Jump to content

Your personal top 5 worst Spielberg Films


WampaRat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

My least favourites (in no particular order):

THE COLOR PURPLE

SCHINDLER'S LIST 

A.I. 

WAR HORSE 

Tintin 

 

 

Most favourites (in 1-5):

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND

1941 

EMPIRE OF THE SUN 

MINORITY REPORT 

WAR OF THE WORLDS

 

Vaguely insane. But I have to say War of the Worlds goes up in my estimation every year and every time I see it. I could see that on my top 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Vaguely insane.

That's me :D

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Tallguy said:

War of the Worlds goes up in my estimation every year and every time I see it.

I never liked WAR OF THE WORLDS until I started working with children, then I saw the film for what it is: the story of a man desperately trying to reconnect with his family.

It's a very touching film, and all three principals are pitch-perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

My least favourites (in no particular order):

THE COLOR PURPLE

SCHINDLER'S LIST 

A.I. 

WAR HORSE 

Tintin

 

 

I, AC1, agree with Tintin and War Horse.

 

Don't understand your Schindler's List pick. Would you have liked it better if the whole movie was like the 'I could have done more' scene? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2022 at 1:17 PM, Chen G. said:

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.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Shia LeBoeuf described the experience on the Crystal Skull set as "dispiriting" and likened it to working on an "assembly line". 

 

Now, I'm far from a LeBoeuf fan, and at the time I thought he should keep his opinion to himself, but I think his sentiments are reflected in what ended up on the screen. I don't think a fully engaged Spielberg who's passionate about his art, and believes in what he's doing, makes the movie we ended up getting.

 

In fact it would almost be more comforting to believe he was phoning it in (ala The Lost World). Because the alternative is, given how BFG, RPO and KOTCS turned out, that Spielberg simply isn't capable of making those kinds of films any more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven seen all John Williams scored films plus Duel and The Color Purple. I haven't seen the others (eg. Ready Player one, Bridge of Spies etc.).

With that in mind, here's my personal worst:

 

1. 1941

2. Crystal Skull

3. The BFG

4. The Post

5. The Fabelmans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Spielberg is my favourite director of all time. There are NO feature films of his that I dislike outright. But if I were to rank them, some would obviously find themselves last.

 

At the bottom would be A TIMELESS CALL; talk about pompous patriotic pap! But that's a short documentary, so I suppose it doesn't count. Nor does AMAZING STORIES or THE TWILIGHT ZONE in this context.

 

So I guess 1941, TINTIN, THE BFG, WEST SIDE STORY and READY PLAYER ONE would find themselves there, even if I find great values in all of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might come to different results if I think about how I liked the movies when I first saw them or how I rate the movies from todays point of view. 

 

The movies, that I didn't like at first watch were Hook, Always, Amistad, Ready Player One and West Side Story. 

 

A candidate is as well The Lost World, but the scene with Julianne Moore lying on the glass pane is so cool, that I forgive the movie a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

A candidate is as well The Lost World, but the scene with Julianne Moore lying on the glass pane is so cool, that I forgive the movie a lot.

 

Not just me then! That whole sequence is just about the greatest action scene that Spielberg has ever directed. I like the movie a lot more than I used to but that kept me from dismissing it entirely back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

Not just me then! That whole sequence is just about the greatest action scene that Spielberg has ever directed. I like the movie a lot more than I used to but that kept me from dismissing it entirely back in the day.

 

Totally agreed. That movie has some of the most awesome kinetic/causal action sequences in his entire filmography. I love it, even the San Diego sequence, and probably seen it some 20 times over the years. But there are so many films mentioned here among people's "worst" where I feel the need to stand up and defend them left and right, that I better leave it be altogether. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Is The Color Purple that bad? I've never seen it, but I always assumed it was a classic...

It waters down the novel, no end, and is heavy on the schmaltz, especially at the end.

Imo, like all his films, it has value, but it's not Premier League Spielberg.

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Thor said:

People think it's too "schmalzy". I don't.

Oops! Sorry, Thor :lol:.

Allen Daviau's cinematography is lovely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thor said:

There are NO feature films of his that I dislike outright. But if I were to rank them, some would obviously find themselves last.

 

In general I agree with this.

 

I think I said this earlier, but other than KOTCS, I don't think Spielberg has made a truly bad film.  He doesn't really make bad films...his oeuvre ranges from a handful of true cinematic classics, several "great to good" films, and an (increasing) number of Ron Howard level technically proficient but uninspired mediocrities. Even KOTCS is only truly bad in comparison to what came before and what Spielberg is capable of when he's actually trying.

 

But there are things to like in all his films, even the lesser ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Worst:

  1. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

 

No lies detected here.

 

Sorry, Edmilson. But its just...not a movie I particularly enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also not a huge fan. There are things about it that I love, of course, but it was never a film I greatly enjoyed, not even as a youngster. But I wouldn't put it in "worst 5".

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, crocodile said:

But I wouldn't put it in "worst 5".

 

Yeah, maybe as part of "worst 5" is a little harsh, but its definitely lower-tier Spielberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s weird, even though the bulk of TOD takes place underground, KOTCS has always felt much more claustrophobic to me.

