Cool News
Hercules Directs You To SPIELBERG ON SPIELBERG!!
SPOILER ALERT !!
”You know what movie I just saw again the other day, which is just fucking mindblowing? ‘Munich.’ That movie has Eric Bana kicking fucking ass. Every movie with Jews, we’re the ones getting killed. ‘Munich’ flips it on its ear. We’re capping motherfuckers! If any of us get laid tonight, it’s because of Eric Bana and ‘Munich.’” -- Ben Stone, “Knocked Up”
I am – Hercules!!
“Spielberg on Spielberg” is something every filmmaker or aspiring filmmaker on the planet should burn to disc and keep handy; it is nothing if not inspiring.
Richard Schickel’s engrossing 90-minute documentary transmits tonight on Turner Classic Movies. Except for characters in Spielberg’s movies, Spielberg is the only individual seen or heard.
The documentary is little more than the filimmaker rattling off one fascinating story after another for an hour and a half, accompanied by a vast array of film clips. Many of the stories contain facts I never knew or forgot about long ago. The documentary focuses exclusively on Spielberg’s directorial career, so there’s no “*batteries not included” or “Goonies” or “Used Cars” or “The Money Pit” or “The Flintstones” or “Deep Impact” or “Twister” or “The Mask of Zorro” or “Men in Black” or “Transformers” footage here. It takes us all the way from the films he made in his backyard to “Munich.”
A few highlights:
* Spielberg recalls floundering at his first professional directing job, helming a segment of Rod Serling’s “Night Gallery” pilot. While he considers the veteran actors on the shoot his allies, aging and aged union crew members apparently resented taking orders from a director less than half their ages, and in Spielberg’s eyes conspired to put him miserably behind schedule by tackling every on-set task as slowly as possible.
* With only the flop “Sugarland Express” on his big-screen feature resume, Spielberg recalls the horror of shooting the trouble-plagued “Jaws.” But he says the malfunctioning nature of the production’s robot shark, which forced it to remain off camera for most of the movie, demonstrated that less is more and "probably added $175 million to the film's box office." Though the “Jaws” experience was traumatic, he remains grateful to it because its critical and popular success won him the thing he wanted most in this world: final cut.
* We’re reminded that Spielberg still owns a piece of “Star Wars,” thanks to a 2.5-point trade he made with George Lucas for a piece of “Close Encounters.”
* He remembers being on the set of “Close Encounters” and toying with the idea of engineering an exchange for Roy Neary. He considered letting one of the extraterrestrials stay on Earth at the end to interact with the human team. He decided to instead save the idea for another film, which evolved into “E.T.”
* He remembers the Dallas test preview of “1941” as a rollercoaster. The huge laughs garnered by the opening “Jaws” parody had him convinced he was sitting on a huge comedy hit – until the rest of the movie began to unspool. “There were about four laughs over next two hours, and that was it!” His theory on why the film failed is one I’d not heard before.
* For his post-“1941” project Spielberg hoped to get Cubby Broccoli to hire him to direct a post-“Moonraker” James Bond movie. This was just before Lucas approached him with “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
* We get to see the “go-motion” raptor animation tests “RoboCop” vet Phil Tippitt created for “Jurassic Park” before Spielberg decided to go with CGI animation instead. Spielberg also says dinosaurs are much more interesting to him when they’re in kitchens and labs and interacting with autos.
* Though Spielberg is frequently credited (or blamed) with the 2,000-year leap forward that concluded “A.I.,” he director says that sequence was part of Stanley Kubrick’s 95-page treatment for the film. Spielberg describes himself as the frog DNA that was used to replace the missing dinosaur DNA that Kubrick never got around to adding to create “A.I.”
* Some of the footage from some of Spielberg’s no-budget backyard home movies carries a weirdly professional sheen; as a teen he was already directing scenes that would look right at home on one of Quentin Tarantino’s grindhouse bills.
Schickel and his editors do a spectacular job with some spectacular footage. One suspects a few eye-opening sequences from the documentary will inspire more than a few cinephiles to revisit “A.I.” and “Schindler’s List” and “War of the Worlds” and “Jurassic Park” if they haven’t recently.
