Close Encounters of the Third Kind review

Number 582 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg’s science-fiction drama ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’

Close Encounters tells the story of two characters: electrical linesman and family man, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) and single mother Jillian (Melinda Dillon) as their lives change forever after encounters with UFOs and aliens.

Spielberg is one of the most famous film directors in history. From The Colour Purple, to Jurassic Park, to Lincoln, Schindler’s List, he has done everything from period piece to tragedy to biopic. In the seventies, he is credited to kicking off the summer blockbuster trend with the iconic Jaws. I was expecting big things from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I was left disappointed. I would definitely say it was one of Spielberg’s weaker efforts. The key reason was its pace. It was just slow.

It lacked the same narrative tension that Jaws or Jurassic Park contained. Far from being an edge-of-your seat thriller, I found myself sinking back into my sofa. The suspense was lacking. That’s because I didn’t really care for the characters. Richard Dreyfuss maybe best known for his role Matt Hooper in Jaws, where he was a far more interesting character. Spielberg demanded that Roy be an every-man character instead of a copper or a man in uniform and that’s where this character failed. In anything, he was too normal. There wasn’t too much to distinguish him from any other character. Dreyfuss wasn’t particularly memorable.

His wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) was equally annoying, but I think that was more down to how her character was written. After Roy encounters the aliens, he starts becoming obsessed with them. Ronnie initially indulges his fantasies before she loses his patience with him. She functions as an antagonist stopping Roy from achieving his goals. It was a necessary role, I guess, but not a likeable one. And it did slow up the story. I really didn’t care about Roy’s failing relationship with his family.

The actual interesting part of the story lay with the single mother Jillian whose three-year-old son Barry is abducted by the aliens. This is preceded by a particularly scary sequence where the aliens set off every appliance in Jillian’s home, as she desperately tries to stop Barry from walking toward the light. This was probably one of the best-executed scenes in the film: if the rest of Close Encounters was like this, it would have been more interesting to watch.

However, one aspect of Spielberg’s films that can never be criticised is John William’s film score. Similar to Jaws, he composed a simple five-tone motif that the aliens use to communicate with humans. And just like Jaws, this motif has become iconic throughout the film world.

I wouldn’t go so far as to call Close Encounters of the Third Kind a bad film. It isn’t bad, but in comparison to some of Spielberg’s most popular hits, it definitely struggles to leave the ground.

Top ten times the Academy got it wrong

 By now you should that I have some hot takes about the films that appear on IMDB's top 1000 films of all time. You can check out my lists on some of the most overrated films ever.  But the hot takes don't stop there, as I will be counting the top times that the Academy got it wrong whether that's awarding or even nominating a film or an actor or actress. This list is in no order but chronology.

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Number 333 on the top 1000 films is Kevin Costner's epic Western 'Dances with Wolves.' Yet that isn't its only accolade for it also won the 1991 Best Film Oscar.

Yes, you read that correctly. It beat the likes of Goodfellas and Awakenings to win the Academy's most prestigious award. How? This three-hour long film is beyond tedious. Costner's wooden performance did nothing to help matters at all. And to all the critics saying it contains a white saviour complex, I challenge you to stay awake long enough to provide evidence of that. If it were up to me, then I would award the Oscar to Awakenings. Both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams excelled in that.

JFK (1991)

Oliver Stone's epic political thriller ranks 306 on the top 1000 films of all time. It focusses on the investigation following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Again, it stars Kevin Costner. Again, it is a three-hour snooze-fest. Thankfully, it didn't receive a Best Picture Oscar, but it was still nominated. Why? It is a bloated, over-long, unfocussed affair that is bursting to the brim with absolutely anything that is related to the Kennedy case. It quite rightly lost to the Silence of the Lambs, but it shouldn't have been in the running in the first place.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrence Malik directed this Vietnam war-film to 694th on the top 1000 films and to a Best Picture nomination. But just like JFK, I am puzzled as to why it was nominated.

It is just plain pretentious. Malik seemed more interested in philosophising and arty camerawork than in telling an interesting story. It's a war film, right? So, why don't we see any war happening?

It is also unfocussed with too many cameos and not enough main characters. It ultimately lost to Shakespeare in Love, but I think its fellow nominee Saving Private Ryan explored the theme of war much more effectively.

Crash (2004)

Paul Haggis' Crash ranks 383rd on the top 1000 films.

Crash won the 2005 Best Picture Oscar. And I am definitely not alone in thinking this was the wrong decision. The concept was admirable - an exploration of race relations in Los Angeles, but the execution left a lot to be desired.

Crash was a contrived, convoluted mess that rushed and over-simplified its key themes and ideas. The far simpler Brokeback Mountain should have won instead. But Hollywood just wasn't brave enough to celebrate a film about two gay cowboys.

