What Spielberg movies you didn't like and why? (2 Viewers)

[BrettB]

Who are you? Béla Károlyi? )

 

[George_W_K]

I'd have to look up his movies on IMDB because I can't think of too many films I don't like, even though I know there are a bunch. I can say I don't like AI at all, it was way too boring for me.

The most recent bomb for me is Indy 4. I pretty much can't believe how badly that turned out. The biggest problem for me was the CGI, completely took me out of the movie.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind. It's actually not that bad a movie but I just don't like the ending with Dreyfuss (well, there he is again) abandoning his family to wander around with the aliens.

[spits out drink] Whaaaa...?

Just kidding. We're all entitled to our opinions. For me the subversive brilliance of the film hinges on its ending--we shouldn't be cheering Dreyfuss abandoning his responsibilities, but we do.

Originally Posted by Claire Panke

Jaws - I hate it. HATE...IT.

Well, it takes some kind of bravery to say that on a movie discussion board. I commend you.

The "worst" Spielberg films all tend to have good things in them. But Indy IV really didn't. Not even any good action sequences to liven things up. It wasn't necessarily terrible overall, but tired and uninspired. Almost 20 years, and this was the script they all finally agreed on? Yeesh.

For years, I resisted seeing 1941, knowing that it was considered a misfire. Then one day I finally recorded it off cable and saw it, thinking that maybe I would find more in it to enjoy than others. But, no, not really. It actually is a misfire. Misbegotten, and simply not funny.

While "The Terminal" wasn't a bad film, it just wasn't memorable. A very minor work from a major director.

Oh, and to Eric Peterson--See "Sugarland Express." It's great.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Eric Peterson]

Oh, and to Eric Peterson--See "Sugarland Express." It's great.

Thanks, I just saw an interview with Spielberg a few weeks ago and he mentioned how many scenes from this film were inspired by Billy Wilder's "Ace in the Hole" which is one of my all-time favorites. I think that I will check that one out.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Eric Peterson



Thanks, I just saw an interview with Spielberg a few weeks ago and he mentioned how many scenes from this film were inspired by Billy Wilder's "Ace in the Hole" which is one of my all-time favorites. I think that I will check that one out.

It's not hard to see the Ace In The Hole influence on Sugarland Express. Very good movie especially considering it was the first* theatrical feature he made.

* Counting Duel as a TV movie.

 

[MattFini]

This one is SO easy for me.

War of the Worlds - sloppy, silly and overblown.
The Terminal - totally uninspired from beginning to end
The Lost Word - Spielberg phoned this in.

 

[Pete-D]

It's a guilty pleasure, but I have to admit I like Hook.

John Williams' score is absolutely epic too in Hook as well and I found Hoffman and Hopkins to be great as Captain Hook and Smee.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I was 11 when hook came out, and enjoyed it as a kid. Wasn't that the intended audience, children? So what's with all the hate for it?

 

[Joe:C]

I was 11 when hook came out, and enjoyed it as a kid. Wasn't that the intended audience, children? So what's with all the hate for it?

Same here. I never had a problem with Hook.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Hook; I was 8 or 9 and liked it a lot (still do), as do all my friends of the same age. I guess the pieces just don't gel with some people because I can't find any major faults with the movie.

 

[JonZ]

I love 1941. Always have. I think its hysterical.

The only movie of his I can say I REALLY dont like is ET, and I HATED the last 20 minutes of AI, which I thought was amazing up to that point.

Ive never seen Always, Empire Of The Sun, The Color Purple or The Terminal

 

[Radioman970]

As soon as The Lost Boys appear in Hook I pretty much want to spoon out my eyeballs and cram them deep into my ears. If a kid can sit down and enjoy, which I know many can (my neph loved it) then fine. He can post on here about it. But I hated most of it and thats what I'm a'postin as such!! Hahaha! Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman both give it their best so I can't fault them. I think it's poor adaption of an existing story. The other Peter Pan adaption that was done year back is excellent. I love it!

That's probably about it for Speilberg hate from me. I even like 1941, even if just a little bit. It gets a lot of pot shots but it really isn't TOTALLY terrible. The scenes with Slim Pickens are actually kind of funny. I can't help but like Belushi in just about everything he did. The effects in the film are nice. Visually it's strong I guess. I picked up the DVD months ago but have only ever watched it on old cable and a tape I made myself. Hopefully the DVD transfer is good to help the enjoyment even further. I'll watch it some time. Looking forward to it.

Speilberg is probably my favorite director, along with Terry Gilliam. I adore ET, JAWS, AI (last 20 minutes ESPECIALLY!!! :p ) and nearly everything else. Iffy on a few.

 

[Adam_S]

1. The Color Purple - great cast, but a terrible adaptation, and I think most of the problems lie in the director being uncomfortable and unsure of himself.
2. Always - a decent rom com, but pales in comparison to the original
3. The Terminal - it almost works but just doesn't click enough to really be something special.

 

Can only think of Always that I wasn't fond of. Richard Dreyfus is unpleasant, which is a problem I always have to work out between myself and Close Encounters, as well as muddy as hell PQ. This is what I wrote about it back in 2006 for imdb:

Unsatisfying, but only by Spielberg's standards. Rent 'Ghost' instead., 13 July 2006
Richard Dreyfuss plays a reckless pilot who tells his girlfriend she'll never get over him, dies early on in the film, and is then given a kind-of mission by Hep (an incredible-looking 60-year old Audrey Hepburn) to do an unselfish act. Spielberg has the gift to draw you in, but on a scale of Spielberg to Home Video, 'Always' disappoints. There is something unsatisfying about it - we're used to such entertainment from Spielberg, that when he delivers us an intimate, personal film about grief, it can't help but seem lacking. It is uneven and flawed - mainly because it is shallow and naive. In so many places it compromises its intimacy in order to lighten the mood: the bawdy jokes in the first ten minutes, the supernaturalism. Then there is the nauseating screen presence of Richard Dreyfuss, who tries to balance the sentimentalism of the material but ends up looking obnoxious. First prize for the worst laugh in cinema history. Rent 'Ghost' (1990) instead.

Jaws I've only ever seen on crappy TV prints, in 4:3, but I've never really enjoyed it yet.

The Lost World I think is his only really shitty movie.

Other than that, this guy is just some kind of movie gold farmer. He just gets gold out of anything. Thank God for S.S.

 

[Jason Charlton]

I haven't seen all of his films, and can only think of two that I really dislike:

Indy 4 - I like to think that the crappiness of this movie was mostly the result of George Lucas, and had Spielberg not had to deal with him, it would have gone in a different direction and been a much better film.

JP2 - Pretty much all the parties involved in this were simply cashing in on the first one's success - even Michael Crichton (who will always be my favorite author) really wrote a crummy sequel story that ended up being even further ruined in the screenplay adaptation.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Jason Charlton

Indy 4 - I like to think that the crappiness of this movie was mostly the result of George Lucas, and had Spielberg not had to deal with him, it would have gone in a different direction and been a much better film.

Yes, eventhough Speilberg, Ford and Lucas all had to agree on the script, it's all George Lucas' fault. I also blame Lucas for turmoil in the middle east and the economy.

 

[Brett_B]

Originally Posted by TravisR





Yes, eventhough Speilberg, Ford and Lucas all had to agree on the script, it's all George Lucas' fault. I also blame Lucas for turmoil in the middle east and the economy.

I am a little hazy on the timeline in regards to the development of this film (Indy 4), but I seem to remember reading that there were several scripts submitted (even one by Frank Darabont) that Lucas was the one who shot them down. If this truly was the case, I could see Ford and Speilberg agreeing to a script that Lucas liked just to get the ball rolling (none of them were getting any younger).

Just a thought.

As a side note, I absolutely depised Indy 4. Too many unintentional laughs, and shake your head moments. As much as I hated Temple of Doom, I would GLADLY watch that one again over Indy 4 (no desire to see EVER again). Just my personal opinion.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Brett_B

I am a little hazy on the timeline in regards to the development of this film (Indy 4), but I seem to remember reading that there were several scripts submitted (even one by Frank Darabont) that Lucas was the one who shot them down. If this truly was the case, I could see Ford and Speilberg agreeing to a script that Lucas liked just to get the ball rolling (none of them were getting any younger).

Just a thought.

Yeah, I've always heard that it was Lucas who didn't like Frank Darabont's script and that's why they didn't do that one.

If the case is that Speilberg and Ford agreed to a script that they didn't like just so they could start the movie, I think they deserve more blame (if you don't like the movie) than Lucas. At least Lucas wanted to make that script. Obviously, I'm speculating but I think Speilberg and Ford do care about their work and the character more than to do that.

 

[Brian Borst]

Frank Darabont's script was horrible, it read like something written by a fan. It was full of references of the other movies, not a clear villain and other things that didn't work.
Spielberg's and Lucas' problems were with the direction the movie was supposed to go. Spielberg wanted to hold onto the past (with a tone similar to the other three) and Lucas wanted to give it a different tone, which makes sense with the story set in the fifties. The end result ended up neither this nor that, and that's the fault of both. But of course Lucas gets all the blame.

 

My main gripe with Indy 4 (if you can call it that, since the other three were pure gold) is the usually incredible Cate Blanchette, who is dressed and talks like she's escaped form a cold war propaganda film (by which I mean a James Bond film. Just kidding.)

I just can't get past it. I cringe every time I see that costume or hear that shoddy accent.