Mad About Spielberg Series Part I

On March 29, Steven Spielberg’s 32nd feature film, Ready Player One, will arrive in theaters. This is a significant debut to me personally for two reasons. One, I love the source material and Spielberg is undoubtedly the perfect choice to flesh out its magic on screen. Two, it’s a return to the kind of blockbuster filmmaking Spielberg made his name on and which we haven’t really seen from him in a decade or so. Anyone who knows me, has ever listened to this podcast, or has just been a stranger within ear reach of me in, like, a Quik Trip, knows I love Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is the definition of “director” to me. His filmography overflows with iconic, genre-defining, timeless films, many of which happen to be personal favorites. I’ve watched and studied Spielberg’s movies dozens and dozens of times to the point that I feel like I’ve graduated from the Steven Spielberg Film School and Professor Spielberg taught me everything I know about film, filmmaking, and film structure, not to mention human emotion.

So, as we prepare for Ready Player One, this felt like the perfect opportunity to go back through Spielberg’s entire filmography and rank his films. Now, listen, this is not a scientific study of Spielberg’s resume (which I would be glad to head up if there is grant money available). In an ideal world, we’d gather scores of Spielberg scholars, debate his films, and come up with the perfect algorithm to determine the proper order. Instead, it’s just me. I’ve watched all 31 films over the last few weeks and wrestled over their order as best I can. I’ll reveal my rankings over the course of this month, with the top ten dropping on the morning of Ready Player One’s debut.

This week, I present films 25-31 in the Spielberg Universe, a group of films that includes Spielberg’s very few actual bad movies, a couple that missed the mark by just a bit, and a couple of movies I just don’t personally care for. It should be noted that even this set of films, by my calculations Spielberg’s “worst”, have garnered 12 Oscar nominations and brought in almost two billion dollars. Not too shabby for the bottom of the barrel, right? Let’s kick this off with the movie I would most like to forget…

CrystalSkull.jpg

31. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Rotten Tomatoes: 77%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): $317M ($786M)
Oscar Nominations (Wins): 0
As someone who values the role of criticism in film and generally approves of Rotten Tomatoes’ existence, you could make a fairly compelling case against both just by pointing to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I saw this abomination TWICE in its opening weekend; first because of wild enthusiasm and excitement and second because I had suffered greatly, and I wanted all my friends to suffer as well. (This is what true friendship is all about.) I won’t go into the ideas of bastardizing a childhood favorite or anything of that nature as that line of thinking has grown tiresome. Instead, I’ll point out that even on its own, even without any ties to the original Jones trilogy, even discounting all nostalgia or emotional connection I have to those previous films, Kingdom is a downright wretched film filled with wretched acting and a wretched “plot”, the script for which should’ve been burned in a bonfire long before development ever began on this movie.

1941.jpg

30. 1941 (1977)
Rotten Tomatoes: 33%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): $31M ($92)
Oscar Nominations (Wins): 3
This is one of three Spielberg films I hadn’t seen until I began the work on this project. Its reputation precedes it, of course, as even Spielberg himself acknowledges it to be a misstep. 1941 is what we’d call a “heat check” in a basketball game. Spielberg is coming off of the unbelievable successes of Jaws and Close Encounters and he’s headed into the Raiders and E.T. and right there in the middle he thought he could do anything. This is his ill-advised 35-foot jumpshot, a very bad spoof comedy that didn’t play well in 1977 and plays so, SO much worse in 2018. There are just way too many rape-y dudes in 1941 and while I know the intent was to satirize the tropes of both war movies and frat house flicks, satire might be THE thing Spielberg can’t do. As a result, the whole movie just feels kind of gross and completely unnecessary.

