Your personal top 5 worst Spielberg Films

[Chen G. 3,204]

That's not my point.

 

My point is that, regardless of whether sequels turn out well or not, the fact of the matter is some films leave room for sequels (prequels are a little different).

 

Some films do not.

 

The Last Crusade belongs in the latter category.

[Glóin the Dark 1,138]

I don't feel inclined to agree, at least with regard to the Indiana Jones films. Certainly Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade ends with a satisfying air of finality (though that film in itself is less brilliant by several orders of magnitude than Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the only reason I'd refrain from saying that it diminishes the series is because of how much better it is than its immediate predecessor). Yet it's not far-fetched to think that a fourth film could have been a truly great addition to the series, even though it didn't turn out that way. After all, Indiana Jones is only an action hero. It's not as though they tried to make a Travis Bickle follow-up.

 

[Thor 5,961]

I don't know. I'm very glad the concept of remakes exist. Otherwise we wouldn't have a film like the classic, 1959 version of BEN HUR. Only the first, silent film adaptation.

 

I'm also glad sequels exist, especially if I have a strong connection to the fictional universe drawn up. If I love the universe, I want to explore more of it, storylines, locales and atmospheres. Preferably with a strong auteur voice, but if not, I take whatever I can get. I've never understood the desire to end things with the first film, if that film offers up a fantastic, wide universe with all kinds of possibilities.

[Chen G. 3,204]

11 minutes ago, Thor said:

I've never understood the desire to end things with the first film, if that film offers up a fantastic, wide universe with all kinds of possibilities.

 

I'm not averse to all sequels, but there are films that leave room for sequels. There are sequels that leave room for more sequels still.

 

And then there are sequels which are clearly made not to leave room for a further sequel, but as a finale. Either because the story is resolutely, once and for all concluded; either because (as is the case in The Last Crusade) its a kind of farewell to the character; or (more in the older days of Shakespeare et al) its because it literally ends with "then everyone died, the end." Whichever of the three it is, when you see a series finale, you know it when you see it, and The Last Crusade is manifestly such a finale.

 

Once wrapped-up, the story can't be unwrapped.

[Thor 5,961]

True, but that's mostly about story. I'm far more interested in 'universes' and everything that entails beyond sheer storytelling.

[oierem 102]

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Perhaps it’s due to being filmed entirely in California, 

 

As I'm sure you know, KotKS was NOT filmed entirely in California. 

 

[Chen G. 3,204]

21 minutes ago, Thor said:

True, but that's mostly about story. I'm far more interested in 'universes' and everything that entails beyond sheer storytelling.

 

You have prequels for that.

 

The point at which a story begins is much less definitive than where it ends; and so, if the series had reached a kind of culmination, rather than undoing that culmination, you can still explore it further by going backwards.

 

Spielberg didn't do that. Spielberg did a sequel.

[Thor 5,961]

Not sure what the difference is. A universe can be explored both backwards and forwards.

[GerateWohl 2,840]

Wait. Are some here really claiming that a sequel to Last Crusade makes no sense because at the end they ride into the sunset? Lucky Luke rides into the sunset at the end of each damn episode. Indiana Jones would have left room for a hundred sequels. Unlike Star Wars in Indy there never was one story ark told over several movies. Each movie is a stand alone story with maybe a handfull of references between each other. Usually even with a new love interest in each story. New adventure. New McGuffin. They could have went on like that forever. But they didn't.

[Chen G. 3,204]

4 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

Are some here really claiming that a sequel to Last Crusade makes no sense because at the end they ride into the sunset?

 

PRECISELY.

 

Its not a conclusion to a story being told like in Star Wars, but its very, very clearly and overtly a farewell to the character.

[mstrox 5,876]

But they’re also movies about a guy in a hat who’s spooked by snakes, so like who cares?  People give these franchises a lot more mythological weight than they deserve.

[Tom Guernsey 1,725]

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I really can't think of much to like about it.  I think the only scene that doesn't bother me, and the only one that feels genuine, is in Indy's house where they're talking about Henry Sr. & Marcus passing. 

