Ready Player One

Dir: Steven Spielberg

2018

****

Ready Player One must have been a copy write nightmare to navigate through. The novel is something of a modern nerd bible that references geek pop-culture from the 70s and 80s that would appeal mostly to sci-fi film fans, video gamers and role-players. The book did well, no surprise as author Ernest Cline is a true nerd and everything about it feels authentic. We nerds are actually quite an easy bunch of people to please, so while we appreciated the inclusion of some of the more mainstream references in the book, we also knew it was the real deal when Cline based so much of it on genuinely great games such as Black Tiger, a game no one talks about other than bona fide nerds. I wasn’t surprised when a film adaptation was announced but I was skeptical about how authentic it could be, so much so, that I actually had very little enthusiasm for it. I decided to shield myself from the inevitable disappointment. I have to say, even though he is a legend, Steven Spielberg’s films have been very hit and miss for the last few years and the announcement that he would direct made me even less enthusiastic and I thought it was a bit of a cheap shot given that so many of his films featured in the story. Thankfully I was mostly wrong. So the story in the film is very different from that in the book, it had to be and for what its worth I believe there are improvements. I loved the race sequence to find the first key for instance whereby Akira's bike, the A-Team van, the Batmobile (from the 1960s) and Back to the Future's DeLorean race against each other while King Kong and the T-Rex from Jurassic Park try to knock them off the road – even if it did mean the film peaked a little too early. Spielberg decided to ditch all references to his own films – which I respect – but left in a couple of little details you could attach to some of his work. The other major concern I had was whether the 70s and 80s references would be understood by the younger audience and therefore not make it into the film, but thankfully they are all pretty much there, with a few 90s and 00s references stuck in there for good measure. This was a book written by a nerd born in the 70s, it was for me and other nerds of a certain age and I’m pleased to say the film reflected that. Cline wrote the screenplay, so no surprise there really but having Zak ‘Last Action Hero’ Penn co-write it was a stroke of genius. Spielberg and team spent many months securing the rights to many films and characters and by the end of it they stated that they managed to get 80% of what was featured in the novel. Spielberg’s influence and the respect people have for him was a bit reason why he was hired and it certainly worked in this respect. Blade Runner was a big part of the original story but as the sequel was being filmed at the same time they were denied the rights – which I’m quite glad about. I thought the Iron Giant worked so much better than Ultraman ever would but I do find it bizarre and somewhat amusing that Spielberg wasn’t able to secure the rights to his own Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Removing the WarGames sequence and replacing it with The Shining was another genius decision. I do wonder how many of the kids in the cinema I watched it in had actually even heard of The Shining, let alone had seen it. I love that they included it, it felt like a mini-victory for us nerds born before the 1980s – before it was cool to be a geek. Indeed, the references to films and shows such as Nightmare on Elm Street, The A-Team, Space Balls, Akira, Big Trouble in Little China and Christine really thrilled and surprised me. It is a film about so called Easter Eggs that was crammed full of them. I’m a competitive nerd, so I saw the film as a sport as well as a piece of entertainment. However, being born in the 70s there were problems I had with it. It all got a bit too fast, a bit too loud and there were far too many special effects to take in. The High Five gang were a big part of the novel but their development within the film leaves a lot to be desired. There were times when the film became all nostalgia and no depth and some of the Spielberg-style ‘magic’ just didn’t quite suit the style of the film. This is because Spielberg’s signature magic has been missing for quite a few decades now, had this been made in the 1980s it would be a classic but I’m afraid he is a different director now. The CGI scenes involving Mark Rylance were horrible and I have to say a lot of the original characters within the OASIS (Ontologically Anthropocentric Sensory Immersive Simulation) were dreadful. Spielberg actually approached Gene Wilder to play the character Rylance ended up playing, it would have been awesome if he’d said yes but in truth I don’t think either actor was suitable. I can’t say I like Rylance in any of Spielberg’s films, his older nerd character felt more like Neil from The Young Ones (played by Nigel Planer in the 1980s BBC comedy) than a genuine nerd in his sixties. Overall it is hard to resist the explosion of nerdtastic pop-culture but when you strip away the trivia and other people’s ideas, you are left with very little. However, I’m a sucker for all those things and even if you take them away, you are still left with an original concept and a very likable and entertaining experience.

