Archive for steven spielberg

LINCOLN (2012)

Posted in 2012, Drama, Historical Films, Michael Arruda Reviews, Steven Spielberg with tags , , , , , , on November 26, 2012 by knifefighter

MOVIE REVIEW:  LINCOLN (2012)
By Michael Arruda

 

 Let me get this straight:  LINCOLN (2012) is a movie about our most loved and revered U.S. President, directed by one of the most talented and successful directors of all time, Steven Spielberg, starring one of the best actors of his generation, Daniel Day-Lewis, in the lead role, and featuring an ensemble cast that’s second to none.  Talk about a winning combination!  If this movie were a poker hand, it’d be four aces.

LINCOLN is one of those movies that is nearly impossible to find fault with, and really, why would you want to?  It depicts a moment in history that defined our nation, and the movie presents this moment in a manner that is second to none.  Direction, acting, music, sets, costumes, and make-up are all phenomenal.  It really is a special movie.

 

LINCOLN takes place during the final days of the American Civil War.  Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) desperately wants to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which will outlaw slavery in the United States forever.  Lincoln knows that his Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves during the Civil War was a wartime measure, issued because of his war powers as Commander-in-Chief.  He knows that come peace time, there is nothing on the books to keep slavery illegal, and most likely slavery will return, an idea Lincoln finds intolerable.

The problem Lincoln faces, as explained to him by his Secretary of State William Seward (David Strathairn), is that there’s simply no support for the amendment in the House of Representatives.  The measure had already passed in the Senate.  The Democrats aren’t interested in the amendment at all, and the support from his own party, the Republicans, is lukewarm at best, and his party members are only interested in the amendment as a way to end the war.  If the war were to end first, then there would be very little support from Congress or the public in freeing the slaves.

And so things grow complicated when Preston Blair (Hal Holbrook) arranges for a peace delegation from the South to travel north to meet with Lincoln to negotiate an end to the war.  Members of his own party argue against Lincoln meeting this Southern contingent, telling him that if the war ends, then the amendment will never pass.  Lincoln counters by saying it’ll be worse if they learn that he was offered a chance to end the war and refused it.

Lincoln agrees to meet with the Southern peace delegation, while at the same time he employs a team of men to work furiously behind the scenes to get the votes needed to pass the amendment.  This team is led by W.N Bilbo (James Spader), and basically their job is to offer the Congressmen political favors in return for voting for the amendment.  Some Congressmen agree, but most don’t, and some even try to kill Bilbo.  Ah, the world of politics!

Meanwhile, on the House floor, the most vocal proponent of the amendment is Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), but his views on slavery are so liberal that his words are often used against him.  In his case, Lincoln’s team works on getting him to temper his remarks, in order for them to achieve the common goal of passing the amendment.

If all this political turmoil wasn’t enough, Lincoln is also dogged at home.  His oldest son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is angry that his father won’t let him enlist, and constantly argues with him, demanding that he allow him to do so.  His wife Mary Todd (Sally Field) is still grieving over the death of their middle son and will absolutely not forgive her husband if he allows his son to enlist, which in his heart, he knows he should do.  In one of the movie’s best scenes, Lincoln argues with Mary, yelling at her in a rare moment of lost composure that he should have had her committed.

Even though we know from history how all these events eventually played out, the movie does a masterful job at building suspense over whether or not the Thirteenth Amendment will be passed, and shows the amazing integrity, intelligence, and political ability of our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln.

It’s a great script by Tony Kushner, based in part on the book “Team of Rivals:  The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. As such, watching this film is similar to reading a book.  It’s filled with deep, rich characters, and its story really resonates on screen.

There are many, many emotional moments throughout LINCOLN.  The scene where Lincoln makes his case to his Cabinet that the amendment must pass is riveting, as are the scenes where the president argues with his wife Mary and son Robert.

And the sequence towards the end of the movie when the House must vote on the amendment is chock full of suspense.

Daniel Day-Lewis is excellent as Lincoln.  He portrays a Lincoln that you simply don’t want to stop watching.  You really feel as if you are watching the real Abraham Lincoln.  And in conjunction with this phenomenal acting performance, the make-up job on him is also incredible.

The rest of the cast is almost as good as Daniel Day-Lewis.  Tommy Lee Jones is outstanding as Thaddeus Stevens.  It’s a dominating scene-stealing performance, and if not for Day-Lewis, I’d be saying that Jones delivered the best performance in the movie, but in this case, he’ll have to settle for second best.

Sally Field also dominates as Mary Todd Lincoln.  Come Oscar time, these three most likely will be nominated for acting awards.

David Strathairn shines as Secretary of State Seward.  Strathairn’s a fine actor who we saw in the last two BOURNE movies, and once again he doesn’t disappoint.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt adds first-rate support as Robert Lincoln.  How many movies is Gordon-Levitt going to appear in this year?  He’s been unbelievably busy, and in each film I see him in he seems to get better and better.

I also really enjoyed James Spader as W.N. Bilbo.  His efforts and antics in trying to “buy” the votes of the congressmen provide some of the more humorous moments in the movie.  Jackie Earle Hailey is solid as Alexander Stephens, the leader of the Southern peace delegation.  His brief speech when speaking with Lincoln sums up the South’s position as to why they were hesitant to accept Lincoln’s peace terms.  Like other scenes in this movie, this sequence does a great job presenting all sides to the arguments made in the film.  There are definitely shades of gray throughout, rather than black and white.

Hal Holbrook as Preston Blair delivers a notable performance as well, one of his more memorable performances in years.

