Directors - Steven Spielberg (1 Viewer)

[Eric Peterson]

I've gotta chime in here. I'm not a big Spielberg fan by any means, but I still have a tremendous amount of respect for the man. To say that he's a bad director would be flat-out wrong. That said, very few of his films leave any sort of lasting impact on me, and even fewer of them inspire me to re-watch them. All in all, he's definitely one of the best filmmakers of the last 30 years, but that's not exactly a high compliment.

His Best Work
Duel - Nothing he has made since has been better
Raiders of the Lost Ark - Damn Close to Perfect
Jaws - Incredibly important and entertaining film

Moderate Works
Minority Report - Very entertainig Sci-Fi romp
Close Encounters - Interesting, but overlong & slow Sci-Fi romp
The Color Purple - Decent film with good social criticism, but I'll most likely never watch it again.
Schindler's List - Powerful film about biogtry, but much of it doesn't work for me, and after a second viewing last year, I realized that I will never watch this again either.
Amistad - I enjoyed this film, but have only seen it once. I will watch this again at some point.
E.T. - A few brilliant moments and a great story, but this film just doesn't flow well. I find myself wanting to fast forward through vast portions of this film.

Then they fall off real quick:
Saving Private Ryan - Extremely powerful first 30 minutes, and then quickly falls into a tiresome war drama. Another film that I have no desire to rewatch.
A.I. - I remember being moderately entertained in the theater by this film, and quickly bought the DVD upon it's release, but it has sat on my shelf ever since, with absolutley no desire to bring it down. It's now on my "To Sell" pile.
Jurassic Park - Fun to look at, but nothing more. I've had no desire to rewatch this since it's theatrical release. This film set some new levels for effects, but there's nothing more there.
Catch Me if You Can - I almost fell asleep during this one, and was quite relieved when it finally ended. A few moments were good (Primarily with Walken)
The Terminal - Very near the bottom of the list for 2004. I saw about 40 movies last year, and the only one below this was "Ladykillers"

Need to re-watch
Temple of Doom & Last Crusade - I haven't watched these since I was a kid. Neither made a long lasting impression, but before I pass judgement, I should see these again.

Haven't Seen:
Sugarland Express
Empire of the Sun
The Lost World
Hook
Always
1941

 

[george kaplan]

Spielberg haters are going to love this list

 

[Steve Christou]

Good one George. 10,000 Empire readers have voted for the greatest movie director.
I mostly agree with their choices, except I wouldn't put Woody Allen and the Coens anywhere near a top 20. Hitch is my favorite director living or dead nice to see him at no.2. Better than having a couple of snooty critics pick their favorites eh?


Spielberg voted king of films

THE TOP 40


1 Steven Spielberg

2 Alfred Hitchcock

3 Martin Scorsese

4 Stanley Kubrick

5 Sir Ridley Scott

6 Akira Kurosawa

7 Peter Jackson

8 Quentin Tarantino

9 Orson Welles

10 Woody Allen

11 Clint Eastwood

12 Sir David Lean

13 The Coen Brothers

14 James Cameron

15 Francis Ford Coppola

16 Oliver Stone

17 Sergio Leone

18 John Ford

19 Billy Wilder

20 Sam Peckinpah

21 Howard Hawks

22 Robert Zemeckis

23 Michael Mann

24 David Lynch

25 Spike Lee

26 François Truffaut

27 Brian De Palma

28 Tony Scott

29 Fritz Lang

30 Tim Burton

31 George Lucas

32 Anthony Minghella

33 Ron Howard

34 Sam Raimi

35 Charlie Chaplin

36 Ingmar Bergman

37 M Night Shyamalan

38 Peter Weir

39 Terry Gilliam

40 Robert Altman

 

[Dick]

Any discussion like this is 100% subjective. One man's poison... But I've always felt that Spielberg indulges in what might be called "interim films" between the ones he really expends his talents for, not as though he's slumming, but as though he's taking a breather. I think "Catch Me If You Can" and "The Terminal" were almost like sitting in the corner between rounds for him (for most any other director either film would have been an incredible challenge), and that WAR OF THE WORLDS is going to blow our socks off. Hope so.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Any list of great directors that puts Charlie Chaplin at number 35, behind Ron Howard & Sam Raimi, and just edging out Shyamalan is completely invalid.

...and then there's Peter Jackson at #7? He may be a great director, but quite simply doesn't have enough films under his belt to even be considered for a spot that high. With that kind of Logic I'm surprised that George Lucas isn't in the top 3.

 

[Ernest Rister]

*

 

[GuruAskew]

I think "Lincoln" is still tentative enough that he could push it back if George Lucas wanted to go ahead with Indy IV.

 

[ReggieW]

I agree with Bren.

He has pretty much echoed my sentiments. Spielberg comes across to me as too sentimentally manipulative and "establishment" for MY own personal taste. As a teenager, I thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but once I began to experience the work of other directors whom I felt handled similar subjects far more maturely, my love for Spielberg waned a great deal. HOWEVER, I still think Spielberg is a great director, and he is without question, one of the worlds greatest living director's. Regarding the Empire Director's survey.... I do find it interesting that the very British Michael Powell is missing from the "Empire" greatest director survey. Also where's Eisenstein, Fellini, Lubitsch, Renoir, Bunuel, John Huston, George Stevens, and countless others? Ultimately such polls are silly, and let's be honest... many people in these polls "probably" have not seen many films from the director's missing from the list...which probably explains their omission. How Peter Jackson, Tony Scott (!!??), The Coen Brothers, and Shymalan can make it on the list ahead of the directors I listed as missing is testament of this.

 

[Seth Paxton]

How I rank them, in 3 tiers...

Raiders of the Lost Ark (my #3 film ever behind 2001 and Ben-Hur)
Jaws (my #5 film all-time)
Schindler's List
Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind
Saving Private Ryan
E.T. The Extra Terrestrial
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Minority Report
Empire of the Sun

Jurassic Park
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Catch Me If You Can
Sugarland Express
The Color Purple

Duel
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Always
1941
Hook
Amistad
The Terminal


So to by that ranking I think you see that I agree he hasn't lost a step and is still making films of a similar artistic caliber. In fact I am impressed with how he has been able to maintain this quality while at the same time making very different looking films covering a wide range of topics.

And I'd say that the while the impact of Jaws, CE3K, ET, and Raiders on society might be impossible to match, he sure came close in making Schindlers, Jurassic Park and Saving Private Ryan into giant cultural landmarks as well.

Some of the "its not the same" aspect comes from less impact because the level of quality and success is now expected from him, even used as promotion for these films. Yes by Raiders he was a giant, but that (to me) was also his peak point. He just kept raising the bar so much that it kept audiences surprised and impressed.

But that has to run out eventually. Sooner or later people will get used to the quality, even used to the surprising increases (oh, Jordan did it again factor).

 

[ZackR]

Ernest,

Didn't you post an analysis of A.I. on this forum a year or two ago? I remember reading it but have searched for probably an hour now trying to dig it up. If it was indeed you and you have the link or text handy, I would love to read it again. I also think it would be a good addition to this thread. Thanks.

 

[Dharmesh C]

The difference is that Kubrick, and I'm talking about post Hollywood, offers both sides but never dictates which is ultimately right. You watch a Kubrick and you are watching from afar, you are never in the film.

Speilberg works in absolutes; none of his films offer the ultimate dilemmna - who is right and who is wrong.

 

[AlexCremers]

With other words, Spielberg brings more "emotional" cinema and Kubrick does "intellectual" cinema. And because Spielberg does "emotional", his films seem less controlled than Kubrick's.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

While I certainly don't think Catch Me If You Can was a buffer film, I think he's put a lot of thought and effort into how he conceived War of the Worlds; if WOTW was just another commerical film to keep his name afloat commerically, he would have made another ID4, in terms of sheer spectacle. This is the most intellectually concieved blockbuster in a while.
Actually, this is a fascinating year for blockbusters. All three of the big summer blockbusters — Revenge of the Sith, Batman Begins, and War of the Worlds — all defy vapid blockbuster convention in one way or another. It makes a fascinating year at the movies.

 

[ZackR]

Nevermind, I found it here . Definitely an interesting read!

 

[Mike Graham]

Adam Lenhardt said:



Can you really say this for sure without actually seeing the film first?

 

[Ernest Rister]

*

 

[Nathan Phillips]

I agree absolutely with Ernest.

Anyway, when I was younger, I resented Spielberg, then I finally saw "Jaws."

Actually, this will sound trivial and dumb... but I realized the big reason I always found Spielberg "manipulative" was his choice of John Williams as composer. Williams' work really doesn't work for me, but I'm picky about movie scores; I also can't stand Miklos Rosza, for the record. Anyway, putting that criticism aside, Spielberg has become one of my favorite directors. Hitchcock is #1 for me and I sense Hitchcock in some elements of both Spielberg and Kubrick -- Kubrick because of the moral ambiguity, Spielberg because of the fierce level of identification with his lead characters.

It may count for something that, obsessing over movies in the last year, I've learned that storytelling is the absolute #1 for me, and Spielberg is undoubtedly a master storyteller.

I've also never bought the idea of Kubrick as misanthropist or cold, restrained intellectual. I mean, you could make a similar argument for Woody Allen if you tried, but what's the point? However much they revel in cynicism, Kubrick's movies are always humanistic and emotional. To me, at least.

 

[Dharmesh C]

I'm not saying Kubrick is cold, far from it, but I do think that the majority of his pictures do not offer to take the viewer into the film like Speilberg does. I love Kubrick, and it's not a criticism of his style, which is incredibly subtle, but I do think he puts up a opaque barrier.
Watching a Kubrick picture is like looking into a mirror, it reflects the state of our own lives and our surroundings.

Hasn't Speilberg gone on record saying that he regretted making carictures of the Nazis in Raiders?

 

[Ernest Rister]

*

 

[Dharmesh C]

I don't know, I think we are watching the events but maybe not a part of it.
There seems to be exceptions (2001 finale) and myabe my arguement will fall flat on its face, which I don't mind, cos I'm always being taught something knew by watching a Kubrick film.