Has Spielberg..

[Scarface King]

..ever made a bad film?

Excuse me if he has, and I may not have known he directed it :D

[electriclite]

Well a lot of people didn't like Hook, and 1941 was a critical and financial disaster.

[Ren Hoek]

Hook WAS a disaster... yeah, a financial success, but an artistic failure.

BTW, I really liked 1941... though Spielberg said in recent interviews that he doesn't like some of his old films (incl. 1941) because he can't 'emotionally connect' with them anymore.

[Buck Turgidson]

You mean other than E.T.? :D

[notchreturns]

He's only made one film I can say I didn't enjoy. 1941. Besides that, all of his films have been enjoyable at some level or pure brillance...

[Pootie]

i liked jurassic park 3 better than 2. at least it knew it was a popcorn movie.

[Jango Fett II]

The only movies of his that he directed and I thought were bad were:

The Lost World
Hook

[Beeblebrox]

The answer is no.

Not all of his films are going to appeal to everyone. And some were financial duds (though none of them cataclysmic). But none of them were outright bad.

If you're including his TV work, then that may be a different story.

[Scarface King]

Oh man, I loved Hook. You guys are breaking my heart :(

:p

[bob]

Has Speilberg ever made a bad film? Hmm.....just:

1941
Always
The Color Purple
Hook
The Lost World
Saving Private Ryan
A.I.
Schindler's List
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Amistad

And that's just off the top of my head....(and just ones he directed)

[uncle_el]

Originally posted by bob
Has Speilberg ever made a bad film? Hmm.....just:


The Color Purple

Saving Private Ryan

Schindler's List




:confused:

[Michael_myers]

Not ny I've seen. Did he do batteries Not Included?

[Sugar Magnolia]

Originally posted by uncle_el
:confused:

Exactly.:confused:

[SLAW]

I did not like A.I and I thought MINORITY REPORT was overrated (but not bad). I think Spielberg thinks highly of himself. Kubrick may have had the same fault, but Kubrick put his entire life into all his films, where as Spielberg wants to make as many as possible and have his name attached to everything.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by SLAW
I did not like A.I and I thought MINORITY REPORT was overrated (but not bad). I think Spielberg thinks highly of himself. Kubrick may have had the same fault, but Kubrick put his entire life into all his films, where as Spielberg wants to make as many as possible and have his name attached to everything.

Oh please. Kubrick made 16 films. Spielberg has made 20. Not that big of difference. Martin Scorcese has made more than both of them.

Second, what does have to do with whether or not he's made any bad movies?

[platanero79]

MINORITY REPORT one the most overrated Place of shit i said it again overrated ! just my opinion

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Second, what does have to do with whether or not he's made any bad movies?

He makes too many movies these days. The quality goes down when you try and make a movie or two every year. Scorcese is older then Spielberg by the way.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by platanero79
MINORITY REPORT one the most overrated Place of shit i said it again overrated ! just my opinion

i must agree with the overrated part...but not the piece of shit part

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by SLAW

He makes too many movies these days. The quality goes down when you try and make a movie or two every year.

But that does not really substantiate your point. There was a 3 year gap between SPR and AI, which you said you didn't like. And a 1 year gap between AI and MR, which you admit wasn't bad (and has made several top 10 lists). And then there's the 6 month gap between MR and the wonderful CMIYC. By that rationale, he should make movies MORE often, not less.

Scorcese is older then Spielberg by the way.

Yes, by a whopping 3 years.

[Ender]

Has Spielberg ever made a bad film? Oh, let me count the ways:

MINORITY REPORT (predictable tripe, covered with ads)
JAWS (dull and uninspired)
CLOSER ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (sooooo boring)
THE LOST WORLD (popcorn? I'm sorry, I didn't know "popcorn" was the Hollywood term for "poorly written")
ET (sappy, sappy, sappy!)

S.Spielberg, the most overrated director of all time.

[jlovborg]

I think a more appropriate question would be whether or not Spielberg has ever made a good film. But that's just my opinion.