But better than this cast, and perhaps every bit the equal of Daniel Day-Lewis, is the extraordinary directorial job by Steven Spielberg.  LINCOLN is an absolutely beautiful production.  Many of the scenes of Lincoln are so creatively shot, they look like paintings.  We see Lincoln in silhouette, behind sheer curtains, and in the shadows—there is a tremendous use of shadow in this movie.  I have to admit, there were times I was distracted from the story because I was so impressed by the visuals in this movie.

I said LINCOLN was a movie that was nearly impossible to find fault with, but it’s not perfect.  As a movie driven by dialogue, acting, and an historical story, there’s very little action in this one.  As a result, it’s rather slow-paced.  It takes its time, and its 150 minutes don’t exactly fly by.

But truthfully, this didn’t bother me all that much.  I was totally captivated by the entire package from beginning to end.

There’s also an excellent music score by John Williams, one of his more effective scores in years.  It’s very subtle and not over-the-top dramatic, as some of his recent scores have been.

LINCOLN is a movie that shouldn’t be missed.  Its subject matter, Abraham Lincoln, combined with the talent behind it, most notably Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis, make it more of a cinematic experience than a movie.

I give it an enthusiastic four knives.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives LINCOLN ~four knives.

Leave A Comment »

Remote Outpost: FALLING SKIES

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Apocalyptic Films, Mark Onspaugh Columns, Remote Outpost, ROBOTS!, Television with tags , , , , , , , on July 27, 2011 by knifefighter

REMOTE OUTPOST: FALLING SKIES
Does it taste like Chicken… Little?
Television Review by Mark Onspaugh

In a simpler time. all we needed to repel alien invaders was a wise-cracking Will Smith and a genius hacker like Jeff Goldblum. Sure, we might lose a national monument or two, but then the President would take action and fight them Bill Pullman-style – the aliens would be blown to atoms and the pitiful remnants of their hellish fleet would hightail it back to Arcturus with their spiny tails tucked between their disgusting lower limbs.

Nowadays, people in the real world feel like they’ve been let down – the economy sucks, unemployment is at an all-time high and our elected officials are either involved in scandal or wasting their time on the future of incandescent bulbs.

How could such leaders ever hope to combat an alien horde?

So it is that today’s alien stories aren’t about preventing conquest, they’re about the conquered (us) fighting their oppressors (them). It doesn’t take Fellini to see that perhaps those beings we are rallying against may be closer than the next galaxy… Much closer.

FALLING SKIES is the new Dreamworks series from Executive Producer Steven Spielberg, airing Sunday nights on the TNT cable channel, and it is similar in some ways to the recent film BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011)—Earth has been taken over and now ragtag bands fight with dwindling resources against overwhelming odds and superior technology. Like BATTLE, conquered cities have large towers of sinister design and intent raised their ruins.

FALLING SKIES very much evokes the “Spirit of ’76” note in its tone and content. After all, we were founded by a guerilla force composed of civilians, militia, old people and kids, fighting a superior force with better weapons and supplies. But the guerilla knows his home turf, and knows how to survive… He might have to live like a rodent for a while, but he can make the enemy miserable until they decide it’s too costly to remain. The action takes place in Massachusetts rather than California, evoking that feeling of fighting the War of Independence once again.

FALLING SKIES left me cold initially. Although I felt the exposition of the invasion told through children’s drawings and voice-overs had a certain charm, I wanted to see some of the devastation and carnage. We’ve gotten very little of that, and I suspect the producers not only wanted to save money, they wanted to show this was no Michael Bay explosion-fest. I do believe they wanted to create some fully-realized characters, but that takes time. It’s clear the network was nervous about this gradual build; early episodes had a sort of carnival barker announcer at the end assuring us we didn’t know all the mysteries behind the invasion. Unlike a show like LOST, THE X-FILES or FRINGE which are compelling from the get-go, FALLING SKIES needed a little more time to be something other than THE PATRIOT (2000) with extraterrestrials. Thankfully, the barker is missing from later tags, which is fine by me.

The fight to take back the planet is seen through the eyes of Tom Mason (Noah Wylie – ER, the LIBRARIAN franchise) a history professor turned soldier and liaison between civilians and Captain Weaver (Will Patton – ARMAGEDDON (1998) and THE FOURTH KIND (2009)). Tom’s wife was lost while scavenging for food with Dr. Harris (Steven Weber – THE SHINING TV-series from 1997 and the sitcom WINGS). We get the feeling there may have been more than hunting for cans of Hormel Chili going on, but the doc is killed two episodes in, in the worst case of prisoner baiting since Fritz tortured Frankenstein’s Monster with a lit torch. Tom is now a single dad with three sons – fighter Hal (Drew Roy), alien slave Ben (Connor Jessup) and Maxim Knight as little tyke Matt Mason (named, I’m sure, for Mattel’s space explorer action figure from the 60′s). (By the way, how cool a name is Maxim Knight?  I may have to change mine.)  Tom has all the usual single dad issues, plus he’s fighting aliens. Fortunately, he and Moon Bloodgood (the short-lived TV series DAY BREAK and the movie TERMINATOR: SALVATION (2009)) have caught each other’s eye. She is the unit physician and has to deal with everything from depression and fractures to kids with alien harnesses on their backs (more on that in a moment). The cast of humans is a good mix of humanity, although it remains to be seen if any character is openly gay or not. With aliens around every corner, there isn’t much time for people to make their proclivities known.

