Disclosure Day

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Emily Blunt, Josh O' Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, Colman Domingo, Wyatt Russell, Henry Lloyd-Hughes, Elizabeth Marvel, Hettienne Park, Tommy Matinez, Gabby Beans, Jeremy Shamos, Brandon Wilson Courtney Grace 
Running Time: 145 min.
Rating: PG-13

 

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)  

A sense of excitement surrounded the news that Steven Spielberg's sci-fi thriller Disclosure Day would find the legendary director returning to the genre where he experienced some of his greatest success. And while the filmmaker who helmed so many cultural touchstones has grown older and more experienced, he's continued to show flashes of greatness in adapting to the times. Still, no one can be blamed for entering this with lowered expectations, as its title and trailers suggested something closer to a reboot of M. Night Shayamalan's Signs, complete with matching crop circles. 

Understandably choosier about the projects he takes on, we should know by now not to underestimate Spielberg, who wouldn't put his weight behind a premise done to death by Hollywood unless it's something's special. And David Koepp's script is, resulting in an intelligent, visually gripping spectacle far superior to what its advertising implied. Frenetically paced and spectacularly shot, this doesn't let up for a minute, trusting viewers to keep up as it builds to an emotional, thought provoking climax.   

With countries hovering on the brink of World War III, U.S. cybersecurity specialist Daniel Kellner (Josh O' Connor) has stolen classified information from his employer, the government contracted Wardex Corporation. Now in possession of a mysterious extraterrestrial artifact and a hard drive containing proof of alien life dating back to Roswell, he's a hunted man. Evading the company's CEO Noah Scanlon (Colin Firth), he flees with girlfriend Jane Blankenship (Eve Hewson) while maintaining communication with disillusioned Wardex co-worker Hugo Wakefield (Colman Domingo). Having assembled his secret team at an undisclosed location, Hugo's already set in motion a plan to reveal the truth to the world.

Meanwhile in Kansas City, local meteorologist Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) alarms musician boyfriend Jackson (Wyatt Russell) with her increasingly odd, erratic behavior. Speaking in foreign languages she shouldn't know and suddenly displaying psychic abilities, things only get stranger when she delivers an incomprehensible weather report on KCXE's newscast that quickly goes viral. Now under siege from Wardex agents who recognize her extraterrestrial language, she hits the road to find Daniel, with whom she shares an inexplicable bond. Together they'll try to unlock their repressed memories and expose this cover up to the world, unless Scanlon gets to them first.                

The story's well underway by its opening scene, posing more questions than answers when Daniel's seemingly held hostage by Wardex agents. He's clearly in possession of something Scanlon wants and the fact these characters are already way ahead of us makes for an exciting dynamic that quickly piques our interest. And though Daniel and Jane each know considerably less about each other than they originally assumed, he still holds most of the secrets, remaining committed to seeing this through with Hugo's help.

Spielberg's biggest surprise is that the whole film feels like two extended, action packed road trips with protagonists barely given enough time to process the enormity of what's happening. Like Daniel, Blunt's Margaret is a target, but must also grapple with psychic powers she doesn't appear to fully comprehend, at least not yet. While Hugo knows it's imperative she and Daniel unite in publicly disclosing the contents of the Archive, the consequences and specifics come later. Just not before some awe inspiring chase scenes set at a barn house and on a speeding train. 

That Firth's Scanlon isn't your typical one dimensional villain can be credited to both Koepp's screenplay and the actor's turn as a man broken enough to convince himself he's right. Even if Scanlon brings up valid points about the public's potential response to this info, the root of his concern stems from a monetary desire to maintain power and control following a deeply personal loss. As a former nun, Jane's worries are largely rooted in moral and religious fears, making for an intriguing clash when Scanlon uses the extraterrestrial artifact to telepathically infiltrate her consciousness. But this device isn't just a clever narrative tool, as it causes nearly as much physical and emotional distress to its user as their intended target.

O' Connor is engagingly effective as this whistleblower sure in his beliefs, if a little fuzzy on how he'll pull it all off. Blunt's given a lot more to juggle as Margaret, a TV personality whose newfound abilities turn her world upside down, affecting everyone she encounters. The whole performance plays like an outer body experience as the actress simultaneously conveys the fear and confusion accompanying such a bizarre phenomenon. But her work really kicks into high gear once Margaret gets a handle on her powers and embraces what they'll eventually come to mean in a larger sense. 

Domingo's part is pivotal, with Hugo's knowledge carrying a certain air of mystery as we speculate why he's guiding Daniel from what looks like the confines of a giant stage set. Ultimately though, his goal is to facilitate Daniel and Margaret's connection, which receded into their subconsciousness long ago. This retrieval process leads to the film's most divisive section, featuring childhood flashbacks shot by cinematographer Janusz Kamiński in a style that visually resembles a Thomas Kincaid painting.

A lack of full disclosure in a film titled Disclosure Day would be the ultimate bait and switch, and while we do know where that'll occur, it's all about the "how," especially when the struggle to expose the truth becomes a race against time. The final act is surprisingly powerful, not only due to the unearthed footage that raises the film's believability quotient or even John Williams' quietly stirring score, but one unforgettable performance. It comes from relatively unknown actress and former real life TV reporter Courtney Grace, who's tasked with the herculean feat of delivering this live breaking news. With astonishingly authentic facial reactions and delivery, her unnamed NBC anchorwoman becomes the world's eyes and ears, lifting the conclusion to a place we didn't think it could possibly reach.

Easily one of Spielberg's better recent efforts, this is a worthy entry in his rich sci-fi catalogue, earning thematic comparisons to Minority Report, and more directly, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. After an opening that might have audiences scratching their heads, the ideas gradually grow as we're taken on a wild ride with two intrinsically linked characters who spend the majority of the picture on separate but interwoven quests.  

Spielberg proves less interested in the existence of extraterrestrial life than what our collective reaction says about us as a species. The idea we're not alone definitely isn't new, but this posits a gripping dramatization of what happens when conspiracy meets reality. Rather than focusing on the aliens and their intentions, he takes a riskier, less traveled route by questioning whether we'd ever have enough empathy, faith and understanding to accept them.   

The Fabelmans

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Gabriel LaBelle, Michelle Williams, Paul Dano, Seth Rogen, Julia Butters, Judd Hirsch, Jeannie Berlin, Robin Bartlett, Keeley Karsten, Sophia Kopera, Sam Rechner, Oakes Fegley, Chloe East, Jame Urbaniak, David Lynch, Greg Grunberg
Running Time:151 min.
Rating: PG-13

**The Following Review Contains Plot Spoilers For 'The Fabelmans'**

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Considering how everyone's story often looms larger than life in their own minds, that impact must feel heightened for Steven Spielberg, whose childhood has so informed his work as a filmmaker that the idea of a movie inspired by those memories may seem like a self-indulgent formality. But because it's been frequently alluded to through the years, there's a curiosity factor in seeing how his parents' divorce influenced the director who'd go on to make future classics like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. 

It's not a coincidence those three aforementioned titles spring to mind while watching The Fabelmans,  as each combine that childlike sense of wonder prevalent in Spielberg's filmography with his recurring theme of broken families. While the latter motif has either consciously or unconsciously permeated his films, this marks the first time as an audience we get front row seats to watch him sit on the psychologist's couch as he processes it. You can almost feel through the screen how personal and raw it still is, as if we've been given unrestricted access to details only those closest to him should know. And yet, there's still that universal appeal present that's categorized so much of what he's previously done. 

To Spielberg's credit, he goes all in and rarely pulls punches, further solidifying our belief it's more than "loosely inspired" by real events.  Jumping off the little we already knew, these feel like things that would have happened, but also how you imagine he'd present it. The family dynamic is universally messy enough to feel relatable, before the story to some fascinating places in the second half, retaining the idea that a series of events at a key point can set someone on a trajectory, regardless of whether they're ready. Clearly, the divorce carried life-altering consequences, but what's most interesting is how the implosion of a traditional marriage meant something far different in the 50's and 60's than it does now, making it that much easier to see how this event would so dramatically affect him.

It's 1952 in Haddon Township, New Jersey when pianist Mitzi Fabelman (Michelle Williams) and her computer engineer husband Burt (Paul Dano) take their eight-year-old son Sammy (Mateo Zoryan Francis-DeFord) to see his first film, Cecil B. DeMille's The Greatest Show on Earth. Traumatized by the train crash scene, Sammy can't sleep or get it out of his head, determined to restage it with the toy train set he got for Hanukkah. With his mother's permission, he shoots this crash with an 8mm camera, which leads to him make movies starring younger sisters Reggie, Natalie and Lisa. But when Burt gets offered a new job at GE in Phoenix, the family relocates, with Burt's best friend and co-worker Bennie (Seth Rogen) also coming along. 

