th century Georgia to understand that the cruelty black men inflict upon black women is a reflection of the way black people had been treated by white people for a couple hundred years at that point. The Color Purple doesn’t hammer this home, but lets it simmer in the background. It may be Spielberg’s most subtle film.

The Color Purple is a remarkable film in so many ways, not least of which is the fact that it’s a movie entirely about black people. There are precious few white characters, and none of them are terribly sympathetic. This would be a feat in 2015, but in 1985? Pretty striking. The last 30 years have given us precious few big prestige dramas about African Americans, particularly ones that aren’t about a famous figure like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ray Charles. With #OscarSoWhite dominating the headlines, it’s a good time to remember The Color Purple and, hopefully, make more films like it.

close-encounters-spaceship7. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND

Dinosaurs, sharks, and aliens. That’s blockbuster Spielberg in a nutshell, and this is the film that first saw him bring extraterrestrials to life on the silver screen. Bum-bum-bum-BUM-BUM! (That five-note melody will forever be etched in our brains.)

Released in 1977, the same year as Star Wars, just two years after Spielberg exploded into the mainstream with Jaws, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind is kind of a spiritual sequel to Jaws‘ human story. Again, we have a doting father who is caught up in a Moby Dick-like pursuit, and again we have Richard Dreyfuss. The aliens turn out to be friendly, E.T.-type guys (as opposed to those people-pulverizing dickheads from War Of The Worlds), but that doesn’t stop Spielberg from staging their early arrival like a horror movie, as spooky-looking spaceships come down to Earth and frighten a handful of unsuspecting humans, including Dreyfuss and Melina Dillon and her son.

As he did in Jaws, E.T., and Poltergeist, Spielberg displays a knack for depicting everyday domestic life for a typical American family, allowing such scenes to unfold with surprising spontaneity and freshness. (A lot of Spielberg movies feel like an extended 70s/80s juice commercial before the action gets going, and that’s actually not a bad thing.) Dreyfuss obsessively molding his mashed potatoes into the shape of the mountain he’ll later meet the aliens on is one of Spielberg’s most inspired devices, and the final sequence is just magical. Added bonus: French auteur Francois Truffaut has a big role as a scientist. This is thoughtful, soulful sci-fi at its best.

saving-private-ryan-battle-spielberg6. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

Steven Spielberg likes to do things definitively. He made the definitive monster movie (twice), the definitive Holocaust movie, and, with Saving Private Ryan, the definitive war movie. I’m not sure he sets out to do it this way, but that’s the way it happens.

Saving Private Ryan is most remembered for its lengthy opening sequence, depicting the chaos and carnage of Omaha Beach. Soldiers drop like flies, bullets whiz to and fro. It’s absolute insanity. You have to wonder how anyone survived that. (I’d be the guy curled up in fetal position crying.)

The D-Day sequence is a killer, of course, and you can feel its influence on pretty much every war movie made after Saving Private Ryan. But Saving Private Ryan also boasts some astute character work, differentiating the eight men who are tasked with finding and retrieving one man who happens to have the good (and bad) luck to be the only surviving brother from his family. (The military has decided that three out of four Ryan sons is enough to sacrifice for the good of the country.) Vin Diesel, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Adam Goldberg, Barry Pepper — you can’t ask for a roster of talent much better than that, and we also get appearances from the likes of Paul Giamatti, Ted Hanson, Nathan Fillion, and Bryan Cranston.

And let’s not forget a baby-faced Matt Damon, fresh off his Oscar win for Good Will Hunting, and that this was the beginning of Spielberg’s (mostly) fruitful collaboration with American everyman Tom Hanks. (Honestly, it was only a matter of time before the star of Big and Forrest Gump teamed up with the director of E.T. and Hook. What took so long, guys?) Saving Private Ryan gets war frightfully right, but the human interactions between the set pieces are what make it sing. No doubt about it — Saving Private Ryan is a modern masterpiece.

jude-law-ai-artificial-intelligence-haley-joel-osment5. A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

If E.T. and A Clockwork Orange fucked, this is the twisted little baby they’d raise together. A handful of years after Hook, Spielberg returns to the realm of fairy tales, except this time he’s brought his friend Stanley Kubrick to play in the sandbox with him. And you know what that means!

