Spielberg has always made middle class, mouth breathing schlock. The Indiana Jones movies were ok for what they were, self conscious pulp serials for children, it's when he tries to go serious, he enters into that dreaded and loathsome middle brow region of garbage. He's basically the modern Giuseppe Verdi.

I would like to say that ET also sucked. I know that some of you will disagree and good people often do disagree, especially when one pperson is right (me) and others are idiots.

As for Speilberg's body of work. Is there anything that he has ever done that did not depend on a Pavlovian emotional response from the audience? Anything that made people think? Anything that made you ponder a point or a scene for days and work it over in your head?

No? I didn't think so.

What a hack. What an overrated bore!

There's one way Spielberg could redeem himself both critically, and at the box office:

Duel 2
Starring Harrison Ford as a driver who cuts off a truck driver and is chased throughout the movie.
----------------------------------

Along the lines of "Troops" and "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", has any independent filmmaker remade "Duel" from the point-of-view of the truck driver?

That'd be a terrific role for Chris Klein or Ashton Kucher.

He's basically the modern Giuseppe Verdi.

You may be right, but I don't know who Giuseppe Verdi was and I have a Pavlovian urge to give you a wedgie because you do!

Otho,

Giuseppe Verdi eh? Ooooooh snap! Dat's good smackdown!

Thanks for the link, Ace.

Okay Enas. You're getting a wedgie too!

But it's been 12 years since he actually wowed anyone.

Revisionist history, man. Virtually everyone (critics, general audiences, veterans) was wowed by the entirety of Saving Private Ryan, not just the first thirty minutes.

Saving Private Ryan was a superb movie, no qualifications. I've become less fond of Schindler's List over the years -- it strikes me now as too manipulative and histrionic. But it's still a landmark movie (the image of the little girl in the red coat during the liquidation of Krakow will stay in my mind always).

Beyond Saving Private Ryan, I'd have to go back to Raiders and maybe even Jaws.

That Verdi comparison was a little recherche, Otho. Anyway , he’s not the most apt comparison for Spielberg. Here’s Gustav Schlabone from Gravity’s Rainbow:

”Ugh, ugh, Rossini…. You wretched antique. Why doesn’t anybody go to concerts anymore? You think it’s because of the war? Oh, no, I’ll tell you why, old man—because the halls are full of people like you! Stuffed full! Half asleep, nodding and smiliing, farting through their dentures, hawking and spitting into paper bags, dreaming up ever more ingenious plots against their children—not just their own, but other people’s children, too!.... And you know what they’re all listening to, Saure? eh? They’re all listening to Rossini! Sitting there drooling away to some medley of predictable little tunes, leaning forward elbows on knees muttering, ‘C’mon, c’mon then Rossini, let’s get all this pretentious fanfare stuff out of the way, let’s get on to the real good tunes!’”

Virtually everyone (critics, general audiences, veterans) was wowed by the entirety of Saving Private Ryan, not just the first thirty minutes.

Sorry, only the first 30 minutes were good. The rest was a cartoon with the Germans from Raiders reconstructed.

Ironically the message of Saving Private Ryan , that is "kill them all before they can kill you, is in direct opposition to Munich's message of "Don't fight back. It will only make them mad."

I guess consistancy is too much to ask of anyone as shallow and facile as Speilberg.

Hmm, I haven't seen Munich (don't think I will), but hearing as how it spliced a sex scene with terrorists going about killing people (am I right on this?), it made me think about Verdi's Requiem Mass. What with the mezzo soprano singing a Catholic prayer as though she'd just finished a bowl full of spaghetti and gone into heat. Real tasteless stuff and that Mass was written for Rossini. I stand by the Verdi comparison though.

I suppose if I'm gonna get a wedgie, I might as well pile on. Maybe Spielberg is closer to those French Academic painters, like William Bouguereau, that the ARC pimps. Faultless in technique, very well polished; but schlock-y, weepy sentamentalism in subject matter.

I thought AI would have been a great movie if it ended with that scene where the kid/robot was sinking to the bottom of the ocean. However, I suspect that that is about where Spielberg took over from Kubrick.

