A Steven Spielberg Poll (1974-1993)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Poll Closing Date: Friday, 16 March 2018 00:00 (in 3 weeks)

Has there ever been an ILX poll of Spielberg's films from Duel to Jurassic Park--before he became an artist?
― clemenza, Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:23 PM (two days ago)

The answer being, as far as I can tell, no, here we go. Theatrical features only.

The post-1993 poll is also probably due for a redux, so standby: Steven Spielberg post-1993: Vote for the best

The Sugarland Express (1974)
Jaws (1975)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
1941 (1979)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
The Color Purple (1985)
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Always (1989)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Hook (1991)
Jurassic Park (1993)
Schindler's List (1993)


Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 19:55 (two weeks ago) Permalink

top 2 are E.T. and Empire of the Sun

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 February 2018 19:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Raiders or Schindler's List

omar little, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:00 (two weeks ago) Permalink

my 2nd tier is CE3K, Temple of Doom, Jaws

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Wouldn't Schindler's List be where he "became an artist"?

silverfish, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

nah, I regard it as the culmination of the imperial phase

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:04 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Most inclined to vote for:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
The Color Purple (1985)
Jurassic Park (1993)

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:04 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Jurassic Park or Jaws for me. With Raiders and Close Encounters close behind.

khat person (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Three of these movies are good and I like another one

Haribo Hancock (sic), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:08 (two weeks ago) Permalink

SUGARLAND!

Actually, it's been a while. I should rewatch.

Senior Soft-Serve Tech at the Froyo Arroyo (Old Lunch), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:11 (two weeks ago) Permalink

why is duel not here, the only film of his I like

she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

TV movie i guess

bizarrer Gandhara (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Ya, that's quite an omission. Would've liked to see some TV stuff thrown in here (his Amazing Stories episode with Costner is A+).

Senior Soft-Serve Tech at the Froyo Arroyo (Old Lunch), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I suppose Duel deserves to be in here. I'll see if a mod can fix that.

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:15 (two weeks ago) Permalink

can't mod poll options, you'd have to start a new one

bizarrer Gandhara (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:16 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Not terribly saddened about that. Anyone who'd vote Duel over E.T. deserves disenfranchisement.

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

my favourite bits of ET are before ET appears tbh

bizarrer Gandhara (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:17 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the only good part of E.T. is when he washes up on the rocks and you think maybe they killed E.T. with half an hour to go

she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Maybe we can do a separate TV poll. I'm curious to see how his Night Gallery installment ranks against the Columbo pilot.

Senior Soft-Serve Tech at the Froyo Arroyo (Old Lunch), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the first 3 movies are basically the only truly good stuff he's ever done. (I am voting Sugarland)

Ludo, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Same.

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the first 3 movies are basically the only truly good stuff you've ever done, Le Bateau Ivre?

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

-_-

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink

gonna vote for jaws bc i'm boring

flamenco drop (BradNelson), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:21 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Probably gonna vote for jaws bc it's perfect.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

yeah it's also that

flamenco drop (BradNelson), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

although i'm really due for a rewatch of close encounters

flamenco drop (BradNelson), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Raiders

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:23 (two weeks ago) Permalink

might vote for 1941 just out of badness and because 14 year-old me was badly lied to by the front cover of the VHS

bizarrer Gandhara (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I don't like his mawkish, feelgood holocaust movie at all these days. It has really aged worse than any of these imo.

the 'phet offensive (calzino), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Voldemort is good value imo

bizarrer Gandhara (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

1941 is so underrated, love that film. However, probably will go with Raiders.

Moodles, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:30 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Recently watched the remastered Close Encounters. It still doesn't quite hang together as a film but it is absolutely gorgeous to look at.