 

Perhaps it’s due to being filmed entirely in California, or maybe it’s down to Kamiński's typical gauzy photography, or it might be the awful CGI, but not once during KOTCS do I not feel like I’m watching anything other than actors on a set. None of it feels grounded (especially the quicksand scene, no irony intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While TOD has grown on me over the years, I do agree it’s the least of the three films.  

 

But even with all its flaws, TOD still feels authentic to me. Whereas KOTSC feels like less than the genuine article and second best. Here’s Jim Broadbent in place of Denholm Elliot.  Here’s Ray Winstone instead of John Rhys-Davies. Here’s someone named Oxley because we said Abner Ravenwood was dead. Here’s Janusz Kamiński trying, and failing, to imitate Douglas Slocombe. Here’s Steven Spielberg trying, and failing, to imitate Steven Spielberg.  

 

I’ll give Harrison Ford & Karen Allen a pass because, well, everyone gets older, but after Indy so perfectly, and appropriately, rode off into the sunset looking spectacular and vigorous at the end of Last Crusade, the whole thing begs the question….why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

after Indy so perfectly, and appropriately, rode off into the sunset looking spectacular and vigorous at the end of Last Crusade, the whole thing begs the question….why?

 

That's the biggest stumbling block for me.

 

I don't like the way the movie looks.

 

I don't like the soap opera aspect of bringing Marion back and going all "Indy, he! is your son!"

 

I don't like some of the beats and/or setpieces (that. bloody. jungle. chase!)

 

But, really, above all I just don't like the concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

...KOTSC feels like less than the genuine article and second best. Here’s Jim Broadbent in place of Denholm Elliot.  Here’s Ray Winstone instead of John Rhys-Davies. Here’s someone named Oxley because we said Abner Ravenwood was dead. Here’s Janusz Kamiński trying, and failing, to imitate Douglas Slocombe. Here’s Steven Spielberg trying, and failing, to imitate Steven Spielberg.

 

Aye, it's not great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

While TOD has grown on me over the years, I do agree it’s the least of the three films.  

 

But even with all its flaws, TOD still feels authentic to me. Whereas KOTSC feels like less than the genuine article and second best. Here’s Jim Broadbent in place of Denholm Elliot.  Here’s Ray Winstone instead of John Rhys-Davies. Here’s someone named Oxley because we said Abner Ravenwood was dead. Here’s Janusz Kamiński trying, and failing, to imitate Douglas Slocombe. Here’s Steven Spielberg trying, and failing, to imitate Steven Spielberg.  

 

I’ll give Harrison Ford & Karen Allen a pass because, well, everyone gets older, but after Indy so perfectly, and appropriately, rode off into the sunset looking spectacular and vigorous at the end of Last Crusade, the whole thing begs the question….why?

I think that sums up my feelings. Last Crusade wrapped things up nicely. Trilogies feel like a nice number of films. Indy hadn't outstayed his welcome, nor did Harrison Ford seem too old so it all just worked. Each of the original three movies had a fairly distinctive style and tone, while clearly being from the same universe. I wonder if SS got too thoughtful for Indy so KOTCS became over-engineered. Sometimes it really is best to leave well alone. Although that seems to be even less the case with movies and TV these days...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thor said:

despite its apparent flaws, think KOTSC still has many redeeming qualities

 

It does. But my basic, fundemental issue with it still stands, and would stand even if it were much better a movie than it ended up being.

 

I didn't need to see more of Indy after he rode into that sunset: its anticlimactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thor said:

Anyone other than me who, despite its apparent flaws, think KOTSC still has many redeeming qualities, and as such is underrated?

 

I certainly think it's underrated - though that's not saying an awful lot given how abysmally it's rated. It's just alright, as opposed to being a crime against humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thor said:

Anyone other than me who, despite its apparent flaws, think KOTSC still has many redeeming qualities, and as such is underrated?

The third act is a real mess, the worst of all Indy movies. But The rest is quite good. And I was impressed and happy how Spielberg managed to Bring back the spirit and the mood of the previous movies. I didn't take that for granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I should also point out I LOVE the refridgerator scene that everyone made such a big fuss about, including Spielberg himself. And especially the scene leading up to it, in that deserted 'test town'. Tense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen The B.F.G., (or several other Spielberg films) so you can't get me on that one!

 

14 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I've discovered, whether it's via prequels or sequels, I don't like the demystification of things better left to the imagination...Some things are just better left alone.

 

How about House of the Dragon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share Nick's sentiment, but its not a sentiment that applies, at least in my case, to every sequel or prequel.

 

The issue here is with sequels to what were for all intents and purposes FINAL entries.

 

I don't need to know what happens after the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I share Nick's sentiment, but its not a sentiment that applies to every sequel or prequel.

 

I share the view that sequels, prequels and spin-offs are generally less good than originals (to say the least), that, in most cases, it would be better if they were not made at all, and that backstories and future stories tend to be reduced in power and resonance when made explicit onscreen. But I'm reluctant to use that, in itself, as a criticism of these prequels and sequels, because sometimes they can be successful and can enhance the overall work, and it's only when they're done that we find out which are the worthwhile efforts and which aren't. In the latter cases, we can always ignore or forget the unwelcome additions and not allow them to demystify the original material.

 

Edit: just as I can appreciate Raiders of the Lost Ark in spite of the descecration that followed three years later!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.