rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

Now THAT's one we can all agree on

"Well now.....I wouldn't say that." (I never forgave that film for the nightmares it gave me of the melting Nazis!)

[Monterey Jack]

And to kick off the New Year with another formative Spielberg classic...

-E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982): 11/10



As much as well-intentioned filmmakers pay tribute to it in projects like Super 8 and Stranger Things, Spielberg'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). And, watching this back-to-back with Raiders makes me appreciate how disciplined Spielberg was back in the days when he was still young and hungry...both films come in at a tidy 115 minutes, whereas today's Spielberg would tack on an additional half-hour to both. 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 recognize Kaminski's work on certain projects to be appropriate (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich), but, honestly...Spielberg needs to use someone else at some point. Kaminski's work on Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull was, compared to Douglas Slocombe's work on the previous three Indiana Jones movies, nothing less than garish. Allen Daviau and Dean Cundey are still alive, why not use one of them on something?

[Paul MacLean]

Spielberg'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).

Damn straight!




But seriously, I'm with you with on E.T. and Raiders.

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 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]

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).

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.

[AndyDursin]

I love Steven but haven't loved his movies in a very, very long time. Like Paul said, I think AMISTAD was a terrific and underrated film -- but even that was 21 years ago at this point.

I do trace a downward trend in his work through his association with Kaminski. Even some of the later Spielberg films I do like, I find them ugly to look at...whereas he used a wonderful array of cinematographers before that. Even something as frivolous as ALWAYS was beautifully shot by Mikael Salomon.

It's almost as if Kaminski's "grittiness" was used to augment Spielberg consciously (or otherwise) trying to be all "grown up" and display a "harder edge" in his post-Schindler's work, yet the results of that approach have generally been less than successful IMO. There are a couple of films of his I like in this last 20-25 year span, but they're in the minority for me, and there's no question his weakest efforts have happened since he began working with him.

[Monterey Jack]

-Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984): 10/10



Unpopular opinion, but, for me, this is the only one of the Indiana Jones movie that -- to quote Roger Ebert -- is "not so much as sequel as an equal". I've always loved this movie, and was honestly baffled the first time I got online nearly twenty years ago and learned that other people hated it. I think it's Spielberg and Lucas working at the height of their abilities, crafting a white-knuckle thrill ride that's so breathless and brilliantly constructed that it steamrolls over any mild annoyances it generates along the way (yes, Willie is annoying, but hey, Cate Capshaw was hot, so I can let it slide ). The last forty minutes, in particular, are especially exciting, and I think this movie contains Harrison Ford's finest turn as Indy, starting off the film at his greediest and most self-serving and gradually realizing to respect the power of the trinkets he's spent his life pursuing in the name of Fortune & Glory and ending it as almost a vengeful holy savior (I adore the moment where we see Indy standing and glaring at the Thugee guard as the camera slowly dollies in, and we hear some off-screen punches, and see the guard's body skid about ten feet across the ground). It's also the technical high point of the series, with John Williams' best score ("March Of The Slave Children" is one of his best themes), Douglas Slocombe's best cinematography (every frame of this movie is gorgeous, like a 50's EC horror comic come to life), and Michael Kahn's most breakneck editing. I also find Indy's relationship with the charming Key Huy Quan to be more genuinely moving that the rote daddy issues of Last Crusade (wherein he's constantly being one-upped and berated by his elderly father, like a proto "Mary Sue" )...the scene where they exchange hats and embrace while Indy apologizes for striking him while "under the influence" is a great example. This 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.

Plus, it has what might be THE funniest moment of the series:

[AndyDursin]

This 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.

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.

Adjusted for inflation, 2 is also the most successful film in the entire series! So it pretty much had the approval of audiences and critics as well.

As for TEMPLE I like it a lot, but it's kind of one of those cases where I think you have such fondness for it that you overlook it's deficiencies completely . IMO it has a lot of them. More like an 8/10 for me... inferior to both the first and third movies though still lots of fun. The entire Kate Capshaw character alone detracts an entire point off that rating!

