THE PASSION: A Testimony Through Violence

Nearly a decade after winning an Academy Award for Best Director in 1995 for BRAVEHEART, Mel Gibson made his directorial followup with another period epic, and while BRAVEHEART may have earned quite a bit of guff for its copious historical inaccuracies, his new film would go on to be considered one of the most controversial films of all time and spark a seemingly endless series of heated debates.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, however, did make a very handsome profit, perhaps in part due to the priceless publicity that a certain type of controversy brings with it, but mostly because it pleased its target audience of Catholic and Evangelical Christians, resulting publicity from the pulpit, church group viewings and a relentless word of mouth campaign.  After being unable to find a studio to produce or distribute the film, due to its provocative nature and commercially-unproven (as of then-recent) religious subject matter, Gibson had to finance the whole thing through his company, Icon Productions, and out of pocket.  Produced on a budget of $30 million and with a $15 million marketing campaign, the film went on to gross over $600 million worldwide, making it the highest-grossing independent movie ever made and one of the most profitable films of all time, as devout Christians showed they were a viable and under-appreciated market for the film industry.
THE ANTISEMITISM
While technically an adaptation of the events of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the four Gospels of the King James Bible, THE PASSION is as much, or moreso, a cinematic version of the ancient, and fairly controversial, Catholic tradition of the Passion play, "the Passion" being a theological term for the sufferings of Jesus from his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane through to the Crucifixion at Golgotha, derived from early translations of the four Gospels in Greek wherein the verb πάσχω (paschō) means "to suffer".  The Passion play tradition is controversial for its historical role in encouraging antisemitism and, in turn, antisemitic violence, especially in the Middle Ages, in the form of pogroms, in which Christian mobs would violently attack Jewish settlements and massacre the Jewish inhabitants in a sadistic form of recreation.  This connection has been made to the film and resulted in a great deal of its controversy, and the film has been frequently accused of antisemitism in its own right.  Not being Jewish or of Jewish descent, I can't truly empathize with how this film effects Jewish persons, although I don't think the film, in itself, is an antisemitic piece, at least, not by any intention of the filmmakers.  My reasoning is centered around the presence of sympathetic characters clearly identified as Jewish, including Simon of Cyrene and some quickly silenced priests who protest on behalf of Jesus during the trial before Caiaphas.  I personally do believe that Mel Gibson most likely has some antisemitic sentiments, but I also believe that he made a conscious effort to avoid injecting that into his film.  That said, when dealing with the Passion story, you're playing with fire, and it's not always clear what certain audiences will take away from a film.  Caiaphas and the other Jewish priests who arrest Jesus and campaign for his demise are far too venomous for my taste, and though I see it as more noteworthy as a detriment to the cinematic storytelling, persons already inclined to antisemitism may be encouraged in their feelings by associating their characters with their prominently Jewish identity.  I think the film would have been served better if context had been provided involving the motives of the Jewish authorities, such as the precarious position of their power and threat of Roman retribution for troublemakers that could involve confiscation of their sacred temple traditions.  I do think it's also worth noting that the Jewish priests are not portrayed as better or worse than most of the Roman soldiers either, but like I said before, I don't actually feel the brunt of the alleged negative impact, so my opinions on the matter cannot bear much weight.
THE VIOLENCE

One of the more family-friendly moments in THE PASSION.

Gibson has cited themes of "love, hope, faith and forgiveness" as the central focus of THE PASSION, but there's a distinct flavor of the sensibility that has been with the Passion play ever since the Middle Ages, and that is a human fascination with violence.  THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is certainly amongst the most violent films ever made, and I highly doubt that a significant portion of the Evangelical audiences that lent so much support to the film had ever seen movie that had violence around that level.  The shock of that kind of violence can be interpreted as an emotional impact, and it could have thus been a more affecting experience for such audiences, but the film goes to places that prompt you to wonder exactly when that kind of thing is justified, how far a film should go regarding such matters and basically, what the real point of all that is.  The Passion story has always given much focus on the brutality of its topic, but cinema takes it to a whole other level.  Gibson said in interviews that it was is intent to shock, in order to emphasize the enormity of Christ's sacrifice, and also that the "actual crucifixion was more violent than what's shown on the film".  Now the wording in the Gospels is largely simplistic, only getting into the bare basics of Christ's crucifixion, but Gibson and his co-writer Benedict Fitzgerald also drew heavily upon The Dolorous Passion, an alleged but disputed account of a visions attributed to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), a German-born Catholic nun; but I have no idea from where Gibson is getting the idea that he didn't take as far as he could have.  Considering all his reported sources, THE PASSION is still well more violent than it needs to be, bordering on the absurd.  Film critic Roger Ebert said about the film, "The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen."  I'd say his guess of 100 minutes is a bit conservative.  From beginning to end, Jesus is beaten, maimed and mutilated endlessly, although there are a couple moments when he's merely spat upon.  The flagellation scene, in particular, wallows in the brutality.  Of the four Gospels, only three mention the whipping, and in no more than a single sentence, and in Luke it is not noted, but it is a major scene in THE PASSION, lasting around 11-12 minutes, beginning with birch sticks that leave horrible welts and culminates with scourges knotted with jagged metal that are applied to his back and front, and in one explicit shot, the metal barbs become lodged in Jesus' ribs, at which point the soldier yanks the whip out, ripping out chunks of flesh and splattering blood.  By the time Jesus is nailed to the cross (quite explicitly and bloodily I might add), nearly half the skin on his body has been flayed off and that which remains is covered in blood.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is a prime example of the distorted MPAA rating system.  Although the rating system was never intended as a 'what-you-should-and-shouldn't-watch' system, the combination of misinterpretation by parents and major retailers twisted into that, so that movies that are better suited to an R rating are carefully edited to squeeze into a PG-13, and movies that should be rated NC-17 are edited in order to squeeze into an R, or, as in this case, exceptions are made in order avoid editing or other such hassles.  As such, a movie like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST receives an R rating by way of the supposedly mitigating factors of religious and historical context, when, according to the system's original intent, wherein the NC-17 ratings was designed as an 'adults only' rating (as in, most parents would only consider it suitable for adults), THE PASSION would be far more appropriately NC-17.  Unfortunately, the strongest rating became associated with lurid material, and while strong lurid material would be included as reason for an NC-17 rating, there are many stories that are not lurid, while not being suitable for minors, and that's where rating reasons come in handy.
THE EXPERIENCE

