Redux: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Redux Review #168: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Paul Freeman (René Belloq), Ronald Lacey (Major Arnold Toht), John Rhys-Davies (Sallah), Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), with Alfred Molina (Satipo), Wolf Kahler (Colonel Dietrich), Anthony Higgins (Major Gobler), Vic Tablian (Barranca / Monkey Man), Don Fellows (Colonel Musgrove), William Hootkins (Major Eaton), Bill Reimbold (Bureaucrat), Fred Sorenson (Jock), Patrick Durkin (Australian Climber), Pat Roach (Giant Sherpa / 1st Mechanic), and George Harris (Simon Katanga) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

Review: 

"Indiana Jones was never a machine. I think one of the things we brought to the genre—and we didn’t coin the genre; it’s been around a lot longer than we’ve been around—but one of the things that George [Lucas] and I and, originally, Larry Kasdan, the writer of Raiders of the Lost Ark, brought to the genre, was the willingness to allow our leading man to get hurt and to express his pain and to get his mad out and to take pratfalls and sometimes be the butt of his own jokes. I mean, Indiana Jones is not a perfect hero, and his imperfections, I think, make the audience feel that, with a little more exercise and a little more courage, they could be just like him. So he’s not the Terminator. He’s not so far away from the people who go to see the movies that he’s inaccessible to their own dreams and aspirations."

What is it about Indiana Jones that drives so much fascination after 45 years? As the story goes, George Lucas, fresh off American Graffiti, had ideas in mind about wanting to do a movie like the ones he used to see a kid. He thought of doing an adventure with a college professor who basically was like James Bond on as "a bounty hunter of antiquities" that liked the nightclub. A little collaboration with his friend Philip Kaufman (director of films such as The Great Northfield, Minnesota Raid [1972] and The White Dawn [1974]) led to the ditching of the nightclub but also led to the pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant. Lucas paused on the idea when Kaufman was off to direct The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) to focus on, well, Star Wars (1977). Incidentally, one person who wanted to do a Bond type of adventure thriller was Steven Spielberg; the success of Star Wars in May 1977, with Lucas and Spielberg each on vacation in Hawaii, spurred things along for an eventual collaboration (after months of Lucas waiting to see if Kaufman would do it fell through). Spielberg brought in Lawrence Kasdan, who Spielberg suggested because he had just convinced Universal Pictures to purchase Kasdan's script for Continental Divide. They spent several days in 1978 doing a pitching session that argued and paced out what would happen in the story (which you can find here, because it was taped). Kasdan was once quoted as stating that everything in the film "resonates from other movies", specifically adventure films like Seven Samurai to The Great Escape, where they chased that feeling while the film did not take itself too seriously*. Filmed in 1980, Raiders was Spielberg's sixth feature film as a director, falling right between 1941 (1979) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982). It was released on June 12, 1981 with mild expectations because of the impending release in America of Superman II that was coming on June 19 (incidentally, audiences could also choose between Raiders or Clash of the Titans, or History of the World, Part I); the result was a massive hit that reportedly saw over 70 million tickets be sold in a time when people could see a movie in theaters for a year. It was nominated for nine Academy Awards that went down from Best Picture to Cinematography, winning for art direction, editing, sound, visual effects, and a special one for sound editing (that year, Chariots of Fire, a movie that I'm sure everyone knows beyond that one song, won Best Picture*). There were four sequels of varying quality (Temple of Doom - really good, actually; Last Crusade - a charmer; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - better the next time around; Dial of Destiny - fine the one time I saw it) and a television show with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles.

It's easy to go on and on about the influences that shaped Indiana Jones (matinee serials, China [1943], Secret of the Incas [1954], others) or just go point by point about the beauty of the film from its cinematography by Douglas Slocombe or the tremendously diverting score by John Williams all the way down to Harrison Ford being the one to lead it over, say, Tom Selleck. It was released in a time where you could show multiple people get shot (along with the whole Ark thing), snakes going around dead bodies, blood splatter right as a dude gets chopped by a plane blade...and get a PG rating. The easiest way to describe the movie is that it is an adventure with tremendous respect for its viewer that has something for everyone in a manner that seems effortless but is actually the result of so many worthy things going so well. It is the kind of movie that benefits from re-watches in what you view from certain scenes the second time around, because there are moments that really are just allowed to breathe without needing dialogue, when you think about it (this may come from the fact that the movie was extensively storyboarded, because he felt he needed every storyboard to stay on schedule). You enjoy the people that enter the sphere around Jones in what they bring to the table in their own pockets of time, whether that involves a trained monkey spy or the worthy menace brought by people such as Lacey. It's a wonderful movie to look at, right down to what is right there on screen and what actually is say, a matte painting. It all rests on Ford being something beyond the matinee hero: an academic and an adventurer (okay that was paraphrasing what he once said about the character, but still). He balances the tightrope of strength and wit that can be just as vulnerable as he can be funny in an adventure that basically is a ride of humility (contrary to Han Solo, the character of Jones doesn't start out as, well a conman).

It's not all about rescuing and getting the girl on the way to glory, it is a movie where you really do have to close your eyes to see beyond what you think you know about the world. Allen is just simply charming in that sort of independence that we gravitate to even in without as much backstory to really sink into (which is where imagination comes to play when thinking about looking at the interactions between her and Ford as compared to the ones between her and Freeman). Freeman is a capable shadow of Ford, a disturbing presence in how sly one can be when collaborating with the worst of humanity because he believes in himself so highly as a fallen angel of archaeology. A fly could buzz around his mouth and all he cares about is where he looms on the chessboard. You get the delightful elegance, charm or otherwise, with Rhys-Davies (cast as a mix between his role in Shōgun and John Falstaff*) and Elliott (the always beloved British actor), did I forget that? Wrapped within its 115-minute runtime is a movie that breezes along in finding the pieces of the puzzle in its adventure ride that respects its audience in allowing it to breathe and experience the action sequences or its effects spectacle (spooky ghosts always gets a vote) that I probably appreciate even more than when I first saw it as a teenager. It's hard to really say just what is the best sequence of the whole film between, say, the opening sequence or the Map Room - you just have to see it (and I mean see it) to really believe it, where a B-movie feel leads to going along with its rhythm quickly. It's the kind of movie that makes you feel young again, and it is the kind of movie that scratches the itch every now and then to crave adventure and maybe get something from the pursuit of history. The second one plays to the lizard brain interests for intensity and comedy, the third and fourth ones pursued a family tale with leaps of faith and the fifth, well, plays to having at least one more good time in old age, so there's that as well. It is sincerity without becoming devout in the best ways imaginable. 45 years later, it is the movie with the best type of qualities: the milage of craftsmen at work all coming together for a true return to the great adventure.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

theme of the day

*Because of his work in the script, Kasdan was approached by Lucas to work on The Empire Strikes Back (1980).

