West Side Story (2021)

Spoilers.

Film adaptations of stage musicals always seem to be lesser. There's something about live performance that dazzles and sweeps you along in ways film simply cannot. But even in that light, Steven Spielberg's re-adaptation of West Side Story is still lesser, and can't manage to improve on the one put to screen 50 years ago.

Despite all that money. Money, it turns out, is cold and inanimate and cannot emote to entertain an audience.

It's worth noting that if you're a fan of West Side Story there no reason why you won't get enjoyment out of this one. I know when I love something, I can see any number of adaptations or versions and be happy even if they're mostly not the greatest thing ever, just because I love the story that's being told and love to see the different casts and approaches. I feel that way, in fact, about Romeo and Juliet, and from that perspective, I did have fun watching this version as it was the first time I saw West Side Story since reading Romeo and Juliet. I never realized before exactly how closely this story follows the Shakespeare. But I'm not particularly a fan of West Side Story in itself. Nothing against it, and I've never not enjoyed it, but I never felt any personal attachment. 

And that's why I needed this version to be actively good in order to impress me. Which is why I am far from impressed. Spielberg give it a good ol' Oscar-grab revamping, by spending lots of money and doing nothing creative. He casts stage veterans in bit parts (Brian D'Arcy James is there but doesn't sing???) and tones down the dancing so his Hollywood stars can keep up. Ariana DeBose as Anita was the only main casting that was actively good. She could dance, sing, and act with equal fervor, and stole the show as far as I'm concerned. Rachel Zegler had a nice voice and a good look for Maria, but her characterization felt too restrained to me. Chalk it up to inexperience behind a camera. I have no complaints about the rest—except one. 

Ho hum, here we go...

Ansel Elgort's Tony is every bit as bad as I feared it would be. And I don't dislike Elgort. He just needs the right role to work—and this isn't it. He doesn't have the look. He exudes dopiness rather than romance, and while that can be charming in the right setting (hello Baby Driver) it's a stretch here. I don't get why he was cast. His acting is nothing special either and while he can move well, Tony doesn't need to be a dancer. His singing voice sounded fine, except that there was never any power behind it. He doesn't belt or croon, he's just kind of... there. And the movie seems aware of all this, and attempts to prop him up by giving him more to do via songs that don't belong to him. Yes, they gave him Cool, the best piece in the show, and butchered it so he could have more screen time.

They also wrote in a change where Tony is freshly out of prison where he went after almost beating another kid to death in a rumble. I can see the good intention behind this addition, that it's trying to deepen Tony's character, but instead it undermines a few aspects of the story. It takes his agency, first, because he now no longer left the Jets by his own choice. Then it makes him seem too much a bad guy later—they have him fight Bernardo and beat him, but stop because he is afraid he may kill him... but then of course he does kill him a minute later and it comes across weirdly in this new light. Suddenly the focus is on Tony and his apparent personal disposition for violence rather than a general tragic look at how the gangs' cycle of violence and revenge destroys innocent lives. 

The dancing did have its moments, and I loved the costuming.

Spielberg's visual hand is where the movie finds most of its positives. It's nice to look at, expensive and often pleasantly gritty. Too much lens flare though. (J.J is supposed to copy you, Steve, not the other way round!) Some of it has that shiny CGI look to it—especially the atrocious Cool scene—but elsewhere there are real, and fun sets. I liked the balcony set up quite a lot. And there's one great shot when the gang's meet to rumble. The performance aspect of the dancing doesn't translate as well. The choreography is toned down and location hopping undercuts the songs' energy and momentum... which are usually dulled already due to the "La La Land Syndrome" where the singing is more "realistic" read: not powerful or dynamic at all. It's Broadway style music telling a Shakespearian tragedy; it needs to be larger than life, not toned down.

If there's one thing that sums up this movie's shortcoming, it's that. It sorely lacks dynamics. Both in the musical sense of fluctuating volume, and in the sense of the energy, tension, and passion that a well-assembled and performed piece can bestow on an audience. West Side Story demands dynamic storytelling, but Spielberg sacrificed the energy that a musical can bring through song and dance—cut it up and whittled it down—for the sake of realism. But so what if it's more historically accurate, if it can't make you feel? 