[Buck Turgidson]

Just for the record, I love Amistad.

Steve's not the unquestioned cinematic genius that some would have you believe. However, neither is he the treaclemeister that some others think him to be. I've though both at various times in my life and I was wrong. He's a great Director w/ a fine track record, which includes some missteps.

Just like Scorsese and Coppola.

[MickeyKnox]

Hook and Always were really bad movies that he made i mean honestly u'll watch these movies and think how could he do these movies for such a celebrated movie director.

[Nate6]

*coughhookand1941suckcough*

He's a great director :)

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
But that does not really substantiate your point. There was a 3 year gap between SPR and AI, which you said you didn't like. And a 1 year gap between AI and MR, which you admit wasn't bad (and has made several top 10 lists). And then there's the 6 month gap between MR and the wonderful CMIYC. By that rationale, he should make movies MORE often, not less.

Then maybe I personally don't jizz in my pants over every movie he makes and I personally think I see him credited to something way to often. Like someone already said, he's the most celebrated director in Hollywood and it doesn't feel right.



Yes, by a whopping 3 years.

Well dam! He sure looks much older. :D

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Ender
Has Spielberg ever made a bad film? Oh, let me count the ways:


JAWS (dull and uninspired)




(Pounds chest, trying to restart her heart)

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by electriclite
(Pounds chest, trying to restart her heart)

Joins in the action...

[Kastman]

Originally posted by notchreturns
Joins in the action...

(watches excitedly)

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Kastman
(watches excitedly)


Ok, time to take your head out of the gutter.

I believe notchreturns meant "pounding HIS OWN chest"............

And if he didn't, He'd better mean it now.

[Gregorious8]

Yeah he's made some bad films, but every director is going to have at least one during their career.

[SIREN30]

I don't think he's ever made a truly BAD film. I believe all of his movies have a certain inspiration and some moved me amazingly (Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Jaws, Catch Me If You Can, Raiders of the Lost Ark) and some moved me very little (Hook, Always). I don't agree that he makes too many movies and therefore his resume' is looking bleak, however, since Catch Me if You Can was one of the greatest movies I've seen in years. He has his hits and his near-misses but he's never totally failed, which is INCREDIBLE for a director.

[robk]

I agree that 1941, Hook, & Always weren't as magical as they should have been, but they still had their good points.
Like his spiritual brother Scorsese, Spielberg continues to make, overall, interesting work. Even his lesser films have interesting moments.
Perhaps this is my bias talking, but, you have to admit, both Spielberg & Scorsese's recent work is more watchable than the way Lucas has trashed Star Wars with those $hitty prequels.

As for Spielberg making more than 1 film in a year, Hitchcock & Howard Hawks(among others) did that in their hay day, & I've read interviews with Spielberg saying that he really thrives on doing the same. Whether both films work or not isn't the point(although I LOVED both Minority Report & Catch Me If You Can). If the guy wants to do it, I'm willing to watch.

[MarkItZero]

I have always felt that Spielberg is a bit overrated as a director. That being said, I dont know that I have ever watched one of his films that I thought was really bad either. I would say that on the whole he makes decent, watchable and occasionally (but not as often as some think) great mainstream movies.

On the other other hand, he did direct Raiders of the Lost Ark and thats just plain cool.

[James Logan]

I'm a huge fan of his, he's the greatest director there is in my opinion, and I don't think he's ever made any bad films. He's made a lot of great films, and some good films (ALWAYS, 1941, HOOK, as stated above by other Schmoes). But none of 'em were bad per se, not even DUEL, his directing debut, which actually is pretty impressive (without being a masterpiece).

[Ren Hoek]

Originally posted by James Logan
But none of 'em were bad per se, not even DUEL, his directing debut, which actually is pretty impressive (without being a masterpiece).

DUEL IS very impressive... of course all his other films have a more impressive look. But what really gives evidence of Spielberg's skills as a director, is the fact that he managed to make this great thrilling film with a very very low TV budget.