Interesting also, perhaps, is what the documentary chooses to ignore. There is no mention of the Indiana Jones sequels or the “Twilight Zone” movie or “Always” or “Hook” or “The Lost World.” Most odd, I think, is the absence of any reference to 2002’s “Catch Me If You Can,” which I know many regard as Spielberg’s best directorial effort of the last dozen or so years.
In fairness, a 22-hour Ken Burns-style maxi-doc probably wouldn’t provide a broad enough canvas to adequately explore an artist as prolific and influential as Spielberg. But given the 90-minute time constraint, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a better job than Schickel.
8 p.m. Monday. TCM.
49% Off Deathly Hallows!! 
$23.10 In Paperback!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Sorry, but steroids and small penises and overall general awesomeness beat out Spielberg talking about himself any day of the week.
-
Can't wait to watch it.
-
Just thought I'd get that joke out of the way. Looks good though. The guy never does commentary work, so this could be informative as hell.
-
You know it's coming. Just wait for it, bitches.
-
Can't wait to catch this. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Next to jesus of course!
-
There just isn't enough time. Anyone who thinks 90 minutes is enough is crazy! CRAAZZYYY I SAYS!
-
...the number of Spielberg's films I like far out weigh the few that I haven't been that crazy about.
Any director would be happy to have half of the success that Sir Stevie has had... -
Especially given the controversy and tragedy surrounding that film. But that's probably why they didn't include it in this special.
-
... he'll just make up for it by doing 16 Transformers sequels.
-
I asked for last night in the Indy 4 rumor mill talkback. TY Herc. Got this one cued on the DVR.
-
Jul 09, 2007 4:11:50 PM CDT
It's always interesting to hear directors talk about...
by derlanghaarige
...their career. So I guess I will check this one out.
-
... did anyone notice he put flames on Optimus?
-
Was pretty cool, although I do feel 90 minutes isn't enough for either Scorsese or Spielberg. I wonder when Schickel will do a "Coppola on Coppola".
-
Journey into Hell!!! bwahahahaha
-
on his DVDs? Anyone know? Is that touched on here?
-
is one of the few directors I would really like to hear do an audio commentary. Mark Steven Johnson expounding on the intricacies of Ghost Rider, I don't need.
-
...an Eli commentary for Hostel 2.
It'll be two straight hours of him saying, "Thanks a lot, bitches. Now I have to get a real job."
-
A while back, I remember Spielberg in an interview mentioned he NEVER wanted to do commentaries because he was afraid it would ruin the mystery of the film.
-
Lewis "discovered" SS when he taught a class on film and wrote very highly of him in a book that came from these lectures. SS has publically praised Jerry in the past for his encouragement and I'm wondering if he does here. PS George Lucas took the class too. Seriously.
-
"My Voyage to Italy". To hear him talk about these films is to understand the master. Highly recommend.
-
in Jarmusch's Coffee and Cigarettes, she has a conversation with herself, as 2 different characters, and it's a fascinating piece of acting and timing. and she's in the new Indy flick? coincidence?just further proof that Transformers sucked...
-
It's on monday night. I need to make fun of it publicly, please.
-
was the best Spielberg film i'd seen in several years, i kid you not. For me, Spielberg went cold ever since the overrated Saving Private Ryan (a sentimental dud of a movie with two excellent battle scenes, although it did inspire the far better Band of Brothers). AI was terrible. Minority Report was bloodless. Of course, then he went and made the Terminal, but he's been pretty solid ever since.
-
sorry, couldn't resist.
-
i really wanted to see this but i just got home from work to see this post and completely forgot to set my dvr. anyone happen to know when it will be rerun?
-
Its showing again right after JAWS tonight! So...11pm Central.