*Nobody really dwells on a Welsh actor playing Sallah and neither do you.

*Of all the times to give an Academy Award to the British, good lord. I do wonder if Reds holds up enough that Warren Beatty deserved a Best Director award. 

*Incidentally, Steven Soderbergh did a cut of the film in 2014 that aimed to show how the film really shined in the staging, which he did by taking out the audio and converted it to black-and-white

*And, well, vintage footage

Redux: Jaws.

Redux #480: Jaws.

Cast: 

Roy Scheider (Chief Martin Brody), Robert Shaw (Quint), Richard Dreyfuss (Matt Hooper), Lorraine Gary (Ellen Brody), Murray Hamilton (Mayor Larry Vaughn), Carl Gottlieb (Meadows), Jeffrey Kramer (Deputy Leonard Hendricks), Susan Backlinie (Chrissie Watkins), Lee Fierro (Mrs. Kintner), and Peter Benchley (Interviewer) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List)

Review: 

You might wonder why I'm giving a revised review of a movie I covered before. Well, that review was nearly 12 years ago on November 11, 2013. Enjoy.

Like most great movies, it all started with taking a novel into one's hands. In early 1974, Peter Benchley's debut novel Jaws was published, which had seen him take inspiration from shark attacks and the exploits of Frank Mundus, a fisherman that once caught a shark weighing over 4,000 pounds off the New York shores. Benchley thought the book wasn't going to be a hit, mainly because it was a first novel and that it was "about a fish". The result was a novel that sold over five million copies in its first 18 months. Ironically, both Benchley and Mundus became conservationists in later years, with the former telling people that he could not write the book as it was in good conscience (for Mundus, he later called the movie "the funniest and the stupidest movie I've ever seen because too many stupid things happened in it.").  Benchley was tasked to write the first draft of the screenplay, and it was he would basically do the "mechanics" of the script more so than characterization, which most notably saw him excise the affair between Brody and Hooper (upon suggestion). Others delivered uncredited work such as Howard Sackler, John Milius, Matthew Robbins, and Hal Barwood; Carl Gottlieb, who was tasked to bring in "some levity", was given co-credit with Benchley on the screenplay. The director would be Steven Spielberg, who had two features to his credit at the time with the TV-film-turned movie Duel (1971) and The Sugarland Express (1974). 159 days of production were spent around Massachusetts and the Atlantic Ocean due to overruns that saw script refinement and a bit of cast strife. You probably already know Jaws was a phenomenon, but it still sounds fun to say it: Universal spent a good deal of money marketing the movie in a media blitz and a strategy that was still not as widely used now: releasing the movie on hundreds of theaters at once for opening week, with over 400 theaters seeing the movie on June 20. For two years, Jaws was the highest-grossing movie of all time and the TV premiere of the movie in 1979 saw over half of the total US audience watch it. Years later, Benchley was asked about a deal involving sequels to Jaws, with him stating, "I don't care about sequels; who'll ever want to make a sequel to a movie about a fish?" Jaws 2, with no Spielberg or Dreyfuss, came out in 1978 as directed by Jeannot Szwarc to mixed reviews. Jaws 3-D (1983) and Jaws: The Revenge (1987, with Gary returning because...) came out later to diminishing box office returns and little-to-no creativity. Benchley went on to write seven more novels, with a handful being adapted into films such as The Deep (1977) and The Island (1980); he died in 2006 at the age of 65.

I admit that I've seen Jaws roughly three times: once in 2013, another a few years later, and lastly just a few days ago with my mom. I wanted to re-live the experience of wondering what was so great about a movie like this, and what better time than in the summer and in July? Steven Spielberg is probably the seminal entertainer for direction in the past fifty years, but I really did want to figure out (at least, again) just how he did it. Whether thought of as an action thriller or as a horror movie (let's be honest, there are people who willingly choose to ignore the latter genre because of bias), there is just something so thrilling about how this movie pushes one's buttons so effectively in great adventure. Filmmakers could only dream to make a movie run as well as one can for two hours that has no bloat or demand for more that come across here, and this is for a film that wisely spaces out its tension until it absolutely becomes important to do what it has to do. To borrow from old me, there were plenty of "animals gone bad" movies before and after this movie such as say, Grizzly (1976), Piranha (1978; widely considered among the best of the Jaws ripoffs), Alligator (1980), and so on, but Jaws just has that enthusiasm and commitment to its tension. You have to remember that the movie characters are meant to be more likable than the book characters, which dealt with a subplot involving the Mayor being tied to the Mafia and the aforementioned affair between two characters. The funny thing is that it was easier to cast Brody with a perceived "tough guy" in Scheider than the other two key roles, which apparently were not cast until the last few days of pre-production that resulted in two people being cast with how good they were in other people's movies at the time: actor/writer Robert Shaw, who had worked on the recent Universal Pictures hit in The Sting (1973) for Quint and American Graffiti (1973) star Richard Dreyfuss for Hooper. They all are essentially perfect for what needs to happen for the film. Scheider in particular shines because he fits the everyman type like a glove, one with real worries and quibbles that sells for all who know the plight of being, well, a fish out of water.

