Yeah Hook was one of his misfires (along with Always).

He has had his share of unsucessful films (the ones previously mentioned) and hired gun films.

I didn't have a problem with him until Super 8 came along.

Good point. Nevertheless I think Brody (the policeman) defeating the shark ist the only solution which works. First of all "Jaws" is his story. The almost "indoorsy" maritime biologist has no background or depth beyond being competent at what he does, but not "in the field" (even the affair with Brody's wife, from the book which I havent' read, is left out in the movie). His role (in the movie) is doing the explaining to the audience and providing the "serious" scientific character. Robert Shaw's "outdoorsy" mysterious over the top old school "sailorman" simply is the polar opposite - and also a typical tragical figure who has been through way too much in his life, and always on the edge of insanity.
Brody is the center of gravity and the stand-in for the audience. Sure, the American middle-class is being promoted here (as in many a later Spielberg movie), certainly for commercial reasons, but the story is so well constructed around this basic idea (calling it a "business model" would be too harsh, but it isn't too far off) that I have nothing to point out against it.

I think its says something about Spielberg that a thread like this could get a lot of responses. I would bet that he has a higher ratio of films seen by posters here than any other director(contrast that to someone like Woody Allen. I'm not going to name names, but more than a few posters here have said they've never even seen one of films. or that Midnight In Paris was their first one

Love him or hate him, seems like most films fans have seen most of Spielberg's work, certainly enough to have an educated opinion on him. kinda takes away the sting of those that claim to not be crazy about him, yet they plunk down their $ to see his work over & over again. decade after decade.



hmm, a Spielberg Gangs would have been very interesting.
and yeah he probably would have aced The Aviator.

A lot of times for me it is tough to keep track of some of the movies he's directed vs. other's I've associated with him that he only produced (like Young Sherlock Homes, Gremlins, or The Goonies). A lot of times his name is touted more than the actual director.

And speaking of which, man he sure has his name in lights on a lot of different projects these days. Don't recall if that's always been true, but he must be "Executive Producing" or "Producing" about a dozen film and/or TV projects concurrently. Which means he's either very busy or he is running the danger watering down the "Spielberg brand" by tying it to any mediocre project out there (I'm talking to you Terra Nova).

That might be largely a generational thing, though. I'm not sure of the demographics of this forum, but I'd suspect that most posters here are young enough that Allen's most popular period was behind him before they were in their teens. If the forum skewed older, you'd find a much lower percentage of people who haven't seen many of Allen's work.

True, it's ironic that people often compare Spielberg's films to Transformers when he happens to one of the executive producers of that very franchise.

I used to love the Young Sherlock Holmes.

I had no idea Spielberg was involved though.

When the movie first came out, there were some reviewers who noted a resemblance between Sophie Ward and a younger Amy Irving, Exec Producer Spielberg's wife at the time. I didn't see it myself, but people like to connect dots.

Armond White, on the lukewarm reception of the two newest Spielberg films, says:



I think there's some truth to this statement. It is not simply Spielberg's early success that makes some people resentful, and that would seem especially irrelevant to young people of today. I think it is simply a matter of Spielberg being so vastly superior to every one of his peers. This puts people off in 2011, because now everyone wants "democratic" filmmaking. People want to believe that anyone can make a great film given the chance and the right context. I think it's just a matter of insecurity. People don't want to think that one man rose so far above all others as a natural genius, because then they feel that they themselves don't have a shot. It goes back to the thread I started a while back, as to whether directors are born or made. In today's ultra-liberal society, people only want to believe that they are made.

Case in point: that motorcycle chase of Tintin is a more advanced piece of filmmaking than Scorsese could ever dream up, but nobody wants to admit that, so they ignore it and dismiss Tintin as sub-par animation. As for War Horse? Never mind that it's probably the most holistic depiction of WWI ever to come out of Hollywood, because all that matters to anyone is that it's "lesser Spielberg." The appreciation of Hugo over both these films, from critics, just seems like an arbitrary excuse to steer popular opinion away from Spielberg, and no one has evaluated Hugo thoroughly enough to prove otherwise.

Umm, no. You can think that. You can hold that opinion and perhaps its a defensible one. But it's hardly a widely-accepted one and so it can't be presented as fact in your argument. I've never watched a Spielberg film and thought "wow, Spielberg's just better than every filmmaker currently working" or "this is the work of one of the greatest filmmakers of all time." Is there great spectacle there? Sure, at times. But just like darkness or edginess is not a worthy theme on its own, neither is spectacle. He's a huge influence, perhaps the inventor of, the modern blockbuster. I just think other modern filmmakers have accomplished more meaningful work. Obviously my preference for a different style is one thing, but there are several modern filmmakers who I simply think are better.



From where have you heard or gathered this?



I would have no problem admitting that if that were true. But it's not. Scorsese makes better movies. The motorcycle chase, at best, was Spielberg recycling his own ideas. It bored me, honestly.



