Movie Review: "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" (2001)

Image Source

Movie: "A.I. Artificial Intelligence"

Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 2001
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 26 minutes

A robotics company has built an android child called David. It is said that it has the capability of love. David is a prototype and is given to a family whose son is in a medically induced coma. David bonds with his human mother, but when her biological son suddenly recovers, it causes strife in the house. As she increasingly fears for her son's safety, she abandons David in the forest and leaves him to fend for himself alone.

A passion project over 20 years in the making, "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is directed by Steven Spielberg. It is based on the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss. This film was originally brought into conception by Stanley Kubrick in the late 1970's. Steven Spielberg was asked to direct the movie in 1985, but had a very busy schedule and convinced Kubrick to shoot it himself. The project got stuck in development hell, waiting for the day when technology would catch up with Kubrick's vision. It didn't officially start filming until August 2000 with Spielberg back at the helm more than a year after Kubrick's death in 1999.

This film stars Haley Joel Osment as David, an artificially intelligent android designed to unconditionally love whatever person it imprints on forever. The Swinton family has faced a horrible tragedy. Their young son is in a coma, and they have had to endure the possibility that he may never recover. Henry Swinton (Sam Robards) works for Cybertronics, and the company has given him a prototype 'David' to test out at home. His wife Monica (Frances O'Connor) eventually imprints David to herself, causing him to love her unconditionally. A short time later, Monica and Henry's biological son Martin (Jake Thomas) comes out of his coma and is returned home. This causes a sibling rivalry between the two boys who are constantly at odds and fighting over Monica's affection. Fearing for her son's safety, Monica goes to return David to Cybertronics where he will be destroyed, but can't bring herself to do it. Instead, she releases David into 'the wild' to fend for himself. Due to his imprinting, David's only hope is to one day be reunited with the human mother he loves so dearly.

"A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is probably best described as a cyberpunk version of "Pinocchio." David strives to be a real boy and longs to be loved by his human mother. The film asks philosophical questions about humanity and what it means to be alive. All of the artificially intelligent beings are designed with a certain purpose, but David's sole purpose is to love. As such, he can feel hatred and jealousy. This is by far the most interesting aspect of the film, and Haley Joel Osment gives a tremendous performance in this role. The movie is also visually stunning with special effects that look every bit as good today as the day they were shot, which is quite impressive considering it was made in 2001. Keep in mind, this is the same year "The Mummy Returns" was released and had a ridiculously gigantic CGI Dwayne "The Digital Scorpion" Johnson, which was dated before it ever hit theaters. Some movies that are released now don't look nearly as striking as "A.I." did almost two decades ago.

"A.I. Artificial Intelligence" is a little slow to start, but it gets really interesting in the second act. In fact, it becomes a borderline great movie as the third act reaches its climax. It would have remained great if it weren't for its happy, sappy ending during the coda. In some ways, this ending takes away David's humanity and shows a lack of capacity to grow beyond his initial programming. We may feel differently if and when we watch this in the future, but as it stands right now, we found the ending to overly schmaltzy despite its stunning visuals. While the acting, directing and cinematography are all very well done, the movie's final moments add a major flaw in an otherwise solid movie.

**CLICK HERE to buy "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" on Blu-ray!**
**CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Fire Stick and support lololovesfilms.com!**

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 6.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~7.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~73%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Please be sure to check out Lolo Loves Films all over the internet!

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Snapchat | Twitter

Movie Review: "The Post" (2017)

Image Source

Movie: "The Post"

Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 2017
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hour, 55 minutes

The story of the Washington Post and the decision of its owner Kay Graham to defy a court order and publish the Pentagon Papers.

The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Without them, the United States would not be the United States. Right at the top of the list embedded in the First Amendment is the freedom of the press. You cannot have a democracy without it. Throughout the years, there have been challenges to what that 'freedom of the press' truly means. One such moment was in the 1970's after the New York Times published what was known as the 'Pentagon Papers.' The federal government sued The New York Times and got an injunction on publishing any more of the documents, claiming the release of more of the papers would be damaging to the ongoing military effort in Vietnam. "The Post" is the story of what happened next. The film is directed by legendary director Steven Spielberg and stars legendary actors Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks. Streep plays Kay Graham, who was the owner of the Washington Post which, at the time, was a relatively small family-owned paper about to have its initial public offering. Hanks plays Ben Bradlee, the editor-in-chief of the Washington Post. Joining them are an ensemble cast including Sarah Paulson, Bob Odenkirk, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, Allison Brie, David Cross, Carrie Coon, and Jesse Plemons, just to name a few.

"The Post" tackles the importance of a free press and the cost of what it would mean to the American people if those in power ever tried to stifle it. It was a watershed moment in our country, one everyone should learn about from now until the end of time. Overall, this film is a very well shot historical drama that is very Steven Spielberg in its style and overall feel. It falls right in line with the movies he has made in the recent past with films like "Lincoln," "Amistad," or "Bridge of Spies." Spielberg has a keen attention to detail. Everything in this film looks very 1970's, which is something that can't always be said for period piece movies.

Meryl Streep is wonderful as Kay Graham, a woman who had to change her way of thinking in order to attack the problem presented to her. Her character starts out taking a back seat to the men around her. She plays the socialite role admirably but doesn't seem like the boss of a major publication in the beginning. Even when men speak politics after dinner, she leaves the room with the rest of the women to attend to less important gossip-type talk. At one point, Kay finds her strength and listens to her heart in order to do what is right in spite of the advice of the men around her. Streep's portrayal is very nuanced and subtle but oh so powerful at the same time. There is a specific scene towards the end of the movie that left us in awe of Streep's raw talent yet again. It is acted so well, in fact, that I didn't realize I was crying until her scene ended. Tom Hanks delivers another fine performance as Ben Bradlee but uses a gravelly vocal tone that felt a bit distracting to us. Though he does have a few shining moments, Hanks definitely takes a back seat to Streep in this instance. Other notable performances include Bradley Whitford's disagreeable portrayal of Arthur Parsons, Tracy Letts' imitation of the supportive yet cautious Fritz Beebe, Bob Odenkirk's thorough but slightly paranoid depiction as journalist Ben Bagdikian, and Sarah Paulson's powerhouse performance as Ben Bradlee's "not just another wife on the telephone" Tony. That being said, the movie does take a bit of time to really get going. The first half of the film isn't nearly as engaging as the second half despite its meticulous inclusion of the history surrounding the leadup to the publication of the Pentagon Papers. In the end, we do believe most viewers will be satisfied watching "The Post" due to Meryl Streep's superb acting, Steven Spielberg's great visuals, the movie's powerful message, and its stellar, tension-filled finale.

**CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Fire TV Stick!**
**CLICK HERE to try AUDIBLE.com and get 2 FREE AUDIO BOOKS!**

My Rating: 7.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 7.5/10
IMDB's Rating: ~7.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~88%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

Movie Review: "The Terminal" (2004)

Image Source

Movie: "The Terminal"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 2004
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 8 minutes

While Viktor Navorski was flying from his home country of Krakozhia to New York City, a military coup overthrew his country's government. Upon arriving in New York, he learns that his visa has been voided and his passport has been revoked. This means he can't enter New York nor can he return home. Because of this, he is forced to take up residence in the international terminal of the JFK airport for an indefinite amount of time.

Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal" is inspired by true events in the loosest sense of the phrase. It is an entirely fictional story inspired by an actual person: an Iranian refugee named Mehran Karimi Nasseri, who was stuck living in the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris for about 16 years. This story is not about Mehran Karimi Nasseri, but a fictional man named Viktor Navorski, played by Tom Hanks, who comes from the fictional country of Krakozhia. While traveling from Krakozhia to New York, a coup happens in his country, causing his passport and visa to be revoked. This means he is unable to get into New York and he also can't go home to Krakozhia. Now, Viktor is forced to live in the international terminal of the airport until the war is over and America recognizes his country's new government.

For the most part, "The Terminal" is an easily digestible, sometimes interesting, crowd-pleasing movie that can be both charming and fun. Tom Hanks is as likable as ever even with his nondescript eastern European accent. We can't call his accent inaccurate since Krakozhia doesn't actually exist. An accurate Krakozhian accent could have sounded like Nien Nunb from "Return of the Jedi" for all we know. There are many moments of humor that come from Viktor's forced fish out of water scenario as he teaches himself English, keeps himself fed, and eventually, somehow, finds employment in the airport. There are a couple of romantic storylines thrown in as well, the first being between Zoe Saldana's Delores Torres and Diego Luna's Enrique Cruz. The second romance is between Viktor and a flight attendant named Amelia Warren, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who travels to and from the JFK airport often. These love stories are the weakest parts of the narrative. They are overly schmaltzy and syrupy sweet, a Spielbergian signature style, which may put some viewers off because they feel so totally out of the realm of possibility. Also, though we adore Stanley Tucci, his character Frank Dixon seems a little too vindictive at times. It's obvious he acts the way he does just so the story can have a villain beyond the bureaucracy of American red tape. Another downfall of this film is its pacing. It can be a bit slow at times and the story starts to drag towards the middle of the second act.

Overall, "The Terminal" is a simple but enjoyable feel-good movie that we think is worth checking out despite its faults. It may not be Steven Spielberg's best movie, but it's certainly not his worst.

**CLICK HERE for a FREE TRIAL of HBO!**

**TRY AUDIBLE.com and get 2 FREE AUDIO BOOKS!**

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 60%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" (1982)

Image Source

Movie: "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial"
Year Nominated: 1983
Director: Steven Spielberg
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 55 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

An alien who gets accidentally left behind by his family befriends a young boy who helps him contact his ship so he can get back home. 

"E.T. the Extra Terrestrial" is directed by the legendary Steven Spielberg. It is written by the late Melissa Mathison, who also wrote films like "The Indian in the Cupboard," and most recently, "The BFG." It stars Henry Thomas as a young boy named Elliot, who has been acting out ever since his father left their family and started shaking up with another lady. One night while getting a pizza from the delivery man, Elliot happens upon a strange creature and promptly freaks out. Naturally, no one believes the story of what he saw. After waiting up for this being the next night, Elliot comes to find out what he saw was real and eventually befriends an alien, which he names "E.T." E.T. has been stranded on Earth by his family and now must find a way to get back home with the help of Elliot, his older brother Michael, played by Robert McNaughton, and their little sister Gertie, played by a very young Drew Barrymore.

"E.T." is a classic in our eyes, but it is especially one of BigJ's favorites. Going to see this movie is one of his earliest theater-going memories, and considering he was only three when it came out, that's saying something. It is a movie that has really stuck with us over the years, one we repeatedly watch as if we were little kids viewing it for the first time. "E.T." is a heartwarming tale of getting over your fears and finding friendship, connection, and love from the most unexpected places. We have always liked the way Steven Spielberg has handled family filmmaking as he never seems to talk down to his audience or shy away from emotional and sometimes more mature themes.

This is a film with really wonderful visuals and special effects, especially for its time. Carlo Rambaldi and his team were able to create a wonderful creature and really breathe life into it. E.T. looks and feels real, maybe even more so than some of the CGI characters we see in the movies of today. Rambaldi, along with Dennis Murren and Kenneth Smith, took home the much deserved Oscar for Best Visual effects for their efforts here. Speaking of Academy Awards, "E.T." wound up being nominated for 9 Oscars total, including best picture, and took home four: one for the aforementioned visual effects, two for sound, and another for the now iconic score by John Williams. If you ever need the perfect example of how a score can aid a film in more ways than you could ever imagine, listen to the score for "E.T." Dear god, what an immersive musical experience!

"E.T." is a film we believe can truly transcend generations, one that can be enjoyed just as much today as it was the day it was released. We know we love it just as much now as we did then, and we now have an even deeper, greater appreciation for it as adults. Please, see this film and show it to your friends, your kids, your nieces and nephews, your parents, anyone you can. It is a truly spectacular piece of filmmaking.

**CLICK HERE to buy this movie on DVD!**
**CLICK HERE to buy this movie on Blu-ray!**

**CLICK HERE to buy and/or rent this movie on Amazon!**
**CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Echo Dot!**
***CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Fire Stick!**

My Rating: 10/10
BigJ's Rating: 10/10
MDB's Rating: 7.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 98%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