As a teen, Sammy (Gabriel LaBelle) continues making films with his Boy Scout troop, before shooting a family camping trip, the footage of which leads to a heartbreaking reveal about mom Mitzy. While an angered and distraught Sammy stews over this shocking discovery, Burt gets promoted, causing another move to California, this time with Bennie being left behind. Facing bullying and anti-semitism at a new school, Sammy temporarily abandons filmmaking and begins dating classmate Monica (Chloe East), a devout Christian who quickly falls for him. But with his family crumbling, the urge to pick up a camera remains, as does his dream of making movies in Hollywood.

This contains so much family shenanigans early on that you have to assume it was directly drawn from the Spielberg's memories since it's simply too crazy to believe otherwise. Running a robust two and a half hours, the film leads with lighter, comedic material (one including a pet monkey), that frame the picture of a family whose happiness is on borrowed time. It also marks a rare instance of the director going way over the top to make a point we're not sure he'll get around to. For a little while we wonder if he has one, until the surprise arrival of former film industry vet uncle Boris (Judd Hirsch) to berate and inspire Sammy, prophetically laying out the sacrifices ahead of him in having to choose between family and art. Hirsch's brief, electric performance has been rightfully praised, but works best when viewed as setting the groundwork for a more memorable encounter Sammy experiences later.

Sandwiched between a practical, scientific father dismissive of his filmmaking "hobby" and an artsy, free spirited mother encouraging him to reach for the stars, Sammy's soon hit with the realization all isn't what it seems with his parents' marriage. Spielberg and Tony Kushner's script isn't subtle about Mitzi and Burt orbiting different planets as spouses, and while some criticism has been leveled against Michelle Williams' flighty, occasionally downright bonkers portrayal of Mitzy, that was likely the intention. And if it's supposed to be an exact facsimile of Spielberg's actual mother, all you can really do is commend him for actually going there since Mitzy is...a lot. And it's safe bet that parts of this character will be recognizable to many, emotions flailing as the rest of the family anxiously await her next cringeworthy public display.

Spielberg probably felt he had to cast Williams' since it's unlikely anyone else could navigate a part this tricky and unflattering, filled with highs and lows. It's a better performance than most think, and given how it supposedly skirts the line between lead and supporting, eats up enough time to claim the movie mostly belongs to her. Dano disappears into the brilliant, but straight-laced Burt, whose disinterested demeanor and milquetoast personality subtly feeds Mitzy's inferiority complex. And yet you feel for him, realizing he's doing his best with all that's on his plate. Ironically, Seth Rogen's one of the film's more subdued aspects, bringing a goofy charm to Bernie, who we recognize as possibly providing Mitzy more of what she needs than her own husband.

There are some really powerful scenes, such as a family member's death, another involving daughter Reggie's (Julia Butters) embarrassment at her mom's exhibitionism and a handful charting Sammy's reaction to Mitzi's seemingly unforgivable transgression. The idea that Sammy filters everything that happens through movies begins with his restaging of the train crash but becomes even more pronounced when he splices together the single worst moment of his young life. If it seems as if the  anti-semitic bullying comes out of nowhere, that's because these things often do. And not only is it the strongest section of the film, but arguably the best narrative stretch Spielberg's had in years, in no small part due to newcomer Gabriel LaBelle's performance. 

We've seen many failed attempts from directors at casting their onscreen surrogate, but LaBelle's the real deal, undeniably great at conveying just the right amount of awkwardness, humor and angst as he single-handedly carries the remainder of the picture. And toward the end, the actor even begins to physically resemble the shaggy haired Spielberg we've seen in photos and footage from that period. Sammy's whirlwind relationship with the very religious Monica supplies the film with some of its biggest laughs, but what hits hardest is this unexpected arc with school bullies Logan (Sam Rechner) and Chad (Oakes Fegley). His filming of senior Ditch Day leads to the understanding of just how much power he wields behind the camera to tell the story he wants, while maybe even also earning a certain degree of begrudging acceptance. Watching, you wonder if Spielberg intended this as a dig at critics who have long cited the director's populist sensibilities as blunting the full creative potential of his output.  

Whether Sammy makes the choice he does to be liked or simply because it was right for the project is a question even he can't completely answer. But it leads to the film's best scene, a school hallway confrontation that crackles with a verbal and physical intensity we haven't seen from the director in years. The sequence frames everything preceding it to mean more in totality, as does an ending that sees Sammy meeting his hero, legendary director John Ford, played with cantankerous bluster by an ingeniously cast David Lynch. It's a cameo that needs to been to be believed, and even then, you still may not believe it. And it's all capped off with a clever visual gag that deserves mention as the one of the more indelible final shots of Spielberg's career.

Subverting expectations and playing better the longer it sits, the film avoids sappiness and is even a little messy, which comes as a relief considering the director's reputation for playing it safe. After Schindler's List there was no going back, almost as if Spielberg realized that delivering crowd pleasing blockbusters to the masses no longer held the interest for him it once did, as he moved toward historically based, character driven dramas. But whether it's the nostalgia of digging into his own past or again working with kids, you kind of feel that spark return here, combining the best of both Spielbergs. And by now tackling the one issue that's colored his entire journey, we're left wondering whether The Fabelmans can even be judged on its own terms, or is best evaluated as a reflection of the man who made it.                            

West Side Story (2021)

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Ansel Elgort, Rachel Zegler, Ariana DeBose, David Alvarez, Mike Faist, Rita Moreno, Brian d'Arcy James, Corey Stoll, Josh Andrés Rivera, Iris Menas
Running Time: 156 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

When it was announced Steven Spielberg would be directing an updated version of Bernstein and Robbins' classic 1957 musical, West Side Story, the news wasn't met with unanimous enthusiasm. It seemed to take years for this project to get off the ground before spending even more time in post-production due to the pandemic before barely making a ripple in theaters. Older fans of the 1961 film seemed offended he'd be reimagining one of the more respected Best Picture winners while younger audiences couldn't have cared less about any of it and stayed away.

Whether you're all that interested in seeing this particular story falls less on Spielberg and writer Tony Kushner than the source material, to which they're slavishly faithful, sharpening up the edges with  updated choreography, strong performances and a vibrant presentation. Musical fans will love it, as it's an impeccably made, if occasionally uneven interpretation, that accomplishes what's needed. And despite finding myself checking out at points, wishing some of the more monotonous numbers had been cut, it's easy to see why they weren't, especially given how closely it's being watched for retaining the integrity of the stage and film versions. Both traditional and aggressively modern all at once, this does get the most important detail right, satisfyingly delivering on its revisionist Romeo and Juliet-inspired love story.

It's 1957 and a gang of white youths called the Jets are feuding with the Puerto Rican Sharks for control of Manhattan's San Juan Hill neighborhood on the West Side, which is about to be demolished to make way for construction on Lincoln Center. Ignoring reprimands from Officer Krupke (Brian d'Arcy James) and Lieutenant Schrank (Corey Stoll) about the pointlessness of continuing this war, both Jets leader Riff (Mike Faist) and Shark leader Bernardo (David Alvarez) refuse to back down, with each staking claim on their territory, making it a matter of pride that can only be settled with violence.

After the gauntlet is laid down for a rumble to determine gang supremacy, Riff tries to recruit paroled best friend and ex-Jet, Tony (Ansel Elgort) back into the fold, who's been trying to turn his life around while working for Valentina (Rita Moreno) at Doc's General Store. But when Bernardo's sister, Maria (Rachel Zegler) and Tony spot each another at a local dance, it's love at first sight, only intensifying her brother's desire to destroy the Jets. 

With Maria already betrothed to Bernardo's best friend Chino (Josh Andrés Rivera), the optimistic, free spirited Anita (Ariana DeBose) is torn between her loyalty to boyfriend Bernardo and Maria, who's become like a sister to her. All of this comes to a dangerous head, with Tony and Maria caught in the middle, risking that this forbidden relationship is strong enough to withstand their different backgrounds and the gang rivalry threatening to tear them apart.

While it's a stretch to say its two and a half hour running length flies by, it does start swinging for the fences with some strong musical sequences right out of the gate that effectively introduce the characters. As far as plot, nothing we get here is a departure from the source, but under Spielberg's direction, there is a freshness to the production design and cinematography that suggests the here and now, almost making you wonder why he didn't just go all the way and set it in the present. 

From a visual standpoint, it works, looking and feeling entirely different from the 1961 film while taking place in a 1950's that could double for 2021. Like its predecessor, it utilizes a mixture of locations and sound stages, but no one's watching West Side Story as a historical drama or an approximation of these characters beyond their emotions, which are rooted in a nostalgic reality of sorts. Spielberg's stylistic choices reflect this sensibility, while correcting the '61 version's problematic issues of ethnic stereotyping and its offensive casting of brownfaced white actors as Puerto Ricans. 