Senior Soft-Serve Tech at the Froyo Arroyo (Old Lunch), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:31 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Raiders is probably the one film of his that front-to-back i wouldn't change a single thing.

omar little, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink

dismissing post-'81 Spielberg = arrested cultural development

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

tbh i've only seen about half of these

prob raiders

i actually like hook

marcos, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i actually like hook

i watched hook on repeat when i was like 5-6 years old and obsessed with peter pan so i have no ability to determine whether it's good

flamenco drop (BradNelson), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I remember liking the half hour or so of 1941 I caught on TV when I was 10. Maybe I should revisit.

silverfish, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink

many xps
had to google that, yeah he usually delivers. Neeson is so dull and lacking in the obvious moral complexity his character required, by the end I want him to get ratted to the Gestapo ffs!

the 'phet offensive (calzino), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:38 (two weeks ago) Permalink

are you sure you're not thinking of The Sound of Music?

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:40 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Pia Zadora playing Anne Frank iirc

bizarrer Gandhara (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I was of course being facetious--you can guess which half of his career I count as more artistic--but glad Eric started this. I do consider Schindler's List as the obvious beginning of the other phase; no big deal, especially if it doesn't win. 1. The Sugarland Express, 2. Jaws, 3. Close Encounters of the First Kind. I think they're all amazing, and the first two especially are among my favourite films ever. Not sure if I'll vote in the concurrent poll--just don't feel that strongly about anything on there.

clemenza, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:44 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I don't see how Schindler's List is feelgood and I think it's aged very well.

abcfsk, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i can't choose between:

Jaws (1975)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

scott seward, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Hook is the worst spielberg movie. that much i know.

scott seward, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Neeson is so dull and lacking in the obvious moral complexity his character required, by the end I want him to get ratted to the Gestapo ffs!

idk I though the point of the movie is his motives are inscrutable until the end.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Neeson is great, i think. his emergence as an iconic actor too.

Fiennes is incredible though...i kinda want to say he gives the best performance in any Spielberg film but i don't want to commit to that statement. there's plenty of competition.

omar little, Thursday, 1 February 2018 20:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Raiders over E.T., Close Encounters, Jurassic Park and the other two Indys.

Haven't seen: The Sugarland Express, 1941, The Color Purple

iCloudius (cryptosicko), Thursday, 1 February 2018 21:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i'm not going to say hook is great exactly but i do think it's better than its reputation, w/ some good performances, and it is definitely way better than a movie with that concept would be likely to be now. it's telling that when spielberg says he doesn't like it his take is "too bad i didn't wait two decades so i could have done it all in cgi."

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 1 February 2018 23:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

and I've said before on ILX that Marian's value as a character is overrated too -- she turns into a screaming wuss by the second act too!

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 February 2018 21:43 (two weeks ago) Permalink

yeah but she also pulls a knife on a Nazi in that second act. and after that she comedically slaps a wounded Indy with a mirror.

also that intro where she drinks the patron under the bar at the frozen Nepalese tavern she runs is pretty badass

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 2 February 2018 21:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink

sometimes you would rather see something like that then a lady complaining about having to ride an elephant

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 2 February 2018 21:46 (two weeks ago) Permalink

it being a comic stock character doesn't mean it's something one wants to watch for ninety minutes! there are lots of stock characters that i think we're all glad have bitten the dust after all. in this case, the stock from which the character is ladled is sexist as well boring. willie is stupid, slow on the uptake even in the most obvious situations, cowardly, unhelpful, and rude, and the film's main interest in her is how to take her down a peg. spielberg doesn't do anything to reinvent or recontextualize or renew this very dicey material and occam's razor (given the racism and general laziness of this film's conception) would suggest he just thinks it's crowd-pleasing entertainment to watch a woman screw things up and be annoying. call me when this kind of worthless role for the leading female character has been abandoned by hollywood and i'll entertain the idea that including one could be some kind of clever throwback to a forgotten archetype. meanwhile though i still don't think any women i know would find this enjoyable. maybe you two dudes are right though.

