Martin Scorsese says Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

[A24 4,338]

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

I Googled Alexcremers Oscar bait and I got 5 results

 

It seems that you crave more for winning an Oscar statuette than me because you have 2150 results.

 

Point is countless of people either expected or deemed it to be Oscar bait so it's really not so bizarre.

 

Those who loved it will say it's not Oscar bait. 

[Quintus 5,399]

Imagine still giving a crap about the oscars anyway. 

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

I very much doubt that Scorsese does. Perhaps his later films are more convential than his early ones, but that's hardly out of the ordinary. None of them stand out to me as being distinctly Oscary material except perhaps The Aviator (and, to a lesser degree, The Irishman). It may be more accurate to say that Oscar's tastes have moved (belatedly) in his direction than he to them.

 

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

Point is countless of people either expected or deemed it to be Oscar bait so it's really not so bizarre.

 

I don't think anyone was saying it's bizarre. Just incorrect! Sure, the promotional material may make it look like a big awards magnet, but that's their job for any film they can't pass off as a fun popcorn movie.

 

Why not give it watch? You can write a post about its Oscar baitiness which might get near the top of that Google search!

[A24 4,338]

3 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Why not give it watch? You can write a post about its Oscar baitiness which might get near the top of that Google search!

 

I will, because one of the google results says: 

 

Quote

But after years of kneeling at the altar of Oscar-bait filmmaking ("The Aviator," "The Departed") and operatic entertainments ("Shutter Island," "The Wolf of Wall Street"), he's back to demanding and obviously personal filmmaking. 

 

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

The Aviator, one of his 10 best movies

[mrbellamy 6,287]

I love The Aviator too but I could give them that as a bit "baity"

 

The Departed as Oscar bait makes no sense to me, other than it won Oscars 

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

16 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

The Aviator, one of his 10 best movies

 

The planes are too clean.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

14 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

The planes are too clean.

 

Howard wanted those rivets flush!

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

They completely break the illusion.

 

Scorsese should make a Special Edition with updated CGI.

[JTN 2,030]

On 22/03/2022 at 1:48 PM, Quintus said:

Superhero flicks are single-handedly keeping theatre chains going whilst simultaneously killing cinema.

Superhero movies are the fast food of cinema: they support millions of families by making crap for the masses. 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

18 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I very much doubt that Scorsese does. Perhaps his later films are more convential than his early ones, but that's hardly out of the ordinary. None of them stand out to me as being distinctly Oscary material except perhaps The Aviator (and, to a lesser degree, The Irishman). It may be more accurate to say that Oscar's tastes have moved (belatedly) in his direction than he to them.

 

 

I don't think anyone was saying it's bizarre. Just incorrect! Sure, the promotional material may make it look like a big awards magnet, but that's their job for any film they can't pass off as a fun popcorn movie.

 

Why not give it watch? You can write a post about its Oscar baitiness which might get near the top of that Google search!

Gangs of New York was his most naked ploy to win an Oscar. It has been documented that Marty deeply lusted after winning an Oscar all this time until he finally won it.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

39 minutes ago, JTW said:

the masses

 

Our fellow-passengers to the grave, and and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys

[JTN 2,030]

31 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Our fellow-passengers to the grave, and and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys

Thank you, Mr. Dickens. I watch superhero movies, but that doesn't mean that I'm not aware that they are mostly "fast food". Btw. fast food can sometimes be good as long as we know it is what it is, and it shouldn't substitute for quality food. 

58 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Gangs of New York was his most naked ploy to win an Oscar. It has been documented that Marty deeply lusted after winning an Oscar all this time until he finally won it.

Gangs of New York is IMHO a much better (directed) film than The Departed, which is a remake of the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs. Scorsese got an Oscar for it because the Academy was so ashamed that he hadn't gotten any. The very fact that it was given to him by Coppola, Spielberg and Lucas shows that he was almost given the award as an apology for the worst film he had directed imho. He should have won it for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Age of Innocence or Casino, any or all of those.

 

[KK 3,307]

On 22/03/2022 at 10:53 AM, Glóin the Dark said:

 

It is, though I don't agree with KK that it's the best on the list. Of the others, I'd put The Irishman and The Wolf of Wall Street above it and maybe Shutter Island too (I haven't seen Hugo). That said, I've seen those three multiple times and Silence only once; it may be a film which improves on closer acquaintance. Strangely, I was more impressed with each of the other three on the first viewing than on the rewatches.