**To review this movie for yourself on one of the best websites on the internet, visit filmfed.com!*

~~~~~~~~~~
Last Oscar season, we were watching: "42nd Street"

Two Oscar seasons ago, we were watching: "The Maltese Falcon"

Movie Review: "Saving Private Ryan" (1998)

Image Source

Movie: "Saving Private Ryan"
Year Nominated: 1999
Director: Steven Spielberg
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 49 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

After the death of all three of his brothers, a group of soldiers are ordered to locate Private James F. Ryan (Matt Damon) so he can be returned home.

"Saving Private Ryan" is directed by Steven Spielberg and is written by Robert Rodat. This is a war epic in every sense of the word featuring quite the cast, including Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Adam Goldberg, Giovanni Ribisi, Vin Diesel, and Jeremy Davies. They make up the main troupe of soldiers under the command of Captain Miller, played by Hanks, on the mission to find and save Private Ryan, played by Damon. Ryan has just lost all three of his brothers in the war, and rather than risking the life of Mrs. Ryan's last living and youngest son James, the army decides to send him home, even though the mission is realistically risking the lives of the other men to try and find this needle in a German haystack.

This is an extremely violent and bloody film, which is not uncommon in modern war pictures. The opening scene as the American soldiers storm the beaches at Normandy is downright brutal and one of the darkest, bloodiest opening moments of a film we've ever seen. We see on full display the carnage of war as the camera pans over soldiers without limbs, some who have had their faces blown off, others bursting into flames, and some trying to hold their intestines in their body. Though this scene is difficult to watch, as a whole, this is beautifully directed and very well paced for a film pushing three hours long. We would expect no less from legendary director Steven Spielberg.

The film wound up being nominated for 11 Oscars in total and actually winning five, including best director for Spielberg's glorious efforts. Another one of those five was a much deserved Oscar for cinematography. The visuals are absolutely stunning, even in their vicious depictions of combat. In the grandiose scale of this war and its epic battles, what "Saving Private Ryan" is really all about is the characters and how eight men risked their lives to save one who had lost almost all of his family to serve his country, a questionable proposition to say the least and one that is debated constantly throughout the film. We are treated to a great ensemble performance from the principle group led by the always fantastic Tom Hanks.

This is definitely one of the best war pictures out there and one that is most certainly worth seeing for its superior story, visuals, acting, and directing.

**CLICK HERE to buy this movie on DVD!**
**CLICK HERE to buy this movie on Blu-ray!**

**CLICK HERE to buy and/or rent this movie on Amazon!**
**CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Echo Dot!**
***CLICK HERE to buy an Amazon Fire Stick!**

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 9/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 93%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

**To review this movie for yourself on one of the best websites on the internet, visit filmfed.com!*

~~~~~~~~~~
Last Oscar season, we were watching: "Love is a Many-Splendored Thing"

Two Oscar seasons ago, we were watching: "Babe"

Movie Review: "The BFG" (2016)

Movie: "The BFG"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 57 minutes

Image Source

While up late one night at the orphanage, a young girl named Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) hears a noise outside her bedroom window and sees a giant (Mark Rylance). Fearing his existence might become known, this giant snatches Sophie and takes her to Giant Country. Though he is a Big Friendly Giant, or BFG for short, the other giants who live in Giant Country are not. Despite the fact that the BFG and Sophie are becoming friends, he must face the constant threat of her being eaten by the other giants, unless they can devise a plan to stop them.

Legendary director Steven Spielberg brings audiences his first family film in five years with his adaptation of Roald Dahl's "The BFG." It stars Mark Rylance as the titular BFG and newcomer Ruby Barnhill as Sophie in her first feature film debut. This is a sweet tale about the friendship between a giant as old as time itself, and a young, wide-eyed orphan girl. Both of these characters are outcasts among their peers. Sophie isn't exactly well liked at the orphanage where she resides and is a bit of an oddball, and BFG, though huge in stature, is a runt compared to the other giants in Giant Country. Also, unlike the other giants, who survive by eating children, the BFG refuses to do so and primarily lives on the disgusting vegetable known as the snozzcumber. These two outcasts find a kinship with one another, and a kind of spiritual connection as well. Much of "The BFG" focuses on these two characters forming this bond, even in the face of great adversity and though the odds are stacked against them.

We'd be remiss if we didn't mention how fantastic the acting sells this lovely friendship. Newcomer Ruby Barnhill is absolutely adorable, so much so that it almost hurts. She does a tremendous, wonderful job giving a convincing performance as Sophie, especially considering this is her first feature film performance and that she is working within a mostly digital environment. Mark Rylance is nothing short of brilliant as the BFG. Rylance has a way of speaking and delivering his lines that conveys this giant's gentle spirit magnificently, though we do wonder if really little kids will have a hard time comprehending The BFG's jumbled speech, though we personally think it's endearing and adds to his character. He has absolutely kills it in his efforts with Spielberg, and this is one of our favorite performances to date this year. His portrayal really makes us wonder when the hell Hollywood and the like will start to recognize an actor's motion-capture performance during award season. Rylance is giving a performance, just one where he's covered in little tiny dots and makeup that gets projected digitally, and he is able to emote better through his motion-capture than most people are in their live action performances. And speaking of that digital makeup, holy cow, it is so ridiculously good. If you've followed us for any length of time, you'll know we're often not fond of movies that are overly digital. Between this and "The Jungle Book" earlier this year, Disney has set itself apart as the master of the digital world. The BFG himself, as well as the other giants, look breathtakingly spectacular, as do the sets and new, created environments, filled with trees and streams and mountains and icky snozzcumbers.

BigJ and I found ourselves completely immersed in this fantasy universe, able to see exactly what Spielberg wanted to deliver to his audience: a wondrous, breathtaking land of giants and dreams. There was never a time while watching this movie where we felt things would have been better if they had been executed with practical effects because the digital ones are just so convincing. It just goes to show that the core problem with most modern tales is not the CGI, but rather, what level of craftsmanship a director is willing to accept in their final product. Sure, this particular film has an extravagant budget for a children's story, but we think it shows in the final product that it was worth it to create a world so brimming with light and color and fantasy. Finally, John Williams' new score is transcendent. Listening to one of the greatest composers of all time while simultaneously watching one of the best directors of all time come together to produce this final product is something truly magical.

Steven Spielberg might always make films which end happily, but honestly, we don't care. There are plenty of other directors out there who don't, and it's nice to see a genuine story that makes you feel happy and in awe of this land, these characters, and the kinship he helped bring to life. We left the theater beaming with joy at "The BFG" and its touching, heartfelt family adventure about an unlikely friendship with a bit of Roald Dahl's dark and serious undertones.

My Rating: 8.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: ~7.3/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~72%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Kindergarten Cop"

Movie Review: "Amistad" (1997)

Image Source

Movie: "Amistad"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 1997
Rating: R
Running Time: 2 hours, 35 minutes

Aboard the Spanish ship La Amistad, a group of enslaved people break free from their restraints and kill those aboard with the exception of two men. The freed slaves, led by Cinque (Djimon Hounsou), hope the two men will sail them back to Africa. However, the men steer the ship towards the United States, where it, and they, are recaptured by American sailors. Now, a trial must be held regarding what to do with the ship's cargo and to determine who, if anyone, has a right to owning this group of people.

