Author: bernardovillela

10 Keys to a Better Life as a Fanboy: 2. Have a Bad Memory

Posted on by bernardovillela

Ian McKellan in The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)

This series of articles is designed to help you, the fan, try and divorce yourself from your attachment to source material and judge a film on its own merits and not in comparison to another work. These tips come from my own experience. I hope they are helpful.

I don’t know if it’s possible to train yourself to have a bad memory but you can sure as hell give it the old college try. You may have to be born with it and in that case I have been blessed. At least in this regard, it’s not really as handy as you may think.

How this will help you, though, is that the further you remove yourself from the source material the more you will be able to enjoy the film as a separate entity. An example of my experience with this is the Harry Potter films. Now granted they have gotten better, in my opinion (exponentially so with each installment), however, when I saw The Sorcerer’s Stone my first viewing was marred because I had so recently finished reading the book.

Since then there has been a bit of a gap between my having read the book and seeing each movie. Some were larger than others but that has helped. With each successive film I have spent less and less time and mental energy thinking to myself “Oh, Such-and-Such is coming up.”

Anticipating events and then wanting to see how they are executed cinematically can diminish your enjoyment unnaturally. If you came in as a blank slate you may either be awed or disappointed but it would be all your opinion of what you saw and in no way influenced by your expectation.

An illustration I could give you would be The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I never read them. I don’t care if I ever do read them. It certainly wouldn’t make my bucket list were I to write one (Finishing War and Peace would), but I did see all three movies. Thus, I had no preset expectations and the reception it got was the reverse of what usually happens. It was hyped, fans wanted it and were typically pleased with what they saw. For the record: I thought part one was pretty good, part two was interminable and part three was brilliant until it decided it would refuse to end. In some parallel dimension of the multiverse I’m sure it never did.

10 Keys to a Better Life as a Fanboy: 1. A Book is a Book (A Question of Form)

Posted on by bernardovillela

1. A Book is a Book (A Question of Form)

Star Wars- Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (Lucasfilm)

This series of articles is designed to help you, the fan, try and divorce yourself from your attachment to source material and judge a film on its own merits and not in comparison to another work. These tips come from my own experience. I hope they are helpful.

The first and most important thing to keep in mind if you are hoping to have a happy existence as a fanboy is that medium matters. A book is a book, a comic is a comic and so on and so forth. Each medium has its own rules and limitations and conversely benefits. If something achieves perfection within its form it is therefore referred to as a masterpiece.

It is very difficult but not impossible for a story to be that well told in more than one medium. Now how to gauge whether or not a film has achieved such a lofty height cannot and should not be decided based on a comparative analysis.

There is merit to examining the decisions made in adding and omitting and transforming material from other mediums to film but such discussions are typically more adept to academic scenarios and not germane to analyzing the quality of a film.

I will even have occasion to describe a film I saw and cite that I thought it should’ve done X when it does Y, Case 39 is a prime example of that, however, that should not influence one’s overall opinion of a film. You must look at what is presented you and then decide if it works based on what is there not what you wish is there. That should apply to films as well.

Another illustration would be Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. I was hoping against hope that amidst the bloodshed would be the headless corpse of Jar Jar Binks, alas it was not to be. Yet that didn’t color my entire view of the film. It still would’ve been bitchin’ though.

Review- Moon Child (La Permission de Minuit)

Posted on by bernardovillela

This is another example of a film that I am fortunate to have seen thanks to a film program, in this case it’s Rendez-Vous with French Cinema, which is presented in part by the Film Society of Lincoln Center and Emerging Pictures. Much like films I saw last year in From Britain with Love this series presents new films from foreign countries that likely have little to no US distribution. It’s a great way to discover some hidden gems. If you see a new films series from a specific country playing near you I urge you to go out and see some selections.

I wanted to see many of the titles that were playing at a local art house but sadly my schedule only permitted one.

This film concerns a doctor/patient relationship between David (Vincent Lindon) and Romain (Quentin Challal). David is a dermatologist who specializes in X.D., a photosensitive skin disorder, which Romain has. Essentially he can’t be exposed to UV radiation and must cover up if out in daylight and must check lighting conditions. It’s a chronic condition which causes many growths, which may or may not be cancerous and he undergoes many procedures. The basic relationship conflict that exists in this film and a chronic illness, are things I can identify very closely with, though on a far less severe level.

