Are we going to see more "Spielberg revivalism?"

[Prefect]

But all three of these movies are examples of having vision, which is what Spielberg was described as lacking.

I think it probably goes without saying regarding Jaws and Schindler's List.

And with respect to Saving Private Ryan, what he did with the shutter angle of his cameras was visionary - setting aside all of the complex shots and everything. He set out to recreate in his movie the look and feel of WW2 news footage and calibrated his cameras in a way nobody was doing or had done to create that feel throughout. It's the sort of thing that very few directors would have the vision to incorporate into a film. Much like the girl in the red dress in Schindler's List.

Both Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan spawned a trademark film technique, akin to things like "bullet time" or "300 fighting."

Saving Private Ryan is an incredibly good look film. Visually, nothing compares. It is just a very shallow film. In my opinion, there are a lot of movies that are visually worse but much better war movies.

If I were to point out what is wrong with Spielberg, it is that he is overly in love with a good shot. Terminal, Amistad, Bridge of Spies, Terminal, Munich, Catch Me If You Can - to me are all very good look movies but kind of simple, with predictable heart pulling scenes, and flat character development.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Also, movies like Bridge of Spies proves that Spielberg still got it. A master whom works effortlessly in his craft.

He's still got it, but to me that was mostly a case of master cratsmanship, with a little more formula and practiced hand than visionary artistry. It was executed to near-perfection but it was kind of Tom Hanks with a malady of some sort (a bad cold instead of a shaking hand) going through...I don't want to say going through the motions...but, like Spielberg, executing his craft at a very high level.

When it was done, I knew I had watched the work of masters, but I don't know if I felt they had been supremely inspired.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Saving Private Ryan is an incredibly good look film. Visually, nothing compares. It is just a very shallow film. In my opinion, there are a lot of movies that are visually worse but much better war movies.

If I were to point out what is wrong with Spielberg, it is that he is overly in love with a good shot. Terminal, Amistad, Bridge of Spies, Terminal, Munich, Catch Me If You Can - to me are all very good look movies but kind of simple, with predictable heart pulling scenes, and flat character development.

Don't forget Terminal.

 

[Prefect]

Don't forget Terminal.

I think that one was doubly stupid but very good looking.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

So when does Uwe Boll revivalism begin?

when people shit out their mouths and eat with their assholes

 

[europe1]

Well the Uwe Boll movement was just an homage to David Prior.

Dude, not cool. Prior at least had some craftsmanship and worked at one percent of the budget that Uwe does. Uwe is in a league of his own.

How would you feel if I called you Uwe Boll? See! Hurts, doesn't it?

If I were to point out what is wrong with Spielberg, it is that he is overly in love with a good shot. Terminal, Amistad, Bridge of Spies, Terminal, Munich, Catch Me If You Can - to me are all very good look movies but kind of simple, with predictable heart pulling scenes, and flat character development.

I disagree.

Picking something like Brige of Spies as an example -- the entire film reads like an examination on the relation between cynicism and idealism in politics. Speilberg basically makes the argument that idealism may damn you in the short-run but can that sticking to your principles are often benefactory in the long game.

The judge wants the spy excecuted but Hanks pleads for mercy... which pays off in the long run. Hanks refuses to take the easy route and simply retrive the pilot but goes on an ardeous quest to retrive the student too, despite the protests of the cynical goverment agents... which pays of in the long run. His principled, no-lies dealing with the Soviets/Germans make them trust him in the long run despite them looking to score political points. And so on with the examples.

Speilberg makes a statement that goes against the grain in todays very cynical political landscape. He tries to show how idealism can be a tool of effectiveness that people don't consider. Now that may not be Kubrick-level insight, but there is weight in that movie worth considering.

 

[BisexualMMA]

when people shit out their mouths and eat with their assholes

 

[Guestx]

Dude, not cool. Prior at least had some craftsmanship and worked at one percent of the budget that Uwe does. Uwe is in a league of his own.

How would you feel if I called you Uwe Boll? See! Hurts, doesn't it?

I'd love to see the results if we could resurrect David Prior and give him the script and budget Uwe had for In the Name of The King. The results, I'm sure, would be equally hilarious.

Speaking of Uwe, did you know that Ben Kingsley was in one of his movies (BloodRayne)? What the fuck was Ben Kingsley doing in an Uwe Boll movie? He is hilarious in that he's this master thespian but also seems to have a Nic Cage-esque urge at times to accept any role that's offered to him.

 

[Prefect]

Dude, not cool. Prior at least had some craftsmanship and worked at one percent of the budget that Uwe does. Uwe is in a league of his own.

How would you feel if I called you Uwe Boll? See! Hurts, doesn't it?



I disagree.

Picking something like Brige of Spies as an example -- the entire film reads like an examination on the relation between cynicism and idealism in politics. Speilberg basically makes the argument that idealism may damn you in the short-run but can that sticking to your principles are often benefactory in the long game.

The judge wants the spy excecuted but Hanks pleads for mercy... which pays off in the long run. Hanks refuses to take the easy route and simply retrive the pilot but goes on an ardeous quest to retrive the student too, despite the protests of the cynical goverment agents... which pays of in the long run. His principled, no-lies dealing with the Soviets/Germans make them trust him in the long run. And so on with the examples.