Steven Spielberg's "Amistad" is based on a true story and its corresponding court case. Of course, like most of Hollywood's true stories, some of the facts are fudged, including the case's historical significance in the American abolitionist movement. However, this doesn't necessarily stop it from being an entertaining or inspiring film. Spielberg is at his best when it comes to camerawork and imagery. After all, you don't get to being one of the best, most well known directors of all time for having shoddy camerawork. The film opens with a mutiny scene, which quickly and violently sets the intensity level very high early in the movie. Djimon Hounsou plays Cinque, a Mende tribesman who was captured from his home in West Africa and sold into slavery. He and many others were sold to a pair of Cuban traders who were transporting them aboard the Spanish ship La Amistad to Cuba. Cinque is the one who leads a group of slaves on an uprising, overtaking the ship and attempting to get it back to Africa.

Unfortunately, the two men that were kept alive to steer the ship have sailed to the United States instead, where the slaves are immediately recaptured. A trial must be held about what to do with them, and their very freedom hangs in the balance. The ship eventually winds up in the hands of the United States government, and from there, the plot settles into a standard trial affair. The major players in the trial scene are Roger Sherman Baldwin, played by Matthew McConaughey, who is a property attorney speaking on the behalf of the enslaved Africans; prosecutor Holabird, played by Pete Postlethwaite, who is representing the government; and eventually, John Quincy Adams, played by Anthony Hopkins, who received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of the former president turned lawyer. All of these men give relatively good performances, though the cast never fully comes together like we would have hoped. By far, Djimon Hounsou gives the best performance in the film. Hounsou was sadly overlooked during awards season. The amount of painstaking work he had to put into this film is visible from the second he appears on screen. He gives a truly stellar performance.

The trial itself is almost always compelling as it is actually a property dispute. We appreciate the questions raised by this case, essentially boiling down to what defines a person, what defines property, and what it means to be free. Once the trial starts, the most impactful, heartbreaking moment is a flashback in which Cinque talks about his capture and enslavement, a practice that had been outlawed by the time the events in the movie take place. This whole section, showing the terrible conditions endured on the slave ship, is extremely difficult to watch. There are a few inspirational speeches and some emotionally grabbing moments towards the middle and end of it as well, though "Amistad" never really feels as moving and poignant as some of the other films of this caliber. Overall, this is a well acted and technically proficient film with an interesting, important subject that begs to be seen by history buffs and Spielberg aficionados alike. The way Spielberg plays with the light, adjusting it when needed to make his scenes the best they can be, is truly something spectacular. Unfortunately, though mostly gripping, it never picks up the pace and feels at least 45 minutes too long.

My Rating: 7/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.2/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 76%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Jurassic World"

Movie Review: "Hook" (1991)

Image Source

Movie: "Hook"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 1991
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2 hours, 22 minutes

After his children are kidnapped by Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman), Peter Banning (Robin Williams) is taken to Neverland by a fairy named Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts). Peter is informed that he is actually Peter Pan, and now he must remember all of the skills that he has forgotten in order to combat Hook and rescue his kids.

The 30%  Rotten Tomatoes rating for this movie is sheer and utter blasphemy.

Steven Spielberg's "Hook" is a fantasy adventure film that re-imagines the "Peter Pan" story. This is really more of a sequel that tells the story of what happened to Peter Pan after the events of J.M. Barrie's famous play. In the world of "Hook," the Barrie plays and books exist, they just approach it from a different angle. According to this film, these were true stories, and J.M. Barrie was actually Wendy's neighbor and simply recorded her experiences to put in his works. Peter Pan, now all grown up, has kids of his own and goes by the name Peter Banning, played by the incomparable Robin Williams. Peter is an extremely busy business attorney who often ignores his family because he has so much going on at once. While visiting England to honor Wendy, played by Maggie Smith, Captain Hook, played by Dustin Hoffman, kidnaps Peter's kids and takes them to Neverland. Tinkerbell, played by Julia Roberts, brings the now grown-up Peter back to Neverland and teaches him to "Be the Pan" so he can fight Hook and get his children back.

Steven Spielberg delivers a very playful, often extremely silly film in "Hook," one that is undoubtedly made for children rather than adults. It is exceedingly busy and colorful with solid visuals that are expertly directed by Spielberg. We have a hunch that if you didn't grow up with this movie, you might not appreciate it to its full potential like we do. The movie has a very 90's feel to it, especially the camp of the Lost Boys, which we'd imagine would have been the dream for some adolescent children way back when. Spielberg has put his Lost Boys in a place where they are free to ride skateboards on half pipes and shoot basketball while they chase down Peter, mixing modern and commonplace occurrences with the vintage sea attire and mannerisms of the pirates. Some viewers might find scenes like this, as well as dialogue full of nonsensical catch phrases like "bangerang" a little too goofy, especially when viewed through a modern lens. Like we said, since we grew up with this film coursing through our veins and have basically turned into childlike adults, we don't mind it at all.

We really appreciate the comedic sensibility "Hook" offers to go along with its fun, heartfelt adventure. We wholeheartedly enjoy this movie and think it is great. Dustin Hoffman does an excellent job as Hook, such a great job, in fact, that he is almost unrecognizable, and we say this knowing I didn't even realize it was him until about 10 years ago. Hook and Smee, played perfectly by Bob Hoskins, have a great dynamic with each other and we find them quite humorous when they are together. Hoffman as Hook often outshines Hoskins as Smee, but we think he gives a fantastic performance as well. Of course, the real star of the show is the late, great Robin Williams as Peter Banning/Pan. In the beginning, he is the distracted, serious, and meek Peter Banning, but slowly but surely grows into the confident, outrageous, childlike Pan. Watching his performance here for the first time since his passing brought me to tears. We just cannot believe such a wonderful actor has come and gone. At least his performance will live on forever. There is also a very hard-to-spot cameo from Glenn Close, which can be extremely surprising when you finally realize who she plays.

We always have a good time watching "Hook," though we may be a little biased considering we already knew we loved it going into it. We know it appeals to us on a nostalgic level, but there's no way this film should be as low as it is on any review site. The most shocking thing about this movie is that it's now 25 years old. Just like Peter Pan, how time flies.

My Rating: 8.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 30%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Inside Out"

Movie Review: "Always" (1989)

Image Source

Movie: "Always"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 1989
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2 hours, 2 minutes

After a fire fighting pilot named Pete (Richard Dreyfuss) dies in the line of duty, he returns to Earth as an invisible guardian angel. He is meant to guide a young pilot named Ted (Brad Johnson) through his troubles, but when this young pilot falls for Pete's old girlfriend Dorinda (Holly Hunter), Pete has to make a choice: he can either do what's best for him, or do what's best for Dorinda and Ted.