Michael Clayton (2007)

Michael Clayton ranks low on the top 1000 films at 977th. It stars George Clooney who plays a fixer un-masking a cover-up at his New York law firm.

Michael Clayton received a number of Oscar nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor/Actress. I don't think it deserved any of them.

It was a clinically, cold film which is severely lacking any heart. Although that does make sense since it is about lawyers. George Clooney's lacklustre performance did little to help things.

The Fighter (2010)

David O'Russell's biographical sports-drama ranks in as 408th on the top 1000 films.

This film follows the lives of two boxing brothers played by Mark Wahlburg and Christian Bale. Melissa Leo plays their mother and she won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Although she was good, I would argue her co-star Amy Adams, who was also nominated, was even better. Amy Adams should have won instead.

She was the one redeeming feature in a film that I didn't care for at all.

Argo (October 2012) 

Ben Affleck's directed this biographical history thriller to the 445th place on the top 1000 films, as well as the Best Film Oscar.

Don't get me wrong. This is a fine film, but is it really Oscar-worthy? Is it better than its fellow nominees like Django Unchained, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook or Zero Dark Thirty. I'm not sure about that. Sure, it's thrilling enough, but then the tension dissipates in an overly-sentimental conclusion.

And while Ben Affleck is a good director, he is a rather wooden actor. Argo definitely would have been better if it had a different performer in the lead role.

Lincoln (November 2012)

Steven Spielberg's biographical drama ranks as 836th on the top 1000 list. It also netted Daniel Day-Lewis his third Best Actor Oscar win.

I haven't seen My Left Foot, but I can attest that he was magnificent in There will be Blood. Does the same magnificence transfer over into Lincoln? I'm not so sure. It certainly doesn't help that the film is 150 minutes long with a massive cast. 

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Abraham Lincoln, but I'm really not sure that his performance was Oscar-worthy. It lacked the same depth that I've seen in his other roles. I would have much rather seen Denzel Washington win his third Oscar for Flight, but we know that the Academy loves a biopic.

Captain Phillips (2013)

Paul Greenglass' Captain Phillips ranks as 302nd on the top 1000 films.

Tom Hanks stars as the eponymous Captain Phillips - a shipping captain taken prisoner by Somali prisoners.

Captain Phillips was nominated for a number of Oscars including Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor, but not Best Actor. It was a brilliant performance, so why wasn't Tom Hanks nominated. This has to be one of the most egregious snubs in Oscar history. In Captain Phillips, Tom Hanks plays an everyman who becomes an unlikely hero. The Academy loves a biopic, so why wasn't Hanks nominated?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022)

Being released in 2022, EEAAO is seven years too late to feature on the 2015 edition of the top 1000 films of all time. However, it still swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Original Screen, Best Editing and Best Supporting Actress.

I take issue with the Best Supporting Actress win. Jamie Lee-Curtis won this Oscar for the role of IRS inspector Deirdre Beaubeidre. While Michelle Yeoh and Key Huy Quan were well-deserving of their Oscar-wins, I can't say the same for Jamie Lee-Curtis. She was good, but definitely not Oscar-worthy. It didn't have the depth I would expect to see from an Oscar performance. I would argue that her co-star Stephanie Hsu, who was also nominated for the same role, should have won the award instead.

Have I missed out anything? Gone with the Wind? Shakespeare in Love? Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive? Don't worry. A second list will be coming soon enough. 

Top ten films that will put you to sleep

 Struggling to fall asleep? Have chronic insomnia? Forget the tablets and therapy and just put on one of these films instead. You'll be sleeping like a baby in no time.

Silly jokes asides, I know that this list will attract a fair few haters. Almost all of the films I'm going to mention feature on the top 1000 films of all time, which I am watching and reviewing here.

But I don't care if the audiences at IMDB loved these films, I found them long, bloated and so boring that I fell asleep. This list will be in no particular order.

Gone with the Wind

Some would argue that this film's depiction of race relations has not aged well. But that's not my problem. In fact, I can barely remember any of the supposedly problematic film, because it put me to sleep within the first hour, let alone the three hours that succeeded it. Did we really need a four hour about the American Civil War?

Yes, Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh were charismatic enough, if their characters were annoying. Yes, Hattie Mcdaniels was the first black actor to win an Oscar, although due to the segregation laws at the time, she wasn't allowed to attend the ceremony, but this film was still so boring.

Come at me. Call me a philistine. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Lawrence of Arabia

If David Lean was best-remembered for directing anything, it's overly-long, drawn-out epics. Doctor Zhivago was a close second, but the four-hour Lawrence of Arabia won out. Yes you heard that correctly. Four hours of nothing happening. Oh sorry. No, the characters talk on occasion. And there's also a million master shots of the sand dunes. I get it. It's in the desert. I don't need to be reminded of it again and again. Okay, the original score was very good, but if you were listening to it for four hours, you would be sick of it too.