Aliens have taken over and humanity struggles for freedom in FALLING SKIES

Now, how about them aliens?  Back when yours truly was just a tyke running around the Outpost, aliens were largely spray-painted humans in outlandish costumes (LOST IN SPACE, TIME TUNNEL) or men in rubber suits with little or no change of expression (the Gorn that fought Kirk in STAR TREK). THE INVADERS (1967 – 1968), in what has to be the money-saving concept of all time, had aliens who looked like us except they couldn’t bend their little fingers, prompting one to guess they had evolved from highly-mannered tea drinkers.

CGI has made it possible to move away from cumbersome rubber puppets (prone to look silly and/or fake, malfunction and rot over time) and the ever-popular Star Trek brow appliances to creatures that are extremely non-human… Hell, they’re not even humanoid. At present, designers of such critters are going to spiders and crabs for inspiration (BATTLE: LOS ANGELES and SUPER 8, which both came out earlier this year) and tentacles are always a favorite fall-back appendage. Most of us have an innate fear or disgust of spiders or anything like them, so creatures of such design are repellent to most of the audience. The aliens in FALLING SKIES (called “Skitters”) look like large crab-spiders with tentacles and walrus-spider faces. Their movement is crab-spider-ish, and they are quite unpleasant to look at. The design isn’t as compelling or groundbreaking as Giger’s alien (And remember how many films ripped off that design?| Boy howdy.), but the face of the alien allows it some range of emotion. Skitters are very fast and hard to kill, although our people are learning their vulnerabilities. Go Humanity!

The Skitters are also equipped with scout ship/fighters (nothing to write home about, design-wise) and “Mechs” which are bipedal killing machines that stomp around like the ED-209 in ROBOCOP (1987) and have a sort of jack-o-lantern visage (in cool blue) that I kind of like. They also make a roar similar to the LOST smoke monster, so maybe he got some voice-over work. Since the Skitters are multi-legged and the Mechs are bipeds, I suspect that they are being piloted by the teens the Skitters take as slaves and outfit with “harnesses”, a strange, biomechanical slug-like monstrosity that fuses with the kid’s spine and nervous system. Kids under the influence of said harness walk like zombies and seem to be in telepathic contact with the alien overlords. Removing the harness is messy (metal links into the spine must be cut with a torch and leave behind metal studs running down the kid’s back) and risky (several kids died until the late Dr. Harris pioneered a procedure to keep the kids from convulsing and flat-lining). A new development has some adults nervous and bigoted about these freed kids, calling them “razor-backs” and proclaiming that they attract Skitters and their loyalty is compromised. Surely a metaphor for children fathered by invading forces, unable to belong in either country.

He followed me home, Mom. Can we keep him?

As I mentioned, I was ready to give up on FALLING SKIES after two episodes, (and some of you may have done so), but hung in there, being a diehard sci-fi and horror fan… Two episodes ago it turned a corner. The characters had been one note clichés, even the ever-dependable Will Patton, who was gruff and unyielding to the point of parody. But now all the principals have been allowed to breathe and stretch—there have been some very good scenes, particularly between Tom and his kids and Captain Weaver and Jimmy Bolland (Dylan Authors), a thirteen-year-old trying to find his place on the battlefield. Also, and most interestingly, some aliens seem to display compassion (one stroked the head of a sleeping slave child in a very maternal way, not like a master with a pet) and we have been told their agenda is not all it seems.

Of course, I have seen shows like this which were so cool in the beginning run dry creatively and begin to wander far, far away from their original mission statement (it happened when David Vincent of THE INVADERS found a group of people who believed him about the Invaders, and when the mythology of the THE X-FILES became so unwieldy and was suffering the absence of its heroes Mulder and Scully)… Right now, we have an interesting mix of humans dealing with the aliens on FALLING SKIES – some are courageous, others slaves, still others greedy looters or traitors colluding with the aliens… That’s great, humanity isn’t totally unified, and the enemy isn’t just extraterrestrial or all of one stripe.

But we’ve been fooled before… the moment may come when an alien skitters forward and offers to help Tom and his friends… They end up calling him Uncle Bob because his alien name is too hard to pronounce, and he ends up with a fondness for pickle brine and bouncing laughing children on his many knees. At that point the producers will have either jumped the shark or will be revving up their Fonzie-cycle to do so, and we will be just a treacly “very special episode” or Christmas special away from the Hanna Barbera version of FALLING SKIES where they throw in a (nearly) talking dog and a nervous Don Knotts type for comic relief.

But, hopefully, such a day never comes, or is at least five seasons away. We need good science fiction on television, so let’s hope this show may avoid the traps and pitfalls that dooms it to one or two seasons like CAPRICA, THE EVENT, V, DAY BREAK and SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND. For now, the acting and writing have gotten better, the effects are good, the aliens are interesting and loathsome and there seem to be some twists coming our way. Those are all good reasons to watch. Remote Outpost out.

© Copyright 2011 by Mark Onspaugh

3 Comments »

Quick Cuts: OVERRATED OR UNDERRATED? (Part 3 of 3)

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Giant Monsters, JJ Abrams, Michael Arruda Reviews, Overrated or Underrated?, Quick Cuts with tags , , , , , on June 30, 2011 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS: THE OVERRATED OR UNDERRATED GAME (ANSWER 3)
(Quick Cuts created by Michael Arruda)

With the recent release of SUPER 8, the new alien movie from director J.J. Abrams and producer Steven Spielberg, we’re going to play a game of “Overrated/Underrated.”

Are the following overrated or underrated?

1. Steven Spielberg
2. J.J. Abrams
3. ET, the Extraterrestrial
4. The Cloverfield Monster

***

ANSWER # 3

MICHAEL ARRUDA answers:

1. Steven Spielberg

I’d have to say that Spielberg is actually Underrated.