[Cyclonus]

I consider Spielberg a good craftsman, but not a great artist. He doesn't have that "special something" that Martin Scorsese or Oliver Stone do. The man has made some good films, but he also gave us the uttterly mediocre Lost World. Hook was alright but hardly does justice to the Peter Pan legend. I thought that A.I. and Minority Report were good, but not great--they're less mainstream than usual but don't quite reach that level of inspiration.

[Beeblebrox]

But none of 'em were bad per se, not even DUEL, his directing debut, which actually is pretty impressive (without being a masterpiece).

Strictly speaking, Duel was not his directing debut. It wasn't even his feature debut, that being another made for TV movie he made earlier. It was the feature that really raised his status as a director and led to his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express.

I consider Spielberg a good craftsman, but not a great artist. He doesn't have that "special something" that Martin Scorsese or Oliver Stone do.

He IS a great artist as well as a craftsman, in that all great directors are both.

[bob]

Oh yeah, Emperor of the Sun and E.T. were also bad.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by bob
Oh yeah, Emperor of the Sun and E.T. were also bad.

Dear Sweet Lord! I guess that goes to show you there's no accounting for taste. I think Empire of the Sun is the best Speilberg movie to date! The acting by Christian Bale, who basically had to carry the entire 2+ hours, is unequaled by any child actor before or since. It made me a die-hard fan of his for the rest of his life. He will never do wrong in my book. Plus, so many fabulous scenes...lawdy, I could go on and on.

[ilovemovies]

Well I only saw 5 to 10 minutes of the ending to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and although it is unfair to judge a movie by only 10 minutes what I saw was pretty aweful. I was watching in disbelief. I couldn't believe that the same people who did the GREAT Raiders of the Lost Ark were the same people who did this. The action sequences were a mess, Kate Capshaw and that little kid were terrible even Harrison Ford seemed to be out of his element. Ofcoarse to be fair I will view the movie in it's entirety some day and who knows maybe it was just those scenes I saw or maybe the censors did a lousy (an understatement if this is the case) job editing the movie for television.


Otherwise, no. Not only has Spielberg not made a bad movie, but he hasn't even made a mediocre movie. (except for Flintstones but he was the executive producer of that movie not director) Infact I say without hesitation that he is the best filmmaker/director working today.

[MarkItZero]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Well I only saw 5 to 10 minutes of the ending to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and although it is unfair to judge a movie by only 10 minutes what I saw was pretty aweful. I was watching in disbelief. I couldn't believe that the same people who did the GREAT Raiders of the Lost Ark were the same people who did this.

I thought Temple of Doom was awful. Hardly a worthy sequel to the masterpiece that is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Kate Capshaw was soooo annoying. And it looked like Harrison Ford sleepwalked through the whole thing. Last Crusade was better and we shall see in a couple of years how the 4th one turns out.

[SIREN30]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Well I only saw 5 to 10 minutes of the ending to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and although it is unfair to judge a movie by only 10 minutes what I saw was pretty aweful. I was watching in disbelief. I couldn't believe that the same people who did the GREAT Raiders of the Lost Ark were the same people who did this. The action sequences were a mess, Kate Capshaw and that little kid were terrible even Harrison Ford seemed to be out of his element. Ofcoarse to be fair I will view the movie in it's entirety some day and who knows maybe it was just those scenes I saw or maybe the censors did a lousy (an understatement if this is the case) job editing the movie for television.


Otherwise, no. Not only has Spielberg not made a bad movie, but he hasn't even made a mediocre movie. (except for Flintstones but he was the executive producer of that movie not director) Infact I say without hesitation that he is the best filmmaker/director working today.

It's funny you mention this film. There is a topic in the video reviews forum that is talking about this too. I always forget Spielberg directed it because it is so mediocre. Some of it makes me cringe (the part where Indie gets hypnotized, every scene w/ Kate Capshaw) and the dinner scene is so over the top it's rediculous...yeah, it's pretty bad.

