That's it. Steven Spielberg needs some serious ass-whoopin'. (spoilers)

[CanuckAmok]

Okay, he's considered one of the greatest directors of the modern age.

But...

AI... what the fuck? I mean, I liked it, but what the fuck? Not only did the movie appear to end about forty times before it actually did, but why the hell were aliens with a highly advanced civilization and technology out the yin-yangs only able to recreate the mother for a day? That's pretty lame.

Jaws... rubber shark. rubber shark. help. oh I am so scared.

Saving Private Ryan... Greatest opening sequence ever in the history of storytelling... but why no British/Canadian/Free French/Polish/Czech soldiers? And why let the movie's powerful and bloody message be convaluted by the kind of cookie-cutter jingoism and patriotism that would make Frank Capra vomit with envy? And what happened to Max Martini's close-up shot? Fuck, he went all the way to Scotland to be in the movie, and for the coverage he got...well, he could have played his part from the Atlantic City Boardwalk.


Schindler's List... no complaints here, except a really creative commercial tie-in with the Schindler Elevator Company wasn't explored. "Schindler's Lifts"?! A golden opportunity, wasted.


Duel... again, no real complaints, except the voice-over is terribly dated and hackneyed. And the truck doesn't explode at the end. You just sit there waiting for it to go BOOM, and it doesn't. Maybe that's what Dennis Weaver was waiting for, too.

Finally (and I know I posted this elsewhere, but kiss my butt)...

War of the Worlds... Right after an EMP pulse wipes out ALL electrical devices (even watches) some guy manages to videotape the aliens before having his shit vapourized? Same with TV camera crews.

How is it that the National Guard were able to drive around and communicate after suffering the effects of an EMP blast? Planes and helicopters in the air? C'mon.

Sure, maybe the EMP blast had temporary effects, MAYBE... but Cruise's Dodge Caravan had to have a new starter solonoid before it could run. If cars started up a few minutes after the pulse, the son should have driven the Mustang fastback back to Cruise's place, and the could have driven around in that, as opposed to that lame, faux-wood-paneled and plastic geared monstrosity.

How is it possible that a 747 drops directly on Tom Cruise's ex-wife's place and they survive the impact by being in the basement? Unless their root-cellar was made out of Little Black Box, there's no way they'd survive that shitstorm.

Why am I always immediately annoyed by Dakota Fanning?

What the hell happened to the son that he wandered off into an alien/National Guard slaughterama but managed to get, unscathed, to his mom's place in Boston? Why no backstory or explanation?

Why, in a crowd of about a thousand frightened Americans driven from their homes and facing the apocalypse, was there only one handgun between them? I know in my version of this movie, that scene would have rivalled the Matrix for spent casings hitting the ground in slo-mo, and extras buying the farm in spectacular fashion.

Why was the ferry filled with cars (which somehow evaded both the EMP pulse AND the angry mobs along the way) with single-occupancy drivers, when there were literally thousands of walk-on passengers trying to get on or be killed? Did the Captain sell the space to motorists? Because no ship's officer would allow such wasteful use of limited space when peoples' lives were at stake.


Spielberg, get your shit together, man.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. He is NOT one of the greatest directors

He has done a couple films that were brilliant, but for the most part, he's a cliche- and formula-driven asswipe who can't direct without massive amounts of emotional manipulation and pandering to the basest instincts of the dumbest movie-going public.

He's done little that's actually creative or compelling.

[CanuckAmok]

2. "Dually" noted!

I revised my OP to say "considered" one of the greatest. But not by you or by me.

[tjdee]

17. Like Shakespeare?

"he's a cliche- and formula-driven asswipe who can't direct/WRITE without massive amounts of emotional manipulation and pandering to the basest instincts of the dumbest movie-goingTHEATER GOING public."

Isn't that basically what Shakespeare was doing back in the day?
sad, huh?