-
I am in complete agreement - CATCH ME IF YOU CAN was a breezy but still deep movie - it didn't have the heaviness of his others, and the cinematography didnt have that gauzy quality that is getting tiresome. I hope Spielberg brings to Indy IV the fun he had with CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. It often seems that his best movies are his "in-between" projects - even RAIDERS at the time was almost a throwaway, as was JURASSIC PARK. He's at his best when he's not under too much pressure. By contrast, in my view, he crumbled a bit under the stress of performing to Kubrick standards with AI, or trying to make too much of a political statement with MUNICH.
-
That is all.
-
right there - says it all...
-
Any director that can direct both Schindler's List and Jurassic Park can't be any good. To most of us it means that he's maybe the most flexible filmmaker in American history. Able to do both commerically successful and critically viable films - occasionally simutaneously. To others it means he's a hack. Because as we know Michael Mann, or Cronenberg never made steaming piles of garbage. But of course they've only made maybe 1/10th the fims Spielberg has. So I guess Spielberg would be more beloved if he had made less films. Shame on you Spielberg for liking to make films.
-
of the Spielberg films that AnimalStructure actually likes. Then a second list of the films of Michael Mann that he likes. I wonder which list would have more entries?
I like Michael Mann as well but to say he's made more great films than Spielberg is ridiculous. -
Love him or hate him, the man is a master storyteller. He has created a few of the greatest films ever shot (Saving Private Ryan, Jaws, Munich, Raiders). People that rip on him are not fans of cinema. Commercial? Sometimes. But the best commercial director out there. His movies are perfectly structured, well shot and there is never any confusion (ala Michale Bay) as to what is going on.
-
... and sucked my dick. He was rubbish.
-
You know, Stevie babe, if we would have had some pre-cogs and pre-crime on 9/10/01...3,000+ People would still be alive today, and the World Trade Center would still be standing. You telling me that we couldn't and shouldn't have arrested Mohammed Atta before he boarded the plane on 9/11 because "he hadn't done anything yet"? Give me a fucking break. Munich was another example of revisionist history storytelling on his part through a pre 9/11 mentality...to quote John Goodman's president Glenallen Walken in "The West Wing"...."I'm just sorry we could only kill the bastard(s) once." Wake up and smell the Maple Nut Crunch, Stevie.
-
Hear me out!
-
was interesting, but Richard Schickel's hack-job editing made the whole endeavor pretty hard to sit through. First, he leads you through Spielberg's films chronologically, but suddenly he skips ahead 11 years from E.T. to Jurassic Park for no discernable reason. I mean, if he wanted to juxtapose the two films then fine, but he doesn't. He just skips ahead without any rhyme or reason. And it just gets messier after that, Schickel just starts jumping around his filmography randomly without ever building to anything. And I'm sorry Herc, but Schickel's clip choices were pretty vulgar. It's as if he decided to take the most violent scenes and put them in there simply for shock effect. I can sort of understand that he has no other choice when it comes to movies like "Saving Private Ryan", which Spielberg himself admitted was the most violent film he made (though I personally was more schocked by Munich's violence). But even there, Schickel takes it too far and shows one brutal scene after another, long after the point had already been made. Instead of calling it Spielberg on Spielberg, I think Schickel should have called it "Spielberg's Most Shocking Moments Caught on Tape!".
-
is the worst thing Spielberg ever shot. I wish he would've explained how he shot such a piece of crap. Hey, while he was at it he should've justified Always and Hook too. I don't care what anyone says, 1941 is much better than those garbage dumps. And no mention of Empire of the Sun??? That's one of his top films, much better than some of his other "serious" films (like Amistad and Munich which always seem to get more attention).
-
Even "A.I.", and even parts of "The Lost World" and others.... but for some reason, I can't shine to "War of the Worlds" no matter how much I try. It's just an ugly, bland, and mediocre spectacle. Not a terrible movie, just bland, which is the worst thing something like that could be.
-
I belive it was after the jump cutting from ET to Jurrasic Park and then back, he was takling about flight and childhood and that's when they went into EotS
-
taking a toilet break.
-
I believe the reason for the long jump, and then back I guess was Schickel's attempt to combine the serious films Spielberg made all together. After E.T. he jumps to Jurassic Park, then begins chronologically again going back to The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, A.I., etc. I guess he didn't want to throw Jurassic Park in the center of that serious film run.