However, there’s not merely a doctor patient struggle in this film. Yes, there is a the personal connection that a physician has with a patient he’s treated his whole life but they also each have their own conflicts they grapple with. David struggles with trying to transition to a position with the WHO, dealing with his successor where he is and making sure his patients are in good hands and how to break it to his current patients. While Romain struggles not only with his conditions but with adolescence and trying to find some sort of harmony between the two.

The film’s weakest point is perhaps the one it should’ve handled most easily. The rivalry that develops between David and Carlotta (Emmanuelle Devos) is a bit too infantile and trite, especially when contrasted to some of the naturalistic truths found in other aspects of the film. The arc seemingly takes a huge jump in their relationship also. Thankfully the film has so much else going for it that this is a minor complaint.

One of which is an aspect I love and that is the juxtaposition of high point and low point in the narrative. David takes Romain on a road trip as a pretext to telling him he’s leaving. There’s some great scenes, interactions and montage. It’s wonderful and you get swept away in the fun. Upon their return Romain’s mother (Caroline Proust) lets the cat out of the bag immediately. Overwhelming high to incredible low in a split-second that propels the film beautifully into its second half.

The acting in the film for the most part is very strong but it really is a two-man show both Vincent Lindon and Quentin Challal are absolutely wonderful playing their disparate characters. Moreover, they work very well and naturally with one another which really sells you on the fact that the characters have a history. It feels organic an not like an artifice created for the purposes of story-telling.

The music whether instrumental or an original song for the film is very well-spotted, always emotionally truthful and highlights the emotional resonance of all the scenes in which it’s present. It’s rare to see both incorporated in one film and even more rare still to see them both work so well.

Through all its interpersonal drama and life-and-death situations the film does find a lot of room for comedy, quite naturally too. It’s this mix that allows it to work so well. It doesn’t stay to dour and works enough ebbs and flows such that it can extend the story the necessary amount so as to tell things in their proper time without forcing things.

My one previous aversion aside this is a very strong film and I’m glad it’s getting this showcase and I’m saddened that my screening was so woefully empty. It’s rare to see a doctor’s and a patient’s tale told so well much less a man’s and a child’s but here it is and there’s a great synergy to it. It’s a film that’s grown on me since I’ve seen it and I hope more people get a chance to see it.

9/10

Review- The Secret World of Arrietty

Posted on by bernardovillela

The Secret World of Arrietty (Studio Ghibli/Disney)

I haven’t seen that many Miyazaki films but I must say that I’ve liked all the ones I’ve seen therefore I wish I had seen more. It’s not a wonder that these films seem to transcend the typical limits of appeal and tend to reach rather broad audiences not just niche fans. It’s similarly not surprising that Disney has partnered with Studio Ghibli as the Japanese company’s US Producer/Distributor.

The animation in this film is rather beautiful to look at and very well composed. It is great evidence of the flexibility and variety that the medium still offers despite some prevailing trends. Perhaps more so than other film media animation still has within it the most diversified and varied employment of techniques and this film is evidence of why. It looks great.

Similar to the Toy Story films this story plays much with the theory of size by portraying small characters in a world that we don’t perceive as massive. It’s a boon to imagination and engages you in a different way and it allows you to view a seemingly normal world that you see everyday but you see it in a completely different way, a way you never saw it before. It makes the story to an extent more plausible but also more engaging because it’s making the mundane magical.

Now as is the case with many animated films when they travel overseas this film is dubbed. Now, I will say the performances by the English cast are pretty good. The leads being Bridgit Medler, David Henrie and Carol Burnett the only thing I found a little off was a lot of the vocalizations (grunts, sighs, onomatopoeia), which can sound unnatural and could’ve been omitted in the US version, were kept because they’re stylistically accurate and expected. So it’s the scripting I struggled with not the actors.

The story is based on the novel The Borrowers and it seems to be a well-handled version and it’s an interesting and inventive treatment of one of life’s minor mysteries (“Where did that thing go?”).

Playing off the concept and the theory of size there are great situations and tasks set forth in the film. The narrative is a simple but enjoyable but that suffers no unnecessary complications but instead progresses with the temporal elasticity of a Disney classic.

The film does all it can to separate and reunite this newfound friendship and concludes in a very touching and proper way. It’s a great animated film that might introduce some new audiences to Miyazaki as well as Disney’s own Winnie the Pooh did.