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Gosh, let me think about that....

mmmm....







thinking....














hmmmmmm.........
















ah, no. That's not what Shakespeare was doing.,

What an ignorant comparison.

[tjdee]

24. Shakespeare wasn't the Shakespeare of his day, certainly....

he wasn't writing cerebral, classy stuff for literati.

Clearly there's a difference between he and Spielberg. I can't stand Spielberg actually, but your description of him made me think of how I've heard others describe Shakespeare in his day.

I had a fuller thought out response and everything, but my computer crashed and now I'm too irritated to write it all over again. :silly:

[qnr]

25. Well, I don't think it was an ignorant comparison. Shakespeare sucks. n/t

[Terran]

34. Have you actually read anything by Shakespeare?

I thought not.

[qnr]

38. You thought wrong. I've read most of Shakespeare [expletive deleted]

Shakespeare sucks.

[Terran]

43. Would you care to explain

on what basis Shakespeare actually sucks? Or is it just the archaic language you have a problem with?

[qnr]

49. I just find his writings boring and repetitive. I'm not saying he wasn't

a talented author, simply that to me, he sucks and could never hold my interest, even though I tried. I don't care if 99.99% of the human population bowed down to him as god of Free Beer and exquisite writing, to me, he would still suck.

[Terran]

61. Yeah okay, whatever

You read "most of Shakespeare" but you found him boring and he didn't hold your interest. So how did you actually manage to read most of his works if he didn't hold your interest? That's something I haven't done and I have two degrees in English. Are you including his sonnets too, or just all those boring plays?

And he's "repetitive". Soooooo many "thees" and "thous". Look, I'm sorry--you can say John Grisham is "repetitive", but when it comes to Shakespeare, that particular bit of vagueness sounds pretty junior high school.

[qnr]

62. Like I really care about getting your approval? Shakespeare sucks, period.

Have a good life.

Edit:

But to answer your question about why I did it, it was a goal I set for myself. To keep me occupied during my off-time on one of my trips to Antarctica.

[Bridget Burke]

86. Try going to a Shakespeare play...

Or even catching one of the good movie versions. The plays were not designed for "reading."

By the way--at what point did you decide that Shakespeare sucked? (Or, simply, that you didn't enjoy his stuff.) If you kept reading after that realization, it seems that you wasted a lot of time.

[qnr]

87. I've been to plays and seen movies. As far as the other question

goes, I set a goal to do it so I did it.

I say "sucks" more to piss people off. I enjoyed some of it, but in my personal opinion, the whole Shakespeare thing has been overblown.

[leftofthedial]

21. yeah, right

[DerekG]

29. Spielberg IS one of the greatest directors

I've been watching Bergman and Kurosawa films since I was 13, so I consider myself the cultured fella. So consider this a rejoinder: Spielberg is one of our greatest living directors, and perhaps the supreme maestro of American film.

Oh, and by a "couple" of brilliant movies, do you mean these?

Duel
Sugarland Express
Jaws (the escapist film par excellence)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
E.T.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Schindler's List

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. Yes, when I say "a couple", those are the ones I would consider

Though I would take out ET (where he discovered his formula) and Raiders (which is great, but not enough to warrant any special mention for directing), and I've never seen Duel or Sugarland, so I can't comment on those.

[DerekG]

63. Well, Coppola and Scorsese have 4-5 masterpieces each as well

Coppola has his first two "Godfather" films, "The Conversation," and "Apocalypse Now."

Scorsese has "Mean Streets," "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," and "Goodfellas." (The rest range from spellbinding to serviceable).

Aside from Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Bergman, Hawks and Wilder, there are very few directors whose repertoires boast more than a couple sublime works.

Oh, and how does "Raiders of the Lost Ark" not merit accolades for directing? Would you do the same to George Miller for his "Road Warrior," or James Cameron for "Aliens?" I mean: what's good enough?

