Most underrated and most overrated movie by Steven Spielberg and why?
-
henrikvinther — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 10:51 AM)
Haha
I see what you mean, but to me that part of the movie was the only part that got close to what the war was about. Storming a beach, friends dying on your left, friends dying on the right, having no control of what's happening. That scene captured the fear, insanity and total chaos of war.
The rest of the movie? Ehh, that just felt like a propaganda movie for patriotism to me. The whole setup with them risking their lives to find and sent home a guy who lost all his brothers just felt constructed, and so did a lot of the scenes with melodramatic elements.
that'll be the day -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 06:27 PM)
to me that part of the movie was the only part that got close to what the war was about.That scene captured the fear, insanity and total chaos of war.The whole setup with them risking their lives to find and sent home a guy who lost all his brothers just felt constructed.
That was the whole point of the scene; but I think 25mins, of a constant barrage of loud, distressing and assaultive mayhem and graphic violence, is more than enough for anyone's senses, to get the point across. Did you want 2\12 hours of this? The film wasn't real life; but a reconstruction of what it was like, within the confides of a movie scenario, which can never be real life. That is, unless you wanted to watch a documentary. It had to tell some tale and give the viewer some emotional connection. That is what the intent of the film was and based on a genuine military ruling. It was a woman in the film, who worked for the war office, that noted the deaths and took the correspondence to her superiors. The film, retains a strong maternal connection throughout, with the male characters.
The rest of the movie? Ehh, that just felt like a propaganda movie for patriotism to me.
Propaganda for what kind of patriotism? I didn't get this out of it and I am not even American. You could say the same for the brilliant PATTON-70', with George C. Scott, because it opened with him giving a patriot speech, in front of a giant US flag. That wasn't the point of that scene either. If anything, both films were being paradoxical, about the futility of war and the men from 'any' nation, really only ended up fighting to preserve themselves and that is the absurdity of it all, masked behind the agendas and propaganda of ruling power governments and military only. SPR, happened to be about American soldiers. Spielberg also made EMPIRE OF THE SUN-87'- WWII & WAR HORSE-11'- WWI, from a British pov. Were they anymore or less patriotic?
-
henrikvinther — 10 years ago(August 12, 2015 06:00 PM)
I wouldn't want the movie to be like the first 25 min for all the movie. What I would prefere would be something like Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now, which captures the insanity and brutality of the war.
To me Saving Private Ryan is the typical hollywood war movie that celebrates the heroes, who have sacrificed their lives for a greater good. I admit it in this case is for something rather pointless, but the movie never truly manages to critise the mission.
And really the whole setup seems so constructed to me, and not at all believable.
Haven't seen Patton.
I don't think Empire of the Sun or War Horse were patriotic. They felt like they had something human to tell. War Horse to me was about finding something beautiful in gruesome time and environment, I loved how the horse changed the lives of every character it interacted with. Can't remember much of Empire of the Sun, saw it a long time ago, but I liked to see the simplicity of just a boy having to survive the war.
that'll be the day -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 06:31 AM)
What I would prefere would be something like Full Metal Jacket or Apocalypse Now, which captures the insanity and brutality of the war.
I like both these films and they both have their own unique sense of directorial mastery. If anything though, I would say that SPR captures the 'brutality' of war, on a more raw, real and visceral level, than both the films you've mentioned. And as much as I like SPR, I think I might rate Oliver Stones's PLATOON-86' higher. While Stone's film could be seen as attributing a 'victim' mentality to his soldierssomething I can see as a manipulative deviceit still packs an emotional wallop and allows us to see the horror and senseless brutality of a pointless war. It was violent and disturbing, yet not so 'graphic', as what Spielberg gave us.
I don't think Empire of the Sun or War Horse were patriotic. They felt like they had something human to tell.
These films were more family orientated and easier to swallow. They were more traditional Spielberg, than daring, dramatically challenging, sledgehammer Spielberg, which is what he gave us with SPR. I think he did this to make a point about these guys who were involved, need to absolve themselves from any 'guilt' or 'shame' they may have felt about their actions and being involved in the war, during this extremely tumultuous time on earth. While it was an horrendous war, it didn't appear pointless and senseless to many and if there appeared to be an objective and cause for what they were fighting for, when it came down to it on a gut level, it was really only about their own skin that they fought to save. SPR threw a curve ball at it's characters, in that they had to save someone else and risk their own lives even further and questioned was the mission and Ryan worth it. On a deeper level, it was also being done, for the benefit of a mother.
Haven't seen Patton.
Excellent, very epic and George C Scott is terrific. It doesn't really show his character in the best of light and while Patton was a proud and honorable man, doing what he believed in, he was also considered a pain in the a$$ by his own military and was also a bit kooky.