10/10

Spielberg Sunday- E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

Posted on by bernardovillela

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (Amblin)


Owing to the fact that I have decided to honor Steven Spielberg this year with my version of a Lifetime Achievement Award I figured it was an appropriate time to dust off some old reviews I wrote when I took a course on his work. The remarks still hold true, he is an amazing filmmaker.

When a movie is a hit it’s sometimes called “home run.” But Steven Spielberg doesn’t hit home runs he hits Grand Slams. If there is any film that absolutely defines Spielberg in my mind it’s this one. This film is a complete and total success both as entertainment and within the framework of the director’s objectives.

It’s very odd to look at these films in retrospect after most of them have already gone on to become world-wide phenomena and see that many studios rejected not only this film but many other successful Spielberg ventures. Oddly enough Hollywood insiders have always viewed him as a risk-taker. This film’s success, however, shouldn’t have surprised anyone at all. In E.T. we have a wonderfully structured story that seamlessly crosses over from fairy tale to comedy to drama without ever missing a beat. It always keeps you emotionally involved both through the story and with the assistance of the score.

One of the most impressive things about this film is the dialogue. It is often humorous and insightful. The thing that makes it stand out is how succinct it is and how perfectly adept to the situation. A prime example of this is during the emotional good-bye between E.T. and Elliot. They meet each one points to their heart and says “Ouch” then they exchange pleas “Come” and “Stay.” Four lines of dialogue, four words exchanged between the two of them yet that says it all; can it get any tighter than that? The best part is that it works so brilliantly. The comedic dialogue is just as effective Elliot is asked, “Did you explain school to him?” and in response Elliot says “How do you explain school to higher intelligence?” There have been entire films on the subject of how futile public education is and in that one line everything has been said.

Another great detail in E.T. is the use of inside jokes. First, we see Elliot introducing E.T. to the characters from Star Wars and later in the Halloween sequence we see an homage to that film as well as to Night of the Living Dead and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. One thing that makes E.T. special is that it uses situations that all of us can relate to from our own childhood even if it’s only there for a second. There’s bickering amongst siblings, the use of comics, adults that just won’t listen to what you have to say, Halloween, being caught daydreaming by a teacher and many others. Spielberg implemented enough shared experience that even if we didn’t feel that Elliot was a snapshot of our past we could identify enough to get lost in the story. What also aids the story a great deal is the almost supernatural connection that E.T. and Elliot form. It’s akin to what identical twins are supposed to have according to parapsychologists. The connection of their emotional and physical states leads first to some very comedic moments with Elliot sharing E.T.’s drunkenness and also the magical mimicry of the John Wayne film. Later on it leads to some of the most emotionally wrenching scenes where E.T. and Elliot are sharing an illness. Everything is so beautifully set up in this film that you might even stop and consider, “Hey, didn’t that come out of nowhere?” but upon examining the film you’ll find there really are no holes in the narrative. An example of this being the bike flying one of the most brilliant moments ever recorded on film. It still catches me off guard but it was set up when E.T. levitated the balls in the kid’s room to demonstrate where he came from.

To measure a film’s impact it is probably best to look at landscape of the entertainment industry a few years later as opposed to just looking at initial box office returns. In both regards E.T.’s impact was enormous. There was a cheap copy-cat film a couple of years later called Mac and Me along with a very successful television series that took a different angle called ALF. Even scenes in E.T. had an impact, for example, the anti-dissection episode is now another staple in the sitcom book of ideas. The reason that this film epitomized Spielberg so well is not the emotional intensity although that has a lot to do with it and it’s most definitely not the fact that there are aliens involved. What makes it such a trademark in my mind is that it is such a resounding success.

This film is also timeless, it will never, ever, ever seem dated no matter how much magic computers can conjure up you’ll never be able to put aside a story as involving and touching as this one, it’s a classic and it’s quite hard to imagine someone making a film this beautiful, one of the best films ever made.

10/10

Short Film Saturday: Jan Švankmajer

Posted on by bernardovillela

Yet again I’d prefer to introduce you to an animator through one quick example of his style rather than a barrage. Should you enjoy it there are many examples of his works on Youtube and elsewhere on the web.

Below you will find some biographical information on Švankmajer, which accompanies the YouTube video:

Švankmajer (born 4 September 1934 in Prague) is a Czech surrealist artist. His work spans several media. He is known for his surreal animations and features, which have greatly influenced other artists such as Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam, The Brothers Quay and many others.

Švankmajer has gained a reputation over several decades for his distinctive use of stop-motion technique, and his ability to make surreal, nightmarish and yet somehow funny pictures. He is still making films in Prague at the time of writing.