[NashVegas]

66. I Don't See How Spielberg Can Be Compared to Coppola & Scorsese

Those two make adult films, for adults and almost always make for thought-provoking content. The overwhelming bodies of their works fall into the "art" category.

"Schindler" and one or two others aside, it's kind of like putting John Mayer in the same category as Wilco.

[DerekG]

67. Escapist fare is no less worthy than dramatic fare

In case you haven't seen stills from the 1902 feature, "A Trip to the Moon," films were created to capture daydreams and nightmares.

"The Wizard of Oz" is as worthy as "The Magnificent Ambersons."

"Singin' in the Rain" is as worthy as "Vertigo."

And "Jaws" is as worthy as "The Godfather."


On edit: I'll give ya this--he shouldn't be compared to Francis Ford Coppola. Unlike Coppola, Spielberg still makes good movies.

[NashVegas]

70. Absolutely

But there's escapist fare out there that's afuckofalot more sublime than Spielberg. You've named two films that trounce his work in that department.

Look I'm really not trying to knock the guy. He makes fine, occasionally great films.

His greatest identifiable trait in his body of work is his fixation on man and his relation to technology. But on the merits themselves, which are fine, overall there's no identifiable mark of creativity that's unique to Steven Spielberg in the way that when you're watching, say, a Scorsese film, you know you're watching Scorsese just from the way it was filmed. When you're watching a Tim Burton film, you know you're watching a Tim Burton film.

If you were watching a Spielberg film that didn't list the director in the credits, how would you guess you're watching a movie he directed?

I was always under the impression that films are created 1) to make something cool to look at and/or b) to make money. But that's just me.

[DerekG]

81. A signature style is not necessarily indicative of greatness

The flourishes of Billy Wilder and Howard Hawks--two of America's greatest filmmakers--are far more subdued than those splayed across, say, John Ford or Sergio Leone's canvas. I myself was astounded to see Hawks's name on the credits to "The Thing From Another World."

Hawks was a chameleon, as is Spielberg.

I find it interesting you mention Tim Burton, whose output has a style all too stark, and all too tiresome: one need only look for the repetitive Danny Elfman operattas, incoherent narrative, and one-dimensional protagonists. Burton, unlike Spielberg, has yet to produce a masterpiece (although his "Ed Wood" and "Big Fish" were rewarding enough).

[Rabrrrrrr]

84. You have a good point - Ron Howard has a signature style,

and he's a piece of shit.

Signature style doesn't mean artist.

I will disagree on Burton, though - he has offered as many masterpieces: batman, nightmare before christmas, beetlejuice, pee wee's big adventure.

And some boners: Planet of Apes being at the top of that shitpile.

But overall, I think Burton is 100 times the director that Spielberg could ever hope to be.

[Rabrrrrrr]

75. No, but it's less worthy than artistic fare.

Doesn't matter if it's dramatic, escapist, comedy, whatever - there is a difference between entertaining for the sake of entertaining, and being artistic in an entertaining way.

Of course movies are a form of entertainment - at some level, all forms of artistic expression are meant to entertain. That doesn't mean that crap or boring or uncreative gets a free pass since the genre is "entertainment".

Wizard of Oz, Singin' in the Rain, and Jaws are all artistic movies, as well as being entertaining, so of course they are as worthy as the other movies you mentioned. Maybe not as artistic as the giants Welles' or Kurosawa's movies, but still damned good.

But "AI" and "Jurassic Park" and "Raiders", etc., are NOT as worthy as "Rebecca" or "Citizen Kane" or "Brazil".










Marx Brothers - artistic entertainment.

Police Academy movies - just entertainment.


Raiders of the Lost Ark - good entertainment.

[DerekG]

83. Only two action-adventure films have impressed me more than "Raiders"

The first being "The Adventures of Robin Hood," and the second "The Seven Samurai." Though "Citizen Kane" towers over all, I do, in fact, extoll Spielberg's film as I would "Rebecca" and the "Brazil" director's cut.