-
henrikvinther — 10 years ago(August 14, 2015 10:18 AM)
Platoon is good, not a favorite of mine but definitely disturbing, I liked Born on the 4th of July better though.
In case of Saving Private Ryan I can't really relate to the characters or their situations, because I don't find it believable and I don't think the characters are particularly well written or acted. To me it didn't capture anything real.
War Horse and Empire of the Sun might be simpler, family oriented and easier to swallow, but I also think they are very poetic in their simplicity, there was a lot2000 of heart put into these movie and love for the characters.
That is something I don't feel when I see Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, they might have emotional moments, but they just feel fake to me, because I can't relate to the characters, and I can't see anything real about them.
that'll be the day -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 14, 2015 06:16 PM)
War Horse and Empire of the Sun..are very poetic in their simplicity, there was a lot of heart put into these movie and love for the characters..Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, they might have emotional moments, but they just feel fake to me, because I can't relate to the characters, and I can't see anything real about them.
These films were made with entertaining the audience in mind and making them more easily digestible. With 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Schindler's List', one has to be in the right frame of mind and in particular with 'Schindler's List', it is more like a film of observation and being a voyeur\witness to what is happening. It is the mirror image, of what is being reflected and looking at our own attitudes and behaviors as human beings. It was a cold, bleak, dark and disturbing era and the scary part is, still not that long ago. My parents were children during these times. SPR, while not wholly entertaining, I still find it quite compelling and if only because I am experiencing the horror and atrocity of something from a distance and the comfort of an armchair. While I am anti-war and see the insanity of it all, I can also still acknowledge how brave and courageous many of these men were, considering the extraordinary circumstances they were thrown into.
I don't really like SCHINDLER'S LIST and have viewed several times. I agree that is does have a certain fakeness about it. It can't be real life, yet the costuming looked too fresh and tailored for many of the actors and they looked too clean as well, considering what some of them were experiencing. It has a blandness and contrivance about it, like Spiellberg was being too careful and lost some essence in the telling of the story. I suppose I expected something more or different and that is not to discredit it's virtues as a technically excellent film, made with the best of intentions.
May I recommend Elem Klimov's COME AND SEE-85'. This is a Russian Film, about the Nazi occupation of Bylorussia. It is a poetic, stunning and disturbing masterpiece and I am with the young protagonist all the way. The horror and insanity of it, is not lost on him or the viewer. -
henrikvinther — 10 years ago(August 23, 2015 04:25 PM)
These films were made with entertaining the audience in mind and making them more easily digestible
That's pretty much the description of all Spielberg movies in my opinion, which is why the movies with the heavier subjects, such as Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List fail in my opinion.
I mean in SPR, the first 20 min show what war is, totally chaotic and non-sensical, the rest tries to make sense of it. Example? You let a bad guy go, and he'll return and try to kill you. That's manipulation in my opinion. SPOILER: As is the way the opening makes it seem like the film is Tom Hanks' character's flashback, when in reality it isn't even a flashback (Ryan isn't present at Omaha Beach), which is revealed to us in the end, when it's shown that the old man in the beginning is Matt Damon's character, and the guy, who we thought was having a flashback, died. SPOILER END
I haven't rewatched SPR in quite some time now, so maybe I will change opinion with a rewatch. But some of the weaknesses really stand strong for me in my memory, so I doubt I would change opinion.
Come and See is a masterpiece, one of the greatest WWII/holocaust movies. I couldn't say it better than you do.1908
that'll be the day -
alejandrodeleon559 — 10 years ago(September 03, 2015 11:09 AM)
I think the problem with these people is emotion. How do I say this. I feel like these are the people who see a film like A Clockwork Orange and say well that's a good film. True emotion, true storytelling. And then expect all other films to be the same way.
I mean how could you call a film like SPR melodramatic? It's insane. Or say that SL is cheap storytelling, because it just goes after the viewers emotions. Well that's what Spielberg is good at. Provoking emotion, I think he more than anyone understand the human spirit. And that's what you need to make a good film. Not always of course. But I prefer those, I think only those can be the best. I mean enjoy There Will Be Blood as much as the next film enthusiast. But close to death when it mattered I'd rather watch a Spielberg film and not Paul Thomas Anderson. And preferably one of Spielbergs classics.
Nolan is another director who understands the human spirit.
Anyway, humans are intended to enjoy these films. One's that aren't corrupted by some traumatic event, and still very much feel. I think in a war film, it's when there isn't a battle scene that you get close to experiencing what war felt like. About the inbetween, the small conversations, and the exchanges between soldiers. Walking across hills, and lonely landscapes, and the mortar shells blasting off in the distance. WAR.