Švankmajer’s trademarks include very exaggerated sounds, often creating a very strange effect in all eating scenes. He often uses very sped-up sequences when people walk and interact. His movies often involve inanimate objects coming alive and being brought to life through stop-motion. Food is a favourite subject and medium. Stop-motion features in most of his work, though his feature films also include live action to varying degrees.

A lot of his movies, like the short film Down to the Cellar, are made from a child’s perspective, while at the same time often having a truly disturbing and even aggressive nature. In 1972 the communist authorities banned him from making films, and many of his later films were banned. He was almost unknown in the West until the early 1980s.

Today he is one of the most celebrated animators in the world. His best known works are probably the feature films Alice (1988), Faust (1994), Conspirators of Pleasure (1996), Little Otik (2000) and Lunacy (2005), a surreal comic horror based on the work of Edgar Allan Poe and the Marquis de Sade. Also famous (and much imitated) is the short Dimensions of Dialogue (1982), which shows Arcimboldo-like heads gradually reducing each other to bland copies (“exhaustive discussion”); a clay man and woman who dissolve into one another sexually, then quarrel and reduce themselves to a frenzied, boiling pulp (“passionate discourse”); and two elderly clay heads who extrude various objects on their tongues (toothbrush and toothpaste; shoe and shoelaces, etc.) and use them in every possible combination, sane or otherwise (“factual conversation”). His films have been called “as emotionally haunting as Kafka’s stories[1].”

He was married to Eva Švankmajerová, an internationally known surrealist painter, ceramicist and writer until her death in October of 2005. She collaborated on several of his movies including Faust, Otesánek and Alice. They had two children, Veronika and Václav

Review- Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Posted on by bernardovillela

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (Columbia/Marvel)

Last year saw a rash of superhero films and I believe the consensus was that we as a moviegoing public were pleasantly surprised with how they turned out. While each of us may have had a different favorite overall, as a class, the superhero films of 2011 faired rather well. Now the number of films in 2012 I believe is less but the expectations are greater, which makes it a little strange that it kicks off with Ghost Rider. Now as is the case with any of these films I do preface it with my personal history with the character as I feel it does matter.

So far as Ghost Rider is concerned, though I have returned to the comics fold in the past few years, I know nothing about him coming into this film, which I think is likely the ideal for any of these films but it was a strange experience. Strange in as much as I can’t say I disliked this movie but only barely. I certainly found it very flawed and wanted many things to be better but I didn’t hate it. Not a ringing endorsement but a true and modest one.

Part of the reason I decided to watch this film was that it was reported in trades and elsewhere that it’d be a reboot and it kind of was but bearing that in mind it really skimmed over the pretty decent backstory this character has. Of course, owing to my ignorance of the character maybe the origin is even better than indicated here but it’s rushed through in a voice over. Granted we’re all weary of origins at this point but if you commit to something touted as a reboot you’re committing to re-sketching the character for dopes like me who know next to nothing about him.

The other issue is that much of the story hinges on two rites one religious and one irreligious that are really rather simplistic and anticlimactic considering how high the stakes are and how huge the tasks. Such large accomplishments with obstacles so small are rather silly.

This contributes to a certain inoffensive flatness in this film. It’s never really un-enjoyable but in this sequel that should’ve been the fix it seems the risk-taking is non-existent and the peaks and valleys of emotion are kept at a bare minimum.

In a similar vein to the above rite issue there’s also the problem that our hero gets a temporary reprieve from his gift/curse and that too is granted and reversed a bit simply. This dichotomy should be allowed to build and perhaps shouldn’t even be tackled in the “first” film of a storyline but the saving grace is that it is corrected cleverly.

I’ve written quite a few times on the conundrum of Nicolas Cage. A Nicolas Cage who is locked in can be a great thing. A Nicolas Cage just going through the motions can be very hard to watch. This turn is much closer to the former than the latter, which is good because aside from Ciarán Hinds, as his nemesis, and relative newcomer Fegus Riordan who is caught in the middle of the battle, he gets little help from the supporting cast.

The special effects in the film are pretty good but the 3D is not as good as one might expect a native 3D film to be.

In summation, I did like the story both of the character and that the character is in. Clearly, the way in which it is rendered leaves something to be desired. Essentially, it’s sin is not quite enough ambition as opposed to The Green Lantern but I do find it to be an adequate, enjoyable and not dissatisfying film.