Directed by Steve Spielberg, "Always" is a modernized remake of the film "A Guy Named Joe." It stars Richard Dreyfuss as Pete, a daredevil fire fighting pilot who often takes unnecessary risks to get the job done. He works with his best friend Al, played by one of our favorites John Goodman, and his girlfriend Dorinda, played by Holly Hunter. After agreeing to stop taking risks and to finally settle down with Dorinda, Pete goes out for one more mission, where he dies saving Al's life. Though it sounds a little cliche, this entire scene is extremely effective in the manner in which it is handled. It's an impactful, necessary, tasteful scene, even though someone is perishing. Now, a dead Pete has become a guardian angel and is meant to guide a young, up-and-coming pilot named Ted, played by Brad Johnson, through his training and his life. In turn, Ted is guided by Hap, played by Audrey Hepburn in her final on-screen appearance. The entire thing becomes this existential love triangle when Ted falls for Dorinda, who is still in the process getting over the loss of Pete, but also starts to have feelings for Ted, too. Pete must come to a decision about whether or not he can set aside his own feelings and let Dorinda move on with her life.

"Always" is a different type of romance to say the least, though it could be compared to something like "Ghost" in terms of plot. This is a film about moving on with your life after a loved one dies, something that can and will be very difficult for some. This is a movie made by one of the greatest modern day directors, Steven Spielberg, and boasts an excellent cast featuring Dreyfuss, Hunter, Goodman, and even Audrey Hepburn, all of whom act the hell out of their parts. Some might see this as an odd choice for Spielberg. Unfortunately, not a lot of his signature directorial style can be found here. We can't help but feel this film is missing something. There is a certain amount of emotional depth lacking within its story, even for such an emotionally charged subject matter. It more of a ghost tale than an honest love story, and a sappy one at that. Maybe it's because we never fully bought in to the relationship between Dorinda and Ted. If we're being honest, we think Dorinda seemed to have much better chemistry with both Al and Pete than she did with Ted. For some reason, Ted, who is portrayed as a handsome heartthrob, seems better suited with the bumbling mechanic Rachel, played by Marg Helgenberger, than with Dorinda.

All this being said, "Always" does have an impressive cast and is still very watchable despite the lack of a connection between characters later on in the movie. There are a few light, humorous moments despite being billed as a drama, though when the drama comes, it comes in droves and is filled to the brim with sap and cheese. We would consider this one of Spielberg's most forgettable films and nothing that happens within its 122 minute run time is all that memorable long term.