Rosalinda Celentano as "Satan"

The story is very simple and already well known to most; it is a mostly linear narrative, depicting the night of Jesus' (Jim Caviezel) arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, his subsequent trial before a Jewish tribunal, after which he is turned over to the Roman authorities, tortured and crucified.  If you don't already know the story, shame on you, and I'm gonna go ahead with 'spoilers' anyway.  Basically, it's the story of Jesus' suffering and death, contrasted with his compassion toward his persecutors, and then, in less than a minute before the credits roll, the actual point of the whole Christian faith, the Resurrection.  It's not Mel Gibson's best film (my vote's on APOCALYPTO), but it has great moments.  Unfortunately, it's a film plagued with problems (and I'm not referring to the hilariously bombastic case of irony in production wherein Jim Caviezel (playing Jesus) was struck by lightning, and an assistant director was struck by lightning twice!), particularly Gibson's medieval approach, one that is often off-putting, such as the recurring appearances of Satan, played by Rosalinda Celentano.  I do get that Satan is supposed to be off-putting, but this portrayal is too weird, what with the contrived dialogue ("Do you really believe that one man can bear the full burden of sin?") and especially a demonic Madonna moment during the flagellation in which Satan walks past with bizarre old man/baby which turns and grins, risking audience laughs.  In a similar department, the storyline of Judas (Luca Lionello) involves too many bizarre and grotesque elements, especially a few demons who torment him in the form of children with bloated, elderly faces. 
A more prominent medieval element of course is violence, and for many viewers, the copious explicit violence becomes a distraction.  I can't really explain why, but movie violence/gore almost never affects on a gut level, that is, I recognize it for its part in movies, but it doesn't make me sick or cringe the way it does for most people, so I see the excessive nature of the violence in a different way than some might.  It hinders anything else happening in the film because Gibson cannot simply allow a respite, even when the violence is not necessary, such as the Jewish priests who randomly slug Jesus as their marching him to trial, or the outrageous moment when they push him off a bridge and his fall is stopped by the chains with which he is bound.  Related to that detrimental excess is the makeup that grows thicker and heavier with every scene; all too early on, Caviezel's power of expression is limited by an eye swollen shut, and when on the cross, so much skin is gone and there is so much blood that his humanity has been obscured to the point of causing horror instead of sympathy.  I recognize the obvious need to show impact and results of violence, but "realism" becomes harmful when it limits the viewer's ability to sympathize.

Maia Morgenstern as the Virgin Mary

There are some really wonderful moments though, mainly involving a couple of the several non-linear scenes related into the narrative, such as Mary (Maia Morgenstern), mother of Jesus, as she sees Jesus collapse under the weight of the cross, which is contrasted with a memory of Mary running to comfort the child Jesus after he falls; and the scene where Jesus is nailed to the cross, intercut with moments from the Sermon on the Mount, where he speaks of loving your enemies.  Also, while it's startlingly brief, the Resurrection is a great scene.
Overall, it's never really a bad film, but it never really ascends to where it could, and should be.
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
2 out of 4 stars
Directed by: Mel Gibson
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci, Rosalinda Celentano, Hristo Shopov
Rated R for sequences of graphic violence.

Who Didn't Frame Roger Rabbit?