 

Rewatching Silence really helps. I feel like it's aged like fine wine. And it feels the most sincere and honest expression of Scorsese's latest output. 

 

And I find nothing about it "Oscar-baitey", even if it might on the surface, appear to have all the general traits of an Oscar-bait film. I found no part of it conceited. It feels like a very genuine meditation on Scorsese's internal questions around faith.

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

1 hour ago, TheUlyssesian said:

Marty deeply lusted after winning an Oscar all this time until he finally won it.

 

Indeed - I remember him saying so himself (perhaps not quite in those words) at the time. I meant that, now that he's in the club, I doubt that winning more of them is much of an issue for him.

 

Quote

Gangs of New York was his most naked ploy to win an Oscar.

 

If it was, it was a pretty bizarre ploy. The film is just too weird to have been a plausible Oscar favourite.

[A24 4,338]

33 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

If it was, it was a pretty bizarre ploy. The film is just too weird to have been a plausible Oscar favourite.

 

It had Leonardo DiCaprio and Daniel-Day Lewis. Things can't get more Oscar bait than that.

 

- Super cast

- Well-respected director

- History

- Epic

[JTN 2,030]

33 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

Indeed - I remember him saying so himself (perhaps not quite in those words) at the time. I meant that, now that he's in the club, I doubt that winning more of them is much of an issue for him.

 

 

If it was, it was a pretty bizarre ploy. The film is just too weird to have been a plausible Oscar favourite.

Too weird? Imo it’s an epic story told in a highly accessible way. If anything it’s one of the more easily consumable films of Scorsese. The acting by Day Lewis is, as always, superb, if a bit over the top, but then again, that was part of his character. It’s a grand epic piece of cinema that has a great rewatching potential. If Scorsese had gotten an Oscar for it, I would’ve been absolutely satisfied, much more than him getting it for The Departed which to me was a so-so movie, definitely not among his best work. But I accept the opinions of those who say Gangs is not a good film. I do like it. 

[TheUlyssesian 2,478]

50 minutes ago, KK said:

Rewatching Silence really helps. I feel like it's aged like very fine wine. And it feels the most sincere and honest expression of Scorsese's latest output. 

 

I think it's a terrible film. I mean not total trash but a completely uninspired and totally unnecessary film. It is a remake as well. The original is much better. And it tells us why Marty doesn't write, the script i baaaad.

 

43 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

If it was, it was a pretty bizarre ploy. The film is just too weird to have been a plausible Oscar favourite.

 

On the contrary the film is total pure unadulterated oscar bait, everything the academy likes. It got 10 oscar nominations. 

[publicist 4,643]

5 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

On the contrary the film is total pure unadulterated oscar bait, everything the academy likes. It got 10 oscar nominations. 

 

Part of that credit must go to Harvey Scissorhands, though. He was behind a more flashy editing approach and the whole hipster U2 stuff came courtesy of Miramax, too (which of course set in motion Elmer's unceremonial firing so typical of that era).

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

23 minutes ago, JTW said:

...I accept the opinions of those who say Gangs is not a good film.

 

Just to be clear: I'm not one of those; I think it's brilliant (though not without problems).

 

I recall Scorsese describing it at the time as "a western set on Mars" (though it's been so long that I might have made that up); I think that captures the surreal feeling of the film quite well. By comparison with the films winning Best Picture Oscars at the time (American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart...) I think it is very weird indeed.

 

11 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

On the contrary the film is total pure unadulterated oscar bait, everything the academy likes. It got 10 oscar nominations. 

 

Exactly: nominations. It's got everything the Academy likes to shower with nominations.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I still really dislike using the term "oscarbait" as a qualitative assessment.  There have been truly great films made that can be called Oscarbait as well as eye-rolling pandering crap.

[publicist 4,643]

In the Hollywood sphere it's an apt description of not only just the movie, but all the elaborate marketing schemes often more expensive than the movie itself. GoNY certainly isn't the first one to qualify, but there was a time from the mid 80's to late 2000's where you exactly knew what that term meant (and Miramax was of course a frontrunner, if anyone still remembers the infamous Oscar battle between SPR and Shakespeare in Love).

[JTN 2,030]

1 hour ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

Just to be clear: I'm not one of those; I think it's brilliant (though not without problems).

 

I recall Scorsese describing it at the time as "a western set on Mars" (though it's been so long that I might have made that up); I think that captures the surreal feeling of the film quite well. By comparison with the films winning Best Picture Oscars at the time (American Beauty, Shakespeare in Love, Titanic, The English Patient, Braveheart...) I think it is very weird indeed.