Shaw was a man of the stage who happened to write on the side, so of course he can play the ultimate rugged captain (he was a Bond adversary, for heaven's sake, he could do anything). Every line of his has a certain type of timing and cadence that we find listening to intently that is rewarded with that one particular sequence in the "U.S.S. Indianapolis monologue" that he sells in such a soulful way that it almost doesn't matter just who (Shaw, Milius, Sackler, what have you) came up with what in writing it. Apparently, Dreyfuss thought that the movie was going to be a "disaster" because of the general boredom that came in waiting to film. There's the veneer of charm within a part that apparently was molded to be Spielberg's "alter ego" (debate on that), and Dreyfuss draws a few light chuckles even in the great admirer of, well, the routines in science. Bottom line: you care about these folks. It may interest you to know that this was the debut theatrical performance of Gary, who had done a handful of television performances. But it is Hamilton and his steely smarm in the art of evasiveness that probably sticks out the most now more than ever: a person in a position of power that hears of certain facts and doggedly moves forward with his own self-serving needs anyway. Evidently, there is actual footage of real sharks in the film, as Ron and Valerie Taylor shot footage in the waters of South Australia that had an actor in a mini shark cage. The look of the shark isn't what matters in the end, what matters is the fact that it could come when it comes to suspense that came from someone who honed their craft in suspense with Duel (1971) and plays with the audience just enough to where the climax will splatter in harrowing excellence. As a whole, Jaws is the phenomenon for monster movies one would hope to aspire to do. I'm not really sure exactly where it rests on the pantheon of entertaining Spielberg movies when considering his earlier work (and what's to come), but it sure has a hell of an argument for making a good time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Review #2026: Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Cast: 

Opening sequence: Albert Brooks (the Driver), Dan Aykroyd (the Passenger), and Burgess Meredith (Narrator)

"Time Out": Vic Morrow (Bill Connor), Doug McGrath (Larry), and Charles Hallahan (Ray)

"Kick the Can": Scatman Crothers (Mr. Bloom), Bill Quinn (Leo Conroy), Martin Garner (Mr. Weinstein), Selma Diamond (Mrs. Weinstein), Helen Shaw (Mrs. Dempsey), and Murray Matheson (Mr. Agee)

"It's a Good Life": Kathleen Quinlan (Helen Foley), Jeremy Licht (Anthony), Kevin McCarthy (Uncle Walt), Patricia Barry (Mother), and William Schallert (Father)

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet": John Lithgow (John Valentine), Abbe Lane (Sr. Flight attendant), Donna Dixon (Jr. Flight attendant), John Dennis Johnston (Co-Pilot), and Larry Cedar (Gremlin)

Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, and #1718 - The Stupids), 

Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168-#170, #302, #351, #480, #563, #573,  #642, #958, #1068, #1305, #1478, #1520, #1528, #1560, #1843, and #2000 - Duel), 

Joe Dante (#007 - Looney Tunes: Back in Action, #096 - Gremlins, #097 - Small Soldiers, #1494 - Gremlins 2: The New Batch, #1744 - The Howling) 

and George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road)

Review:

The Twilight Zone, originally broadcast on CBS in 1959, is generally considered one of the best television shows of its time, if not one of the best ever. There were 156 episodes of the anthology series, with a good majority of them (92!) written by series creator (and presenter) Rod Serling. He had come up with the idea for an anthology series that would use its "science-fiction setting" to have more freedom to write what he felt. Technically, the show was not meant to be scary, but it just happened to have plenty of twists within a mostly consistent show. Providing a list of what episodes are the best seems futile, but here is a list of episodes that would be neat for one to check out if they want to see just what the show could do in its format (most are a half-hour long, minus the hour-long fourth season): "One for the Angels", "Walking Distance", "A Quality of Mercy", "Printer's Devil", and "One More Pallbearer" (one could also go for Serling's reported favorites in "The Invaders" and "Time Enough at Last"). Rod Serling had an interest in doing a Twilight Zone film for quite some time prior to his death in 1975. Various cast members that had appeared in an original episode appear in the film: Burgess Meredith, Patricia Barry, Peter Brocco, Murray Matheson, Kevin McCarthy, Bill Mumy, and William Schallert. The movie was marked by tragedy in the making of the first segment of the film due to an accident involving a helicopter crash during filming on July 23, 1982. Two children, Myca Dinh Le, Renee Shin-Yi Chen were hired to do a scene at night (under the table) that involved pyrotechnics and a helicopter. This resulted in an accident that saw the death of Morrow and the two children. Various people, which included Landis, were tried and ultimately acquitted on manslaughter charges in a trial that spanned 1986 and 1987. Of course, the tragedy as a whole sparked a movement for fire safety regulations and entertainment industry requirements, complete with a safety committee made by the Directors Guild of America about safety bulletins and a phone hotline. The film was released 40 years ago in June of 1983, and it was a mild success with audiences. It would inspire CBS (who had the rights to the show because Serling had sold it to them) to go forward with a second rendition of the show in 1985. After its end in 1989, two further shows came and went in the following decades (2002-2003 and 2019-2020). 

The opening segment (roughly eight minutes) features Albert Brooks and Dan Aykroyd in a car conversation that eventually talks about the show within the movie and the question of if one wants to see something "really scary"? It is, uh, a strange way to start a movie, mostly because when I think of Twilight Zone, I don't think, man suddenly finds a surprise in a car. But it is with two folks that I like, so there's that. Burgess Meredith, who appeared in classic episodes of the show such as "Time Enough at Last", introduces each story in narration, which is a nice tribute to Serling's previous method, although they do use Serling's voice for the ending as a whole. John Landis directed this sequence alongside the first segment in "Time Out". The segment, lasting roughly 18 minutes, involves a racist and resentful man that goes to a bar after being passed over for promotion that finds himself wrapped up in the past, more specifically places such as Nazi-occupied France, a racist Klan rally, or in Vietnam. Evidently, the segment is a mishmash of the classic stories "Back There" (namely the time travel) and "A Quality of Mercy", with the writer being none other than Landis.  The original scripted idea obviously couldn't be completed due to the tragedy that occurred, which apparently was meant to have a resolution that would've tried to find redemption for the racist that saw him try to help two children out of a helicopter attack in a Vietnamese swamp. Instead, it ends on him going through a frenzy of terrifying events before being sent off by a train despite yelling out to his friends that he can see out of the slats. As such, the story is mild because it requires a bit more bite than what is required to either reach a payoff of redemption...or the opposite, and a segment that doesn't even last the time of an actual TV episode isn't going to cut it. As such, Morrow is essentially trapped in a segment with an unavoidable pall over the entire thing, but you can see the glimmer in one part of the diner scene. There he is, blithering around with a dirty mouth, and for a moment you can see him for what he is beyond the epithets: a loser who really thought the world owed him one because of what he looks and sounds like "as an American". Intended redemption or not, there obviously was something that could've been done here beyond what you know.