My Rating: 6.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 6/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 64%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?
~~~~~~~~~~

One year ago, we were watching: "Inventing the Abbotts"

Movie Review: "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011)

Image Source

Movie: "The Adventures of Tintin"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 2011
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 47 minutes

At a flea market, a journalist named Tintin (Jamie Bell) buys a model ship of a vessel known as the Unicorn. He becomes the target of a dangerous man named Sakharine (Daniel Craig), who wants the ship for himself. Little does Tintin know, the ship contains a clue to the location of a sunken fortune, which is about to send him on an unexpected adventure across the globe.

"The Adventures of Tintin" is directed by Steven Spielberg and is based on the comic book series of the same name. It is the first and only animated feature to date directed by Spielberg. It revolves around a journalist named Tintin, voiced by Jamie Bell, who unwittingly gets entangled in a dangerous adventure when he buys a model ship at a flea market. Tintin is just a ship enthusiast, but what he doesn't know is that his latest purchase contains a clue that could lead to a long lost sunken treasure. A rather sinister man named Sakharine, voiced by Daniel Craig, is after the treasure and will stop at nothing to get it, even if it means killing those who get in his way. Tintin eventually joins forces with a drunken sea captain named Haddock, voiced Andy Serkis, who is also a descendant of the man who sunk the treasure to begin with. Haddock and Tintin have their work cut out for them and must get to the treasure before Sakharine does, so long as Haddock can stay off the sauce long enough to remember where they are going.

Even though this is an animated film, it doesn't have the same tone or look you typically get from almost any other animated movie. "The Adventures of Tintin" plays out much like any live action adventure film would. We also can't help but notice how similar this movie is to something like Spielberg's "Indiana Jones" movies, even though we know this film takes after the book series, which I grew up reading as a kid. The style of animation has a very realistic look to it, and though it does look pretty cool, the film as whole absolutely doesn't need to be animated. In other comparable animated films, characters like the ones showcased here wind up looking dead eyed and soulless. Luckily, Spielberg is able to breathe a certain level of life into these CGI characters, and luckily so because a lot of what we hoped this movie could have been gets lost in translation. Often in animated films, body proportions and the angles of faces are played with to make characters look more innocent or evil depending on what the characters call for. However, all of the characters here are made to look as human as possible, which begs the question: why not simply make this a live action film and save the money? It's not like animated ventures are any cheaper, and with a reported $135 million dollar price tag, a fairly large scale live action production could have been easily accomplished. With a little digging, we found out that a live action film was Spielberg's original intent, but he was ultimately convinced by Peter Jackson that a motion-capture animated feature would do better justice to the characters and aesthetic found in the comics. We aren't sure we totally agree. We feel as if this could have been just as good if not better as a live action adventure.

"The Adventures of Tintin" is not a bad movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it definitely has its faults. It's a pretty solid adventure with a decent story and some good moments of perilous action, but it's still missing some fantastic spark that'd make Tintin pop off the pages of his comics and onto the silver screen. It feels overlong and can get absentminded. Snowy is very underutilized, and we wish he and Tintin both had more defining characteristics to set them apart from any of the other protagonists from Spielberg's repertoire. It's also a bit too silly to me. This is not a complete divergence from the comic book series, but it's obvious that this silliness is implemented in an effort to keep little kids interested, but we're not sure they will be due to its more mature themes and the time it takes to get to its conclusion. You might like this film, but you also might not.

My Rating: 6/10
BigJ's Rating: 7/10
IMDB's Rating: 7.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 75%
Do we recommend this movie: Sure, why not?

Movie Review: "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981)

Image Source

Movie: "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
Year Nominated: 1982
Director: Steven Spielberg
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 55 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

Archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is tapped by the United States government to find the Ark of the Covenant. The Government believes Adolph Hitler is also searching for it, and they want Jones to find it before the Nazis.

Directed by Steven Spielberg, with a story by George Lucas and Philip Kaufman, and screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a fun action adventure about the rugged archaeologist named Indiana Jones, played by wonderful, gruff Harrison Ford. This film is a reminder that there was a time when fun summer blockbusters could get nominated for Academy Awards, a time we wish the Academy could think back upon more frequently as they make their decision for Best Picture each year. This film is the winner of 5 Academy Awards, mostly in the technical department, but it was also nominated for four more, including Best Director and Best Picture, which are highly deserved. Very much an homage to 1930's adventure serials, there are many tributes that run throughout the movie; even Indy's famous fedora is an homage to these older serials. Indiana Jones is a quintessential hero type: he's tough, well traveled, highly educated, quick witted, and women love him. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones is one of the more well cast characters in all of cinema history. Ford is perfect in the part, though it was a role that almost went to Tom Selleck. If it wasn't for Selleck's previous commitment to "Magnum P.I.," we could have had an entirely different experience with this movie and a vastly changed view of this now iconic character. Ford isn't the only one perfect for his part as there is a great supporting cast of characters, including the incredible Karen Allen, who plays Indy's love interest Marion. Also, there's John Rhys-Davis as Indy's close friend Sallah, Denholm Elliott, who plays Indy's benefactor and museum curator Dr. Marcus Brody, and Paul Freeman, who is great as Indy's rival Dr. René Belloq. When put together, this cast serves up some excellent entertainment in an enjoyable, sometimes scary, sometimes thrilling, sometimes silly movie for the ages.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" is a movie that really has it all. The story is great story, the action is exciting, there are a ton of genuinely funny moments, which provide some great laughs, excellent, well developed characters, exquisite direction, and wonderful camera work combine together to make movie magic. This is one of BigJ's favorite films, one he has watched over and over ever since he was a little kid. Standing the test of time, this is a movie that will be revisited for decades to come by younger generations and serves as a reminder of a simpler, more perfect time when movies didn't have massive amounts of CGI, shoddily written characters, and awful camera work just to turn a profit. We can keep coming back to Indiana Jones and his adventures over and over again and know he'll always be there when we need to watch an amazing, beautifully crafted blockbuster.

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 10/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 96%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "Rachel, Rachel"

Movie Review: "Bridge of Spies" (2015)

Movie: "Bridge of Spies"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 22 minutes

Image Source

An insurance lawyer named James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is asked to act as the defense attorney of Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), a Russian spy caught by the United States in Brooklyn, to show America gives everyone, even foreign spies, due process. A short time later, an American spy pilot named Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) is shot down over Russia and now the Soviets wants to swap Powers for Abel and Donovan is asked by the CIA to mediate the exchange.

It seems when Steven Spielberg directs movies, he makes two types of films: 1) the big, fun summer blockbusters, or 2) the Oscar-baity historical dramas. "Bridge of Spies" definitely falls into the latter category, but that doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Tom Hanks stars as James B. Donovan, a former criminal attorney turned insurance lawyer, who is asked to defend a Russian spy in court to show that even enemy spies get a fair trial in America. Mark Rylance plays Rudolf Abel, the aforementioned Soviet spy, who spends his days painting in between spying for the Soviets. Donovan is reluctant to take the job as it could lead to him becoming a public pariah. Hesitantly, he agrees to take the case, and upon meeting Abel, they seem to build a mutual understanding with one another, admiring each other's abilities and intentions, be they good or bad.