Jaws

Dir: Steven Spielberg

1975

*****

Steven Spielberg's troubled feature ended up being one of the greatest films ever made. Some disagree, as Jaws undoubtedly was the birth of the Blockbuster and the death, some would say, of independent and intellectual cinema. I disagree. However, thanks to films like Jaws and Apocalypse Now - both masterpieces in their own right - studios are now so cautious and money oriented that I wonder just how many great films were never made as a result. The blockbuster films dominate the cinema now, with some studios only making two or three films a year, expected them to make no less than five times the amount they cost to make. I'm not sure cinema was meant to be this way but I don't think Jaws is to blame on its own. Studios have to make money, I get that, no studios means no film and love or hate them, they all make great film. I digress. Lessons were learned, but essentially, Jaws has been so influential in film, to directors, actors, special effects, stunt men etc, that without Jaws, modern cinema wouldn't be as rich of diverse as it is. For me, Jaw's greatest trick was to cross genres without anyone realizing. It's everything you want from a horror or a good thriller, and is also something of a family film. I saw it for the first time when I was seven years old and it took me a long time to recover. I wouldn't even shut my eyes in the bath and even now as a sensible(ish) adult, I get a bit funny when I go in the sea and I know I'm not alone. Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown, producers at Universal Pictures, both read Peter Benchley's novel at the same time independently and agreed that it should be their next project. They considered John Sturges as director initially, not a bad choice but they offered it to Dick Richards, whose directorial debut, The Culpepper Cattle Co. had come out the previous year. However, they grew irritated by Richards's habit of describing the shark as a whale and soon dropped him from the project. Meanwhile, Steven Spielberg very much wanted the job. The 26-year-old had just directed his first theatrical film, The Sugarland Express, for Zanuck and Brown. At the end of a meeting in their office, Spielberg noticed their copy of the still-unpublished Benchley novel, and after reading it was immediately captivated. He later observed that it was similar to his 1971 television film Duel in that both deal with "these leviathans targeting everymen" and the similarities between Jaws and Duel are quite obvious. If you watch both films side by side, almost all of the action happens at the same time and the sound the shark makes when killed at the end is in fact the same sound effect used for when the truck in Duel goes over the cliff, just slowed down a little. The dead shark sinking and the truck going off the cliff are almost exact copies of each other frame for frame. Spielberg got the job just before the release of The Sugerland Express but he tried to get out of the film as he wanted to direct Lucky Lady starring Gene Hackman, Liza Minnelli, and Burt Reynolds for 20th Century Fox. Brown took him to one side, reminded him of his contract obligations and that he could make any film he wanted after Jaws, and he was bang on the money. The script went through many changes and many writers worked on it and many refused. Although twenty-seven scenes in the film didn't happen in the book, it's fairly faithful, apart from how the shark is killed, who is killed, how they are killed, the secret love affair between Ellen Brody and Hooper, as well as various sub-plots that were dropped. Hooper should have died like he does in the book but after footage was taken of an actual shark attacking a shark cage, but without Richard Dreyfuss's stunt double in it, they re-wrote the script as the footage was just too good not to use. I like the books final scene and I like the film's final scene, I really can't pick which I like the most, although the film probably went with the best option. The script was written in part by award