Off the heals of, what is arguably, Spielberg’s worst film, I am reminded why he is as celebrated as he is. The way he makes movies include techniques that create the genre of the blockbuster we know today. There are just so many iconic moments in here. From the opening, to the dysentery scene (if you don’t know, look it up), to the iconic ending. Spielberg does all of this through creating an incredibly fun adventure, but, that doesn’t mean it’s without flaws. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, you have no excuse not to. It’s one of Spielberg’s best films, it’s iconic, and (more importantly) it’s on Netflix. Taking place in the 1940s, the film follows Indiana Jones on his search for the Ark of the Covenant. Along the way, Indiana Jones encounters swordsmen, snakes, and Nazis. All of this is the make up of a very fun and thrilling adventure story. Being that this is the same time as Return of the Jedi’s infamous “force kick”, the fight choreography is quite ahead of its time. Part of this is due to the varying set-pieces, giving variety to the tools and obstacles facing our hero. The use of tracking shots is also a very helpful tool here. It would be boring to have a still shot as Jones races through the streets of Cairo. And, no Spielberg would be complete without an iconic John Williams score, and Raiders of the Lost Ark delivers this very well. Even without watching the movie, almost anyone on earth could pinpoint the iconic fanfare to the movie without trying. As for the acting, Harrison Ford plays Harrison Ford, and everyone else plays Nazis. So, it’s about what one could expect, however, that brings me to my main criticism about the story. The problem is that this film has no arc. Although the plot is simple, the characters stay in the same place. As iconic as he may be, Indiana Jones is a very two dimensional character. Looking back on what I have watched, this has actually been a very common trend through Spielberg’s work. He seems to value a thrilling action story over making compelling and ever-changing characters. In a way, this should have been called Raiders of the Lost Arc. My apologies, I needed to get that one out of my system. While this can be frustrating once realized, it doesn’t completely ruin the film. As, aside from the dated special effects, the visual style is appealing enough to carry the film. Overall, while the flaw of characters in all of Steven Spielberg’s movies, there is no denying how iconic it is. I know I’ve used that phrase quite often, but it’s true. Disregarding character in attempt to focus on getting from point A to point B in the plot and making an impressive visual statement is a trend that Spielberg created that has now carried through almost every single modern blockbuster. Yes, Jaws started the modern age of summer blockbusters. However, it is my belief that Raiders of the Lost Ark is the start of many modern themes in these movies. That’s something very special. 7.9/10

An Evening With Beverly Luff Linn poses a couple of questions throughout the almost 2 hour run time. For exaple, ‘what’ ‘who’ and, most importantly, ‘why?’ Beverly Luff Linn is an incredibly dry comedy that only half works. All of the characters are quite unique to say the least, and that’s the movie’s greatest strength. Each of the main four characters are played by some of my favorite comedic actors working today, namely, Jemaine Clement (What We Do In the Shadows/Flight of the Concords) and Matt Berry (IT Crowd/Toast of London). I’m not quite as familiar with Aubrey Plaza and Craig Robinson’s work, but they also offered good performances. However, these are only half of the main characters. It’s almost as if there are two stories going on at once. Personally, I could have cared less about the second half, albeit having not as much screen time. The other group consisted of Aubrey Plaza’s character’s boyfriend. Personally, in this section, I found the comedy to be incredibly over the top. This style is fine, however, when compared to some of the most iconic dry humor stars of the modern era giving some great performances, these bits just fall flat. At the beginning of the film, I was admittedly worried, as it only focused on the boyfriend camp’s story. However, as it fell into the story of the main four, I found myself enjoying the movie more and more. That being said, the final act also doesn’t seem to fit. While I certainly prefer it over the first, the emotional plot overtaking the final 20-ish minutes felt incredibly forced. There are really two types of comedic movies, both can benefit the purpose of the film or not. The first kind of a comedic film is one that goes all out comedy, probably to more popular of the two. This style works in films like What We Do In the Shadows, but fails in other works such as 1941. On the other hand, there are movies that are comedies, while having strong dramatic themes. In this case, movies like Jojo Rabbit work well, while certain Edgar Wright films (i.e. The World’s End) don’t work. At the beginning, Beverly Luff Linn fit into the first category, and in those regards, it worked. However, at the end when they explained everything that happened in the previous two acts, it got stuck into the latter category, and not in a good way. When this darker subject matter came up, my mind raced, trying to find a solution to why this sudden shift happened. The closest I got is that a man on drugs was trying to cope with loss, but I still can’t be certain on that. Overall, I found the movie to be semi-entertaining for the most part, but, absolutely failing come the final act’s resolution. Nevertheless, it’s a magical one night experience that, for the most part, falls extremely flat. 5.5/10.