As I sat watching I kept thinking about the high school stage production I saw, and how that show made me feel more than this hundred-million-dollar project. Granted it was a very good high school production, but that should be a low bar for one of the most celebrated film directors ever. Instead, he cranked out yet another expensive, nice-looking, unnecessary bore, and either forgot, or didn't bother to infuse it with passion or life.

Ready Player One

Spoiler-free!

Based on the book by Ernest Cline that's an absolute smorgasbord of 80's pop culture, Ready Player One takes place in a near future where the rundown world is all but abandoned by its populace. In its place -- the OASIS, a virtual reality where people can go anywhere and do or be anything, all from the comfort of their cramped, neglected homes.

Laws of reality need not apply.

One such person is Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), whose life outside the OASIS is, well, nonexistent. But in the OASIS, he's Parzival, a gunter (egg hunter) who looks for Easter eggs left by the game's creator James Halliday (Mark Rylance). Upon his death Halliday instigated a hunt for three keys that would lead to the ultimate Easter egg. The finder would receive Halliday's inheritance and full control over the OASIS itself. The hunt has been going on for years without even the first key being found when Wade finally figures out the first challenge, and the discovery launches him into adventure, fame, and real-world danger all at once as the race for the OASIS begins.

It's been a long time since Steven Spielberg has done science fiction, and the result it something that is a little -- and pleasantly so, I might add -- out of time. The featured tech and special effects are fully modern but the plot and characters move in a more traditional "blockbuster" sphere. The three keys make the act structure strongly defined, with no room for anything unprecedented, and characters are well cast but then left to catch what little bits of development and arcs they can on the run, as the action-driven plot breaks for nothing. Though deeper development without sacrifice elsewhere would've been more ideal, the characters are accurate to their book counterparts -- stunningly accurate to my memory -- and that is due to pitch-perfect casting.

I knew it was perfect when I first saw the cast list but they still managed to wow me.

Every actor I know here has given a better performance elsewhere, yet I don't think the cast could be more perfect. Tye Sheridan was more comfortable and natural in Mud, and Olivia Cooke had even more genuine charm in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl -- they both still fit their characters to a T. Ben Mendelsohn is basically playing Krennic from Rogue One, but boy is it fun to watch him be that type of baddie. I am sure that Mark Rylance has never given a bad performance in his life, but even he has his exceptionally charming turn as the eccentric geek Halliday beat elsewhere -- though this may be a personal favorite for me due to the charm and humor he gives alone.

Simon Pegg's American accent threw me through a loop and his small part felt almost like a cameo, but he still managed to sneak some dramatic oomph in there. The adults are undoubtedly the acting highlights of the film. Aech, Daito and Sho are good casting as well, but used only for support, comic relief, and to make the point of how anyone can be anything in the OASIS. Sheridan doesn't lead the film so much as he's swept along at the front of the wave that is the plot, but the fact remains: he embodies Wade ideally. The roles here are on the shallow side by nature. More depth may have improved them, but whether it would've served the movie as a whole is another matter.

As much as I love character, I do think putting them on a lower priority was the right move here.

After all I would hate for a scifi adventure flick to have to give up any time adventuring, world-building and wowing for the sake of unnecessary character development -- however great the development may be. There were a few times I would have tended more toward character briefly, but I understand the idea. This is a crazy and complex scifi world here, and explaining and exploring it satisfactorily takes priority. Spielberg erred on the safe side, over-explaining at times, but the flaw isn't in the intention. He took the right track of making the character/plot balance the same ratio as the book, and was impressively successful in it.

I liked the book, but it's flawed. Most of the movie's flaws stem from that, as a fundamental part of the story. I've seen plenty of worthy but flawed books be adapted into film and commonly, "improvement" is the name of the game. Sometimes said "improvement' makes the story so convoluted that it becomes completely different, and often falls apart. (The Divergent series springs rapidly to mind.) I'm surprised to say, that I'm impressed to say: Spielberg refused to play that game. Instead he took the story as it was and put in on film. "But what about all the changes?" you may wonder. Simple: those changes were for the purpose of making the story as enjoyable as possible on screen, not to improve a story cynically seen as lacking.

I loved this scene, mixing live action with animated avatars.

Forgetting the book, this film is a sight unlike any other. The motion-capture does excellent job capturing personality as well as performances, so characters are consistent even as animated avatars. Everything has that Spielberg sheen, and the detail of the OASIS is thrilling and visually stimulating without being too overwhelming. And pop culture. Pop culture everywhere. I loved it, but that's the sort of thing that's about personal preference, not so much a if-it's-done-right-everyone-will-love-it type thing. I do think it transcends the references it makes -- much like Stranger Things did -- but admittedly I love 80's pop culture already. I especially enjoyed the music, since that was something the book was incapable of doing.

This is a movie about Easter eggs, so it's no surprise that its main feature be Easter eggs. Still it doesn't settle for fun references only, putting commendable effort into garnering maximum enjoyment out of its entire runtime. Even if you don't get the references it should be a thoroughly entertaining flick -- through a fast-paced plot, fun characters, a straightforward and sincere theme, a general lighthearted tone, and that patent Spielbergian element that adds just a dash of cheesy magic.

I promise -- this movie does have a point to it, and a heart.

This is certainly not a movie without flaws, but the more I watch films by Spielberg, the more I realize that his filmmaking greatness isn't in making unflawed films, but in making films that will stand the test of time by their joy and the unique experiences they give us, long after a film's given technical expiration date. And the more I watch movies in 2018, the more I realize that it's this kind of simple, honest joy that I want to see on the screen -- that reaffirms my love for the singular magic of escaping into the movies.

Jaws

A lesson in the real-life effects of storytelling, expectations vs. reality, and the vast difference between a mass view of something and a personal one.

 Major Spoilers.

With Jaws being one of Steven Spielberg's most iconic movies, and with me being pretty well-steeped in film culture from a young age, I have almost always been aware of this movie, but never watched it. For a while I was too young for its scary and maturity level, and for another while I believed I still was. But I always figured I would watch it someday, and that day has finally come.

Okay. Don't look now, but... you're in an iconic movie moment.

Watching this film after so long a time made me realize some things: I realized that avoiding seeing it because I was afraid it would make me scared of sharks was a completely moot point, and I'd been delaying for no reason. The reality of the matter is that the moment I learned that this film made people scared of the water, it had its effect on me. Fortunately I have great parents who explained how sharks really work and how unlikely shark attacks are, and fortunately I'm a reasonable person who believed them, and fortunately I love the ocean so much that the idea of sharks will not deter me from the water, but the fact remains. Just knowing that this film scared people was enough to scare me.

Maybe it would have scared me more if I'd actually seen it at ten, but at the ripe old age of twenty-three, there was no more effect to be had. And this is an excellent example of what Spielberg himself discovered with this film; that the unseen is scarier than the seen. Because boy, that shark is at its scariest when it's represented by a POV camera, or moving barrels and docks, or the fear on a character's face. Just like the shark didn't need to be shown to scare moviegoers, for me even hearing about not seeing it was enough; my imagination did the rest.

"I used to hate the water." "I can't imagine why."

I imagined a ton about this movie, by the way. Not purposefully, but knowing about it and being interested in it for so long, I could hardly do otherwise. Hearing bits and pieces of plot or filming trivia, and lines like, "you're gonna need a bigger boat" or "this was no boat accident" all added up to an idea of it in my head. One that I never really realized I had until it was shattered into pieces. My preconception of it wasn't terribly far off for a good portion of the film, but it's worth noting that for most of my life I thought that Richard Dreyfuss was the lead, and didn't even know who Roy Scheider was. Besides that not much was unexpected for the first two acts of the film.

I did, however, have a childish apprehension that it would be too scary. I knew it was silly, but it was a bit of a relief and extremely satisfying to have been able to relish the fear element that the film offered up so beautifully, instead of feeling regret and worry for my future sleeping abilities. That was a smaller side of my wrong expectations. Here are some of the bigger ones:

Show me the way to go home / I'm tired and I want to go to bed / I had a little drink about an hour ago / and it's gone right to my head!

I didn't know that the whole last act of the film would be the three men, one boat and the shark. Having them be cut off from the world made everything so much more personal, which increased the suspense wonderfully. I didn't know that all three of the characters would be main characters; I expected a few red-shirts to be present. I thought that they would actually get a bigger boat! That one seems ridiculous now, but I honestly thought that if they needed a bigger boat, they would go get one. I didn't know that the character to say that line wasn't the biggest expert on either boats or sharks, but in my defense, (and his) he was right.

I didn't expect Quint to get eaten. I don't know why, but all the named characters seemed off-limits for some reason. So that whole scene really got me. I knew that there would be some personal, human drama going on with Brody, but still that climax was the biggest change to my expectations of all. Just him and a sinking boat vs. the most vicious shark a fish story has ever invented. I recently read Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, and the parallels between it and this sequence really struck me. Except here it was a younger, inexperienced man who knew nothing about the sailing or the ocean who found himself face to face with the terrifying, otherworldly power that the sea houses within its depths.

I always look for the Spielbergian wonder in his movies, and this one is shot beautifully of course, but that's not all of it. Here, appropriately, the wonder comes from the ocean. And I saw it in this scene.

I even knew that the shark was killed by being blown up. I knew that, yet I knew nothing about the film's hero, hardly anything about his arc and the personal side of his struggle, and absolutely nothing about the circumstances of his victory. Isn't that strange? That was the part that made the film good! It's what makes the film great as well, but seriously, without Brody (and even Hooper and Quint too) and the human, emotional element he brings to the story, this film would probably be long-forgotten by now. Just an aged monster film with a good score. Even the score wouldn't be so effective if it weren't for the acting, which was excellent all-around, creating the lovable characters that we don't want to see get eaten.

Maybe that's just me, because I never saw it coming and wasn't prepared for how much I would love those characters and the depth they brought, but there it is. It really surprises me, considering it now: All the things I heard about this movie -- from various sources that loved the film -- were the superficial things that didn't really make a difference to me in the end. Maybe they were avoiding spoilers? And it was probably my fault too, since I was more interested in the neat tidbits and trivia and technical aspects than I was in remembering characters I didn't know played by actors I'd never seen. But my conclusion is this: my original idea of it wasn't mine at all; it was just an average; a general overall perception of it from the general movie audience, culminated inside my head. Now, it's been replaced by a personal view; and what will stick as important has been completely flipped around.

Before, I saw a shark. Now, I see a shark, and a man.

Of course, the action and technical side is as impressive as ever, especially now that I've seen it all working! I will always respect practical effects more than CGI effects, even when the practicals become noticeably dated. There's just no replacing the realism that doing things in camera creates. And no one does practical effects like Spielberg. Actually watching the film hasn't dampened that legendary status I've always attributed to it even slightly.

I still have that feeling, that I mentioned in my Jurassic Park review, where I feel almost unqualified to love a film that's a classic because I'm new to it, but in the case of Jaws, the feeling of being new to it seems like a positive thing in a neat way. Like I've gotten rid of some baggage and am free to move forward in my own direction. I still have a little while to go to develop a full personal love, and I look forward to adding to that, and to my familiarity with it, but one thing will probably never change: I've always thought of this film as a masterpiece.

Jurassic Park

I recently got to see Steven Spielberg's classic dino-thriller in its full effect at a theater. I've seen it through at least three times now, and bit and pieces of it several more times, but I only now feel as though I've really seen it. So it's about time I reviewed this thing.

There's our hero shot.

As a movie lover I am biased toward the work of Spielberg. There is something truly magical that comes through his films, especially his science fiction films, and none more so than this one. The sense of adventure, the grandeur, the awe, is unmatched. I didn't even watch this until I was in my teens, and even then it didn't make a huge impression on me at first, but I still have a fierce nostalgic attachment to it. This flick has flaws, yes, mostly in the form of casual plot holes common in action and horror films. It's the nature of the beast, and in a lot of ways, those little marks and flaws endear the movie to me even more.

I think the reason I didn't originally fall for this film was because I saw it at an inopportune time. I was young enough that I tried to identify with the kids, and I had seen enough visually impressive movies that the dinosaurs weren't enough to win me without character. Of course, identifying with the kids didn't work out, because let's face it, they're annoying. However, now that I'm old enough to be naturally inclined to identify with the adults, it doesn't matter how annoying the kids are. In fact, it helps, because Dr. Grant thinks the exact same thing.

That of course is why it's so cute that he gets stuck with them!

It took me a while to warm to Sam Neill's Grant (at first I thought Malcolm was supposed to be the main character, which was confusing for me) but now that I finally have, he may even replace Malcolm as favorite character. It's great that we can sympathize with his aversion to children even if we don't happen to normally feel the same way, and he doesn't comes across as too much of a jerk. So then his journey to overcoming prejudice and changing his mind is easy to get behind and enjoy. He has that Indy/John McClane cynical action-hero thing going, and balances it with brains and a big-softie side. My favorite thing about him is his immediate dedication to protect the kids even though they're not his favorite type of human. "He left us! He left us!" "But that's not what I'm going to do." The delivery of that line is spot-on epic.

Of course Dr. Malcolm is still that character that you just can't help but love, especially when he's played by Jeff Goldblum. Everyone knows that the rock star scientist is the coolest kind of scientist, and, well, there it is. Malcolm keeps the energy going constantly with his clever and funny quips, doing great things with the majority of the film's comic relief, and generally just being Jeff Goldblum and therefore being interesting no matter what he's saying. Laura Dern's Ellie came at a time when a female character didn't have to forgo being charming in order to be sufficiently feminist, so while she does quip about sexism, it's done in a way that lends her a cool confidence like she really couldn't care less. She has a natural, easy likability, and is smart and brave.

All the dinosaurs in the world (or not in the world) can't replace human characters. On that note...

Now the dinosaurs. And this is interesting, because I've actually grown more and more impressed with them over the years. Yeah, the animation doesn't hold up so well, and the first scene that shows them is probably the worst animation-wise which detracts a bit from the wonder of the moment. Really though, it holds up way better than a 1993 film has a right to, and that is due to the animatronics. This is the first viewing of this film I've had since I saw Jurassic World, and it really struck me how the animatronic triceratops is actually more believable than the apatosaurus featured in the sequel 22 years later. Maybe that believability has a little to do with the stunned look of awe on the actors faces in this one... or maybe not.

The T-Rex is spectacular. The animatronic is incredible and still pretty incomprehensible to me, and I barely even noticed animation mixed in with it, because I was so absorbed in the terror of the scenes featuring Rexy. My favorite though, is the velociraptors. Cunning, sneaky, and terrifying. With Rexy, all you have to do is hold still, but I've never been able to figure a plan for if ever I'm being hunted by a raptor, and that's what makes them so scary. They're featured heavily, and were probably very tricky to do. They're certainly at their best when in animatronic mode, but the mixing was done really well. The obvious reluctance to animate them made for some fantastic creativity with the filming that translates intensely onscreen. And then the rare animated shot fills in the gaps.

There's a realness to this that CGI still isn't able to fully recreate.

A lot of the time with classic films, I can tell why they're classics, but have trouble going past liking them as a classic and getting to a point where I like them in a way that is uninfluenced. It can be a large hurdle to get over. I believe I have officially made it over that hurdle with Jurassic Park now. Perhaps because now that I've seen it as it was meant to be seen -- felt the T-Rex roar vibrate in my chest while that magnificent theme brought on a cheesy grin and misty eyes. I experienced it fully, and have found my own reasons to love it. I've begun to understand the filmmaking aspects, fallen in love with the characters, laughed, cried, was thrilled by the well-crafted suspense and terror, and blown away by the awe and wonder. A Spielberg classic, absolutely -- and worlds more.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Last month was theater-free for me. Warcraft tempted me a few times, as did May's X-Men: Apocalypse, and I even made an agreement with my brothers that if Independence Day: Resurgence got good enough reviews we'd go see all three -- but it didn't, and we didn't see the other two either. However, I did finally see one March movie that I would have gone to the theater for if it had actually played in my theater -- Midnight Special! I took a small risk and bought it, pretty confident that I'd like it and it paid off spectacularly! Not only did I love the film more than enough to want to watch it multiple times, it was also worth it for some neat and informing special features. A review will be incoming soon, but I'll go ahead and say that I strongly recommend it.

How was your month of June? And how is your July looking? Happy Summer!


The Legend of Tarzan
Jul 1st; PG-13
I'm pretty much only mentioning this one because I thought it looked interesting before any reviews came out.  Now, of course, it seems obvious that it would be no good -- now that I've actually sat down and watched the trailer. I didn't expect it'd be great, but I probably should have seen a low RT score like this coming. The adventure appeal of it distracted me a little. And someday, if ever I can get it for free and am feeling resilient to disappointment, I probably won't be able to help myself from watching it for that same reason.




The BFG
Jul 1st; PG
The latest from Steven Spielberg is a kiddie movie based on a book. Giants and magic and sweeping music is involved. I like Spielberg (who doesn't?) and the cast has Mark Rylance and Jemaine Clement who are great (but they're both playing animated giants so you can't actually see them, though the BFG does look quite a lot like Rylance (I actually recognized his face before I did his voice)) and it looks like a good kid's adventure movie, but maybe not quite to the point where it'd be a great movie for adults too. Especially for people like me who don't have a sentimental attachment. Still, the director and cast practically guarantees that I'll wind up seeing it someday. And I wouldn't be surprised if I enjoyed it.




Ghostbusters
Jul 15th; PG-13
Da-da da-da. Dada da-da da-da. Okay, no. I debated even mentioning this one, but decided to so that I could voice my opinion of how much I wish this movie didn't even exist. Based on the epic number of dislikes on the trailer, most people share my opinion, but I wanted to make my view clear anyway. Set out to attempt to destroy the classic by association, and so steeped in extreme feminism that all criticism of it has been (and probably will continue to be) labeled sexist, this is a film that I am happy to announce I will completely avoid for all eternity. The trailer is painfully unfunny, and the idea is completely pointless. Who you gonna call? The real, ORIGINAL Ghostbusters.




Cafe Society
Jul 15th; PG-13
Woody Allen's latest venture is set in the 30's, and focuses on the glamorous life of society people in Hollywood and New York through the eyes of Jesse Eisenberg. Also starring Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively, Steve Carell, and Corey Stoll. This one seems slightly similar to Midnight in Paris which is my favorite of Allen's films. It look like it has lots of vintage style and classic Allen-esque quirky conversations. Early reviews aren't as promising as my previously mentioned favorite's, but I think it'll turn out to be worth a look.




Equals
Jul 15th; PG-13
Another Kristen Stewart movie. Sometimes I surprise myself by watching her movies, but then I remember that I've never actually disliked her in anything -- and she's slowly wearing off the stain of Twilight... Anyway in this one Nicholas Hoult co-stars and it's a sci-fi, so it certainly has my attention. It does look very moody though, and that may very well be a downfall. But I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to find out for myself.




Star Trek Beyond
Jul 22nd; Not rated yet
This is hands-down the most exciting release of the month, yet it has a a very sad side to it, because of the untimely and tragic death of Anton Yelchin who plays the fan-favorite Chekov. He will be sorely missed in the years to come. Beyond doesn't have the guaranteed success that Into Darkness seemed to either because of the new director coming on board. However, I think, and have thought from the first that this installment looks every bit as good as the last one. I like the episodic, smaller-scale nature it seems to be bringing, and am very excited to see how Simon Pegg's script turned out. A definite must-see!




Jason Bourne
Jul 29th; PG-13
Bourne is back and bigger than ever. Actually, I'm not sure "bigger than ever" is a good thing; at some point things are going to go over the top, and the grounded feel of the previous Matt Damon Bourne's was a huge part of the appeal. However, I doubt it'll matter much -- this film looks solid. With Damon and Greengrass back, how could it not? Julia Stiles is back too, and it's also got Tommy Lee Jones, and Alicia Vikander, which means promises of good things. This may very well be a must-see as well!

New Trailer - Jurassic World

Chances of this movie not being awesome? Well, let's see: Chris Pratt... dinosaurs... more dinosaurs... modern action and special effects... yep, I'd say the chance of no awesomeness is around 0%.

Check out the new Jurassic World trailer, and then tell me: looking forward to this one? How much?

War Horse

War Horse. Steven Spielberg. Good movie. Tom Hiddleston. Benedict Cumberbatch.
The end.

Okay, okay, that's my short version. I'll see if I can come up with something a little longer...

War Horse. Steven Spielberg's WWI epic based on a novel and a play about a remarkable horse named Joey and his journey through the war. Young and unbroken, Joey is bought by Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) who was supposed to buy a plow horse. Ted's wife Rosie (Emily Watson) is obviously none too happy with him when he brings back the useless beauty as they need a plow horse to make the money they need to keep their farm.

The Narracott's have a nice family argument about Ted's latest foolish purchase.

Their son Albert, who has been watching Joey grow up, is already enamored, and convinces them to let him keep and train Joey -- which he does -- and the two become as inseparable as a boy and his horse can be. Albert even gets Joey to plow the field, which is nothing short of a miracle, and things are looking up... until a huge storm washes away the crop and the Narracott's are right back where they started. When Britain goes to war Ted takes the opportunity to sell Joey for much needed money. Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) buys Joey, but promises to return him to Albert... if he can.

Promises, promises!

This is definitely a Spielberg movie. There is one dead give-away to that fact; no matter how you look at it, the leading character is a horse. No human characters get enough screen time for it to be anything else. But Joey is a good lead -- I could even praise the many horses that played him as good actors if I felt like it -- even though he never speaks we come to understand him and pull for him as he witnesses the horror of war, and finds the silver lining.

Best buds Joey and Albert.

If "main character" requirements include being human though, the title would fall to Albert, played by the then-newcomer Jeremy Irvine. Since he's starred in a couple more movies, including a version of Great Expectations that I'm almost dying to see, and see if Irvine isn't just a one-hit-wonder. In spite of being a newbie in a big Spielberg film, Irvine does a great job, and puts in a pleasing, solid performance, and holds his own against some pretty big names.

Benedict Cumberbatch, don't-know-don't-care, and Tom Hiddleston.

These guys are my favorite. I mean, really, how awesome is it that Loki and Khan were in this movie together before anyone even recognized that they were talented enough to play those iconic characters so amazingly? I find it to be... epic. And though they have small roles, they really stand out in them, and bring so much to the movie. It's amazing how quickly I became attached to those two characters. And as for "don't-know-don't-care" I feel that I should apologize... but I still don't care.

That's better. :)

It's a very large cast after all; I can't keep track of everyone. Besides the Narracott's and my favorite villains being good guys, that remarkable horse Joey crosses paths with, and makes an impact on many, many people, each very different and memorable and important in their own way. A real ensemble cast, and everyone's performances blends together ideally.

Emilie, a young French girl played by Celine Buckens.

Now, Spielberg sometimes tells his stories at the expense of reality and logic, and this film is certainly no exception, faulty logic and plot holes make appearances, and if they bother you, well, they bother you... but the beauty of his movies never really lies in the realm of realism, does it? Spielberg makes movies magical, and again, I find no exception here. It that magic that I love, and in my book, it easily overshadows some silly plot holes.

And speaking of classic Spielberg, the cinematography! Oh my goodness... there's no way I could do it justice by description, but even pictures can only show so much. (For the full effect, you know what to do!)

He might as well have left his signature on it.