winning playwright Howard Sackler, comedy writer Carl Gottlieb and Hollywood hellraiser John Milius. Sackler came up with the backstory of Quint as a survivor of the World War II USS Indianapolis disaster but the question of who deserves the most credit for writing Quint's infamous monologue about the Indianapolis has caused substantial controversy. Spielberg described it as a collaboration between Sackler, Milius, and actor Robert Shaw, who was also a playwright. According to the director, Milius turned Sackler's "three-quarters of a page" speech into a monologue, and that was then rewritten by Shaw. Gottlieb gives primary credit to Shaw, downplaying Milius's contribution. We may never know but it is glorious all the same. The director was in place and they had a location, the only things they didn't have - on day 1 of filming - was a script, the main actors and the shark. Robert Duvall didn't want to know and Charlton Heston was seen as too big a character to play Police Chief Brody but Roy Scheider managed to talk his way into the role at a party Spielberg was at. Lee Marvin and Sterling Hayden both passed on the role of Quint, which still surprises me today. Zanuck and Brown had just finished working with Robert Shaw on The Sting, and suggested him to Spielberg. George Lucas suggested Richard Dreyfuss, whom he had directed in American Graffiti, to Spielberg who was at the time considering Jon Voight, Timothy Bottoms, Joel Grey, and Jeff Bridges. Bullets were dodged and it is now impossible to see anyone else in those now classic performances. The last problem the film faced was going over budget and not having a shark. Spielberg has attributed these problems to his perfectionism and his inexperience. It was clearly down to his inexperience but to give him credit, and in his own words; "I could have shot the movie in the tank or even in a protected lake somewhere, but it would not have looked the same," he said. As for his lack of experience: "I was naive about the ocean, basically. I was pretty naive about mother nature and the hubris of a filmmaker who thinks he can conquer the elements was foolhardy, but I was too young to know I was being foolhardy when I demanded that we shoot the film in the Atlantic Ocean and not in a North Hollywood tank." Gottlieb said that "there was nothing to do except make the movie", so everyone kept overworking, and while as a writer he did not have to attend the ocean set every day, once the crewmen returned they arrived "ravaged and sunburnt, windblown and covered with salt water". To be honest, the issues with the production actually ended up being beneficial, as more time was spent on the script and because the mechanical shark they had (nicknamed Bruce) was so temperamental, they ended up shooting less of it, so "The film went from a Japanese Saturday matinee horror flick to more of a Hitchcock, the less-you-see-the-more-you-get thriller. The shark not working was a godsend. It made me become more like Alfred Hitchcock than like Ray Harryhausen." I'm sure no offense was meant by that, Ray Harryhausen was a genius, but I agree with what he said. Having the shark unseen for most of the movie had a great effect, adding John Williams's infamous theme tune to it made it even more iconic. The use of point of view, from the shark’s perspective, was also cleverly done. It is fair to say the film worked down to fluke. There was nothing wrong with the book or the script, the actors did a great job, as did the producers and John Williams is a pro. It was Steven Spielberg who fluked it, pure and simple. I'll give him credit, but most of his great films follow the winning formula of Jaws and his later films aren't as great as his older ones. Credit due though, Jaws changed everything and some of the greatest pieces of art, whether written, painted or filmed are often born from trial and error. It's unfortunate that sharks are largely hated (and hunted) due to Jaws, something that Peter Benchley later regretted, but what a thriller, what a horror and what an adventure.