[Grebdron]

The best, who has made a couple of less than stellar movies. Happens to the best of them. And somebody said that Spielberg doesn't have the "magic touch" that Oliver Fucking Stone has? That's funny. Oliver Stone has made one good movie IMO. Magic, indeed.

[Sugar Magnolia]

Originally posted by Grebdron
[B Oliver Stone has made one good movie IMO.[/B]

Just out of curiosity, what Oliver Stone movie did you like?

[Grebdron]

Born on the Fourth of July. I detest Ron Kovic, but it was a good movie.

[the movie guy]

So you thought it was only a well-made movie, or what?

Or are you saying you detest the person who PLAYED Ron Kovic?

I'm just trying to figure out how you liked a movie so much if you hated the main character so much.

[Grebdron]

Yeah, a well-made movie, and Tom Cruise's best performance. But I detest the character it was based on. Just personal politics.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Grebdron
I detest Ron Kovic

Why? Okay, I see now. Never mind...

[bob]

I actually think that Temple of Doom is one of the three good movies Speilberg's made, along with Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Kate Capshaw is annoying as hell, though.

[Conor]

you guys are killin me! i love speilberg!!

[Cyclonus]

Guys, I was never trying to put him down, but he just is not among my favorite contemporary filmmakers. I really think he's a good director--at times a very good director, but the guy just gets too much exposure. I thought Minority Report was a solid film, but overpraised in some circles. I do think that Schlinder's List and Saving Private Ryan were great movies though.

[a.k.a bechara]

Damn ! This is a message to some of you that had written some absurd things.

I read some posts back that Spielberg doesn't have a "magical touch" like Oliver Stone..
Ouch! Get lost. A director doesn't need to talk about the existencialism or about how human's life is complex to be good.

Can't he be one of the best directors of all-time just because he SELLS wonderfully?
His movies aren't , in general, emotionally filled.
Yes! They ARE blockbusters.
E.T , SPR , IJ , JP , all of them are "pop-corn", YET!, wonderful movies.

Get rid of hipocrisy guys

[Cyclonus]

I've always felt that Oliver Stone and Martin Scorsese are better filmmakers than Spielberg. Their films are not just "movies," they often feel like fragments of their creators' very souls. I don't get that feeling from S.S. JFK is the best film from any of the three, and is one of the finest (if not the finest) example of personal political filmmaking.

[Buck Turgidson]

JFK is, like Alan Parker's Mississippi Burning, a fascinating and excellent film. They're both also almost complete bullshit.

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
I've always felt that Oliver Stone and Martin Scorsese are better filmmakers than Spielberg. Their films are not just "movies," they often feel like fragments of their creators' very souls. I don't get that feeling from S.S. JFK is the best film from any of the three, and is one of the finest (if not the finest) example of personal political filmmaking.

ET isn't emotional or personal? Maybe you should open up a bit. It is (and feels like) as much a part of the man as anything by Scorcese or Stone.

Schindler's List. Close Encounters. What makes Spielberg's films great is that they give you the pathos and the soul without hammering you over the head with it. He can entertain you and enlighten you at the same time.

Scorcese is great but one note (another movie about gangsters in NY?). Stone is equally talented, but also limited in terms of tone (he tends to wear his politics on his sleeve).

I love these guys. They are all great but they all do different things.

[NobodySpecial]

Personally I think Lost World was a terrible movie, but I don't blame Spielberg, I blame Crichton for the book, and the screenwriters for their adaption of it.

Spielberg was just a pawn in their sick game! ;)

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
What makes Spielberg's films great is that they give you the pathos and the soul without hammering you over the head with it.

You and I have disagreed on several matters, and agreed on several others (politics and Citizen Kane, most notably), so don't take this personally, because it's not meant as such, but... that's the silliest thing you've ever written here.

At his best, he can be as subtle as anyone who has ever sat behind a camera, but at his worst (which comes across far too often), Spielberg pounds his points home. It's his chief flaw and one that keeps him from his true greatness.

[ColinM]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
...but at his worst (which comes across far too often), Spielberg pounds his points home.

Examples?

[Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
At his best, he can be as subtle as anyone who has ever sat behind a camera, but at his worst (which comes across far too often), Spielberg pounds his points home. It's his chief flaw and one that keeps him from his true greatness.

Are you comparing the worst of Spielberg to the best of Scorcese or Stone? I couldn't disagree that that's the only way to make it a fair comparison. ;)

I'm not talking about his message (although you still couldn't make the argument that any of these guys is any more subtle than the other). I'm talking about the "soul" as you call it. There is no way you would know, unless you're familiar with his background, that E.T. was mainly a story about the divorce of Spielberg's parents. It is essentially a dark movie (it's lit like a horror film) about a lonely boy, but it is carefully disguised in a story about an alien trying to get back home.

Now imagine if Stone or Scorcese had done a film with that same message. You'd get a much more literal story about a boy who goes through the divorce of his parents. No magic. No wonder. You'd get the pathos spelled out in more certain terms. There would be no question that this story was about a boy going through the divorce of his parents.

But even IF, by your standards, that's still not subtle enough, then by a comparable measure, Scorcese and IN PARTICULAR Stone are about as subtle as a $2 hooker.

What makes Spielberg's a "chief flaw" and what makes it okay for them to do it?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Are you comparing the worst of Spielberg to the best of Scorcese or Stone? I couldn't disagree that that's the only way to make it a fair comparison. ;)

I'm not talking about his message (although you still couldn't make the argument that any of these guys is any more subtle than the other). I'm talking about the "soul" as you call it. There is no way you would know, unless you're familiar with his background, that E.T. was mainly a story about the divorce of Spielberg's parents. It is essentially a dark movie (it's lit like a horror film) about a lonely boy, but it is carefully disguised in a story about an alien trying to get back home.

Now imagine if Stone or Scorcese had done a film with that same message. You'd get a much more literal story about a boy who goes through the divorce of his parents. No magic. No wonder. You'd get the pathos spelled out in more certain terms. There would be no question that this story was about a boy going through the divorce of his parents.

But even IF, by your standards, that's still not subtle enough, then by a comparable measure, Scorcese and IN PARTICULAR Stone are about as subtle as a $2 hooker.

What makes Spielberg's a "chief flaw" and what makes it okay for them to do it?

I am truly flabbergasted, Beeble!! We agree on something. There is hope for existence.

[bob]

Err, Speilberg, in general BEATS YOU SENSELESS with trying to be emotional. He is among the LEAST subtle of working directors. Now, don't say I'm a hyprocrite because I've said many times I love the IJ trilogy. Those films aren't subtle. They're big, rip-roaring adventure films that don't stop to take a breath. That's great. They, with the exception of one or two slow parts, never try to evoke emotions other than awe.

But the rest of speilberg's canon is painfully unsubtle. Whenever we're supposed to feel sad, the music swells, a tear falls, etc.

Look at Scorcese's pre-1990's work. VERY subtle. For instance, when Travis gets rejected in Taxi Driver, do they play it up? No. The camera pans away down a long hall, so we can't see his pain. In a Speilberg movie, the character would have slammed the phone down and cried, and John Williams would have had a music cue in there.

Comparing Spielberg and Scorcese is a huge insult to the latter.

[Beeblebrox]

Look at Scorcese's pre-1990's work.

Being forced to compare Scorcese's very best with Spielberg's worst is the real insult to Scorcese. Compare apples to apples here.

Taxi Driver was about as subtle as a massive coronary. You like it, fine. You buy into it, fine. You prefer Scorcese's stories over Spielberg's stories, fine. But what they are doing is not all that different from each other. Gangs of New York could just as easily have been Spielberg's film as Scorcese's.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with getting the point across. It's that emotion that makes the films so great. I personally don't think that emotional subtlety is, in and of itself, a virtue.