"Kick the Can" (lasting roughly 21 minutes) is based on the third season episode of the same name originally written by George Clayton Johnson. The segment screenplay was written by Johnson, Richard Matheson, and Melissa Mathison. It was directed by Steven Spielberg. Apparently, he had plans for an ambitious segment before the helicopter tragedy led to him curtailing plans...for a remake of an episode that I honestly can't remember watching to begin with beyond the phrase "old people get young". It has been rumored that Spielberg, under contract but having lost the heart for the project due to the tragedy, made only a half-hearted effort here. All of this is meant to subside the actual thoughts of the story about "the day we stop playing is the day we start getting old", which I vaguely remember seeing in my neighborhood park when I was a kid. If the Landis segment could be thought of as perhaps a bit too short, the Spielberg segment can be best described as half-brained and half-effective. I can't tell what is more annoying, its cloying sense of "cheer" for such an average effort, or the very rumor of Spielberg half-assing a story just to get out of a dilemma. Crothers actually does provide a decent performance here, pulling some of the mysterious requirements necessary to make a story telegraphed to us in every step of the way not nearly as painful as it could be, and Quinn is at least a quality foil the basic arguments made involving the inevitability of age. By the time the segment gets to the ultimate decision made, the lesson put there is at least one that isn't sapped of hokum...and then of course Crothers does a fourth wall bit before leaving. As a whole, it's just an okay segment, one that makes you wonder if being the "light segment" of the film is really a compliment.

"It's a Good Life" (roughly 27 minutes long) is loosely based off the third season episode of the same name (as written by Serling that was based on a short story by Jerome Bixby). Matheson wrote the screenplay for this segment (which Serling had discussed prior to his death as writing a draft to make into a film), with Joe Dante serving as director. The story involves a lady schoolteacher finding the company of a young boy at a rural diner when she helps him after he is accosted only to then accidently back her car into his bike. She gives him a ride home and meets the rest of his family, who all seem nice. Heck, I like Kevin McCarthy, what could go wrong with his character presence? Despite having quite a hill to climb in trying to remake one of the most famous Zone episodes, Dante has provided something special here: an off-beat and weird segment that seems to take you on a trip of not just sight and sound but of mind. It is a delightful and deranged segment, headlined by a useful cast. I of course dig the presences around the supporting folks like McCarthy, ever the panicky one in trying to keep appearances as essentially the elder statesmen of character presences here, made clear when he tries to figure just how a magic trick with an imaginative boy is going to go. Quinlan and Lichy make quite an effective pairing in the realm of dealing with such a funhouse of creativity that invites a tragic quality not present in the earlier adaptation (of course, since this adaptation uses an eight-year-old rather than a six-year-old, why not?), which seems like a suitable twist. It's a neat story as a whole.

"Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" (22 minutes) is a remake of the story of the same name (based on the short story by Richard Matheson, who also wrote the screenplay for this segment) that had premiered in the fifth season of the show, which I'm sure you remember had William Shatner as star. George Miller serves as director here. The key change is to the circumstances of the man in the predicament of seeing a gremlin on the plane he is flying in: the TV episode had him travel with his wife after just spending time in a sanitarium while the film features a man with a fear of flying traveling alone. The segment is all about the tension that comes with what you know of the person observing a nightmare right in front of their eyes that obviously could be just our nightmare too: what if you saw something that no one could see that could lead to your death? The gremlin costume is the biggest evident difference in adaptation, mainly because it actually looks quite spooky in the moments it is seen in the dark rainy night, which only add to the fear portrayed excellently by Lithgow. This segment is probably the one that hews closest to the original spirit of the TV episode, which either makes it the best segment of the film or a pretty close second and one can't go wrong there. The movie begins and ends with the same man asking if one wants to see something really scary. Friends of anthologies with varying quality such as O. Henry's Full House (1952) or Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965) will be just fine with this movie, one that will have enough peaks and lows to make the 101-minute runtime seem useful to perhaps step further into the realm of the Twilight Zone and see just how fun anthology can be in the right hands.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Duel.

Review #2000: Duel.

Cast: 

Dennis Weaver (David Mann), with Jacqueline Scott (Mrs. Mann), Carey Loftin (Truck Driver), Eddie Firestone (Café Owner), Lou Frizzell (Bus Driverdagger), Eugene Dynarski (Man in Café), Lucille Benson (Lady at Snakerama), Tim Herbert (Gas Station Attendant), and Charles Seel (Old Man) 

Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence, #1560 - The Adventures of Tintin, #1843 -  The Lost World: Jurrassic Park)

Review: 

"I mean, I believe that stuff. I don't think you can be a filmmaker, a serious filmmaker making audience popcorn movies unless you believe the stories you're telling."

In roughly 2,000 movies seen over the past twelve years or so, the one constant presence among the 133 directors with at least four films spotlighted is Steven Spielberg. One always has to remember that Spielberg got his start as a director from a very young age. The Cincinnati native made his first film with Firelight (1964) at the age of 17. Of course, his most prominent work in the early era came with Amblin' (1968), a short film that was so successful that he was signed to a deal with Universal Studios because an executive in Sid Sheinberg liked it that much. Of course, he had an ambition to want to direct films, but he found that he really had to get work within television first before someone would want him to direct films. As such, he would direct episodes for six television shows alongside three television films. You might recognize him as a director on two firsts: the second segment of the pilot for Night Gallery ("Eyes") and the director of the first regular episode of Columbo ("Murder by the Book") in September of 1971. Duel was his first true television film, airing on November 13, 1971 (weeks before Spielberg turned 25).

The film was written by Richard Matheson, who adapted his own short story that originally had been published in the April 1971 edition of Playboy magazine (after failing to get it done on television or as a film with executives), with inspiration taken from a real-life incident where he was tailgated by a trucker on November 22, 1963; the story was written after he took a trip from home to Ventura to record what he saw. Matheson, as one might know, was a noted writer of fiction, film, and television, whether that involved The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) or episodes of the original The Twilight Zone. Spielberg's secretary Nona Tyson read the story and suggested it to Spielberg to try and lobby to make due to the plans already being set in motion by Universal. Spielberg showed a rough cut of his Columbo episode to help make a good impression to studio executives, which worked with the caveat of having just ten days to film. With a completion of 13 days with the use of five editors to make a Universal Television product ready for ABC's Movie of the Week, the film just made it to the finish line, helped by Spielberg and his skill in plotting out every camera shot he needed with an overhead map he commissioned that he had done of the area in California that would be for shooting (as opposed to doing it in a soundstage). Upon hearing the good ratings of the film (remember, this was 1971), Universal decided to give it a theatrical release, primarily in Europe and Australia (there apparently was a limited release in the United States, in 1983). When it came for a theatrical release, several scenes were shot later to make a 74-minute film into 90, which consists of: a scene involving a railroad crossing, one involving the lead dealing with a school bus and its driver, a scene on the phone with a character (Scott) in their only scene of the film, and an opening with a car backing out of a garage before it hits the open road (the TV one just shows it on the road already). Spielberg would make his formal debut in features with The Sugarland Express in 1974, and the rest is history.

