The Last Great Spielberg Film

[John Crichton 4]

We have comments all the time around here about how Spielberg has lost his magic, and how his current output pales in comparison to his prevous works. I'm inclined to agree, so I'm just curious about what we consider his last truly great movie to be. Personally I'm thinking Saving Private Ryan. I'm a fan of AI too, but it's merely good.

[King Mark 2,924]

A.I. was a great one for me.

[indy4 152]

His last truly great film?

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I would also put WotW, Catch Me If You Can, and Minority Report in that boat)

His last masterpiece?

Jurassic Park

[JWfangirl1992 18]

I loved A.I. it was really a great movie.

[Henry B 49]

His last truly great film?

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I would also put WotW, Catch Me If You Can, and Minority Report in that boat)

His last masterpiece?

Jurassic Park

Is there any reason to differentiate between a "truly great film" and a "masterpiece"? Seriously, what's the point? They're just subjective descriptions that don't mean anything.

[Ollie 859]

Schindler's List.

[King Mark 2,924]

Maybe the last great classic uncompromised Spielberg film is Temple of Doom.

Jurassic Park felt kind of mechaincal in it's execution

[BLUMENKOHL 1,064]

Schindler's List

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Munich

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Munich indeed. His blockbuster films are always just fun and entertainment, I've never looked at them as great films. All of his serious films are genius though.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I have to agree with indy4 regarding Mr. Spielberg's last great film. I have never seen a Spielberg film that I did not like.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Jurrasic Park, but Schindler's List is very good.

Amistad is a movie of great ideas but not particularly executed well

SPR is a great war movie, but just a good movie

A.I. is in a word terrible, worst movie of all of Spielberg's films, technically fine, but with some seriously bad acting, Frances Oconner gives the worst performance in 20something spielberg films

Catch Me If You Can, wonderful entertaining, but not great, best Williams score of a Spielberg film in the 21st century

Terminal, dead on arrival

Minority Report, some terrific stuff here, but a very cold film, souless.

War of the Worlds, another terrific film in parts, but parts are miscalculated, terrific score

Munich, there are so many things wrong with the film, I don't know where to start. Awful, right down there with Terminal, AI, Hook, and Always.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Munich indeed. His blockbuster films are always just fun and entertainment, I've never looked at them as great films. All of his serious films are genius though.

What exactly do you mean when you say "serious"?

Most of Spielberg's blockbusters are serious, assuming you have enough interest in them to watch them on anything other than the most shallow of levels. That -- coupled with a virtuosic technical ability to manipulate the medium -- is what makes them so great, and why so many of us consider them to be era-defining works of art.

It's a common attitude to think that in order for art to be "great," it also has to somehow be free of anything that would entertain those who want to be entertained. What a boring philosophy that is. It's like saying that more "serious" movies -- Schindler's List, say -- aren't also enjoyable. Well, I'm here to tell you, I enjoy the hell out of Schindler's List. Why? Because I enjoy being emotionally stimulated. It's a terribly sad movie, yes, but there's pleasure to be had in sadness, too. This is a different kind of enjoyment than the kind I get when I watch a James Bond movie, but it's enjoyment nonetheless.

Flipping my argument around a bit, I find it to be ludicrous to think that a blockbuster -- E.T., say -- has no artistic merit because it somehow fails to take the world seriously. What a momumental failure of the imagination. It's a failure that is all too common, though, so it's probably not going anywhere any time soon.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I don't understand your hate for Munich, Joe. What makes it so bad? You can go all out in detail if you want, but I'd be fine with a few points.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

first its one of those films that "cant" be criticised because of its subject matter, bull.

its poorly consturcted, poorly told, the acting is fine, but the morality of the film is vile

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Jurrasic Park, but Schindler's List is very good.