25 years ago this summer, Walt Disney Productions made their biggest gamble ever since Walt had run things.  Their newest film had been proposed as at a sweat-inducing budget of $50 million and rejected, then greenlit for production at a still uneasy $29.9 million.  As filming proceeded, complications ensued with the costly trial-and-error of groundbreaking special effects and the shooting schedule extended well past what was originally intended, the budget inflated to $40 million and recently-instated Disney CEO Michael Eisner was furious, threatening to shut the film down.  By the time of the film's completion, the production budget was estimated at a (then) whopping $70 million.  The film was the studio's big effort to rekindle interest in animation, formerly their forte but now waning, and included Mickey Mouse's first appearance in a feature film in 41 years, but it the animation was crafted by independent animation legend Richard Williams and his team, instead of the Disney animation division (which had been reduced to an assortment of trailers and cubicles in Glendale, CA) and had been released under the four-years-old alternative Touchstone Pictures banner, as the studio had deemed unsuitable for the Walt Disney Pictures brand with its well-established reputation for family-friendly productions.  Their new film was called WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and it would become Disney's first major hit in decades, becoming the second highest-grossing film of 1988 with a worldwide gross of $329.8 million (not to mention untold success of related products and tie-ins), became their most critically-acclaimed film since MARY POPPINS (1964) with six Academy Award nominations, one Special Achievement Oscar, and three wins for Best Special Effects, Best Film Editing and Best Sound Editing.  It became an extremely-lucrative property for Disney and inspired additions to the three existing Disney theme parks, including the first new "land" for Disneyland in Anaheim since New Orleans Square opened in 1966, in the form of Mickey's Toontown.  In short, it became the revitalization the company had been in great need of and was the harbinger of the so-called "Disney Renaissance", which began one year later with the release of THE LITTLE MERMAID (1989). 
Very loosely based upon a little-known cult novel by Gary K. Wolf, Who Censored Roger Rabbit, the film depicted a fantasy version of post-WWII California where animated film characters (changed from the comic strip characters in the book) called Toons co-exist with humans in the Hollywood studio system, working on contract to make cartoons like movie stars.  When the greatest proponent of Toon culture, and owner of Toontown, a goofy old sugar daddy named Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye), is found murdered (a safe dropped on his head), cartoon up-and-comer Roger Rabbit (voiced by Charles Fleischer) is the number one suspect.  Caught up in the mix of all this is Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins), a Toon-hating private detective who Roger convinces to help prove his innocence.  Meanwhile, an old gargoyle of a District Judge, the less-than-subtly monickered Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd) is on a merciless hunt for Roger, and Roger's bombshell wife, Jessica Rabbit (voiced by Kathleen Turner) is up to some suspicious activities of her own.
The film is actually a bit more of a Steven Spielberg film (Spielberg produced the film) than a Disney film, and as part of his agreement to produce the film, Spielberg negotiated for creative control for director Robert Zemeckis and himself, but the Disney resources provided Spielberg with a full half of what the film necessitated.  In order to work, ROGER RABBIT required the all-but-impossible feat of bringing together the closely-guarded iconic cartoon characters of both Walt Disney Studios and the "Looney Toons" from Warner Bros., but if there is a door to something in Hollywood, Spielberg is the magic key to open any of them.  For the first time, and with all probability the last, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny appeared on the same movie screen together, skydiving in Toontown, and Donald Duck and Daffy Duck shared a slapstick violence-fueled piano duel.  In fact, that such characters only be onscreen at the same time as others, as well as each having equal words of dialogue, was among the strict stipulations on the part of Warner for use of the characters, as well as final approval on the screen-time of their characters.
Although there simply aren't many occasions to make use of technology for putting seemingly tangible cartoon characters onscreen with live actors, ROGER RABBIT made a powerful impact on the use of special effects in film.  Although previous films, such as Disney's MARY POPPINS, had had scenes of actors interacting with animation, none had done it at such a level of detail.  Each Toon, when in live set environments (as opposed to fully animated scenes), was first animated traditionally and then sent to George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic special effects studio where each frame of animation was fitted with three separate layers of lighting effects that gave the characters a three dimensional appearance, creating the illusion of light and shadows from the sets onto the characters.  In scenes where the Toon characters interacted with actors, props or set-pieces, various methods were used during shooting, such as robotic armatures or other puppetry to manipulate real objects, with the puppetry later animated over, and foam stand-ins gave the actors an onset figure to interact with.  Similar techniques have since become typical for films featuring CGI effects and characters, and the techniques developed to light Toons have been useful for understanding how to light today's computer effects.  The animation is not without flaw, such as lines crossing over each other, the mechanical way in which a weasel flashes a pistol or the liquor Roger throws back into his mouth splashes behind him, but I'm probably picking things out that most would not.  However, one particular scene that I always note is when Roger puts his hand on the dusty chair of Eddie's late brother's desk chair, as he removes it, a handprint remains in the dust, and that's just awesome.  Furthermore, every single line of animation was hand-drawn and painted.
Robert Zemeckis had petitioned to direct ROGER RABBIT a few years earlier in 1981 when Disney first attempted to get the film made, he was denied the job as he had not yet had a hit, and Disney's plans collapsed.  By the time that the new Disney leadership was revamping the film and Spielberg had come aboard as producer, Zemeckis was fresh off of two major hits, ROMANCING THE STONE in 1984 and the Spielberg-produced BACK TO THE FUTURE in 1985.  Zemeckis aptly described the film as "cartoon noir".  "Noir" comes from the French word for "black", and for anyone unfamiliar with noir as a genre, noir films are dark and portray a grittier side of urban life, usually with a crime/mystery plot, and the "gumshoe" private detective is an archetype particular to the genre.  With a final cut approval stipulation in his contract, Zemeckis was able to make the film the way he wanted, and the result was an imaginative live action/animation hybrid film with a refreshingly adult sensibility.  The animation was throwback to the loose and zany Golden Age of Animation (worth noting is that when the film was made, the second animation boom of the 1990's had not yet happened), especially the "dynamite-down-your-pants" extreme slapstick violence of the work of Tex Avery, beginning with the kind of animated sequence that puts today's parents on edge, with airborne kitchen knives and cleavers, characters roasted in ovens and a baby in precarious situations.  After the film switches to live-action, the main character, Eddie Valiant is a cynical detective struggling with alcoholism for most of the movie, a Toon is literally killed in darkly comic (but to young children, downright horrifying) fashion, and characters, including Toons, use innuendos, especially the cigar smoking Baby Herman who has "a fifty year old lust but a three year old dinky".
The childlike elements of goofy humor and cartoon characters with the tough, cynical and occasionally spicy adult elements create a deliriously inviting kind of film that we don't see enough of, and when it is attempted, is usually unbalanced.  The character of Jessica Rabbit is perhaps the most brilliantly-conceived in the film, and the epitome of its tone and nature.  She is the adult cartoon; a tall, impossibly curved, redheaded bombshell with copiously long legs and comically gargantuan mammary glands.  She's has a sultry voice, she's handy with a gun and in a hilarious twist, she's the devoted wife of Roger Rabbit.  The film is tongue-in-cheek noir, dark, violent, sexy, multi-layered and with an inexplicably gonzo sense of humor.  For me, it's a marvelous "man-child movie"; it doesn't at all talk down to its audience, it expects them to keep up, but it toys with the fantasies of our childhood in a mature but non-destructive way.

One Year Later: Looking at JOHN CARTER and the Making of a Cult Classic

One year ago, as of tomorrow, a major motion picture that Hollywood had been gestating for over eight decades had reached fruition and was released on March 9, 2012.  It was JOHN CARTER, and it became one of the biggest cinematic financial failures in recent memory.
The story was adapted from the Barsoom series of pulp novels, the lesser-known great work of American author Edgar Rice Burroughs, whose Tarzan of the Apes series has had much greater fortunes in enduring cultural magnitude.  However, the Barsoom series, which was originally published as a magazine serial called "Under the Moons of Mars" in 1912 and then compiled into the first book of a series, A Princess of Mars, in 1917, was arguably the most influential science fiction work of the 20th century.  It inspired many of the works of Arthur C. Clark and Ray Bradbury, and is the artistic ancestor of films like STAR WARS (1977) and AVATAR (2009) and the Joss Whedon-created television series FIREFLY.  [On a momentary tangent:  AVATAR, released in 2009, invited many plot comparisons to a 1990 film, DANCES WITH WOLVES, which, in turn, had received comparisons to LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, released in 1962.  The first Barsoom stories "Under the Moons of Mars" were first published in 1912, and yet, they all share the same basics of plot.  However, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is adapted from actual historical events which ranged from 1917-1935, beginning 5 years after Burroughs had written what was basically the same story, but on Mars.]