Adapted from the story “Super-Toys Last All Summer Long,” A.I. is a self-conscious re imagining of Pinocchio that starts off sweetly enough. David, a cherub-cheeked robot boy, is bestowed upon a couple whose son is unlikely to awaken from a coma. He’s a little creepy as played by Haley Joel Osment, but gradually his new mommy warms to him… until the “real boy” wakes up and decides he doesn’t like his new plastic-and-metal little brother. Eventually, this causes David’s beloved mommy to abandon him, sending the tech tyke into a spiral of mayhem and violence that finds him befriending a robo-pimp wanted for murder, visiting a “Flesh Fair” that threatens to tear him to literal pieces, and ends with this precious creature freezing to “death” at the bottom of the ocean, waiting for his mommy to save him.

And this is Spielberg?

Spielberg deals with dark material all the time, but he isn’t usually quite this cynical and dour. That’s where Kubrick’s influence kicks in, making for this delightfully sadistic concoction — ab absolutely immaculate blend of sweet and sour. Before paranoia about artificial intelligence was so cinematically en vogue as it is now, A.I. raises a lot of difficult questions about where the line between man and machine truly lies, but the neatest trick of all is that we end up feeling more for the A.I. characters than any of the humans.

A.I. contains a doozy of an unexpected ending that I hated upon first viewing, mainly because I didn’t fully understand it. It’s maybe a little drawn out, and can easily be criticized for allowing Spielberg to force a pseudo happy ending on a movie that’s a lot more depressing. Thematically, though, it all checks out upon closer inspection. The cast is pitch perfect, from Jude Law as the eerily alluring Joe to the talking teddy bear who accompanies David on his adventures like the best of trusty sidekicks. A.I. is like a children’s storybook come miraculously to life, but with a personality disorder you weren’t expecting.e-t-henry-thomas4. E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL

From one of Spielberg’s two-letter titles to the other…

If I had to pick one movie to show extra-terrestrials about what a movie is, it would be this. And not just because it’s about an extra-terrestrial. This is the moviest movie there is. No other movie is more movieish.

Steven Spielberg hasn’t actually made all that many warm-hearted family friendly movies, but it’s still a quality attributed to the maestro, and that’s mostly because of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, which is arguably the greatest family film of all time. And like all truly exceptional family films, contains a handful of moments that should rightfully scare the living shit out of children.

I know, because I was one of those children. My parents literally forced me to watch this movie on VHS. I cried and protested and probably shit myself during that first encounter with E.T. in Eliot’s backyard, but then, of course, I loved it.

It’s hard to oversell E.T. as the movie masterpiece that it obviously is. For one, it has one of the most iconic images in all of cinema, which has since become the defining image of his body of work (and his Amblin logo). And that’s saying a lot, given that probably no one has created more indelible cinematic images than Steven Spielberg. E.T. is also is the 11th highest grossing film of all time — kicked out of the Top 10 this year by the Spielberg-produced Jurassic World. (It would rank as #4 adjusted for inflation.) Its imminently hummable score is outdone only by other John Williams music. But mostly: how cute is little Drew Barrymore?

Spielberg George Lucased E.T. back in 2002, removing guns and replacing some E.T.s with digital creations, and has since thankfully decided never to go back and fuck with a masterpiece again. (Seriously, auteurs — stop doing this.) Fun fact: Harrison Ford had a cameo as Elliot’s principal, but it was cut from the film.

Disturbing fact: Spielberg was at one point developing a sequel called E.T. II: Nocturnal Fears, which had Elliott and a friend abducted and tortured by sinister extra-terrestrials and trying to phone E.T. for help. It’s hard to imagine the hell dimension alternate universe where that movie actually happened, but I’m glad we don’t live there.

jaws3. JAWS

Spielberg excels at making movies about real but humongous-sized creatures with very sharp teeth, and a good many cineastes would chastise me for daring to put this below a certain other chomping animal movie. I can see their point. If Star Wars is the granddaddy of all modern blockbusters, then Jaws is the grizzled great uncle with a mean streak — cunning and mostly well-intentioned, but you wouldn’t want to cross him.

Jaws remains a fairly terrifying experience, one of the most effective monster movies of all time, if not the most effective. You’d be seriously nuts to go for a swim in the ocean directly after watching this. (A lot of people never went back in the ocean after watching this.) With nudity and ample bloody violence, it’s a curiosity left over from the pre-PG-13 era, when something with this much bite could still a get a PG rating. (Good luck even saying “shit” in a PG movie now, let alone tossing in boobs and dismemberment.)

