Let's get it straight, as far as I'm concerned this is the best non-fiction I've ever seen from Steven Spielberg. That is, the best real-life story I've seen directed by him. All the leads are simply superb - not a surprise regarding Michelle Williams - I've seen her in so many role- never a bad one. But Paul Dano, whom I've seen in a few roles is simply breathtaking here; Judd Hirsch has such a tiny role, and still manages to work wonders performing it; and I could go on and on - I can't think of a role that wasn't splendidly written and excellently performed.

I also loved Spielberg's sense of balance, which I usually don't in his real-life stories. He doesn't ever go overboard. His characters ring true even when they're over-reacting or going haywire. They actually feel more human when they do. And the same sense of balance is true of the story itself.

Technically. I could never fault Spielberg, he's definitely a master of his trade, and always was. So, what's my problem with this movie, why didn't I rate it a perfect 10? - Here goes my title - It's not the first time I've seen great directors doing the story of their own biography in film. More often than not the end result is packed to the brim with details, tiny stories that draw a complex picture, a very complex, elaborate and meandering plotline that at the bottom line diminishes the impact of a would-be great film. The personal attachment to the life story we see stops even some of the best directors from cutting out scenes they should. This movie should've been at least 20 minutes shorter. It would've been a perfect 10 then, at least in my personal book.