The breadth of WWI that War Horse covers adds nothing inherently to its quality. All that matters to me is that it's dull, overlong, and emotionally unsatisfying. If I thought it was great I'd be interested in comparing it to Spielberg's other great works, but I don't.

MGames--I agree with you about Spielberg and War Horse. At least more than I agree with Shade here. But he's absolutely right--you always provide (or invent) "reasons" why people don't like the films/directors you do or why they do like the films/directors you don't. But sometimes people just don't like a movie.

People say I have a problem with Christopher Nolan, that there must be some "reason" I don't like The Dark Knight, Inception, and the Prestige as much as everyone else. But you know what? I like Batman Begins and love Memento. I have no reason at all. I just think The Dark Knight is a muddled mess, Inception was decent but overstuffed and The Prestige doesn't make any goddamned sense.

...just thought I'd throw in a thought:
Spielberg is (and always was) brilliant at providing movie magic. Perhaps this is considered uncool, explaining a lot of Spielberg criticism. Well I don't care about "coolness". If a movie blows me away, that's all I ever want. Spielberg was able to manufacture quite a few movies (as a director) which definitely blew me away. I rest my case.

Shade, I'm a bit confused by your comments in this thread. You talk of not 'being drawn' to his work, say only Munich works for you etc, but yet seem to have seen all his movies!

I find it really odd that you would bother seeing Titin & War Horse based on what you've said about Spielberg here. did they look like something that would appeal to you based on the trailers? do you just see everything that comes out? if I don't care for a director, I would try to avoid his movies(life's too short to waste on something I know I won't like)

The problem is that your opinion seems to be indefensible. If I point out a minute long shot in a Spielberg film in which the composition changes drastically five times, with very specific, inarguable ramifications for how the viewer will interpret changes in plot, character, or a simple sense of space, then you would have to provide me with a Scorsese equivalent in order to fight the point. Your only other option is to say that shot composition/progression does not matter in every case, which is a perfectly valid opinion EXCEPT that in that case you are disregarding directorial craftsmanship. It's perfectly valid to start off with the idea that Hugo is better than Tintin, but better shot composition? That's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of hard fact that Spielberg's shots are more elaborate and accomplished, especially in terms of movement. So, if you are claiming Scorsese to be superior, then it is because of his choice of material or theme perhaps, and that's fine, but you cannot say it's because of shot construction. My ultimate point is that it's Hugo the movie you prefer, not really Scorsese's direction.



Mostly with wannabe writer/directors. I hear this phrase a lot: "I see it in my head as I write it, so why would I hire a director." Those are the people who don't delve deeply enough into the finer nuances of each separate craft to even realize that there's a difference.



But you can't argue against what the shot fundamentally is, and you can't find a comparable example in Hugo.



This analysis ignores what the film actually is. All you're doing is making vague suppositions about how you thought you felt. You didn't really react to what you consciously saw. People say I don't back up my arguments, but how can I make my own argument for the film's mastery of technique, including shot construction and visual structure, if you choose to ignore those elements right off the bat just because your first impression is that he's rehashing (if you look at the filmmaking, he's not; he has never before done a shot as crazy as the one in Tintin)?



See, there it is. That's the problem. There is always a reason for everything if you spend enough time studying and pondering to develop a good sense of evaluation. All you're telling me is that you have no legitimate reason to like those films. If you had a reason, that would be the first thing you'd describe. Saying you don't have a reason is just admitting that you choose not to engage in deep thought regarding those films. You are content to let them waft over you.

I have only seen War Horse once, but here's what I liked, or loved, the first time. The juxtaposition of the two auctions at beginning and end; the dichotomy of the two rains in the first act, one good, one bad; the way Spielberg reveals the neatly plowed field by cutting from a long shot to a wide crane, using specific photographic techniques to create an emotional response; the way is handled offscreen, making it sadder and more deeply felt. The reintroduction of Jeremy Piven using the flashing-flair close-up montage transition, which ties the breadth of the war together in mind-blowing fashion. The parody of the Christmas truce, which simultaneously celebrates and parodies history. These are specific, indisputable pieces of filmmaking. On the flipside, Shade calls it dull and overlong. This is not a question of opinions here. It's a simple matter of depth of understanding. Maybe Shade has just as many examples for why he didn't like it, but if he wants to argue against the film then those are the examples he has to use. His broad descriptive terms don't mean anything, and they are not a legitimate argument.

All I'm trying to prove is that sometimes it's good to trust opinions which you should recognize run deeper than yours. Wasn't that the original point of film criticism in the first place? Now, it's like everyone wants to be their own critic. People forget that in White's particular line of criticism, there's specific, thorough training involved.



I wasn't really thinking about this idea, but it's actually a pretty good point. I love The Fly and A History of Violence, and found things to like about Eastern Promises, but A Dangerous Method just doesn't interest me. As for me, I did want to see the latest from Scorsese no matter what. But Drive I saw for Albert Brooks, and Artist just because I wanted to be "in the know" for Oscar season. But if box office is anything to go by, the average American viewer is more inclined to calvero's philosophy regarding the Spielbergs

No, I really wouldn't. That's a flawed argument in every sense. Moreover, that's not the point you made: you simply said Spielberg is "vastly superior to every one of his peers." This is flawed in a different way, because when you say...



