The Steven Spielberg Thread (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Watching it right now. 30 minutes in and I think I’ve teared up twice already.

Great movie, my favorite performance in the film is Dana Andrews.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think it's woefully under seen because it was so timely when it was made that that made it fall between the cracks because the perception is that only really relates to people returning from WWII.

You mean under seen by people of today? As it was a popular film during its release and was shown a lot on TV before the cable era.

 

[Carabimero]

Great movie, my favorite performance in the film is Dana Andrews.

Some trivia: all the major players in the movie received $100,000, except Dana Andrews, who got $86,000 because he was already under contract by the studio.

How much did the only actor ever to receive two Oscars for one role get? Harold Russell received a mere $6,000. Why? He had neither acting experience nor an agent, which didn't help him, but the true reason is, sadly, he was disabled.

Russell later received heat when he sold one of his Oscars. Defending himself, he said, "What do I need two of them for? I want to take my wife on a cruise before I croak."

Incidentally, I once talked favorite movies with Spielberg. When I told him BEST YEARS was hands down my favorite, he raved about the shot of Butch and Homer at the piano, while in the background we see Fred in the phone booth calling to break it off with Peggy, and all the while, Al watches everything. Spielberg admired the deep focus and how so much of that movie is told in patient masters.

 

[Chelsearicky]

I own a copy but haven't yet watched it.

As far as what I have seen, I don't care for many of his more well regarded works.

What I like and will watch without someone else making the selection:

1941 - One of my favorite Spielberg films. Yes, it's flawed. But it's also fun. He also didn't write it which, I think, helped.

Minority Report. The only SF film the man has made that I truly enjoy. It benefits by being based on a Philip K. Dick story.

The Indiana Jones series. I like them all, even the "lesser" films in the series. The first is my favorite.

Schindler's List. I consider this to be his best work. Great film. Hard to watch.

Saving Private Ryan. Excellent battle sequences but I just couldn't buy into the premise. Still, I mostly like it.

Twilight Zone: The Movie. Tolerable, but feels like a string of TV episodes, which it essentially is, and I'm not generally a fan of portmanteau films. As far as TZ:TM, I'd rather watch the original TV series stories these were based on. The best part is the wrap-around segments, although "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet" with Lithgow is pretty good. I don't care for the segment, "Kick the Can," which Spielberg directed.

The others that I've seen I do not care for. I'll only rewatch them if someone else chooses. Those are:

Close Encounters - When it came out I was entertained and enjoyed the film up until the end where they totally lost the momentum and any believability they'd built up to that point. I feel it has a horrible, anticlimactic, and somewhat tacked on feeling ending. I just can't buy into the way Dreifus' character just blithely "walks up to" the installation becomes part of the "circus." The "communication" with the alien ship is absolutely laughable. It does have good visuals and a good score but those two things do not, in themselves, make a good movie. I won a copy. Otherwise I'd not own one.

E.T. - Kiddie SF. I might have liked it when I was 8-10 but truly don't think so. My daughter likes it, or did when she was 5 (don't know about now). I bought a copy to see if any of her kids (7, 11, & 14) would like it. The 11 & 14 year old did not. To the best of my knowledge the 7 year old hasn't yet seen it.

Jaws - I've never been fond of this type of film and this one did nothing to change my mind. I was bored out of my skull most of the time and the suspense just wasn't suspenseful. I own a copy because it came in a Universal 100th Anniversary Collection movie set. It's still unwatched but may soon receive a viewing for my grandson (14) who's asked about it on occasion.

The Lost World films. The first is the best of the bunch. It's not that great. They, especially the first, are based on a book by an author I consider to be mostly a hack who produces trite, cliche, works, constantly putting out the same story reworked with just enough changes to make it feel different. I read the book. While I feel it wasn't that good, the story in the book is superior to the one in the film. My son loved Jurassic Park - he was 11 when it came out. I took him to see it and was constantly "biting my tongue" so I wouldn't laugh and ruin it for him as he was totally engrossed in the film. Had I seen it at age 11 I likely would have been too, but not as an adult. Great visual effects and score but, for me, little else. It is a thinly veiled reworking of Crichton's West World, which I also do not like for many of the reasons I do not like Jurassic Park. I own copies of all the films in the series because I got a set very cheaply. My grandson likes the first. He's not yet seen the others and I've not seen the most recent one.