Spielberg has become so known for historically significant sentiment and whiz-bang wonder, it’s easy to forget that he can be this ruthless. Jaws is brutal. It mostly pre-dates the sense in horror movies that victims are being punished — for sex, for drinking, or just for being hot. The victims of the man-eating Great White Shark feel like real people, and their deaths have real gravity in the small town beach community.

The movie’s main remembered lesson is that “less is more”; using the shark sparingly makes it all the more effective when it does pop up. Still, I wish that wasn’t the only lesson most modern horror filmmakers had taken from Jaws. Its the pathos that really gives Jaws its bite. The deaths of these people matter. The stakes are incredibly real. A mother’s grief and anger over her shark-gobbled son’s passing is truly heartbreaking. How often do 21st century horror films actually let the audience feel sorrow after a gory set piece? Yeah, basically never.

Throw in John William’s almost painfully iconic score and classic moments like young Sean Brody emulating his papa at the dinner table or the three leads’ drunken bonding out on the open ocean, and you have a film that can handily be described as one of the greatest of all time. Yes, I’ve almost talked myself into bumping it to #1. And no, I’m not going to be able to find any flaws with it that justify it being “low” on this list, except to say that Spielberg has made so many great damn movies. They can’t all be #1, either.schindlers-list-girl-red-coat2. SCHINDLER’S LIST

We’ve now reached the portion of this list that is sponsored entirely by the year 1993. Spielberg has always alternated between popcorn blockbuster fare and serious drama, and 1993 was the year that these twin sensibilities bore two of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. A certain dino-centric film nabbed three technical Academy Awards in the same year that Schindler’s List won seven, including Best Picture and Spielberg’s first win for Best Director. Of all the blockbuster/drama combos Spielberg has released within a single year — The Lost World and Amistad, Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can, War Of The World and Munich — this is the one that makes you blink a few times and wonder what was in the water in 1993.

Pardon the tasteless pun, but the Holocaust has been done to death in cinema. Schindler’s List still towers above the rest as the definitive film on the subject. Has any other film so expertly grappled with the murkiest horrors of history, while also providing such hope? Spielberg doesn’t shy away from depicting the true horrors in harrowing fashion. Having made Nazis the cartoonish bad guys in some of his films (notably, Raiders Of The Lost Ark), Spielberg now portrays a more human side to this monster, which ultimately makes them come off as all the more evil. Ralph Fiennes’ Amon Goth is one of cinema’s greatest villains. He’s downright charming in certain scenes, until he reminds us that he’s a sadistic killer. Let us also take a moment to remember the days when Liam Neeson was a real actor, not an unlikely action cliche. (Perhaps he just knew he’d never top Schindler’s List and gave up.) Neither of these men won the Oscars they were nominated for — those awards went to Tom Hanks for Philadelphia (understandable) and Tommy Lee Jones for The Fugitive (weird!). Also very good here: Ben Kingsley and Embeth Davidtz.

It’s hard to find fault with a single element of this cinematic triumph. The black-and-white cinematography evokes a classic feel that fits right in with footage from the 1930s and 40s; it’s brought to us, of course, by Spielberg’s frequent collaborator, Janusz Kaminiski (whose stellar stylings have elevated so much of Spielberg’s work). Spielberg also limited himself in terms of his toolkit, working without a Steadicam and shooting much of the film hand-held. (It still manages to look beautiful, more beautiful than just about any other movie.) Though it may feel like a bit of a gimmick, the girl in the red coat is also a total masterstroke — one of the most iconic in all of cinema. There’s no color in the world, as if the Nazis have drained the world of life. The number of Jews being murdered every day is staggering; it’s not hard to become desensitized just to cope with the sheer horror of it. And then suddenly one flash of color reminds us that every one of those six million was an individual. There’s no way around it — it’s pure genius.

Schindler’s List has rightly carved out a place for itself alongside the most enduring classics of all time — Casablanca, The Godfather, Citizen Kane. (It’s #8 on AFI’s list, right after Lawrence Of Arabia.) I’d say it is undoubtedly the most artful film Spielberg has made, and all bias aside, “the best.” But it’s not #1, is it? Because as good as Schindler’s List is, when I think “Spielberg,” I mostly want a good time at the movies. Schindler’s List is not the sort of movie you want to watch over and over again… but you know what is?

JURASSIC PARK, 1993. ©Universal/courtesy Everett Collection1. JURASSIC PARK

Hello, have you met me?

Was I a boy child in the 90s?

Did I have a complete set of official JP action figures, including a roaring T-Rex, a mock Visitor’s Center, and both the Jeep and the Explorer?