1917 dust-jacket for A Princess of Mars

 A Princess of Mars, the material from which the bulk of JOHN CARTER was adapted, tells the story of one John Carter, who served on the side of the Confederacy as a calvaryman in the American Civil War before moving west, as a man without a cause, to prospect for gold.  In the American frontier, he comes upon a mystical cave from which he astonished to find himself transported to a strange land he later discovers is actually Mars, known to its inhabitants as Barsoom.  He is first discovered by the Tharks, a race of giant green-skinned creatures whose civilization is built on a savage, might-makes-right tribal nature, and their chief, known as a Jeddak, takes him in after recognizing him as a valuable asset to their warlike culture, because on Mars, Carter has supernatural strength.  He also meets the "red man" civilization of Helium, an intellectual society, and rescues their princess, Dejah Thoris, during an attack on her escort by the aggressive red man tribe of Zodanga.  A romance ensues, and Carter becomes the Jeddak of the Tharks and unites the warring clans of Barsoom for common cause.
A Series of Failures
The first attempt by Hollywood to adapt the Barsoom stories began in 1931, when Bob Clampett, best known for his work as a director for "Looney Toons" and creating Porky Pig and Tweety Bird, approached Burroughs with the idea of making an animated feature based on the Barsoom books.  Burroughs responded positively to the idea, but when Clampett had completed a test footage reel for the would-be film, reactions were resoundingly negative, and the idea of a human man on Mars was deemed too outlandish for the crucial Midwest American market to accept.  In the 1980's, when the film studios were all scrambling for a project that could compete with the overwhelming success of STAR WARS, the industry's biggest proponent of family entertainment, Walt Disney Studios, was especially flustered at the success of George Lucas' sci-fi mega-hit as it appealed to the family audiences they longed for while the studio was on the verge of collapse.  Disney bought the rights to the Barsoom series, and DIE HARD (1988) director John McTiernan sought to direct, but the attempt collapsed when the filmmakers realized that technology had not yet caught up to where it needed to be for the film.  Although Disney executive Jeffery Katzenberg continued to hold out hope for the would-be film, eventually the rights reverted back to the Burroughs Estate.  Then, in 2004, Paramount had acquired the rights and arranged for SIN CITY director Robert Rodriguez to helm the project, but after Rodriguez had a falling out with the Directors Guild of America, he was no longer eligible to direct the film, and Jon Favreau, fresh off ZATHURA (2005), was brought on board.  In the end though, Paramount opted not to renew the rights to Barsoom in 2006 and would instead focus their efforts on the anticipated STAR TREK reboot, while Favreau was picked up by Marvel Studios to direct IRON MAN (2008).
The Rise and Fall
Enter Andrew Stanton, an accomplished Pixar director who had written and directed FINDING NEMO (2003), Pixar's biggest hit at the time before TOY STORY 3 smashed its record in 2010, and was fresh off the critically-acclaimed blockbuster WALL-E (2008), who used his considerable clout to lobby hard at Disney for the studio to reacquire the rights for him to direct as his live-action debut.  Although reportedly apprehensive at first, Disney executives eventually green-lighted the project for development and direction by Stanton.
Initially conceived as part one of a trilogy, the film began production in 2008 as JOHN CARTER OF MARS with A Princess of Mars as the primary source material.  Principal photography took place primarily in the southern "red-rocked" region of Utah, a favorite location for Hollywood films set in space, and especially Mars.  In 2011, Disney announced a controversial title change to JOHN CARTER, which was especially poorly-received in fanboy circles and smacked of corporate insincerity, and although Stanton defended the change as reflecting the origin story nature of the film in which the character is "becoming John Carter [of Mars]", but speculation has persisted that the change pertained to an alleged stigma of "Mars" as commercially inaccessible, especially when the change came soon after the Disney-produced MARS NEEDS MOMS (2011) bombed hard at the box-office.

The

Even with a little-known cast (costing considerably less), the production costs reached the astronomical heights of an estimated $250 million (for reference, the famously-expensive AVATAR (2009) was estimated to cost $237 million), plus marketing and distribution expenses at about $100 million.  The costs can largely be attributed to the hefty special effects factor, sets and extensive post-production costs of creating a sci-fi epic.  The film was slated for release on March 9, 2012, March being the typical month for releasing such big-budget but unproved film properties.  While major franchises are can frequently find a desired market in the peak summer months, and in some cases, the Holiday Season time-frame between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day, "summer blockbuster-esque" films that studios hope may blossom into potential franchises but lack an established fanbase are usually released in the "franchise testing ground" of March, when the market is weary of the cinematic garbage dump represented by January and February, but the lack of significant competition greatly reduces the financial risk that going up against the heavy-hitters of summer gambles on.  On its opening day of March 9th, JOHN CARTER took the top spot at the box office with $9.81 million, but even at #1, the take was too small to escape the chill in the blood at the offices of the Walt Disney Company.  By that Sunday, JOHN CARTER had failed to beat THE LORAX, the previous week's biggest movie, and had only scraped together an embarrassing $30.2 million.  After a week on the market, analysts predicted a $100-$150 million write-off for Disney, but while the film sunk spectacularly in the domestic market, the international market provided some small comfort as it stood at #1 internationally for two consecutive weeks that would eventually help the film recuperate a small profit margin with an international gross of $282,778,100, but at the conclusion of 2012's first financial quarter, Disney took a devastating $160 million hit.  Studio Chairman Rich Ross, whose tenure had seen the billion dollar successes of ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010) and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011) since his promotion in 2009, was forced to resign the month following JOHN CARTER, and it was alleged that after Ross sought to shift blame for JOHN CARTER toward Pixar, the immensely powerful executives at Pixar sought his departure with extreme prejudice.
Such are the stories in which cult classics are forged.  Despite receiving mixed reviews with a 51% Tomatometer on RottenTomatoes.com, the film quickly developed a relatively small, but devoted fanbase and staunch defenders.  In today's system of vast international distribution, cross marketing and long-term home format distributions, there is no longer such a thing as a box office flop as it was once known.  Hardly any film actually loses money as the sources of income are so numerous, which offers at least a partial explanation to today's colossal event films that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and often make a hefty sum in return.  However, there are still flops, but of a different kind.  While long-term reimbursement is better than none, industries require short-term reimbursement too, especially on big products that are costly to produce, if they're to continue their output.  So even if every film makes a profit eventually, the films that fail to provide what was promised are financially disastrous.  But when all the odds are stacked against a film (or many other things for that matter), those in favor of the film will instinctively step up their support and the result is a cult following of fans who invest more strongly in a film to make up for the lacking quantity.
Returning to Barsoom
I was one of the relative few to see JOHN CARTER on its opening day, March 9th, 2012, in 3D no less.  I was only familiar with the book series because of the film, taking note of it as a source material as production proceeded, but I had not read any of the books, nor did I plan to until I had seen the film.  I make a point of not reading a book if it has an upcoming major film adaptation, because for me, the most important thing is film.  When a person reads a book before seeing the film adaptation, the person's imagination forms its own realizations and makes emotional connections to certain elements, and when the film fails to meet the mind's eye's expectations, even a great film can be rendered as a disappointment.  Watching the film first on the other hand, I can see the trails of the filmmakers as they have taken the written medium and morphed it into cinema.  Reading the book after seeing the film is like seeing two versions of the film, with neither at war with each other because my personal connections can't clash those of another.
As I sat in the theater that afternoon, the swashbuckling fantasy-adventure that unfolded before my eyes was an imperfect thrill.  I took note of the occasional lull of pacing, but I was willing to make allowances, especially for a sort of film so rare in today's Hollywood.  Walt Disney Pictures is the only studio that currently has a regular output of swashbuckling adventures, even if it's rarely more than one a year.  It's a genre built on old-fashioned thrills and fun, but even when other studios make a swashbuckler, their usually very weighty, like THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY, and that's fine, but I crave a light-hearted, swashbuckling frolic on occasion.  I was just thrilled to swordplay, aerial battles and a gladiatorial-styled arena sequence with giant white apes.  Then I went a second time the next week.

Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris and Kitsch as John Carter

Director Andrew Stanton talking about... stuff.

On subsequent viewings of a film, you watch the film in a very different way.  You already have a general knowledge of how the events will unfold and rather than watching a film, you find yourself studying it, looking for details and nuances.  Usually, a second viewing will feel faster paced as the suspense of waiting for what will happen next has been minimized.  Upon my second viewing, JOHN CARTER felt longer.  The pacing issues became more apparent and there were long stretches of film that seemed empty.  The novelty of space swordfighting and splattering of blue blood had waned, and what was left was a flashy but vapid shell of a would-be swashbuckler.  Most representative of this vapidity is Taylor Kitsch (a wonderfully appropriate name for an action movie star), a young Friday Night Lights-alumni who had the ghastly misfortune to headline another major box office disappointment, BATTLESHIP, in the same year, although that did work out a bit better with the overseas market.  Kitsch is an actor who looks the part of John Carter perfectly, but his "characterization" is so disappointingly lifeless that the emotional arc Stanton and company have worked out for him just falls flat.  The script, by Stanton, fellow Pixar man Mark Andrews (co-director on BRAVE (2012)) and acclaimed author Michael Chabon, fashioned in the Pixar style of development, went through many revisions and story meetings over a long course of time for trial and error, to eventually be whittled into a polished script, but for whatever reason, it didn't work this time.  Perhaps the Pixar magic had dwindled.  They had just come off of their first poorly-reviewed film ever, CARS 2 (2011), and their next picture, BRAVE, turned out to be a decent but lackluster film.  For whatever reason, JOHN CARTER's script was too convoluted and too uneven.  There were some who were skeptical about Stanton's animation approach to big-budget live action, and some who addressed the issues in the script, but they were dismissed.  According to the Pixar formula, any story dilemmas were easily revised in the animation stage, but when playing that kind of game with live action, you end up with lengthy and expensive re-shoots, and JOHN CARTER got two.
The convoluted, hard-to-follow story was a major issue for many viewers.  I've rarely had difficulty following movies that most found confusing in terms of plotlines and such, and it was much of an issue for me on JOHN CARTER either, but such things did present problems even to me.  After seeing the film the first time, I read A Princess of Mars, a highly-entertaining, if dated, book, and realized that, although the main storyline was adapted from the one book, there were certain elements, primarily the Therns, a race of mystical beings who manipulate civilizations into their own destruction, that I must assume were integrated from the later books.  They were mentioned in the first book, but they don't present themselves in the way they do in the film, and I had believed their part overplayed in the film, and sometimes resulting in overcomplexity, but Stanton had a trilogy in mind, and presumably designed the script accordingly.  Also worth noting is that the leader of the Therns, Matai Shang, is played by Mark Strong, who has recently cropped up as the villain in very fun-looking movies like SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009) and ROBIN HOOD (2010), which turn out to be bland disappointments.  There's probably no connection there, but it's peculiar.  Maybe he's an evil genie...anyway...
By the time I saw JOHN CARTER a third time, a few months later on Blu Ray, there was very little in the way of entertainment left.  At little over two hours long, it felt like four.  All that was left was a somewhat interesting exhibit on a story that had been unofficially and loosely adapted many times previously with more success.  However, watching just a few days ago, several months later, it wasn't as boring as before, but it lacked a distinct flavor and Kitsch is still cripplingly bland.  However, the film has garnered a strong cult status and has many a staunch defender (although I'm curious how many times they've watched it), especially in various fanboy circles and movie magazines/websites.  It seems in many cases though, that most don't think it's so much a great movie, as they believe it doesn't deserve the reputation, that it's better than you'd think and that if Disney would only produce a sequel, it would likely improve.  Soon after the devastating box office reports came in and plans for sequels were nixed, petitions and groups appeared across the internet, clamoring for a sequel, and now you get a lot of retrospectives on why JOHN CARTER is as bad as you remembered.  Of course the film isn't as bad as the losses it sustained suggest, but the business practices and production were that bad.  There are currently no plans at Disney to produce a sequel to JOHN CARTER.