Themes of racial tension and discrimination play as strongly now as then, making this fertile ground for a more relevant interpretation, with Spielberg and Kushner handling those issues more sensitively than decades ago without sacrificing the drama. The songs are more up and down, with some questionably placed and feeling dated, especially Tony's more quietly contemplative ones. Elgort has taken a lot of heat as the weakest link, and while it's the actor's flattest big screen lead performance yet, he comes alive in the last act and his scenes opposite Zegler really click, with them having better chemistry together than they've probably gotten credit for. His singing voice is pleasant but boring, though he's still an improvement over the bland Richard Beymer before him, who didn't do his own singing and brought even less to the role. After this, it may be time to admit there have always been problems with the surface-level Tony character that go beyond whoever is chosen to play him.

Maria fares better and that might be okay since the story always seemed to be more hers, with Tony serving as the catalyst to help her realize who she is and wants to be, eventually changing the dynamic between the Jets and Sharks. Angelic newcomer Zegler is a real find, with a singing voice so perfect it would almost seem unrealistic for the character if she wasn't so believable overall. Their initial meeting at the dance (set against the backdrop of cinematographer Janusz Kamiński's lens flare madness) is one of the film's strongest sequences, with the sensational "America" musical number and gang fight not too far behind. But it's the fallout from the pivotal rumble where Spielberg really steps on the gas, as we completely lose ourselves enough in the story and characters during the last forty minutes to squash any lingering reservations.   

Of everyone, it's Mike Faist and Ariana DeBose who just seem as if they completely belong as Riff and Anita, with the former equally adept at conveying the menace of this gang leader while his loose limbed interpretation of Justin Peck's choreography carries a natural physicality that fits in any era. DeBose, given the unenviable task of stepping into the role that already won Rita Moreno an Oscar, not only carries the musical sequences, but deftly handles the film's most notoriously difficult and controversial scene in the second half. Moreno's own role as Valentina is smallish in terms of screen time but she makes it count, leaving a memorable impression as Tony's boss and mentor. And as hot-tempered boxer Bernardo, Rivera effectively gets inside the skin of this overprotective brother and boyfriend whose anger and stubbornness guide his every action.

Though Spielberg's name was curiously downplayed in the marketing, the film's commercial reception highlights how his personal tastes have further diverged from the general movie going public over the past decade or so. Expecting audiences to come out in droves for this may have been a miscalculation, but it's clear he's only interested in doing things that personally excite him as a filmmaker. It's hard to argue he hasn't earned the right, shepherding a production that feels and plays like a big event, greatly benefiting from having him at the helm. With its wild tonal shifts, West Side Story isn't exactly the easiest material to faithfully update, so he deserves credit for putting a fresh coat of paint on a musical that can still be affectionately described as old fashioned in the best possible way.

Stranger Things

Creators: The Duffer Brothers
Starring: Winona Ryder, David Harbour, Finn Wolfhard, Millie Bobby Brown, Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin, Natalia Dyer, Charlie Heaton, Cara Buono, Matthew Modine, Noah Schnapp, Joe Keery, Shannon Purser
Original Airdate: 2016

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

                                                 **Spoiler Warning: This Review Reveals Minor Plot Details**

If you told me a month ago what I'd most need out of entertainment in 2016 would be a final, missing season of Steven Spielberg's Amazing Stories nearly thirty years after the fact, delivered through the spirit of The Goonies, E.T., Poltergeist, Close Encounters and Stand By Me, I'd call you crazy. And that's what's so funny about knowing what you need. Sometimes you just don't until it's arrived. A one or two line description of Netflix's nostalgic supernatural series from The Duffer Brothers, Stranger Things, could have easily been met with some collective eye rolling for fairly obvious reasons.

Netflix's Stranger Things

Telekinesis, alternate universes, government experiments, other-worldly creatures aren't topics that cause me much excitement anymore. In fact, my general interest in science fiction and horror genre has been on such a steep, steady decline in recent years, not only failing to generate trigger the exuberance it once did, but now actually inducing audible groans. Some of that's undoubtedly attributed to age and evolving tastes, but there was always a part of me holding out hope that it was also a quality issue, just needing the right project to come along and impress. Now, it's here.

After watching the eight most mind-blowing episodes of original content Netflix has yet produced, I couldn't help but think back again to Spielberg, and to a slightly lesser extent, Stephen King, who's already weighed in with high praise. Did Spielberg watch it? What did he think? Has he met the kids? This might be the first time I've this strongly wondered or cared about his opinion on anything in years. And that's not a knock on him anymore than it is on myself and others in a similar age bracket who grew up spoiled on the movies he directed and produced in the 80's. Filmmakers evolve and it's at least somewhat unfair of audiences to expect them to keep repeating themselves, but man was Spielberg ever completely in his wheelhouse making those, regardless of whatever well-received work followed.

This will always be the era for which Spieleberg is most remembered and it's been channeled with such honesty and authenticity here, succeeding where so many imitators failed. If much of that is in the tone and execution then The Duffer Brothers nail it, using the 1980's setting to do more than invoke warm, fuzzy childhood memories, instead systematically removing all the shackles restricting most modern-set efforts of the genre. It was at once a more innocent yet entirely less innocent era, all of which is magically invoked and reflected through its story and these kids. In other words, it's a keeper and easily the biggest, most welcome surprise so far this year. In any medium.

The Gang: Lucas, Mike, Eleven and Dustin

Hawkins, Indiana. 1983. A marathon game of Dungeons and Dragons with friends Mike Wheeler (Finn Wolfhard), Dustin Henderson (Gatan Matarazzo), Lucas Sinclair (Caleb McLoughlin) and Will Byers (Noah Schnapp) ends in mystery when 12-year-old Will disappears on his way home from Maike's house after an encounter with a strange, threatening creature. After discovering Will's absence the next morning, his frazzled,  single mom Joyce (Winona Ryder) and outcast older brother Jonathan (Charlie Heaton) enlist the help of grizzled, bitter police chief Jim Hopper (David Harbour), whose investigation into the disappearance awakens him from a purposelessness he's been experiencing since a personal tragedy derailed his life. All clues lead him to the government-backed Hawkins National Laboratory and their head scientist, the creepy, Andy Warhol-looking Dr. Martin Brenner (Matthew Modine), who will stop at nothing to protect the lab's top covert experiments and research.

With Mike struggling to come to terms with the fact that one of his best friends is missing, he must also contend with completely apathetic parents (played by Karen Buono and Joe Chrest)  and distracted good girl older sister, Nancy (Natalia Dyer), who's too smitten with popular school jock Steve Harrington (Joe Keery) to care about anything going on with her brother. Fortunately, Mike, Lucas and Dustin stumble upon Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown), a scared young girl with a buzz cut they find in the woods with telekinetic abilities who may have answers as to what's happened to Will. The gang befriend her, with Mike going so far as to hide her in his basement without his parents' knowledge as the two form a special attachment. With Hawkins Laboratories closing in and the truth about how Will's disappearance ties to the creature and Eleven becoming apparent, the boys need to stick it out for the adventure of their lives, even as Joyce insists her son is alive and trying desperately to communicate.

This is a series you can pretty much go to town in describing without fear of giving anything away since so many of its surprises are hidden between the crevices, actually have very little to do with plot. While Amazing Stories is a decent starting point for comparison's sake, that's slightly misleading since this a single, standalone story rather than part of an anthology (at least thus far) and that show creatively missed about as much as it hit. While each of these episodes given a "Choose Your Own Adventure" style chapter title, even just one of them would undoubtedly rank as the strongest entry in that short-lived 80's series' wildly mixed catalog of quality. But the feelings and intentions associated with it remains. In so many ways, Stranger Things could be viewed through the prism of what Spielberg's expectations were for his short-lived TV project, which couldn't thrive at the time due to his exploding feature film career.

Dr. Brenner at Hawkins Laboratories

With an opening title card presented in a recognizably vintage font inspired by Stephen King paperbacks, and accompanied by a John Carpenter-infused synth score (courtesy of the Austin-based band SURVIVE), the pilot episode let's us know we're in for it. And while it's true the remainder of the season leaves viewers aghast at the period specific references, hidden 80's Easter eggs or costume, soundtrack and production design, none of that would matter if the characters were inauthentic or the story wasn't handled this skillfully.

The initial skepticism of watching a season of TV centered around solving the mystery of a 12-year-old boy abducted by a monster that resembles The Thing is wiped away by the second episode when it becomes clear that this is a show that treats the genre and the kid characters inhabiting it with intelligence and respect. Tearing a page out of Jaws, we don't see the creature all that much so when it does appear its presence actually means something, with its eventual impact having been gradually built off-screen over the course of multiple episodes. 

The special effects (which are quite good) just might be the only modern element of the series, but there's a B-movie quality to them that still fit right into place in this world. And there's no mistaking that the Duffers have very much created a world, or a couple of universes to be exact, where anything seems possible and kids and adults behaved in a way that could seem jarring to anyone that didn't grow up on 80's TV or movies this is paying tribute to. But if you did, this will feel like going home.