The Post

Dir: Steven Spielberg

2017

****

Steven Speilberg made The Post in record time while waiting for post-production special effects to take place on his 2018 adaptation of Ready Player One. He’s a pro and has made making a film in nine months look easy. To be fair, he has surrounded himself in professionals and some of the best in their fields, but I digress, there was good reason for his rush to the cinema screens. This is Liz Hannah’s first screenplay to go into production, picked up by one of the greatest directors of all time. An amazing achievement, especially as it pretty much covers the same story as the 1976 classic All The President’s Men. The story behind the Pentagon Papers has been covered, indeed, in June 2011, the entire Pentagon Papers were declassified and made public. In the 6-3 Court decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell." Spielberg saw the similarities between the Nixon administration and the current Trump administration and knew that a re-telling of this story was perfect during the current political climate. In a time were the phrase ‘fake news’ is rife, it is important to take a look back at such historical events and how they were handled. So it is somewhat frustrating that the film doesn’t quite keep with the facts. The New York Times had published the Pentagon Papers before The Washington Post and had set the stage for legal battle that ended with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the newspaper in the the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713). Why the story is told from The Washington Post’s viewpoint, other than to include Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee, is anybodies guess. Spielberg was friends with the Bradlees’, so that may have had something to do with it, however it isn’t clear whether any of it was part of the original script or was part of the rewrites that took place ten weeks before filming. The fact remains however that two historical stories have been merged to tell one and that is often dangerous ground to tread – especially when making a point about the current levels of honesty within the White House. However, most of this can be swept aside somewhat, as the core of the film is relevant and timely. We only see Nixon from a distance in the film but his voice we hear are genuine recordings that say everything you need to hear. I don’t think you should just compare Trump’s administration though, I believe that every government since the Pentagon Papers has remembered the event and have taken precautions – indeed, I believe The Post shows the press in general at the peak of what they should be. Nearly every paper now has an agenda and is owned by someone with political connections who by and large, pull the political strings. Papers now form governments, rather than keep them accountable. The Post is great slice of Spielberg, a slightly toned-down thriller from the director but one that reminds those that knew of the scandal before and also makes clear for those that didn’t. It’s often a shame when you learn that younger generations aren’t aware or interested in such historical events but I personally find it more worrying when generations that lived through it have forgotten or just ignore them. It comes at a perfect time but I wonder if it could have had more of an impact. Meryl Streep is good as always but her character muddied the water somewhat for me. I don’t think her performance was exceptional or award worthy but then I think she is now nominated as a matter of habit. Tom Hanks was good, as were the supporting cast, but I don’t think anyone was stand out but then I think the film needed a strong ensemble, rather than a couple of big performances. One or two Streep scenes aside, the film is suitably calm and un-sensationalized. Many see it as being a bit dull and uncharacteristic of its director but I think the mood captured was perfect for the story. The story is huge and changed everything, the film explains this brilliantly, and if that isn’t understood by the end of the film than I’m afraid it isn’t the film that is at fault. I just wish it was 100% accurate, otherwise why not make a documentary. I loved the various nods to William Goldman’s All The President’s Men, I just hope that a younger audience will now be interested enough to look it up and those that have seen it will revisit it again soon.

The BFG

Dir: Steven Spielberg

2016

**

Roald Dahl's The BFG is quite a big book for my generation and indeed, every generation that has come since. I was in school when the book first came out and everybody read it and then read it again. Our teacher would read a few pages at the end of every school day and when it was finished she'd ask us to choose a new book and we would ask her to re-read The BFG again, which she did, several times, until the school year was out. It has since become one of those unique things, much more than just another children's classic but something rather special, it's now almost a vital part of youth and a magical part of childhood. Dahl's stories have been adapted before, some animated and some live-action, some good and some not so good but a live action version of The BFG pretty much always seemed impossible. The 1989 animated version featuring the voice of David Jason is very charming but it wasn't quite as magical as the book. 2016's BFG is actually twenty-five years in the making, with producers Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy beginning its development in 1991. Many writers were hired to work on a script and Robin Williams was at one point set to star as the BFG himself but nothing ever came of it because it never quite worked. They soon lost the right to the story and it wasn't until 2011, once the right sort of special effects had been developed, did Dreamworks pick up the rights and get Marshall and Kennedy back on board. The Lord of the Rings, Planet of the Apes and the Harry Potter movies had shown how motion capture animation could best be used and how far special effects in general had come, it was time for the mighty BFG to finally reach his full potential. Well, that was the idea anyway. The motion capture animation is all very clever, Mark Rylance sounds just as always thought The BFG would speak and young Ruby Barnhill was lovely as Sophie. I pretty much hated everything else about it. Much like with The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, Steven Spielberg and company just don't understand what made these books so magical for us. Spielberg grew up with adventure stories and sci-fi and was clearly passionate about such things, that's why Indiana Jones and Close Encounters are so great, but Tintin and The BFG just don't suit him. Both characters and stories are universal and universally loved but Tintin is very much a Belgium thing and the BFG is very much a British thing. This version of The BFG is another horrible example of Americans getting England wrong. It isn't just America that think England is Mary Poppins, Peter Pan and Harry Potter - to some extent, but this weird sort of nowhere place that tries to be London, is pretty far from reality. Fine, it is a fantasy film but there would be something rather lovely if they had tried to be a little more realistic with the visuals, particularly in the Tea with the Queen scene. So much of what I loved about the book was missing from the film, for me it was another case of just because you could, doesn't mean you should. Why Spielberg feels the need to turn every little simple act into a full blown action sequence is beyond me, it's actually getting quite tiresome and I don't think it has ever been necessary. It really does feel like he sticks an action sequence in places not where anything happens but where good quality story telling should be. I didn't feel the initial terror of the book's first chapter, I didn't feel the bond between Sophie and the BFG and the Queen's scene, my favorite from the book, was a huge let down for me, even though I did like Penelope Wilton's version of Liz II. I'm generally all for evolution of ideas and I'm not always against remakes or reinterpretations but I think this film is nothing more than a cash in of a popular book made by people who have no emotional connection to the original story. It should have been made with passion but it was not in my opinion. I was open minded about this film but now I've decided it's a Quentin Blake style animation for me or nothing. When you can replicate the feeling you get reading a book then an adaption is futile and that is what this film has become. 