Although it isn’t even close to the brilliance of Brazil, 12 Monkeys is another example of the other side of Terry Gilliam. Early on, while watching every Gilliam film, I was frustrated with the fact that every movie he made seemed to try too hard to be another Python movie. Now, I think it’s safe to say that I am officially out of that period. Rather, 12 Monkeys has shown light to the other side of Gilliam, which, in a lot of ways I prefer. This new side of Gilliam, though, has a very strong trend in all of his movies. Every one of them has a strong relation to mental institutions. Fisher King, Brazil, and now 12 Monkeys, all have very strong references to mental illness. In a lot of ways, that first act of 12 Monkeys in the mental institution is probably it’s best. In those scenes, we start to recognize what kind of a character Bruce Willis is. On that note, I honestly haven’t ever been a huge fan of Bruce Willis. In 12 Monkeys, he’s mediocre at best. The real actor that shines in 12 Monkeys is Brad Pitt. He plays crazy incredibly well in the movie, personally, I think the performance was even Oscar-worthy. The next few beats in the story aren’t quite as good. For the majority of the second act, 12 Monkeys takes on the role of a demented road trip. After that, it’s mostly chaos. These final beats were fine, but I didn’t think they quite held up to my expectations from how good everything plays out at the beginning. 12 Monkeys is incredibly relevant in the middle of the pandemic as well. I feel that if I had watched this movie a couple years earlier, I’d be like “woah, crazy, unbelievable, science fiction stuff.” But, right now, a man coming back to the past seems like an average Tuesday afternoon. As for the time travel, often, time travel is handled quite well. However, I have never been bothered by time travel plot holes throughout my movie watching time. The only thing I found lacking with time travel, and with the rest of the movie, is the visual style. Gilliam has always been able to illustrate the strangeness of everything, however, it seems as if he didn’t fully utilize that in 12 Monkeys. In fact, the visual style was really just bland, sometimes even unappealing, but that was far from often. Still, the movie offers a mystery that is compelling and unique enough to have a good time. 7.6/10

Being John Malkovich is a refreshingly strange absurdist comedy that, largely, works, until the final act. Being John Malkovich follows a struggling puppeteer as he finds a portal that allows you to live inside of John Malkovich. If that is too weird for you already, I suggest you leave now. At the start, the seemingly dry yet, at the same time, over the top humor seemed to work. Everything was wonderfully different from anything I had seen before. There were quite a few similarities to Brazil at the beginning, in terms of how it dealt with the view of the modern workplace. As things go on, the movie gets even weirder, and, without spoiling anything, there is a lot of Malkovich. As the shift happens, the film also separates itself from the comedy at the beginning. It seemed surprisingly dark near the end, but not in a smart way similar to Jojo Rabbit. It felt incredibly shoehorned in, which was disappointing. Although it did keep some comedy, it just didn’t work after everything changed near the end, including a lot of the visual style. For the most part, the shots are quite clever. The repetition allows the audience to know what’s happening without seeing it, similar to the way Jaws worked. The characters in the film were also quite interesting. It truly felt that if there was indeed a portal into John Malkovich, this is how the events would play out. And I’m not sure how to feel about that. The standout character is John Cusak as the puppeteer. Near the end of his time as John Malkovich, that character really started working even better. Although it was quite endearing, there wasn’t much of an arc though. Where the real depth came in was in John Cusak’s two girlfriends. While I’m sure that their relationship was quite confusing at the time, it actually works as an emotional story beat in today’s modern context. Even if that was unintentional, it works. While there were a couple of problems with the tonal and structural shifts near the end, the movie was a complete joy to watch, and there was no way you could tell exactly what was going to happen next. It’s an incredibly unique, weird, and Malkovich movie. 8.7/10