Joyce, Jonathan and Nancy anticipate the worst

By today's standards, it would appear the kids are almost given a dangerous amount of autonomy and independence by their parents, allowing them to frequently go off on their own with few consequences. While the plot itself is supernaturally unbelievable in nature, the fact that these kids would go unsupervised for days is not. Nor is the possibility that one of them could reasonably hide a kid in their basement for nearly a week without parental knowledge. If the adults just seemed to be more hands-off then Mike's epitomize this attitude, at first showing a shocking lack of empathy regarding the disappearance of their son's friend.

The minimal technology of the era also leads to more exciting, suspenseful situations and better storytelling as there are many points during the series that, save for their walkie-talkies, these kids have no way of communicating the harm they're in, forced to use their resourcefulness and imagination to come up with solutions. This is where it most strongly resembles The Goonies, with no winking at the audience or talking down to children like they're sub-humans. They curse, pull knives on each other and do all sorts of other things you'd never see today in a any series starring children. And only does the very real threat of death exist, it occasionally even occurs.

While the characters are most definitely recognizable "types" from 80's entertainment and even beyond, it's enthralling seeing all of them eventually subverted and challenged while serving the grand design of this genre-bending exercise. The kids each have identifiable personality quirks, with the actors giving some of the best child performances we've seen in ages. There's the always entertaining, toothless mediator Dustin played by newcomer Gaten Matarazzo, stealing scenes and hamming it up as really entertaining comic relief . Caleb McLaughlin's Lucas is the rebellious, free-thinking skeptic of the gang with most of his concerns about Eleven being justified given the situation. We don't get much of Noah Schnapp as Will Byers considering he goes MIA in the first episode, but his few scenes establish him as an outwardly nerdy, nice kid with the ability to summon the inner toughness to fight for his survival if necessary. And it ends up being very necessary.

Millie Bobby Brown as Eleven

Bullied at school and feeling little connection to his old sister and parents, Finn Wolfhard's Mike forges a deep bond with the verbally and emotionally limited Eleven, but one his friends believe only stems from his excitement that a girl is actually talking to him. The friendship that develops between El and these kids, and their attempts to hide her from the government agency both honing and exploiting her powers, is the first thing everyone talks about when discussing the show. Well, that, and Millie Bobby Brown's revelatory performance as Eleven. Simultaneously portraying a naive little girl first learning how the outside world works and a pre-programmed machine both frightened and protective of her skills, she's the big breakout here, with her character most heavily invoking the memories discussed in association with this show, most notably surrounding E.T.  Some of her most memorable scenes involve her wonderment and excitement over simple things like Eggos or a La-Z-Boy Recliner, or the boys trying to put a dress and make-up on her.

As the only one with the ability to locate Mike, El is eventually torn between the only world her young mind knows and this new one with the foreign, but welcome concept of real friends and family. Brown's scenes opposite both Wolfhard and Ryder are the strongest and most touching of the series, particularly one where Mike starts making plans for her to stay with his family permanently. Of course, we know why that can't happen, and even as we hope for at least the second best outcome for her, the scene still rips us apart. As does the mere suggestion that the possibility exists that we've seen the last of Eleven. Regardless of where they go from here, this talented young actress's card is punched for superstardom.

Winona Ryder as ax-wielding Joyce Byers

Similarly, there's something that just feels so right about Winona Ryder as frantic single mother and store clerk Joyce Byers, to the point that she's irreplaceable. More than just the nostalgia factor of returning Ryder to the decade during which her career began, she's doing it this time as something she's never played before: A grieving mother.

Falling through the cracks for a while, her career was always built on being the cool, hip young chick, but when he she aged out of it, Hollywood didn't quite know what to do with her. This feels not just like a comeback, but a full-blown homecoming, with material that plays to her inherent quirkiness while still giving her big dramatic opportunities opposite the adult and child actors (the latter she should understand better than anybody given her past).

Ryder leaves enough room to make Joyce's insistence that her presumed dead son is communicating with her seem like both the ravings of a complete lunatic and a reasonably desperate mom whose son's gone missing. Just watch how she plays the scene where she asks (or rather demands) her boss give her an advance. Undoubtedly high on the list of actresses everyone wanted back in a big way, this feels as if it was written specifically for the now middle-aged but still undeniably youthful actress, taking into account where her career started and, where we hoped, it would eventually end up under ideal circumstances.

David Harbour as Chief Hopper

At first, the blunt, grumpy Chief Hopper would seem to be one of Joyce's biggest doubters, until the evidence starts adding up, and also begins dredging up his own personal demons. The more we learn about his past the more complex he becomes, and well-traveled, but anonymous character actor David Harbour (a consistently solid presence in every project preceding this), takes it to a whole new level here, gradually peeling back the layers of Hopper's "tough guy" persona. We're surprised to discover he's an excellent cop, but perhaps even more surprised to eventually realize how much he cares.

Just as integral to the investigation, if unintentionally, are the teen characters, who on the surface could be viewed as composites from The Breakfast Club before revealing themselves as three-dimensional characters. It's again to the benefit of the series that these roles are played by unknown actors, conveying a certain believability and freshness that couldn't be achieved with big, recognizable names above the credits. Natalia Dyer, Charlie Heaton and Joe Keery and Shannon Purser are all exceptional in bringing something completely different to whom we'd label the good girl, the weirdo, the jock and the nerd, respectively.

Steve, Nancy and Barb

As things develop, motivations change, and results of Nancy's situation and how it manages to organically link to main supernatural storyline is one of the better late-season rewards. and Keery's oddly familiar-looking Steve stands has possibly the most satisfying journey of all the supporting characters. What they do with him is smart and surprising, sure to become a key talking point in discussing how the writing succeeds in even the smallest of ways.

Add to the list of accomplishments the writing of the Mr.Clarke character, a science teacher who's somehow able to explain alternate universes and space-time tears in perfectly logical terms that any 12-year-old could understand, especially these. The Duffer Brothers' Spielbergian ability to never have the adults talk down to kids is most evident here, with Clarke rarely taking a break from encouraging and feeding their curiosity to learn. He's such a minor character, but even this depiction highlights just how much has changed in thirty years about how teachers are portrayed onscreen.

It's tough to tell which of the show's nostalgic influences were conscious choices made by its creators and which may have unconciously seeped in, as not all are homages from decade's past. What it brings back is the idea of the government as the evil, controlling force manipulating the public and exploiting science for its own benefit. All the E.T. comparisons are right on target but the actual plot more closely resembles the 2011 Canadian cult sci-fi horror film, Beyond The Black Rainbow, also taking place in 1983 and featuring an aging hippie scientist conducting telepathic experiments on a young girl.

Eleven trapped in the Upside-Down

While that still criminally underseen head trip is far more inaccessible and abstract than this, its aesthetic evocation of the paranoid mood of that decade is comparable. It's hard not to be reminded of it every time the story flashes back to Matthew Modine's creepily calm Dr. Brenner and his interactions with El in the lab. And upon glimpsing the black, watery Upside-Down dimension El is able enter, it's also hard not to immediately think of Under the Skin, reminding us that the series also may have channeled more contemporary references. 
This is obviously a huge victory for Netflix, as Stranger Things came completely out of nowhere with little advance buzz and relatively minimal promotion. Given the nature of the project, it's easy to appreciate the old school approach of making something great and trusting the audience to discover it and spread the word. It worked. This wasn't shoved down our throats or overhyped since there was simply no need. Known for taking chances on fringe programming that more mainstream networks tend to pass on, everyone involved likely shared the general idea that the Duffers had something special here. And did they ever.

When this season came to its spectacular conclusion I actually found myself upset that it was over, but equally concerned about what's next. These eight episodes were just so perfectly constructed and tightly paced that I almost want it to end now, fearing a second season could tarnish this. But you have to do it. There's simply no choice. The question is whether you literally take the anthology route by telling a whole new story or continue with this one? The ending leaves no doubt as to the decision and it's the right one.

The gang sticks together

There are moments containing genuine shocks and scares and others when the adventure is just plain fun. The tone's handled perfectly, with its creators realizing the goal wasn't necessarily to recreate the decade (though they do damn good job), but replicate our memories of watching movies and shows from that era. I suppose all those little details, but if someone asked me exactly how the Duffers managed it, I'm not sure it's even explicable.

It goes beyond the technicalities of being shot similarly, making the right wardrobe and set choices, or even writing authentic child characters. It's like they were able to hit this nostalgic nerve that's never been tapped before, making the show as much about us and the experiences we bring to it as what's on screen. In barren landscape of disappointing summer popcorn movies, Stranger Things is the best 80's summer blockbuster that isn't a movie or made during that decade. But good luck convincing yourself of that while watching.  