Bridge of Spies

Dir: Steven Spielberg

2015

***

Bridge of Spies tells the intriguing story of James B. Donovan, an American lawyer who in 1957 was given the task of defending Rudolf Abel, a Russian Spy, found living and working in New York City. It's a compelling true story from the Cold War, full of unbelievable situations and thrilling repercussions, directed by the mighty Steven Spielberg, written by the brilliant Coen Brothers and starring Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance who won best supporting actor at a number of award ceremonies. It's got everything you could want from a Cold War political thriller, and yet, I was left feeling pretty underwhelmed. Tom Hanks' performance was good but I'm not sure he was the best choice of actor. Personally, I think the problem was that it was Tom Hanks in a Steven Spielberg film, rather than the best that he can be. Steven Spielberg films can almost be put into a genre of their own, they're always big films but there is always a Christmas card quality to them that doesn't always work. The direction is very striking, I just don't think it fit the story very well. There are far too many Spielbergisums for my liking, this distracts from the story and is becoming rather predictable from the director. An example. Tom Hanks' James B. Donovan sees people shot down trying to cross over the Berlin Wall from the window of a moving train. Later in the film, once he's back in the USA, he sees kids climbing over a fence in the back of someone's garden with pretty much the same composition. It's a great idea, both visually and as part of the bigger story but in Spielberg's hands it is forced and becomes somewhat of a tiresome exercise in forced emotional response, something that is a blight on Hollywood currently, created by the bearded one himself I'm afraid. Mark Rylance's performance was impressive but I'm not quite sure it was better than that of the other actors nominated in 2015. The sets were impressive but they looked a bit to new at certain times, it was also hard to tell if much of the background was CGI or not or if it just looked like it could be due to the Hallmark style hazy hue lens Spielberg seems to have adopted in his features. It may well be both but either way, I don't like it. The story should have been a noir full of contrast or a gritty life-like drama. Spielberg's big blockbuster treatment just doesn't fit the story, there is a lot to admire and indeed enjoy about the film, it's just that I believe that the story is so original it deserved to be handled with a less obvious approach.