Speilberg makes a statement that goes against the grain in todays very cynical political landscape. He tries to show how idealism can be a tool of effectiveness that people don't consider. Now that may not be Kubrick-level insight, but there is weight in that movie worth considering.

It is a simple movie that underestimates the audience's intelligence. It isn't that the subject matter isn't interesting or that he doesn't try to make a point. It is just water downed so that there isn't a lot there and not much thinking is required. It is well shot. All the performances are good. It is just so watered down. I don't think he thinks his audience is dumb. I think he thinks his audience just wants a simple easy to digest movie.

 

[Guestx]

It is a simple movie that underestimates the audience's intelligence. It isn't that the subject matter isn't interesting or that he doesn't try to make a point. It is just water downed so that there isn't a lot there and not much thinking is required. It is well shot. All the performances are good. It is just so watered down. I don't think he thinks his audience is dumb. I think he thinks his audience just wants a simple easy to digest movie.

Watered down in what way? I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[europe1]

I'd love to see the results if we could resurrect David Prior and give him the script and budget Uwe had for In the Name of The King. The results, I'm sure, would be equally hilarious.

Nah. I genuinelly think that Prior has a superior sensability towards editing, pacing, composition, camera placement, and all those other things than Uwe does.

Speaking of Uwe, did you know that Ben Kingsley was in one of his movies (BloodRayne)?

Oooooh yes I know... I know.

Uwe's fat coffers enables him to snatch a big name once or twice.

He is hilarious in that he's this master thespian but also seems to have a Nic Cage-esque urge at times to accept any role that's offered to him.

And I love him for it.

 

[Prefect]

Watered down in what way? I don't understand what you're saying.

Simple straight forward movies with some heart string pullers that require no thinking. It is almost like he has a checklist to punch through for each film.

 

[Guestx]

Simple straight forward movies with some heart string pullers that require no thinking. It is almost like he has a checklist to punch through for each film.

I guess my question is why a story should be told in a way that's not straightforward and elegant. Is unnecessary complexity or convulsion really something to strive for?

If you were the director, can you illustrate how you'd do things differently?

 

[europe1]

Simple straight forward movies with some heart string pullers that require no thinking. It is almost like he has a checklist to punch through for each film.

I think the balance between theme (cynicism vs idealism) and story was handled quite neatly in Bridge of Spies. You have scenes like when Hanks is outlying his philosophy to the goverment agent in the cafe. Yet it's not like he repeats it at all turns. We see his philosophy through his actions and emotions for the rest of the film (as we should). The subtlety-level was appropriate considering the product at hand.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that a message does not have to be subtle to be great. Akira Kurosawa is rightfully considered one of the greatest directors of all time. But the dude wasn't exactly subtle. Homeboy could be really didactic at times. Yet, he still got across some profound and stirring messages.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

So when does Uwe Boll revivalism begin?

Check out his rampage movies they are not completely awful

In the name of the king is one that is so bad its good. Stacked casting for that one. Jason Statham Ray Liotta and Ron Perlman

 

[Guestx]

Check out his rampage movies they are not completely awful

In the name of the king is one that is so bad its good. Stacked casting for that one

I've heard that, actually.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

On a filmmaking level, things are pretty much reverse.

One of Spielberg's trademarks is his long-shots. If you watch his films -- there a many examples where he does not cut but allowes the camera to move uninterrupted for a minute or two. This was normative back when he was getting started. But these days, frequent cutting has become much more prevalent. Except for a few people that loves taking the long-shot into the extreme like Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men) or Alejandro Inarritu (Revenant).

But the thing is that he really knows when and how to utilize these long-shots. He uses them for drama, the lack-of-cutting allowing the actors to give a better performance, for example. Or to immerse the audience in a dramatic or intense scene better. He's so good at it that it never ends up "feeling" formulaic.

This guy knows his director cinematography style.

After Children of Men came out, it really opened up the perspective on long shot sequences in the current era

 

[europe1]

After Children of Men came out, it really opened up the perspective on long shot sequences in the current era

That scene in the car made me drool so much. I didn't even think about filmmaking back when I first saw that scene but still I went all Homer Simpson over it.

 

[aus101]

The same three films leapt to my mind as well. I also thought Minority Report was pretty awesome (though by no means a pillar of his career works).

Then we have the excellent films Amistad, Lincoln, and my personal favorite.... Empire of the Sun

Minority report was awesome when I saw it at the cinemas and its vision of the future really holds up (cept seeming a lot closer than the 2050s these days).

Thanks to back to the future 2 and demolition man (and then the running man, total recall, etc) as a kid I always loved near future settings as to me it was a glimpse of what "future" my adult self could live to see. Speilberg managed to bring cyberpunks noir near future vibe to a much more realistic (to my early 2000s mind) setting.

 

[Bob Gray]

The best way I have heard Spielberg described is the world's best director with no vision and bad taste. All of his movies are incredibly well shot but very formulaic. Single parent household. Family in crisis. Parent's don't believe me or wouldn't understand. Formula scene to pull heart strings. Spielberg seems perfectly content to make just a by the books, no risk "entertaining" movie.

By "all movies" do you actually mean "like, 4 movies"?