There are some great elements to this film, the best of which is the acting of Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. They are both fantastic and play very well off of one another. Where Donovan is a constant worrier, Abel doesn't show one shred of distress or nervousness about his situation, often joking about his predicament along the way. Hanks and Rylance are able to be both foes and friendly to one another in such a dire situation. In addition to their tremendous acting both together and apart, there is also some really excellent dialogue here. The farther the film progresses in its run time, the easier it is to notice how almost all of the drama, the tension, and the execution is contingent upon the dialogue and conversations that take place and how this dialogue is delivered. Of course, as mentioned, "Bridge of Spies" is brilliantly directed by the famous, wonderful Steven Spielberg. With each passing film, it is all too apparent how superbly crafted each of Spielberg's works are as he frames his shots in such a way that it almost makes you forget you're watching a movie at all. Slow zoom-ins on a character, deliberate wide shots setting up an entire large scene within itself, the use of lighting in both a dark and light fashion, Spielberg is unmatched in his endlessly glorious directorial efforts.

With all this being said, sadly, the film isn't perfect. After Abel's initial trial, the film moves into its second act where an American spy pilot named Francis Gary Powers, played by Austin Stowell, is shot down over the Soviet Union and captured after an elaborate and over-the-top crash sequence. Shortly after this, an American student studying economics behind the Iron Curtain named Frederick Pryor, played by Will Rogers, is caught on the wrong side of the Berlin wall while it's being built and is arrested East Germany for espionage. Where Abel was initially set to serve his sentence in jail, now, the tides have changed, and James Donovan is tapped by the CIA to negotiate a prisoner swap: Rudolf Abel for Francis Gary Powers. The CIA isn't concerned about Pryor in the slightest as he doesn't have any top secret information and is basically useless to them, but Donovan won't settle for less than both prisoners. The problem here is the two American prisoners are never as fully developed as Abel was. By far, the best parts of the movie feature Abel and his trial or James Donovan negotiating the prisoner swap in East Berlin, but because we are left without any emotional connection to Pryor and Powers, we are not that concerned for them as individuals, we only know we're supposed to care because they are Americans being held in communist prisons. The exchanges and negotiations between Hanks and his Soviet and East German counterparts are great and we always worry about his character in these times, but we couldn't help but feel like there was an element of thrills missing elsewhere. The whole situation never seemed as dire as it was supposed to be.

Despite the fact that Hanks and Rylance offer up some definite Oscar worthy performances, the movie as a whole, though good, felt like it was missing a little something in the tension department, and for a movie sold almost entirely on mood, this is a must. It's really, really good, and much better than "War Horse," but it is Spielberg's best Oscar-baity drama? Not by a long shot. And speaking of longing, we long for the day Spielberg will bust open the envelope of his self-imposed boxes, producing a product that's something other than what we've previously seem come out of his already stacked and stellar wheelhouses. Still, "Bridge of Spies" is not bad at all and worth a watch for history buffs, Hanks fans, and Spielberg lovers.

My Rating: 8/10
BigJ's Rating: 8/10
IMDB's Rating: ~8.5/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: ~92%
Do we recommend this movie: Yes!

Movie Review: "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" (1997)

Image Source

Movie: "The Lost World: Jurassic Park"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 1993
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes

It has been four years since the incident at Jurassic Park on Ilsa Nublar. Dr. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) has neen removed as the head of his company InGen and was replaced as CEO by his nephew Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard). A now bed-ridden Hammond has summoned Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to head a research mission to Ilsa Sorna, or "Site B," the location where the dinosaurs for Jurassic Park were bred and raised before being transferred to Ilsa Nublar. These dinosaurs were left to live wild on the island and most assumed they would die naturally due to being bred with a lysine deficiency, but somehow, they have thrived and Hammond wants to know why. Ian refuses at first, until he learns one of the scientists on the mission is his girlfriend Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore), who is already on the island doing research. He reluctantly agrees to lead the team to bring Sarah home, but shortly after arriving, he is shocked to find out InGen and new CEO Peter Ludlow have other plans for the dinosaurs of Site B, and it doesn't involve research.

It seems like whenever a movie is successful, especially when it is such a groundbreaking blockbuster like "Jurassic Park" was, a studio will stop at nothing to make sure a sequel exists, regardless of how good or bad it is. In this particular case, they even went so far as to pressure the writer of the source novel, Michael Crichton, to pen a sequel. The result of this badgering is a mediocre movie that didn't have to or need to be made, based on a book the author didn't want to write. And it definitely shows.

The saving grace of this film is its visuals, which are still as good as they were in "Jurassic Park." Though they are done in the same style as the original, now, they are no longer considered groundbreaking, which is a huge flaw against the film as a whole. On its own, the visuals cannot carry a bad story and not so great acting. Beyond the visuals, the movie is pretty weak. It tries to recapture the same intense action, humor and suspense of its predecessor, but really falls short in these areas. All the its humor no longer flows naturally and always seems forced, even from newcomer Julianne Moore and resident weirdo and funny man Jeff Goldblum. It doesn't sound like simple sarcastic comments that are part of the larger dialogue. In fact, it now sounds like actual set-ups and punchlines interjected into a conversation to garner a laugh, but we as an audience don't so much as chuckle most of the time. Many of the action scenes now are over-the-top in nature and get dragged out for far too long. One scene in particular that does this is the RV/T-Rex attack scene. The overall plot this go around is a loose, ridiculous one to say the least. The scientists want to take the dinosaurs from Site B and relocate them to a zoo in San Diego. Yeah, because that sounds like a good idea, right? They assume the failure of the first park had something to do with its poor location and not because, you know, dinosaurs were breaking free from their enclosures while terrorizing and eating people. It doesn't take a genius to guess what will happen. If you guessed a T-Rex rampaging through the streets of San Diego, you can give yourself a little pat on the back and you deserve a cookie for adding A + B. While we love to see our fine city ravaged just as much as the next bunch of people, this climactic action sequence almost seems to be handled in a less serious and more tongue-in-cheek manner. "The Lost World" is a prime example of why not every movie needs a sequel. Fortunately for us, we still have the original to love, and like we mentioned in that review, we still have high hopes for the new sequel with Chris Pratt, which comes out this summer 2015.

My Rating: 5/10
BigJ's Rating: 5/10
IMDB's Rating: 6.4/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 52%
Do we recommend this movie: Meh.

Movie Review: "Jurassic Park" (1993)

Image Source

Movie: "Jurassic Park"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 1993
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 2 hours, 7 minutes

On the island of Ilsa Nublar, Dr. Hammond (Richard Attenborough) has built a unique and amazing new theme park called Jurassic Park. This park houses many breeds of previously extinct dinosaurs that have been brought back to life through genetic engineering and cloning with DNA extracted from mosquitoes preserved in hardened tree sap called amber. After an accident on the island while loading a velociraptor into it's pen, Hammond's lawyer, Donald (Martin Ferrero), and his investors are very nervous about the safety of the island. The investors want an investigatin so Hammond brings well respected paleontologists Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), and pleobotanist Dr. Ellie Satler (Laura Dern) to the island to convince them to endorse his new zoo. Meanwhile Donald brings chaotition Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) to check the safety of the park. Hammond sends his Lawyer,  the scientists, and his grand children Lex (Ariana Richards) and Tim (Joseph Mazzello) on a tour of the park to prove to everyone it's perfectly safe and fully functioning, but as Murphy's law states anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and oh boy does it ever go wrong. 

We always talk about the notion of lists, if there were a list of films for this and that. Well, if there were a list of films that were visually groundbreaking for their time, films that have since changed the perception of audiences and filmmakers of what is possible to put on screen, "Jurassic Park" would certainly be on that list, arguably towards the top. When first watching this movie over 20 years ago, --What!?! "Jurassic Park" came out over 20 years ago?! Holy hell, that makes us feel so old.--anyways, when first watching this movie, it allowed us to really suspend our disbelief and almost believe that those dinosaurs running around the park were real. Despite being two decades old, its visuals, using a combination of animatronic puppets and CGI, holds up extremely well by today's standards, and when compared to the video game style CGI-fests we are fed every month of every year at least once, boy, "Jurassic Park" is the epitome of excellence.