"Raiders" was deservedly placed in AFI's 100 greatest films list. The wrath of God sequence alone was absolutely staggering, and will stay with me for as long as I live.

On edit: Why devalue "Raiders," yet deem the Marx brothers features "artistic entertainment?" Apart from "Duck Soup," Groucho and Co. had little more to say about the human condition than Spielberg. Now, Charlie Chaplin brought many things to the fore (class warfare; the individual's struggle against institutionalized evil), but the Marx brothers(?!?!).

[Rabrrrrrr]

73. I'm with you, Crisco - there's a huge difference between Spielberg

and those other two.

Spielberg is making entertainment, and for the most part, strictly entertainment. Oh, sure, he tries to have some kind of message to it, and sometimes he hits levels of artistry that are quite exciting (Jaws, for instance) but for the most part he's doing nothing more than entertaining. Which is fine. It's something that he's good at.

But as you say, the others strive first for artistry - they have not only a message to make in the film, but a message to make by the way the film was made and how it's presented.

And to the other person's complain that Scorcese and Coppola only have about as many "hits" (meaning, well done) movies as Spielberg ignores the major point: Scorcesed and Coppola and Welles and Kubrick and the other artistic directors TAKE RISKS. They don't always hit because they're risking and trying new things, and it doesn't always work. But the failures help the next films.

Spielberg just goes for the safe median, and makes consistently good and watchable, but rarely great or interesting, films.

Kinda like Ron Howard, but certainly not as bad as Howard.

[NashVegas]

76. Funny

Jaws disappointed me, for leaving out the affair between Hooper & Ellen. Nothing like a good subplot.

Last Crusade is easily my favorite Spielberg; Minority Report drew my interest most on other merits (theme, color palette).

[DerekG]

82. Spielberg has reinvented himself every decade

The boy genius who crafted the visceral horror/fantasy/action films of the 70's and early 80's was sadly supplanted by the burn-out who spewed out treacle in the mid 80's and early 90's. His career, like Coppola and Friedkin's, could have fizzled at that juncture. Thankfully, he grew as an artist, and gave us a Holocaust drama, a flawed but superb war film, one of the most esoteric SF films ever made ("A.I."), and an upcoming Munich production that may very well be an Oscar contender.

Any man who unleashes "Jurassic Park" and "Schindler's List" in the same year could hardly be accused of "playing it safe." And do remember that "Goodfellas" and "Casino" were released within six years of each other, so Scorsese is not entirely immune from the tendencies you speak of.

[bikebloke]

3. I kept hoping in the last one....

...that the aliens and earthlings would form an alliance against Tom Thumb and his bad acting. I guess Spielberg didn't want a happy ending.

[kedrys]

4. I thought WotW was interesting, albeit sucky

If only because Spielberg took the tack of a Greek tragedy - huge events happening for no fathomable reason to people who have no idea what's going on, with no hope of being able to do anything about it, and even less chance of ever understanding what the hell happened even if they survive.

Tom Cruise is a babbling idiot. Check out the DVD's extras if you have any doubts.

[DainBramaged]

5. Like, he needs to listen to ANY of us rant about his skills

:wtf:


There is a sentence, suspend your disbelief. In the case of your rant, I will.

[qnr]

26. Absolutely. Complainers, go make your own damned movies, no

matter what actor, director or whatever you are talking about.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. Hey...people go to his movies in droves....

He must be doing something right. :hi:

[CanuckAmok]

7. they should ride bikes.

Easier on the environment, and good exercise, too!

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. You're on a roll today CA.

:hi:

[ghostsofgiants]

9. Millions of people buy Britney Spears' music as well...

Just sayin'.

[ScreamingMeemie]

11. True...but I guess my point was is that Steven, himself, probably sees

no reason to get any better. I haven't seen any of the movies, save Private Ryan, that the OP mentioned...so I am not an authority on their content or lack there of. :hi:

[ghostsofgiants]

16. So depressing...

But I suppose it's a culture of mediocrity.