 

 

Exactly: nominations. It's got everything the Academy likes to shower with nominations.

Speaking of Oscar bait-films: Two great examples are THE COLOR PURPLE (11 noms - 0 wins) and EMPIRE OF THE SUN (6 noms - 0 wins). Spielberg did everything in order for the Academy to take him seriously, yet both times he failed miserably.

I think I'm in the minority, but I actually prefer TCP to EOTS. Both films are flawed, but very good, and deserved at least a few awards, but Spielberg needed SCHINDLER'S LIST to turn the tide for him and finally be regarded as a serious dramatic director. And that movie is flawless, at least to me it is.

His most recent Oscar-bait is WEST SIDE STORY. 

[publicist 4,643]

14 minutes ago, JTW said:

His most recent Oscar-bait is WEST SIDE STORY. 

 

More like Steven's folly.

[Chen G. 3,949]

28 minutes ago, JTW said:

Speaking of Oscar bait-films: Two great examples are THE COLOR PURPLE (11 noms - 0 wins) and EMPIRE OF THE SUN (6 noms - 0 wins). Spielberg did everything in order for the Academy to take him seriously, yet both times he failed miserably.

 

Spielberg is certainly a director about some of whose films I felt the "Oscar-bait." It gives me no pleasure to say it, but its true. The Post springs to mind.

[JTN 2,030]

20 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

More like Steven's folly.

I consider it one of the most unnecessary films ever made, and the fact that Steven Spielberg, one of the best American directors (and one of my favorite directors) did it, makes it even less understandable. He spent years of his life (not counting the Covid-delay of course) remaking a perfect classic musical that literally adds nothing to the original. He could have made an original musical if he'd wanted to. He literally can do anything he wants, and he chooses this project.

 

I'm rewatching CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND for the umpth time, and man, it blows my mind how great it is. The cinematography of my fellow Hungarian Vilmos Zsigmond is amazing, the effects, the whole concept, the script (by Spielberg), the acting, are all top notch, and naturally John Williams' breathtaking score (with a lovely nod to Hungarian composer Zoltán Kodály, hehe) that didn't win an Oscar only because Williams won for STAR WARS that year. I mean Spielberg could direct Jaws, Raiders, E.T., Jurassic Park, and lately he seemed to have forgotten being a director, and he's become a producer who made WSS to make the safest project he could. And look at the box office numbers, it bombed even harder than 1941 (the movie that is). 

I really miss the old (young), bearded Spielberg and I have a feeling he will never come back. 

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Spielberg is certainly a director about some of whose films I felt the "Oscar-bait." It gives me no pleasure to say it, but its true. The Post springs to mind.

Lincoln was also textbook Oscar bait. Munich, Amistad, War Horse as well. With the exception of WH I liked all of them. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

5 minutes ago, JTW said:

Lincoln was also textbook Oscar bait. Munich [too.]

 

Absolutely.

[KK 3,307]

There is a great film buried somewhere in the mess that Gangs of New York ended up being.

[publicist 4,643]

'Munich' is still better than the others mentioned above. But for me 'Amistad' remains the biggest regret: rarely in a Spielberg movie have darkness and light been so close to each other (unctuous, never-ending civil duty speeches dutifully aided by Williams' editorializing americana schmaltz vs. brutal and uncompromising scenes of human cruelty as well as some remarkable scenes about communication between people of different cultures/languages).

[mrbellamy 6,287]

5 hours ago, publicist said:

In the Hollywood sphere it's an apt description of not only just the movie, but all the elaborate marketing schemes often more expensive than the movie itself. GoNY certainly isn't the first one to qualify, but there was a time from the mid 80's to late 2000's where you exactly knew what that term meant (and Miramax was of course a frontrunner, if anyone still remembers the infamous Oscar battle between SPR and Shakespeare in Love).

 

The other thing about this is that movie reputations and associations change over time. In 2002 Gangs was squarely in that December Miramax trifecta with Chicago and The Hours. Nobody thinks of it as a Weinstein movie anymore, it's just the first 21st century Scorsese. If I see it brought up anymore it's usually being filed under "flawed Marty masterpiece", sort of in the Casino zone.

 

Also Leo wouldn't have been "Oscar bait" at that time so much as "box office bait"

[JTN 2,030]

4 minutes ago, mrbellamy said:

 

The other thing about this is that movie reputations and associations change over time. In 2002 Gangs was squarely in that December Miramax trifecta with Chicago and The Hours. Nobody thinks of it as a Weinstein movie anymore, it's just the first 21st century Scorsese. If I see it brought up anymore it's usually being filed under "flawed Marty masterpiece", sort of in the Casino zone.