-
they wanted to first deal with Spielberg's commercial "popcorn" movies first, then go to his more serious adult films like Empire of the Sun and Schindler's List. I was thrown when they shown Jurrasic Park after ET too but I think it was good that those two aspects of Spielberg's work should be considered separately.
-
Spielberg claims the happy ending was in Kubrick's treatment (although Spielberg did mention that he would have done it the same way). But as my wife pointed out, the absence of Kubrick is really what hurt A.I. Just because the ending was in his original treatment doesn't mean he would have kept it. As we know, Kubrick is a notorious perfectionist and he may have changed the ending after realizing it didn't work.
-
Agreed on the end of A.I. I liked the film though, almost despite itself.
-
obviously..... seriously though, MIAMI VICE as good or better that JAWS? um...no, and no. not really, at all. no. and i like micheal mann and all, but.....no.
-
for your good points on the 11 year leap from ET to Jurassic Park. I feel a bit silly for not figuring that one out. By the time that they made the jump I was already kind of miffed at how they kept cutting Spielberg off just as he was getting interesting (like when he was talking about Jaws, it seemed like thye cut him off in mid-sentence)and so when they jumped ahead I perceived it as just another screw up from Schickel....I guess I was the screw up.
-
boy it's awesome to be in film school, especially if parents are paying for it, which is totally sweet. you suddenly realize that man, all the film directors that people really like? they're just studio shills, man, don't you see. they have no idea how to tell a story. all these movies you really liked, throughout the years, are actually horrible, and the great films are the ones that are just toally misunderstood by the public. because the public, always, has terrible taste and anything that bombs, is probably just a misunderstood masterpiece. you know what i mean, man? spielberg is such a hack, dude, that guy has been around for what 35 years now and couldn't direct traffic. when you get into film school and start seeing real masterpieces that are explained to you frame by frame by dudes with turtlenecks and berets who pace around and smoke cigarettes and shit, you start to realize that like, hollywood is such a wasteland, you know? it allows all these total fucking hacks to prosper while the REAL filmmakers languish in obscurity, only now that i think about it, you know, they should like, stay obscure you know? because a fucking FILM like miami vice is not made for the public. it's made by a real auteur you know, and it's just totally misunderstood, whereas a MOVIE like raiders of the lost ark is just fucking populist trash, you know, totally disposable and ultimately worthless, and when you start reading lots of film criticism you realize that anything popular is just like, you know, it's just not even worth my time. now if you'll excuse me i'm writing a term paper on terrence malick and his conceptual relationship to the existentialist 50s "pseudo-film" movement of finland and how it reflects on modern japanese experimental animted short films and the ulaan bataar 15mm revolutionist editing techniques and their affect on mise-en-scene in bergman's prenatal work. enjoy your populist spielberg trash you fucking uneducated proletariat dick suckers
-
Animal...Miami Vice..really? I saw it just last week, and I admired the digital camera work that Mann has adopted, but the best studio film of the past 15 years?? Heck, I'll take Collateral over Miami Vice anyday...But given the arguement, I would like to see what Mann would do with a fantasy or scifi theme to see what he could do with it. And any mention of The Keep should be kept to a minimum.
-
AnimalStructure! Hahahahaha! You're like Lenny Bruce and Andy Kaufman rolled into one! You're a riot!
-
that you are engaging us in some odd blend of confrontational comedy and ironic performance art.
-
1) yes you are a pretentious twat 2) you refer to your "ilk" which definitely makes you a pretentious twat 3) i'll apologize for assuming you went to film school if you apologize for assuming i'm a teenager 4) i actually LIKE miami vice, i like all kinds of movies, including spielberg. don't get me wrong i'm a michael mann fan. but no one, not even you, believes miami vice is that good, because it isn't. you make that statement because you're trolling. TROLLING A SPIELBERG TALKBACK. so, so sad. 5) if you were a teenager when jaws came out, that makes you too fucking old to be trolling talkbacks on aint it cool. 6) hopefully you never have kids so you don't have to stoop to the level of suffering through non-adult movies. 7) i don't really have a seventh point, but i'm willing to bet a 100 spot that in real life you're a fucking insufferable douche drinker who goes around pointing out everyone's faults and sneering like a hipster burnout record store clerk. nobody likes you on the internet and nobody likes you in real life. have a good one champ.