Jurassic World

Director: Colin Trevorrow
Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'Onofrio, Nick Robinson, Ty Simpkins, B.D. Wong, Irrfan Khan, Jake Johnson, Lauren Lapkus, Judy Greer, Katie McGrath 
Running Time: 124 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

It always seemed the one lost opportunity in Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park trilogy was actually setting the action in a fully functioning amusement park filled with people. You'd think adding that element of unpredictable danger to the plot could only heighten the stakes and danger. The entire amusement park concept has been gestating so long that we figured Spielberg must have been saving it for a sequel. Then 15 years passed. And now after sitting in development hell for almost two decades the franchise is resurrected with Jurassic World and the timing strangely seems just right for that big money storyline. Amidst an overcrowded field full of unnecessary remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels, this is the one that feels closest to being necessary because we never really got what we came for.

Despite unleashing a story that was a long time coming and injecting it with a meta subplot that pokes fun at the film's very existence, there were still a number of things that could have gone wrong. Poor casting, the wrong choice of director, bad GCI, a lackluster 3D conversion or an uninspired script could have easily sunk it. Instead, Safety Not Guaranteed director Colin Trevorrow delivers the type of ridiculously fun, pulse-pounding Spielberg-era thrill ride that even Spielberg himself can't seem to make anymore, or at least has chosen to move past after inspiring inferior imitations. This isn't one of them.

Twenty-two years after the horrific incident at Jurassic Park, Jurassic World is open for business and the park's operations manager, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) wants it to make as much money as humanly possible. A corporate ice queen, she brushes the park's sordid history under the rug as she unveils her newest attraction: a genetically modified Indominus rex dinosaur sponsored by Verizon. Inconvenienced by the recent arrival of her sister's (Judy Greer) kids, Zach and Gray (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins) to the park, she merely dumps them on her assistant for the day as Velociraptor trainer Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) is called in to evaluate the Indominus enclosure before opening. You could probably guess that what unfolds next is a crisis that makes the first three films look like child's play. It's up to Owen and Claire to contain it before lives in the park are lost, including their own.         

There's an early scene where a control room character played by Jake Johnson is showing off the vintage Jurassic Park shirt he won on e-bay, lamenting when the park used to be all about experiencing the wonder of a dinosaur. Now everything has to be bigger and more over-the-top. It's all about the money. While obviously referring to the Indominus attraction, he may as well have been talking about movies, particularly the one we're watching. But Jurassic World fully acknowledging forthcoming criticisms and actively poking fun at itself doesn't make it a good movie, nor should it. What does is the excitement generated on screen, since we're really there to see the dinosaurs wreck havoc.

Trevorrow wastes little time introducing us to the fully functioning theme park, which looks like a Sea World and Disney World hybrid with some surprisingly cool rides and features that seem believable within the confines of the fantasy world Spielberg initially created. As fast as the pace is, there is a considerable amount of time spent building up the first full-on appearance of the Indominus, which doesn't disappoint. It's definitely not Jaws in terms of impactfully limited screen time, but by today's impatient filmmaking standards, Trevorrow's approach is practically restrained.

Much to my relief, the CGI actually looks pretty good, as far as those go, rarely distracting from the action or story. It's also filled with some clever winks and nods throughout the park that let us know this is very much a continuation of the 1993 original and the sequels may as well not exist. Thankfully, John Williams' instantly recognizable, iconic score (the best of his storied career) still does, even if you could quibble with where it lands in the film and how quickly. But at least it's there, which was one of my big worries going in.

With employees clashing over their differing philosophies for the park, it's a given that the uptight Claire and cocky Owen will be brought together by the Indominus escape as she finally learns to care about something other than her job, namely her missing nephews. Her profit-driven approach starkly contrasts with owner Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), whose chief concerns are the enjoyment and safety of the guests. While both are seriously compromised by Claire's greed, InGen security head Vic Hoskins (Vincent D'Onofrio) is intent on militarizing the dinosaurs as government weapons, crreating an interesting Blackfish-like sub-plot about the humans' control over these creatures. This plays better than expected, with an inexplicably limping, head-tilting D'Onofrio throwing his weight around with the kind of bizarre performance only he could conjure up.

The casting is actually quite creative all-around, avoiding the same four or five names of actors and actresses who usually headline these blockbusters. Chris Pratt will soon likely be one of them, but for now we're still finding out what he can do and what's most surprising about his role is how humorless it is. More Indiana Jones than Han Solo. "Jurassic Parks and Rec" this isn't, as the former Andy Dwyer has to play it mostly straight in order to ground an already far out there plot.

If this is Pratt's Indy audition, he passes with flying colors, and despite being a longtime fan of the actor's work, he quelled most of my concerns that going this route would be a complete misuse of his talents. Instead, the action hero thing seems to suit him just fine and in his scenes opposite Howard he does manage to slide in some of the trademark sarcastic charm and charisma that got him here. He'll probably be cast in everything now, but if it has to be someone, at least it's Pratt, whose sheer likability and presence lifts this kind of material further than it would have otherwise gone.

While Pratt does exactly what's asked of him and surpasses expectations, he is still playing a one-dimensional hero opposite Bryce Dallas Howard's more intriguing character. When was the last time a money hungry, stuck-up corporate suit was the centerpiece of a summer action movie? Howard's always been consistently strong in various projects until disappearing for a while, only to now reemerge four years later in the last movie you'd expect to see her headline. And what a comeback it is, walking right up to that line of playing Claire as an unlikable bitch without ever stepping over it. As a result, the transition she makes to action heroine in the film's second half seems all the more seamless and reasonable, proving her an actress adept at rapidly shifting gears. In an effects driven project that too often relegates performers to window dressing, her performance is remembered. She's really playing two roles, each equally well.

Trevorrow was hired to do a job in which the understanding was he'd be relinquishing a lot of creative freedom. Yet within those parameters, he managed to slide his own vision in there to create something that feels like his rather than a tired retread. One can only hope that similar steps are taken when reviving other dormant franchises ripe for a reimagining or continuation of some kind. This is exactly the story that needed to be told in order to both honor the Spielberg film and move on from it. The final half hour featuring an epic dinosaur confrontation can compete in both scale and thrills with anything from the original. Rarely overstaying its welcome at a brisk two hours, it also features one of the few uses of 3D in recent years that at least seems defensible given the nature of the plot.           

It's funny how some critics have taken Jurassic World to task, making me wonder exactly what they expected or how it could have possibly been improved. It's everything a Summer blockbuster should be and a little more, which may represent the true root of their problem. For all the talk of the film's theme park being nothing more than a cash grab, the movie gets its job done by mocking exactly that, exploiting our fears that the wonder from the original can't be recaptured. The bigger question is why we'd want it to, especially when this sequel is such a worthy successor in its own right.               

Lincoln

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley, Lee Pace, Tim Blake Nelson, Dane DeHaan, Joseph Cross, Gloria Reuben
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

A talky slog through a very specific point in American history, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln probably would have been better served with the title, The Passing of the 13th Amendment or maybe even Team of Rivals, the Doris Kearns Goodwin biography on which it's partially based. Then again, advertising and marketing still wouldn't fix most of the problems associated with a film that makes the 16th President a supporting player in what feels like the world's longest episode of The West Wing.  Where it earns points is in impeccable period accuracy and an Oscar-winning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis that's every bit as impressive as you'd expect and then some. History buffs will eat this up, even if we're left with the nagging feeling that, barring a few notable exceptions, Spielberg doesn't give us anything that couldn't be gleaned from doing some reading.

As much as many reject standard, by-the-numbers biopics on political figures, I couldn't help but think that approach would have actually been welcome here, as the choice to only depict Lincoln's last four months in office (and of his life) seem to be almost too narrow a focus. And yet, that was easily the most interesting period so Spielberg's caught between a rock and a hard place. He responds with his most un-Spielbergian effort yet, completely abandoning the sentimentality usually associated with his work in favor of a straight, emotionless recitation of history. In that sense, the film is a welcome departure, as he makes the wise decision to get out of his own way.  Other than an attempted portrayal of Lincoln as a saintly, Gandhi-like figure (that's mostly transcended by Lewis' riveting turn) there's little that would indicate it's even a Spielberg picture. You'd figure that would be a good thing. Instead, it creates an unusual dichotomy that results in a mild letdown. Albeit a really well-made one. 

The film primarily focuses on President Lincoln's attempts in 1865 to obtain passage for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in the House of Representatives. To do this he not only needs the necessary minimum of 20 votes from the Democrats but also, without exception, the full support of the Republicans. It's not as easy as it seems and much of the verbal sparring scripted by Tony Kushner centers around the president's political maneuvering, which is often controversial. Of course, we know he eventually comes out with the win, only to weeks later lose his life to an assassin's bullet, but Spielberg shows the resistance he faced pulling that monumental victory off. Most of those battles involve an unlikely ally in Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), who gets to to deliver some of the film's sharpest insults, proving that politics was just as dirty then as it is now. But for all who are in favor of the amendment's passage, there are just as many who aren't. Namely outspoken Democratic Congressman Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), and even the emotional First Lady, Mary Todd Lincoln (Sally Field), whom the President has to constantly placate due to her wild mood swings and fears of their returning son Robert Todd's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) desire to join the Union Army.