Sorry, only the first 30 minutes were good.

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion on that and I'm sure you've always held it. But the fact is the vast majority of people said it was absolutely kickass when it came out. Now it's like a lot of people are rushing to jump on a "I've never liked him or his movies" bandwagon, like when a popular kid falls from grace in high school and everyone pretends they were never friends with them.

I guess consistancy is too much to ask of anyone as shallow and facile as Speilberg.

Actually, (without endorsing or condemning Munich, I haven't seen it) I think the general proposition of expecting a filmmaker/author/whatever to have the same perspective and message in their creations over their entire lives is pretty facile.

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion on that and I'm sure you've always held it..

We will have to just agree to disagree. I will continue to maintain that Saving Private Ryan is largely manipulative, melodramatic pap and you will continue to incorrectly argue that it is--what were your words?--Oh yeah, that is is "absolutely kickass."

Red -

imo, any movie where Vin Diesel dies is a keeper.

But, then, my kids made me watch 'The Pacifier'.

Twice.

I have to say (with a touch of irony, on a thread titled "Spielberg Jumps The Shark") that my favorite movie of his is still "Jaws." I saw it at the theater when it was first released and have seen it probably 20 times since, and I still jump at all the same scenes. One of my favorites is when Robert Shaw talks of the USS Indianapolis - his delivery still gives me chills. I think all the leads are terrific, the dialogue uniformly good (and believable) and the pacing perfect.

"So, eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb."

great f'n' movie.

He was good at that sort of movie. Like Harrison Ford was good at that sort of acting.

At the serious stuff: not so much.

Pvt. Ryan was good, although he showed US Troops committing "atrocities" and not much on the German side.
Goonies, Close Encounters, and Jaws were great.
He was good at showing "average" America during the 70s & 80s.
Unfortunately now he sees himself as an artist and not an entertainer, and thats why he fails.

imo, any movie where Vin Diesel dies is a keeper

Oooh. Touché, my friend. Touché!

I was going to mention Poltergeist, but then I remembered that Tobe Hooper did the good stuff; Speilberg did the crappy "wavy light hitting awestruck faces" junk. Spielberg is the reason that was merely a good horror movie rather than a great one.

I never saw ET i dont care for movies like that i prefer STA WARS i did see CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE 3RD KIND

Pvt. Ryan was good, although he showed US Troops committing "atrocities" and not much on the German side.

What atrocities?

Spielberg has a couple of good movies. "Raiders...", "Jaws", "Close Encounters...". and "Schindler's List". The rest is B-level crap.

...and you will continue to incorrectly argue that it is--what were your words?--Oh yeah, that is is "absolutely kickass."

Hey, you're entitled to your individual dislike of the movie, but I'm not incorrectly arguing anything. I said "the vast majority of people said it was absolutely kickass when it came out," which is true. I'm not arguing that you have to like it.

97% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Over $200 million in domestic gross. Clear critical and commercial success, which belies the assertion that Spielberg didn't wow people with it.

What? No mention of 1941 yet? His tour de force. I didn't think it was as bad as most people pan it. However, I was in junior high when I saw it, so maybe I just thought it was great schlock. Haven't seen it in a long time.

Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan were good.

"97% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. Over $200 million in domestic gross. Clear critical and commercial success, which belies the assertion that Spielberg didn't wow people with it."

Hubris, this is a strong point, but not one to end all discussion, because another group of reasons for my dislike of Spielberg's recent films (other than their quality) is demonstrated in your point here: people assess a Spielberg film differently than they would another film, and it always gets a better assessment.

First, his films are always better reviewed than they would be had the exact same film been made by someone else, not even a novice, but even if Ridley Scott had made Munich or Saving Private Ryan, that Rotten Tomatoes score you're citing would be ten points lower (just look at his 76% score for Black Hawk Down, a movie just as good or better than Pvt. Ryan).

Second, just because a lot of people go to see a movie doesn't mean they like it (see: last 3 Star Wars movies). Some filmmakers have become powerful enough to the point that going to see their movies is more like an obligation than a true desire to see the film. People don't want to be shut out of a discussion of a Spielberg film, so they go see it.

For these reasons, his films are generally treated better than they deserve to be. Also, with self-important movies like Pvt. Ryan, fueled by a good PR machine, put anyone who dislikes the film in an awkward position, as though your dislike of the film stems from some general ignorance about humanity or some other politically incorrect mindset.

Finally, this is not kicking a master down and neglecting his past efforts. No one is questioning the quality of his older films. This is an admirer wondering where the hell that good filmmaker named Steven Spielberg went, and wondering why everyone else isn't wondering the same thing.

Munich makes me feel like vomiting, but you shouldn't slam Woody Allen, his latest movie is actually pretty good!

Murph, it's tough for either of us to "prove" anything with respect to how critics/audiences receive Spielberg's films--to me, SPR was much better than Black Hawk Down, but it's a subjective matter of taste. Are the reviews better because of a bias or because SPR was better? One could even argue that the expectations for a Spielberg film are higher and that it's harder for him to meet those expectations. Who knows.

This definitely doesn't prove anything (strictly anecdotal) but it seems to me that there are a lot more naysayers on SPR now that didn't exist when it came out (I'm speaking generally, not about you), because of a backlash. As I recall, SPR had great word of mouth in addition to the usual Spielberg marketing effect, because of the positive reaction from the vast majority of viewers.

I'll admit to a general (and unrelated to your fair and specific critique) irritability with the "listen up, Hollywood" messages that I'm seeing all over lately. It's like "STOP MAKING THESE HUGE EMPTY BLOCKBUSTERS AND DO SOMETHING WITH A STORY BUT NOT ARTSY AND STOP WITH THE FUCKING REMAKES AND DO SOMETHING NEW BUT I'D LIKE IT TO BE EXACTLY LIKE MOVIES I ENJOYED IN 1981."

I'm not sure what people want. It's kind of like Democratic leaders who just criticize everything and don't offer a genuine alternative.

Again, the rant isn't a response to your post--just venting.

Some people say there are 2 types of people in the world: Beatles people and Elvis people. In 1998, I think there were 2 other types of people: SPR people and Thin Red Line people. Both were polar opposites in terms of what you got out of a WW2 movie, and few had people who liked them both (and even fewer who liked them equally).

I think you're right in that, while Spielberg gets a better review when his films come out, he gets much more backlash than others. While many filmmakers see their films grow in reputation, Spielberg tends to see his devalue over time. The reason why is where we get into that subjective realm you're talking about: is it because the hype has worn away and we're looking at the films more for what they are, or are we just sick of praising this guy?

Yeah, you're right--it could be either (or both).

On a related subject, NOW everyone claims C & C Music Factory is no good. But I know the truth in my heart.

Speilsburg could never be as good as GEORGE PAL who did the origional classic version of WAR OF THE WORLDS and i say RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK several times I HATE SNAKES I HATE SNAKES

The Goonies was pure torture for anyone over a certain age. It was so self-conscious of what it was trying to accomplish that it made me feel like a film school geek instead of a regular audience member. Spielberg was trying to capture a certain traditional movie style but unlike Raiders he tried too hard instead of letting it happen and giving the audience some credit for being able to figure some stuff out for themselves.

A.I. was a beautiful bit of film production but a wretched story. I got tired of movies that are driven by the assumption that humankind jusck plain sucks, although its machines are strangely noble, long before this flick hit the theaters. This premise wore out its welcome in the 70s.

Special added points for going back and PC crappifying his earlier work on ET by eliminating most of the elements that gave it any edge. I'm sure at some point we'll have a version of Raiders where the Nazis are armed solely with radios ala South Park. (Free Hat!)

In general, it is not a good thing for an artist to achieve god-like status. It damages their perspective and makes expectations to high. Worse, it causes them to enter sag teacher mode and reveal they're a political nitwit. It's just as well there was never a real Beatles reunion. What could they have possibly done to live up to their own legend?

1941 was as bad as they come you could,nt get much worse and thats why speilsburg has,nt ever done another comedy