[Monterey Jack]

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.

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.

As for Doom, I can ignore the minor flaws in the characterizations and screenwriting because it's the last Indy movie that actually felt dangerous. In comparison, Last Crusade is soft, bland and touchy-feely, and never makes you feel like Indy is in real peril at any point. Like the Die Hard movies, I can't agree with those who think it's better than Doom (hell, a lot of people like it better than Raiders! ). People just like it more because Spielberg/Lucas tucked their tails between their legs and sheepishly "apologized" for the darker tone of Doom, it's "funnier", and it has Sean Connery (admittedly wonderful in the role of Indy's Dad). Even as a kid, I found it kind of pokey and meandering (Spielberg threw in the motorcycle chase pretty much on the fly, because he realized that, without it, there was going to be nearly a forty-minute stretch in the middle of the movie without a major action setpiece), and, I'm sorry, I hate what he did to the characters of Brody and Sallah. The former is turned into a senile, mugging, doddering fool (whereas in Raiders, he intimates that he's only a few years too old to go chasing after the Ark himself), and the latter is more concerned with stealing camels than assisting Indy during the tank chase.

[AndyDursin]

Yeah I do not share your disdain for Last Crusade. It's not Raiders but for me it's a far better film than Temple of Doom, as much as I still like the latter.

[mkaroly]

Totally disagree with you on TEMPLE OF DOOM and LAST CRUSADE MJ. I found TEMPLE OF DOOM to be the weakest of the series (before CRYSTAL SKULL) - Short Round is annoying as heck, and for me the film felt like it was never really comfortable with itself. LAST CRUSADE has, for me, Williams' best score of the series and was a great way to end the series (ignoring that CRYSTAL SKULL was made). To this day TEMPLE OF DOOM is hard for me to watch - not really interested in it (though watching it through the thematic lenses of the typical male Spielbergian protagonist finding identity and "maturity" in fatherhood is somewhat enjoyable when compared to the rest of his work). LAST CRUSADE is hilarious, fun, adventurous, and moving. Father-Son themes in that film were way better than anything in TEMPLE OF DOOM to me.

[Paul MacLean]

I watched Last Crusade again several months ago, and have to go along with sentiment it is the second-best of the series. I do think it lacks the "scope" of Raiders, and even TOD though. It doesn't have the far-off exotic locals of the first two films, and sense of being someplace truly remote and "foreign". The motorcycle chase is a fantastic sequence -- but filming it in what is obviously California also reduces the sense of scope. (Was it really too difficult to shoot someplace which at least looks like the alps, like maybe Colorado or Washington or British Columbia?)

TOD seemed to me a (commendable) effort to go in a new direction, and even trump Raiders, with vastly different types of villains, locales and sequences. But they bumbled it in a lot of ways. Placing the time frame of TOD before Raiders was a huge blunder -- in Raiders, Indy says "I don't believe in magic, a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus!" Really? A guy who recently retrieved magic stones and witnessed Mola Ram's power, doesn't believe in magic? Uh, ok.

TOD also has too many silly moments for my taste -- the rubber raft sequence, the mine car chase, etc. A lot of sequences in raiders are implausible, but not preposterous like those in TOD. I also felt the they "de-toothed" Indy in the second film. In the first film he is more cold-blooded, with more of a "dark side" (as Beloq points out) which makes him a more interesting character (in Raiders, Indy doesn't warn the German mechanic he is about to be cut to ribbons, whereas in TOD he tries to save the evil taskmaster from being crushed).

Last Crusade was a clear attempt to return to the Raiders "formula", which, though it resulted in (to my mind) a superior and more entertaining film, also felt like a bit of a re-tread at times -- with Nazis, Middle Eastern locales, etc. I think it would have been more interesting to introduce a different nemesis, perhaps Mussolini's regime (especially as part of the film takes place in Venice), or sending Indy to Asia to contend with Imperial Japanese Army (though the latter would of probably have been condemned as "racist").