It's a strange complaint to level against a Spielberg film that it isn't emotionally manipulative enough, but oddly, that's the case here. It's a political procedural devoid of manufactured drama, and even as someone who usually appreciates that approach in other genres, it's dry and talky to the point that I sometimes found myself losing patience and just zoning out. A key factor as to why (aside from the material's sheer denseness) is that it just isn't visually interesting. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has collaborated with Spielberg many times in the past with enormously successful results, but three quarters of the film is shot in dark, dingy corridors and musty rooms. At times it's almost too dark to even see what's happening, which maybe doesn't matter since, most of the time, not a lot is.  For example, there's exactly one shot of the White House, which is unusual, because if any historical period presented a golden opportunity for sweeping visual grandeur on screen it was this one. Instead, the whole thing feels kind of claustrophobic with most the film confined to offices and courtrooms.

Luckily, we still have Daniel-Day Lewis, who inhabits every scene, telling stories and providing valuable insight into Lincoln's politics and morals. It almost seems as if every revelation that comes forth about the man is contained entirely in his performance. Everything else, we pretty much knew already. He's the reason to see this. The voice, the look, the tone of speaking. There are so many points where you're taken aback by the way he delivers a line and forced to ask yourself, "Lincoln said THAT? Really?" At some points it's actually funny to hear the things that come out of his mouth because we've grown so accustomed to history dictating to us the mythic terms under which he's supposed to be viewed. But Day-Lewis humanizes him, which might end up being the film's greatest success. One of the most memorable moments comes at the start when he's interacting with a pair of Union soldiers reciting to him the Gettysburg Address. It's a transformative performance in search of a better movie that focuses entirely on Lincoln rather than the nuts and bolts of the political process.

Make no mistake that this is all about the 13th Amendment, with non of the other sub-plots even getting off the ground. Unforgivably, a mustachioed Joseph Gordon-Levitt is wasted as Robert Todd Lincoln, while little is explored regarding the President's marriage aside from a shrieking Sally Field making it perfectly clear that the Mary Todd was a real basketcase and the polar opposite of her calm, serene husband. Of the many supporting players, it's really Jones who chews into his role as stubborn Thaddeus Stevens with grumpy gusto, stealing nearly every scene he's in. Top to bottom, it's a loaded cast, with David Strathairn, Michael Stuhlbarg, John Hawkes, Hal Holbrook, Jackie Earle Haley, Tim Blake Nelson, Lukas Haas, Dane DeHaan, Jared Harris, Adam Driver, Walter Goggins and Bruce McGill all contributing in some form or another in wide variety of small and larger parts. More fun than the actual film might be trying to spot and recognize them all. Especially James Spader, who's strangely hilarious as an determined Republican party member lobbying for the amendment's passage.

It's easy to fault Spielberg for continuing a half-hour longer than what would have been the perfect end point or criticize him for a one-sided whitewashing of history, virtually ignoring (with the exception of Gloria Reuben's character) the African-American side of this issue. Both of those are true, but what really bothered me was how he treated, or didn't treat, the assassination. If Spielberg didn't want to show it (supposedly because he thought it would be tasteless, which is a cop-out, but his call), that's fine. But you can't choose not to show it and still fully acknowledge it. If he was going to show it, then he should have. If not, then he shouldn't have. You can't have it both ways. Not with something like that. Instead he does this silly bait-and-switch that ends up drawing more attention to the assassination than if he'd actually reenacted it in all its horror. You could actually argue he fulfills his fear of it being tasteless just by pulling this unnecessary stunt.

Spielberg's one of only a few filmmakers today who can reasonably be considered a "brand."  The accusation that at this point he's just cashing paychecks and trying to collect Oscars isn't entirely disproven with this effort, but the film is surprisingly restrained and refined, representing at least one of his purest, most honest outings in a while. Unfortunately those very same qualities also make it kind of a chore to sit through. Perhaps it's a little too restrained and in need of some of that magic Ben Affleck was able to create with Argo. While some criticized that for "Hollywoodizing" a historical event, there's no denying his approach worked, giving the material a much-needed emotional spin that captivated audiences. In contrast, Lincoln feels more like a homework assignment. One in which students would actually be more excited to read the book.       

Super 8

Director: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Noah Emmerich, Ron Eldard, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills, Gabriel Basso, Amanda Michalka
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. If it hits in just the right spot it can even trick you into believing you're watching something great by reminding you of a time when you felt you did. Writer/Director J.J. Abrams clobbers us with nostalgia in Super 8 and the results are so wildly mixed I've actually avoided sitting down to share my thoughts on it for days, mostly unsure of what they'd be. Attempting to invoke the spirit of vintage 80's Spielberg directed and produced movies like E.T. and The Goonies is a risky proposition in that it could either alienate or win over audiences in my age bracket who grew up with those films and know how special they are. It takes guts for Abrams to even try to invite comparisons to them for the sake of exposing younger audiences to a type of film that's becoming increasingly uncommon.

At points feeling like an homage and at others a lesser rip-off, moments in the first hour of this Spielberg-produced project (and his fingerprints are all over it) succeeded in making me feel like a 12-year-old again, until the plot careens off the rails and almost crashes and burns like the doomed train in the film. Luckily, it recovers in the last third to finish strong, thanks mostly to the child actors whose staggeringly authentic performances save Abrams as he loses touch with the movie it seemed he set out to make. Part of me wants to shake him silly for falling short of what could have been accomplished for stupid reasons, yet he also deserves a hearty handshake for even attempting to try something like this because we do badly need it. There are far worse things than trying to make a Spielberg-style coming-of-age summer blockbuster devoid of all cynicism but not quite getting all the way there. While I'm convinced I'm more impressed with the idea behind the movie (and maybe also the movie-within-the-movie) than the actual film itself, it's still a fascinating, if flawed, discussion starter that's entertaining and not easily forgettable. Abrams' execution may be sloppy, but he knows the right buttons to push.

Set in the small steel town of Lillian, Ohio in the summer of 1979 12-year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is still emotionally traumatized by the accidental death of his mother four months earlier and a strained relationship with his father, Jack (Kyle Chandler), the town's sheriff. He wants to send him to sports camp for a few months, insensitive to Joe's desire to stick around to help best friend and bossy aspiring director Charles (Riley Griffiths) film his low-budget 8mm zombie movie with buddies Martin (Gabriel Basso), Preston (Zach Mills) and Cary (Ryan Lee). He's also somehow been able to recruit Joe's dream girl, Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning) to play the female lead, even as she endures a family drama of her own with alcoholic father Louis (Ron Eldard). During filming the kids witness a train wreck, the results of which are stranger than your usual train wreck and are captured by their Super 8 camera. What that footage uncovers raises a lot of questions and causes much chaos, even as the military, led by Colonel Nelec (Noah Emmerich) arrive on the scene with an agenda.

The one aspect of this film that's unquestionably a grand slam are these kids and nearly all its memorable moments are supplied by these child actors who are so good together (in both the real movie and the movie within) that for a while it doesn't even feel like a homage or a tribute to better films from the 80's, but the real deal.  The dialogue between them is smart and funny, they're clearly defined and we care about the relationships between them, especially the dynamic between Alice and Joe. You'd never know this was Joel Courtney's very first appearance in a feature film and Elle Fanning leads the charge with her performance, trumping even her recent work in Somewhere as far as the layers of complexity she brings to it. She has this one huge scene everyone will be talking about involving her character's performance within the zombie movie that works on so many different levels you're likely to get a headache trying to figure out how she does it.  All the kids' performances are great and the first hour resembles the best elements of The Goonies, complete with a map and some of the character types even being dead ringers for those in that family classic. But I still couldn't help but wish it was in the service of a more inventive story.

Once the action gets rolling I couldn't help but wish the young actors' efforts were in the service of a better story.  Problems start with the big train crash sequence, which relies too much on fake looking CGI and reminds us we're watching an everyday modern day blockbuster reliant on cheesy effects rather than character. How did it not occur to Abrams that approach is completely at odds with a period coming-of-age adventure set in the late 70s? The decision to do this is so ill-conceived it made me think Spielberg could have been behind it given his inexplicable (and embarrassing) over-use of the technology in the recent Indian Jones sequel. This also doesn't really feel like it's 1979 so much as a movie that's supposed to be set during that era with kind of a close approximation of the the wardrobe and music, but little else. Not once did I think I was watching anything that took place in the 70's or even early 80's, but rather a picture paying tribute to the values of that era and the movies made during it, present especially in the relationships between the kids and their parents. Fans of his work on Friday Night Lights will be excited to finally see Kyle Chandler on big-screen, then be deflated to discover he's just being asked to play Coach Taylor with a badge instead of a whistle, but slightly meaner. As little as he's given, he's still solid, which is more than can be said for a hilariously miscast Ron Eldard who somehow plays the archetype of the drunken dad even more cartoonishly than it's written. But like an early Spielberg classic, adults are only always seen through the eyes of children, so if it worked then, it's kind of hypocritical to condemn the approach now even if Spielberg was never this blatant about it.