 I know, I give him a hard time on this Web site, and deservedly so, because his over-the-top sugary style irritates me.  That being said, the man is a tremendous filmmaker, responsible for some of the most memorable movies ever made, JAWS (1975), RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981), JURASSIC PARK (1993) and SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993), to name just a few.

I’ve always thought critics have been unfairly harsh on him, and he often doesn’t get the credit he deserves, as if because he’s “Steven Spielberg” he’s held to a higher standard.  For example, I really liked his WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) remake, yet the film was largely panned by critics.  Sure, it has its flaws, but it provided a lot of thrills and better than average entertainment.

So, because Spielberg doesn’t always get the credit he deserves, I say he’s underrated.

The multi-talented JJ Abrams

2. J.J. Abrams

Underrated.

Why?  One word: LOST.  Why isn’t this guy a household name yet?

A typical sappy moment with Spielberg's E.T.

3. ET, the Extraterrestrial

Overrated.

Everyone and their grandmother loved him in 1982, and they continue to love him today.  Why?  I’ve never understood the attraction.  Is he sweet and cuddly?  Nope.  On the contrary, he’s hideous!  I’ve always thought he should be living in a garbage can as Oscar the Grouch’s next door neighbor.

Allegedly doctored photo of the Cloverfield Monster attacking New York. Is it real?

4. The Cloverfield Monster

Underrated.

The Cloverfield Monster is a terrific movie monster.  I expected this creature to achieve icon status, to be up there with Godzilla and King Kong.  Yet, there’s been hardly any buzz about this monster since the film left theaters in 2008.  Cloverfield Monster, where are you?

—END—

1 Comment »

Quick Cuts: OVERRATED OR UNDERRATED? (Part 2 of 3)

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Giant Monsters, JJ Abrams, LL Soares Reviews, Overrated or Underrated?, Quick Cuts, Steven Spielberg with tags , , , , , , , on June 24, 2011 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS: THE OVERRATED OR UNDERRATED GAME (ANSWER 2)
(Quick Cuts created by Michael Arruda)

With the recent release of SUPER 8, the new alien movie from director J.J. Abrams and producer Steven Spielberg, we’re going to play a game of “Overrated/Underrated.”

Are the following overrated or underrated?

1. Steven Spielberg
2. J.J. Abrams
3. ET, the Extraterrestrial
4. The Cloverfield Monster

***

ANSWER # 2

LL SOARES answers:

People are still afraid to go in the water, thanks to JAWS (1975).

1. Steven Spielberg

Very Overrated. Hey, I like some of his movies. DUEL (1971) was a terrific debut. JAWS (1975) was great and still holds up quite well, mechanical shark and all. It’s still the one movie that comes to mind first when I think about summertime. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977) and JURASSIC PARK (1993) had some good moments. I even like EMPIRE OF THE SUN (1987) and the first part of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998).

So I don’t hate the guy. But people treat him like some cinematic deity, and I just don’t see it. He’s not consistently good. For every good movie, he has two or three bad ones, or boring ones. To me, he just isn’t in the same league as masters like Kubrick, Peckinpah and Hitchcock.

And he has a sentimental streak a mile long. It’s actually ruined some of his movies that could have been a lot better.

2. J.J. Abrams

I’ve been a fan of most projects he’s been involved with, so I’d have to say Underrated. But that’s bound to change eventually.

I actually liked his reboot of STAR TREK (2009) I didn’t think it was the best thing since sliced bread like a lot of people, but it was a fun way to recharge the series. SUPER 8, despite its flaws, was pretty enjoyable. And I’ve been a fan of his TV work for a while now, especially LOST.

Alien Pals: E.T. and Michael Jackson. Visitors from outer space.

3. ET, the Extraterrestrial

Overrated.

Too cute. Too sentimental. Too nauseating. Spielberg tried to do something different by making a movie about an alien monster who was NICE. Not necessarily a bad idea in theory—look at a classic like the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, (1951) where a good alien tries to save us from ourselves—but in Spielberg’s hands it’s pure fructose corn syrup. I saw this when it first came out, as a kid, and soon after the dentist said I had three cavities. Give me those murderous, crazy-as-hell alien monsters over E.T. any day.

Also, the effects were awful. E.T. looks like a stiff, plastic puppet. Or a giant bobble-head.  He couldn’t even walk right. This was cutting-edge technology in 1982? What did they spend, like ten bucks on this guy?

Eeegah! It's the CLOVERFIELD MONSTER!


4. The Cloverfield Monster

Underrated.

I liked this monster a lot, even though they didn’t show him enough in the movie. I can’t wait til he takes on King Kong and Godzilla. We want more CLOVERFIELD!

—END—

Leave A Comment »

Quick Cuts: OVERRATED OR UNDERRATED? (Part 1 of 3)

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Daniel Keohane Reviews, Giant Monsters, JJ Abrams, Overrated or Underrated?, Quick Cuts, Steven Spielberg with tags , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS: THE OVERRATED OR UNDERRATED GAME (ANSWER 1)
(Quick Cuts created by Michael Arruda)

With the recent release of SUPER 8, the new alien movie from director J.J. Abrams and producer Steven Spielberg, we’re going to play a game of “Overrated/Underrated.”

Are the following overrated or underrated?

1. Steven Spielberg
2. J.J. Abrams
3. ET, the Extraterrestrial
4. The Cloverfield Monster

***

ANSWER # 1

DAN KEOHANE:


1. Steven Spielberg

Neither.

Spielberg is raised high on a pedestal of directors/producers and rightly so. The guy has a vision and has the resources to back them up.

