A Star is Born (1954)

A Star is Born (1954)

Since I've recently moved to LA, it only makes sense that I check out the classic story of making it in Hollywood, even if it means dating a drunken James Mason. This was the first remake of the 1937 film, with another being made with Barbara Streisand and Kris Kristofferson in 1976, and yet another set to come out later this year with Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga, directed by Cooper himself. This seems to be the most iconic version of the story, so I decided to give it a watch.

This is only the second Judy Garland film I've ever seen, the other being Wizard of Oz (I've also seen Judgment at Nuremberg, which features Garland in a much smaller role). Garland was only 32 years old when she made this film, but she looks, acts, and sounds far older, probably due to the amount of life she managed to pack into her short time on earth. In every scene it's clear that Garland is working hard, whether she's delivering monologues, actively listening, tap dancing, or singing until her face is purple. She is show business incarnate and this performance makes that very clear. James Mason is also great, with a performance that ripples legitimate embarrassment. Every time he gets drunk it's terrifying, not because he's violent or monstrous, but because of how sad and mortified everyone around him is while he appears to be having a ball. The supporting cast is solid, with one strange mannerism that they all share, which is a lot of touching. Every single actor in this movie at some point touches every other actor in the movie. It's almost entirely harmless arm/shoulder touching, but it's so gratuitous and deliberate that it's very difficult to ignore. I'm not exactly sure if it's a choice, or if that's just how people interacted with each other back then, but I found myself frequently checking my own personal space throughout the whole movie.

The film is shot in CinemaScope, and boy does it show. Every shot, whether it be on a lavish set or in a simple living room, is so impressively wide that I already regret not waiting to see this in a theater. The colors are popping, the set design is creative, and it's captured with very simple but elegant cinematography.

The movie really takes its time in telling its story, often to the point of dragging. The DVD I watched included missing footage from the film that was replaced with slideshows and voice over, which rounded out the normally two and a half hour film to a full three hours, and I could feel it. With a story this simple it's honestly surprising that they were able to wring this much out of it. It's about an actress who's given her shot to fame when a troubled, alcoholic movie star falls in love with her, and it never really strays from that story. I suppose the time adds up with all of the big musical numbers, and the dialogue has a tendency to sprawl, but there's still not much of an excuse for it. However, the visual atmosphere of the film and the rather surprising and honestly perfect ending make up for the epic length.

If you have a spare three hours, you like musicals from the 1950s, and you still haven't seen this, it's worth checking out. But if there's a nearby theater playing it, definitely take advantage.

Legally Blonde

Legally Blonde

I saw a college production of Legally Blonde: The Musical once and that's all I really had to go off of when I found myself watching the original movie. What's funny is that, largely due the movie's over-the-top nature,  the characters constantly look like they're about to burst into song. If there was ever a movie made to be a goofy musical, it's Legally Blonde.

For the most part it's a slightly-above-standard studio comedy, with fun wacky performances, subversions of some cliches while leaning into some other ones, giving light to some decent characters while accidentally shading other more important ones, and overall just being generally likable. However, while the humor is generally just amusing and light, there are a handful of moments that feel like a legitimate comedian happened upon the script and just started inserting jokes. Things like Elle swerving into the middle of the road to park somewhere and seeing all the chaos behind her as she blissfully ignores it,  or her white sorority friend suddenly being able to speak Vietnamese to a salon lady, or a gay pool boy who's trying to pose as straight but accidentally pisses off his boyfriend in the middle of a court scene when it makes absolutely no sense for the boyfriend to even be there are surprisingly insane and feel more like something out of Airplane! than a film like this. I enjoyed the bizarre, unpredictable nature that these moments gave the film, even though it was quite possibly on accident.

The characters are all pretty standard, but where it gets different is their dynamics between each other. Elle goes into Harvard Law to win back her ex-boyfriend who's now back with his academic ex-girlfriend. Initially Elle and the girlfriend hate each other, but in the end they actually become friends and both ditch the jerk boyfriend. Luke Wilson is the typical nice guy who serves as a new love interest for Elle, but instead of just being generally nice to earn her love, he believes her in a moment when no one else does. Her professor who she's trying to earn the respect of suddenly starts hitting on her. These little story swerves make the film a lot more engaging than it normally might be, and they show that the screenwriters knew what they were doing in regards to structure. Dialogue maybe not so much, but definitely structure.