When Disney Was in Oz Before

This weekend, audiences are anticipated to enter movie theaters en masse to see Walt Disney Pictures' new big-budget family fantasy-adventure, OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL, which is based on the work of L. Frank Baum and precedes the events of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, upon which the classic 1939 film is based.  What the better part of Disney's targeted audience for their new film may not be well aware of though, is that Disney has been to the Land of Oz before, 28 years ago in 1985, in the form of RETURN TO OZ.  While OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is projected to score $70-$90 million over the domestic weekend (and a possible additional $100 million overseas), which would securely justify the giant $200 million budget by the end of its theatrical run, RETURN TO OZ was budgeted at 14% of that with $28 million and couldn't even make back that with a pathetic gross of $11.37 million.  Since its embarrassing failure at the box office though, RETURN TO OZ has managed to become a minor cult classic.
THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939) is often cited as one of the more frightening children's films with the infamous flying monkeys and the iconic Wicked Witch of the West, as played by Margaret Hamilton, but RETURN TO OZ is so creepy and macabre, any honest description strains credibility.  The story takes place a few months after the events of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, with Dorothy (played by Fairuza Balk) struggling to re-adjust to her ordinary life in Kansas.  Due to concern regarding her outlandish stories of Oz and many sleepless nights, Auntie Em and Uncle Henry (Piper Laurie and Matt Clark, respectively) send her to a mental institution (seriously) where the menacing Dr. Worley (Nicol Williamson, who also plays the Nome King, the primary villain in Oz) intends to use a revolutionary new machine to perform electroshock therapy on her brain.  I kid you not.  In the hospital, the tortured screams of other patients can be heard through the walls, patients who have been 'damaged'.  Just as Dorothy has been strapped down on a gurney and the electric paddles are about to be applied to the sides of her head, a storm knocks the power out and a mysterious little girl, from the mirror, assists Dorothy in escaping from the hospital.  Dorothy falls into the stream that runs by the hospital and clambers aboard her aunt and uncle's chicken coop that has been washed away in the storm.  The next morning, she finds herself in Oz, with her chicken named Bellina, who can now talk (with the voice of Denise Bryer).  Although some things about Oz are as she remembers, such as the Deadly Desert, where anyone who touches the sandy is suddenly reduced to a pile of sand (and don't worry, you do get see that happen), most of Oz has changed.  The Emerald City is dilapidated, the emeralds stolen, and all the inhabitants turned to stone.  It turns out that the power-hungry Nome King has kidnapped the Scarecrow (Justin Case... see what his parents did there?), whom you may remember was made king of the Emerald City and Oz, and stole all the treasures and turned everyone into stone.  Now, the only living inhabitants of the Emerald City are the "Wheelers"; freaky guys who zip around the streets on four legs, each capped by a scooter wheel, and look like they were dragged kicking and screaming from an early Tim Burton film.  The Wheelers answer to a vain witch named Mombi (mostly played by Jean Marsh), who collects the heads of pretty women to interchange with her own, and is in cahoots with the Nome King.  So of course, Dorothy has to rescue the Scarecrow and set things right, and she is helped along the way by Tik-Tok, the "Army of Oz" left by the Scarecrow for Dorothy to find, and Jack Pumpkinhead (voiced by Brian Henson), a scarecrow who is creepy as hell and basically looks like a giant Jack Skellington in more vibrant tones and with a jack-o-lantern for a head.
Needless to say, this film was simply to effed-up for the targeted child audience, what with the hellish hospital, the freaky nomes who appear as fearsome faces in rocks, a witch with a closet full of severed heads and on imprisoning Dorothy until her head is ripe for harvesting, not to mention the few dozen elements that are unintentionally creepy, such as Pumpkinhead.  However, the film is beloved by aficionados of the original Oz books, for its more faithful adaptation of L. Frank Baum's quirky and dark writings which, for seemingly obvious reasons, has not been so present in the many film versions.  However, a fanbase is a fanbase, and the fans of RETURN TO OZ are quite devoted, but the film fails to appeal to a wide audience and for that reason, is mostly unknown.  For myself, I thought whole thing was rather amusing in context, but just not an enjoyable film.  The now-primitve 1980's special effects are quite interesting though, especially the nomes who appear to be a form of stop-motion animation, and the Nome King who appears in varying form, from a rock face, to Williamson playing him in thick, granite-esque makeup.

RETURN TO OZ
Fantasy/Adventure
PG for unspecified reasons, but contains scary images, some thematic elements and mild action/peril.
1 1/2 out of 4 stars

Who Hasn't Wondered If Glinda and the Wizard Were Doing It?

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
Fantasy/Adventure, PG
3 out of 4 stars

 
I debated for a bit over whether this was a three-star movie or a three-and-a-half-star movie before settling on three, but suffice it to say that it is a strong three stars.
Appropriately, for a film whose main character is a magician, the Disney marketing team has put together a surprising and effective misdirect, and the film itself puts together some surprising red herrings and misdirects of its own, but of course, I cannot provide any details in that regard.  But take note, the advertisements have only provided a a very unspecific idea of what this film is, and in many cases, it's quite admirable to see a studio preserve so many major plot points, similar to Disney's handling of BRAVE (2012) (although those carefully preserved plot points were effectively spoiled for anyone who strolled down the toys aisle last summer), when so much marketing is given to overselling a story.
The story, preceding L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, begins in Kansas at the turn of the century, where Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco) is an unscrupulous carnival magician with an oily personality and a penchant for womanizing, but when he accidentally puts the moves on another guy's girl, he makes a quick escape in a hot air balloon and is carried away into the Land of Oz by a tornado.  When he lands, speculation immediately begins as to whether Oz is the wizard prophesied to end the reign of terror perpetrated by a wicked witch and bring peace to the land.  However, this entangles him in the plotting of three beautiful witch sisters: the naive Theodora (Mila Kunis), the suspicious Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and the kindly Glinda (Michelle Williams).  To assist him in his exploits, is a nebbish flying monkey named Finley (voiced by Zach Braff) and a spunky China Girl (voiced by Joey King).

Finley, China Girl and Oscar sneak up on a witch.

Understandably, Disney has marketed the film as a sequel in all but name to 2010's surprise mega-hit ALICE IN WONDERLAND, but it's very different.  The tone is lighter and less action-oriented (although, no fear, they do deliver when due), Sam Raimi's direction proves that he has a say in the workings of this studio tentpole event, too, including sudden twists into dutch angles and the trademark cameo by Bruce Campbell.  It's not his best film, and it would be unfair to expect as much, but it's plenty better than SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007), and while my opinion on the definitive Oz film adaptation, THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939), is not as fond as the majority, which is an opinion I do respect, I must also emphasize that it is woefully unfair to stress comparisons of quality between the two.  Comparisons in tone and style are plenty fitting though, and it's worth mentioning for any Oz aficionados that this film is closer to the themes and tones of the 1939 classic than Disney's last Oz venture, faithful-to-the-source cult classic RETURN TO OZ (1985), which in this viewer's opinion is definitely for the better.  Regardless, OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is far from the 1939 film in any case, with a massive special effects budget and the odd action sequence and a much more modern tone.  For film buffs though, I might point out that in 1939, THE WIZARD OF OZ was a special effects extravaganza (and one of the first major films ever to utilize effects work so heavily) and largely adapted for audience interests of the day, including those jazzy musical numbers.
The weakest points of the film involve some the plot basics, especially the now-cliched "prophecy" catalyst that also appeared in ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and there are some details that might require getting used to, mainly the red herring elements, and the seeming lack of screen time for certain characters and plot points. 
The film moves at a breakneck pace, for me, bringing to mind STAR WARS (1977); a trait that may be good or bad, depending on your perspective, but I'd consider it mainly as a positive point, considering that in a film like this, it's of the foremost importance that it be entertaining.  When the film moves along so quickly, you don't really get a chance to get bogged down in any boredom, and while in some movies this can become exhausting, OZ remains a frolic with a childlike demeanor and only carefully placed action.

Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch

The cast is excellent, and James Franco (who has worked with Raimi before as Harry Osborn in SPIDER-MAN) as Oscar plays a fun scumbag with a wide, toothy grin, and again proves his ability to carry a film as a leading man as he did in 127 HOURS (2010), but the real highlight is Michelle Williams (Oscar-nominated in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005), BLUE VALENTINE (2010) and MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011)) who turns in another stellar performance and shows a marvelous knack for playing a Disney leading lady.  Her take on Glinda exudes a great deal of warmth, as well as a lurking steely sadness and gut-busting sense of humor.  The whole film has a very good sense of humor in fact, often of a slightly twisted sort that Raimi is fond of, and Oscar's sidekicks, Finley the monkey and the adorable China Girl deliver many of the biggest laughs.  Entertainment is the film's strongest factor, and while it might be pretty fluffy stuff, it's fun way to spend a couple of hours and leaves you feeling good.
NOTE:  While OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is quite contained to its PG rating, and much less macabre/violent than ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010), there are some surprisingly intense moments that may frighten young children and even put some of the older ones on edge.

DIRECTED BY:  Sam Raimi
STARRING:  James Franco, Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Zach Braff, Joey King, Bill Cobbs
Rated PG for sequences of action and scary images, and brief mild language.

What Does That Demon See in Her?

THE LAST EXORCISM PART II
0 out of 4 stars

I never saw THE LAST EXORCISM (2010), but I hear it was alright.  It was a "found-footage" horror film, a style of filmmaking most associated with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999), although the cult classic CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) is recognized as the earliest notable use of the format.  I'm not a fan of so-called found footage, but it is telling to note that this half-ass sequel abandons the format, as if it weren't an insultingly obvious cash-grab already, thanks to its idiotic title.
Like I said though, I didn't see the predecessor, but PT II offers plenty of discolored, rapidly-cut flashbacks, not that they offer much relevancy and the barely-existent plot pads itself out heavily enough with exposition that it really isn't an issue.  There is not a single legitimate scare in the whole thing, though I am obligated to make a point, as a snarky critic, of the possible exception being the open ending that threatens a part three.  There is some value in the fact that most of the attempted scares are humorously inept, but I have a bit of a difficult time not taking personally.  I mean, I don't know why a person would dedicate their life to making films if they didn't love cinema, but then, if someone loves cinema, why in the hell would they assault it like this?  There is one especially [presumably] unintentionally funny sequence at the beginning of the film when a man realizes the creature who just climbed into bed beside him is not his significant other, but it's so painfully obvious when the creature in question pulls the sheets clear over its head and he comments on how she so cold.  Another example is when a doctor finds an inpatient he's been frantically trying to track down, and she has blood splattered messily across her front, he meekly asks her where she's been as if not noticing the blood at all.
It's hard to say exactly what the plot is, because it seems to be a careless perpetuation of what was apparently the issue in the first film.  Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell) is an unstable and homely young woman trying not to have sex with a demon named Abalam, because, as we all know, that would start a biblical apocalypse, as hobos constantly remind us by standing around with "The End is Near" signs.  This loose concept is basically what drives the whole film as Nell gets caught in all kinds of spooky hijinks as she cleans hotel rooms, romances with a fellow hotel janitor and lives in a home for crazy girls.  Before the film reaches a mostly non-existent conclusion, we almost get to see a demonic chicken, but the filmmakers rescind that offer too, just like they lied about it being the last exorcism because they hate us.
The whole cast is just irritating, from the woefully bland lead to Tarra Riggs as a stereotypical voodoo mama and Spencer Treat Clark as Nell's poopy beau.  There just isn't anything to make this worth watching, certainly not in a theater anyway.  Maybe years from now when you're drunk and channel surfing at 3:00 in the morning and you come across it, it might be okay for kicks, but even then, it'll depend on what mood you're in, because THE LAST EXORCISM PART II sucks worse than its title.
Starring: Ashley Bell, Tarra Riggs
Rated PG-13 for horror violence, terror and brief language.  [Curiously, the film contains quite a bit of sexual material to go unmentioned by the MPAA, but maybe they half-assed it as a commentary on the film.]
YOU MIGHT LIKE THE LAST EXORCISM PART II IF YOU LIKED:
THE HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET (2012)
THE DEVIL INSIDE (2012)
THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT (2009)
DARK SKIES (2012)