The best films are the ones that adhere to their premises that you can tie down in a certain amount of sentences without having to strain in why it seems so interesting. This is especially apparent when you think about a movie about a man being terrorized on the road by a man in a truck whose face you never see. It really is a miracle movie, if you think about it. Can you imagine shooting a film like this in twelve days for television and then go on to find that it would be one that created demand for a theatrical release but also manage to be talked about after a half-century? Network Movie of the Weeks may be a thing of the past when it comes to must-see TV for most people, but one thing that has never gotten out of style is the thrill of a wonderful chase, and Spielberg excels handily here in a film that seems to lay all the stops for how he would make an even more captivating thriller of man and things around him with Jaws (1975). Both feature a creature that simply cannot be negotiated with and only lives to destroy anything vulnerable enough to its reach and both even feature the same rattle of sound. You haven't lived until you see a Peterbilt gasoline tanker truck look menacing in all of its dark brown glory. Believe it or not, Weaver was not the first choice. Gregory Peck, David Janssen, and Dustin Hoffman each were approached and turned down the role (Peck was approached with the idea as a theatrical film and not as a TV production), which opened the door for Weaver. He was perhaps best known for his roles as the secondary lead on Gunsmoke (1955-1964) and as the title lead in the 1970s police drama McCloud. Actually, it was his supporting role in Touch of Evil (1958) as a twitchy motel man that Spielberg found most interesting in intensity when it came to backing Weaver for the role. As such, he is allowed to roam at his own vulnerable pace, which either sees him look over his shoulder or try to compose himself with select dialogue. It isn't anything transcendent, but it is the kind of acting challenge that one in theory would love to have, since it involves someone trying their hardest to not turn the role into one that bounces off the wall in fear and instead find a clear balance. Spielberg excels when it comes to the visual storytelling that comes through in his shots that he wanted to make sure were not just comprised as close-ups with little to express, especially for a film that has to find tricks to make the speed of the car look as fast it seems to be going on screen while having multiple cameras running. This proves especially rewarding in the final sequence of man versus truck that sees one arrive at their final destination with glorious capturing by the cameras to make a worthy ending (thankfully, due to executive help, ABC's request to have an explosion at the end was not put in). As a whole, Duel is an achievement of worthwhile creativity for its filmmaker to make a simple premise into one of great tension that Alfred Hitchcock surely would have been proud of with a resourceful sense of timing and staging and one quality performance to make a highly memorable strike that makes a great first step into further curiosity. It takes it time in the best of ways that any young filmmaker would want to aspire for in their ambitions in satisfying the need to serve as a visual storyteller and entertain their audience with a solid foundation of craftsmanship for filmmaking.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

And so here we are at last. It took 2,495 days from the very first review to get to #1000 on October 19, 2017. 2,009 days later, a new collection of 1,000 reviews is here, no doubt aided by the fact that I have managed to write at least ten reviews for a month in all but six months that have followed October 2017 (to say nothing of 2020, a massive undertaking in a strange year). I think they outrank the original 1,000 by a significant margin, and that counts even with the revised reviews (such as #1). 

I hope the last five years have seen interesting films be featured with a useful perspective, whether that involved trying to make theme months out of January or August, or with spotlighting black history in film with February or women history with March or with the march of horror films in October and November. With any luck, I hope the next 1,000 is just as worthy of curiosity for readers out there. Onward.

Redux: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Review #126: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Cast: 

Richard Dreyfuss (Roy Neary), Teri Garr (Ronnie Neary), Melinda Dillon (Jillian Guiler), François Truffaut (Claude Lacombe), Bob Balaban (David Laughlin), J. Patrick McNamara (Project Leader), Warren Kemmerling (Major “Wild Bill” Walsh), Roberts Blossom (Farmer), Philip Dodds (Jean Claude), and Cary Guffey (Barry Guiler) Directed by Steven Spielberg.

Review: 

“People are always looking for – I don’t know what you’d call it – I guess, the cosmic entertainment. More than the meteorological explanation. From the behavioral science point of view, I was just as interested in finding out why people looked to the skies, and want to believe, as I was in looking to the skies myself, to try to understand what’s happening up there, that the Air Force and the Government don’t want to tell us about.”

The 1970s were a hell of a time to make movies. Steven Spielberg became a major director during this time because of numerous features that he made, whether that involved television films such as Duel (1971) or his film debut with The Sugarland Express (1974), or more specifically, the big blockbuster Jaws (1975). Close Encounters of the Third Kind went from a development deal first done in 1973 to release in 1977, one with a script entirely written by himself that was inspired by a variety of factors, at least when it arose from script hell. The original idea was to have a script done by Paul Schrader, but troubles with the script led to re-writes by John Hill (each of which involved a cop as the lead) before Spielberg took over himself. David Giler, Jerry Belson, Hal Barwood, and Matthew Robbins all made suggestions or script doctoring, although only Spielberg is credited on the final script. One inspiration was Spielberg and his father seeing meteor showers, but one also has to consider Spielberg's previous 1964 film Firelight, which he wrote and directed as a 17-year-old living in Phoenix, Arizona. That film (not available to the public) dealt with an investigation of a series of colored lights in the sky that saw people disappear. Lastly, the song "When You Wish Upon a Star" also proved inspiration in the writing. His next film would come out two years later with 1941, the war ensemble comedy flop. There are numerous versions of the film, owing to how post-production was handled between Spielberg and Columbia Pictures. The film was rushed into finishing by the studio for a release on November 16, 1977, while Spielberg would've liked to release it the summer of next year. They made a deal together after its success that would see him re-edit the film how he wanted, provided that he include a sequence that showed the interior of the mothership. Spielberg regretted the sequence, which was first seen in 1980 as a "Special Edition" that apparently added a few sequences involving Dreyfuss and his character in the family time before his close encounter. A third edition labeled the "Collector's Edition" is basically the same re-edit but without the mothership sequence. Incidentally, Devils Tower, which had a couple of scenes filmed on location (minus the airstrip that was filmed on a disused airbase in Alabama), has a showing of the film on a nightly basis. Incidentally, Columbia Pictures tried to force a sequel, and Spielberg did conceive an idea called Night Skies on the off-hand chance they tried to make a film without him, which even saw John Sayles serve as a consultant for what would have been done after Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) that would've been about aliens terrorizing a family. The script did not go too far, save for one thing: an alien being depicted as befriending one of the terrorized people as a benevolent creature to someone living in a broken home eventually spiraled into E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982).