I had a decent enough time watching the movie. I liked some of the characters, and those couple of bizarre jokes helped keep me on my toes. Plus there's a surprise appearance by Linda Cardellini with a wacky perm straight out of Lindsay Weir's worst nightmares, and it delighted me to no end.

Isle of Dogs

Isle of Dogs

This might be Wes Anderson's weirdest film. It's natural to compare it to Fantastic Mr. Fox because it's stop-motion animated, features a rivalry between humans and talking animals, and the animals speak in a very understated way, but tonally Isle of Dogs is entirely its own thing.

To provide some context, it feels like everyone is now familiar with Wes Anderson's films and the tropes that come with them because there are so many parody videos and sketches that point them out (the dry humor, the centered cinematography, the quirkiness, the distinct sets and costumes, etc.). These parodies are fun if they're done right and actually point out something new about his films, but they can also sometimes feel like criticism of Anderson for choosing style over substance and/or being lazy and stealing from himself, neither of which are actually true. Anderson is a great writer and takes years to properly develop his films and the unique worlds that they each inhabit. Of course he has a distinct visual style that he enjoys, as well as certain character dynamics (especially father/son relationships), but he tells many different well-crafted stories within that framework and always has distinct and interesting characters, strong emotions, great humor, and fully-explored concepts and worlds.

Grand Budapest Hotel was a slight turn in Anderson's style due to its adventurous nature and surprising bouts of violence, and Isle of Dogs swerves a lot further into that lane than it does into Fantastic Mr. Fox's. It's bristly and tough (with characters that actually use minor PG-level swearing instead of saying "cuss", a decent amount of fights that actually have physical consequences, etc.), the storytelling is more fragmented (sideplots, lots of flashbacks, etc.), and it actually gets political in a way that actually feels smart instead of overly preachy. The humor is often subtle nearly to the point of hidden, though some jokes are closer to the surface than others. Whereas all of Anderson's other films are comedies with heavy doses of drama, this feels more like adventure film with actual danger that also happens to be frequently funny. The tone is consistent, it's just unlike anything else Anderson has done.

The characters are more subtle, with Anderson actually taking his time to slowly unravel these characters in ways that are sometimes bizarre, but they're almost all unique and memorable. Several of the characters have quite a bit of backstory, as well as some fun surprises that I wouldn't dare to spoil. The only characters I have any issue with are actually the main group of dogs (other than Bryan Cranston's Chief). They're just not as fleshed out or interesting as anyone else in the film, and instead feel like simple, amusing side characters. I would've liked to have seen them with more distinct personality traits, especially since they're all voiced by such wonderful actors.

The visuals are gorgeous, which is no surprise. It's been a few days since I've seen the film and my brain is till poring over all of the beautiful images the film creates. There's a consistent red/black/white motif, but every once in a while there's a scene with entirely new colors and it only causes the movie to be all the more engaging. I also love how so many scenes have peripheral business going on, with characters and objects that just happen to be moving around independent of the central focus of the shot. There's a lot going on visually, which alone will make it rewarding for multiple viewings.

People have started talking about the cultural appropriation aspect, which makes sense and I don't want to try and diffuse anyone else's argument with my own privileged perspective. I personally was not offended because I didn't notice any stereotypes or mean-spiritedness in the film, and it all seems to be done with great respect and love for both the style and the culture, including having the Japanese characters actually speak Japanese (though this has actually become a source of criticism because it makes them appear foreign in the otherwise English language film). Again, this is just how I personally felt about this aspect of the film, and while I would hope that it doesn't leave anyone feeling alienated or other'd, if it does I want those people to be able to have their voices heard.

I highly recommend checking out this movie, whether you're a Wes Anderson fan or not, because it's gorgeous, meticulously detailed, well-written, well-acted, funny, memorable, and, most importantly, a deep breath of fresh air. It's an original film that's worth the price of seeing it on the big screen. Support independent film!

Living in Oblivion

Living in Oblivion

Released in 1995, this is a film by independent filmmakers for independent filmmakers about independent filmmakers.

Steve Buscemi plays a frustrated indie director who's trying to make a movie but is constantly interrupted by things going wrong. Whether it be technical problems, the crew screwing up, actors getting frustrated, drama, or some other bizarre surprises, absolutely nothing will allow Buscemi to make this movie. What's even worse is that, from the few scenes they actually are able to film, it's clear that they're stressing over making an inevitably terrible movie.