My point is these guys don't like Spielbergs style. And it's because they don't understand the human spirit, or lack it. We aren't all created equally. Some of us are psychos. -
RevengeOfToonces3 — 10 years ago(June 12, 2015 09:16 PM)
Overrated - Minority Report. Good movie, but not THAT good.
Underrated - ET. It's almost like people have forgotten about this movie. I watched it again recently and it's still damn great.
"He makes me laugh, he'a always humping and pointing at Reese Witherspoon."- rebschucks
-
Robbmonster — 10 years ago(June 25, 2015 09:53 AM)
I won't go into too much detail
Underrated - Munich. Great blend of thriller, politics, and morals, filmed with the usual impeccable virtuosity and flair. An interesting thing about Munich is the reaction to it, with so many accusing Spielberg of being either anti-Israel, or pro-Israel. If the 'side' the director has taken is so abundantly unclear, he has done something very right.
Overrated - Saving Private Ryan. My least favourite word in film criticism is 'manipulative'. It's used by people who felt moved by a film they didn't want to be moved by. Saving Private Ryan IS a manipulative movie, if for no better reason than the audience is made to think the man in the prologue is John Miller (Tom Hanks) thinking back to his own experiences, when really it is James Ryan (Matt Damon) 'remembering' events he wasn't even present to witness, basically rendering 2/3 of the story moot. Speaking of story. There really isn't any, just a series of incidents and encounters. Having said all that, it is still thoroughly watchable any old day of the week.
By the way, totally agree about A.I. A far more complex film than it is given credit for, and possibly the most misunderstood in Spielberg's oeuvre.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 07, 2015 04:02 AM)
My least favourite word in film criticism is 'manipulative'. It's used by people who felt moved by a film they didn't want to be moved by.
Well put. However, the manipulation you refer to about SPR and thinking that the old man at the beginning is Hank's character does appear contrary, to the statement you made above. I thought the same myself; but I think this is more of a
sneaky
deception that Spielberg played on the audience, rather than a manipulation and that only boils down to the importance and skill of using visuals to tell a story. This is where Spielberg excels. The fate of Hank's character moved you, when you didn't want to be moved and these are your own words. Accept the offering, of what Spielberg gave us here. Life, as in the war depicted, has a capricious nature and you can't always know what is around the corner. -
Robbmonster — 10 years ago(August 08, 2015 03:18 AM)
I don't disagree with you at all, however I don't see the conceit of SPR as an emotional manipulation nearly as much as it is a storytelling one. The word you used was perfect; it was 'sneaky'. Spielberg made it very clear through visual storytelling that Miller was remembering his own experiences. It turned out that this was simply a lie. Nothing to do with 'my own interpretation', it was just a trick.
And it's not as though SPR is a film that is reliant upon such a trick in order to make some kind of 'twist' work, it was done simply to make the audience believe it was Captain Miller remembering his own past, as opposed to Pvt Ryan remembering battles he could not possibly have any memory of because he simply wasn't there to witness them.
From a technical standpoint, this sneaky trick doesn't exist for reasons of added emotional impact, it exists in order to have the epilogue and prologue AND the Omaha111c Beach battle.
I was moved by Miller's death, but at the same time I felt stooged and cheated, because there was a clear visual queue that it was Miller remembering his own story, not Ryan remembering Miller's story.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 09, 2015 05:21 PM)
Spielberg made it very clear through visual storytelling that Miller was remembering his own experiences. It turned out that this was simply a lie. Nothing to do with 'my own interpretation', it was just a trick.
Spielberg made it 'clear', so as to bring the tale full circle by the end. The film segues from the close-up of the old man's face, onto shots of an empty Omaha Beach; it is not edited so as to appear as a direct recollection from him. It is telling the tale indirectly. If the shot melded straight onto Miller's face, then it would have been an 'absolute' deceit. One of Ryan's brothers was involved in the conflict at Omaha, yet we didn't know this until the sequence was over and closed on a pan of his dead body, that enables us to see the name on his backpack. That is the first connection to the Ryan of movie's title and sets up the chain of events that follows.
Remember, the film is called 'Saving Private Ryan' and while the surviving Ryan doesn't appear until about 2\3 into the film, it is still 'all' about Ryan and those that set out to 'save' him. The beginning of the film, was the start of the end and by the conclusion, we saw the reason for him being at Miller's headstone. Only then, did we understand who this person was and why he felt the guilt and confusion that he did. He could have just as easily died like the rest of them, yet he survived and Miller's last words, were that he had 'earned' it. That was something that weighed on Ryan the rest of his life, as the man who set out to save him, wasn't able to save himself. Ryan had a purpose to survive, as he 'knew' was going home after the fact. If anything, I think Spielberg should be exonerated for us thinking he 'tricked' the audience, due to his masterful direction and story telling. If it wasn't Tom Hanks in the lead, would it have felt 16d0different? -
Robbmonster — 10 years ago(August 09, 2015 10:56 PM)
Well said. I always 'remember' the film as having a straight cut from the aged Ryan to Hanks on the boat, even though - as you correctly point out - this is not the case. So, if anything, Spielberg merely 'plants the seeds' for an audience to think it's the same character, and if I fell for it, that's my own problem.
Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the original topic at hand? I noticed you haven't made a direct post on the subject, and I would be interested in your thoughts.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 04:21 AM)
Incidentally, what are your thoughts on the original topic at hand?
MOST UNDERRATED:
1941-
79'. I realize this is probably a minority opinion; but I loved it when I first saw it at the cinema in 1980, I was 12 and talked my older sister into seeing it, when I went the second time. Have also throughly enjoyed, on subsequent viewings.
I can understand audiences not liking it, due to some of the broad, zany and slapsticky comedy; but the whole presentation has epic written all over it and visually, I find it astonishingjust as much as CLOSE ENCOUNTERS-77'. Spielberg took an important and historical time in US history, that was cause for severe paranoia and turned it around full swing, on it's head. It becam16d0e something riotous, loud, noisy, crazy, stupid, absurd and full of pandemoniumwasn't WWII like this also?and he also brushed it, with his usual warm pang of nostalgia for an era too.
Also
underrated:
MUNICH-
05'. Have only viewed once and it knocked me for a six. Afraid if I see it again, I may not feel the same way, so have held off. The most controversial film of 05', even over BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and CRASH and the academy had to take the easy way out, by awarding CRASH best picture, which had a trite and worn presentation, of it's racism themes. MUNICH, was so well honed and balanced with it's story and own prejudice themes, that I think it's main point about vengeance and revenge, taking most of it's toll on those desperate to inflict it and a government that is willing to engage in criminal terrorist acts themselves, blurred some lines for many viewers and it challenged their own perspective and fixed stance.
MOST OVERRATED:
JURASSIC PARK-
93'. While there are some good and exciting sequences, I find it all plays out pretty routine and there is kind of flatness to it, that I can't quite put my finger on. The Denis character was a caricature and as soon as he appeared, I started to think
wtf
, is this supposed to be a stupid comedy, or a suspenseful creature feature, ala Jaws. It was a bit of a mish mash and I think it was only made to showcase what they had achieved with CGI. Spielberg, was probably too preoccupied with SCHINDLER'S LIST-93' at the timea film that I find quite bland as welland didn't have his whole heart and soul invested in the presentation. Not a fan of Sam Neil at the best of times, or Jeff Goldblum for that matter. Laura Dern, is a good\fine actress and she deserved better material. -
makaroney — 10 years ago(July 08, 2015 09:19 AM)
OVERRATED:
Schindler's List(3/10), Saving Private Ryan(4/10) - manipulative hollywood movies
Raiders of the Lost Arc(6/10) - nice silly adventure and that's it.
Color of Purple(3/10) - might be his worst film. Sappy hollywood melodrama.
UNDERRATED: Munich(9/10) - for me it's his best and most mature film, A.I(8/10), Duel(7/10)(pure cinema). I used to like Empire of the Sun.
MY GUILTY PLEASURE: Hook:) -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(August 07, 2015 03:38 AM)
Saving Private Ryan (one of the most over patriotic, flag-waving and morally simplistic war films I've ever seen)
I think you missed the point of the film. Just because the film opens and closes on an image of the American flag, you think that this makes it flag waving? More than anything and like poster
TheLoneStranger
has commented, I really don't feel there is all that much patriot to be read into this. The irony here, is the horror and atrocities that Ryan was recollecting and embroiled in, has nothing to do with how he is feeling as an American; but as a human being and a soldier who was sent off to fight for a cause, that really only became a game of personal survival and keeping his hide intact. Same for all the others. This was also something that involved the whole world, not just Americans and was total pandemonium; something that Spielberg proved to us, in his loud, rambunctious and awesome
1941
-79'.
Any emotional confusion and guilt, that Ryan felt over his involvement and actions, overshadowed anything that could be perceived as courageous and brave, that he was doing for his country. The same goes for all nationalities involved in t5b4he combat. Ryan, didn't even have to be involved in the final battle, as he had a choice to go home. He didn't and this would have only compounded his grief and sorrow, over his experience. The paradox here, is that if he did choose to go home, he may have still felt the same way, for deserting his buddies. There is NO out, when it comes down to conflict, violence and suffering.