The Sugarland Express

Dir: Steven Spielberg

1974

****

Based on real events, The Sugarland Express is the debut feature (to receive a cinema release) from Hollywood's most famous beard. Bizarrely, the real Clovis Michael Poplin was released from jail two weeks before he and his wife's infamous police chase and Spielberg wisely omitted this 'stranger than fiction' fact and gave viewers a road movie with brains. It's the Bonnie and Clyde of the police chase genre with only Smoky & the Bandit 2 exceeding it in terms of how many polices cars featured and eventually written-off. I'm afraid I found Goldie Hawn to be thoroughly irritating, although that's probably what her character called for. The young William Atherton gives a strong performance, one of his last innocent roles before becoming one of the 1980's most despicable (and much loved) villains. Michael Sacks played his part rather well and, although his bank manager will disagree, I've always thought it was a shame he crossed over to the dark-side of banking, rather than continue his acting career. However, it's my opinion that it is the mighty Ben Johnson who really steals the show in his supporting role as the wise and sympathetic Captain Harlin Tanner. The chase scenes are great fun and there is plenty of intrigue, suspense, comedy, tragedy and romance to keep everybody happy. Spielberg would define the blockbuster a couple of years later with his infamous hit Jaws, somewhat of a a remake of his made-for-TV feature Duel. Both Duel and Sugarland Express are great examples of the two sides to his work, the influences are clear, but both films show the beginning of a new chapter in film making. They're both rather brilliant too.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Dir: Steven Spielberg
1997
**
There is a lot I like about the The Lost World, the sequel to the brilliant Jurassic Park. The opening scene whereby a little girl get attacked was a bold move for what is essentially a family adventure film for starters. I was happy that my favorite character from the first film, Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum), returned and I really liked the supporting cast that featured many of my favorites such as Pete Postlethwaite, Vince Vaughn (at the time I was really into Swingers, I like him a hell of a lot less now), Peter Stormare and Julianna Moore. I love seeing the T-Rex rampaging the city and suburbs, I like the idea that the Island would be open to rich poachers as I think that that is probably exactly what would happen in real life, I liked the fact that one of the good guys got eaten for a change, I liked the effects and still think they're brilliant, I liked the way the Island had aged after it had been deserted and I like watching David Koepp getting creamed (over and over) and I like the way he is listed as 'Unlucky bastard' in the credits. However, the film is never as great as the sum of its parts. The first film is a hard act to follow, credit to Spielberg for wanting to make sure he didn't have someone else spoil the franchise and make another Jaws 2 (although I quite like Jaws 2) but The Lost World has little of the magic of the first film. Sometimes less is more, in fact Spielberg proved as much with Jaws and Jurassic Park, so I wonder why he forgot this in the sequel. There is also this ridiculous Hollywood idea that family films have to include children. This idea, and the inclusion of Ian Malcolm's stowaway daughter and unnecessary gymnast, whose only purpose it seems is to swing around on bars halfway through the film, really spoiled the film for me. It did nothing for the story, which was already lacking the punch and simplicity of the original. The first time I saw Jurassic Park in the cinema was a wonderful experience, the first time I saw The Lost World in the cinema is the first time I felt real disappointment, the 14 year old boy had become the 18 year old man and not everything was as good as it was anymore.

Jurassic Park
Dir: Steven Spielberg
1993
*****
Jurassic Park is probably the best popcorn summer blockbuster since Jaws, which was bought to us 18 years previous by the very same beard. It is Steven Spielberg doing what he does best with brilliant special effects that are still as good today as they were in 1993. I have very fond memories of going to see this on the day of its release. My best buddy got us tickets for a preview showing, making us the first people to see it in the cinemas in the UK and mightily chuffed about it we were too. The cinema was packed, the hype and anticipation for the film was immense and at no point were we left underwhelmed. The entire cinema laughed, gasped, screamed and cheered in unison, the first and last time I (or my buddy) have ever experienced to that level. It was a cinema experience that was like something out of a film and I honestly cherish it and wonder if it wasn't integral to me becoming a Cinephile. It's not a perfect film, far from it, there are mistakes a plenty (as there are in all of Spielberg's films) but it almost doesn't matter that a T-Rex couldn't possibly fit through a normal sized door, it didn't really bother me that computer hacking is a little bit more complicated than just just pressing Ctrl Alt Delete and as much as it did bother me that we were supposed to believe a 10 year old boy would know what a Brachiosaurus with a cold would look like, it didn't spoil the film for me one bit. I've seen it several times since and I still bristle with excitement when we see the wide shot of the Diplodocus go up on its hind legs to reach the top of the tree it's eating from, I'm still thrilled when the lawyer gets eaten by the T-Rex on the toilet and myself and my buddy quote the film at least once every time we meet up. It may well be a fluffed up version of the book but I don't care, it's a golden piece of cinema and I love it.