The cast is an unexpected mix of actors, several of whom are playing against type and doing a great job of it. Dermot Mulroney is surprisingly broad and funny as the cinematographer, the great Kevin Corrigan plays a stoner focus puller, Peter Dinklage shows up almost literally out of nowhere and is very funny, Catherine Keener is wonderfully reactive with some great facial expressions, and Steve Buscemi is of course fantastic as the desperate, quickly unravelling director.

I don't want to say too much more about the movie because I think it's an underrated gem that's worth checking out, but I will say there's an unexpected element in the film that's one of the most hated and widely known cliches in the book, but because of the film's tone and the way it's being used, it actually works and makes the film all the more fascinating.

Check it out if you haven't seen it!

Short Cuts

Short Cuts

I want to like Robert Altman. I really do. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with myself for not enjoying his films, because he's influenced all of my heroes, mainly Paul Thomas Anderson (In fact it's very clear that Magnolia received inspiration from Short Cuts, since it's a tale of many different characters living in Los Angeles (and Julianne Moore is in both films), but while Magnolia also has clear influences from more borderline-melodramatic films like Network and Ordinary People, Short Cuts is pure Altman). I find myself consistently having a hard time getting invested in Altman's films, maybe because I don't buy into their attempt at authenticity, or maybe I'm just not big on his dialogue, or maybe I feel like his cinematography is often flat, I don't really know. However, Short Cuts may actually be my favorite of Altman's so far, along with Nashville, because there are a few moments of genuine surprise and intrigue, and I was consistently at least somewhat engaged.

Short Cuts is the story of 9 different stories of like 20 different people living in Los Angeles, and the ways they all bump into each other in one way or another. They all either have horrible lives and are bitter because of it or have decent lives and then something horrible happens to them which traumatizes them. It's a pretty cynical movie, though there are a few glimmers of hope in it.

Good lord, this cast. Frances Mcdormand, Tom Waits, Tim Robbins, Chris Penn, Matthew Modine, Julianne Moore, Jack Lemmon, Lily Tomlin, Andie Macdowell, Fred Ward, Buck Henry, Peter Gallagher, Huey Lewis, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Robert Downey Jr., and Alex Trebek as himself, it's an actual army of 90's stars. Not only that, but a lot of them are playing somewhat against type. Tim Robbins isn't the typical sweet character that he plays, he's an abusive monster. Chris Penn is very submissive and sad, and doesn't do a crazy Chris Penn snap until the very end. These performances are all really wonderful, with the actors making a full meal out of these characters. It's easily my favorite element of the film.

As far as the stories and dialogue go, these are stories based off of the writings of Raymond Carver. Now I'm not familiar with his work, but if the movie counts as evidence, he seems to focus primarily on stories about dysfunctional relationship that center around infidelity. There's a lot of infidelity in this movie. It's almost entirely infidelity. There's a lot of wonderful movies that feature infidelity or even focus on it, but when there's 9 different stories and most but not all of them feature it, it comes off as more of a fixation than a theme. Robert Downey Jr. tries to get Chris Penn to cheat, Chris Penn's wife is a phone sex worker who's not even interested in Penn physically, Tim Robbins is a serial cheater, Frances Mcdormand is cheating on Peter Gallagher with Tim Robbins, Tom Waits verbally abuses Lily Tomlin about customers being attracted to her, Julianne Moore cheats on Matthew Modine with Fred Ward I think but can't remember, etc. With movies about multiple stories like this, there sort of needs to be an "all or one" mentality. In Magnolia, each story is very different. There's things that they all share, and a lot of them bump into each other, but they're all unique nonetheless. In Short Cuts a lot of the stories are similar or somewhat blend together, which I assume is something Altman wanted, but that actually makes it harder to get invested in them because it's more difficult to follow what's going on. What's even more frustrating is that some of the most interesting stories aren't given enough time because they have to share with other less interesting stories. The men going camping and discovering a body is a great idea but it's essentially glossed over, there's a woman who's a clown but we never actually see her perform, a couple loses their child and are pestered by the man's father which should be its own movie, etc. However, some of these stories are perfect in the shorter format, such as Chris Penn's story, the cello player and her mother, etc. But some stories could be cut entirely, like the Julianne Moore/Matthew Modine/Fred Ward bit, and cutting would be helpful as the film's already over 3 hours.