Did this movie not age well, or was it just not good in the first place? This is a question that I often pondered throughout 1941, as my mind tried to think about anything but the strange so-called “comedy.” Looking back, I think I finally have my answer, it was never anything I would have liked, even if I was the right age back in 1979. There is a reason that Spielberg movies feel a certain way. I sometimes criticize him for using the same format for making a compelling film, however, 1941 helped me understand why he uses the same elements in all of his films. When he breaks it, he loses the magic touch of his films. 1941 could have worked. The cast is full of second city alumni, and the overall story could be engaging if it was laid out right. However, somehow, Spielberg, arguably one of the greatest directors of all time, messed it up. At the beginning, it was an enjoying piece. The constant bombardment of jokes worked at that time, however, as the film progressed, I started to realize that there was no end to this. The movie’s comedy just falls flat on its face. That’s not because the comedy itself is poorly staged, it’s because there is no set up to the joke. Even then, after the joke, there is no time to breath, it’s just on to the next joke. This is like Cats, but, instead of awful music making up for the lack of story, it’s awful jokes. The story, as I said, could have worked. However, the way that it was structured almost gave me whiplash. There were four or five (I can’t even remember) separate stories that were almost completely unrelated. The focus shifted so often that I forgot about what was happening in each separate section, which is why the film is so forgettable. There is no chance for the audience to process what they have been watching. Even when the film is entertaining, like the clever Jaws nod at the beginning, it is followed by some awful scene that just doesn’t work. The film also uses some Japanese stereotypes in these scenes that are just painful to watch. The cast of comedy legends can’t even seem to help this. Everyone is just trying too hard and going way too over the top. That being said, there was some decent music by Williams in the film. But that’s it. 1941 is a completely forgettable, unfunny, uninspired, non-stop movie. In a bad way. It’s not worth your time. It’s not even one of those “so bad it’s good movies.” It’s just bad. 3.6/10, just because it’s Spielberg.

While Dunkirk is different from every other Christopher Nolan film, it also somehow manages to include many Christopher Nolan tropes that make his films special. although the film includes the same usual cast (minus Michael Caine), and includes a similar visual style, the structure and story of Dunkirk is what sets it apart. In some ways, this is good for Nolan, however, in a few more ways, it doesn’t. As a start, it is important to point out a flaw with the characters in this film. It suffers the exact same problem that I faced with the Dark Knight Rises, Nolan can’t seem to be able to pick one protagonist. This could have worked if it was done in a similar way as Pulp Fiction, telling multiple short stories that are non-linear, but all build into one storyline. On the other hand, Nolan decided to do a similar method, but to do it linearly. This makes it so we, as the audience, don’t spend much time on one single character at one time. Although each scenario is different, both visually and structurally, it would have been nice to learn more about each of these characters, and why everything in the movie is so important. Everything just seems incredibly thrown together, and the timeline just doesn’t quite fit. There are certain things that feel real in terms of time, for example, following the small British boat throughout the movie made the journey feel long, drawn out. However, there are other cases in which the timeline doesn’t work at all, especially all of the soldiers on the beach. Every scene on the beach seems to just be more or less the same thing. There was a lot of room to build upon the importance of each troop on the beach, but the film mostly threw that away to value the overall entertainment more. Which, on that note, I should mention some of the good things about this movie, because it isn’t all bad. As I said, the movie is a very engaging and entertaining watch. Although the timeline doesn’t feel right, the way it is told keeps the tension of the film rising every second. This is accompanied by Hans Zimmer’s brilliant score, using an auditory illusion to constantly build. The way the film looks is also a brilliant take, a usual Nolan staple. So, while there are things in Dunkirk I would prefer a different way, the entertainment value, visual style, and decent performances by the cast make it at the very least worth watching. 7.9/10