-
you're spot on man, he's hit or miss. it's so easy to make things black and white arguing on the internet, HE'S THE WORST DIRECTOR EVER IN HISTORY or HE'S THE FUCKING BEST DIRECTOR IN HISTORY. spielberg has undeniably made some great ones and some bad ones. way to offer up a voice of reason dude, cheers. i have to go watch some kiddy alien movies now
-
Miami Vice is a great movie?Thanks for the laugh Animal. Obviously this is the only movie you could afford to see in the last few years.
-
Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I need to know exactly HOW Raiders is overrated and exactly how Lost World is underrated. Thanks.
-
Miami Vice was an unfocused bore with dull characters. Mentioning such a trite piece of cinematic trash in a Spielberg thread is laughable. You're kidding yourself if you think anybody will remember it in ten years, let alone celebrate it as great cinema. Hell, I didn't even remember it until you brought it up. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List... people remember those.
-
The T-Rex sequence in Jurassic Park alone is on a higher level than anything Michael Mann has ever done. And I really like Michael Mann's work. And who the hell are you to say that a "film" is better than a "movie"? I suppose if your one-dimensional and only like adult dramas...
-
first of all, let me say I agree with a lot of the things you've said about Michael Mann. Miami Vice was terrific, though, IMO, not as good as Heat (However, you have as far as I can see not really said WHY Miami Vice is so good, except that it's a 'film' not a 'movie', and that it's 'adult').
That said, I think your Spielberg-indifference (which reminds me a lot of Spielberg-hate) displays narrow mindedness, a bit of ignorance, and quite a lot of arrogance. Not neccessarily a good combination.
First of all, being indifferent to Spielberg is just plain stupid, seeing as he is, regardless of how you feel about it, one of the most influental people in culture in the last 35 years. You are of course free to dislike him, but to dismiss him and remain indifferent just serves to exclude yourself from further discussion.
Furthermore, on what basis do you call Spielberg a hack? Anyone with even the tiniest understanding of the language of cinema understands that he is one of the most brilliant technical directors of all time. So that could not be it. Is it his lack of storytelling skills? Spielberg’s movies are usually tightly structured, and his third acts are not as bad as you want them to be. SS is a storyteller of the old school, and one of his main traits is that he has an essentially optimistic world view. Therefore he focuses on the Jews that survived the holocaust, rather than the ones who were killed. And therefore he lets the son survive in WotW (thus completing both father's and son's character arc) rather than killing him off for shock effect. And anyone reading the ending of SPR as U.S. jingoism, or David reunited with his mother in A.I. as a happy ending, are not watching closely enough. Maybe his optimism doesn’t coincide with you apparent cynicism and nihilism, but that still doesn’t make him a hack.
Is it the lack of intellectualism in his movies that makes him a hack? If you are saying that movies like Munich, Minority Report or A.I. are not morally complex you are either lying or didn’t pay attention. And even the ’movie’ Jaws has echoes of Ibsen in it (if you know who that is). SS’s movies have always been more about emotion than intellect, but it is wrong to dismiss them as stupid or simplistic. You are just not seeing the forest for the trees. And even so, films for the brain aren’t by default better than films for the heart.
If you think the movies he has been executively producing makes him a hack, I can at least understand that argument. But my guess is that most of those movies he has just been contributing with his name on the marquee to give the movies a head start. That’s the businessman Spielberg, and he should not be confused with Spielberg the director.
For a fresh, objective and often counter-narrative analysis of Spielbergs movies, I recommend the book Citizen Spielberg, by Lester Friedman. Have a nice day. -
When's it re-air?
-
Miami Vice was released July 28, 2006.
Whether it was intended to be or not,
wouldn't that make it atleast an attempted "summer blockbuster?"