Amistad is a movie of great ideas but not particularly executed well

SPR is a great war movie, but just a good movie

A.I. is a piece of sh!t, worst movie of all of Spielberg's films, technically fine, but with some seriously bad acting

Catch Me If You Can, wonderful entertaining, but not great, best Williams score of a Spielberg film in the 21st century

Terminal, dead on arrival

Minority Report, some terrific stuff here, but a very cold film, souless.

War of the Worlds, another terrific film in parts, but parts are miscalculated, terrific score

Munich, there are so many things wrong with the film, I don't know where to start. Awful, right down there with Terminal, AI, Hook, and Always.

Well, Joey, you know how I feel about how you feel about A.I., so there's no need to get into it over that one.

I don't agree with you that Minority Report is a cold and soulless film, though. The movie is largely motivated by Anderton's feelings of remorse for his dead son, and I think that if you watch it from that vantage point, it's got a great deal of emotion in it.

As for Munich, I'm aware that it's very poorly regarded by some of this board's members. What I haven't yet been able to figure out is why. Story? Acting? What is it?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

It's like saying that more "serious" movies -- Schindler's List, say -- aren't also enjoyable. Well, I'm here to tell you, I enjoy the hell out of Schindler's List. Why? Because I enjoy being emotionally stimulated. It's a terribly sad movie, yes, but there's pleasure to be had in sadness, too. This is a different kind of enjoyment than the kind I get when I watch a James Bond movie, but it's enjoyment nonetheless.

I enjoyed Schindler's List, it's one of the greatest films ever made. By serious, I'm talking a movie that shakes the core of you. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich... they fit that bill. I'm like you with the whole emotional stimulation, I want the movie to grab me and never let go until it ends. I don't get that feeling when I watch blockbusters.

E.T., Jaws, Jurassic Park... brilliant fun and entertainment, but not something I would consider contenders for the greatest films ever made. It's like with movies like Shoot 'Em Up and Tropic Thunder, they achieve what they set out to do, I would give both 4 stars, but I wouldn't call them the best films ever made.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

first its one of those films that "cant" be criticised because of its subject matter, bull.

its poorly consturcted, poorly told, the acting is fine, but the morality of the film is vile

What morality is that?

[Nick Parker 3,017]

On a commercial for "Ovation TV" (I was watching Tim Burton's "Ed Wood"), a disembodied voice informed that a film can be considered art if the film "sticks in your head long after the credits". I am curious: would anyone happen to believe that?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

first its one of those films that "cant" be criticised because of its subject matter, bull.

its poorly consturcted, poorly told, the acting is fine, but the morality of the film is vile

What morality is that?

isn't it obvious?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

A film can be considered art if the film "sticks in your head long after the credits". I am curious: would anyone happen to believe that?

I believe that. Good movies make you think, I don't really delve into blockbusters much after I see them, which connects back to my earlier argument.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Sometimes, though, films can "stick your head" for the wrong reasons. For hours, the entirety of "Aliens Versus Predator: Requiem" played in my head as I probed for redeeming qualities. I failed.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I enjoyed Schindler's List, it's one of the greatest films ever made. By serious, I'm talking a movie that shakes the core of you. Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Munich... they fit that bill. I'm like you with the whole emotional stimulation, I want the movie to grab me and never let go until it ends. I don't get that feeling when I watch blockbusters.

E.T., Jaws, Jurassic Park... brilliant fun and entertainment, but not something I would consider contenders for the greatest films ever made. It's like with movies like Shoot 'Em Up and Tropic Thunder, they achieve what they set out to do, I would give both 4 stars, but I wouldn't call them the best films ever made.

If you think of art as medicine, then blockbusters are the strawberry-flavored kind that helps make it easy for people to take. That doesn't make the medicine less effective than the kind that tastes like medicine. If anything, it's quite the reverse.