[Rabrrrrrr]

54. Sure - why should he change? He's found his bazillion dollar formula

Knows how to tweak everything "just so", so that people come to his movies by the millions and fill his bank account.

Not that he's a bad director - I'd never say that about him. But I don't think he's as creative and artistic as he used to be, and I think that history will eventually judge him a competent, sometimes inspiring director, but that's it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

10. And people go in droves to hear Celine nd Beyonce and 30 million people

thought Hitler was right.

Popularity is no judge of artistic value or worth.

It only means that one is popular.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. See my reply above....He sees no reason to change his style...

:shrug:

[northzax]

77. true, short term popularity is no sign of artistic merit

but long term popularity is a different story. I would put Jaws, or Close Encounters, or ever Raiders, in the same sentence as Pet Sounds, Capote, Abbey Road, Star Wars, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, NWA, and a multitude of other seminal works from the last 50 years, read, watch or listen to them today, for the first time, and they sound derivative, boring, unoriginal, the difference is, they were original in their time frame, they created, for the public, entire genres.

shakespeare also sounds derivative, but only because there are four hundred years of Western Literature referencing his work.

and creating entertainment for the masses is, in fact, an art form, otherwise anyone could do it. Titanic may make me physically ill, but for its target audience, at the time, it was absolutely brilliant.

[DainBramaged]

13. Wait, you were flameing yourself, get back there

[CanuckAmok]

14. I can't I'm on ignore.

Just as well. I'm a prick.

[philosophie_en_rose]

15. I thought I was the only one annoyed by Dakota Fanning.

Unless she's cast in the remake of Children of the Damned, I wouldn't want to watch her.

[CanuckAmok]

18. I just want to kick her ass. She's this century's Drew Barrymore.

n/t

[qnr]

27. Dakota Fanning drives me into a mindless rage. I hate her. But what

the heck does she care, she's making millions no matter what. More power to her, I'll just avoid her movies.

[DS1]

19. Who the fuck is Max Martini, and why should I care?

[NNadir]

30. CanuckAmok maybe?

Just kidding CA.

:evilgrin:

[CanuckAmok]

33. Will the REAL Max Martini please stand up?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0242882/

[BlueIris]

22. Is anyone else getting REALLY scared about "Munich"?

I mean, I'm thrilled that someone is making a film about the Munich tragedy, but--um, is anyone getting scared that Spielberg will be getting his butt kicked and get accused of doing something "offensive"? I really can't tell from the limited info/critical opinions about that film that I have at the moment what the film's focus, angle or perspective is, so I'm refraining from speculation. Anyone?

[AngryAmish]

23. Catch Me If You Can

Not deep, not thought provoking but a fun movie. Not every movie has to win an Oscar. This movie aimed low, it the target exactly right and put a smile on my face. I do not like SS, but that was a fun movie.

[robbedvoter]

28. He's good, but not great. I loved AI - all of it.

Love Dakota Fanning too - Taken , Dreamer.

[edbermac]

31. I think he's a damn good director.

When he gets cute with pictures like Always and Hook, then he does stink, but overall he's got a pretty impressive track record. And he's a thousand times better than his buddy George Lucas.

[lakemonster11]

32. My War of the Worlds Rant

Why do movie versions of War of the Worlds always modernize the story?

The book was published in 1898 and takes place in that time. When I read it, it seems obvious to me how visually amazing it would be to see it translated into a film---humans with rifles and cannons in 19th century attire fighting huge CGI tripods with whip-like tentacles, relying on telegrams for communication, realizing that they are no match for the technologically superior aliens, and, finally, being miraculously saved by nature.

When I saw the 1953 George Pal version I was very disappointed. He had updated it to the 1950s, set it in the US, and totally dropped the characters and actual storyline from the book. The aliens were tripods and they were defeated in the same way (although there was a religious overtone to the movie that I don't remember in the book), but, other than that, it could have been any alien invasion flick.