This is a metaphor I'm fairly certain I've used before, but the movie is like a gigantic bag of trail mix that's mostly pretty okay nuts with some not so great dried fruit and legumes, but there's a handful of tasty M&Ms in there that are worth sticking around for. I'm still waiting for that Altman film that completely turns me around to his work, but I still think this one is solid.

Yankee Doodle Dandy

Yankee Doodle Dandy

Another movie, another check off the AFI Top 100 list.

Based off the life of George M. Cohan, this is a very early version of the Oscar-y biopic that I never stop complaining about, except it somewhat feels like it knows it. It's entertaining, with plenty of big song and dance numbers and fun jokes, but the frame of the story is a bit absurd. Old George M. Cohan is asked to meet the president, so he walks into his office and begins telling the president his life story. Then the movie happens. Then after he's caught up to present day, he jokes about not meaning to tell his whole life story. It's a bizarre meta joke that almost feels like it's making fun of today's Oscar bait biopics that do the exact same thing but don't call themselves out for it.

This was my first James Cagney film, as I still haven't seen The Public Enemy, One, Two, Three, or any of his other classics, and I quite enjoyed his performance. He played Cohan like the over-the-top vaudevillian that he probably was, but there's also a humanity that he brings to the character. To be honest, I'm writing this a few days after seeing the film, and didn't really find anyone else in the film to be too memorable, other than Joan Leslie as Cohan's wife Mary, who was instantly likable. The director, Michael Curtiz, made The Adventures of Robin Hood three years before this, so he was clearly comfortable with large set pieces. His very next film would be Casablanca, and for many years he continued to make other films that weren't Casablanca.

To be honest, it's been a few days since I actually saw the movie and I'm already forgetting quite a bit of it. It's by no means boring or bad, it's a good time, but it never gets much deeper than that.

The Lady Eve

The Lady Eve

Considered one of the all-time classic comedies, written and directed by the legendary Preston Sturges, and starring Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda, The Lady Eve has quite the pedigree.

While I prefer Sturges' crazier work, like Unfaithfully Yours and The Palm Beach Story, this film certainly has its own strengths. For one thing, I would never have guessed Henry Fonda could handle outright slapstick comedy as well as he does in this film, which I think largely comes from how unassuming and innocent his expressions are. Barbara Stanwyck is undoubtedly the reason to see the film though, having that rare, entrancing, star quality which elevates her already well-written character into something truly iconic. Just her introduction with the mirror alone is enough to love her, then seeing her play off of Henry Fonda shoots her charisma levels into the stratosphere.

A lot of comedies from the 1940's come from clever back-and-forth dialogue, which doesn't typically work for me, but Sturges was always brilliant at avoiding that, always going for delightful absurdity over forced wit. Lady Eve, while not as absurd as some of his other work, gets its biggest laughs from its absurd moments. The slapstick, bizarre visual gags, strange characters, and over the top reactions are what make the film unique from so many other comedies of its time. There's also an undeniable cynicism lurking in it, stemming from Sturges being on his third divorce when he wrote it, which adds to its somewhat alternative quality. This makes it very easy to see why The Coen Brothers see Sturges as a personal hero.

Not every joke in the movie lands for me, including some entire scenes (mainly the poker scenes, a subject I always check out on simply because of ignorance and lack of interest), but overall it's an enjoyable time and I certainly get why it's a classic. I recommend seeing it if you haven't already, and also recommend checking out any of Sturges' other films, as there really isn't anything else like them.

Osc Talk - 2018

There are still several movies I wanted to see before the Oscar ceremony (Mudbound, Molly's Game, Loving Vincent, all of the foreign films other than The Square, etc.), but I managed to see all of the best picture nominees and a few other nominated films, so I'm gonna do a quick runthrough of all of the categories and my thoughts on who should win.

Production Design - Blade Runner 2049 or The Shape of Water.

I wasn't big on The Shape of Water as a whole, but boy was it pretty to look at. The apartment/movie theater in particular is gorgeous and a wonderfully imaginative concept. There's a timeless quality to the sets and their style, and I definitely appreciated it.

Blade Runner 2049 is set in the world of Blade Runner, so naturally the production design was breathtaking. One of my favorites aspects of the film was how they added to the world while also honoring the original movie, which meant adding things like giant hologram ladies, but also keeping the Pan Am and Atari buildings. It's definitely a movie more people need to see.

