Your personal top 5 worst Spielberg Films

[WampaRat 1,272]

He is an absolute master of his craft. But not immune to the occasional clunker. And even still, some of those clunkers made a decent amount at the box office. What do you consider to be Steven Spielberg’s top 5 worst films? 

(1=absolute worst 5= I feel nothing)

My list:

 

1. Indy and the Crystal Skull 

2. BFG

3. 1941

4. A.I. 

5. The Terminal 

 

EDIT: #5 is now Ready Player One

[Jay 40,135]

I like all his movies except Crystal Skull and West Side Story... though I still have never seen The Color Purple

 

if forced to pick the bottom 5 I'd probably have to go with

 

Crystal Skull

West Side Story

Ready Player One

Bridge of Spies
Sugarland Express

[Disco Stu 15,504]

Heh, you have a movie in your bottom 5 that is in my top 5.  I wonder how often that'll happen for other people.

 

My bottom 5:

 

1941

The Terminal

Hook

Always

Ready Player One

 

A few of those are "squishy", I could sub in Crystal Skull or Tintin or BFG with ease.  But bottom place (RP1) is a lock, I hope forever.

[WampaRat 1,272]

10 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

Heh, you have a movie in your bottom 5 that is in my top 5.  I wonder how often that'll happen for other people.

 

Is it A.I. ? I know some folks consider that one a misunderstood masterpiece.  I just…I can’t. I’ve tried really! Same with JWs score 😬 
 

“Hook” btw would be in my top 5 favorites 😆 A childhood gem for me!

 

Gosh I honestly forgot about Ready Player One haha. I’ll probably sub out The Terminal for that one. It was fun but forgettable. Great Silvestri score though. 
 

 

[Disco Stu 15,504]

Oh I was referring to Jay there, as Bridge of Spies is my #5 (it's not a bit, I do truly dearly love that movie!).  But yes, AI is in my top 10.

[bollemanneke 3,695]

My least favourite 5, and I expect this will be controversial:

Saving Private Ryan

CE3K

War of the Worlds

Indy 4

The Adventures of Tintin

 

[WampaRat 1,272]

Just now, bollemanneke said:

My least favourite 5, and I expect this will be controversial:

Saving Private Ryan

CE3K

War of the Worlds

Indy 4

The Adventures of Tintin

 

Wow!

Those first two are bold choices indeed!

[bollemanneke 3,695]

I should probably add that only Indy 4 and Tintin are bad in my books. The others are just not my cup of tea.

[Disco Stu 15,504]

My top 5, for the record

 

[Nick1Ø66 6,076]

I have a hard time doing this, because with one exception, I don't think Spielberg has made a "bad" film. And I can't really even rank my least favourites, because those are all some degree of mediocrity such that I've only seen them once, don't remember them, and am not interested enough in them to begin to know how to rank them.

 

But his worst film? By far...Crystal Skull. A flat out embarrassment for everyone involved, bordering on artistic malpractice. Spielberg should have known better.  Even his lesser films are at least somewhat inspired, like he was actually interested in telling a story, rather than reeking of the utter laziness & cynicism of this one.

 

I guess I'll just add that Ready Player One was a film he probably should have steered clear of. It's not a great film (though not Crystal Skull level-bad), and ironically, Spielberg was probably the last person who should have helmed that project.

[GerateWohl 5,295]

Worst five:

Hook

Ready Player One

Always

War of the Worlds 

The Terminal

 

Best five:

Catch Me If You Can

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Schindler's List

E.T.

Jaws

 

Each five in No particular order.

[Nick1Ø66 6,076]

Favs:

1. Raiders
2. Jaws
3. CE3K
4. JP
5. SPR

SPR was probably Spielberg's last true classic, and a bona fide classic of the genre. But I can't rank it higher b/c, well, it's not better than any of these other films, and frankly I think it loses a little steam in the middle. The bookends of the movie (particularly the beginning) are brilliant though, it's just a bit uneven.

 

And honestly I probably revisit Temple of Doom and Last Crusade more than some of these other films, but I have a thing about not listing more than one film from the same franchise when doing these rankings.

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

Top-5 (in order of preference)

 

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND,

1941,

EMPIRE OF THE SUN,

MINORITY REPORT,

WAR OF THE WORLDS.