I will often refer to Close Encounters as my favorite Spielberg film. For me, all of the magic that makes every Spielberg movie stand out is all wrapped up into the nice package that is Close Encounters. This is mostly due to the strong visual style with wonderful practical effects, the interesting characters, and the music. As a start, the characters work incredibly well in the film. Roy’s decent into madness is only heightened by the fact that Spielberg took elements from his personal family life, and used them to create Roy’s family. That dysfunctional nature that was a real element for Spielberg allows the very low-level, personal conflict in the story much more interesting. However, while the acting for the most part, there were some times where I chuckled to myself at how bad some of the dialogue was. If I had a dime for every time Barry’s Mom yelled somebody’s name repeatedly, I’d have a number of dimes… but more than I would like to have. Another great character in the story is John Williams’s score. Although one could make the argument that the score is “just a background piece” of the movie, Close Encounters is different. Like Jaws, the musical cues are so distinct that the music is all that is necessary for the audience to make a connection. Doing that in the way John Williams does makes the audience feel smart for recognizing this, which is a great thing. The story itself is quite simple, but also equally impactful. I’d argue that under just about any other director, the movie would not work. What allows it to work is Spielberg’s eye for inventive shots that add to the story. For example, one of the best scenes is when Roy makes a sculpture of Devil’s Tower while a TV in the background plays Looney Tunes. Not only does this offer some fun visual comedy, but it also adds to the reality of the situation, which is important in a movie all about aliens making people addicted to their newest single album. Speaking of the music (again), it brings me back to earlier in the film in a scene that I found did not age particularly well that I felt the need to address. There is a group of scenes in India where large groups of people flock to basically worship the aliens. While I understand the intention being to see how the aliens affect the entire world, it feels somewhat degrading to portray that large group of people in that way. Really, the scenes just didn’t age well. This is a very American centred movie, and I would have liked seeing the way other countries reacted to the issue of an alien threat. But, this is an incredibly engaging film. The flow of the story is clear and, like Jaws, straight to the point. So, being that the film has probably resonated with me longer than any other Spielberg project I’ve seen, I’m probably ranking this higher than I should. But, I’m going to give it an 8.5/10

Interstellar is an absolute rollercoaster of a movie. The tone switches almost constantly, and, while that isn’t necessarily an issue, it became noticeable fairly quickly. Of all his non-batman films, interstellar is the one clearly made specifically for the general theatre audience. While it has all of the classic Nolan moves, Interstellar clearly valued the visual style over the story. However, through this, Nolan still managed to make a very well made and compelling blockbuster. As I mentioned, a large part of why Interstellar works so well is the way the film looks. Almost every shot is inspired in a genius creative sense, the only exception to that is the surprisingly bland interior of the space ship, where most of the film takes place. While I understand the intention of the bland space ship interior, it simply doesn’t fit with the visual style of the rest of the movie. One specifically impressive visual moment is the moment where they realize that the “mountains” are actually giant waves. This is something unlike what I have seen in any other movie, and that’s something Nolan can do well. Nolan is able to make something completely new and inventive and introduce it to the medium of film without having it seem out of place. Overall, making something with as much creativity in the look of a film adds to the impact. Another unique aspect of Interstellar that added to the impact is the music, or, Hans Zimmer falls asleep on his Pipe Organ for two hours. Using a pipe organ shouldn’t work, it should make the whole film feel like a trip to church, but, the pipe organ sound adds to the feeling of an empty void that is space, asking the question “are we alone” that Interstellar subtly focuses on throughout the film. Interstellar is full of these deeper themes. Although I do appreciate it, the themes that are presented aren’t as unique as the rest of the film. The themes don’t seem to have any meaning to the characters or the overall story, almost as if they were thrown in at the last minute. Too give an example of this, the ending where Matthew Mcconaughey sees his daughter one last time before she dies could have meant much more if he actually stayed to watch her die. Earlier in the film, Matt Damon’s character mentions how the last thing a parent sees is their child. Contrasting this at the end would have made everything feel much more rounded, because, without it, Matt Damon’s character serves no real purpose other than to make the movie about 20 minutes longer. Not to mention, the character is kind of flat, as are many characters in this film. Every character acts as an archetype, and are often more 2 dimensional rather than not. This is partially due to the dialogue. While Nolan has nearly mastered the art of making a film, dialogue has never been his strong suit. That is evident in Interstellar more than any other film, dis-including Dark Knight Rises. So, overall, the film’s visual style is incredibly unique, and the more technical aspects all are near perfection. However, in Interstellar, it seems that Christopher Nolan put the way the film looks over the story. 8.3/10