 

I think part of the problem for me is that I've discovered, whether it's via prequels or sequels, I don't like the demystification of things better left to the imagination. I didn't need to see Han Solo as a washed up deadbeat dad; I didn't need to see a Luke Skywalker who's dejected and given up on life...I didn't need to see everything they fought for in the Rebellion made moot. I don't need to see my fictional fantasy heroes get old and bitter. I didn't need to see how badly Neo & Sarah Connor ended up. I didn't need to see the clone wars or the forging of the Rings of Power...those things played a lot better in my imagination. Hell, I don't even like the Harry Potter epilogue b/c I don't need to know that Harry, Ron & Hermione become boring, middle-class government bureaucrats. 

 

Some things are just better left alone.

 

I’ve said this elsewhere but it’s a lot how I feel with Picard. I don’t need to see everyone we know and love from Star Trek: TNG (and Voyager) ending up having crappy lives after they left the Enterprise. Sure the current season is a massive improvement on the other two (which isn’t saying much) but they are still lumbered with the misery porn backstories they constructed for the characters between the original shows and Picard. It’s just fucking depressing.

[Richard Penna 2,639]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Imagine thinking ToD is one of Spielberg's worst movies when The BFG exists.

 

The craziest thing about BFG for me: I could swear I've seen the film but I can't for the life of me remember anything about it 

 

I wouldn't say it's a bad film... just so utterly forgettable. Which is a shame because I had the audiobook as a kid and loved it.

[Chen G. 3,204]

4 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

It’s just fucking depressing.

 

A lot of these late-in-the-game sequels are depressing without necessarily knowing they're depressing.

[Nick1Ø66 3,825]

6 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

How about House of the Dragon?

 

How about House of the Dragon?

 

Along with Cobra Kai, I think it's the best show on TV.

[Schilkeman 316]

I seem to like Spielberg’s 21st century output more than a lot of people here. I even like Crystal Skull well enough.

 

my top 5 in no particular order:

 

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Jaws

Jurassic Park

Schindler’s List

Saving Private Ryan

 

My bottom 5 in no particular order

The Lost World

Hook

The BFG (painful, because I don’t hate this movie, and it’s one of JW’s best scores)

Amistad (haven’t seen since high school. I need to rewatch it)

Always (only seen parts admittedly, but have never dealt compelled to see the rest)

 

 

 

[Tallguy 1,835]

2 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

and it’s one of JW’s best scores

 

Is it really? I'll have to check it out.

 

I don't know what would replace Always on your list but I'd be interested if you watched the whole thing.

[filmmusic 1,373]

I'm sad that many of you find Hook a  bottom 5 Spielberg, out of all he's done.

It's one of my favourite films and scores.

[AC1 3,895]

3 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

 

The Lost World

Hook

The BFG (painful, because I don’t hate this movie, and it’s one of JW’s best scores)

Amistad (haven’t seen since high school. I need to rewatch it)

Always (only seen parts admittedly, but have never dealt compelled to see the rest)

 

 

Great picks!

[Schilkeman 316]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

Is it really? I'll have to check it out.

I'm always for spreading the good word that is the BFG soundtrack. A latter day masterpiece.

[GerateWohl 2,840]

5 hours ago, filmmusic said:

I'm sad that many of you find Hook a  bottom 5 Spielberg, out of all he's done.

It's one of my favourite films and scores.

As you can read above it is even at the bottom of Spielberg's personal list.

[Tallguy 1,835]

Hook was my first out and out disappointment in a Spielberg film. There's a lot of things I don't like about it. But the thing I like the least is how SETBOUND it feels. I was also underwhelmed by Williams' performance.

 

I read an interview with Spielberg on Jaws' 20th anniversary. They asked him who he would cast "today". He said for Hooper he would cast Jim Carrey. He said something like "No no! I would cast Carrey and I would SIT on him and get a totally normal performance out of him!" I thought "No you wouldn't. I've seen Hook!"