 

Bottom-5 (in chronological order)

 

THE COLOR PURPLE,

HOOK,

SCHINDLER'S LIST,

THE LOST WORLD,

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WampaRat 1,272]

34 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But his worst film? By far...Crystal Skull. A flat out embarrassment for everyone involved, bordering on artistic malpractice. Spielberg should have known better.  Even his lesser films are at least somewhat inspired, like he was actually interested in telling a story, rather than reeking of the utter laziness & cynicism of this one.

It really is perplexing. I agree, he has made some films that didn’t land well or were just kinda forgettable. But Indy 4 just has a palpable sense of “I realllly don’t want to be doing this”. Some bits almost feel like self sabotage. And some odd technical/editing choices that a master craftsman like himself should have known to avoid. It’s just sad and weird.

 

10 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

EMPIRE OF THE SUN,

YES!

Man. This one hit hard when I saw it as a 13 year old. Amazing film. Truly a forgotten gem in his filmography.

 

I think you accidentally switched 1941 and Schindler’s List though  haha

 

Id love to hear your reasonings for those!

[mstrox 6,976]

There are a few I haven’t seen (Duel, Sugarland, Color Purple, Always, EOTS, Munich, Lincoln, Post, and Bridge of Spies).

 

I probably have one on my bottom 5 that’ll be unconventional, but keep in mind that there’s only one Spielberg movie I REALLY don’t like, and that movie is 1941.

 

19.  Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

20.  Jaws

21.  Ready Player One

22.  The BFG

23.  1941

 

edit:  and since we’re sharing top 5, mine are ET, SPR, Last Crusade, JP, and AI.  
 

There are a few on my list that I only watched once, and so long ago that they’d probably wiggle around on my list a bit.  Schindler, Catch Me, Terminal…but likely they’d all work their way up and not down 

[Chen G. 4,765]

I really don't think Spielberg was disinterested or dispassionate on the set of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Its inarguable that he was reticent to make it for a long time - and very, very rightly so - but its the sort of thing where once you're on the set, you don't necessarily carry that initial apprehension with you.

 

But yeah, for a variety of reasons - most of which, I would argue, are on the page, but not all - the film ended-up uninspired, rather slow, not very appealing to the eye and hokey. It was, in some respects, a doomed enterprise.

 

Spielberg had other less-than-reputable films. Always springs to mind. But I haven't watched a Spielberg film in a loooong time (well, The Last Crusade doesn't count: I can watch that for forever) so I can't really make a list off the top of my head.

 

My "issue" with Schindler's List is, I think, known to all here, and needs no repeating.

[Edmilson 9,392]

I don't think Spielberg has made or will make again a movie as terrible as Crystal Skull. From the horrendous CGI to uninspired villains, boring script, forgettable plot and ridiculous scenes (like the fridge, the Shia-as-Tarzan and a tall Russian guy being eaten alive by fucking ants), nothing worked.

 

Other movies like RP1, The Terminal and BFG may not be as good as most of his movies, but they're still very watchable, unlike Indy 4. And I say that as someone who hated BFG.

[Chen G. 4,765]

Ready Player One surprised me. Like, I avoided it for a long time for thinking it looks absolutely godawful: it had this look of this totally over-the-top, overwhelming, Michael Bay-like visual chaos and cloying nostalgia.

 

It wasn't ultimately a very succesfull film, but that aspect of it was ultimately reined-in by Spielberg. Middling for me, but not bad, particularly.

[Disco Stu 15,504]

My 8yo daughter read The BFG novel this year and then loved and had a brief period of obsession with the movie.  I can only hope that one day, 20 years now, she'll be posting on the internet about how she knows it's flawed but it's a childhood favorite, etc. etc.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,369]

I’m not really into anything he did beyond Jaws.

For the record, Jaws is in my top ten favorite movies, so Spielberg could have just done that, then immediately retired and he’d still rightfully be considered one of the all-time greats.

[mstrox 6,976]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

My 8yo daughter read The BFG novel this year and then loved and had a brief period of obsession with the movie.  I can only hope that one day, 20 years now, she'll be posting on the internet about how she knows it's flawed but it's a childhood favorite, etc. etc.

 

Sounds like why Hook was in the middle of my list and not the bottom!  Although in that case, Williams also did a lot of heavy lifting.

[Edmilson 9,392]

Unpopular opinion: I'm not a fan of Lincoln. I thought that movie was a very boring history lesson, one of those mind-numbing movies that a teacher could play in class while the students sleep. Maybe I'd like it more if I was American, or at least know more about the history of the United States.

 

That said, it's been almost a decade since I watched it, I may give it another chance one of these days.