Dances with Wolves

How this film won Best Picture Oscar, as well as Best Director for Kevin Costner is one of the most baffling decisions up there with Crash winning Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain.

The 3-hour slog that is Dances with Wolves is completely devoid of conflict, tension and anything that would make it remotely interesting. There are some who accuse it of a white saviour narrative. I don't know how you stayed awake long enough to make that assessment. Costner's wooden performance and exposition-heavy narration did nothing to help things either. Dances with Wolves? More like dancing in my dreams.

Ben-Hur

But James! Ben-Hur won eleven Oscars! It has to be one of the best films ever made. That might be true. It's also one of the most boring films ever made. Excluding the overture, intermission and entr'acte, the film is over 210 minutes long. With all the above? It's probably four bloody hours. Certainly long enough to put you to sleep. In fact, you could fall asleep, wake up and the film wouldn't even be halfway through yet.

Because if a film has to have an intermission then it's too damn long. Yes, the chariot scene is exciting, but it was the only exciting part of this majorly tedious affair.

All the President's Men

Although I liked this film when I first saw it, my mind has changed over time. The dramatisation of the two journalists who reported on the Watergate Scandal is a complicated, convoluted and hard-going affair with a lot of characters to keep track off.

Yes, Dustin Hoffman and Paul Newman give charismatic performances, but they spend much of the film either on their typewriters, speaking on the phone or having mysterious conversations in shadowy car parks. It hardly makes for the most entertaining of cinema.

8 1/2

And we have come to the world of Italian cinema with Federico Fellini: one of the most famous Italian film directors of all time.

8 1/2 is one of his most famous films and also one of his most boring. He isn't even a bad director; La Strada was a good film, and while, La Dolce Vita had annoying characters, at least it didn't put me to sleep.

As 8 1/2 focusses on a creatively-stifled film-maker trying to direct a science-fiction film, I think it would only appeal to hard-core cinephiles. I am not one of those, hence why I found this film boring.

Avatar

I initially watched this film over ten years ago and have never been brave enough to watch it again, hence why I haven't reviewed it.

 But if I had, I would have said that if James Cameron had put as much effort into the script, story and characters, as he had the visual effects, he could have made another brilliant film. Instead, he had a visually stunning film with a cliched storyline and forgettable characters.

Youtuber Jacksfilms challenged people to name a single character from Avatar and very few people could.

I almost stopped watching Avatar halfway through, and I really wish I had.

Lincoln

I'm going to come out and say it. Daniel Day-Lewis didn't deserve his third acting Oscar win for this film. His portrayal of Abraham Lincoln was nothing compared to Daniel Plainview in There Will be Blood.

But while the Academy might love a biopic period drama, I don't. This was a convoluted, hard-going affair filled to the brim with character after character. Most of which don't need to be there.

Solaris (2002)

This film is only one hundred minutes long, so you think it would be an east watch, but it is actually dull as dishwater.

There is far too much slow-motion. Too many montages set to cheesy music. I actually fell asleep and missed the last hour of this film. Upon rewatching, I realised I hadn't missed a thing. There is probably a reason why the original Solaris was featured on the top 1000 film list, but this American remake wasn't.

Stalker

You will need a keen mine to understand this Soviet science-fiction film. If you don't, you will struggle in understanding its esoteric ideas, as I did.

There isn't much happening in the way of action, or at all, with much of the film taking place through philosophical debates between the different characters. Tedious stuff.

So, next time, you're struggling to get to sleep, instead of reaching for your phone, put on one of these films instead. You will never have trouble sleeping again.

Lincoln review

 Number 836 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's biographical period-drama 'Lincoln.'

The year is 1865. The American Civil War is coming to an end. President Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) is desperately trying to pass the thirteenth amendment so he can formally abolish slavery. Will he succeed? A sprawling ensemble cast includes Hal Holbrook, David Costabile, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

As I'm sure you're sick of hearing by now, I don't like period dramas. They are neither interesting or engaging. their huge casts only serve to complicate or confuse things. And, by their very nature, they're so lacking in conflict, the writers have to really struggle in generating any type of narrative tension. It's not like a thriller where there's a murder to be solved or the will-they, won't they trope, you have in romance films.

Lincoln only cemented this belief further. For me, it was unengaging, uninteresting and difficult to follow. The overly-large cast only made things more confusing. I'm sure it was just me and my short-attention span, but I did struggle in differentiating the different characters after a while.

Daniel Day-Lewis won his third acting Oscar for his role. But I'm going to be controversial and say that I don't think this role was Oscar-worthy. Compared to his magnificent performance in There Will be Blood, his performance here was very average. This is true especially by Day-Lewis standards. Unlike with There Will Be Blood, I don't think I can pinpoint one exact moment where I thought "yes, that's why Day-Lewis won this Oscar. I think Denzel Washington in Flight, who was also Oscar-nominated, was just as good if not better.