Schindler's List (1993)

[laffite]

1 hour ago, CaveGirl said:

"The Pawnbroker"! What a great film...

I think Spielberg has a child's mentality, and it shows in his films. For some of them, it is acceptable. For others it is banal and cringeworthy.

One tends to not criticize Spielberg, since I'm sure many love his films. Consequently, I only disregard him because Kurosawa did it first although subtly, and I respect the art of Akira much more than that of Spielberg.

To me he is fine as a journeyman director of mostly fluff or easily discernible movie themes, but when he ventures into more difficult terrain as in focusing on meanings behind the National Socialist party, he is way out of his depth.

AS you know, CG, Kurosawa had a more sophisticated audience because that was his target. He was an auteur. Speilberg targets bourgeois audiences who he knows are prone to weepy sentimentality. He's very good at it, though. Comparing the two are apples and oranges and perhaps an insult to Kurosawa. Kevin Costner tried to imitate S but failed IMO. Costner's movies actually induce nausea. That baseball movie and the one before that, about that ridiculous outpost during the Civil War, cases in point. I can't even remember the names of those two films right now, and that's a happy thing.

[CaveGirl]

20 minutes ago, laffite said:

AS you know, CG, Kurosawa had a more sophisticated audience because that was his target. He was an auteur. Speilberg targets bourgeois audiences who he knows are prone to weepy sentimentality. He's very good at it, though. Comparing the two are apples and oranges and perhaps an insult to Kurosawa. Kevin Costner tried to imitate S but failed IMO. Costner's movies actually induce nausea. That baseball movie and the one before that, about that ridiculous outpost during the Civil War, cases in point. I can't even remember the names of those two films right now, and that's a happy thing.

You make good points, Laffite. Thanks for your input.

Possibly Spielberg is his own worst enemy in trying to fit into both milieus, when picking and staying with his strong suit would be more advisable?

[TikiSoo]

On 4/26/2009 at 1:55 AM, spencerl964 said:

 I've been reviewing new releases since 1982- & *Spielberg's magnificent achievement from 1993 is in my view the greatest new film I went to since that movie year.

If your OP is indicative of your "reviews", you should stop reviewing. 

I'd also like to add to the mention of a "good" Nazi. Possibly some involved in the "party" thought it best to try unraveling power from "inside", like a spy. I'd call them good moles, not really Nazis.

[Zea]

On 10/1/2018 at 3:35 PM, laffite said:

AS you know, CG, Kurosawa had a more sophisticated audience because that was his target. He was an auteur. Speilberg targets bourgeois audiences who he knows are prone to weepy sentimentality. He's very good at it, though. Comparing the two are apples and oranges and perhaps an insult to Kurosawa. Kevin Costner tried to imitate S but failed IMO. Costner's movies actually induce nausea. That baseball movie and the one before that, about that ridiculous outpost during the Civil War, cases in point. I can't even remember the names of those two films right now, and that's a happy thing.

"Field of Dreams" and "Dances With Wolves", respectively. One was escapist fantasy w/respect to the most loved truly American pastime.  While the other incorporated an innate, unprejudiced connection and appreciation of fellow human beings inhabiting this land before true white nationalists defiled it and them.

I enjoyed both thoroughly and never considered myself either bourgeois nor effete for that matter.

 

[cigarjoe]

Sorry Dances With Wolves I put it in a category with other touchy/feel-y Westerns.

It will look dated down the line much like most of the non-violent parts of Soldier Blue. It makes the Sioux look like a bunch of peace-love-dove hippies living on the Great Plains, but in fact historical journals and narratives consider the Sioux, the Blackfeet, the Iroquois, the Comanches, Apache and a few others tribes were pretty warlike dominating other neighboring tribes. 

But I do think that anyone born in the 1970s and 80s would not have been inundated with all the Golden Age Westerns that paint pretty much all of the Native Americans as bad.

I think one of the best Native American/White Man films I've seen so far is Blackrobe. 

[Sepiatone]

9 hours ago, Zea said:

"Field of Dreams" and "Dances With Wolves", respectively. One was escapist fantasy w/respect to the most loved truly American pastime.  While the other incorporated an innate, unprejudiced connection and appreciation of fellow human beings inhabiting this land before true white nationalists defiled it and them.

I enjoyed both thoroughly and never considered myself either bourgeois nor effete for that matter.

 

In fact, as boring and vacuous I usually find most of Costner's movies(and acting), I did enjoy "Field Of Dreams" to a degree.  But too, he shortly took care of THAT. 

And I haven't seen BLACKROBE, so until I do, LITTLE BIG MAN will have ot be MY "Native American/White Man" film of choice. 

Sepiatone

[TheCid]

I think Kevin Costner does well in comedic movies involving round balls.  Tin Cup, Bull Durham.  Anything else is fairly mediocre.  I remember seeing Dancing with Wolves when I got back from the Gulf War with some other guys.  Fairly interesting, but too long.  Having watched it once since then, it has not improved.  In fact, I now find it boring and preachy.  Still too long.