 

Also Leo wouldn't have been "Oscar bait" at that time so much as "box office bait"

CASINO is amazing.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

CASINO might just be my second favourite Scorsese film.

[JTN 2,030]

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

CASINO might just be my second favourite Scorsese film.

It’s in my top 5, too.
My all-time favorite Scorsese film is THE AGE OF INNOCENCE.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

That's a good one. It might be his most subtle film, especially considering the subject matter.

[A24 4,338]

13 hours ago, KK said:

There is a great film buried somewhere in the mess that Gangs of New York ended up being.

 

It's deliciously enlarged or heightened, just like Cape Fear. 

 

 

14 hours ago, JTW said:

Speaking of Oscar bait-films: Two great examples are THE COLOR PURPLE (11 noms - 0 wins) and EMPIRE OF THE SUN (6 noms - 0 wins). Spielberg did everything in order for the Academy to take him seriously, yet both times he failed miserably.

 

 

I think there might be something that makes these two directors different. Before he was chasing Oscars, Scorese was already known for making serious movies. He was a very well-respected and established 'serious' director who just didn't win Oscars. OTOH, Spielberg was exclusively known for someone who knew how to make entertaining, crowd-pleasing movies, and he possibly wanted to prove to himself he was more than that. When Empire Of The Sun was released, the audience and critics reacted indifferently and confused. That to me says Spielberg made Empire Of The Sun for himself, not for anybody else. It's a movie that needs multiple viewing to fully appreciate what is going on or to understand the imagery. Today many critics say it's his overlooked masterpiece and I agree. If you're going for the Oscars, don't throw something in the water that confuses the fish, make a movie that everybody understands from the get-go, like Schindler's List.

[publicist 4,643]

9 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

Also Leo wouldn't have been "Oscar bait" at that time so much as "box office bait"

 

Leo was always Oscar bait after his much noticed start in 'Gilbert Grape' etc.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

...Empire Of The Sun...a movie that needs multiple viewing to fully appreciate what is going on or to understand the imagery. Today many critics say it's his overlooked masterpiece and I agree.

Agreed 100%, Alex.

It's a film that really does repay repeated viewings.

It's easily a top-5 Spielberg film, for me.

Actually, it's top-4. I don't have a top-5.

[JTN 2,030]

2 hours ago, AC1 said:

That to me says Spielberg made Empire Of The Sun for himself, not for anybody else. It's a movie that needs multiple viewing to fully appreciate what is going on or to understand the imagery. Today many critics say it's his overlooked masterpiece and I agree. If you're going for the Oscars, don't throw something in the water that confuses the fish, make a movie that everybody understands from the get-go, like Schindler's List.

I agree, EMPIRE OF THE SUN is a great movie, although I feel that it was Spielberg’s vehicle for winning an Oscar. And in a way I think SCHINDLER was, too. But these two movies, and especially the latter are so good that if there was indeed a deliberate intention on Spielberg’s part to get awards for them, it doesn’t matter. I love EMPIRE, but I see its flaws. But SCHINDLER’S LIST is something truly special. It’s almost like it wasn’t directed by Spielberg. He never since even tried to become that director again, I guess because it would be so hard on him as a human being. So SL remains his single greatest achievement that will live on as one of the most important pieces of cinema. While EMPIRE OF THE SUN, imho was the direct step towards becoming the great director who made SCHINDLER’S LIST. 

[publicist 4,643]

36 minutes ago, JTW said:

I agree, EMPIRE OF THR SUN is a great movie, although I feel that it was Spielberg’s vehicle for winning an Oscar. And in a way I think SCHINDLER was, too. But these two movies, and especially the latter are so good that if there was indeed a deliberate intention on Spielberg’s part to get awards for them, it doesn’t matter. I love EMPIRE, but I see its flaws. But SCHINDLER’SLIST is something truly special. It’s almost like it wasn’t directed by Spielberg. He never since even tried to become that director again, I guess because it would be so hard on him as a human being. So SL remains his single greatest achievement that will live on as one of the most important pieces of cinema. While EMPIRE OF THE SUN, imho was the direct step towards becoming the great director who made SCHINDLER’SLIST. 