WarHorse.jpg

29. War Horse (2011)
Rotten Tomatoes: 76%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): $79M ($177M)
Oscar Nominations (Wins): 6
This is where I’d draw the line between “bad” and “hate”. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and 1941 are actual bad movies; War Horse I just hate. I’d say I very hate War Horse if you’ll allow me the use of grammatically incorrect terminology. To be fair, I understand why others like this movie and I accept my place in the minority. (*Insert Tobias Funke, “There are dozens of us! Dozens!” gif*) There are some scenes and sequences within the movie, particularly the famous battlefield scene, that work quite well and I can see what attracted Spielberg to this property. But War Horse has two very big strikes against it in my book. Number one, I dislike horses. Yeah, I said it. If my livelihood depended on horses, I’m sure I’d figure out how to dislike them less. But as it stands, there are many great creatures on God’s green earth and horses aren’t one of them. So, you can see where a movie called War Horse might be a tough sell for me. Number two, and much more importantly, I think Jeremy Irvine is horrible in the lead role. His delivery on lines like, “Look ‘ere, Joey. I got a collar too” makes me cringe. This is, to me, the worst casting decision in any of Spielberg’s films, at least as far as top-billed performers go and it sinks the movie.

LostWorld.jpg

28. The Lost World (1997)
Rotten Tomatoes: 53%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): $229M ($618M)
Oscar Nominations (Wins): 1
The Lost World is, I think, the only real “Paycheck Movie” of Spielberg’s career. Jurassic Park (nearly literally) ruled the world, the audience was salivating for more, Michael Cricton’s book was a huge success, and the money was too much to pass on. I’m sure there was a part of Spielberg that wanted to return to the magic of his previous film but by his own admission, he quickly became disenchanted with the sequel experience and the lack of passion shows in the finished product. It’s a really dumb movie, to be frank, and the characters within it make a lot of really dumb choices. On the plus side, The Lost World still looks great, dinosaurs are always fun, and it’s the sort of dumb that you mostly forget about the second the movie ends. I rewatched Lost World for the first time in a decade in preparation for this writing. Throughout the entire movie, I kept thinking, “This is really, really stupid. Everything happening here is stupid.” And then the movie ended and maybe three minutes later, I thought, “Eh, that wasn’t so bad.” That feels like an achievement on some level or another.

always.jpg

27. Always (1987)
Rotten Tomatoes: 65%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): $43M ($74M)
Oscar Nominations (Wins): 0
Another of the three Spielberg movies I hadn’t seen before this writing. On paper, Always sounds very Spielbergian: The spirit of a deceased pilot reaches from beyond the grave to emotionally connect with his former lover. Insert a John Williams score and bam! You’ve got a Spielberg movie. In execution, however, I think Always feels foreign to the rest of the Spielberg universe. The spiritual force that allows Richard Dreyfuss’ character to connect with Holly Hunter’s character lacks some magic and there’s little charm to the movie as a whole. It doesn’t help that the medium through which the two leads interact, former Marlboro Man Brad Johnson, has all the screen presence of a ficus. Still, the scene settings are excellent, and Spielberg uses both Hunter and a young-ish John Goodman exquisitely.

Duel.jpg

26. Duel (1973)
Rotten Tomatoes: 88%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): -
Oscar Nominations (Wins): -
The very first Spielberg movie, Duel was originally a made-for-TV-movie in 1971 that received a (mostly international) theatrical release two years later. Some of the terror of this movie has been mitigated over the last 45 years but the pace with which Spielberg draws out the simple plot works just as well now as it did in 1973. Dennis Weaver does an admirable job of conveying his character’s descent into madness but it’s the camera work that really brings home the true horror of the situation.

AI.jpg

25. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Rotten Tomatoes: 73%
Domestic Box Office (Total Box Office): $78M ($235M)
Oscar Nominations (Wins): 2
I hated this movie the first time I saw it. HATED it. Up to that point, I had never, even with Saving Private Ryan, even with Schindler’s List, walked out of a Spielberg movie feeling depressed like I was coming out of A.I. IT’S JUST SO BLOODY BLEAK. I wrote A.I. off as a Kubrick movie that Spielberg brought to screen as-is out of respect for his late friend and essentially pretended it didn’t exist until this writing. On second viewing, I confess I still don’t particularly like the movie but I understand it much more now than I did 17 years ago. I see the hints of Spielberg, even in the segments he himself says are entirely Kubrick’s design, and (*unpopular opinion alert*) I think Spielberg got the best performance out of Haley Joel Osment, even more so than his Oscar-nominated work in Sixth Sense. It’s still not an enjoyable movie and the final 20 minutes is rife with problems but somewhere in there I found myself connected to David in a way I wouldn’t have thought possible. That sense of attachment has Spielberg’s fingerprints all over it.