2. J.J. Abrams

Underrated, only in that he is not as well known as he will be.

Those of us who’ve been captivated by the guy’s work since ALIAS hold him in high regard, but now the rest of the world is catching up to us.

Where the hell are my Reese's Pieces?


3. ET, the Extraterrestrial

Overrated.

Granted it’s a good movie, very cute, and the first half of the film is very excellent, very Spielberg, but overall a bit too long and syrupy… siruppy… mooshy.

4. The Cloverfield Monster

Underrated.

I LOVE this monster. Thought it was a brilliant creation. I did NOT care, however, for yet another movie where they thought the giant monster wasn’t enough and had to put little monsters in as well (a la GODZILLA (1998) and  a la JURASSIC PARK (1993) – the one time it DID work).

—END—

Leave A Comment »

SUPER 8

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Cinema Knife Fights, Giant Monsters, JJ Abrams, Science Fiction, Steven Spielberg with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 13, 2011 by knifefighter

Cinema Knife Fight: SUPER 8
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: An old-fashioned train station in a small town. It’s 1979, and a bunch of kids are filming a zombie movie with a Super 8 camera. LL SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA approach)

LS: Damn brats! Get out of here! We’ve got a movie to review.

KID 1: Gee, mister, can’t we just finish this scene? We snuck out of our houses late at night and everything to get this shot.

MA:  Gee, mister? What is this, LEAVE IT TO BEAVER? This is 1979, not 1959. I grew up in the 70s, and we weren’t saying “gee, mister.”

KID 1: What are you complaining to me for? I’m just saying the lines. I didn’t write ‘em, you big jerk!

MA: That’s more like it.

LS: Who cares? (roars at kid) GET OUTTA HERE!

(Kids scream and run away.)

MA: Shall we start our review of SUPER 8?

LS: Sure.

SUPER 8 is the new movie by J.J. Abrams. He’s the guy behind TV shows like “Alias” and “Lost.” He also directed the recent reboot of the STAR TREK (2009) franchise.

MA: And he produced the great giant monster movie, CLOVERFIELD (2008).

LS: Yeah, yeah, I was getting to that.

This one is also produced by the legendary Steven Spielberg, which is fitting, because in a lot of ways, SUPER 8 feels like a homage to Spielberg’s early 80s films, especially E.T.: THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL (1982).

Unfortunately, I hated E.T. I thought the effects were lame, especially the creature—good ol’ E.T. himself—who looked very stiff and puppet-like. And don’t get me started on the sappy, overly sentimental story.

MA: Yep same here. Back in 1982 I thought I was the only guy on the planet who didn’t like that movie.

LS:  In comparison, SUPER 8 is definitely an improvement. But it’s not perfect.

MA: SUPER 8 didn’t remind me all that much of E.T., thankfully. Sure, it’s about an alien, and kids, but I thought this story stood on its own, even though it certainly did have the feel of a Steven Spielberg movie. I say this because one of the main plot points of E.T. was the connection between the boy and the alien, and here in SUPER 8, while this happens, it’s not the main focus—again, thankfully. I never felt I was watching “Me and my Alien Buddy,” which was a good thing.

LS: SUPER 8 begins with the death of Joe Lamb’s (Joel Courtney) mom at the factory where she worked. Joe is about 12 years old and it’s the summer of 1979. He’s taking the death of his mom pretty hard (which makes sense) as is his father, Jackson (Kyle Chandler), the town’s deputy sheriff. The more Joe and his dad talk, the more it’s pretty obvious they really don’t know each other and don’t have a lot in common. Jackson wants his son to go to a sports camp to be more manly. Joe wants to spend the summer helping his friends finish a zombie movie they’re making. Considering that Joe’s life revolves around things like comic books and making Aurora monster models (mostly of Universal monsters of the 1930s – these models were pretty popular back then), he and his father couldn’t be more different.

MA: Yep, I had a whole bunch of those Aurora models.

LS: Yeah, I did, too.

MA: I was actually a bit disappointed that Joe only had the Hunchback of Notre Dame model. He should have had more. Oh well.

LS: He must have had more—they just didn’t show them. Right?

MA:  How the hell do I know?

(A TRAIN’s whistle howls in the distance)

LS: Joe’s buddy Charles (Riley Griffiths) is directing the film, and the two have been friends since second grade. Charles is bossy, but then again this comes in handy for someone wanting to be a director. To make the movie more “commercial” he asks a girl at school, Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning), to play one of the characters’ wife, to give the movie a “love story” angle. She agrees and does a pretty great audition.

Joe is the make-up artist, and it’s clear early on that he has fallen for Alice. The thing is, she’s the daughter of the local troublemaker, Louis (Ron Eldard), who Joe’s dad has had to arrest on several occasions. There’s also a resentment because Joe’s mother was filling in for one of Louis’s shifts at the factory when she was killed, so Jackson kind of blames the guy for his wife’s death. Needless to say, neither Jackson nor Louis are very happy to see that their kids spending time together.

While filming their movie at a train station—much like this one—late at night, a truck jumps on the tracks and rams itself right into the train, causing a huge and violent derailment. The kids almost get killed, but are able to get away before “anyone” sees them. As for this “anyone” – it’s the US Air Force, and soldiers swarm the area soon afterwards. Something escaped from that train wreck, but they aren’t saying what. Soon, the soldiers are taking over and evacuating the whole town.

As the movie develops, we learn that the train was holding a strange alien life form captive, and now that it’s been set free, it is scrambling around town, taking equipment it needs to construct a spaceship to get back home. So, just like E.T., the SUPER 8 monster wants to “Go Home.”