I wonder what was in my thought process when watching this movie all those years ago, since the only time I remember watching the film was in April of 2012, although being the first film that I wrote a review (brief as it was) after the passing of my dad. Maybe I dug the special effects, for which Douglas Trumbull was the visual effects supervisor while Carlo Rambaldi designed the extraterrestrials. Or maybe it was John Williams and his music score that got to me more than anything. Looking back, the movie is good, but it was not nearly as good as I imagined it was, although one can certainly see the appealing qualities in the 45 years that have passed since its release beyond the visually arresting imagination seen in plenty of Spielberg movies. It is the visual images that come from the movie that create the lasting impression of the film in awe, whether that involves a kid being distraught after seeing a fatherly meltdown involving mashed potatoes or the abduction of a little kid or the very first time that we see the alien lights. The scope of the film is quite involving, with effects that mostly back this vision up (I can see where Spielberg would think that digital effects of now might supercede what is seen here, but hey, effects made by human hands and tenacity work fine when it is executed well).

These are the actors that were presented the chance to play the main role before Dreyfuss and his lobbying paid off: Steve McQueen (said no because he couldn't cry on cue), Dustin Hoffman, and Gene Hackman, and Jack Nicholson. Truffaut, as you probably know, was a famous French director. Spielberg wanted him for this role from the first moment of casting, although he apparently put it off until the last minute (incidentally, he appeared in four feature films as an actor, but this was the only one where he was not the director). Dreyfuss is technically the best part of the film when it comes to the acting, although I would argue that Dillon holds just as much weight despite less than half of the screentime. As much I despise the character in the long run, he does play it with conviction to where one does have the semblance of sympathy of seeing an obsession drive a family man into a curious place where imagination is only half the story. Garr isn't given too much to really do besides being the skeptic (i.e., a level-headed person that has to be shown as a foil because the movie doesn't have an answer) with worry and fears. Dillon is the one to appreciate in panic, one that we are always on the side on in the pained parental fear held most: a missing child. I almost think that the film might have worked better with her on the mount rather than Dreyfuss, but you have to remember that the character is distinctly one that reflects the director in his curiosity more than anything.

It is the ending that doesn't quite bring things together to a great finish. Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that a character like Roy decides to just galivant across the galaxy is a bit weird when you remember that most of the film saw him try to raise two kids with his wife. Regardless of how the film presents the family, it just comes off as a bit too selfish to really work as an ending in the way that I'm sure Spielberg wanted. In fact, Spielberg has been quoted as saying that he wouldn't have made the film the way it was after he started his own family, as he had a "privilege of youth" when making the original film (Dreyfuss has stated in recent years that any idea of the ending being different if Spielberg was a family man to be "nonsense"). I felt that the story between Dillon's character and the desperation and obsession she has over the alien encounter is far more interesting to consider than deadbeat Roy tearing down his whole life on Earth, unless one is meant to take it as the tragedy that it sounds like. But this is a movie where the way to deal with a massive spaceship is to trade musical notes. As a whole, the movie kind of just ends with parts that seem more like possibilities for further curiosity rather than a complete story such as missing men from long ago brought back to Earth, or the idea of just how one reacts to seeing their son get snatched and get returned to them. As a whole, the movie has endured for the imagination it inspires within the unknown with mostly skillful execution, one that is at least a contender for the first tier of interesting sci-fi movies of the past 50 years and a worthy effort from a soon legendary director. It inspires a curiosity in the exploration of what lies beneath knowing that one is not alone in this world beyond the people inhabiting the Earth, which is crisply presented in a solid enough manner by Spielberg and company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

On Sunday: Turkey Week III, a collection of "turkey" movies from November 20th until November 26th.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Review #1843: The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Cast: 

Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Julianne Moore (Dr. Sarah Harding), Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), Arliss Howard (Peter Ludlow), Richard Attenborough (Dr. John Hammond), Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen), Vanessa Lee Chester (Kelly Curtis), Peter Stormare (Dieter Stark), Harvey Jason (Ajay Sidhu), Richard Schiff (Eddie Carr), and Thomas F. Duffy (Dr. Robert Burke) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence, #1560 - The Adventures of Tintin)

Review: 

"I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me."

If one remembers correctly, Jurassic Park as both novel and film was major success. The book, published in 1990, was the seventeenth novel written by Michael Crichton, who also tried his hand at directing and writing films from time to time (most notably with Westworld (1973). He had developed the novel for a number of years from a graduate student recreating a dinosaur to wildlife park of extinct animals because of the expense of genetic research. Crichton, who had first met Spielberg when the latter was tasked to show him around the lot of Universal Studios in the late 1970s, would be the director for the film adaptation (at the time, it was the seventh adaptation of a Crichton novel), as Crichton told Spielberg about the novel a year before its publication. When it came time for the film adaptation, Crichton slimmed down the large contents of the novel to about a fraction for the script that he wrote for the film (with later writing by David Koepp). The book was such a success that fans asked Crichton to develop a sequel, which only ramped up with the success of the film. The Lost World (named after the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel of the same name) was released one year later by Crichton, and development for a film adaptation started not long after by Spielberg (Crichton did not have involvement with this or any other Jurassic Park movies). The plot between the book and film differs in some ways, as a cursory view of the summary states that the book features the character of Ian Malcolm going a rescue mission to retrieve a paleontologist in "Site B" with five others (that includes two stowaway children as research assistants), as opposed to being a reluctant participant to retrieve his significant other already on the island there to "document the dinosaurs" (the film Hammond is considerably different from the book anyway). It was the only sequel book that Crichton ever wrote, although it did not stop the eventual development of a third Jurassic Park film, which was released in 2001 with ideas and characters from the first novel incorporated into it. 