The End of 50 Shades of Grey: A Celebration in GIFs

So I hate the 50 Shades of Grey cinematic universe. Also the books. Also their existence. To be fair, I've never seen a 50 Shades movie but also to be fair I don't think that's important in this case. Content aside, I cannot stand how abysmally cheesy these awful movies look from the trailers alone and moreover, I am very, VERY tired of seeing said trailers every year. They're everywhere, you guys. EVERYWHERE. Every movie I've gone to in 2018, I have seen this trailer. Just about every YouTube video, it seems, plays this trailer as its ad. I can't even tune into my beloved HGTV to check in what sort of crazy renovation the Scott Brothers are undertaking without seeing this trailer. I hate these movies. Hate, Hate, Hate. While being assaulted by this trailer before yet another movie last month, it hit me that this is the final movie of this trilogy and as such, at least until we inevitably get a reboot or a five-years-later-cash-grab sequel, this is the last time we'll ever have to endure the 50 Shades phenomenon. So I tweeted, "Only 29 days until we never have to see another 50 Shades trailer" with the Shawshank GIF shown below. And the next day I tweeted the same thing with a different GIF and one fewer day. And again the next day. And by that point I had a bit on my hands and I'm nothing if not committed to bits, even those that, like this one, aren't particularly clever. So I've carried the countdown through to today, when this cursed movie finally opens; every day a different gif. And in celebration of the end of our longterm waking nightmare, I present to you a celebration in GIFs, recapping the pictures I used to express my emotions over the last 29 days. You're welcome?

Day 29

Day 29

Day 28

Day 28

Day 27

Day 27

Day 26

Day 26

Day 25

Day 25

Day 24

Day 24

Day 23

Day 23

Day 22

Day 22

Day 21

Day 21

Day 20

Day 20

Day 19

Day 19

Day 18

Day 18

Day 17

Day 17

Day 16

Day 16

Day 15

Day 15

Day 14

Day 14

Day 13

Day 13

Day 12

Day 12

Day 11

Day 11

Day 10

Day 10

Day 9

Day 9

Day 8

Day 8

Day 7

Day 7

Day 6

Day 6

Day 5

Day 5

Day 4

Day 4

Day 3

Day 3

Day 2

Day 2

Day 1

Day 1

Day 0 - We Did It

Day 0 - We Did It

Brian's Worst Movies of 2017

fullsizeoutput_459.jpeg

I need to say up front that 2017 was a bangin’ year for film. Maybe the box office totals were down and maybe there aren’t many (or any) truly great, transcendent films. But overall, 2017 consistently delivered movies both big and small that were at worst decent and at best very, very good. As such, I think I handed out “failing” grades to fewer films this year than I have in any other year in recent memory. When I sat down to make this list, I had only a dozen movies or so I felt truly deserved mention here, a far cry from years past when at times I think I had more bad films to sort through than good (looking at you, 2016). Some other blockbusters disappointed, some indie movies fell flat but in the grand scheme of things, most of the sins committed by the movies not included here were forgivable (or at least forgettable). That said, you can’t see 80-odd movies in a year without taking in some that are truly awful and so, here we are.

power rangers.jpg

DISHONORABLE MENTIONS:
Power Rangers (Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, Elizabeth Banks)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 44%
In March, I wouldn’t have dreamed there was any possibility of Power Rangers finishing outside the worst 10 of the year but here we are. You did it, 2017! Way to go! I missed the Power Rangers bandwagon by a couple years as a kid so there is no built-in nostalgia for me here. As a result, all I can see is Elizabeth Banks cashing ‘dem checks and a multitude of cheese-laden action scenes that all-too-well resemble the cringe-y-ness of the TV show. Also, I think one of the Power Rangers gets killed by being dropped in water for maybe six seconds? *Shrug*

All Eyez On Me (Demetrius Shipp Jr., Hill Harper)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 17%
I’m no friend of the biopic but I get the need for this treatment regarding Tupac. Even a halfway decent Tupac movie would’ve felt worthwhile, I think. Unfortunately, this isn’t halfway decent or a quarterway decent. It seems like the main goal of director Benny Boom was to find someone who basically looked like Tupac and just let the rest figure itself out. If you’re curious, this is NOT the preferred approach to filmmaking taught in most film schools.

10. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (Dane DeHaan, Cara Delevingne, Clive Owen)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 49%
I imagine the pitch for Valerian went something like, “Did you enjoy The Fifth Element 20 years ago? What if we made it 30 percent worse and replaced Gary Oldman and Bruce Willis for Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne?” French investors heard that dynamite sales pitch and threw TRUCKLOADS of money at Luc Besson who delivered to them exactly what they were promised: an awful, unnecessary “epic” bolted to the ground by brutal acting and Besson’s ADHD-riddled approach to screenwriting. As it turned out, literally no one in the world wanted this movie except for Besson and his investors.

justice league.jpg

9. Justice League (Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Henry Cavill)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 40%
Look, on the one hand, a movie featuring Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman (at the height of her power) should never find itself on a “worst of the year” list. That should be impossible. So, that’s not great and once again, Warner Brothers has demonstrated their complete inability to understand the market in which they operate. On the other hand, Justice League is infinitely better than Batman V Superman so…congratulations?

8. The Book of Henry (Naomi Watts, Jaeden Lieberher, Dean Norris)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 21%
I honestly don’t even know how to describe this movie. There isn’t a single three-minute stretch within Book of Henry where I didn’t find myself looking cock-eyed at the screen, saying, “Wait, what?” to myself. Here’s my best analogy: You know on Friends when Rachel is in charge of the Thanksgiving dessert and she makes a traditional English trifle but the pages are stuck together so she accidentally makes half of an English trifle and half of a meat pie? Book of Henry feels is that Trifle Pie. For 45 minutes, Colin Treverrow was making a little family drama about a genius kid who dies tragically. And then someone slipped in the wrong script and the rest of the movie is an espionage thriller wherein (and you cannot make this up) the dead child, from beyond the grave, walks his very dumb (this is noted VERY HEAVILY) mother through the murder of a neighbor. It’s just as terrible as it sounds but I would definitely watch a 30 for 30 on how in the world this got made if anyone wants to make that film for me, thanks.

Geostorm.jpg

7. Geostorm (Gerard Butler, Jim Sturgess, Abby Cornish)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 13%
I legitimately forgot Geostorm came out in 2017 which is fitting considering it’s been in “development” for about a decade. There were some signs as to how bad this movie would be. Number one, Roland Emmerich wouldn’t direct Dean Devlin’s script so Dean did the movie himself. If Roland Emmerich is like, “Nah, this doesn’t sound so good” you should probably cut bait. Number two, Gerard Butler agreed to star. If Gerard Butler believes your movie fits his filmography, you should probably cut bait. Number three, once Gerard Butler was cast, he was surrounded by the most “Bad Disaster Movie” cast ever. If I was TRYING to make a bad Gerard Butler movie (redundant), Jim Sturgess, Abby Cornish, and Andy Garcia would be my first three calls. Also, it should be noted that the titular geostorm doesn’t happen until maybe 90 minutes into the movie. Great calls all around.

6. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (Charlie Hunnam, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Jude Law)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 29%
Why is it so hard to make a good King Arthur movie? We’ve had motion pictures for something like 120 years and Arthurian legend has leaked its way into every corner of pop culture and yet, still, there isn’t a single Arthur film worth watching that isn’t a cartoon (Sword in the Stone) or a comedy (Monty Python and the Holy Grail). This doesn’t seem too difficult and yet, here we are. Guy Ritchie’s take is muddled and messy in all the wrong ways and doesn’t even have the decency to feel like a Guy Ritchie movie. Instead of the quick-paced action and vaguely quip-y dialogue that make Ritchie movies interesting even when they’re not good, we got this epically stupid and lifeless rendition which hinges ENTIRELY on the presence of a giant snake. Because, as you know, the best part of every Arthurian legend is when the giant snake shows up to be his buddy.

baywatch.jpg

5. Baywatch (Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, Alexandra Daddario)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 18%
I admit, I had limited expectations for most of the movies on this list. The bar was low and somehow, these properties brought it lower. But Baywatch should have worked. Maybe that sounds crazy but in a post-21 Jump Street world, a movie starring The Rock and Zac Efron playing on the inherent idiocy of the source material should’ve been a blast. Alas, Seth Gordon and his team of writers forgot the most important ingredient in this recipe: humor. If your send-up comedy doesn’t have any inherent comedy, you wind up with something like Baywatch that bombed hard with critics and audiences alike.