[Chen G. 4,765]

2 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Unpopular opinion: I'm not a fan of Lincoln.

 

Oh, I forgot that one!

 

Stodgy is the word for it. Again, nothing overtly bad about it, but its a little tedious.

[Disco Stu 15,504]

Literally a perfect movie

[WampaRat 1,272]

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

Oh, I forgot that one!

 

Stodgy is the word for it. Again, nothing overtly bad about it, but its a little tedious.

As an American, with an American history teacher for a mother, and lover of history myself…It is pretty boring. 
 

I’ll watch a piece here and there for Daniel Day-Lewis performance. But yeah. Pretty dusty.

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

4 minutes ago, WampaRat said:

I think you accidentally switched 1941 and Schindler’s List though  haha

Id love to hear your reasonings for those!

 

 

I most certainly did not switch

1941 is goofy fun. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. It's silliness appeals to my right-sided brain. It's Spielberg kicking back, and taking it easy. It has absolutely nothing to say, but says it with verve, vigour, and, yes, quite a bit of style.

The extended version is my go-to version.

SCHINDLER'S LIST, on the other hand, is oh-so-obvious Oscar™ bait. It wants to be liked, it wants to be admired, it wants you to say "Oh, those poor, poor people. How could anything like that happen?". It wants you to cry over a little girl in a red coat, and you oblige, all-too willingly.

Well, I don't buy it.

I will happily admit that it is very well made, with production values that are second to none, but I'm just not drawn in, by it.

Imo, there are far, far better films about man's inhumanity to man, and far better pieces of entertainment about the historical treatment of the Jews (HOLOCAUST; SHOAH; HOTEL TERMINUS - heck, even MASADA is better).

I admire SCHINDLER'S LIST, but, in no way, shape, or form, can I like it.

[Chen G. 4,765]

10 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

SCHINDLER'S LIST, on the other hand, is oh-so-obvious Oscar™ bait. It wants to be liked, it wants to be admired, it wants you to say "Oh, those poor, poor people. How could anything like that happen?". It wants you to cry over a little girl in a red coat, and you oblige, all-too willingly.

 

I think Spielberg has made some very overt Oscar bait in the years since Schindler's List, but I never experienced that movie as particularly Oscar-bait-y.

 

What I do experience it as is like a state memorial ceremony. I think most Israelis do. Its impossible for us to see it as a film, I'm afraid. I watched it once at school, once again to say I did it as an adult - I never want to subject myself to it ever again.

[Nick1Ø66 6,076]

 

3 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Literally a perfect movie

 

Wash your filthy mouth out. Casablanca is the only perfect movie.

 

Raiders is the closest Spielberg came to cinematic perfection.

[Chen G. 4,765]

2 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Raiders is the closest Spielberg came to cinematic perfection.

 

Interesting.

 

I generally think of Jaws as a much more "perfect" movie.

 

Not that "perfect" necessarily equals "best"!

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What I do experience it as is like a state memorial ceremony. I think most Israelis do. Its impossible for us to see it as a film.

Agreed, Chen. In my comments, I meant no disrespect to the subject matter, and that is why I cited the other works. I am, merely, criticising the film as a piece of entertainment.

I'm sure that if the film was about the diabolical treatment of the English through the centuries, I would not see it as a film, either. Perhaps not being Jewish allows me to maintain a certain emotional distance. Like I said: I do admire it; I just don't like it.

[Edmilson 9,392]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Raiders is the closest Spielberg came to cinematic perfection.

I agree. It's my favorite Spielberg movie, followed by ET. The guy was firing on all cilinders on the early 80s!

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

2 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

The guy was firing on all cylinders on the early 80s!

Really? Have you seen KICK THE CAN? 

[Nick1Ø66 6,076]

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'm sure that if the film was about the diabolical treatment of the English through the centuries

 

Wasn't it the English who were more or less being the diabolical ones through the centuries?  

[Jay 40,135]

16 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Really? Have you seen KICK THE CAN? 

 

1985 is not the early 80s

[Chen G. 4,765]

12 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Agreed, Chen. In my comments, I meant no disrespect to the subject matter, and that is why I cited the other works. I am, merely, criticising the film as a piece of entertainment.

I'm sure that if the film was about the diabolical treatment of the English through the centuries, I would not see it as a film, either. Perhaps not being Jewish allows me to maintain a certain emotional distance. Like I said: I do admire it; I just don't like it.