Mid-way through the movie turns into a sequel to Abrams' own Cloverfield mish-mashed with The War of the Worlds. And I'm not even exactly sure how the military gets involved, why citizens are being evacuated or anything. It just kind of happens all of the sudden and we go with it because we're along for the journey with these kids and they're the movie's saving grace. The decision to keep the alien creature's appearance a secret for most of the running time is perplexing, especially considering what it ends up looking like and how little a surprise that is. This isn't about unraveling mysteries, even if it would have helped to have more of the J.J. Abrams who created Lost and Fringe than the one who rebooted Star Trek. Stranger still is the decision to concoct an elaborate backstory for the alien shown in grainy black and white flashback footage that resembles the Dharma Initiative films from Lost minus the intrigue. Yet it all somehow still comes together in an ending that's already been criticized as E.T. meets Close Encounters, if you can call that a criticism. For me it rescues the movie since it recreates the sense of wonder that was present in the first hour but lost somewhere in the middle of all the chaos. Michael Giacchino's soaring, emotional score (which intentionally sounds lot like John Williams' compositions for Spielberg in the 80's) goes a long way in helping.

Being such a grab bag of plusses and minuses, when this ended I was sure I didn't like it (and reading this you're probably thinking I still don't), but that it's worth checking out despite its flaws should give you an idea how good it could have been, or maybe how badly I was rooting for its success. Spielberg's being credited as the producer but the extent of his actual involvement could been anything from being heavily involved on a day-to-day basis to just putting some money down and visiting the set once, so it isn't fair to single him out for what worked or didn't. That said, he did slap his name on it with a full endorsement and it's essentially a tribute to his filmography so it's hard to not walk away feeling its failings are somehow his fault, despite Abrams writing and directing it on his own. You also can't help but wonder why it didn't turn out as good as it could have been with all the tools and inspiration he had at his disposal. Super 8 works well enough, but in doing so only proves that past Spielberg casts a shadow too large for even he himself to escape.

Ripping Apart Entertainment Weekly's List of Top 25 Active Directors

A couple of months ago Entertainment Weekly released an absolutely hilarious list of the "Top 25 Active Directors." It wasn't until recently that I had the chance to actually go through it and see just how horrifying it was. In case you haven't heard, EW ceased existing as a relevant publication a couple of years and has recently gone off the deep end in terms of their disposable content, not that it was ever the bastion of journalistic integrity to begin with. It's the kind of magazine you read on the toilet (or maybe flush down it) and has all but become indistinguishable from your US Weekly or OK! Magazine. We should probably just consider ourselves lucky that Michael Bay, McG or Catherine Hardwicke didn't show up on the list.

I'm under no grand delusions that the publication exists for intelligent film commentary and since all lists are completely subjective I approached this one with very low expectations and an open mind. Even still, this has to rank as one of the most laughable movie-related lists I've ever seen. So much so that I had to comment on it. It's just awful, even by their standards. But it's important to look at exactly why.

Their choice of the word "ACTIVE" is curious one, implying that you had to have shown recent results in order to receive consideration for the list. I wholeheartedly agree with that but the problem is that in many cases that was all they looked at and in others they just forgot about it and rewarded certain mainstream filmmakers based on past glory and/or box office receipts. There's more to this than just picking the directors who made the best films since that topic is subjective in itself.

I always thought the fairest way to judge this is by the overall integrity of the filmmakers' body of work--past and present. When you see film, can you tell who's directing it? Do even their bad ones seem to say something important visually and narratively? It shouldn't just be as simple as picking your favorite movies and listing who directed them. The list can be seen here, complete with their somewhat lackluster explanations. Be forewarned though-- it's one of those annoying slide shows. They also ranked the 25 that didn't make the cut, which unsurprisingly included many who should have. Below are my takes on their choices, along with two controversial exclusions I thought were justified.

25. Jon Favreau-This is almost too laughable to talk about and further proof that Iron Man has emerged as one of the most overrated films of the past 5 years. What scares me most about the pick is the possibility that many reading the magazine may actually agree with it. A superhero movie comes along that's slightly above average for a change and everyone's wetting their pants. The further away I move from the movie the less I appreciate about it. Elf? Zathura? Decent films, but please. I suppose I should just be grateful he's in the last spot. By the way, Mickey Rourke looks ridiculous in those photos from Iron Man 2.

24. Pedro Almodóvar- I have not seen a single film this man has directed. Right now you're either you're rolling your eyes in disbelief at how I could have not seen any films from the legendary Spanish director Pedro Almodovar or you're thinking, "Me neither. Never heard of the guy." If it's the latter that's proof that EW just did this as an attempt to add "prestige" to their list and include a foreign filmmaker. I hope not because I've heard nothing but great things about his work. It would be a shame if he was included for the wrong reasons.

23. Paul Greengrass- Having shamefully still not seen any of the Bourne films I'm not the best person to be judging the merits of his inclusion on this list or his placement. But that should hardly matter to EW who I'm sure gave him the spot primarily on the basis of the amount of dough that franchise raked in.

22. Paul Thomas Anderson- Upon seeing the title "Top Active Directors," a couple of images raced through my mind. The first was of Rollergirl. The next was of womanizer Frank Mackey reduced to tears at his dying father's bedside. The last was of Daniel Plainview, drilling into an ocean of oil, his hand emerging from below covered in black. I prefer Fincher slightly for the top spot but it's VERY, VERY close and I wouldn't dare argue with anyone who would rank PTA number one. But they ranked him at... 22? Really? This guy wrangled an Oscar-worthy performance out of Adam Sandler for crying out loud. That has to count for something.

21. Ang Lee- No arguments here, especially in this slot. What I didn't realize until recently was that he hasn't really directed that many films despite being known to American audiences for over a decade now. Regardless, The Ice Storm is one of the '90's greatest and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain proved that accomplishment wasn't a fluke. His Hulk joins Michael Mann's Miami Vice as one of the decade's most intriguing and creatively ambitious commercial failures. It doesn't hurt his standing with me in the slightest.

20. Ron Howard- This is a tough one. As a director he really never doesn't do anything special but he's one of the most consistent on here, with only a few occasional missteps (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, EDtv and from what I've heard the recent Angels & Demons). Sorry, but I loved Willow. When he's on he's really on (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon, Parenthood) but too much of his work falls into the middling mainstream category. Most of the directors on here (even those I don't care for) have at least one film that can be considered an Earth-shattering accomplishment. He doesn't and nothing really sets him apart from the pack and I still say his most impressive achievement will always be as as co-creator/producer/narrator of Arrested Development. Nothing he's done in the film world even comes close and that's a testament to the show, not a swipe at his directorial career. 20 is a fair ranking.

19. Clint Eastwood- This is disgusting and I'm not even a huge fan. If this list meant anything at all, diehard devotees of his work (of which there are plenty) would be up in arms at this lowly ranking of 19. Not only at age 79 does he boast one of the most impressive, expansive filmographies of anyone on here (Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, A Perfect World, In the Line of Fire, Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby) but he exemplifies the word "active" having made two important cinematic contributions in the past year (Gran Torino, Changeling) with another one already in the can. What were they thinking?

18. Danny Boyle- I'll give credit to them for at least showing restraint with this somewhat plausible #18 ranking for him. Looked at from afar his entire filmography is a mixed bag (A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach) with some gems thrown in (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later). For shame, I still haven't seen Sunshine. Slumdog Millionaire is by far his pinnacle, but unlike Nolan with The Dark Knight, Boyle wouldn't have made this list without his 2008 entry. But he did, and EW didn't really overrate him, which was nice.

17. Darren Aronofsky-Despicable ranking. An atrocity he isn't AT LEAST in the top 10. If looking at the names of some of the filmmakers ranked ahead of him doesn't make you throw up in your mouth a little I don't know what will. But what's so scary about my surprisingly adverse reaction to his placement is that like a few other directors on here I've discounted, he's only made three films (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler). That means those three films were more memorable and powerful than many other filmmakers' entire output that's spanned decades. And I don't even LOVE those three movies. But they're distinct and were made by someone with considerably more vision than most on this list. Snubbed by the Academy also, Aronofsky just can't ever seem to catch a break.