Spielberg's Magnum Opus: A Look Back at SCHINDLER'S LIST

                                                         A Director Searching for Meaning
Steven Spielberg was the biggest name in show business.  At age 29, he became Hollywood's resident wunderkind with the highest-grossing film ever (at the time), and the original "blockbuster", JAWS (1975), which was nominated for 4 Academy Awards, including Best Picture.  Just two years later, he earned his first Best Director nomination for another smash hit, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977), which was also nominated for 7 other Oscars.  In 1981, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK became his most Oscar-nominated film yet, with 9 nominations including Best Picture and Director, also winning more Academy Awards than any of his films before with 5 and on top of all the critical acclaim, it became one of the highest-grossing films of all time.  Just the next year, for a second time, a Spielberg film became the highest-grossing film of all time; this time it was ET: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL and it was also one of the most critically-acclaimed films of all time and nominated for 9 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Director.  Through the 1980's he made two extremely successful sequels to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, but had begun to wander towards more serious fare as well, such as THE COLOR PURPLE (1985) and EMPIRE OF THE SUN (1987), giving fodder to speculation that Spielberg was on a quest for Oscar gold.  With 3 nominations for Best Picture, and 5 of his films nominated for Best Picture, he still had not yet won, despite his status as Hollywood's golden child, herald of the blockbuster age and the most successful filmmaker of all time.  The problem was that he was too well-liked.  He was a mainstream crowd-pleasing director, which led some to disregard his value as an "artist".  He was merely a very successful showman, a pretender to true importance.  The Academy Awards don't reward great film, specifically.  They reward what they consider a great statement in film, something to lend weight and real-world importance to the medium, and they could not see that in the visceral thrills and special effects of Spielberg's films, in spite of their enviable success. 
A Story Worth Telling
A film about the Schindlerjuden had been in gestation as early as 1963, as Poldek Pfefferberg, one of the real-life Schindlerjuden, sought to see the story of his savior told.  Schindlerjuden refers to the "Schindler Jews", and the "savior" was Oskar Schindler.  Schindler was a German businessman, a member of the Nazi Party, an adulterer, a scoundrel and a war profiteer; in short, a man who began with no scruples, but he eventually became the man who saved the lives of over a thousand Polish-Jewish refugees from the horrors of the Holocaust.  Pfefferberg had arranged to produce a biopic of Schindler for MGM, but the project fell apart.  Almost twenty years later, in 1982, Thomas Keneally, an acquaintance of Pfefferberg's, published the book Schindler's Ark, and MCA Universal almost immediately sought Spielberg to make a film adaptation, and while Spielberg showed interest, he distanced himself from the possibility, considering himself unsuitable for such a mature and important film.  Regardless, Universal bought the film rights, and Spielberg courted other directors to take it up, including Roman Polanski, who had in fact lived through the Holocaust in the Krakow Ghetto and whose mother was among those killed at Auschwitz, but quite understandably, Polanski denied the project due to its personally devastating nature, although he would later direct his own Holocaust drama, THE PIANIST, in 2002.  Eventually, Spielberg convinced Martin Scorcese to come aboard as director in 1988, but passing on the project began to weigh on his conscience, in particular citing a distaste for the rise of Neo-Nazism as the Berlin Wall fell, and Spielberg returned to Scorcese with the 1991 remake of CAPE FEAR in exchange for SCHINDLER'S LIST.  Finally, MCA Universal Studios greenlit SCHINDLER'S LIST with a stipulation that Spielberg make JURASSIC PARK first.
After the extended post-production period for JURASSIC PARK, during which the film's elaborate onset effects were developed and scenes were meticulously storyboarded as was typical of a Spielberg film, shooting began in late August 1992 and was completed by the end of November, at which point Spielberg shifted his attentions toward SCHINDLER'S LIST.
After piecing together a cast and necessary resources, though considerably less than on any film Spielberg had previously made, budgeted at $22 million (a third of JURASSIC PARK's budget), filming began in March 1993, on location in Poland.  During the emotional 71-days long shoot, Spielberg oversaw the post-production progress on JURASSIC PARK, working simultaneously on two films that couldn't be more different.  JURASSIC PARK represented the mainstream, big-budgeted action-adventure synonymous with the Spielberg name, and SCHINDLER'S LIST was everything the critics never felt he would dare.
It was Spielberg unleashed, completely unwrapped and raw.  Gone were all the fancy camera cranes, all the expensive special effects, the big-name casts, even the color.  Although today, despite being unusual, it's not extremely unusual to see an artistic Oscar-contending film shot in black & white, but in 1993, it was just about unheard of.  Production designers and and cinematographers had to go back and relearn all they knew in order to create a timeless look for the b/w epic.  The storyboarding, characteristic of all Spielberg films, was done away with as he opted to shoot the film like a documentary, free-filming the scenes in all their chaos as they played-out onset as if in actuality.  Without concerns for special effects, post-production was minimal, involving editing, scoring and sound mixing.
1993
1993 saw the releases of two Spielberg films.  The first, JURASSIC PARK, opened on June 11 to critical acclaim, breaking the record of Spielberg's E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL to become the new highest-grossing film of all time and forever changed the summer blockbuster Spielberg invented with JAWS by introducing groundbreaking photo-realistic computer-generated animation.  The second was SCHINDLER'S LIST, released six months later on December 15, receiving even greater critical acclaim and forever changing the so-called "Oscar film".  It was nominated for 12 Academy Awards and won 7 (JURASSIC PARK won 3 out of 3 nominations), including Spielberg's long-awaited Best Director and Best Picture.  It became widely-considered one of the greatest films ever made and was listed at the eighth-best film of all time by the American Film Institute.
                                                          One Man's Contemporary Opinion

 SCHINDLER'S LIST is not an easy film to watch (after all, the Academy voters loved it), and you can't afford to only watch half of its 3-hours long running time then break or it'll make you suicidal.  You can only watch it sparingly, but it's an important film to watch every so often.  It is the pinnacle to the career of one of the greatest directors of all time.  To be honest, it's not my personal favorite out of Spielberg's filmography, but it's the kind of film that stands as a prime example of great craftsmanship, the kind that will endure throughout the ages.  I do not mean to imply that it's the kind of film that is admired, but too distant or boring.  Spielberg never forgets that it's a film, not a lesson, and it maintains a strong dramatic grip and even has moments of humor and thrill, if of a different brand, but it does demand commitment and it's an emotional journey you can only handle so often.
The black and white photography brings the mind to that place where we associate the reality of the 1940's with it, and with the handheld footage and documentary style, it feels like being a bystander to actual life, and it brings the actuality of the Holocaust closer to home than ever before.
Inevitably, the film has had detractors and backlash, mostly involving the usual criticism of Spielberg's work, such as melodrama and mainstream appeal.  SCHINDLER'S LIST came to be considered the definitive work of film to address the Holocaust, and several filmmakers and critics, especially documentary filmmaker Claude Lanzmann who made the 9-hours long Holocaust documentary THE SHOAH (1985), lambasted Spielberg for allegedly turning the Holocaust into a "kitschy melodrama" and detracting from the pain and suffering of the millions killed in Nazi death camps while turning it into a feel-good drama about a relative few saved by a German.  It's important that there be a minority opinion in everything, but as a member of the majority opinion here, I feel like the detractors are missing the point.  Either way, a definitive characteristic of Spielberg as a person and a filmmaker, is humanity, the human race's potential for good in the face of darkness, so doing otherwise would have been dishonest as a filmmaker.  Other filmmakers with personal connections to the Holocaust, including Roman Polanski and Billy Wilder, lavished the film with praise.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the film is the way Ralph Fiennes, as a sadistic S.S. officer, and Ben Kingsley, as a Jewish accountant, act as a metaphorical devil and angel, respectively, upon Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler's shoulders in a subtle battle for his soul.  The characterizations are complex, as are the emotions and motives, while the symbology is surprisingly simple.  It's a film that offers something different to each viewer and throughout the years, new things are taken away with each viewing.  There are many films that attempt to tackle the subject of the Holocaust, and many are worth watching for the varying perspectives, because no one film can contain them all, but SCHINDLER'S LIST is unique for that which Spielberg can do.