Munich
Dir: Steven Spielberg
2005
****
A brilliantly and beautifully shot film dealing with the Munich Olympic terrorist massacre of 1972. Spielberg has never been the most unbiased storyteller when it comes to his historical films, never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that but his morals have always been in the right place and he tells the truths that matter. Here, I feel he finds perfect balance and shows that, not only are things rarely black and White but that next to no one is innocent and everyone suffers because of it. This is one of his best films to date and has redeemed him in my eyes somewhat after as many misses as hits. The cast are also, on top form especially Eric Bana in what maybe a career best (if you can top Chopper that is).

Twilight Zone: The Movie
Dir: John Landis, Joe Dante, Steven Spielberg, George Miller
1983
***
Twilight Zone: The Movie is film that is probably remembered for all the wrong reasons, or at least not for the reasons the makers would have hoped for. Twilight Zone: The Movie is compiled by 4 different stories, the same format used in the original TV series. First off, I always found the original TV series to be far more creepy, certainly more terrifying when watching them as a small child. It's future shock film/alternative story telling at it's best. The film really is a 80s homage and there is nothing quite like an 80s homage (there's nothing quite like an 80s version of anything really, it's probably the most iconic decade when it comes to film). Joe Dante's film is not great. It's more along the lines of Explorers rather than than Inner Space. George Miller's film is pretty good but watching John Lithgow scream and sweat in equal measure for 20 minutes straight becomes quite tiresome. Steven Spielberg's film is pure schmaltz, if it weren't for the presents of the ever lovable Scatman Crothers I would have thought they'd of axed it, Spielberg could have done much better at the time. The first film and by far the best is the one everyone remembers. John Landis's entry starred Vic Morrow as a bigot who is transported back to Nazi Germany, the Vietnam war and to a Klu Klux Klan hanging. It's the sort of story that made Twilight Zone so popular in the first place. However, it is unforgivable that John Landis was not held responsible for the accidental death of Morrow and the two child actors who died in the filming. He has always been remorseful on the subject, being quoted as saying "I live with the "Twilight Zone" every day of my life." in a 1991 interview but he still should have been charged. Half of me thinks that the film should never had been aired but at the same time it would have been a shame as Vic Morrow's last performance is great and his is a great film. It's a delicate situation really, it's an okay film but those 3 horrific deaths will always linger alongside it and I can't help but think it's probably a film that everyone involved with would like to forget in many respects.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
Dir: Steven Spielberg
2011
**
Tintin was always going to be a tough film to make. It's got a huge global fan-base, which I myself am a member. I grew up reading and loving all of the Tintin books and I have kept every single one in mint condition (next to my Asterix collection). So it was a relief to see that it wasn't a complete mess but to be honest I am disappointed. The computer animation is very impressive and all, I just don't know if it suited the original animation style - it only felt right when the characters were in profile. I think it was all a little too heavy handed, not just the animation but the action too. The characters aren't exactly as I'd imagined them as a child either and why they couldn't have just stuck to one story is beyond me. It just didn't feel like the work of someone who was a particularly big Tintin fan, I know films have got to make money but I think Steven Spielberg is rapidly loosing his magic and getting lazy. I really wanted to love it but I'm afraid it left me quite empty.

War Horse
Dir: Steven Spielberg
2011
***
I'm a huge fan of Michael Morpurgo's War Horse having read it only a few years after it was first published, it's a cherished childhood memory but I'm probably a bigger fan of the theatre production. I love the way the story is brought to life using puppetry (for want of a better word as it is a little more advanced than puppetry) and I reccomened anyone who can to go and see it. I'm not completely surprised by what Spielberg has done with his adaptation, if I'm being honest I thought it would be worse. The assembled cast is impressive, a who's who of contemporary British talent, apart from Jeremy Irvine who can't act, but everyone else does a fine job. It's pretty predictable that Spielberg went to Richard Curtis for the screenplay, seeing as he is the only British screen writer in existence (*Groans*). The story is there, it's just that it's needlessly sugarcoated to the point of sickly, it's so heavy handed it's hard to take seriously. The CGI and blue-screen are also overused, it's funny really that he seems to be taking advantage of the recent success of the theatre production but is also showing why it is superior. The bearded one is getting old and tired and really needs to come up with a good idea of his own instead of pillaging other people's.