Not being moved by E.T. or even Jaws is not a failure on the part of the movies in question, it's a failure of imagination on your part. I don't mean that in a rude sense, though it certainly sounds that way. What I mean is that perhaps you need to learn to see past what they're about on the surface to what they're about underneath. Let's leave Tropic Thunder aside and talk briefly about a similar sort of movie that just might belong on a list of the best movies ever made: Blazing Saddles. Is that a silly cowboy movie about farts and explosions and curse words? Or is it a serious take on racism that just happens to taste like a comedy? The answer is pretty clear as far as I'm concerned.

Back to Tropic Thunder. I think it's coming from some of the same places that Blazing Saddles came from. Nobody is taking it seriously, but maybe they should.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

"Why so serious?" (I am so sorry. It will never happen again.)

[Koray Savas 2,095]

I see what you're getting at, but I pretty much let the film I'm watching do it's part. I don't try to not get emotionally involved, I go in with an open mind and imagination. I haven't seen Blazing Saddles in years, so I can't comment. All I remember is the chess piece scene.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

first its one of those films that "cant" be criticised because of its subject matter, bull.

its poorly consturcted, poorly told, the acting is fine, but the morality of the film is vile

What morality is that?

isn't it obvious?

It's obvious to me that the movie is being intentionally ambigous about its morality. (I'll buy that as a criticism, by the way.) You're not supposed to know exactly how you feel about what Avner has done. Hopefully, you'll talk it over with your family or friends and come to some sort of decision. Maybe we're so used to being manipulated by Spielberg into a specific emotional state that when he decides to pursue a more ambiguous -- and, yes, I may as well admit it, a more self-consciously artsy -- course, we don't recognize what he's doing.

That's what seems obvious to me about Munich. But, as always, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Back to the original (still unanswered) question: what morality do you find in the movie, and why do you object to it?

[AC1 3,565]

Schindler's List.

Yep, minus Oskar's emotional breakdown, of course.

After that he occasionally touched upon brilliance with some scenes (the two war scenes in SPR, for instance) but never a full movie.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

A film can be considered art if the film "sticks in your head long after the credits". I am curious: would anyone happen to believe that?

I believe that. Good movies make you think, I don't really delve into blockbusters much after I see them, which connects back to my earlier argument.

Koray, it sounds to me like you've been trained to only accept certain types of art as being worth further exploration. What I'm saying is that if you do that, you shut yourself off to a lot of really great art. And if you're involved in any type of conversation about what movies are worth passing down to the next generation -- and that's what all such conversations are actually about (the determination of lasting worth) -- then in my opinion, you simply cannot afford to do that.

If, on the other hand, what we're talking about is the mere enjoyment of movies, then all this is irrelevant. You, like most people, just enjoy what you enjoy. No harm in it; that's what the majority of people are doing.

But you seem like a smart guy with relatively good tatse, and you obviously have both the desire and the ability to express yourself. Trust me, it'll be worth your time to start digging a little deeper into some of these movies. (Same goes with books and music, etc.) They've got more to offer than you might be giving them credit for.

Schindler's List.

Yep, minus Oskar's emotional breakdown, of course.

One of the most moving scenes in film history...? Why minus that?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

A film can be considered art if the film "sticks in your head long after the credits". I am curious: would anyone happen to believe that?

I believe that. Good movies make you think, I don't really delve into blockbusters much after I see them, which connects back to my earlier argument.

Koray, it sounds to me like you've been trained to only accept certain types of art as being worth further exploration. What I'm saying is that if you do that, you shut yourself off to a lot of really great art. And if you're involved in any type of conversation about what movies are worth passing down to the next generation -- and that's what all such conversations are actually about (the determination of lasting worth) -- then in my opinion, you simply cannot afford to do that.

If, on the other hand, what we're talking about is the mere enjoyment of movies, then all this is irrelevant. You, like most people, just enjoy what you enjoy. No harm in it; that's what the majority of people are doing.

But you seem like a smart guy with relatively good tatse, and you obviously have both the desire and the ability to express yourself. Trust me, it'll be worth your time to start digging a little deeper into some of these movies. (Same goes with books and music, etc.) They've got more to offer than you might be giving them credit for.