Animated Feature Film - Coco, though I've only seen Coco. I'm sure Loving Vincent is great, just like I'm sure The Boss Baby is great, I just didn't get around to seeing them. But I liked Coco.

Foreign Film - I've only seen The Square and didn't think it was that great, though I certainly didn't think it was terrible. On Body and Soul is on Netflix so I'll probably check that out at some point, but there's a solid chance I won't get to it for a while.

Documentary Feature - Where's Jim and Andy? Seriously? Was it disqualified for some reason? Or was The Academy just not big on it? It was one of my favorite films of the year, so I'm curious as to why it didn't receive a nomination. I didn't see any of the other nominated documentaries.

Documentary Short - I didn't see them, nor have many other people, so I'd love to see how distributors could get people more excited or interested in these short documentaries that have been ignored for so long. For one thing, just looking at the run times, they're all around 40 minutes, which might be a tad long for someone who's just looking for something short and informative. There are some talented people on YouTube that cover both current and historical events that do a very good job of exploring their subjects in under 30 minutes. Of course, if the Academy was going to branch out to counting YouTube videos, it would mean having to watch hundreds if not thousands of videos, so there'd probably need to be some kind of regulation for nominees, though I'm not sure what that would entail.

Live Action Short - Same with documentary short, I think it would be good to perhaps count rising names in YouTube or Vimeo. I looked at some of the plot summaries for the nominated films and The Eleven O'Clock is very similar to a terrible short story I wrote for a college application, so I'd be pretty bitter if that one won.

Animated Short - I did not see any of these, including Lou, which apparently was a Pixar short. Was this a replacement for the Frozen one? I thought maybe they'd just replace it with half an hour of a blank screen and silence.

Original Score - Phantom Thread

While I think all of the nominated films have great scores (though I can't actually think of any tunes from John Williams' Last Jedi score), Phantom Thread is a definite favorite for me. Jonny Greenwood brilliant and deserving of an award for all of his Paul Thomas Anderson film scores, but this is his best work so far. It's timeless, rich, haunting, seductive, and memorable, just like the film itself. I adore it completely.

Original Song - "Mystery of Love" by Sufjan Stevens

Though I did prefer "Visions of Gideon", the final song in Call Me By Your Name, especially because of how it was used in the film, "Mystery of Love" is both wonderful and put to good use as a falling-in-love-montage-song.

Best Makeup - Darkest Hour

I mean, come on.

Visual Effects - Blade Runner 2049

I din't see War for the Planet of the Apes or Kong: Skull Island, which I'm sure both had wonderful animated apes, and while I loved Guardians Vol. 2 (and think Rocket Racoon is a phenomenal achievement in visual effects), there were some things like the creature in the opening that looked a little too cartoon-y, same with The Last Jedi. Blade Runner 2049, on the other hand, used its CGI both sparingly and subtly, and more miraculously, used it to great emotional effect. Ryan Gosling's hologram girlfriend is a heartbreaking character, and the moment with the giant hologram woman is in some ways unnecessary but also strangely moving. Everything that's really supposed to be there in the movie looks and feels like it really is, and everything that's supposed to be fake is memorable and serves a purpose.

Sound Editing - Dunkirk

I believe sound mixing refers to the actual sounds that were made for the film, where as sound editing is how those sounds were utilized. The strongest and most talked-about aspect of Dunkirk is its use of sound to build tension. It's all about that ticking clock, baby.

Film Editing - Baby Driver

I'm admittedly biased as an avid Edgar Wright fan, but I think the editing of Baby Driver is superb.  In many ways it's what heightens it to a truly special and unique kind of action film, because it's so adeptly and specifically choreographed to the wonderful soundtrack. Let Edgar Wright have an Oscar winning film!

Sound Mixing - Blade Runner 2049

The sounds in this film are actually memorable, which alone makes it Oscar-worthy. I can still feel how heavy those gunshot effects felt when I saw it in IMAX. It's powerful stuff.

Costume Design - Phantom Thread

I mean, come on.

Cinematography - Blade Runner 2049

I still haven't seen Mudbound, but Roger Deakins not having an Oscar after all of these years is actually absurd.

Adapted Screenplay - Call Me By Your Name

I would never guess that multiple screenwriters were behind this film because it feels so personal, genuine, intimate, and novelistic. A fantastic adaptation. And Stuhlbarg's monologue.