4. Mother! (Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 69%
There were worse movies in 2017, to be sure, and in fact, I’ve seen Mother! on far more “Best” lists than “Worst” lists. I have tried to see the virtues of this film and can vaguely wrap my head around a few of the positives the film’s disciples have espoused. But I hate this movie. I hate this movie more than any other I saw this year. I hate this movie so much that I’m risking a rage stroke even writing about it now, four months after my first (and only, with ANY luck) viewing. I hate this movie so much that if I could’ve found a way to list it at number one on this list without giving off the appearance of clickbait, I would have done so. How this movie got anything resembling a wide release is one of the year’s greatest mysteries. Mother! is a steaming pile of self-indulgent nonsense cobbled together into something resembling a Christ allegory but without the slightest hint of subtlety. When deciding whether or not a movie is good, I always ask myself, “Was a baby eaten by an insane mob that shows up out of nowhere at any point in this movie?” And if the answer is yes, then the movie is not good. It is very not good. Congratulations to Darren Aronofsky on creating the first movie to ever answer that question with a resounding, “Yes! Yes, this movie DOES involve a baby getting eaten by an insane mob that shows up out of nowhere!” My heart is now filled with hate once more and I appreciate your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.

emoji.jpg

3. The Emoji Movie (TJ Miller, James Corden, Anna Faris)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 9%
This one has to take the prize for, “Most Unnecessary Movie of the Year.” But that’s kind of expected, you know? Worst case scenario, I should’ve walked out of Emoji saying, “Well that was completely dumb and unnecessary but harmless.” But no! The team behind this one took it a step further to ensure that not only is this movie dumb and unnecessary, it is also unblinkingly cynical and grim. Sure, it ends with a faux-happy little bow but the in the process of getting there, it takes your kids on one of the most depressing, needlessly dark rides imaginable in a throw-away animated movie. BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT WE ALL WANT FROM A MOVIE ABOUT SMILEY FACES!

2. The Circle (Emma Watson, John Boyega, Tom Hanks)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 16%
Woo, boy. I read The Circle a few years ago and thought it was an interesting-if-underwhelming book that would make a great movie. I was, uh…I was very wrong. This is one of those movies where I knew probably three minutes in that I was in for something special. The opening scene is cringe-worthy and it is perhaps the best scene of the movie. The script is bad, the pacing is worse, and the bulk of the film depends entirely on Emma Watson who just isn’t up for the challenge. At a certain point, it appears that everyone involved realized they had a stinker on their hands and simply gave up. I can’t blame them.

Transformers.jpg

1. Transformers: The Last Knight (Mark Wahlberg, Anthony Hopkins, Josh Duhamel)
Rotten Tomatoes Score: 16%
Now, listen, I understand that at this point, no one should have ANY expectations for a Transformers movie beyond “terrible.” Michael Bay has now proven, time and again, that he doesn’t care about anything but explosions and racially insensitive characterizations and thus, we pretty much know what we’re going to get before heading in. Even still, even with an expectation that borders on, “Literally nothing. Literally just, can you make a movie that won’t leave me looking for a hotline to call?” EVEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, Transformers: The Last Knight is the stuff of Bad Movie Legend. It is a 150-minute assault on the viewer that posits such important questions as, “What if the Transformers killed Hitler?” and, “What if Merlin was a drunk who summoned the Transformers to help King Arthur?” and, “What if we semi-sexualize a 12-year-old girl?” Transformers: The Last Knight is an historically awful movie that is more aggressive in its stupidity than almost any other movie I have ever seen in my life.