[Naïve Old Fart 7,959]

4 hours ago, Tallguy said:

 read an interview with Spielberg on Jaws' 20th anniversary. They asked him who he would cast "today". He said for Hooper he would cast Jim Carrey. He said something like "No no! I would cast Carrey and I would SIT on him and get a totally normal performance out of him!" I thought "No you wouldn't. I've seen Hook!"

Hee, hee. I read that, too. Premier Magazine, right?

He would cast Paul Schofield as Quint, and Anthony Edwards as Brody.

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Tallguy said:

...the thing I like the least is how SETBOUND it feels. 

Of course it's setbound. It takes place in Banning's head.

[Thor 5,961]

8 hours ago, Tallguy said:

Hook was my first out and out disappointment in a Spielberg film. There's a lot of things I don't like about it. But the thing I like the least is how SETBOUND it feels.

 

Interestingly, that's what I REALLY like about it, probably its greatest strength. Those gorgeous sets that make it its own contained universe. I think HOOK is really underrated.

[Glóin the Dark 1,138]

On 26/03/2023 at 2:26 AM, Nick1Ø66 said:

...I think it's the best show on TV.

 

That's what I mean. This kind of "demystification" isn't inherently bad, even though it's very often unsuccessful. So while I can accurately say that I don't need to see the clone wars* or the forging of the Rings of Power, that wouldn't carry much weight as a criticism of the depictions of those events since I can say with equal accuracy that I don't need to see the Dance of the Dragons. The distinction between them comes from the result.

 

*I don't know what the clone wars are, but I get the idea...

[Nick1Ø66 3,825]

4 hours ago, Glóin the Dark said:

 

That's what I mean. This kind of "demystification" isn't inherently bad, even though it's very often unsuccessful. So while I can accurately say that I don't need to see the clone wars* or the forging of the Rings of Power, that wouldn't carry much weight as a criticism of the depictions of those events since I can say with equal accuracy that I don't need to see the Dance of the Dragons. The distinction between them comes from the result.

 

*I don't know what the clone wars are, but I get the idea...

 

Well, yes, I agree that "demystification" needn't be inherently bad, and I agree that it's nonetheless often unsuccessful. 

 

I'll just add that for me, Dance of the Dragons isn't demystifying, because those events were never "mystified" for me in the first place. I read the books and watched Game of Thrones, but never thought of those events in the way I did the forging of the Rings or the Clone wars. Probably because I imagined the latter events as a kid reading Tolkien and watching Star Wars, whereas I came to Westeros as an adult. I also think the inherently political nature of the events of Dance of the Dragons make them feel less like part of a mystic past than the forging of the Rings and the Clone Wars, which almost feel like creation myths in their own way.

 

And obviously I don't have a problem with sequels in general, some of my favourite films are sequels.  But it's the come lately sequels, that take place decades later, that mostly don't work for me. It's hard to capture lighting twice that way, and the magic is usually gone. Again, I don't need to see and old and bitter Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or Jean-Luc Picard (though Picard season 3 is a step-up). What's the point of that, especially in the realm of fantasy?

 

That said, it can work under the right circumstances. I thought Stallone's portrayal as an ageing Rocky in Rocky Balboa and the Creed films to be quite moving and effective. But that's a different genre.

 

 

[GerateWohl 2,840]

Speaking of demystification, 80% of all prequels are crap and just illustrating that the few snippets given about the background story and the past in the main story were completely sufficient and it brings mostly no value filming that.

[Glóin the Dark 1,138]

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I'll just add that for me, Dance of the Dragons isn't demystifying, because those events were never "mystified" for me in the first place.

 

Fair enough. For my part, on the spectrum of mystification, I'd place the Dance of the Dragons a lot lower than the Long Night or even the Doom of Valyria, but still quite a bit higher than Indiana Jones's old age.

[JoeinAR 1,894]

Without a doubt SS,'s  worst are 

1  A.I. wretched film witb perhaps the worst female performance in SS film.

 

2.Always, Always belongs on this list, Always. If you remake a film make it better than the original not worse.