With music and books, that's just all personal taste to me. I know there's probably more to the things I don't like that others enjoy, but it's just the sound of some composers that lead me away from them. And considering I grew up on films before I got into music, I generally connect both together when judging either one.

[AC1 3,565]

Schindler's List.

Yep, minus Oskar's emotional breakdown, of course.

One of the most moving scenes in film history...? Why minus that?

Because it was bad, BB. Mushy, overly manipulative, false, over-the-top and embarrassing. The most moving scene in history? Where did you hear that? It's the other way around. It's the most film-damaging scene in history. Of course, there's always someone that falls for such kind of thing.

[Josh500 1,602]

Munich

Same here.

By the way, Spielberg hasn't lost his touch...

[Bryant Burnette 451]

Schindler's List.

Yep, minus Oskar's emotional breakdown, of course.

One of the most moving scenes in film history...? Why minus that?

Because it was bad, BB. Mushy, overly manipulative, false, over-the-top and embarrassing. The most moving scene in history? Where did you hear that? It's the other way around. It's the most film-damaging scene in history. Of course, there's always someone that falls for such kind of thing.

Implying, of course, that I'm that someone, and that somehow my opinion is less valid for it.

You will note, if you can manage to pay close enough attention, that I made no claim to this being the most moving scene in history. What I said was that it's one of the most moving scenes in film history, and as far as I know, it is. You're the first person I've ever heard object to that scene. The movie builds to that scene; it's essential, not misplaced. There's nothing embarrassing or false about it; it's not even close to being over-the-top. Manipulative? Sure. I don't see "manipulative" as a bad thing. If you don't want to be manipulated, then you should possibly not be watching movies, as they are by their very nature manipulative.

Munich

Same here.

By the way, Spielberg hasn't lost his touch...

I don't think so, either.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Alex wouldn't deny he was manipulated into "thinking mode" by Blade Runner.

[AC1 3,565]

Actually, I would deny that. The film doesn't force you into anything. That's its main shortcoming, Steef would say .

No, really, the 'I could've done more' scene is one of the most regretted scenes in history. For many, it's the only scene that prevented Schindler's List to be a masterpiece. Why Spielberg had to give in at the very last moment is a damn shame.

Alex

[Neimoidian 13]

Munich

Same here. I think it's his best since Saving Private Ryan. I completely disagree it's badly done. I think it's in many ways impressive how it's shot. For instance, take the whole prologue sequence - a master class of filmmaking. One can also see it's very personal project for Spielberg, too.

[Quintus 5,391]

Schindler's List.

Saving Private Ryan came close, but in the end the screenplay couldn't match the action.

He's made lots of very good films since then, but none were of the calibre we were once used to. His last mediocre film was Indy IV. Spielberg has never made a truly bad movie.

[crocodile 6,294]

Schindler's List.

After that he occasionally touched upon brilliance with some scenes (the two war scenes in SPR, for instance) but never a full movie.

Didn't Terry Gilliams say something like that? I agree anyway.

Most Spielberg today films have a real problem in their third act. It's almost a rule of sorts.

Karol

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

Drama-serious: A.I.

Blockbuster: KOTCS

[Morlock 9]

AI is the last great Spielberg movie I've seen.

[Wojo 2,442]

So lemme see if I've got this down...

Masterpiece > truly great film > great film > good film > falsely great film > .....it got old real fast.......

Last great film? Jurassic Park. In the fifteen years since, I've seen only 5 Spielberg films, SPR, WoTW, TLW, CMIYC, and Indiana Jones 4, and Jurassic Park trumps all of those.

[Red 73]

Hmm, hard to say. A.I. and Munich were great, but not quite as good as Saving Private Ryan. I guess it depends on your definition of "great".

Also, movies don't have to be serious to be great or to be art.