Good, but not great

Rating: 9/10 (20 January 2003)

While watching Spielberg's new film, I was completely captivated by the naturalness of the performances. Usually, I find the acting in his films to either be syrupy(A.I., Saving P.R) or cartoonish (but good as in Raiders). In this film, the performances felt REAL. I have never experienced that in a Spielberg film, as I have usually felt that the performers were too aware that they have been "acting". That is my most usual criticism of his films. This time, I had no problem with it. I loved the acting in this film.
My problem with this film lies with some of the choices Spileberg has made as a director. Spielberg is not notoriously "stingy" as a director. He usually lets the audience have what they came to his movie for: an emotional experience. While this trend was certainly true early on (think of the final segment of Close Encounters), lately it seems that he is holding back. I won't give away any spoilers, but people who read this might know what I mean. For instance, I walked away from this movie THINKING about it. Not FEELING it but THINKING it through. Did I like that or didn't I? I asked myself. I sure laughed like a loon throughout so surely I enjoyed it, but then why did I feel so dislocated from that experience of it by the end? Spielberg, in my own humble opinion, has been committing "Shyamalanisms" of late. Definition: A really alienating end to a perfectly wonderful movie; an ending that makes you "think" but ultimately does nothing to make you "feel". "A.I" did it. "Wha?" I asked at the ending of that film. Everyone seems to loathe the ending of "Minority Report" so I won't even go there. And now, with "Catch" he has completed a trilogy of films which are largely wonderful but leave you with a sense of vagueness/despair.
Don't get me wrong, I liked this film. But I wanted to love it. Spielberg wouldn't let me.