The kids get caught up in the drama of the Air Force, the monster, and their own lives.

MA: Not exactly an original story. While I really liked the characters and dialogue in this movie, its premise, the alien who’s “really just frightened and only wants to go home” —-

(A loud sympathetic “awwww” sound erupts from the audience.)

Yep, thank you, all of you just joining us now after the last episode of OPRAH. As I was saying, this premise didn’t wow me. Been there, done that. Speaking of Mr. Alien, what did you think of the monster?

LS: I think Abrams did a good job with the monster.

MA: Really? I was a little disappointed.

LS: We don’t see it up close very much (which was similar to CLOVERFIELD), and for most of the movie we see what it has done, but not the creature itself. It seems to move in a spider/crab –like way, and actually seems pretty alien in its appearance and movements (much unlike the awful E.T.).

MA: I thought the movie worked well in spite of this. The story was strong even while we weren’t seeing the alien. The problem I had was once we do see the alien, it’s really late in the game. As much as I enjoyed this movie, it could have used more alien screen time.

LS: I think it works that they build up suspense and don’t show the monster right away. What exactly does this thing look like? In too many monster movies lately, they show the creature way too early in the game. I thought this one was well-paced.

MA: I was also a bit disappointed with the look of the alien, mostly because CGI aliens just don’t cut it for me. I always feel like I’m watching a video game. Abram’s monster in CLOVERFIELD was one of the better CGI alien monsters. For some reason, this one reminded me of a Transformer/alien hybrid. I think it was the way it moved.

LS: Also unlike E.T., this isn’t a sweet little story about kids bonding with a cute guy from outer space.

(A huge cheer erupts from the audience.)

MA: Amen!

LS: I think the monster is actually kind of scary, and at one points starts abducting some humans as well (including Alice), and later we find out it’s for food. It’s this more gritty take on the monster—that it’s not safe and cuddly—that differentiates it from Spielberg’s so-called “classic.”

MA: I agree. The monster eating people for food was definitely one of the better parts of the story, but sadly it’s mentioned all too briefly. It should have been more a part of this movie.

LS: Yeah, I’m with you on that. It certainly could have used even more “scariness.”

(TRAIN is getting closer. Whistle is louder)

LS: I actually thought the monster might end up looking like the creature from CLOVERFIELD, to have some kind of continuity between the two films, but no such luck.

MA: Yeah, that would have been a cool connection. Oh well.

LS:  However, despite the differences, there are also several scenes throughout the movie that are overly sentimental and sugary, and these do the best at conjuring up the feel of those old Spielberg films, especially toward the end. They’re also the aspects of this film I didn’t like.

MA: I didn’t think there were too many of these, thankfully.

(The freight TRAIN roars by, suddenly derailing and crashing into the countryside)

LS: Dammit, we’re trying to finish a review here.

MA: You’re all heart. We should go see if there are any survivors who need our help.

LS: Wait, wait. We’re almost done.

Overall, the acting is pretty good. First off, I like Kyle Chandler a lot (he plays the coach on the excellent TV show “Friday Night Lights” —which is in its last season—so I hope Chandler is able to make the jump to movies pretty easily).

MA: Yeah, Chandler is fine, but SUPER 8 really isn’t his movie. It belongs to the kids, and while I really enjoyed the kids here, the film could have used a stronger adult presence. I wanted to see more of Chandler’s character. Specifically, I wanted his character to do more. He’s got decent screen time, but he always seems to be on the periphery of the action. I wish he had been more like the Timothy Olyphant character in THE CRAZIES (2010).

LS: Well, at least he’s not completely passive like some movie dads. When the Air Force takes him prisoner at one point, he doesn’t just accept it, he fights back. And the kids are all pretty believable. I thought Courtney is fine as Joe, although he does seem a bit generic at times.

MA: Really? I thought Courtney was terrific. I thought he gave the best performance in the movie. He was sincere, sympathetic, and eventually he proves himself to be quite the hero. I thought his performance was key, because if you don’t like this kid, then the film’s not going to work.

LS: I dunno. There were a few times where Joe seemed kind of cliché to me. Courtney does a good job with the role in spite of that, though. Another kid who stands out is Ryan Lee as Cary, a kid obsessed with fire and pyrotechnics, and who is in charge of explosions and effects for the kids’ movie. He has some funny lines.

MA: Yes, Lee was great. I also enjoyed Riley Griffiths as Charles, the kid making the movie. Sure, he’s the “fat kid,” but he’s not cliché, in that he’s strong, assertive, and bossy. Also, his large family is a hoot.

LS: Yeah, I thought Charles was pretty good. His family, too.

But it’s Elle Fanning who pretty much steals every scene she’s in. She’s very good here, and clearly has acting chops that are above and beyond the rest of the kids in the film. Her “audition” for the kids’ movie was so good, it made me feel like I was watching someone who was going to be a star.

MA: I agree with everything you said about Fanning, but I also think Courtney was just as good.

I also really enjoyed the connection that Alice and Joe shared. They’re both without their moms, they both have dads that are struggling, and it was fun to see them become attracted to each other. It was an attraction I bought and believed in.

LS: Yep, it definitely worked.

MA: Even though this movie was about the kids, there were a couple of other memorable adult performances here. Ron Eldard certainly made an impression as Alice’s dad, Louis. At first, he comes off as a good-for-nothing loser, but eventually he earns some sympathy and is able to redeem himself. I also enjoyed David Gallagher as Donny, the local pothead who works at the store where Charles develops his movie film. He also has the hots for Charles’ sister and later on, because of these feelings, gets rooked into helping the kids.

