Chen G.

Schindler’s List is different. It’s not even a movie, to begin with.

What, Taiko drums?

Its NOT a biopic. Its a period piece that mostly focuses on a single month in Lincoln's life: January 1965. The movie certainly loves reminding us that its a wartime movie, with allusions to fighting happening offscreen and even visits to the battlefield in the aftermath of the fighting. Especially coming from Spielberg, that's just being a tease. But the issue isn't that there aren't action setpieces (although I would have loved some: I have certain tastes, and naturally I judge films based on my tastes) its that the movie thinks itself as being above having action scenes from the outset, which sets it up as a rather pompous affair. Now, I can enjoy actionless wartime movies: I liked The Darkest Hour just fine. But with this one I wasn't feeling it. Its still a perfectly okay movie; its just a little dull, and I do think working some action into the story could have spiced it up slightly.

It’s fine, just a little dull.

“If you want to shock an audience, get them almost to the point of boredom before doing so.”

Sublime.

See, now you get it!

Realizing the movie isn’t going to have any action scenes was one of the reasons I switched channels. Why NOT include war scenes in a American-Civil-War movie?! And by Steven Spielberg, no less? It’s not even that there is no action, it’s that’s such an approach is indicative of the movie’s style and preoccupations: it’s the sort of film that thinks it’s subject matter is so lofty, that having action will somehow taint it, but having people talk in rooms, on the other hand... Hence back to “stately, respectable...and dead.”

Perhaps. From what I've seen, there was nothing wrong with it, per se. It was well-performed, handsomely-shot and coherently-plotted. But its dull. Brings to mind something Pauline Kael once wrote: "it's stately, respectable... and dead."

If one is having a trouble sleeping, that could be a good thing!

And neither is the theme or the way its used. Its clearly for the company, and its one hell of a tune!

Oh, it ought to be. But that's more in Martin Scorsese's wheelhouse.

I didn't stick long enough for the boredom to accumulate too much, but I saw that it was heading in the way of tedium.

I know. Its a funny way to title it.

In Hebrew its just "Jaws" (Meltaot).

In Germany, Jaws goes by the title "Weiße Hai"?

I was actually thinking it was the exact opposite.

Oh yeah, I forgot that one. It popped up on TV not two days ago. I watched it for a while, got the gist of what it was going to be like, switched channels and never looked back. Not bad, per se, but staid and rather tedious.

Indeed; which is still more than what I was thinking it would turn out to be. The marketing really made it look awful.

Yeah, as a 90s kid, a lot of the references flew right over my head.

It is that, but much, much less than I feared it would be. Imagine if Michael Bay directed this.

That's what I thought it would be; and it kind of was. But at least it was done well. I think, in the hands of a lesser director, it would have been much more of an out-of-control sensory-overload kind of movie. Its more than a little bit long and meandering, though, and the voiceover doesn't help with that. Its also cloying in the way that a lot of Spielberg's popcorn movies can sometimes be. I like my movies a fair bit more solemn than this. This is like TheMatrix4kids.

From watching the trailer I was "nope, not for me! Next!" Having caught it on TV some months later, it is indeed not for me, but its hardly as egregious as I thought, thanks to the Spielberg touch. Its okay.

Some have a 2:1 aspect ratio; some have 2.2:1; some are 4:3. It all depends on the individual camera.

The aspect ratio of digital depends on the camera you're using.