6/10

Review- The Grey

Posted on by bernardovillela

Liam Neeson in The Grey (Open Road Films)

Here’s another Liam Neeson butt-kicking his way out of trouble by himself with the promise to be so much more than the other ones. In some ways it better but in other ways it is more frustrating when things don’t quite work which they don’t on more than one occasion.

Now where this film succeeds greatly is in the use of the poem in voice over and then being explained later on along with the flashbacks. There are few things I enjoy more than effective and well-placed flashbacks and that I cannot take away from this film.

Now the film is about survival on the surface and frankly it’s better at skimming the surface than trying to plumb the depths. Yet even in the surface discussions of survival there are too many old hat, “necessary” conversations. One of which is the repetitive “Who made you boss?” discussion. It always ends in submission and it comes up too often in this film. I’m sure there are instances of one person leaving the pack and dying but you don’t see it enough.

One area wherein I don’t have issues with the film is on the animal rights front. There are reports of some groups being against this film. That’s silly. The film does a good job of explaining wolves habits and when they will attack and it’s a Darwinian set up. Yes, in his “past life” Neeson’s character was a contract killer but the bulk of the film is a kill or be killed basis. Not to mention that many scenes had no actual wolves in them.

So the animals pose no problem to me in my viewership and enjoyment of this film what does is one character in particular. Death to a film where it’s life or death is your not caring in the least of one of the character’s meets their demise, worse yet if you want it. That character to me in this film is Diaz. It’s not Grillo’s interpretation that I have an issue with it’s just that it’s written in such a way that there’s next to no chance for redemption for him.

Yet through all that I was hanging on for dear life and then the ravine swinging sequence and the end really took it over the edge. Now the former I can discuss. After real, gritty action suddenly a cliché, and an implausible one at that, breaks out. And it was lengthy and dumb and yet I still was kind of into it. Then it ended.

Like with any film I try and find things to like and there were quite a few things here. I can see how one would like it but it just really fell short for me.

5/10

Mini-Review Round-Up February 2012

Posted on by bernardovillela

I had quite a review drought to end 2011 so I think the remedy for this kind of post would be to have the post be cumulative monthly. Therefore, after each qualifying film a short write-up will be added to the monthly post. The mini-reviews will be used to discuss Netflix and other home video screenings. Theatrical releases, regardless of how they are seen whether in an auditorium or on VOD, will get full reviews.

For a guide to what scores mean go here.

Texas Killing Fields

Sam Worthington and Jeffrey Dean Morgan in Texas Killing Fields (Anchor Bay Films)

This was a film I’d hoped to see when I went up to New York for a little over a day in the fall but little did I know it was only doing a one-week engagement in theatres there, which ended the day before I went, so I did not get a legitimate chance to see it last year therefore it counts towards this year. What’s interesting about the film is that it’s not so much a whodunit as a cat-and-mouse game between law enforcement and known local unsavory elements. It’s a rather interestingly rendered tale that kept me engaged and doesn’t live down to critical bashing or up to my take on its trailer. It also has some pretty good performances by Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Sam Worthington, Jessica Chastain in perhaps her least seen and most differentiated performance from her breakout year and Chloë Grace Moretz who is building herself quite a résumé, one which by the time she comes of age will likely be incomparable. Her plotline is well-rendered albeit somewhat predictable. The film also has the first legitimate Best Song contender of the year (maybe more than one) in the end credits.

6/10

Prairie Love

Prairie Love (Film Movement)

Yeah, I know that as I write this it’s March but I saw this film in February and needed some time to think it over.

This is the first film I got as a member of the Film Movement Movie of the Month Club. One thing I love about this club is that each DVD has a selected short film on it. The other is that on the inside cover you get a statement from both the company about why it was selected and the director has a statement as well. The comments from Film Movement are the most intriguing and they are how I couch this mini-review, essentially you don’t get backstory on the two leads or that much explication of why what occurs within the narrative occurs.

In a vacuum I’m fine with both. It becomes a question to the individual viewer if you want or need more. The situation and through-line are good and looking back in hindsight maybe a tag or frame would’ve made it better for me but with the approach it did take it didn’t quite work for me. However, it did make me think on it, reflect and I appreciate the aspect and feel the direction was clear but it ends up being similar to NEDs in a way, I feel there was a clear vision and it was achieved but it didn’t quite click for me. I did like that the first selection I got was thought-provoking and does have me considering revisiting it.