Why should going to the movies... or a "film" be like imitating the albino guy in "The DaVinci Code?" Granted I don't like all of Spielberg's movies... or his "films"... or whatever (Munich put me to sleep, for one example); but I loved "Raiders", "Jaws", "Saving Private Ryan", "Last Crusade", "Minority Report" "Schindler's List" and "Catch Me If You Can" ,all of which I own and watch on a semi-regular, rotating basis.
Spielberg's movies are fun to watch, as are some of Michael Mann's. "Miami Vice" is in my Netflix queue; but I have seen, and loved "Last of the Mohicans", "The Insider", "Heat", and "Collateral". However, "Ali" just outright sucked. It was one of the most boring "movies" or "films" I've ever sat through.
The bottom line is, both guys are talented directors. What's wrong with liking both of them. I have no problem with anyone liking Mann more than Spielberg as a personal preference; but trying to run down Spielberg's whole catalogue solely on the strength of one scene from "Miami Vice", just sounds a little too cooler than thou. -
The assumptions and generalizations you make do you no credit. And you’re still being incredibly arrogant. For someone close to fifty years, you’d think you’d have learned by now that your point of view isn’t the only correct one. I will adress some of your points: 1) Rewatchability: that is hardly a benchmark for quality. There is a difference between what you LIKE and what is GOOD. Also, maybe emotional films work on YOU only once, but that’s not the case for a lot of other people. 2) Storyteller: There is more to telling a story than writing a script. That’s sort of why we need directors, you know? He is a brilliant storyteller because he not only knows excactly how he should tell his stories for greatest impact, but also because he is ABLE to tell his stories that way. Those two things usually don’t go hand in hand. Also, MANY PEOPLE relate to his stories in an instinctive way (And regardless of what you say, mass appeal is not neccessarily a bad thing). 3) SS is obviously not a director for hire, seeing as he develops and produces pretty much every movie he makes, and has final cut. 4) Spielberg’s voice: I never said his voice was that he was optimistic. If the auteur discussion on Spielberg has in some way eluded you, I once again recommend the book Citizen Spielberg. The discussion is too long to take here, but Spielberg has a voice, he has recurring motifs and themes, and he has a distinct style (what you call same-y. Couldn’t you say the same for a Michael Mann movie? Or a John Ford or Kubrick movie too? They all bear the distinct hallmarks of their director. Does that make them same-y?) 5) Frankly, I think you misunderstood the point of Schindler’s List. For one, you not being able to tell the difference between the Dresners, the Rosners, the Pfefferbergs, Helen Hirsch, et al. is more a failing on your side than on the movie’s. I for one had no trouble remembering even their names now, let alone their faces and their characters, and I haven’t seen the movie for years. But if you fail to see that Oscar Schindler’s journey from nazi party member opportunist to the saviour of 1100 jews is optimistic, then you must be emotionally decrepit. 6) The historical revisionism of Munich is beside the point. The movie uses historical events (never claiming this is the one and only truth) as a vantage point for a morally complex discussion on the nature of vengeance, and is all the more potent because the events 35 years back in time still resonate in today’s geopolitcal climate. 7) Spielberg being a brilliant technical director...come on! He is able, apparently intuitively, pretty much in EVERY SCENE HE SHOOTS, to know how the camerawork should be, how the lighting, sound, mise-en-scène, blocking, pacing – EVERYTHING – should be in order to make the sequence unfold as organically as possibly, making the sequence function perfectly not only as a separate unit, but also as a part of the film as a whole. The only other director I’ve seen do this as seemingly organically and effortlessly as Spielberg is Orson Welles. Even the people who hate SS admit that he is brilliant technically. That he does this at a great pace is just telling of how intuitive his understanding of filmmaking is. 8) The cinematography, music and casting is once again a matter of taste. There is nothing lacking in the quality of Kaminski’s cinematography or Williams’ music, just because you don’t like it. 9) Spielberg being a businessman making him by definition a subpar artist is a moronic statement and should be benath you. There is absolutely no substance or logic in that assertion.