 

By all means, do disrespect the subject matter! ...Okay, may don't, but what I mean by that is that Schindler's List and films like it shouldn't be impervious to criticism for fear of making one seem as "disrespecting the subject matter." There are things to critique in Schindler's List: the hokum of the Schindler's last moments in the film is often cited and not injustly (even if the issue is blown out of proportion, I would say).

 

But yeah, its just a very different experience perhaps not necessarily to Jews but specifically to Israeli Jews: The Holocaust is a big thing here, and we're fed it in school, we're fed it in Holocaust memorial day, we're fed it in the IDF, some of us are fed it in our families, and so films like Schindler's List and like The Pianist sort of become...like a ceremony.

[WampaRat 1,272]

I think Spielberg’s last “modern classic” was Minority Report in 2002.

 

errr actually “Catch Me If you Can” in 2003!  
 

Those two films, while a year apart, I think showcased the very best of Spielberg and his growth as a filmmaker since his big hits in the 80s.

 

EDIT: they both came out in 2002 🤦

 

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Wasn't it the English who were more or less being the diabolical ones through the centuries?  

... and proud of it! 

#There'll always be an England#

[Jay 40,135]

1 minute ago, WampaRat said:

I think Spielberg’s last “modern classic” was Minority Report in 2002.

 

errr actually “Catch Me If you Can” in 2003!  

 

Catch Me If You Can is from 2002.

 

1 minute ago, WampaRat said:

Those two films, while a year apart

 

Catch Me If You Can opened in theaters less than 6 months after Minority Report.

[WampaRat 1,272]

Just now, Jay said:

 

Catch Me If You Can is from 2002.

Ah! Duh.

well perfect! What a year for Spielberg

[bespinGPT 8,899]

Firstly, his 2 first movies which I never saw, and which I'll never watch: Firelight & Duel.

 

Then The Color Purple, who is not at all on my radar, I ever wonder if I saw it once in my life.

 

Always, this movie lives only because of its music. Maybe one day I'll rewatch it... MAYBE.

 

The BFG, nothing in this movie is successfull... except the music. I can't imagine this movie being a good adaptation of the children books... It can't.

The Adventures of Tintin, you can't mess with Tintin, in this case, this is my culture (but not my generation, I'm not THAT old), I was raised with Tintin books. Mixing the stories of 2-3 differents adventures in one movie was a mess... and guess what, when you do that, it's hard to make sequels... and that's why we didn't have sequels and we'll never have.  The movie is watchable on it's own, but it's a catastrophe in Tintin's world.

 

Geez, that's 6!

 

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

@Chen G., you're absolutely right. People seem to have a sort of false reverence for SL as if, by criticising it, one is criticising the Holocaust, itself.

Separation needs to be made between the event, and a fictitious play of light.

[Nick1Ø66 6,076]

 

8 minutes ago, Jay said:

1985 is not the early 80s

 

5 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Catch Me If You Can is from 2002.

 

You guys are really testing Jay's patience with your bad dates!

[Edmilson 9,392]

I consider 2005 to be in the early 2000s. 

[Jay 40,135]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

You guys are really testing Jay's patience with your bad dates!

 

I'll never forget that Spielberg caused incomplete John Williams scores to Attack of the Clones because of Minority Report, and Chamber of Secrets because of Catch Me If You Can, both in the same year!

[Naïve Old Fart 10,723]

15 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

1985 is not the early 80s

That's alright, because KICK THE CAN was not 1985.

[Jay 40,135]

5 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I consider 2005 to be in the early 2000s. 

 

If you break a decade in half putting 5 years in each, then 0-4 = early, 5-9 = late

 

If you break it into thirds, then 0-2 = early, 3-6 = mid, 7-9 = late

 

In neither case is 5 part of an early zone...

 

 

4 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

That's alright, because KICK THE CAN was not 1985.

 

Wow, you're right!  Why did I think that movie came out in 1985?

 

I even just read Rinzler's Indiana Jones book that talks about making Doom after Twilight Zone.

 

D'oh!

[Chen G. 4,765]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

I'll never forget that Spielberg caused incomplete John Williams scores to Attack of the Clones because of Minority Report

 

How is Attack of the Clones incomplete, though?

[Jay 40,135]

Williams never wrote music for the big battle at the end of the movie because of his commitments to Spielberg, so Lucas tracked music from The Phantom Menace into it instead.

[Chen G. 4,765]

I was under the impression that whatever music that had been written for that segment of the movie was just jumbled in the edit and replaced with tracked music.

[Jay 40,135]

Nope.