Interesting indeed!

Oh, I love Speilbergian popcorn flicks as much as the next guy. I also believe it is that sentimentality that makes his summer films resonate with audiences more than any other blockbuster film maker, but in my opinion, it is that same candy-coated syrup that makes his oscar-bait films feel a little juvenile.

As far as Spielberg's current career status is concerned, I dont know whether he's being less or more risky, but I do know that a lot of his films are much smaller than they used to be, and a heck of a lot more joyless, too.

That said, I actually did enjoy Munich, flaws and all. Believe it or not, I'm that way with most films: I'll love them, find some flaws in them, and love them anyway (sometimes even BECAUSE of the flaws). But Munich illustrates Spielberg's rather elementary and simplistic take on serious subject matters.

Just so you know, jackson, I was only being facetious and am really not trying to insult you--just having some fun is all. ;)

Hope Ali G gets it right this time.

I mean, who the fuck does he think he is, huh? Hearst?! Yankton?! Or is he just some lowlife heathen fuckin' cocksucker taking a shit in the thoroughfare?

To your dismay I am indeed very well-versed in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And I think it would be good if Israel would stop treating them like sheeps to slaughter. That's my opinion. You don't like it, too fucking bad for you.

Birdbrain? That's a real low blow.

And if you think you can edit me because you disagree with my opinion ... you've got a lot of typing ahead of you, son.

Now, on topic: Spielberg is currently a shadow of his former self. In my opinion, almost everything he has made since (and including) Hook is flawed if not poor- and includes some of the worst films ever made (Hook, AI and The Lost World).

However, he still produces and directs movies at a quite staggering rate- and if he is on a current low streak, this is only by the standards he set in the 70's and 80's. I personally hope that munich is a turning point as I thought the first 2/3rds were simply amazing and then from killing the dutch hooker-assasin to the end dismal, unsubtle and unsatisfying.

He isn't perfect (no-one is) but is still America's pre-eminent director, and if he is failing by his standards it is only because his standards are so much higher than everyone else's. And furthermore, look at the current output of his contemporaries: do any of them hold a candle to him? I'd argue that not one of them touches him in terms of amount and quality of output.

The Normandy landing was spectacular and a staggering cinematic achievement. But it is a high spot in an otherwise disappointing film. The opening and closing mawkishness in the cemetary is both bad storytelling and nauseatingly embarrasing film-making. It destroyed the lack of tension in the film by making it completely inevitable that Ryan would be saved.

Once the (breathtaking) landing sequence was complete the main characters were introduced and a more cliche ridden, poorly scripted bunch they could not have been. The remainder of the film is listening to tedious, faux-weighty monologues that are supposed to give insights into the characters, but just add nothing apart from opportunities for the actors to make their oscar clip speech. War movies should have dialogue between the characters, banter, and never, ever, monologues. It is inelegant to say the least.

The final battle is, again, fun. However, it is not a patch on the Landing, and as such feels anticlimactic after the early sequence. And as we already know that Ryan survives, and when the film opens he is at someone's grave it doesn't take a genius to work out that Tom Hanks is fucked. Then the film wallows in a bath of syrup again.

Not to mention peoples problems with the premise.

I'm not trying to take away from the Normandy Landing, but this is one (albeit brilliant) 20 minute sequence in a 3 hour movie. To ignore the flaws of the rest because of the technical and artistic genius of this scene is, I believe, deeply mistaken.

cheers.

INTERSTELLAR is definitely the film I would like hime to do next. It was originally planned as a 2009 release. I am looking forward to 2009 more than any movie year ever. I think WATCHMEN and AVATAR are both going to be genre classics. How many of those have we had since the late 70's to the mid 80's? Five, maybe!

Seriously, though, I wouldn't describe the baby boom generation (nor it's wing of hippies) as the "worst" generation in the US (not least because I'm not sure what you are comparing them to). They were and are better educated and more economically productive than any other generation saving their successors.

As for their alleged "all time high rates" of drug-use and crime, I take it you aren't a student of history? I'll give you the divorce stat, but I'm not sure what the problem is there. If people want to get a divorce, why shouldn't they be able to?

Finally, regarding social security, I guess you can sorta blame the boomers for not having enough kids, and for living longer than they were supposed to. Of course, they also *work* longer than they were supposed to, so it's entirely possible that social security will be just fine in the future--that's what projections based on reasonable economic growth say, anyway. I'm more worried about medicare/medicaid expenditures than social security.

Anyway, I'm not arguing with some mouth-foamer as badly informed as you especially given that all I ever sought to do was point out that your hyperbolic demonization of some hazily defined group (of millions of people with no unifying factor aside from approximate birthdate) is kinda foolish.

Maybe you don't want to do a dissertation for the talkbackers--that's fair--but show me the evidence, and you just might convince me.