16. Zack Snyder- Ha Ha. Obviously, having only directed three films thus far he's done nothing to earn a spot on this list but in his defense I don't think he in any way deserves to be thought of as a hack or mentioned in the same breath as a Michael Bay or a McG, as many have unfairly been doing. His worst film (300) was an emotionally empty, visually dazzling exercise, but even that misfire wasn't exactly forgettable. As Watchmen proved, he obviously has talent and could eventually work his way on to the list, as unlikely as it seems. The editors at EW are idiots for putting him on it now.

15. Sam Raimi- The sell-out of all-time. Awful choice. Probably my least favorite director on here. If he had just retired after the Evil Dead films then maybe they could have made a case for his inclusion. Maybe. But he went on to helm the Spider-Man franchise and ruin the once promising careers of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Recently tried to regain some cred by going horror again with Drag Me to Hell which I have no interest in ever seeing since there's nothing unique about his filmmaking style. Now he's threatening to give us Spider-Man 4. Make it stop. He's ranked at 15 but any number would be too high for me. The anti-Nolan.

14. Judd Apatow- If this were a list of the most influential people in the movie industry today or a list of the most important writers or producers Apatow would be ranked #1 hands down. How he's changed the face of comedy over the past few years can't be undersold and he's one of the few on on here who have real substantial achievements to brag about. But unfortunately, this is a list of the best active DIRECTORS. He's only helmed three films, with his latest, the dramedy epic Funny People just hitting screens now to surprisingly lukewarm notices. Based on his output so far you'd fare better arguing he isn't a great director than he is, with sometimes shaky control over tone and an aversion to the editing room. And even those who think he's a master behind the camera would still have to admit he's a far better writer. But I still understand how they couldn't avoid the temptation to include him. His contributions to comedy so far are immeasurable...just not as a director.

13. Tim Burton- Ask anyone and they'll probably tell you their favorite Burton film is Edward Scissorhands. Good answer, considering he's devoted his entire career to remaking it over and over again (Batman, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd) without stepping out of his comfort zone once. And that's my main problem with him. He's one of a kind but is unable to stretch or trying anything different, or at least hasn't proven yet that he can.

Every film he's made looks exactly the same and plays in exactly the same dark, gothic style featuring a bizarre, misfit protagonist (usually played by the similarly overrated Johnny Depp). The only time he strayed slightly (VERY slightly) from that was with Big Fish. He also has some real junk on his resume, like Sleepy Hollow and that ill-conceived Planet of the Apes remake. Alice in Wonderland just looks like more of the same from him. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

12. David Fincher- You think The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had anything to do with this disrespectful ranking? If so, that's good for a laugh because Fincher's supposedly "weakest" work is leagues better than so-called masterpieces directed by EW's filmmaking legends class here. I'd say Panic Room is his weakest and even that's still better than most of these directors' best. The most talented filmmaker working today and my choice for #1.

11. Guillermo del Toro- Mixed feelings. On one hand it's impossible to argue against the technical prowess of someone who brought us Pan's Labyrinth and the Hellboy films. On the other, that's really all he's brought us so far and while he's been working since the early 90's he's only just hit his stride now. Most everything else is forgettable (Blade 2) or just unimportant (Mimic). Ranked a little high but with a couple of more films under his belt he'll likely earn this spot sooner than later.

10. Joel and Ethan Coen- A no-brainer. Not even EW couldn't screw this up. A perfect example of filmmakers with their own distinctive storytelling style and unlike some other picks on here their best days don't seem to be behind them. Some of their more recent efforts (No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading) beyond being quite great can stand side by side with the classics (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona) without embarrassment. Most importantly, they're always challenging themselves and going in new directions. No personal favorites of mine but credit where credit is due.

9. James Cameron- Um... I thought we said "ACTIVE." Cameron hasn't made a film in over a decade. I'm all for quantity over quality but let's not get carried away here. He doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. And am I the only person not at all looking forward to Avatar?

8. Michael Mann- I really like this pick. It just feels right. "Feels" is actually a great word to use because all of his films have a visually distinct one that only he seems to be able to pull off. I can't name a single one of his films that would rank among my favorites but you have to respect what he brings to the table. Actually could stand to work more but I'll take quality (Heat, Ali, The Insider, Collateral) over quantity any day of the week. Say what you want about Miami Vice (and believe me I have) but it was one of the best SHOT movies of the past 5 years. And it took guts and a lot of artistic ambition for him to do that to his own television series whether you agree with it or not. It's the kind of brave flop other directors on here wish they had the talent to have made. Public Enemies may have hurt his standing in the public's eyes but I haven't seen it yet so can't comment.

7. Quentin Tarantino- He's representative of the kind of choice that makes sense not necessarily because he has the strongest resume on here (far from it), but because even his lesser films contribute something important to the overall body of work. Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and Kill Bill definitely aren't for everyone but no other director on this list could have made them. And this coming from someone who's far from a Tarantino fanboy and thinks he believes his own hype way too often. When you're watching a movie directed by Tarantino YOU JUST KNOW he directed it. The man knows how to tell a story with the camera almost as well as he can with words. That's often overlooked. Great choice.

6. Ridley Scott- I've actually enjoyed most of his films (save for the recent Body of Lies) but nothing he does ever strikes me as truly unique, nor do I feel he has a distinctive voice that greatly differs from other filmmakers, especially in the action genre. An impressive craftsman without a doubt (Alien, Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down are nothing to sneeze at) but worthy of being named one of the top ten working directors today? Probably not. Check out Gladiator if you don't believe me. A strong film, but completely pedestrian.

5. Steven Soderbergh- Interesting selection but I don't agree with it and especially not at #5. After a promising early career he went on autopilot and started turning out safe, unchallenging mainstream fare like Erin Brockovich while occasionally throwing in arty, experimental efforts (Full Frontal, Bubble and the recent The Girlfriend Experience) that yielded mixed results. But what ultimately keeps him off for me are those Ocean's films. Hollywood superficiality at its peak. Takes risks, but not as often as he should. The filmography might be there but the quality isn't. Ranked a bit too high.

4. Christopher Nolan- I don't have a big problem with this. Sure, #4 may seem a little high but that's only because the rest of the rankings are so screwed up. And as a "of the moment" pick it has a lot more credibility than, say, Danny Boyle. His previous work (Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins and The Prestige), while not perfect, support the kind of singular vision that deserves top notch placement on a list like this. That vision was realized in The Dark Knight, making those aforementioned films look even better in hindsight.

3. Martin Scorsese- While not one of my personal favorites, even I can recognize when I don't have a leg to stand on in an argument. I have no case here that he's overranked. One of the all-time greats whose recent work (i.e. The Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed) can stand its ground.

2. Peter Jackson- I shouldn't even be commenting on this since I haven't seen any of The Lord of the Rings films, but what else has he done that warrants a spot this high? You raked in a lot of cash-congrats. Just based on his placement it seems like another crowd pleasing, monetarily motivated pick from EW.

1. Steven Spielberg- I knew they'd do this and I take issue with it not because I dislike Spielberg or his films (how can anyone?) but because the reasoning behind the selection is so dubious when you consider his underwhelming output this past decade. Two words: CRYSTAL SKULL. He needs to get back on the map quickly if he wants to re-claim his throne. And it's a good thing we're judging his work as a director not a producer (Eagle Eye, the Transformers films) or he'd deserve to fall off the list completely. The word "active" does him no favors in evaluating the merits of his #1 ranking. That said, I can't argue he doesn't at least still deserve be in the top 5 or 10.

Didn't Make it and I'm Glad
Spike Lee- The most overrated filmmaker alive. I'm sure many were up in arms when they didn't see his name, feeling this exclusion symbolizes the list's inaccuracy, but I felt like clapping. His films range from preposterously overrated (Do The Right Thing, Inside Man, and just about everything else) to flat-out awful (the recent Miracle at St. Anna). But at least there's one other person as thrilled as I am that he didn't make the list: Spike Lee. Now he has a new excuse to cry racism and blame Clint Eastwood for all his problems. The fact is his films just aren't that great. Yes, of course he's a lot better than some of the choices up there, but just because they didn't deserve to make it doesn't mean he should.

Woody Allen- As much as it pains me to say it, you'd have to go back to the 70's or early '80's to make a strong argument he deserves a place alongside the best active directors, if only because he's been so wildly inconsistent since then. Unlike Lee however, I'm actually a fan of his work and find even his lesser efforts to at least be interesting. It seems we just keep waiting and waiting for the next truly great Woody Allen picture to come along and it never does. It's getting frustrating. For every movie that flirts with greatness (Match Point) there are a dozen others that don't (The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Celebrity, Scoop, the list goes on and on). The output is just too uneven to warrant inclusion. A good call by EW.

Should Have Made It (these names jump out at me as outrageous omissions but there are probably more)
Wes Anderson
David Lynch
David Cronenberg
Richard Kelly
Lars Von Trier
Sam Mendes
David Gordon Green
Oliver Stone
Spike Jonze
Gus Van Sant