Haydn Engel Reviews

Rating: 9/10 (8 May 2020)

Strong and persuasive without being visceral. Schindler's List touches on the lives of many without feeling too sentimental to its subjects. It wants to be objective and given what we have seen throughout the history of cinema, propaganda and jingoism. One needs an honest look at the tragedies of humanity.
BE: It is Spielberg's masterpiece, and like Coppola, he spent the first little while trying to emulate it and then decided to just shoot whatever he wanted. The film is pure vision and drive. Everyone on set put in their best performance, and as always Spielberg's sequencing is outstanding, and most should be jealous with how easily he pulls it off. The editing is high class. With only a few issues here or there. It is incredible to think in a 195-minute movie that there are not huge chunks that you could remove, but somehow the editing has kept this behemoth of a film moving along at a steady pace.
W: The dialogue is quite good, but one cannot help but feel that there is a touch of the Hollywood pen in the script, and it is Zaillian writing, so that goes without saying. Other than the faux tension ratching, it is very decent.
C: Arguably Kaminski's best film, though the argument against that is Saving Private Ryan. So you can decide for yourself. That said, other than a few stutters with the camera. Like in the shot where they are bringing the lens down from the bridge to the boat. The film is shot perfectly for how you want this story to be portrayed, and that is what cinematography is supposed to do, it is supposed to accentuate the story. And the girl in red scene shall remain one of my favourites of all time. The shower scene aside, the visual effects excellent.
A: Liam Neeson's best role, before he showed the world that much like Harrison Ford, he plays the same character in almost every film. Thankfully at this point, he is still fresh. Ralph Fiennes built a career from this role, and he would remain a constant in parts in need of snivelling yet powerful monsters for years after, but no character has matched his performance in Schindler's List and rightly so it is a convincing portrayal of a man lost in his convictions yet still has a shred of the humanity that existed in him before the war. Kingsley is excellent with a subdued performance, which is usually the best Kingsley, Sexy Beast aside. It gives Neeson's performance something to bounce off and allow for a better emotional understanding of the character.
S: The sound is excellent, and the score is terrific. So much so it does make me ponder whether Spielberg's film would be the same without it? Williams builds tension that spills morosely over tragedy and celebratory fatigue.
PD: Is excellent save for the few touches in the concentration camps and only the most anal filmgoers are going to pick up on that.
BA: Authentic and eye-catching, though does fall victim to the standard nerd mistakes and the black-white filming does prevent it from being a little higher as it could be hiding a plethora of errors, but as is seen, it is well done.
EVO: This is not a relaxing Tuesday flick, but it is a flick anyone with a love of films or humanity should see. I have not seen many people who have disliked it, Rita Kempley aside. It is a tough watch for some, but it is rewarding in its own way.
Notes: This film is one of the ones that made me realise there needs to be a standard with critics they do not need to follow mine, but they need to explain what they are ranking. The reality is their review is 90% EVO and with no thought put in. Take Rita Kempley who wrote for The Washington Post. She gave Schindler's List a 60, Pulp Fiction a 70, Supergirl the 1984 movie was given an 80, Mary Reilly was a 70, Splash a 100, so Splash is a perfect movie whereas Schindler's List is barely passable under what metric? She also ranks the Wedding Singer at 70 and Das Boot as a 60. All I learned from her reviews is that she likes crappy romantic comedies and does not appreciate long drawn out films, and if she was some person on IMDB filling out a review that would be fine. But when you are the film critic for supposedly one of the best newspapers in the USA. It looks foolish, with no sense of purpose. When you are ranking Summer School (1987) as an arguably better film than Schindler's List than maybe you should not be a film critic. Which raises the question of what are film critics judging? And do they even understand cinema?