Righteous wax chaperone, rotating Wingdings (Doctor Casino), Friday, 2 February 2018 21:57 (two weeks ago) Permalink

This is a movie in which everyone, including Indie, gets taken down a peg and made a fool of; everyone's a cartoon.

I don't mind if someone dislikes Willie, nor will I fight it.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:05 (two weeks ago) Permalink

pop culture of all eras sure is rigorously vetted these days (except for Fay Wray)

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I like Kate Capshaw in TOD (she's pretty funny in the comic scenes and quite good at being seductive once she gets Indy in her sights), I just don't like her more than Karen Allen in ROTLA.

omar little, Friday, 2 February 2018 22:13 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I got no problem with Franklin Pangborn's prissy fags ftr

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:19 (two weeks ago) Permalink

"Is there anyone I haven't offended?" - Lenny Bruce, who's glad he's dead

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

vetted? i mean all i was saying was i don't think I'd recommend the film to a friend. out of all the thrills-and-chills adventure movies out there, why pick one with THIS stuff in it? if it doesn't bug you that's fine but i was, as i said, thinking of non-male film buff friends of mine, so you going "hey, *i* find it entertaining, what's the big deal??" isn't really answering to that. obviously i can't speak for their tastes either, just my own barometer of "will i later feel like an asshole with male-privilege blinders for blithely proclaiming this to be a fun popcorn movie that lets you have a good time and forget your cares" ?

Righteous wax chaperone, rotating Wingdings (Doctor Casino), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

You can recommend the film with caveats? That's my job as a reviewer.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I'm just not seeing the big deal in explaining to a friend what you dislike and letting him/her make up his/her mind. Also, if you wouldn't introduce a film patterned after 1930s serials with ethnic and sexual stereotypes to a friend, then don't.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

That sentence is garbled: if your friend normally has a problem with such movies, etc.

morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:25 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I'm mostly annoyed that for all that's, well, annoying with her character, Indy inexplicably doesn't rip her heart out later. They never explain that, do they?

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 2 February 2018 22:28 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I recommend things with caveats all the time! I'd recommend Raiders with caveats, happily. But the more caveats that I have to layer onto a funtimes popcorn movie specifically, the more it's like, maybe I should be recommending a movie that involves less work and fewer "now, you'll want to brace yourself for..." moves. Life is too short; I'd rather recommend things that are fun all the way through, and it's a bummer that Spielberg didn't always pull that off.

Righteous wax chaperone, rotating Wingdings (Doctor Casino), Friday, 2 February 2018 22:33 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Dr. C, watch Sugarland Express! I first watched it as sort of a perfunctory completist gesture but I got converted. I really don't understand why it's so consistently underrated.
― Cork Taint (Old Lunch)

Keep fighting the good fight, OL.

clemenza, Friday, 2 February 2018 23:29 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i dig it. less misogynist than drag. #challops

I dig both. It’s fine, my kind will die out too.

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Saturday, 3 February 2018 03:27 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I note that this thread has strongly shifted to arguing between Indiana Jones movies. This seems predictive of the outcome, unless a presently-silent majority rules the final results.

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 3 February 2018 04:10 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Raiders will be in the top 3. The other two somewhere in the bottom half of the top 10.

Tarr Yang Preminger Argento Carpenter (Eric H.), Saturday, 3 February 2018 04:50 (two weeks ago) Permalink

my names not gareth its brodie

― brodie, Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:32 PM (seven years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(the blues version in his Broadway show) (crüt), Saturday, 3 February 2018 05:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Best silly: Raiders.
Best serious: Empire of the Sun.

Voted for Raiders.

chap, Saturday, 3 February 2018 13:00 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Although fuck it, maybe I should have gone with my heart and voted Temple of Doom.

chap, Saturday, 3 February 2018 13:01 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i wouldn't change a thing. somehow even him holding the rocket launcher backwards makes perfect sense in this world. and the end of the film, with the power of God being unleashed and just destroying a canyon filled with Nazis in the most demonic-metal special effects extravaganzas of all time. then there is still the final shot of the guy in that giant room of government secrets.