LS: Yeah, Gallagher is pretty funny as the stoner guy.

MA: Interestingly enough, other than Fanning’s Alice, there really aren’t any other women characters in this movie. For a while there, I thought the alien fed only on women since there didn’t seem to be any women in town!

LS: I noticed that, too. And both of the main kids’ mothers are dead.

(Something is approaching them in the mist. They can hear something scuttling closer)

LS: I thought Abrams did a fine job directing this one. He’s proven he’s got the goods. But I wish he wasn’t so interested in aping Spielberg and seeking his approval. The Spielbergian elements are the ones that don’t work as well. Abrams is better when he’s doing things in his own “voice.” And frankly, some of the sappier scenes also result in lapses of logic, where emoting is more important than actually thinking.

MA: I didn’t think there were too many of these sappy scenes. Which ones were you thinking about?

LS: Well, like I said before, it’s especially toward the end. Like when Joe “bonds” briefly with the alien, even though he had just saved his girlfriend by being eaten by it. Of course, that’s explained by the fact that he’s desperate not to be killed, so it makes sense in the moment. But he just seems way too quick to empathize with this dangerous creature from then on. And there are some overly sentimental moments throughout the film.

MA: But I agree with you about lapses in logic. There were parts to this movie that didn’t make much sense to me. For example, the train accident is caused by a scientist who drives his truck onto the tracks in order to— as we learn later—free the alien. Now, I realize this guy was desperate, but aren’t there better/easier ways to free something than derailing a train?

LS: Yeah, if he had time to plan it out all out—which he did—he could have done it without risking his life.

MA: I also thought a lot of the story was rushed and some interesting points were simply glossed over without being developed. The alien technology used to build its ship is mentioned oh-so-quickly. It’s a cool concept, but it’s mentioned in a flash and not reiterated— look down to find that dropped popcorn kernel on your shirt and you missed it!

LS: Those weird Rubik’s cube things were cool!

MA: They were cool, but they weren’t in the movie all that much.

All the dogs run away as soon as the alien arrives. Why? Does the alien eat dogs? The alien eats people, we kinda know that, as it’s mentioned in a very brief scene. An alien that eats people? This is scary stuff! It needs to be in this movie more!

LS: Yeah, what was up with the dogs?

MA: We also never really learn why the military is so interested in this alien, other than the fact that it’s the military, so of course they’d be interested in such an alien and in covering up the whole ordeal from the public. The portrayal of the military here is extremely clichéd. They’re reduced to the “bad guy” heavies who are only interested in cover-ups and killing aliens.

Repeat after me. “Alien—good.” “Military—bad.” Cliché! Who wrote this? The Frankenstein monster?

All this being said, I did like SUPER 8. I thought the kids were great. They were memorable, they were fun, and when all hell breaks loose, you really care for them as they go through their ordeal.

I also automatically connected to them since the story takes place in 1979, and I was around the same age in the late 1970s, and so it brought back a lot of memories. Speaking of which, I loved the 70s songs on the soundtrack, and I enjoyed the HALLOWEEN poster on the wall. Director J.J. Abrams successfully captured the feel of 1979.

Like you, I thought Abrams was fine at the helm. There were a couple of very intense scenes, the initial train crash scene I thought was terrific….

LS: I thought the train crash was really over the top. A little truck causes that much damage? Everything is flying around like crazy—for what feels like a long time—and it almost defies logic that none of the kids gets killed by flying chunks of metal and that their “getaway car” still runs, considering how close it was to the train station.

MA:  All true, but I still liked the scene, and later in the movie when all the weapons/tanks went haywire, that was also intense. These were my favorite parts of the film, and I wish there had been more of them. I also liked the sequence when the alien attacks the bus on which the kids were being held prisoner by the military.

Abrams also wrote the movie, and I think he gets an A for creating likable characters and for telling an exciting story, but as far as the threat goes, it really wasn’t all that terrifying and certainly not original. The alien who just wants to go home? We saw that in ET, and even in John Carpenter’s THE THING (1982), and even “the monster motivated by fear;” we saw that in CLOVERFIELD. And this alien is certainly not The Thing or Cloverfield!

The few intense scenes in this movie were excellent. There should have been more of them.

LS: I agree. I really liked this movie, but I didn’t love it. I wish Abrams had relied more on his own sensibility than trying to emulate his idol, Spielberg.

Oh yeah, and stay for the end credits. They show the whole zombie movie the kids were working on, and it’s pretty funny!

I give it three knives. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if this movie became a hit.

MA: Yeah, it does have that “hit” feel to it, doesn’t it?

I certainly liked it. I found it to be enjoyable enough. It’s got a great group of kid characters, a few good adult ones, an engrossing story, but an alien we hardly get to know, and while the story is engrossing, it’s not original. We’ve seen this tale before. Still, Abrams does such a good job with the material, you don’t really care; you’re having too much fun.

I also give SUPER 8 three knives.

(The mist clears to show a giant E.T. bobbing his head up and down, accompanied by ALF)

E.T.: Do you have phone? E.T. must phone home.

ALF: Yes, and I need to call Melmac. Do you think they’ll accept the charges from here?

E.T.: Do you have any Reese’s Pieces?

ALF: Or cats?

(LS screams and runs away)

MA (in sugary sweet voice): Why yes, I have a phone.

E.T. (smiles): Phone— please.

MA: Why, certainly. Here you go. (Hands E.T. sparkling sticks of dynamite.) (MA turns around and blocks his ears. Behind him there is a HUGE EXPLOSION.)