 

I will counter that on several points: first of all, i think you overestimate the importance of awards. Sure, he needed and wanted establishment approval, but to claim these projects were done in the spirit of getting these is massively overstating their importance. It's a commercial industry, after all. On EOTS he was hunting David Lean (by whom this project was courted) and his 'adult epics', the same goes for 'Color Purple', but his had also a built-in attraction factor for the jew in Spielberg, who understood and sympathized with the plight of suppressed minorities. Both movies have their problematic areas and either shy away from edgy things (Color) or lose themselves in blurry metaphors that seem more weighty than they actually are (EOTS), but these never come by way of scoring brownie points etc. They feel like works outside of Spielberg's comfort zone where he handles singular scenes marvelously, but is too timid to go all the way or doesn't trust his instincts and falls back on certain conventional safeguards (sometimes Williams' music).

 

To claim 'SL' easily surpasses these is an easily-made mistake because of its subject matter. It's actually on 'SL' where Spielberg uses a patronizing speech in 'I could have done more' and like in the other two visually pretties up scenes like i. e. the train arriving in Auschwitz. There's a lot more that was taken out like the 'Cincinatti Kid'-like card duel because Spielberg rightly felt he would be accused of falling back on old movie tricks. SL is a masterpiece within certain parameters, but it sure isn't without fault.

[JTN 2,030]

1 hour ago, publicist said:

 

I will counter that on several points: first of all, i think you overestimate the importance of awards. Sure, he needed and wanted establishment approval, but to claim these projects were done in the spirit of getting these is massively overstating their importance. It's a commercial industry, after all. On EOTS he was hunting David Lean (by whom this project was courted) and his 'adult epics', the same goes for 'Color Purple', but his had also a built-in attraction factor for the jew in Spielberg, who understood and sympathized with the plight of suppressed minorities. Both movies have their problematic areas and either shy away from edgy things (Color) or lose themselves in blurry metaphors that seem more weighty than they actually are (EOTS), but these never come by way of scoring brownie points etc. They feel like works outside of Spielberg's comfort zone where he handles singular scenes marvelously, but is too timid to go all the way or doesn't trust his instincts and falls back on certain conventional safeguards (sometimes Williams' music).

 

To claim 'SL' easily surpasses these is an easily-made mistake because of its subject matter. It's actually on 'SL' where Spielberg uses a patronizing speech in 'I could have done more' and like in the other two visually pretties up scenes like i. e. the train arriving in Auschwitz. There's a lot more that was taken out like the 'Cincinatti Kid'-like card duel because Spielberg rightly felt he would be accused of falling back on old movie tricks. SL is a masterpiece within certain parameters, but it sure isn't without fault.

I'm not overestimating awards. I think Mr. Spielberg did (and does) when he made films like EOTS or even SL. What I said was that even though he may have made them partly to win Oscars, he made them so well that regardless of his possible intention of doing so they are such good films that it doesn't matter anymore.

 

I hate awards, especially the Oscars. 

 

I also said that SCHINDLER'S LIST is my favorite Spielberg film and in my opinion it's flawless. I respect your or anybody else's opinion, but no one can convince me otherwise because I choose to believe that and that's it. I understand that to some people it might be overly sentimental etc. but not to me. In fact the "I could have done more" monologue is where I always lose it and break down crying because it's so overwhelming, feeling the pain of Oskar Schindler who right there and then, in that very moment realizes that no matter how much he had done, he could have done much more and could have saved many more human being's life. It's a wonderful scene and I don't care what anyone says, Liam Neeson should have won that highly overrated stupid Oscar for that scene alone. 

 

With all that said, no film is without fault, not even CITIZEN KANE or LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. But it also depends on the viewer and their subjective taste and opinion. Every movie can be dissected to pieces and can be criticized, and it's perfectly all right. We all have different tastes, and hopefully all of us can find what we like and enjoy.

[publicist 4,643]

16 minutes ago, JTW said:

I also said that SCHINDLER'S LIST is my favorite Spielberg film and in my opinion it's flawless. I respect your or anybody else's opinion, but no one can convince me otherwise because I choose to believe that and that's it.

 

Nobody did, what i pointed out is that this scene and the intention behind it is a very typical example of Oscar-baiting.

[JTN 2,030]

9 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Nobody did, what i pointed out is that this scene and the intention behind it is a very typical example of Oscar-baiting.

Could be, I accept your opinion, although I disagree. 

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

24 minutes ago, JTW said:

...to some people it might be overly sentimental etc. but not to me. In fact the "I could have done more" monologue is where I always lose it...

