Re: rate the last movie you saw
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:26 pm
"Well now.....I wouldn't say that." (I never forgave that film for the nightmares it gave me of the melting Nazis!)
"Well now.....I wouldn't say that." (I never forgave that film for the nightmares it gave me of the melting Nazis!)
Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:31 pmSpielberg's exquisite depiction of First Contact between a wizened alien and a curious young boy remains one of the pinnacles of his career and immune to any number of clumsy rip-offs and homages (even if some of them, like the aforementioned duo, are actually well-done).
I do love some of Spielberg's post-80s films -- if you ask me, Amistad (not Schinder's List or Saving Private Ryan) is his best "serious" picture. But I haven't cared for the "Kaminski look" either, which I find ugly, with its graininess, clumsy lighting and blown-out windows (a lot of his work looks like a 16mm student film from the 80s).Monterey Jack wrote: I also miss the days when his films had such crisp, colorful cinematography, as opposed to the fuzzy, backlit sheen of Janusz Kaminski on every damn Spielberg project for the last 25 years.
I honestly think Spielberg only keeps him around because he's "used" to him, and they've developed enough experience and filmmaking shorthand together that it allows Spielberg to crank out two or three movies in a two-year period. Hell, even the Coen Bros. haven't used Roger Deakins for EVERY movie they've made since Barton Fink. I'd honestly be ecstatic if Spielberg chose a different DP for a forthcoming movie (especially that fifth Indiana Jones movie, which sounds like a TERRIBLE idea anyways given Harrison Ford's advancing age ), but I only think it'll happen if he outlives Kaminski, or else there's a conflict with another project. But, then again...how many non-Spielberg movies has Kaminki worked on the in the last two decades? I can barely think of one. The only reason that Spielberg didn't use John Williams on Bridge Of Spies and Ready Player One is due to The Force Awakens keeping him tied up for about SIX MONTHS, and the fact that he's not exactly a spring chicken (to say nothing of Spielberg's usual editor, Michael Kahn, who's gotta be pushing ninety at this point). Directors can often stagnate creatively if they surround themselves with the exact same technicians and screenwriters for years on end. That's what I like about Tim Burton...he'll always swap out DPs every three movies or so, giving his movies a slightly different look from decade to decade (his early-90's run with Stefan Czapsky looks a lot different from more recent films shot by Bruno Delbonnel or Philippe Rousselot). Back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, Spielberg was working with Allen Daviau, Douglas Slocombe, William Fraker, Dean Cundey, Mikael Salomon, and others, since since '93, all of his films have a very similar "look" despite the wildly varying subject matter of films like Munich, The BFG or War Horse.Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:01 pm I do love some of Spielberg's post-80s films -- if you ask me, Amistad (not Schinder's List or Saving Private Ryan) is his best "serious" picture. But I haven't cared for the "Kaminski look" either, which I find ugly, with its graininess, clumsy lighting and blown-out windows (a lot of his work looks like a 16mm student film from the 80s).
Why do you keep referring to it as "bad"? Who do you read who bag on it? LolThis is like Die Hard 2...the "bad" second installment of a popular franchise that's bagged on for little coherent reason other than Everybody Else Thinks It.
Pretty much everyone online refers to Die Hard 2 as an inferior clone of the first movie...right before they praise With A Vengeance as a "return to form" for the series! It's totally inexplicable, as critics did largely embrace it back in the day. I don't understand it.AndyDursin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:09 am
Why do you keep referring to it as "bad"? Who do you read who bag on it? Lol
Plenty of critics liked Die Hard 2. It even made Siskel's Ten Best of 1990. Ebert liked it more than the first film (which he inexplicably gave 2 stars). Leonard Maltin liked it, the reviews were pretty solid from most outlets.
Like Ridley Scott's work, I feel there's a "contemporary" component to Spielberg's filmmaking that keeps his films fresh. Outside of elements that stamp a certain film as a product of its time, the way the characters react and act to each other in a Spielberg film is remarkably "current". JAWS is much the same.Characterization and performances throughout this film are compelling and believable, and the touching, "tearjerker" moments fully earned. The picture does not feel terribly dated either. Yes, the vehicles and TVs and a few other bits of technology betray the era when it was made, but overall the film doesn't particularly come across as an "old movie".
This never really bothered me but I can see why it might for someone else. Still, I think you have to put yourself into the place of someone who has never seen the film before. On first viewing, you aren't completely aware of the aliens' intentions -- there's mystery and suspense built up in the film, leading to the climax, and it's enhanced by that very scene. If you think about it afterwards, or watch the film again, sure it doesn't make much sense to go about abducting Barry in that manner (were they just going to knock on the door?), yet the point of it was to "punch up" the beginning of the movie and give the movie some additional suspense.There are a few things that I always questioned in the script -- like why would benevolent aliens abduct poor, unsuspecting humans (in particular a little boy -- snatched from the arms of his traumatized mother). But these things bother me less than they used to, and viewing the movie today I just kind of "went with it" (maybe the visitors didn't initially realize the trouble they were causing).
Amen to that. Lots of material was shot during post-production which mostly called on those guys -- it's incredible truly the roster Spielberg assembled, and also how many memorable scenes came from the additional photography. Even the funny scene when the scientists roll the globe down the hall was an added sequence written by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins.There is also an arresting scope to Close Encounters which I miss in a lot of Spielberg's later pictures (almost literally -- as so few of his later films were shot in anamorphic). These were the days when Spielberg surrounded himself with the best people (and in particular the best cameramen -- apart from Zsigmond, the film features additional photography by Douglas Slocombe, William Fraker, John Alonzo and a young Steven Poster -- a veritable "who's who" of great cinematographers).