Original Screenplay - Lady Bird

Greta Gerwig had to cut this screenplay down from its original 350 pages, and I think she found the best way to go about it, which is by constantly tricking you into thinking it's going to be about one thing, but then moving onto something else entirely. High school's never been better represented.

Directing - Paul Thomas Anderson or Greta Gerwig

I know everyone's saying this is Del Toro's year, and he'll probably get it as a makeup for Pan's Labyrinth, but to me Shape of Water is no match for the richness of Phantom Thread or the authenticity of Lady Bird. The brilliant performances from both films are because of the collaborative and trusting environment that both of the directors provided for their actors, and the same goes for the dialogue and filmmaking aspects.

Supporting Actress - Laurie Metcalf

It's between her and Janney, but I think Metcalf gives the more grounded, earned performance.

Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell

Dixon is the most controversial character of the year, but it's Rockwell's performance that provides the hopeful, sympathetic side to him that was so very needed.

Lead Actress - Frances McDormand

While Sally Hawkins was brilliant without talking, and Saoirse Ronan was so present, McDormand took a very interesting, flawed character and turned her into something that'll be talked about for years to come.

Lead Actor - Timothee Chalamet

This is very tough, but it's gotta be Chalamet because not only was it a breathtaking, heartbreaking performance, it was the most natural and present of any of the nominees. There simply wasn't a second where I felt he was acting.

Best Picture - Uhhhh

Okay, I would not call any of this films perfect, nor would any of them be included among a list of favorites for me personally, but I'd say it comes down to a fight between Phantom Thread, Lady Bird, and Call Me By Your Name for me. Three Billboards was initially in the lead for me, but there have been some excellent points made against the film that I agree with and would therefore require another viewing before talking more about it. I think Phantom Thread wins for filmmaking, Lady Bird for charisma and authenticity, and Call Me By Your Name for originality in style.

That's about all I got. Let's see what happens!

The Post

The Post

Now that I've seen every best picture nominated film for 2017, I can confidently say this one is the least good. I feel bad saying "the worst" because it's not a terrible movie, but it's also not a very good movie.

The key word here is "phony." Now this could be seen as a pun, because of how often people are on the phone in the the film, but it's not. I just didn't believe a second of this movie.

Most of the problems stem from the screenplay simply not being unique or interesting. The dialogue and characters are so vanilla that it's hard to discern anyone from anyone else, and their Oscar-y emotional speeches feel just like the same Oscar-y emotional speeches we've seen a million times before and don't shed light on any sort of new perspective that gives the movie a purpose. This movie has no purpose. If it was going to be about the country's first female newspaper publisher, it should've been a focused character study. Instead it felt unfocused, typically shifting the spotlight to Tom Hanks, who I'll get to, and feeling like it needs to only talk about Vietnam and Nixon as though hundreds of other movies have never covered those topics before. If the premise is that it's about Kay Graham, then it should've been about Kay Graham.

Keeping the uninteresting screenplay in mind, Meryl Streep gives a solidly okay performance, but Tom Hanks is genuinely bad. He's doing a New York accent for his character and that's the extent of his effort. He never feels present or believable, and he's missing the Hanks charm that he's normally able to coast off of. Even when he yells and gets emotional it feels completely noncommittal, like he really didn't care. The script is largely to blame, but he still stuck out from the rest of the cast as particularly phony. Everyone else in the movie has such a small role that they're not really given a chance to be memorable (including Sarah Paulson, which is particularly insulting because of how insanely good she is), though I must say seeing Bob Odenkirk and David Cross together again was very exciting as a Mr. Show fan, watching Alison Brie do scenes with Meryl Streep was really cool as a Community fan, and seeing Zach Woods in a Spielberg film is very exciting as an improv fan.

Even the filmmaking feels unnatural and forced. Spielberg is great at doing subtle long takes. These are not subtle. The camera is constantly moving, but it never really moves with purpose. It's like Spielberg knew the movie was gonna be boring so he tried to shoot it like Goodfellas, but that actually managed to make it worse. The real fix here would've been to not take on this script, or at least do heavy punch-ups on it, but since that's not entirely helpful, I'd say the fix would be to trust that the script and characters will be enough to make the movie interesting, because when the director has the camera hover around characters for no reason it makes it clear that they have no vision or confidence in the project. It feels like a panic move.

If you don't care about watching all the Oscar movies then I'd say you're fine to skip this one. It doesn't leave any sort of impact, and your time can be spent watching a better movie. I want my good Spielberg movies to come back!