I believe what helped make Raiders the best of the Indiana Jones picture (and what is missing from all the sequels -- as well as the Star Wars prequels) is one Lawrence Kasdan. Kasdan is a spectacular writer and added a level of sophistication and character depth to Riders (and TESB) which you just don't get in the other films.

But only the thing I hate about Last Crusade is that it kept Spielberg from directing Rain Man -- the movie which ultimately gave Hans Zimmer his Hollywood break.

[Paul MacLean]

Dunkirk (4/10)

Dunkirk is a visually arresting visual spectacle, but otherwise a completely prosaic film, which is bereft of any emotional resonance. The Dunkirk evacuation was a tremendously significant moment in history -- an almost certain disaster which was miraculously turned around and transformed into a gallant example of valor, triumph and resilience. But the film seems to self-consciously avoid evoking those (or any) feelings, and is instead nothing but a sterile exercise in technique.

Character development is nil -- none of the characters are given any kind of background to help the viewer identify with them, and there are also too many characters and individual storlylines (which further prevents one from being drawn into their plight). Tom Hardy wears an oxygen mask in nearly all his scenes, which makes it difficult to relate to the character (you're not always sure whether it's him or his wingman -- and besides, oxygen really isn't necessary at the low altitudes at which the character is flying anyway, so what was the point?).

The editorial flow and structure of Dunkirk is also off-putting, with the same events frequently shown two (or sometimes three) different times, each from the perspective of different characters. Not only is this at first confusing, it robs many sequences of dramatic tension, and the film would have been more effective had it integrated the varying storylines which converge in those sequences.

Worst of all, the film gives the viewer no sense of the colossal scale of the Dunkirk evacuation. In fact, around 850 privately-owned boats were recruited to take part in the operation -- but we never see this! Despite the film's massive budget and access to the best CGI artists the world has to offer, the film depicts just a handful of craft. Wow, what a great way to show modern audiences the significance of this event, and how ordinary people rose to the occasion and exhibited acts of extraordinary courage. Further on that, many of the characters are very self-serving (and even cowardly), and willing to lie and even murder to save their own skin. How heroic! Of course selfish, venal people have always existed, but this is not an accurate depiction of the admirable "Dunkirk spirit" and resilient mindset which got the British through the war.

Owing to the awkwardness of the narrative and the shallow characterizations Dunkirk feels more like a "work in progress" than a finished film. If I did not know better I might well assume I was watching a rough assembly of footage that has been shot so far, and that several key scenes still need to be filmed.

And the score -- oh my gosh, where do I begin? It is clear Christopher Nolan has contempt for the use of music in the traditional (and artistically effective) way. Hans Zimmer's score is without a doubt his worst ever, and possibly the worst score of all time -- certainly for a film of this type. More a "sound design" than music, its ticking wristwatches and ambient wails do lend a kind of "atmosphere" and tension, but the "music" does nothing to enhance the story or evoke any feeling. Plus the striking modernity of the "score" is at odds with the period depicted on screen, so, far from drawing the viewer into the time and place, it actually pushes one away from the drama. It truly does ruin the movie.

Electronic music in period films can work -- Chariots of Fire was effective because Vangelis employed melody and character-driven themes. But Zimmer's approach sounds more like sci-fi sound effects, and exacerbates the film's faults. It reinforces the cold, mechanized tone of the picture rather than providing the heart it so desperately needs (the only mildly effective moments in the score are those in which Zimmer channels Sir Edward Elgar, and apes -- oddly enough -- the style of Vangelis.)

It is a shame that one the great stories of heroism and sacrifice of the 20th century has been presented in such a perfunctory, dispassionate form. A truly missed opportunity.

And I had no idea a Spitfire could fly that long (and even engage in aerial combat maneuvers) with no fuel. Amazing!

[BobaMike]

Paddington 2 (9/10)

Wonderful family film, just as good as the first (which our family recently caught on Netflix). Outstanding visual effects (you forget that Paddington is cgi), the actors all look to be having a ball, especially Hugh Grant. The plot is funny, but never in a 'stupid' way. No fart jokes for example. The idealized version of London is lovely, and the action scenes are worthy of any Bond movie. The music score by Dario Marianelli is wonderful, miles above the first films score by Nick Urata.