Back in 2017, I remember the Oscar fiasco, as I’m sure everyone does. At the time, I was incredibly supportive of Lala Land, and mad that Moonlight took the best picture spot. But, now that I’ve actually watched both movies, I think it’s clear Moonlight deserved it. Interestingly, Moonlight is adapted from a stage play of the same name. The structures of film and stage are completely different, so, it’s miraculous that the writing was as good as it was in this film. While there are certain sections of the film that could have been adapted further, for the most part, things were adapted well. One thing that stays the same, are the characters. Each character in Moonlight is distinct and, even though many are played by multiple actors, have a distinct and unique voice and feel. This is supported by some excellent acting, the standout performance obviously being Mahershala Ali. Although his role is brief, him being a sort of father figure to Little is spectacular. The film deals with some heavy material. And, while I definitely feel that it should have taken some time to breath, I also understand why the life of Little seems as tortuous as it appears. The film’s distinction also comes in its visual style, at the beginning, the way it was shot feels like a distant memory. But, as Little grows up, getting less little (I couldn’t help myself), the way everything is shot seems much less fuzzy. As things in Little’s world start to make sense for him, the make sense for us. This just adds to how important the characters in this are, which is interesting, there are maybe only three or four characters with speaking roles, likely something transferred over from the play. Overall, I definitely liked this movie quite a bit, but, I also found that due to it being adapted from a stage play, there were some things that were missing. 9.3/10

Pulp Fiction is told in a very interesting non-linear fashion. However, even though there is one overarching arc that is remarkably comprehensible, each short story making up the film has its own arc. While I thought that this was a very interesting take, I did find that often, there were pieces that were missing on my first watch. Certain characters and the choices that they made meant nothing, and, while in the end each character is well fleshed out, the beginning is off. John Travolta’s character was where I felt this the most. During his short story, we knew nothing about the world and why he was doing what he was doing, or what the importance of that is to him. Not to mention, I have never cared for his acting, it seems quite stiff. Even though intentions are revealed later in the story, it still feels that the first act really didn’t work, other than the dancing scene. There are a lot of iconic lines in Pulp Fiction, most of which coming from Samuel Jackson’s character. This is due to the way that Tarantino wrote that specific character. I also feel that Jackson’s character resonated with audiences because he didn’t have his moment in the spotlight until the end of the film. If any other character had that position, it is quite likely that they would be the audience’s favorite. Now, this movie is not all bad. Far from it. If looked at in a linear way, the story’s actually quite good. All of the moments compiling the film have compelling drama that is told in a very realistic way. Overall, while the first watch through may have been confusing, and some of the acting wasn’t as good as it should be, the story as a whole is brilliantly told. So, I will give it a 7.8/10