I allowed myself to get excited about the new version until I read that it was being modernized, too. The explanation I read (I think it was in "Wired") was that if aliens had invaded earth in the 1890s, we would know about it, so it would ruin the suspension of disbelief to set it then. :eyes: From what I can tell, they've changed the setting, characters, and storyline, too.

To me, these movies are not depicting War of the Worlds. George Pal and Steven Spielberg wanted to make alien invasion films and they decided to call them "War of the Worlds" for the name recognition. And the worst part is that the idea behind modernizing them seems to be to make them "cooler," when, I think, depicting the book almost as it is would be far more unique and way more visually appealing than anything they came up with.

:rant:

[CanuckAmok]

35. FTR, the George Pal version didn't have tripods...

They were airborne, "flying saucer"-type ships.

Here they are:

[lakemonster11]

37. I guess you're right,

I misremembered. Damn, it's worse than I thought!

[Touchdown]

64. Actually they were tripods in Pal's version

They were supported by an tripod of light energy (flashlights in smoke). Look closely, they're there, and there are 3 of them per machine.

[Terran]

36. "Modernizing" the films make them more accessible.

For a modern audience, watching people in the 1890's get pounded by Martian tripods would, IMO, cause a problem with the suspension of disbelief--which is what seeing science fiction and fantasy films is all about. If you see this happening in the 1890's, it's harder to suspend your disbelief because you know all that *didn't* happen in the 1890's, whereas seeing it happen in a contemporary setting is more believable, and thus more enjoyable. Possibly audiences would also sympathize with contemporary figures more than they would with people a century in the past. In any event, making a novel into a film is rarely about reproducing the novel exactly as it was; most of the time it just cannot work in the different format.

[lakemonster11]

40. I accept that there have to be changes made

when a novel is adapted into a film. That's fine.

I just think that there are so many alien invasion films based on War of the Worlds (as the original of the genre) that it is dishonest to call a movie "War of the Worlds" if it bears little or no relation to the novel.

Plus, to me, it would be way cooler to see guys with cannons battling super high-tech tripods than to see what every other alien invasion film shows---humans with way cool high-tech military technology fighting aliens with even higher-tech technology. It's just less interesting to me (and I'm a big sci-fi fan).

[CanuckAmok]

41. "Leage of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was a HUGE flop...

I'm sure that had a little to do with WotW's choice of setting.

But, ultimately, it wasn't really so much about an alien invasion as it was about dysfunctional family... or something.... and by contemporising it, it made the characters more easy to identify with.

I guess.
I still want to whoop his ass.

[Terran]

46. "League"

I doubt LEG flopped merely because it was set a century ago. I always figured it was too highbrow for the average American movie-goer, who didn't know who the hell any of the characters were supposed to be. Literature, you know, it's not our strong point in the US. "I don't get it, who's Mina Harker?"

[CanuckAmok]

50. I liked it. The Production Design was Oscar-worthy.

I just mean that there were, no doubt, a room full of 25-year-old, third generation movie execs at MGM discussing the tone of the WotW project, and that, no doubt, at least one of them said:

"I think we've learned that this whole '19th Century man vs alien technology' dynamic just doesn't play in Flyover County. I really think we need to be proactive in contemporising War of the Worlds. Maybe a smart-aleck robot, too. Everybody loves smart-aleck robots, right?!"

and the rest of the room going:

"Yeah, Dylan, I think you;re on to something. 'Contemporary'. It's daring; I like it!"

"I'm not sure about the robot, though. I hear Miramax is about to launch "Smart-Aleck Robot and the Powerpuff Girls in Manhattan" for a Christmas release. I knew we should have jumped on that Powerpuff Girls option when we had the chance. Someone should have called me, or something. It's not as if y'all don't have Betty Ford on your Blackberry speed-dials."