I have an action figure of a guy named Harpoon Harrison, and I don’t even know who that is, but you better believe that I had it. Why? Because Jurassic motherfuckin’ Park.

Yes, this movie was so cool that toy company Kenner could make up characters who weren’t even in the movie and sell them to children like me. I didn’t care. It was Jurassic Park. So if you thought I would seriously top this list with anything but Jurassic Park, well… you’re just silly.

To be fair, I experimented with putting Jaws at the top of this list. Really, I did. Schindler’s List, too. But every time I tried, the 11-year-old boy inside me screamed bloody murder. (“Turn the light off! Turn the light off!”) There was just no way. Yes, Jaws invented the modern blockbuster, and there’s so much that’s so good about it, and it’s probably the reason Jurassic Park even exists. But Jurassic Park delivered on the ultimate childhood fantasy: dinosaurs, brought back to life!

And then it showed us that if our childhood fantasy actually came true, it would eat us. Which is actually a very important lesson for a child to learn, because all of our dreams devour us in the end.

The most important part of my life story is this: Jurassic Park was released in June, and I saw it in September. Not for lack of trying. This was an adventure 65 million years in the making, and it felt like at least twice that long before my parents allowed me to see it. It was a long, arduous summer, over which I bought all available toys and read Michael Crichton’s book, which graphically describes intestines spilt and other such horrors that weren’t depicted in the movie. (I didn’t know that, imagining all sorts of innards in this film my parents forbade me to see.) When school started in early September, I was the only kid in my class to not have seen The Movie. One of my best friends committed to being a velociraptor 24/7, bobbing his head and squawking his way across the playground. I was so jealous. When my parents finally surprised me with tickets to The Movie — probably because they sensed any 11-year-old boy who hadn’t seen Jurassic Park in his prime would immediately and irreversibly be pronounced a social leper — it was the happiest moment of my life. I found Jurassic Park the way some people find Jesus.

Like Jaws, Jurassic Park plays coy with its monsters, but this time it wasn’t because the dinos were having technical difficulties. It’s because Spielberg knew the value of a suspenseful buildup, and Jurassic Park has a full hour of it before things go haywire. Spielberg knew we wanted dinosaurs, and he knew that we were willing to wait any amount of time for them. (Seriously, at this point in my life I would’ve sat through a 10 hour courtroom drama if I was sure a T-Rex would stomp in at the end.)

We’d be here another 65 million years if I tried to recount everything I like about Jurassic Park, so I’ll try to just hit the highlights. The T-Rex attack is a purely perfect moment of cinema in absolutely every way. The film was meta before “meta” was really a thing, showing Jurassic Park merchandise haunting the background. Michael Crichton’s book deserves a lot of credit for setting the pieces in place, but it was screenwriter David Koepp and Spielberg who found the concept’s true, awesome potential, the most masterful execution. (This movie also has the most superb one-liners.)

Now, there are a lot of Spielberg movies that can fairly duke it out for the top few slots, depending on one’s tastes. But it’s madness to think that Jurassic Park doesn’t belong near the top of this list. Yet somehow, Buzzfeed ranked Jurassic Park at #13, below War Horse. The Hollywood Reporter put it at #12, which is actually #13 because they cheated and used ties. Vulture also put Jurassic Park at #12… below Indiana Jones And The Motherfucking Temple Of Doom. Worst of all, Rolling Stone placed it at #16, trailing behind The Adventures Of Tintin, Amistad, and The Sugarland Express. Apparently, this author was playing with Sugarland Express action figures all through his childhood. What the hell is the matter with these people?

Okay, I know, childhood fondness is no indicator of great art, but I’ve watched Jurassic Park plenty of times since then. On VHS, on DVD, on BluRay, in 3D, in the theater. And it holds up. (You know what else held up? My Harpoon Harrison action figure. I’m pretty sure I still have that somewhere.) There’s a lot of good Spielberg face, but Jurassic Park contains the quintessential Spielberg face moment — that is, of course, Alan Grant grabbing Ellie Sattler’s head and forcing her to notice the brachiosaurus stomping by their Jeep. She pulls her sunglasses off, and no words are needed. Just eyes wide, mouth agape.

That’s the magic of Spielberg — he puts the audience right where the characters are, in awe of what they’re seeing and feeling and experiencing. It’s a very good place to be.

jurassic park gate*


Viewing all 11 articles
Browse latest View live