Who says I don’t have a dark side? Well, I’d better go tell LL that the coast is clear. Thanks for joining us. We’ll see you next week with a review of another new movie.

(MA walks off in search of LS, as bits and pieces of E.T. fall to the ground. When the smoke clears, we see ALF is still standing there.)

ALF: What about me?

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives SUPER 8 – three knives

LL Soares also gives SUPER 8 - three knives

2 Comments »

WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005)

Posted in 2005, Aliens, Apocalyptic Films, Cinema Knife Fights, Remakes, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , , on March 19, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA are hiding in a dark cellar. Outside, Martian tripod machines are on the move.)

LS (whispering): This month we’re reviewing Steven Spielberg’s movie WAR OF THE WORLDS.

(A loud metallic groan fills the air)

MA: What was that?

LS: I think it was my stomach.

MA (in Jedi garb): I have a bad feeling about this.

LS: WAR OF THE WORLDS is the latest big film version of H.G. Wells’ 1898 book.  As a fan of the 1953 George Pal film version, and not particularly a fan of either Spielberg or star Tom Cruise, I went into this movie with low expectations. However, I have to admit, I really enjoyed it.

While Spielberg takes liberties with Wells’ novel, this is justified because many aspects of the book are so dated now. But the basic story is still there. In this new version, instead of falling to earth like meteorites, the alien war machines were implanted into the earth eons ago, and are suddenly activated after freak lightning storms begin occurring around the world.

Once activated, these huge killing machines rise up from the earth and mercilessly attack the human race. They crush everything in their path with tripod legs and shoot out heat rays that explode humans into dust upon impact.

Tom Cruise plays Ray Ferrier, a dockworker and divorced dad who is just about to start a weekend with his kids, sullen teenager Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and precocious daughter Rachel (Dakota Fanning).  When his son takes his classic Mustang for a joyride without asking, Ray goes looking for him, and finds himself a witness to a Martian tripod rising up from beneath the streets.

The rest of the movie is pretty much Cruise and the kids trying to stay one step ahead of the aliens, who are wiping out everything around them.

WAR OF THE WORLDS spills over from science-fiction into horror with the merciless slaughter of humans, and monstrous machines that run on human blood. Spielberg has said that the imagery was affected by the events of 9-11, and this is clear in the scenes of destruction. When Cruise’s character returns home to his kids after witnessing the arrival of the first death machine, he is in shock and covered in dust.

MA:  I’m also a huge fan of the 1953 film, and while I still prefer that version, I really enjoyed this movie. It’s riveting from start to finish.  The only exception, the sequence where Cruise and Fanning seek shelter in the cellar of Tim Robbins’ character I thought was slow.  Creepy, but slow.

LS: I liked that part. We never know what Robbins’ intentions are, but he’s clearly on the verge of madness and Cruise reaches the breaking point worrying if Robbins’ behavior will expose them to the Martians. How Cruise ultimately handles the situation seems extreme, but adds to the sense of desperation caused by the film’s circumstances.

MA: I’m not a big Tom Cruise fan, either, but I liked him a lot here.  Enough to say it’s my favorite Tom Cruise performance.

The special effects were terrific.  The path of destruction carved by the alien machines looks real, rather than something created by a computer.  I think Spielberg deserves a lot of credit for this.

The alien machines themselves, while not immediately as memorable as the machines in the 1953 version, hold their own and are frightening in their own way.

LS: I actually preferred the machines in the new version. The use of sound is quite effective , too. As catchy as the tune the aliens played was in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND , the grinding metal sound of the war machines about to strike in WAR is just as memorable.

MA:  Yes, I agree.  That sound was probably my favorite part of the film!  It’s a really scary effect!

(A weird spider-like alien suddenly leaps into the cellar. LS and MA jump in fright as the creature jumps up and down on an old couch. It has the face of Tom Cruise and keeps chanting over and over, “I’m in love!”)

LS: (hits the creature with a giant flyswatter) Sure, the film has flaws, the way Cruise seems to be always a hair away from death, for example. When the machines first shoot their death rays, killing everyone around him as he flees, Cruise is somehow spared.  It becomes ridiculous after a while.   And the aliens themselves, when we finally see them in the flesh, are a disappointment. The way their insect-like bodies move is interesting, but their faces are downright cutesy.

MA:  Phone home!

LS:  In spite of these flaws, I was so caught up in the story and the plight of the characters that they didn’t matter.

MA:  You know, I also enjoyed Spielberg’s use of the color red.  It generates a feel of tremendous bloodshed.

LS: The red vegetation is actually direct from Wells’ novel and is a very effective visual. Spielberg does have a notorious sappy streak, and while this rears its head towards the end of the film, for the most part, WAR OF THE WORLDS stays true to its apocalyptic vision.

MA:  My biggest problem with the sappy ending is it’s not believable, and whenever you sacrifice believability, it’s not a good thing.

I also thought the end was a bit confusing.  The conclusion could have been explained better.  But these are small matters. I agree with you, WAR OF THE WORLDS is extremely well done and well worth the price of admission.

So, it looks like we agree again.  What’s the world coming to?

(A HUGE metallic blast splits the air)

MA:  That wasn’t your stomach, was it?

LS:  No.

(LS pulls out a machete, while MA lifts an axe.)

MA:  This time we have a common foe.

LS:  To the death!

(LS & MA charge from basement screaming battle cries.  They attack a piñata tripod hanging from a tree and fight viciously for the candy).

—END—

(Originally published in the Hellnotes newsletter on July 28, 2005)

© Copyright 2005 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers