Bridge of Spies

For decades, Steven Spielberg has been a very prominent name in Hollywood. Ever since his big break with Jaws forty years ago, he has dabbled in various genres from war to historical drama to adventure. And while he has had a few misfires throughout his career, Spielberg has always been consistent in entertaining his mass audiences.

So how has he fared with his latest film Bridge of Spies? It's certainly clear that he's back since his last film Lincoln three years ago (which finally earned one of his actors an Oscar). But how does it compare to the likes of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan?

Indeed, Bridge of Spies is dark for a Spielberg film but bear in mind it was co-written by the Coen brothers. (If you pay close attention, you can tell which bits were written specifically by them.) But then again, this is a film set during the Cold War. You can't exactly be lighthearted about this particular time in history. (Well, you could try but not many people would like it.)

And the many aspects of Bridge of Spies are worth mentioning. The performances from Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance, the cinematography from Janusz Kaminski, the score from Thomas Newman, the set design by Adam Stockhausen, Rena DeAngelo and Bernhard Henrich...all of these things Bridge of Spies resonate on the screen.

Bridge of Spies is another success for Spielberg without a doubt. All of its fine details are like a well-tuned machine, each part functional on its own but does wonders when combined. Suffice to say that Bridge of Spies is a film you need to see, preferably on a big screen to appreciate those details.

My Rating: *****

Lincoln

The main problem with doing a film about history is that most of the time they end up being history lessons performed by actors. There aren't many films that stay true to the facts and keep their audiences captivated.

Graciously, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln does that very thing. (Thank God too.) He doesn't play the sentiment card like he did with Schindler's List nor does he brutalize the facts as Munich so vividly displays. Lincoln instead plays by the book (well, Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln) and follows the rules.

Apparently one of the key aspects of any history-based film is that you need a cast like no other. Among the huge (and I do mean huge) cast for Lincoln, the names include Sally Field, David Strathairn, Tommy Lee Jones, Hal Holbrook, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, Jackie Earle Haley, Lee Pace, Bruce McGill, Jared Harris and Michael Stuhlbarg. And those are just the supporting actors.

The film unsurprisingly belongs to Daniel Day-Lewis. Like so many of his other performances, the perception of him simply acting vanishes the moment we first see him in action. Suffice to say he'll get some serious recognition when the time comes. (On that note, has any of his performances not been nominated for anything?)

In toll, Lincoln is great. Personally I'm grateful Spielberg didn't make this an overly sentimental film. (If he did, this review wouldn't be as glowing.) It may not be the kind of film for everyone, but I certainly loved it.

My Rating: *****

A.I.: Artificial Intelligence

When one watches A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, they can see the distinction of styles between original director Stanley Kubrick and replacement director Steven Spielberg. Kubrick was the emotionally detached whereas Spielberg is the emotionally involved. And it shows in two characters especially.

Spielberg's style is represented in the form of David (Haley Joel Osment). He longs for the same compassion he is programmed to give, but instead receives contempt. He tries to appease to everyone, but it doesn't work with everyone, which can be applied to Spielberg's recent work.

Kubrick in turn is represented in the form of Gigolo Joe (Jude Law). He is more than aware of the sleazy side of life. Actually, he embraces it to the fullest. He knows of the society he's a part of; he just goes by his own rules.

When the two meet, that is when the two styles clash. David (the innocence Spielberg tends to portray) and Gigolo Joe (the familiarity Kubrick often displayed in his films) are both completely different, and yet somehow it works. Not sure how, but it does.

In toll, however, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence is merely good. The last half hour is a bit of overkill. (For God's sake, Spielberg, keep the bloody aliens in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and that alone.) I did like Law's performance. (Then again, I just like him in general.) Personally this would've been a great film had that last half hour been cut out as if it was a malignant tumor. (Oh wait, it was actually.)

My Rating: ****

Munich

Steven Spielberg, as we all know, can make movies that are either box offices hits (Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark) or critics' favorites (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan). I like both, but from time to time I prefer the latter.

This is almost an ironic movie for Spielberg to make because in Schindler's List, the lead used bargaining as a way to avert violence. In Munich, the "eye for an eye" belief is used quite frequently. And like the D-Day scene in Saving Private Ryan, Munich opens with a re-enactment of the hostage situation of the Israeli Olympic team.

Eric Bana really impressed me. He shows how haunted he became after of the assassinations he committed. His face becomes gaunt, his eyes sink into his head and he gets increasingly paranoid, fearing that his life will be over by someone else pulling the trigger. He also says this, which sums up his feelings on what he has done: "There's no peace at the end of this. Whatever you believe, you know that's true."

Munich, although slow at the beginning, is an excellent movie. The assassination scenes are full of Hitchcockesque suspense. It may not be as great as Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan, but Munich shows that Spielberg still has an edge.

My Rating: ****1/2

Saving Private Ryan

I said on my review of The Thin Red Line that there's debate on which World War II movie from 1998 is better: The Thin Red Line or Saving Private Ryan. And after seeing both, I now know. I'll tell you later on.

Shortly after the invasion of Normandy, Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) is ordered to find Pvt. James Ryan (Matt Damon) to inform him of his brothers' deaths. The task is daunting and, to some, life-threatening.

The most famous scene of Saving Private Ryan is the 27-minute long D-Day scene. We see war in a new light from this scene. We witness soldiers perish on the beach. We watch as they fight their way onto dry land. It's a scene that will forever haunt those who see it.

The work from Hanks is excellent, almost a departure from his earlier work. Steven Spielberg, who already left one hell of an impact on me with Schindler's List, deepened that impact with Saving Private Ryan. Damon, although he doesn't show up until the final third, was also really good. The scene where he is told of his brothers' deaths really impressed me. He takes the news with such stride.