My original comparison was not about subtlety in tone, but in inspiration and "soul." Would you ever have any doubt that Scorcese was an italian New Yorker or that Oliver Stone had certain political views? They wear their convictions on their sleeves. Spielberg wasn't so overt until much later in his career, with Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. That doesn't make his prior personal projects any less personal, just not as obvious.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
Are you comparing the worst of Spielberg to the best of Scorcese or Stone? I couldn't disagree that that's the only way to make it a fair comparison. ;)

I'm not talking about his message (although you still couldn't make the argument that any of these guys is any more subtle than the other). I'm talking about the "soul" as you call it.
But even IF, by your standards, that's still not subtle enough, then by a comparable measure, Scorcese and IN PARTICULAR Stone are about as subtle as a $2 hooker.

What makes Spielberg's a "chief flaw" and what makes it okay for them to do it?


Take that "Soul" and Oliver Stone business up with Cyclonus. Those are his arguments, not mine. If you're going to engage in another Talmudic line-by-line dissection of everyone else's opinions, assign the proper ones to the proper people.

I've only ever really liked one of Stone's films (Platoon). While he's a skilled filmmaker, he's too unfocused and dishonest to ever be a truly great Director, at least from where I sit.

If you want my overall opinion of Spielberg, go back to page one and go about 1/3 of the way down. As I wrote there, he's a great Director who has made some occasional missteps, like Scorsese and Coppola. That's the only time I ever mentioned Scorsese's name. (Martin's chief flaw isn't lack of subtlety, it's casting his movies w/ his dick, a la Peter Bogdanovich.)

Spielberg has always had a tendency to surrender to the melodramatic impulse and (overall), I think it weakens some of his films, and consequently, his canon in general. It's a flaw, but hardly a disqualifying one.

None of this is really objectifiably "provable". It's wholly a matter of subjective judgements.

[daisybuchanan]

Originally posted by NobodySpecial
Personally I think Lost World was a terrible movie, but I don't blame Spielberg, I blame Crichton for the book, and the screenwriters for their adaption of it.

Spielberg was just a pawn in their sick game! ;)

I love this. Let me see, if the movie is well-done it's the work of a brilliant and talented director, but if it sucks it's the thick-headed, low-browed writer's fault.

Is it impossible for a good director to make a poor film without it being an insidious plot of the writer?

[daisybuchanan]

Originally posted by NobodySpecial
Personally I think Lost World was a terrible movie, but I don't blame Spielberg, I blame Crichton for the book, and the screenwriters for their adaption of it.

Spielberg was just a pawn in their sick game! ;)

I love this. Let me see, if the movie is well-done it's the work of a brilliant and talented director, but if it sucks it's the thick-headed, low-browed writer's fault.

Is it impossible for a good director to make a poor film without it being an insidious plot of the writer?

[KyleG]

Ok I love Spielberg and I think her is probably the best director out there. But Twister ( which he produced) isn't a very good movie at all. Yeah it has some neat effects, but take it from me I LIVE IN KANSAS and tornadoes arn't anything like what they show you in that movie

[James Logan]

Originally posted by KyleG
Ok I love Spielberg and I think her is probably the best director out there. But Twister ( which he produced) isn't a very good movie at all. Yeah it has some neat effects, but take it from me I LIVE IN KANSAS and tornadoes arn't anything like what they show you in that movie

a) There's a big difference between directing a movie and producing it (Spielberg also produced stuff like GREMLINS or MEN IN BLACK, and if those movies are good it's less thanks to him than to Joe Dante and Barry Sonnenfeld who directed 'em)

b) I don't think TWISTER meant to be realistic. ;)

[DieHardBruceFan]

Unfortunately, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is the first Spielberg flick that didn't blow me away the first time I saw it in a theater. Hopefully with time, I 'll appreciate a bit more. I liked the movie, but I didn't love like I usually do when it comes to his films. It wasn't on my Top 10 for the year like his movies usaully are (MINORITY REPORT is, though)

Spielberg is my favorite director of all time and I will appreciate and enjoy anything he does.

[Shayde]

In my opinion Spielberg is the best director out there. I have seen him take crappy actors and make them look brilliant... the man does it all, and does it all perfectly. There are none better IMO.