War of the Worlds. A loud and rather generic summer action/adventure/screamer/popcorn film. Totally annoying and vastly implausible, even taking into account suspension of belief. Not my idea of a good H.G. Wells adaptation. I didn't see it until I purchased a copy. It's been watched once and I hope no one asks to see it. If they do, I'll argue for watching George Pal's version instead.

Hook. A train wreck. I purchased a copy because I like Disney's Peter Pan and thought a live action film would be good, especially from Spielberg. I was wrong.

I've not seen any of his other films and, other than Lincoln, have no desire to see them. I probably should give A.I. a chance as it is truly a Kubrick film, a director whose work I almost unilaterally enjoy, but it's also SF from Spielberg, a genre, based on the films I've seen, I don't think he does particularly well for an adult viewer.

So... That said, I do feel he pulls good performances out of actors, has a good sense of action, placement, and the other traits that make for a "good" director. I consider him to be one of the better directors of the past 30 or so years. He also has serviceable, but not great, writing skills. I just don't like his choice of material much of the time.

 

[Chelsearicky]

What are the concensus feelings around "Poltergeist" ? I think this film should be assessed as part of his 'oeuvre', since it's common knowledge he hijacked the direction.

 

[Tino]

What are the concensus feelings around "Poltergeist" ? I think this film should be assessed as part of his 'oeuvre', since it's common knowledge he hijacked the direction.

I disagree.

As do others.

Poltergeist director Tobe Hooper 'deserved' directing credit, not Steven Spielberg, says filmmaker.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/09/14/poltergeist-tobe-hooper-steven-spielberg/

 

[Tino]

Also Spielberg himself credited Hooper as the director of Poltergeist in an open letter to Variety.

All that said I’m sure Spielberg had tons of input and likely directed a few shots.

But the bulk of the film is Hoopers.

 

[TravisR]

You mean under seen by people of today?

Yeah. The fact that it was a huge hit after the war is what makes its current lower profile even crazier to me.

What are the concensus feelings around "Poltergeist" ? I think this film should be assessed as part of his 'oeuvre', since it's common knowledge he hijacked the direction.

I think Tobe Hooper deserved the director credit but Spielberg did probably tell him what do when necessary (Hooper hadn't done big effects before and Spielberg was already a vet) or when Spielberg wanted something specific to get the most out of the scene. However, I'd consider Poltergeist to be part of Spielberg's filmography not because he was the director but because he came up with the story & also co-wrote the script.

 

[Carabimero]

In his terrific book DIRECTED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG, Warren Buckland does a thorough analysis of many Spielberg movies, then analyzes Poltergeist, looking for a preponderance of Spielbergian construction techniques. Buckland concludes, and I agree with him, that Tobe Hooper directed Poltergiest and deserves credit for that accomplishment.

It's a shame about those rumors all these years. I've always thought the whole thing unfair to Hooper.

 

[Tino]

Regardless this thread is dedicated to all things Spielberg, not just the films he directed (or didn’t ).

Any film he was involved with is open for discussion. So have at it.

 

[Chelsearicky]

In his terrific book DIRECTED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG, Warren Buckland does a thorough analysis of many Spielberg movies, then analyzes Poltergeist, looking for a preponderance of Spielbergian construction techniques. Buckland concludes, and I agree with him, that Tobe Hooper directed Poltergiest and deserves credit for that accomplishment.

It's a shame about those rumors all these years. I've always thought the whole thing unfair to Hooper.

I guess I've always thought this was the case after reading an interview with Zelda Rubenstein, who said that Hooper was, at best, peripheral to Speilberg as far as the direction went.

 

[Carabimero]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that rewatching all the Spielberg movies I had only seen twice led to a new appreciation of WAR HORSE and WAR OF THE WORLDS. I bought both of these titles on BD recently and they now join ET, Raiders, Jaws, CE3K, Catch Me If You Can, Munich, Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Lincoln and Duel in my Spielberg BD collection. The rest of his movies will have to languish on my DVDs...

That said, I'd forgotten how much I enjoy watching special features when they are well-done and generously offered. The one-hour documentary about the making of War Horse was a lot of fun, and then the two hours or so of special features on War of the World were simply first rate. When I compare that to the Schindler or Ryan BD which has nothing, I can appreciate those special features even more. Sometimes when I'm in the head for a certain movie, and there's in-depth special features that go with it, there's simply nothing better.

I miss the days of David Prior doing Die Hard special features or Planet of the Apes, or a Fincher movie like Fight Club. Those were the days. Now it's almost always a fight to get any special features produced, certainly anything in-depth.

Really glad I re-discovered War Horse and War of the Worlds.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

More quick reviews:

Minority Report: "As a movie, Minority Report showed some weaknesses but it seemed generally intriguing and involving. It provided a compelling and lively piece of work that marks something different from Steven Spielberg."

Catch Me If You Can: "Catch Me If You Can boasts a compelling true story and a good cast who offer fine work. Unfortunately, its director falters because he takes too long to tell the tale and also fails to give it much panache or dazzle. Enough of Catch seems entertaining to mean it merits a look, but in the end I was disappointed by it. "

The Terminal: "Despite some flaws, I like The Terminal. It gets tiresome toward the end and threatens never to conclude, and inconsistent storytelling renders it less involving than I’d like. Nonetheless, it presents a clever premise with some amusing situations and good performances. It’s nothing special but it remains enjoyable."

War of the Worlds: "A science-fiction film by Steven Spielberg has to fill some big shoes. A thoroughly exciting and enjoyable action/horror flick, War of the Worlds lives up to expectations. I wouldn’t classify it on the level of Spielberg’s absolute best work, but it’s definitely one of the strongest movies he’s made in years."

Munich: "Despite the movie’s ups and downs, I think it possesses more than enough power to succeed. No one will mistake this for tight, coherent filmmaking, and Munich doesn’t live up to Spielberg’s best efforts. However, it leaves an impression and deserves credit for that. "

 

[Tino]

I’m thinking where to place Ready Player One on my Spielberg list.

Like I said in the other thread I think it’s his most entertaining film since E.T.

Hmmm

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I’m thinking where to place Ready Player One on my Spielberg list.

Like I said in the other thread I think it’s his most entertaining film since E.T.

Hmmm

Though I suspect we'll always disagree on where to rank "RPO", don't you think it makes sense to wait a while before you try to "rank" it?

Or any movie, really. I wouldn't try to formally rank a new movie among the rest of a director's filmography until I'd lived with the movie for a few years.

I could say where I'd rate it right now but would be reluctant to state unequivocally that it's in 10th place or whatever...

 

[Tino]

Though I suspect we'll always disagree on where to rank "RPO", don't you think it makes sense to wait a while before you try to "rank" it?

Or any movie, really. I wouldn't try to formally rank a new movie among the rest of a director's filmography until I'd lived with the movie for a few years.

I could say where I'd rate it right now but would be reluctant to state unequivocally that it's in 10th place or whatever...

Good point.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Good point.

OMG - Tino said I made a good point!

Is it April 1st again???

 

[Carabimero]

Though I suspect we'll always disagree on where to rank "RPO", don't you think it makes sense to wait a while before you try to "rank" it?

Or any movie, really. I wouldn't try to formally rank a new movie among the rest of a director's filmography until I'd lived with the movie for a few years.

I could say where I'd rate it right now but would be reluctant to state unequivocally that it's in 10th place or whatever...

Exactly my problem with the validity of CinemaScore for ranking movies, which many seem to hold in such high regard. The worst time to ask someone how good they think a movie is, IMO, is right after they see it for the first time in a theater with an audience. Some people (myself included) are always gonna say it's better or worse than they think it is after seeing it again later because of the live environment and the collective, fresh emotions in play.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Exactly my problem with the validity of CinemaScore for ranking movies, which many seem to hold in such high regard. The worst time to ask someone how good they think a movie is, IMO, is right after they see it for the first time in a theater with an audience. Some people (myself included) are always gonna say it's better or worse than they think it is after seeing it again later because of the live environment and the collective, fresh emotions in play.

True - though then again, most people don't watch movies over and over like we do!

 

[Carabimero]

True - though then again, most people don't watch movies over and over like we do!

Which makes my point even more. Any ranking system based on spur-of-the-moment data is questionable to me.