I cannot recommend this enough, as this is the type of family film there should be more of.

[Paul MacLean]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (9/10)

I'd already seen this film (in its various cuts) several times -- but long ago. I first saw it in its initial theatrical release, and later the "special edition" re-release, then again a year later on HBO, and finally on Network TV in college (when I was so sick with the flu I felt like I was dying). Oddly, although Close Encounters would be considered by some to be "escapist", and perhaps even a "children's film", I didn't fully appreciate it when younger (and sitting through it while sick as a dog didn't really make for an optimum viewing experience either).

Watching it decades later, as an adult, I was truly bowled over. Close Encounters is atmospheric, imaginative, moving -- and gloriously inspiring in its third act. The "terrestrial" moments are as equally effective as the more "sci fi" elements -- in particular the scenes depicting Roy Neary's mental break-down and disintegration of his family. The fight between Roy and Ronnie -- and the reaction of the kids -- is unsettlingly real (and no doubt informed by the real life break-up of Spielgberg's own parents). 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".

Close Encounters is also sumptuous to behold, with Spielberg's already-inspired direction given wings by Vilmos Zsigmond's photography and Douglas Trumbull's effects work. CGI may be more "spiffy" than what they had to work with then, but there is an artistry to Trumbull's work here which few others have achieved. Equally impressive is Carlo Rambaldi's "visitor", who emerges from the Mother Ship to bid farewell to Lacombe -- and in a moment that is both technically clever and touching -- even smiles!



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). John Williams' score is majestic and sublime -- and eclectic, with its romantic orchestral passages, impressionistic choral work and references to the East European avant garde school composition (which predates the score for Altered States by over two years).

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). It also never really explains exactly who Mr. Lacombe is, or why French and US flags fly over the Devi's Tower operation, etc. 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?). As John Boorman once said "There are no great movies, only great moments" -- and whatever nitpicks one could level against Close Encounters, there is is no question that it is bursting with great moments.

This film was -- like E.T. -- a deeply personal effort for its creator, and few of Spielberg's other pictures have come so obviously from the heart.

[AndyDursin]

One of my favorite movies of all-time, and for me, easily one of the greatest science fiction films ever made too.

For whatever reason I find CE3K to be a much more "repeatable" film than E.T. Don't get me wrong I love E.T. but it is more of a "children's film" and I'm not always up for its heart-wrenching elements. I feel sometimes that I watched it so frequently that it's "specialness" kind of wore off -- after seeing it 8 times theatrically when I was 8, I've probably watched it just a couple of times since. On the other hand, I find myself frequently coming back to CE3K. I think CE3K is grander and more epic in scope, and manages to mix in a broader spectrum of themes that makes it a unique and truly remarkable work, both for the personal story of its protagonist and the larger subject of extraterrestrial contact. It's richly emotional but also heartfelt in a different way, and I agree Paul, the domestic scenes of Roy and Ronnie's relationship falling apart were clearly culled from Spielberg being a child of divorce himself.

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".

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.

It's a hallmark of really good directors that their films transcend the moment -- whereas something dated like, say, LOGAN'S RUN might be fun for what it is, but there's no doubt it's a product of 1976. In some ways it's very hard to believe that CE3K, STAR WARS and ALIEN come out of the same era as LOGAN'S RUN and DAMNATION ALLEY!

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).

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.

From a sheer standalone, visceral standpoint, it's one of Spielberg's most aggressive and memorable set-pieces. Logistically, no, it may not entirely work, but it adds suspense to the film and while it's a red herring of sorts (the aliens are benevolent obviously), it's not out of place with something Hitchcock would've done to try and throw the audience off. The image of Barry looking at the ship in the doorway is also probably the most indelible shot of the entire film IMO.

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).

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.

Thank goodness this movie was made long before Steven discovered Janusz