Raiders is efficient, well-made, unparalleled pulp. the end of TOD is them on a bridge with a bunch of guys falling down to get eaten by crocodiles offscreen. then the guy tries to do the heart thing on Indy, which is the 3rd or 4th time we have seen that trick in action, and it never works in the good guys. then he falls down to again get eaten by crocodiles. i do like the fakeness of the effects, but it is cheaper, far less visually and thematically impressive, then the ending of Raiders. in Raiders we never see the power of the ark until the ending, making it all the more impressive when it happens. it is like the shark in Jaws, used sparingly, the tension building throughout the movie between brief scenes of the main monster or whatever. ofc this is pulp/b-movie making 101.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:41 (two weeks ago) Permalink

him riding on the submarine is the maybe the best part, that they never explain that. it effectively turns him into a superhero, which, come on, he always was. this is the kind of folk legend that would be used in a comic strip.

also that wordless scene of the ark burning the whole through the crate in the submarine base is beyond cool. it starts with a shot of some rats and there is this ominous hum and then it pans to show the Imperial Eagle symbol and the ark from within burns it and chars the box black so the Nazi symbol is destroyed. it is a really cool shot of magic happening onscreen when nobody is looking.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink

The Raiders template is sending up Crap Movies. Which is also what Tarantino's career has been, but Spielberg's pastiches are much better and don't run 3 fucking hours.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink

is the ending to "Raiders" sort of a nod to DeMille's "The Ten Commandments"? the animation in parts kind of resemble the pillar of cloud and other effects from that classic film.

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:51 (two weeks ago) Permalink

It's interesting, that sort of is the Raiders template, but that might be more Lucas than Spielberg. I never got the same film historian vibe (pulp or otherwise) from Spielberg that you get from erstwhile peers like, say, Scorsese. Spielberg always seemed more of a savant. Like Coppola, maybe, but less grand Great American Novel ambitious.

xpost Raiders is silly but also has some moments of real drama and portent and menace, not least the intensity of the ending. Doom is just silly, for better or for worse. One can (and we have) made the case that that makes it more faithful to its source inspirations, but ... nah. Still fun, but that's largely linked to Ford, who is perfect in the role.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:53 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Has Spielberg talked much about specific film influences, either directors or movies that made an impact on him?

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 16:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink

He has, a fair amount -- not in encyclopedic Scorsese fashion -- but I don't have one source for you.

Assuming Spielberg saw it in its theatrical release when he was about 9, you can imagine how The Ten Commandments would ring all his bells.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:00 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I always got the impression he was as or more influenced by pulp fiction: Weird Tales, pulpy sci-fi-fi novels and stuff. But I'll look into film specifics.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink

That was easy, this one was great and recent:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/10-great-films-inspired-steven-spielberg

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:03 (two weeks ago) Permalink

get your stinking scales off me, you damn dirty snakes

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:26 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Q: Why doesn’t Jurassic Park enter into the discussion anybody higher? Is it the fact that it is so overrepresented in nerd culture? Technically speaking, I think it’s one of Spielberg’s best.

rb (soda), Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:46 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I saw it once, and thought all the accomplishments were technical, aside from Goldblum's meta japery.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:49 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I like that the people are all pulpy archetypes, but the dinosaurs are realistic and scary. It's a nice contrast.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

i will always sit and watch jurassic park if it's on. the first two-thirds is impeccable spielberg craft with SO many small but effective choices, notwithstanding some kinda thin characterization compared to what we get in jaws or close encounters, say. last third still has real genius (the kitchen) but it's carrying you through on momentum and busy-ness. i babbled about this a little starting at this post: jurassic park

up until that rewatch though i probably would have put it right up there with jaws. it's still one hell of an entertaining movie but i see the seams more now.