Technology is a curious thing, with Crichton once describing it as a "manifestation of how we think." Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Phil Tippett and Michael Lantieri had won Academy Awards for their work in visual effects for the first film, and all but Tippett returned to provide effects. Koepp would also write the screenplay for this film, which he did by himself. Adventures are really, really tough to do again and again. Hell, one should have seen this coming because of how it went for Spielberg the first time he did a sequel to one of his films: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Think about it: both movies are darker than the original film while also having different cast members with the exception of one (no, Attenborough being there doesn't count since he basically cameos for two scenes). Spielberg himself felt that the reason sequels like the one he made here weren't as good was because of his overconfidence (where one feels since the original did so well, this would be a slam dunk), for which he decided to take his hands off ever doing another Jurassic Park film; at the last minute, he decided to change the ending to include a dinosaur rampage on San Diego, which he planned to save for a third film before realizing he would probably not do a third film. Of course, we are dealing with a movie that has characters that know they are going to an island of dinosaurs, so that also changes the tone a bit for a film long at 129 minutes that features "hunters and gatherers". Technically, it does excel well as a monster movie, since it rolls along with the cliches and execution of a horror movie, complete with characters that have the intelligence size of some random guy you see on the street trying to juggle blindfolded while crossing the street; in other words, it has the thought process of a B-movie that should know a bit better. At least one knows what they are getting into early, since the first scene features a little girl stumbling onto chicken-sized dinosaurs that like the taste of meat that attack her (off-screen). I didn't hate the movie, because I certainly tolerated the long and winding road (read: a road one inch thick) in trying to make adventure that at least gets to a fraction of The Lost World (1925), which it does after dawdling for a time. It's a nice-looking movie with a jagged edge of humor for setting up terror at times, but being an average Spielberg movie is probably more disappointing to view than just watching an average B-movie. 

The strangest thing is that the most interesting actor in the film is one who doesn't even show up for the beginning or its climax: Postlethwaite is the most convincing of the group because one really does believe he is just a guy who wants to be on an island with dinosaurs for the ultimate hunt, one with the most dignity and conviction without becoming a complete caricature in long-winded speeches, which means one kind of would have rather had him as a focus or at least stay a bit into the climax rather than shuttling off (hey, a movie about people trying to get their kicks by hunting dinosaurs can't be that silly). Don't get me wrong, Goldblum is an adequate lead, one who retains his cynicism from before that is interesting before he gets pegged into less chaotic fare with Moore and Chester that makes him not exactly as compelling to view from before, if only because he seems more seeped into the labeling crowd; in other words, he has become a bit ordinary. Moore can only go as far as the script goes with a character that seems scribbled together with minimal things to really do besides making one wonder why the "gatherer" characters seem less suitable than the "hunter" characters to root for. Vaughn is okay here, but the fact that the film helped gain him a bit more exposure on a path to more interesting projects is at least somewhat comforting. Honestly, it is surprising that Chester is the one "kid character" here, because the two kids from the original (Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards) appear in a cameo that seems to remind me that their adolescent story worked far better than sequences with Chester and Goldblum trying to play (family) house, which seems corny more than anything. Howard homes in the arrogance expected of the role with decent edge, but the only real selling point is obvious: seeing someone get their just desserts, because heaven knows he might be the only prominent cast member to face true danger. It might be a darker movie than the first film, but it doesn't quite capture much of the same magic that came before it, with its monster mash chase sequences only pushing the film barely over the finish line beyond just being a really expensive B-movie that has to fill some obligations. I did like what I saw from the San Diego scene at the end, even if it was more inevitable in execution more than anything. As a whole, if one wants a few nice effects and an okay story, this would be just fine in the cornucopia of movies that only reach its grasp 70% of the time, which is still better than reaching it only 60% of the time. As a movie that is now 25 years old, perhaps it will age gracefully for the curious who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Adventures of Tintin.

Review #1560: The Adventures of Tintin.

Cast: 

Jamie Bell (Tintin), Andy Serkis (Captain Archibald Haddock / Sir Francis Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine / Red Rackham), Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Thomson and Thompson), Toby Jones (Aristides Silk), Daniel Mays (Allan), Mackenzie Crook (Tom), Gad Elmaleh (Omar ben Salaad), and Enn Reitel (Nestor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence)

Review: 
Every aspect of Hergé's great talent are part of my approach: Hergé's humour of course, and the body language, which is so important. There's no plan to change that. We religiously respect his art, even for the supporting characters."

The only person that Hergé, author of the comic book series The Adventures of Tintin, felt could do his series justice was Steven Spielberg. The Belgian writer was commissioned to write a story for Le Petit Vingtième, a youth supplement to the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, with the first installment of what became known as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets being published on January 10, 1929, and it continued its serialization for several months alongside further serialization in countries such as France. It moved to the newspaper Le Soir in 1940 due to occupation of the country in World War II before eventually having its own magazine (published by Le Lombard), which went from 1946 to 1993. He would ultimately write 23 volumes of The Adventures of Tintin before his death in 1983, with his stories characterized by the author's extensive research done involving the locale where the stories would be set alongside the main character's well-rounded Boy Scout type of character. The way that Spielberg ties into all of this is because of (what else) a review someone did on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which it was compared to Tintin in its story (which led to him tasking himself to finding a bunch of the books, where he was dazzled by the art). Although he did not have the chance to formally meet the author in person (as he died the week a meeting was planned), there was an arrangement made between Spielberg and Hergé's widow made after a meeting to make a film on Tintin. There had been quite a few adaptations of Tintin on screen, such as three animated features (1947, 1969, 1972) and live-action films (1961, 1964) alongside a pair of television series and even documentaries and stage-shows. The development for a satisfactory script would take considerable time to develop, and it was only the entrance of the 21st century that he considered the idea of doing it with computer animation. It was approaching Peter Jackson and Weta Digital about trying to make a CGI Snowy that led to suggesting the use of motion capture to adapt the series to film. Ultimately, Spielberg would direct and co-produce the film with Peter Jackson and Kathleen Kennedy, while Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish would write the screenplay, which drew upon a few of the works (such as The Secret of the Unicorn, which is used as a subtitle for the film in some places) with a few distinct differences (such as the villain, for example).