 

3. Hook. Total disaster. 

4 Big Fucking Giant. SS once said his effects are better than Avatar. Yeah No. I still can't believe I saf thru this.

5. A.I. so bad it makes the list twice.

 

Munich dishonorable mention. A snuff film

 

 

 

 

[Bellosh 1,946]

@JoeinAR I'm surprised you didn't put Last Crusade on that list. Or is it the score you despise?

 

But like @Edmilson hinted at...BFG should probably be on most people's lists here.

[Edmilson 4,966]

I honestly think that in order to actually like The BFG, you must be younger than 6. It's a movie made for little children. That is, if the children don't find it dull.

[Tallguy 1,835]

21 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I honestly think that in order to actually like The BFG, you must be younger than 6. It's a movie made for little children. That is, if the children don't find it dull.

 

My daughter liked it but she promptly forgot about it. Epic, OTOH, she still revisits.

[JoeinAR 1,894]

1 hour ago, Bellosh said:

@JoeinAR I'm surprised you didn't put Last Crusade on that list. Or is it the score you despise?

 

But like @Edmilson hinted at...BFG should probably be on most people's lists here.

I think Least Crusade is the 3rd or 4th best Indy score yet better than all those I  listed.

Honestly my biggest problem with least crusade is people thinking it's better than Temple of Doom which it is in no way if you compare it up against itself it's fine but Raiders and Temple soar above it.

[Tom 3,707]

On 28/03/2023 at 9:14 AM, JoeinAR said:

Without a doubt SS,'s  worst are 

1  A.I. wretched film witb perhaps the worst female performance in SS film.

 

I have always found Jude Law's performance annoying.  

[Naïve Old Fart 7,959]

4 hours ago, Tom said:

I have always found Jude Law's performance annoying.  

In A.I., or in general?

[Chen G. 3,204]

On 27/03/2023 at 7:16 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

it's the come lately sequels, that take place decades later, that mostly don't work for me.

 

To me its less that they come later, and more the fact that they take place after the series' natural end point (and, some would say, expiration date). Its like if there was a fifth Ring opera... There's just no point to it.

[oierem 102]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

To me its less that they come later, and more the fact that they take place after the series' natural end point (and, some would say, expiration date). Its like if there was a fifth Ring opera... There's just no point to it.

I totally agree with that.

However, I don't think that can be applied to the Indy series, because it's basically a bunch of stand-alone adventures. Last Crusade does try to be the "last" adventure, but it doesn't build on any of the two previous films. 

 

Anyway, back on topic, Hook is actually one of my favourite Spielberg films: I have a deep personal connection to it (I loved it as a kid), thematically it's a very strong film (it deals with Spielberg's most personal themes of youth, adulthood and the passing of time) and it has one of the best scores. 

[Chen G. 3,204]

3 minutes ago, oierem said:

Last Crusade does try to be the "last" adventure, but it doesn't build on any of the two previous films. 

Right. It’s not a culmination, buts it’s very much a farewell to the character.

[Naïve Old Fart 7,959]

I'd rather have three (or even five) relatively unconnected films, than go down to Craig-Bond route. Yeuch!

[Tom Guernsey 1,725]

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'd rather have three (or even five) relatively unconnected films, than go down to Craig-Bond route. Yeuch!

Agreed. Sometimes you don’t need an ongoing story. Sure you can have some recurring characters but some things are just best as one off, largely self contained stories. 

[Tom 3,707]

7 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

In A.I., or in general?

A bit in general, but everything that annoys me about him is brought to the surface in AI.  Of course, the way the character is written doesn't help.  Plus, the dialogue between him and the woman during his introduction may be the worst written in cinematic history (if an exaggeration, only slightly so).  

[Chen G. 3,204]

I generally prefer connected stories: all other thigns being equal, a cycle is superior to an anthology.

 

But Indy is an anthology by nature.

26 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Agreed. Sometimes you don’t need an ongoing story. Sure you can have some recurring characters but some things are just best as one off, largely self contained stories. 

 

[Tom Guernsey 1,725]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I generally prefer connected stories: all other thigns being equal, a cycle is superior to an anthology.

 

But Indy is an anthology by nature.