My favorite thing about Spielberg is his use of imagery to create the feelings he wants convey, and the story of War Horse is completely equal and complementary to this style. The best moments in this movie are either silent, or subtext, and they're enhanced beautifully by camera work that borders on surrealism it's so perfect. Through this unique sentimental style War Horse becomes memorable a tale of courage, honor, love, and sacrifice, told episodically and sometimes with extra sap, but beautifully, artistically, and boldly. Not perfect, but if you allow it, it can sweep you away along with its many brief characters, and its brave four-legged hero, on a journey that I say is certainly worth taking.

Review number eight!

Super 8

J. J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg team up as director and producer, and create a very traditional Spielberg-like movie that also has an unmistakable Abrams-like modern feel, and is set in the seventies. How does this mash-up work? Let's just say that quality filmmaking which comes from a love of the craft is something that will always be in style.

It’s 1979; Joe Lamb is a thirteen year-old, pretty average sort of kid. But his mom recently died in a work accident, and things between him and his dad are strained and distant as they try to muddle through on their own. Time continues almost lifelessly. He hangs out with his buddies, riding bikes, joking around and making super 8 zombie movies. Things slowly settle into a normal. One midnight, filming secretly at a train station, the group of friends witness a mysterious train crash, and are caught in the middle of a dangerous event that none of them will ever forget – it’s like something straight out of a movie!

The plot is pretty straight-forward with no big twists, but through a unique attention to the deep characters and relationships, it’s compelling and entertaining, even without the sci-fi element. And I love that the monster, though fully created and fully capable of dominating the screen was hidden from us as long as it was hidden from our heroes. It’s a classic trick learned accidentally by Spielberg, and used here brilliantly by Abrams. In fact if I had to describe Super 8 in one word it would be classic. Not saying it’s “a classic” but that it is classic; totally, unabashedly classic. And sometimes that’s exactly what we need; a popcorn flick that can be called neither a mind-bender or mindless, but just a happy medium, well made, and ready for you to lose yourself in it.

Typically, film heroes are slightly older than the target audience, but even though this movie is about a bunch of kids, it’s not really a kid’s movie. It’s a nostalgic movie, and relating to younger characters helps that effect pleasantly. The kids really do make this movie. Reminiscent of The Goonies, they goof off, tease each other, and freak out with hilarious realism. And the actors playing them were equally amazing. Outstanding are Joel Courtney, playing the lead in his very first movie, but you would never know it by watching his superb performance, and Elle Fanning, playing Alice, the newcomer to the group of boys, is the most talented young actress I’ve seen. The other boys are more supporting cast, and their performances are lesser, but mostly only in terms of screen time. Obviously a lot of attention went to casting the kids, and the result was rewarding. Kyle Chandler as Joe’s dad and deputy of the town is also worth mentioning, but this movie really belongs to the kids.

It seems like it’s too easy to make a “successful” movie these days. Just throw together a script that involves saving the world, cast a bunch of pretty actors, and then drown everything in special effects. And people will throw down money watch it. No doubt a few movies fitting that description just popped into your head… like Transformers, perhaps? But not everyone goes that lazy way, some people thankfully still give their films all the attention they need, and are rewarded with something you could actually call art; a real, good movie. Abrams is one of those people, and with this movie, he creates a lovely homage to classic filmmaking, then goes a step further, adding in elements that make modern movies great as well. 

Sure, it has its share of flaws, but they’re easily ignorable in favor of the involving story and characters. Super 8 encourages us to be nostalgic, get lost, and feel at home in its brilliant, modern blast from the past, even if we never happened to have lived there. A sweet, thrilling and compelling ride, it reminds us yet again that well-made, thoughtful movies with heart can also be visually exciting, and full of fun, and laugh-out-loud moments. It’s the sort of movie that threatens to extinguish those half-hearted, factory line films, and though I doubt they will go extinct anytime soon, I will always look forward to when – every once in a while – a remarkable movie like this one jumps out and surprises us, then entertains and involves us through a contagious love for the cinema.

- 4.5/5 stars