Empire of the Sun
Dir: Steven Spielberg
1987
***
I admired Steven Spielberg's change in direction, albeit temporary but I don't think he quite achieved the desired finish I think the story deserved. If it weren't for the brilliant performance from the young Christian Bale this would be a long forgotten film, maybe unfairly so but I don't think being just good is good enough for such a great story. David Lean originally wanted to direct, now that I would have liked to have seen! J.G. Ballard had a cameo, so I guess he approved of the whole thing.

Lincoln
Dir: Steven Spielberg
2012
***
Being English and therefore having a British education, I know very little about Lincoln other than he freed the slaves, wore a top hat and got shot in a theatre. So I was happy for the education this film bought. However, after reading up about Lincoln (I always read up about the film I've just watched) I found there to be loads of mistakes throughout. Sometimes these mistakes don't matter but when they are on purpose in order to make the story more entertaining, I don't respect them. Fact or fiction though, it was still an education and the performances, particularly Daniel Day-Lewis's, were brilliant. I enjoyed it and actually to be fair, it was fairly light on the schmaltz.

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Dir: Steven Spielberg
1982
*****
This is one of those film where I don't need to tell you how great it is, you already know. It's a classic and a childhood favorite of mine, it's everyone's childhood favorite, even if you were an adult when it came out, it's still somehow your childhood favorite. I have a very happy memory of going to see this when it came out at Putney Odeon with my sister and my grandmother. We all cried but pretended to each other that we hadn't.

Always
Dir: Steven Spielberg
1989
**
You can see where Spielberg got his inspiration from, classics like A Guy named Joe and A Matter Of Life And Death spring to mind. Great films probably ready for a reprisal at that point but unfortunately it is Spielberg's heavy handedness that really takes away a lot of the enjoyment. It's so sentimental and sickly sweet that you actually give up caring. It's as if the aim to entertain was forgotten in the ambition to pull at the heartstrings, I wonder if this was intended as Oscar fodder following The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun missing out both times. The effects are good and the characters are likable but the script and story are just pap. Spielberg hasn't quite learn't his lesson I feel.

War of the Worlds
Dir: Steven Spielberg
2005
**
The first album I ever bought was Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds. The first TV program I remember ever being thrilled and scared witless by was The Tripods (A great little low budget BBC drama series that aired between 84-85 that was heavily inspired by The War of the Worlds). I used to love watching the 1953 version as a child (but always from behind the sofa) and I also loved H.G. Wells's book and I mean love! Apprehensive I may have been but an updated adaptation of the story was okay by me. I honestly thought that Steven Spielberg would have been perfect as director but how wrong I was. They had to update the story, I knew this, but the changes are far too big. The SFX are amazing, they really are, but the story is terrible in comparison. The source material has been completely misunderstood and while this was always going to be a blockbuster, it shouldn't have been treated as one, it should have been an intelligent drama with spectacular SFX rather than all out action. The original book was written as a reaction to Wells's feeling (mainly those of shame) towards Colonialism and imperialism, something the British empire was aggressively pursuing at the time. This of course needed to be updated but because 9/11 had only recently happened, the ideas took a very different road. The references to 9/11 are notable as is the patriotic view-point of the hurt and angry American. This only makes the adaptation even more distorted from the source material, apart from the name it bares little resemblance and that is somewhat of a pet hate for me and a big reason as to why I disliked it. I don't like the religious message of the 50's version and I can't say I feel much better about this 'patriotic' version. Also, the idea that they are in the ground and have been for many centuries is a fairly ridiculous idea and I'm shocked it made it into the final script.