Still, he is a phenomenally gifted film maker and I will continue to go see whatever he does, because even his train-wrecks are more interesting the 95% of what gets made.
Clearly you didn't see Bloodrayne. If you had, you'd say 97%.
It's been a while since I've seen it, but are you doing what I do with AI? I just pretend that the movie ends with the robot under water, frozen, and staring at the blue fairy.
Heh. When I saw it in the theater I was actually thinking, as that scene ended, "hey, that's a pretty powerful and satisfying ending" and then, as the movie kept going thought "uh oh".
Then, as the credits rolled, thought "WTF?" I wonder if that coda had anything to do with the Kubrick work that had been done? I would guess not, although I suppose it's possible that Kubrick had a sequence that he actually intended to play like a cold parody of a "happy ending", and Spielberg just misunderstood.
Is it just me or is Tom Cruise the fastest man ever on film? Every movie that has him running, (The Firm, Minority Report, Collateral) that son-of-a-bitch could outrun a cheetah.
This is just one of the many powers bestowed on Cruise by the great Xenu.
Hey guys, I like War of the Worlds. I'd like to argue please.
Same here. I am an ardent supporter of Spielberg's movies. He's manipulative to a fault, which is what makes his movies great. He's one of the all-time best in his medium.
Hey, lets face it. Stevie S. is all about making movies that make millions. The only movies he's done that aren't blockbuster types are heartstrings movies designed to win an Oscar and keep him charging and making the big bucks. But we can't fault him for that. He's a killing businessman, and makes movies that most people would go to see and most people are entertained by. We can't expect him to be some independent art-film maker. He's the film equilvalent to U2 or Dave Matthews or Puff Daddy. Not very interesting, but entertaining.
Sometimes I love it when old threads are dug up. I have absolutely no recollection of writing what I did here, and sometimes I am amazed when I read my own writing.
Close Encounters, Jaws, ET and Raiders were all excellent movies (still pissed that they cut out "penis breath" in the ET reissue, though.
Except for Raiders, which was just a fun adventure, they were all about the suspense, and the wonderment in imagination, not in what was displayed on screen, CGI and puppeteering or not. They were about the story.
This would be the opposite about how I feel about Jurassic Park, which to me was just uh... blah. It was supposed to be a fun adventure like Indiana Jones maybe, but for me it just wasn't as fun. Basically a decent premise stretched out for 2 hours with scary CGI and no story. But Jaws and Close Encounters were not like that at all!
I am especially fond of Close Encounters. I mean it had everything. It had alien abduction and electronic interference, telepathic thought transference, believable communication attempts with an alien race (none of this everybody speaks English or has handheld translation devices), and even Government Conspiracy. I mean it's basically "The X-Files". I loved Dreyfuss in that movie, too. His aloof, innocent, everyman portrayal was perfect.
And it (and ET and Jaws) had suspense. Not suspense about seeing the special effects like Spindler implies, but suspense along the lines of "wow I can't wait to see what happens next!" I wonder how Spindler feels about Hitchcock...
I think todays nonstop action blockbuster bullshit has killed exciting cinema. Except for Jurassic Park, Spielberg's legacy was the fact that he had all the latest special effects at his disposal, and was still able to tell a gripping story.
I'm pretty much with you on this. I would disagree about Jurassic Park. I thought it was a fun movie. John Williams' score really made it for me. I agree 100% about Close Encounters. To this day I find it to be suspenseful and even scary.
I think Spielberg's "big hits" are likely behind him, however. I liked some of his recent movies like Catch Me if You Can. But yeah...some really terrible ones like Indy IV in there.
I remember reading an article in a magazine (Time I think?) a few years back that said that Spielberg movies have grossed more then any other single person in the history of films (George Lucas was second for anyone who was curious). I can see where people have a legit argument that he has not been as relevant recently but I don't think anyone can debate the success he's had as a director, producer, and film maker.