5/10

Spielberg Sunday: Duel (1971)

Posted on by bernardovillela

Dennis Weaver in Duel (Universal TV)

Owing to the fact that I have decided to honor Steven Spielberg this year with my version of a Lifetime Achievement Award I figured it was an appropriate time to dust off some old reviews I wrote when I took a course on his work. The remarks still hold true, he is an amazing filmmaker.

Duel is a film that is deceptively simple in its narrative. It is simple enough that if you are simply told what it entails you’d wonder “Well, how can that ever make a good movie?” This is the same thought I had when my Uncle told me about it and talked about how great it was. He wasn’t wrong and there are many reasons why this film works so well.

While Spielberg worked many wonders in wielding this tale into an unforgettable motion picture, for which, we cannot forget that Richard Matheson wrote a tremendous screenplay based on his own short story. When we watch this film we get a sense of quiet and inner-monologue along with paranoid, frightened contemplation by our protagonist which is so well laid out that this comes very close to being a novel on film which is why people thought it couldn’t be done.

At the beginning we have a long sequence from the point of view of the protagonist and the only thing we hear besides the car-whipped wind and the hum of the engine is a radio call-in show where a man is talking to a woman and saying that he feels emasculated by his wife. Little do we know it but we are getting information about our protagonist without even knowing about it. I had suspected this for if we weren’t hearing a reflection of our protagonist this background conversation would be most extraneous indeed. The first time we see our protagonist is a shot in the rear view mirror of his car.

Duel takes what is a very real situation and takes it to its most insane and cataclysmic possible conclusions, the quintessence of horror. All we get in most of the beginning is a truck and a little car on a road. One cuts the other off and then they exchange volleys and try and block each other off. It’s a situation people find themselves in quite often, the exchange of ‘being cut-off’ and it is likely that, more than once, someone has wondered ‘Maybe I should stop messing around with this guy I don’t know what’s going on in his head.’ Not only do we see a man pushed to his limits but we only see this man. The trucker appears but once in the whole film. Occasionally, we see an arm sticking out a window but most of the time it’s a mystery. The fear of the unknown is also played upon in this film to a great extent and in what took a lot of courage and was difficult to pull off we never really do get to meet the trucker or understand him.

I don’t often hear people talk about Spielberg’s visual sensitivity this is usually because people often confused good art direction and set design with cinematography this is not the case and ‘Duel’ proves it. We see the wheels bounce and the camera accompanies it. We have two instances in which Spielberg uses a close up on the speedometer to increase the tension just a quick little glimpse and we watch the climb 70, 80, 90, this in tandem with the Hitchcockian and an occasional sampling of vivacious Bluegrass music. We watch our lead talking to his wife through a washing machine lid to show how trapped he feels when talking to his wife. We see shots of the back of the dusty, grimy trucks that read ‘Flammable’ and foreshadow the trucker’s demise and many more. The important thing about all of his camera work in the film is that it all has a purpose it doesn’t just look pretty. There’s a beautiful sequence where Spielberg tracks around the grill of the car and around the back and does the same with the truck moving up and down as he goes. Not only does this get us closer to the battle but it leaves us uneasy as do much of the shots and it works tremendously.

The paranoia of the picture really shows itself when the man is in the diner. At this point and really at any point in the film his name is irrelevant (When speaking to the operator we discover his surname is Mann, that isn’t an accident). He is just any old guy. In the diner we hear his thought process as he jumps through possibilities and then just as any person might. We see him look at the bar and scan all the patrons up from their boots to their faces. In this scene he loses it and confronts the wrong man about the on highway altercation he had. It’s in fact probably a film that has become more relevant as the years have gone on with incidents of “Road Rage” and even the coining of that phrase. We’ve seen this sleeper go from an odd chunk of macabre and mutate into something not so far-fetched.

The tension just doesn’t let down. We see tight shots of the back of the bus with the kids antagonizing an already aggravated man. We later see a great shot of the truck going back into the tunnel. He comes and knocks the bus out so that he and the car can engage in battle. It’s all battle now the trucker has decided to take it to the finish. Our protagonist once tried to avoid it by sitting at the side of the road for an hour but the truck was waiting for him just around the bend. Spielberg returns to the speedometer towards the end as we see the speed decrease because the radiator hose is leaking. This was foreshadowed when he stopped at a gas station and the guy popped his hood and that was noted it was dismissed as mechanic jive.

This is a film that should be noted not just as the first film of a great filmmaker but a great film on its own.

9/10