 

I'm generally less accepting of sentimentality than the average viewer. That scene in Schindler's List is one of the instances in which I seem to be on the opposite side of conventional opinion; I think it works fine. Indeed, the film overall (surprisingly for Spielberg) manages for the most part to steer clear of egregious sentimentality. My one objection is to the red coat.

 

I'd rank it among his top three films, but the only one which I think is anywhere near the level of Scorsese's best work is Jaws.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

2 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

My one objection is to the red coat.

 

That's all the colour they could afford.

[publicist 4,643]

Just now, JTW said:

Could be, I accept your opinion, although I disagree. 

 

You are wrong then.  It's just bad style to falsify your lead character to make sweeping do-good statements that belong to another generation, especially, and that is my main beef with it and the Oscar bait reproach, if you can reasonably expect that the majority will or has to clappingly agree with you. Besides, the writing and length are too cumbersome to count as universal truth, especially with the heavy-vibrato violin playing in the back.

 

Of course i'm talking about my reaction, i wouldn't deny anyone to be moved by such sentimentalities, but if a movie is elevated to such lofty heights, this criticism bears mention.

[JTN 2,030]

40 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

You are wrong then.  It's just bad style to falsify your lead character to make sweeping do-good statements that belong to another generation, especially, and that is my main beef with it and the Oscar bait reproach, if you can reasonably expect that the majority will or has to clappingly agree with you. Besides, the writing and length are too cumbersome to count as universal truth, especially with the heavy-vibrato violin playing in the back.

 

Of course i'm talking about my reaction, i wouldn't deny anyone to be moved by such sentimentalities, but if a movie is elevated to such lofty heights, this criticism bears mention.

I may be wrong but nonetheless that’s my personal opinion and I still disagree with you, while respecting YOUR opinion. 

[publicist 4,643]

3 minutes ago, JTW said:

I may be wrong but nonetheless that’s my personal opinion and I still disagree with you, while respecting YOUR opinion. 

 

Don't try to appear so overly PC, rather discuss your opinion in terms beyond simplistic statements á la 'in my opinion it's an infallible masterpiece, period'. It may be my problem, as i come from a journalist background, but i find the discussion culture here has been really come to a crawl after several older posters left the board.

[JTN 2,030]

1 hour ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

I'm generally less accepting of sentimentality than the average viewer. That scene in Schindler's List is one of the instances in which I seem to be on the opposite side of conventional opinion; I think it works fine. Indeed, the film overall (surprisingly for Spielberg) manages for the most part to steer clear of egregious sentimentality. My one objection is to the red coat.

 

I'd rank it among his top three films, but the only one which I think is anywhere near the level of Scorsese's best work is Jaws.

Yes, the little girl in the red coat is a controversial directorial decision that shouldn’t work but somehow it does and gives the entire story a whole new aspect. Because that little girl represents innocence. Among all the black and white horror, all the killings that little piece of color is humanity. It’s hard for me to put into words in another language so forgive my clumsiness or lack of sophistication. To ME personally that little girl in the red coat is what the world used to be and what the world SHOULD BE if there was no senseless war. And let’s not forget that we see the girl again later and her death hits us because we remember her from before. The red coat tells us that she wasn’t just a face in the crowd, one of the thousands killed, but an individual, and that we must not forget that each and every innocent person killed in the war was a precious human being. But I do agree that it dances on very thin ice and to some it can be too sentimental or tearjerker a touch. Again, it’s a matter of taste. 
 

My favorite Spielberg films are Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park. 

16 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Don't try to appear so overly PC, rather discuss your opinion in terms beyond simplistic statements á la 'in my opinion it's an infallible masterpiece, period'. It may be my problem, as i come from a journalist background, but i find the discussion culture here has been really come to a crawl after several older posters left the board.

I think you’re mistaking being polite with being PC, but that’s OK, I don’t mind. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Netflix is not cinema.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

SCHINDLER'S LIST is a clinging, cloying film, that preys on your emotions, and demands respect, while, at the same time, doing nothing to deserve it. It's Oscar bait at its most shameful.

The interesting thing about "I could have done more", is that it never happened. According to Mrs. Schindler, he thanked people, politely, then got into the car and drove away. End of. No tears. No falling over. No regrets.

It's a well made film, and, technically, very proficient, but somehow it just doesn't ring true... even for a piece of fiction.

As @publicist has drawn our attention to it, the "Cincinnati Kid" sequence, probably would have spoiled the perceived altruism of Schindler, and shown him for what he was: a businessman.

I appreciate SCHINDLER'S LIST, but, in no way do I like it.