My biggest problem with Spielberg is the way he ends his films. I always feel, and this is almost exclusively with his films, that the last 30 minutes were unnecessary. AI is a prime example. I also felt this way about Terminal, Saving Private Ryan, and several others.
Comments
Still, he is a phenomenally gifted film maker and I will continue to go see whatever he does, because even his train-wrecks are more interesting the 95% of what gets made.
Clearly you didn't see Bloodrayne. If you had, you'd say 97%.
Speilberg is a genius.
No question. He's ripped off people, sure, but so what. Genius knows what and when to rip off.
For those of you who HATE Speilberg, you might try watching "1941". Read up on it -- it was a bomb. The Pluto Nash of the 1970s.
It's one of my favorite movies, but that's me.
It's been a while since I've seen it, but are you doing what I do with AI? I just pretend that the movie ends with the robot under water, frozen, and staring at the blue fairy.
Heh. When I saw it in the theater I was actually thinking, as that scene ended, "hey, that's a pretty powerful and satisfying ending" and then, as the movie kept going thought "uh oh".
Then, as the credits rolled, thought "WTF?" I wonder if that coda had anything to do with the Kubrick work that had been done? I would guess not, although I suppose it's possible that Kubrick had a sequence that he actually intended to play like a cold parody of a "happy ending", and Spielberg just misunderstood.
Is it just me or is Tom Cruise the fastest man ever on film? Every movie that has him running, (The Firm, Minority Report, Collateral) that son-of-a-bitch could outrun a cheetah.
This is just one of the many powers bestowed on Cruise by the great Xenu.
This is just one of the many powers bestowed on Cruise by the great Xenu.
And the others?
Hey guys, I like War of the Worlds. I'd like to argue please.
Same here. I am an ardent supporter of Spielberg's movies. He's manipulative to a fault, which is what makes his movies great. He's one of the all-time best in his medium.
Amastad was a VERY well done movie of Spielberg.
...in a Coffee Table book sort of way.
Complete nonsense, thread necro, and undectuple posting
Why? Please answer that.
First, we have the Multi-quote feature for a reason.
Second, why the five year old thread necro?
Third, we don't insult people here.
I'm with Midwinter here.
Close Encounters, Jaws, ET and Raiders were all excellent movies (still pissed that they cut out "penis breath" in the ET reissue, though.
Except for Raiders, which was just a fun adventure, they were all about the suspense, and the wonderment in imagination, not in what was displayed on screen, CGI and puppeteering or not. They were about the story.
This would be the opposite about how I feel about Jurassic Park, which to me was just uh... blah. It was supposed to be a fun adventure like Indiana Jones maybe, but for me it just wasn't as fun. Basically a decent premise stretched out for 2 hours with scary CGI and no story. But Jaws and Close Encounters were not like that at all!
I am especially fond of Close Encounters. I mean it had everything. It had alien abduction and electronic interference, telepathic thought transference, believable communication attempts with an alien race (none of this everybody speaks English or has handheld translation devices), and even Government Conspiracy. I mean it's basically "The X-Files". I loved Dreyfuss in that movie, too. His aloof, innocent, everyman portrayal was perfect.
And it (and ET and Jaws) had suspense. Not suspense about seeing the special effects like Spindler implies, but suspense along the lines of "wow I can't wait to see what happens next!" I wonder how Spindler feels about Hitchcock...
I think todays nonstop action blockbuster bullshit has killed exciting cinema. Except for Jurassic Park, Spielberg's legacy was the fact that he had all the latest special effects at his disposal, and was still able to tell a gripping story.
I'm pretty much with you on this. I would disagree about Jurassic Park. I thought it was a fun movie. John Williams' score really made it for me. I agree 100% about Close Encounters. To this day I find it to be suspenseful and even scary.
I think Spielberg's "big hits" are likely behind him, however. I liked some of his recent movies like Catch Me if You Can. But yeah...some really terrible ones like Indy IV in there.