-
I thought about your distaste of most things Spielberg, and it made me think of a comment of an aspiring director on "On The Lot". He had said that when he saw Jurassic Park, it inspired him to become a director. Really? Your cinematic touchstone to influence your career is Jurassic Park? I would think that most young filmmakers today aspire to be the next Spielberg. Instead of looking to the films of Hitchcock (which I will defend as a Master), Kurasawa, Ford, etc. for inspiration, everyone wants to be the next Spielberg.I think a fair analogy is Stephen King, undoubtably the most popular author of the past 30-odd years. There is artistry within his work, much like Spielberg, its just his choice of canvas.And I dare say there are those who call King a hack.I echo the choices of favorites from both directors, and I agree that you'll never see a credit "produced by Michael Mann...directed by Michael Bay." But to call Spielberg a hack after such a fine , diverse body of work is unwarranted, but I understand where you're coming from.
-
dear god. there's something seriously, seriously wrong with a 40+ year old man going this far out of his way to troll internet talkbacks. just one more suggestion dude -- lighten up. i personally don't think spielberg makes kiddy movies as you condescendingly refer to them, but you know what? there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a movie that appeals to people of all ages. i can't imagine ever being friends or family with someone that couldn't lighten up enough to enjoy raiders, or ET, or animated movies or even movies that are specifically made for children. because there are some great ones if you're willing to stop being a humorless douche. i really really, REALLY hope you don't have kids. i can only imagine you sitting there glowering over your poor child forcing him to slog through miami vice. ugh. it must horrible being that way.
-
Jul 11, 2007 12:48:56 PM CDT
AnimalLover always crawls out from under his stone
by talkbacker with no name
...whenever something Spielberg related is posted and cries "hack!". It's his only sad routine unfortunitly. I'd pay him no attention and maybe he will either a) go away or b) say something of any merit and interest...but doubt it.
Saw this documentary and agree it really needed to be longer. Having said that, what was there was really good. -
You could have the best of both worlds.
-
...meesa a bad-ass Miami cop...
-
...on one hand i actually like speiberg. mostly just because of JAWS, and i don't think i've even seen half of his other films, but i still have to give the guy props because, well.....he did fucking JAWS man. having said that, i don't think you can call SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MUNICH "summer popcorn movies", so that pretty much kills the "He makes the same shit over and over again" argument. so whatever with that.
but anyway, on the other hand, i really dug MIAMI VICE too. it actually is underrated as a film imo. sure it's a bit all over the place and it could use an edit here or there (the extended sex scenes really grind the flick to a screeching halt) but besides that it's a GREAT looking film that has a "downer" ending, which is always cool in my book. so i kinda feel where animal is comming from...
so to sum up, comming from someone who is NOT a "Spielberg apologist" in any way shape or form: yes, miami vice is a underrated movie, and HELL NO it's not anywhere fucking near jaws. not now, not 10 years from now. never. ever. just roll with it brother. -
OK, I admit things went a little fast there, and that may read as pretty hyperbolic. Sorry.
What I meant to say is that SS’s technical filmmaking is, as far as ”textbook” filmmaking goes, pretty difficult to fault. It's organic, intuitive, and effortless, if that makes sense to you. It was meant as a more objective statement than what I wrote. I didn't mean that it's ALWAYS perfect. I’m not saying technical filmmaking (the nuts n bolts of it if you will) is enough to make a good movie. You need something more intangible as well. But the fact that SS does this so expertly contributes to put him above the hacks. I realize the above is only fuel to your fire, but I’m saying it in the vain hope that you’ll agree the real hack jobs are technically illiterate compared to SS.
That said, I think you’re making some pretty cheap shots in your last post, not least by attributing me with opinions based on your skewed interpretations of what I’ve actually written. It is meaningless to discuss with you when your arguments are so completely categoric and lacking of nuance.