Visuals aside, this is a really fun and entertaining movie. Sure, it could be (and has been) nitpicked apart about its contrived plot points and a few continuity errors, but this movie is really a joy to watch and has all of those moments that we crave as film watchers. It has an intense excitement to it all, the kind of suspense we hope for every single time we watch a sci-fi action movie. All of the scenes involving the raptor and T-Rex are moments we find to be quite chilling and definitely put you on the edge of your seat, even some 20 years later. There is also a really great amount of humor to it. All of this humor flows naturally throughout the dialogue, whether it be the disjointed thoughts and sarcastic comments of Ian Malcolm, played excellently by Jeff Goldblum, or the snide remarks of Dr. Grant, iconically portrayed by Sam Neill. who simply teases the kids since he dislikes children. Even a brachiosaurus sneezing on Lex seems to find a way to fit hilariously in this movie! Laura Dern ain't too bad herself as Dr. Ellie Satler, and sidebar, but dammit, she deserves an Oscar! Besides the dialogue, the humor and the effects, this movie also has one of the most iconic and unforgettable soundtracks in movie history, one that gets stuck in our heads from time to time.

Steven Spielberg created a true magical masterpiece with this movie. Though we cannot say the same for its sequels up until now, we have hope that the new Jurassic Park film coming out in the summer of 2015 will bring us back to the days when movies were all about producing high quality, realistic graphics versus making overly CGI'ed movies without any thought or care to being creative.

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 10/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 93%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
One year ago, we were watching: "That Awkward Moment"

Movie Review: "Jaws" (1975)

Image Source

Movie: "Jaws"
Year Nominated: 1976
Director: Steven Spielberg
Rating: PG
Running Time: 2 hours, 4 minutes
Did It Win?: No.

One summer, the small island community located on the New England coast called Amity, is terrorized by a giant great white shark. As people start to get eaten, the island is terrified and Mayor Vaughn (Murray Hamilton) is worried about the economic impact this will have, as the town's economy is reliant on tourism. The Mayor tasks the town's new police chief Brody (Roy Scheider) with solving the problem. Brody enlists the help of an oceanographer named Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and a shark fisherman named Quint (Robert Shaw) to hunt down and kill the man-eating shark. 

The Academy has a bad habit of excluding certain genres from its nominations, either mostly or wholly. For example, it doesn't usually nominate horror films for anything, especially not for the award to end all awards, Best Picture, but "Jaws" is one of the very rare exceptions, and for a good reason. Steven Spielberg manages to find a way to uniquely balance suspense, tension, gore and drama into a very well made, almost flawlessly executed and completely enthralling film that hits home when it comes to basic human fears. Though some may argue that "Jaws" isn't a horror film at all, we would have to disagree. We mean, come on! It's about a giant man-eating shark that terrorizes a small town...this is a classic "creature feature" formula! Sure, the creature here is not a monster, or an alien from another planet, or some unidentifiable pathogen set to destroy humanity, and this is why we say "Jaws" is even more horrific than these other types of horror movies: because it is a real, tangible creature we have seen and actually know about, and it's lurking just outside your nearest stretch of ocean. This is a movie that actually scared huge numbers of people out of the water for many, many years after this film was released, and it is the likely the inspiration for the Discovery Channel's Shark Week. Sure, the giant animatronic shark itself isn't perfectly done, but at least it is there in the water and looks real enough that you know it is a shark. Most of the time, having an actual object on screen helps to make a movie feel more real, as opposed to a CGI'ed creature wiggling around in all its computer generated glory. Though the shark is not perfect, it's still pretty damn terrifying. Also, having the shark off of the screen for much of the movie helped build tension and fear as well. For much of the flick, people only get hints of the sea beast, as swimmers get yanked underwater one by one, only to have pools of blood bubbling up on the surface of the ocean, that is, if they manage to come back up at all. As the audience, we imagine the shark doing this as opposed to seeing it happen, and as we know fully well, the thoughts from your imagination can sometimes be even more disturbing than what's happening in reality. It isn't until the tail end of the film that we actually see the full shark.

Beyond the shark itself, the story surrounding it is a good one, as there is much human drama and rivalry sprinkled in between the shark attacks. Chief Brody butt heads with mayor Vaughn over public safety, and the mayor simply wants the city's economy and budget to thrive during the summer months. This is probably the biggest point of contention in the film. Will they choose to keep the townsfolk well informed about the dangers of swimming in the ocean with the looming threat of a shark nearby, or will they keep an economic frame of mind so the city can stay on its feet a little while longer and ignore the potential peril and even possible deaths that could be caused by keeping quiet about the shark? The scientist Hooper, played by the ever wonderful Richard Dreyfuss in his DTF phased (ohhhh man, he was lookin' GOOD in this movie) also has a bit of a rivalry with old-school fisherman Quint, played by Robert Shaw, in another iconic performance. Quint sees Hooper as an educated theory-man who is only interested in money and science, and Hooper sees Quint as someone who only knows life from his very limited experience. Their rivalry also produces some interesting drama long the way. When you put all of this against one of the top five most noticeable movie scores in film history, you've got the recipe for a fantastic, well made, brilliantly executed, well written film that is relevant as much now as it was then.

My Rating: 9/10
BigJ's Rating: 9/10
IMDB's Rating: 8.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 98%
Do we recommend this movie: ABSOLUTELY YES!!!

Movie Review: "1941" (1979)

Image Source

Movie: "1941"
Director: Steven Spielberg
Year: 1979
Rating: PG
Running Time: 1 hour, 58 minutes

It's 1941, six days after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now, Americans fear Japan's next target will be the California coast, and they may be right. A Japanese submarine is in route to California with plans to unleash an assault on Hollywood. Meanwhile, the people in California prepare for what they believe is an imminent attack. 

You would think that a movie directed by Steven Spielberg and starring comedy legends like John Belushi, John Candy and Dan Aykroyd, along with a solid supporting cast featuring Ned Beatty, Tim Matheson, Christopher Lee and Slim Pickens, plus a plethora other names would be hilarious. Right? Unfortunately, "1941" just isn't that funny. In fact, it's not funny at all when it comes right down to it. The movie is erratic at best and you would be lucky if you learn any of the characters names, let alone any facts about them during its run time. The moments that are supposed to be funny are based on random, silly slaptick moments and racist comments by the dozen. In fact, the American characters in this movie spit out every racial slur against the Japanese they can think of over and over again the entire film just to see what sticks and gets laughs. What few chuckles there are come few and far between and are as rare as a blue steak. Often times with ensemble casts, many of the actor's talents go to waste and they are wholly get underutilized. Here, the funniest actors, like John Candy, have almost no screen time. Others, like Dan Aykroyd, have little to no lines at all, and when they do speak, they are yelling or annoying and are everything but funny. There have been successful war comedy satires in the past like "Dr. Strangelove," which is one of the best movies ever made, so it's not like it can't be done. While "1941" has a good initial concept, the threat of the Japanese attacking California and the subsequent paranoia an imminent attack brings to the state, it lacks the focus, narrative and political commentary to make it a successful satire. The humor in the film is often what you would find in a parody rather than a satire and even that really doesn't fit, either, as it isn't poking fun at anything other than WWII itself. It is no wonder this movie is considered a flop both critically and financially. It's hard to review a movie that is so spastic and all over the place, especially when it has no aim, no drive, no direction, and really, no point.

Unfortunately with names like Spielberg, Candy, Belushi and Aykroyd attached to it, this film could wind up drawing many unsuspecting viewers into enduring this two hour suck-fest for many years to come. At least that's what happened to us. So next time you are scrolling through Netflix, Amazon Prime, or your local cable guide and happen across "1941" and are intrigued by all the big names attached to it, please don't be duped. Don't stop to watch it, just keep on scrolling, and if, against your better judgment you do decide to view it, don't say we didn't warn you.

My Rating: 3.5/10
BigJ's Rating: 3.5/10
IMDB's Rating: 5.9/10
Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 32%
Do we recommend this movie: No.