...you are saying, and I'm not changing your words at all here, that shot composition is the only aspect of film direction. You say Spielberg's shots are better constructed (which is not a point I concede, but let's go with it for sake of discussion), you make no additional point, then say that Scorsese's direction cannot be what I prefer, because shot composition is the only component of direction.

Seriously? Again, you can't resist telling me what I think. Attempting to talk down to me doesn't improve your argument's position.

Then you say...



...and again, I call bullshit. There's still artistry to the matter on a level that's still subject to interpretation. There's nothing factually better about Spielberg's shot. Now, there's many reasons you may prefer him or defend him as better in this specific case, but as before, calling it a fact doesn't make it one.



You can't find a comparable example of the finale of Transformers 2 in any of Spielberg's work either. Does that make Bay a better filmmaker?



Look, maybe I'm wrong about War Horse. Maybe in two years I'll think it's great. But...I mean...you're seriously trying to discredit me by telling me that I only think I thought that way, but that I really didn't because I didn't react to what was actually before my conscious eyes? Seriously now: your counter point is, "Actually, person on the internet who I've never met, I know what's going on in your head better than you do"...?



If you can explain a single example of me "ignoring those elements right off the bat" I'll buy and send you every Spielberg film on BluRay. Seriously. Most of us around here consider those elements, but alone they don't make a great film.

And again, is a creative shot the only element of directing? I'll concede that he hasn't done a shot as crazy as the one in Tintin, but within the confines of a heartless story, it did nothing for me.



A fair question. I've never expressed any hate for Spielberg, and I've said several times that as matter of spectacle his films work well quite often. I don't go see his stuff out of excitement; I've seen most of his work with family and such over the holidays (such is the case with Tintin and War Horse). I agree with you that life is too short for most movies in general, but as I said, I don't hate Spielberg at all and I wouldn't bail on family even if I did.

*Sighs* You're hopeless. Did you even read what I said? Did you notice how many times I put "reason" in quotes? What I meant was, I don't dislike The Dark Knight because I have a "reason" in the MGamesCook mold (an axe to grind, if you will), I dislike it because I think it's a mediocre film. You have to realize that smart people often judge movies simply on their merits, not because of X, Y, and Z reasons that you've invented.

But "heartless story" doesn't mean anything, that's just a matter of opinion. But holistic story is something else. Hugo's elements do not add up to any satisfying whole. He could have made a fantasy about a boy in a train station. Or he could have just made a paean to George Melies. Why does it have to be both? Tintin is complete unto itself. As a tribute to boyhood fantasy and imaginative adventure, there is no one element in that film that doesn't belong, and more importantly, there is no one element it could do without and still be a complete film.



No, let's actually discuss this point, because it's the crux of my argument, which I still say comes close to fact. Creative shots matter; how are Scorsese's superior? What I'm getting at here is that what makes a film good may be somewhat subjective, but there are certain aspects of filmmaking which are not so subjective. I think whichever side of an argument comes closer to using hard facts of craftsmanship to back himself up has the higher ground. As you say, your feelings about War Horse may change someday, but a creative shot is always going to be a creative shot.

Okay.



So wait...when I said War Horse was "emotionally unsatisfying" you said that was a "vague supposition about" how I "thought" I felt. But when you say that Hugo does not "add up to any satisfying whole" that's apparently...different?? Good analysis? Because it's coming from your perfect vantage point of perfect taste, I assume?

Not to mention that me calling a film "heartless" or "dull" is apparently a matter of opinion, but you calling a film "holistic" or "complete unto itself" is not a matter of opinion? Frankly it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe you desire anything but to troll around.



I agree with this.



I disagree, for several reasons.

First, real art isn't measured in fact, and I'm not interested in movies that aren't aiming for art on some level. Spielberg has certainly achieved this at times, but there's inherent subjectivity to art. Not endless subjectivity, but that's different than saying that "hard facts" can prove artistic achievement.

Secondly, craftsmanship is a dangerous word. Because as I mentioned before, the level of craftsmanship in something like Transformers, from an effects perspective, is astounding. Absolutely people at the pinnacle of their craft are involved in producing that. Is it therefore a great film, if factual craftsmanship is all that matters?

Third and most importantly, as Kunz said, you're creating arguments that no one is making and shooting them down. Congratulations. For your next trick, will you hit the broad side of the barn with a softball?

How about instead you respond to the actual points, such as why you apparently think shot composition is the only component of directing a film.

I made a very specific point about why Hugo is not holistic, and I've made it over and over and over and over again. Every time I've been ignored in favor of convenient name-calling. I want someone to respond to the actual point I made, then someone can make a similar point for War Horse or Tintin. That's how real debate is conducted. With this post, you're pretending that I didn't explicitly go into the fact that