Righteous wax chaperone, rotating Wingdings (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 3 February 2018 17:57 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Jurassic park has nothing on rewatch morbs otm about it

Alderweireld Horses (darraghmac), Saturday, 3 February 2018 18:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink

all accomplishments are technical

difficult listening hour, Saturday, 3 February 2018 18:44 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Re: that BFI list the one thing I unashamedly love about "War Horse" is how he was able to fuse a sentimental John Ford patina over a weird pastiche of Kubrick-goes-to-war.

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Saturday, 3 February 2018 18:44 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I won't disagree with anyone who claims that JP is technical exercise and not much else, but I like it for what it is: a beautifully made monster movie. See any of the sequels (yes, even the one Spielberg directed; if not his worst film--which I might argue it is--it is certainly his laziest) for what this film would look like if made without Spielberg's impeccable craftsmanship.

iCloudius (cryptosicko), Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:02 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I went to see JP when it came out not knowing anything about it, and it scared the shit out of me.

Moodles, Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:04 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Jeff Goldblum has that effect on people

fuck you, your hat is horrible (Neanderthal), Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:11 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Has Spielberg ever made a movie that was not at least technically competent? It's kind of weird, the things that make his movies good or bad seem to be different from the things that make most movies good or bad. His acting and actors are almost always good, his direction is almost always impeccable. Whenever he is let down it is usually by the script.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Both technically and thematically speaking, I think he's fallen into a creative rut in the last decade. Excepting BFG and Tin Tin, which are kiddie-flicks more animated than not, I think he's constricted his palette and moved toward a pokey, less-inspired staging/editing approach than he used during the '70s - '90s. It's probably because he's made so many damn movies. He doesn't strike me as terrifically inventive, which he once did, nor as fun, and I find his choices more frequently eye-rolly. I think a lot of prestige television owes him a debt, and so much of what seems "blah" about his current work is that his style/influence is now ubiquitous. But subject-wise, I'm less sympathetic. Of his output post-2000, he's devoted way too much of his time to making competent, mostly uncontroversial films about and for serious white people. The fun/kineticism of his earlier stuff is mostly missing, and there's a lot of conservative dudes talking in brownish room in its place.

rb (soda), Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:39 (two weeks ago) Permalink

depends what counts as technical competence i guess. i'd say hook blows it but not necessarily in the places you just mentioned. his instincts just fail him as to what's a good story, what's a good emotional arc, what needs to be in the movie and what doesn't, what level of overacting to direct everybody to... it's the one that feels the most like you got some sub-spielberg person to try and do a big hit family movie with prestige actors and a sense of "wonder" and "magic" that turns out to be hollow and mean if you think about it.

Doctor Casino, Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:47 (two weeks ago) Permalink

One reason I like, for different reasons, his sci-fi resurgence with AI, Minority Report, and War of the Worlds is that a lot of them flashback to his early days of wide eyed wonder, at spectacle, at technology, at just something that warrants the trademark look of his characters, slack-jawed and staring. The irony of many of his more recent works is that they seem very much indebted to backroom 70s paranoia thrillers, like All the President's Men or the Conversation or something like that. When in the 70s of course he was making movies that largely went in the opposite direction.

His filmography is so diverse at this point, it's really hard to pinpoint what makes a Spielberg movie a Spielberg movie, not in the way you can do the same with, say, a Scorsese film.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 3 February 2018 19:59 (two weeks ago) Permalink

JP is absolutely one of spielberg's best, what's special about it seems more and more clear when you compare it to the fx blockbusters that followed it (including a couple made by spielberg himself).

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, 3 February 2018 22:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

yeah JP probably changed blockbusters filmmaking more than anything here except jaws but including raiders. there are soooooo many wannabe-JP movies from that point on and almost nobody has any idea what they're doing.

Doctor Casino, Saturday, 3 February 2018 22:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.