I've been watching a bunch of Steven Spielberg's more recent movies that I missed in the cinema. Considering his career goes back to the 1970s, "recent" is a relative term. Here's some quick reviews:
After an icon radio adaptation by Orson Welles and an iconic film adaptation produced by George Pal, Spielberg took on his first "aliens are evil" project (the other being the evil aliens who messed up the Indiana Jones franchise in 2008). The movie is remarkably faithful to the original novel, matching the mass flight from a major city (this time New York instead of the novel's London); the nefarious plans of the aliens (though in this movie they are never called Martians); the sequence of being trapped in a basement with a guy who plans to fight back; the "red weeds" that start growing where the aliens are active; the ultimate defeat of the aliens not by humans. Spielberg adds Tom Cruise as a divorced dad who has his kids for the weekend when the aliens show up. His plan is to make it from New York to Boston, where his ex-wife and her new husband have gone for the weekend. He's kind of a bad dad, which both his kids know, but he rises to the occasion when anarchy breaks loose.
The movie does not wax philosophical about the aliens and their menace, it's more of an immediate experience of how horrible the situation is. The story is very serious and relentlessly bleak with the humans occasionally behaving badly too. The cinematography looks very much like it was shot in the 1970s or early 1980s--it's a bit grainy and hand-held (though not overboard on the hand-held camera work, which is a pet peeve of mine (I'm looking at you, Monsoon Wedding)). At first I wondered if the film was supposed to be set in an earlier time but they have cell phones and Tivo, so the cinematography is just a style choice. It works well to communicate the immediacy and peril of the characters' situation. But there's very little depth about the aliens.
I enjoyed the film and am glad I watched it but probably won't watch it again.
In 2045, America is not the best place to live, at least not for Wade, who lives in a slum but spends all his time in the OASIS, a virtual reality that is extremely popular. The creator of the OASIS, James Halliday, has died and left three challenges inside the game. Whoever can beat those challenges first will inherit both Halliday's fortune and control of the OASIS. Some corporate baddies are trying to take over the game in the hopes of monetizing it, but true fans of video games and the OASIS are trying to win to keep it the way it is. Wade does some research and eventually figures out how to beat the first test. He then teams up with five other players (who call themselves "The High Five") to complete the challenges before the evil corporation can.
The movie looks amazing and has a bazillion pop culture references. The story struck me as very paint-by-numbers plotting. The performances are good. The movie has a totally bland message about spending less time in virtual reality and more time in actual reality.
This movie is a special effects summer popcorn blockbuster, and is satisfying at that level. Like War of the Worlds, it's not a film I feel the need to rewatch.
Washington Post owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) decides to sell shares of the paper on the New York Stock Exchange to raise money to keep the paper going. At the same time, the New York Times begins publishing articles about the Pentagon Papers, documents showing how all presidential administrations since Eisenhower had been deceiving the American public about the US relationship to Vietnam. Post editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) wants to publish too, though it may cause the paper and its people very serious legal and financial problems.
The movie is a well-executed drama though the script is uneven. Mrs. Graham's tricky situation is well fleshed out and Streep gives a great performance. On the other hand, Richard Nixon is the most one-dimensional villain ever--he had more character depth and nuance in Black Dynamite. Some of the speeches defending freedom of the press lack the conviction one would expect in this type of movie. In a time where there is conflict between the President and the press, I wanted more depth or nuance. The movie is entertaining but mediocre.
War of the Worlds (2005) based on the novel by H. G. Wells
After an icon radio adaptation by Orson Welles and an iconic film adaptation produced by George Pal, Spielberg took on his first "aliens are evil" project (the other being the evil aliens who messed up the Indiana Jones franchise in 2008). The movie is remarkably faithful to the original novel, matching the mass flight from a major city (this time New York instead of the novel's London); the nefarious plans of the aliens (though in this movie they are never called Martians); the sequence of being trapped in a basement with a guy who plans to fight back; the "red weeds" that start growing where the aliens are active; the ultimate defeat of the aliens not by humans. Spielberg adds Tom Cruise as a divorced dad who has his kids for the weekend when the aliens show up. His plan is to make it from New York to Boston, where his ex-wife and her new husband have gone for the weekend. He's kind of a bad dad, which both his kids know, but he rises to the occasion when anarchy breaks loose.
The movie does not wax philosophical about the aliens and their menace, it's more of an immediate experience of how horrible the situation is. The story is very serious and relentlessly bleak with the humans occasionally behaving badly too. The cinematography looks very much like it was shot in the 1970s or early 1980s--it's a bit grainy and hand-held (though not overboard on the hand-held camera work, which is a pet peeve of mine (I'm looking at you, Monsoon Wedding)). At first I wondered if the film was supposed to be set in an earlier time but they have cell phones and Tivo, so the cinematography is just a style choice. It works well to communicate the immediacy and peril of the characters' situation. But there's very little depth about the aliens.
I enjoyed the film and am glad I watched it but probably won't watch it again.
Ready Player One (2018) based on the novel by Ernest Cline
In 2045, America is not the best place to live, at least not for Wade, who lives in a slum but spends all his time in the OASIS, a virtual reality that is extremely popular. The creator of the OASIS, James Halliday, has died and left three challenges inside the game. Whoever can beat those challenges first will inherit both Halliday's fortune and control of the OASIS. Some corporate baddies are trying to take over the game in the hopes of monetizing it, but true fans of video games and the OASIS are trying to win to keep it the way it is. Wade does some research and eventually figures out how to beat the first test. He then teams up with five other players (who call themselves "The High Five") to complete the challenges before the evil corporation can.
The movie looks amazing and has a bazillion pop culture references. The story struck me as very paint-by-numbers plotting. The performances are good. The movie has a totally bland message about spending less time in virtual reality and more time in actual reality.
This movie is a special effects summer popcorn blockbuster, and is satisfying at that level. Like War of the Worlds, it's not a film I feel the need to rewatch.
The Post (2018)
Washington Post owner Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) decides to sell shares of the paper on the New York Stock Exchange to raise money to keep the paper going. At the same time, the New York Times begins publishing articles about the Pentagon Papers, documents showing how all presidential administrations since Eisenhower had been deceiving the American public about the US relationship to Vietnam. Post editor Ben Bradlee (Tom Hanks) wants to publish too, though it may cause the paper and its people very serious legal and financial problems.
The movie is a well-executed drama though the script is uneven. Mrs. Graham's tricky situation is well fleshed out and Streep gives a great performance. On the other hand, Richard Nixon is the most one-dimensional villain ever--he had more character depth and nuance in Black Dynamite. Some of the speeches defending freedom of the press lack the conviction one would expect in this type of movie. In a time where there is conflict between the President and the press, I wanted more depth or nuance. The movie is entertaining but mediocre.
When The Post came out I featured it in some movie discussion groups, followed by All the President's Men. It was a devastating comparison. All the President's Men was so powerful and well done, even all these years later, than The Post which was, as you put it so well, mediocre.
ReplyDelete