So which is better: The Thin Red Line or Saving Private Ryan? Saving Private Ryan overemphasizes on violence (evident from the D-Day scene); The Thin Red Line emphasizes more on the characters. I had to turn away from several scenes of Saving Private Ryan (weak stomach, you know?); I was fully absorbed by The Thin Red Line. Both are well-acted, both depicted the horrors of war, both are just brilliant movies. So which is better? I apologize to some, but I believe that The Thin Red Line is the better of the two.

My Rating: *****

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

The main reason that Steven Spielberg made Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was "to apologize for the second one". I don't blame him; Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was pushing it for violence. Last Crusade, however, didn't.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) discovers the history of a biblical artifact called "the Holy Grail". He is also informed that his father Henry Jones (Sean Connery), who was also looking for the Holy Grail, is missing. Indy has to find his father. However, he will become involved in the search of the Holy Grail along with his father, as well as fighting the Nazis to reach it.

There's something on the levels of awesome and brilliance with the casting of Connery as Indy's dad. I mean, you got the original James Bond, for crying out loud. Anyway, back to what I was saying. Last Crusade has the same amount of action Raiders of the Lost Ark has and none of the violence Temple of Doom has. I'm sure you're of the "threequel curse" (notable entries include The Godfather Part III and Spider-Man 3). Thankfully, Last Crusade doesn't fall victim to it.

My Rating: ****1/2

Minority Report

Sci-fi is an interesting genre on its own. Combine it with film noir and you got a really intriguing movie. Even more so if it's directed by one of the most prolific directors in Hollywood.

John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is a police officer who works for "Pre-Crime", an elite unit that predicts crimes before they happen. However, Anderton discovers that he will kill a complete stranger in less than 36 hours, making him a fugitive.

What can you expect from Steven Spielberg besides a freakin' awesome movie? Because that's what Minority Report is. Having read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (its movie counterpart is better known as Blade Runner), another Philip K. Dick work, I already had a sense of the neo-noir that's a feature to his work. It's just so awesome. Interesting that I said that since I'm not that big of a fan of science fiction.

My Rating: *****

Raiders of the Lost Ark

I usually don't watch action movies since they seem "guy-centered". You know, no plot, loads of action, that sort of thing. But if there's a good action flick, I check it out. Case in point, I'm reviewing Raiders of the Lost Ark.


Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones (Harrison Ford) has been informed that there's an expedition to find the Ark of the Covenant. But he also learns that the Nazis are after it as well, making it a race against time.


You gotta love a good ol' action movie. The plot isn't as ridiculous as the action movies of today. Spielberg manages to grab your attention from the opening to the credits. And you gotta love the opening scene. Truly epic.

My Rating: *****

Schindler's List

Steven Spielberg is frequently synonymous with huge box office numbers. But he is also synonymous with critically acclaimed movies.


Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) is a vain, glorious and greedy German businessman who is a member of the Nazi Party. But upon seeing the barbaric Nazi reign and the psychotic acts of Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes), he feels compelled to turn his factory into a refuge for Jews.

Schindler's List had many emotional scenes, but there's one scene towards the end that got to me (and I assume many others). As Schindler and his Jews are leaving the factory, he confides in his accountant Itzhak Stern (played by the talented Ben Kingsley) that he "didn't do enough". Stern tells Schindler that he managed to save over a thousand Jews, but Schindler is heavily distraught about not saving more lives. It made me wonder what would've happen had he saved more Jews. Would he still feel guilty?

Spielberg, who would've thought you could make such a powerful movie like Schindler's List? It has it all: beautiful cinematography, a heartbreaking score by John Williams, and bravura performances from Neeson and Fiennes. And yes, of course, Spielberg's skilled direction.

My Rating: *****

Catch Me If You Can

Is there one movie Steven Spielberg has directed and it doesn't do well? Apart from 1941, that is.

Frank Abagnale, Jr. (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an elusive con artist who managed to pose as a pilot, a doctor and a lawyer, and masterfully forged checks and impotant documents. But hot on his trail of forgery is FBI agent Carl Hanratty (Tom Hanks).

Knowing Spielberg, you practically expect him to deliver an entertaining movie. Here, he does just that. DiCaprio was great as cunning con Abagnale. Ironic since the real Frank Abagnale, Jr. thought DiCaprio wasn't a good choice until he saw DiCaprio's performance. Hanks was also good as was Christopher Walken (who plays Frank Abagnale, Sr.), but this was really DiCaprio's movie.

My Rating: ****1/2

BOOK VS MOVIE: Jaws

When the movie Jaws is mentioned, the first thing usually thought of is the famed score by John Williams. But I assume that not a lot of people know that the movie that made Steven Spielberg a household name was based off a book.

Island resort Amity is the subject of a shark attack on a tourist. Police chief Martin Brody wants to close the beaches but since the 4th of July crowds are coming soon, mayor Larry Vaughn refuses to have it done. Shortly after this, a young boy is killed by the same shark. The only help Brody receives to get rid of the shark is from shark hunter Quint and ichthyologist Matt Hooper.

Occasionally, a movie becomes well-known for the complications during production (Apocalyspe Now anyone?), and Jaws is definitely one of those movies. The robotic shark "Bruce" (named after Spielberg's lawyer) kept breaking down from the saltwater and the crew nicknamed the movie "Flaws". But because of the malfunctioning mechanics, Spielberg decided to only hint when the shark is nearby. Smart move.

What's worth checking out?: The book's okay, the movie's great.