 

If done well, for sure, but sometimes it's good to know the limits of the character and for Indy or Bond, they work well in isolated stories. As I've said many times recently, too many recent TV shows have tried to do long form storytelling not very well and may have been better served just doing either single episode stories or maybe shorter arcs.

[Sweeping Strings 1,737]

4 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I'd rather have three (or even five) relatively unconnected films, than go down to Craig-Bond route. Yeuch!

Yeah, they have a weird timescale ... in the first 2 movies he's a rookie 00 agent, by the third a world-weary veteran, and by the fifth retired but comes back for one last mission, which is literally the death of him. 

[Nick1Ø66 3,825]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Right. It’s not a culmination, buts it’s very much a farewell to the character.

 

I agree. And I agree that Last Crusade was a fitting farewell to the character (even if unintentionally so).

 

That said, had George & Steven made another Indy film a few years later, I think it would have been fine to continue the story (assuming it was a good film).  But picking it up decades later, where nothing really looked or felt the same as the other films and everything was a replacement or second best...no. That didn't work for me.  

 

That's one reason Godfather III is improved somewhat by simply regarding it as a Coda, which is more or less is, rather than a piece with the other films, which it certainly is not. 

[bollemanneke 2,931]

16 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I honestly think that in order to actually like The BFG, you must be younger than 6. It's a movie made for little children. That is, if the children don't find it dull.

Hmm, what does that make Hook? I mean, the BFG had issues, but Hook had ISSUES.

[Naïve Old Fart 7,959]

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Yeah, they have a weird timescale ... in the first 2 movies he's a rookie 00 agent, by the third a world-weary veteran, and by the fifth retired but comes back for one last mission, which is literally the death of him. 

In the fifth one, Bond is an emasculated, woke, pussy-whipped, outdated, outmoded, worn-out nobody, who struggles to be the lead character, in his own movie.

It's shameful.

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Hmm, what does that make Hook? ...Hook had ISSUES.

HOOK had daddy issues 

[Schilkeman 316]

On 30/3/2023 at 11:14 AM, Nick1Ø66 said:

That's one reason Godfather III is improved somewhat by simply regarding it as a Coda, which is more or less is, rather than a piece with the other films, which it certainly is not. 

I’ve always thought of KotCS as a coda to the series. Not a Final Adventure, just a One More Thing.
 

I’ve always liked this movie, and the much-maligned OST. I’ve never really gotten all the hate it gets.

 

On 30/3/2023 at 11:33 AM, Naïve Old Fart said:

In the fifth one, Bond is an emasculated, woke, pussy-whipped, outdated, outmoded, worn-out nobody, who struggles to be the lead character, in his own movie.

It's shameful.

[Tom Guernsey 1,725]

27 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

I’ve always liked this movie, and the much-maligned OST. I’ve never really gotten all the hate it gets.

 

The combination of it feeling unnecessary and then not being as good as the others means it’s easier to pile on the disappointment. It’s not a terrible film by any means but it’s somewhat different to the others (aliens rather than the supernatural) yet also feels less distinctive somehow. Same for the score. Raiders is the brazen original, ToD the everything but the kitchen sink/so many notes follow up and Last Crusade the more refined farewell. KOTCS is more a mashup of other stuff, bits from prior Indy score and a major new theme that sounds more like Hook and Indy (I mean I love Mutt’s theme but it’s almost a paraphrase of the Lost Boy’s ballet). 

[GerateWohl 2,840]

On 30/03/2023 at 1:17 AM, Edmilson said:

I honestly think that in order to actually like The BFG, you must be younger than 6. It's a movie made for little children. That is, if the children don't find it dull.

Right in some way. In the other hand the movie has scenes which I would consider top dark and scary for children under 7. And that is the issue with the movie. Still I like it for what it is.

 

One more word on The Last Crusade. I bet, when the movie first came out nobody in the cinema thought at the end "So, that was it about Indiana Jones". Everyone was looking forward to the next adventure.

But then Spielberg announced, that he then wanted to make more serious movies starting off with The Color Purple.

Some time later for many years there was this rumour or quote from Spielberg, that he promised to the fans to make another Indy movie, but never found the time for it, until KotCS.