It would seem it was worth the wait to make an adventure come to life in dazzling animation. It achieves a picturesque style of animation well-suited for adventure with warm atmosphere and capable enough leads to follow through with great finish for a bright and vibrant time for 107 minutes. It generates just enough interest and charm in its subject matter that makes one asking for more that works for numerous audiences without verging into anything too fanciful or too strange with its range of animation. One could probably imagine an adventure like this in live action, sure, but there is just something different about the detail that comes through here with what is shown (perhaps particularly if one saw it in 3D on release), and the humor generally does a fine job in reflecting that. Bell works well in what is needed in persistent curiosity and good nature needed without seeming inauthentic in do-gooder weirdness. In other words, he fits right in a story of a young man, his (CGI-created) dog, and a beleaguered sea captain going on adventures you could see again and again. Serkis pulls himself well with charm and coarse dryness that when around with Bell makes for a worthy double act that rides along with growing confidence. Craig proves a worthy adversary to finish out the main trio, making an eloquent presence in what is needed for what is required in terms of caper adventure with a stuffy presence for the past and present. Frost and Pegg do just as well in parts with a bumbling duo that contributes a key hearty laugh involving a bit of slapstick with Jones that make useful comic relief suited for this particular duo. It should prove worthy enough for a look because of what it achieves in enjoyment for adventure with the source material that makes for useful caper entertainment that leaves one interested in the imagination for what could go from there or for one to look upon the pages it borrowed from in the first place. As a first venture into animation, I would say Steven Spielberg did a pretty good achievement in that regard.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Saving Private Ryan.

Review #1520: Saving Private Ryan.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Captain John H. Miller), Edward Burns (Private Richard Reiben), Matt Damon (Private James Francis Ryan), Tom Sizemore (Sergeant Mike Horvath), Jeremy Davies (Corporal Timothy Upham), Vin Diesel (Private Adrian Caparzo), Adam Goldberg (Private Stanley Mellish), Barry Pepper (Private Daniel Jackson), Giovanni Ribisi (Medic Irwin Wade), Ted Danson (Captain Fred Hamill), Paul Giamatti (Sergeant William Hill), Dennis Farina (Lieutenant Colonel Walter Anderson), Joerg Stadler (Steamboat Willie), Max Martini (Corporal Henderson), and Nathan Fillion (Private James Frederick Ryan) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, and #1478 - The Color Purple)

Review: 
"What Steven wanted to do from the get-go was to use all of his magic, and all of the tools that existed in cinema as of 1997, and make a war movie that was going to break every one of the tropes, visually and cinematically, that all war movies had"

The 1990s were an interesting time for films, with Steven Spielberg being a significant contributor to that distinction through six films, which primarily resulted in audience attention, a studio that he helped to establish in DreamWorks Pictures, and three Academy Awards. Within those films are a mix of both adventure and historical drama, although this would be his first epic war film since Empire of the Sun (1987). The genesis for the script by Robert Rodat came from inspiration over the Niland brothers while reading Stephen Ambrose's book about D-Day (Ambrose's other book in Band of Brothers would later be turned into a miniseries by Spielberg and Hanks). There were four brothers in the family that served in World War II, with three of them fighting in the Normandy campaign. The surviving brother was believed to be the only Niland left, and he was shipped back to the United States to complete his service (however his oldest brother, a member of the Army Air Forces captured in a POW camp, was eventually liberated before the end of the war). The script appealed to Spielberg and his interest in the war, which he once described as "the most significant event of the last 100 years", one in which his father had served in as a member of the Army Air Corps, with the younger Spielberg being fascinated with the war due to his father's stories and recollections and what was depicted of it on American television; some of his early short films were combat ones inspired by his father. It shouldn't be surprising that the actors seem up to what is required in depicting combat with respect, since the main stars all endured a mini-session of boot camp led by Marine Dale Dye, who you might hear about as a trainer for other military-themed films.

The film opens and ends at the same place that seems interesting for an epic war film: the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, with Harrison Young as our first focus as a certain veteran here to pay his respects. I found these sequences to be fairly well-done in setting the film on pace for the thought that occurs after war when it comes to sacrifice in the horrors of war. And then of course there is the second sequence of the film, likely one of the best ever put to film that involves the landing on Omaha Beach in Normandy, France, with over a thousand extras used within a recreation of the beach shot in Ireland. There is nothing quite like it in such devastating power as it moves across the killing field with tactile precision that makes for a harrowing experience for its viewers (who can feel every little moment of spilled seasickness and various other things) to set in and feel immediately without pretense. Soldiers being taken down before they hit the sand is still a striking image to dwell on. It has been a point of debate over the idea of said battle being the "peak" moment of the film. To me, that's pretty ridiculous, because that seems to imply that the rest of the film isn't as maintained in heightened fear or well-executed in discipline. If the D-Day sequence was at the end, would we being saying the same thing? Of course I also don't find the film drowns in maudlin nature unlike others - it grips me and keeps that grip firm and steady. I found that the film worked just as well in building its conflict within its mission that makes the inevitable fates all the more successful. One doesn't bat an eye much at the 169 minute run-time because of how well-involved it is when relaying the sacrifices made in the name of war. The film does its best work in depicting the fears and instincts that made up the men to fight without becoming a caricature, the absolute best in uncompromising epics for what Spielberg wanted to do.

But enough about details, there has to be a cast to go with it. Hanks proves quite resilient in displaying the humane side of persisting onward with what he must do regardless of the reasons or consequences, one who maintains himself with range that stands on his own terms as a useful lead to follow without becoming swept up in platitudes. Damon, showing himself past the halfway point does well with role filled in reluctance and care apart from the main group that does what is needed. Burns (in his first role that he also did not direct/write/produce, as he debuted with The Brothers McMullen three years prior) and Sizemore both do well with simmering intensity that carry the film in moving with the tides of weariness that doesn't seem wavering. Davies works well with unassuming quiver that we observe in the contrast between combat in translation and non-combat in translation a different way that sells that harrowing last shot of him worth it. Another filmmaker featured in this film Diesel, who had previously made two low-budget films of his own (as writer, director, producer, and star), and it was his short in Strays (1997) that impressed Spielberg to wedge his way into this film, and Diesel makes the most of it with some of the hard-edged charisma that would later make him a star. The others that are peppered through the film work handily in keeping the candor efficient from its journey across the fields of war with care, whether that involves folks like Goldberg or smaller turns for Danson and Giamatti. As a film that set itself on garnering more realism from what had come from war films in the previous decades (which featured films such as The Longest Day), Saving Private Ryan packs enough a wallop in its initial setup of harrowing bloodshed to make its resulting story a stirring experience that leaves its audience something it cannot forget about as just entertainment when it ends.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.