What are your honest thoughts on Spielberg? He's adored by the masses but he tends be spurned, sometimes even hated, by film-lovers.
Do you dislike him simply because he's overrated? I can absolutely agree with that. But he's certainly one of the most influential modern directors even if he's lost much of his touch in recent years.
I'm sure many of you do like him alot so I really just want to start a discussion about him. Usually people only bother bringing him up on this board to talk shit.
1. Jaws
2. Close Encounters
3. Saving Private Ryan
4. Jurassic Park
5. Indiana Jones
It's not, but it implies that his work has some degree of originality and inherent value. His work is, or at least was, consistently above average in terms of writing and cinematography. He created some of the most memorable and beloved stories and characters in film history.
He's responsible for Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and The Pacific, and hopefully another WW2 mini series soon. Saving Private Ryan basically kindled my lifelong love of history. I'll love him forever for that. Say what you want about him as a filmmaker, the fact he probably inspired a lot of people to explore history makes him a legend in my eyes.
1. Munich
2. Jurassic Park
3. Close Encounters
4. Saving Private Ryan
5. Jaws
I haven't seen Munich yet, I'll try and watch it tomorrow.
Its really good
He's a pedophile and should be strung up
Munich is the least comfy film I've ever seen, it's so stressful. There is one comfy scene though, you'll see.
He is a genius, nothing more to say really.
'Film lovers' hate him because he is capable of delivering content that has a wide range of audiences while being objectively superior as a director to many of their obscure shitters who wouldn't have the skillset to direct half the scenes Spielberg has.
Makes great blockbusters. Makes meh prestige pics.
wheres your proof
He's a jew and should be strung up.
Why though?
I respect Spielberg because is able to work in any genre.
He has made serious movies, funny movies, dramatic, horror, action, sci-fi, thriller. He has touched every field of cinema and kept bringing classics.
I don't think other director can do this.
Martin Scorsese tried with Hugo but it was shit.
He's everybody's uncle. You don't get to touch the heart of so many people, becoming the defining storyteller of a generation without not only an immense talent and hard work, but also a deep understanding of human nature and other universal qualities that make truly great artists. Only posturing immature "film-lovers" shit on him, to signal that they're above plebs, because he's an easy target. It's like shitting on bands you used to love as a teenager. You only ever see him get attacked because his films are overly emotional/naive (despite a lot of counter-examples of often bleak, mature undertones in his films or a genuine sincerity on his part when telling heartfelt stories) or because he's too much of an agenda-pushing kike caricature sometimes (which is true to some extent, but then again he'll do something like Munich which is incredibly critical of far-right Israel and Talmud mindset).
He's such an obvious master of filmmaking and storytelling that he's incredibly underrated if anything at this point. I'd pick him over any showy and trendy meme director like Refn or Tarantino. A natural storyteller and an amazing craftsman, incredibly consistent too when you consider the filmography evolution of most New Hollywood peers. Especially with his contemporary films, I find a John Ford or Capraesque quality to him, which is so rare nowadays but so powerful. A gentle giant, always comes off a modest and kind in interviews, passionate, relentlessly innovative... the same applies to people like Zemeckis and Cameron, who don't get enough credit, despite everyone knowing them and loving them, you rarely see them respected or analyzed in cinephile circles and it's a shame. I think there's a line between films that get massive pleb success due to low-common denominator pandering and heavy marketing then get forgotten a week later (ie Marvel shit) and films that simply speak to the universal human heart and soul, and remain timeless. Beautiful pleb cinema, sadly dying.
He's definitely an accomplished filmmaker in his own right, but his main sensibility seems to be pleasing audiences. Because the heart-on-the-sleeve storytelling and straightforward filmmaking he perfected is pretty much the template for all modern blockbusters, it's hard to tell to what extent he's a genuine romantic and to what extent he's just a salesman.
>funny movies
Gonna have to disagree with you there.
>Martin Scorsese tried with Hugo but it was shit.
Kubrick was jealous of his talent for making films 'for everyone', even someone as talented as him knew he couldn't succeed in that field, that's why he went to him for AI. It's a very underrated quality.
Yeah comedy is his weak spot. Although 1941 is one of the most brilliantly-directed comedies ever made, it doesn't really work. I think it's failure made him scared of trying again. There are a lot of funny moments in his films though, but only because they're counter-balanced with drama and action.
Crispin Glover said so
I think Goonies and Indiana Jones have "comedic action"
>but he tends be spurned, sometimes even hated, by film-lovers.
I think a lot of that is bleedover from the whole new hollywood movement where people were calling him and his peers the "death of cinema" and people have been parroting that opinion ever since.
Well in fairness it seems like a great comedy film is the hardest "great" film to make. Really think about it. How many "great" comedies have come out this decade? Fewer than any other genre probably.
Richard Donner directed Goonies. Just a heads up.
It's the hardest because humor just doesn't bring out the emotions like other genres can for the most part. That goes for both the creator and audience.
Obvious exceptions of course, but that seem to be the case among most artists.
>Saving Private Ryan basically kindled my lifelong love of history
Such low standards...
Spielberg's greatest contribution to cinema is the modern action sequence. Nobody can make an extended action sequence like him, literally nobody. I mean, take the entire portion of Indiana Jones involving the fist-fight by the airplane leading through the truck chase. That's a good 20 minutes of film all devoted to rapid-fire action, and the entire thing flows so wonderfully. He changed the game with that, and I still don't think anyone's done it nearly as good as he did in the Indiana Jones films.
His other stuff isn't that good though.
I don't understand. I was 12 when I first saw it.
>great comedies of the 10s in no order
>Four Lions
>What We Do In The Shadows
>Hunt For The Wilderpeople
>Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
>Klown
Was Black Dynamite 2009 or 2010?
He reshaped the industry in the 80's, most movies followed his style in a way or another and it became the norm, and that is not a good thing.
>most movies followed his style in a way or another and it became the norm, and that is not a good thing.
Can you really hold that against him though?
T O N I E R D M A N N
Not against him but against the studious.