"I gotta go; my Range Rover is ready."

[Terran]

59. LOL!

Yes, sadly, you're probably right.

[WCGreen]

57. The LEG Sucked.... If they would have left all the special

effects at home, then I would say the point about it being to above the average audience....

But, it went for the cheap, down and dirty blow up shit....

[NashVegas]

69. Promoting Just About *Anything* Will Make it More Accessible

There was nothing inaccessible about the first WotW. Because of the time-cultural differences, the only thing a person needs to enjoy the 1950s film (it was not set in 1890 - did you even see the original?) is the patience to watch characters and stories where the pop-culture markers don't reflect their own pop culture.

Spend enough money promoting a movie where the cultural markers are different, or make it "hip" enough, and people will see it. Case in point: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Enough people were convinced to put their prejudices (subtitles) aside that it did very well at the box office.

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. Perfectly said!!

[lakemonster11]

58. Why, thank you, Rabrrrrrr!

:hi:

[Terran]

39. In AI, btw...

I think those were supposed to be the descendants of the robots, not aliens, that David encounters at the end. And I certainly had no issue with the bringing the dead back for one day; I mean, the woman was dead for 2000 years, how likely is that anyone would have the technology to completely restore her as she was? The ending is much better, to me, with her there for one day.

And give Jaws a break, man, it was 30 freakin' years ago. The shark was pretty good for 1975.

War of the Worlds does have a few problems, but not so much with EMP. It does have a range of effect, you know? It's easily possible that some machines were out of range or were shielded. Maybe the guy with the video cam kept it in a lead box, who knows? And Cruise and the kids took shelter in a cement room below the main basement, remember? They could easily survive in there, especially considering the plane didn't fall right *on* the house, but next to it.

[CanuckAmok]

42. If the 747...

...crashed on the house, or even next to it, the resulting firestorm would have consumed, if not the house itself, but all the oxygen around the house, for hours. They would haf sufficated, had the not burned to death.

[Terran]

45. Hmmm

Well, I've seen pictures of plane crash sites on the news before, and nonn of them really looked like an hours-long "firestorm" had taken place there because of the crash. So I'm not sure where you're getting this firestorm idea. Plane crashes, plane blows up (at worst), volatile jet fuel burns away quickly. Fires are started, but I don't see how all the oxygen in the area would be gone for "hours" because of that.. The physics of the situation just can't cause that to happen.

[CanuckAmok]

47. A small concrete room surrounded by flammable...

...materials directy beneath a plane crash would certainly become an EZ Bake Oven for anyone in it, either from the heat, or from the consumption of oxygen. Have a look at some of the eyewitness accounts of the WTC crashes; they tell of molten aluminium (from the planes) running down the sides of the buildings. Heat that intense ignites anything remotely flammable on contact.

[stlsaxman]

44. Not to mention that AI was originally a Kubrick movie...

and Stanley Kubrick only brought Shpielberg into it when he realized he couldn't do the special effects himself.

Then he died.

And the Kubrick estate asked "The Shpieler" to complete it. Any Kubrick fan can see the "Kubrick-ness" of the film and story- 2001 meets A Clockwork Orange meets Dr. Strangelove...

But the sickly sweet soundtrack by John Williams and the equally sickening sugariness of the direction ruined it for me. Even still, I bought it and have watched it at LEAST 30 times. Masochistic, eh?

[CanuckAmok]

48. Yeah, that's another thing... "Dear John Williams..."

"I have just mailed you a box of 'subtle'. Please don't compose anything else before you receive the package.

Thanks,
CA"

[stlsaxman]

51. stlsaxman Hi5's CanuckAmok!

hahahahah!

[Enraged_Ape]

85. Those ARE the descendants of the robots at the end, not aliens

This is foreshadowed earlier in the film when the Jude Law robot tells the Sixth-Sense-kid robot that humans are on their way out, and that the robots will keep evolving and eventually take the humans' place on Earth.

Not that I don't think Spielberg is an assclown, because he is.

[Neshanic]

52. AI was a masterpiece. It is our generation's "It's a Wonderfull Life"

I'm with you on Dakota Fanning.

[NashVegas]

71. I Hope Your Generation Isn't My Generation

AI had some great points, but to say that a film about a boy who eventually becomes content with his imagined life is on par with a film about being content with a bonafide one ...

[Rabrrrrrr]

72. Man, me, too. "Wonderful Life" was, you know, good.

Unlike AI, which has its good moments, but has the Spielberg touch of death all over it.

[Elidor]

53. My complaint about Spielberg

Is over-the-top commercialism.

No, please. Don't laugh. I'm serious.

Even after he gained the freedom to do whatever he wants with his films, he created a lot of middle-of-the-road fare imbued with cloying cutesy and not-quite-lowest-common-denominator formulaic lameness. He doesn't have the body of work to be the "greatest director." Not even close. Just off the top of my head, Scorsese and Coppola own him, and they're only contenders for greatest. He just isn't there yet, and he likely never will be. His greatest claim to artistic fame is ripping off Kurosawa, but every two-bit filmmaker in Hollywood has done that.

Further, the beach scene at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan is a meticulous re-creation of actual film shot during the landing, so he doesn't even deserve real credit for the best scene of his best film, except for character development.

And lastly, he's a wanker. I have no scientific evidence for this; it's just a hunch.

I will admit to having enjoyed several of his films, if that doesn't sound too mealymouthed. I don't hate him or his work, but he's just not all that. Hollywood will memorialize him for his ability to earn a buck, and that alone is half his legacy. He's a moneymaker.

I wonder if he'll put an image of E.T. on his headstone when he dies.

[Yavin4]

60. His New Film, "Munich" Is Getting Rave Reviews

Let's give him another chance.

[Touchdown]

65. You named some of his better films.

I would agree somewhat if you named his real dogs.

IJ & Temple of Doom
Always
1941
The Lost World: Jurassic Park 2
..others I've forgotten, just to mane a few.

Minority Report was excellent. Very different for him.

As far as Williams is concerned, his subtle work you don't remember, but every Spielberg film except The Color Purple and Duel has his score in it. Catch me if you Can, The Terminal, Schindler and Amistad do not have the Indy Jones/Jurassic Park bombast to them.

[Loonman]

68. Spielberg is a douche

But he does have his moments.

[MrSlayer]

74. Jaws was great.

Lots of people would not go back into the water during the summer of 75. For it's time "Bruce" worked quite effectively.

[eyepaddle]

78. caveat on Saving Private Ryan

I've heard that complaint a fair bit. The reason you only see Americans is the film showed the landing at Omaha beach. Omaha was effectively an all US affair. To see Canadians yo'd have to go to Juno beach and the other British were on Gold and Sword.

Since that scene's express purpose was showing D-Day through the eyes of a common soldier you wouldn't have seen the other allies. They fought side by side, not really being intermingled. (That almost never works very well) Although I do believe some Americans came in on landing craft crewed by British sailors.

The resy of your post though, I'd pretty much agree with.

[CanuckAmok]

79. I agree about the LZs. My point is that...

They pretty much cross France without running into a single Allied soldier who wasn't American.

In reality, once the beach-head was broken, units were mixed and re-mixed as situations required. There were British Paratroopers and Glider units all over the interior of France... but Senor Spielbergo doesn't show a single one.

[eyepaddle]

80. How much time elapsed between the landing

and Tom Hanks being dispatched on that mission? I think tha subtitle goes by really fast. I was under the impression that it was only a day or so and I don't think thay really went all that far.

As screwed up as the airborne part was (and as scattered as the units were) it's still plausible to think that the allies weren't yet mixing.

My histroy gets a little vague between the landing and the breakout--I just know the breakout took awhile.

Well, I gotta hit the homework now! :hi: