'The Fabelmans' is not good. Director and Co-Writer Steven Spielberg's heart was in the right place (the idea, the conceit, the structure is fine), but the execution fails to deliver. The film is too long by far, scenes run on forever, the story seems flabby and unfocused (and yes, that includes the hero's undying desire to become a film-maker).

Here's what I believe Spielberg was attempting.

(1) He is presenting the story of HIS life; how he (Spielberg) became the world famous film director.

(2) In doing so, he portrays different periods of his life as though each were a different genre of movie. (a) The film's opening plays like a 50s family sitcom, complete with the goofy next-door neighbor. (b) A visit from an uncle plays like a horror film. (c) Adolescence is a 'Beach Blanket' movie with Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello, at other times a 'Blackboard Jungle' of bigoted and roughneck bullies. (d) We've got 'OZ's' Yellow Brick Road of a finale, preceded by 'OZ's' Dorothy / Spielberg meeting with the wizard himself and receiving his advice. (e) Add to this 'The Conversation' / 'Blow Out' / 'Blow Up' fascination with studying taped video and or audio, inch by inch, in order to fully understand what is actually taking place.

(3) Now the use of film genres in this way could be a very satisfying. It would tell us that Spielberg always viewed his life, while living it, as a movie. And it might have worked were the film less talky, better written (the dialogue is awful), and faster paced. And perhaps better shot. There is something flat up there on the screen; nearly every scene feels like the one before and the one that follows. I can't say why. It just does.

I wish I'd liked the film. As a big fan of Spielberg's earlier work, I had strong rooting interest for him to meet his usual high standard.

And it's likely you do too. And as such you might well look past my criticisms of the film; might hold him to a less lofty standard.

You might well enjoy it.

I imagine that many viewers will.