1) at no point have I stated popcorn blockbusters are the height of art. However, I think art is to be found there, as well as many other unexpected places. 2) I have never said good business people make good artists (how did you get that from what I wrote?), all I have said is that it is possible to be an artist and a good business man at the same time. 3) quality IS more often than not based on opinion. Your opinions are not fact. 4) I have never said I consider Spielberg the greatest director of all time. I like a wide array of movies. My favourite director is John Ford. You know, the maker of westerns, the hack working within the studio system churning out about 100 feature films in his career. Talentless hack. I read books about film. Books about Steven Spielberg are among them. I read books about things that interest me, but that doesn’t mean by default I’m blindly devoted to everything that interests me. For the record: Spielberg isn’t always perfect. Some of his movies are BAD, 1941 being the worst . Still, it is technically impressive – the dance sequence for intstance. 5) The masses are NOT asses. There is no such thing as a mass mind. And you’re making the assumption that people who watch ’stupid’ films by default are stupid - you apparently can't conceive of people in their right minds consiously choosing something different than you. And that makes you narrow minded and arrogant. 6) I have absolutely no opinion on any Scientology tent. I’ll reserve that for the readers of celebrity gossip magazines. It has nothing to do with Spielberg’s creative output, you’re just muddling the debate.
You say that you’re not insulting me by asking my age, yet that is excactly what you do, more than implying that I’m too young to know better. How’s that not an insult? Suffice it to say I’m older than you assume. Age has nothing to do with this discussion, I’m obviously younger than you, still I am the one able to admit that I got overzealous and hyperbolic, I am not the one taking cheap shots at my opponent’s person, or making absurd assumptions and generalizations, I’m not the one bragging about not liking Hitchcock (what was that?). And I am not the one calling anyone a sucker of anyone’s cock. With the risk of sounding as self congratulatory as you, I’m extremely happy in my knowledge that when I’m fifty, I will not be the person you are. Make of that what you will. If you are willing to discuss on a more construcive, reasonable level, I’ll be back. If not, have as nice a life as you are able to. Finally, will you please let me know how Munich is a post modern hack job? -
Film making is a team effort. I win.
-
Jul 12, 2007 1:56:37 AM CDT
AnimalStructure, If you hate spielberg so much...
by talkbacker with no name
why do you continue to watch and whine about his films? Now I love Michael Mann and David Cronenberg proberly as much as you, but why in the hell you use these guys in defence of your hate against Spielberg is beyond confusing.
It seems the real issue is that you hate Spielberg because we like him.
See you on the opening day for Indy 4, you fucking goof! -
Its simply another display of great film-making, just like War of the Worlds and a stream of other films from him.
Technically he has become one of the great directors of all time, but his sentimentality holds his films back from achieving what darker directors have achieved.
And onto Munich, I mentioned it was well made, however, the content is trite, and only continues the tradition of tentpole film-makers making art films for the mainstream. We are treated to silly conversations that justify how good Masoud agents are.
The biggest damnation of Munich is the book it was based of 'Vengence'. It has been attacked by past masoud agents, whom claim they doubt the writer of the book was even connected to the attacks.
The idea, masoud agents felt regret, and ambiguity is a notion ridiculed by other masoud agents.
A highlight in the book, and in the actual story is the mistaken murder of a libyan waitor, infront of his pregnant wife, by a masoud agent. An event which led to genuine hesitancy on their mission, an event mysteriously absent from the movie.
The movie is obviously political, and tackled by someone whom is clearly biased. A well-made film yes, but a not a good film IMO. -
what movies based on historical facts, in your opinion, are not guilty of representing the past in the light of the present? And why is that always a bad thing? Not trying to pick a fight here, just find the subject interesting. Nabster: both sides of the conflict have attacked SS for being biased - either pro Israel or pro Palestina. One could argue this is a film where what you take out of it depends on what you took with you in.
-
The scene in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS when Richard Dreyfuss whose an electric lineman is out in his truck at night checking the power failure reports. He stops to check a map. A car drives past with the driver cursing him out for blocking the road. Another pair of lights appear behind the truck Dreyfuss thinks it's another car and gestures for it to pass. While he's looking back down at his map the lights RISE OUT OF FRAME. I fucking loved that!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts