Movie Thread

[skullman80]

I have the 4k bluray and can watch it there with my full surround setup, but sometimes I just want the old school experience.

[robbiestoupe]

JP was the first movie I showed my boys on the 100" projector, full surround. They loved it

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

All that said, JP isn't even the best movie Spielberg released in the calendar year 1993, never mind his best overall.

When you say "the best" vs "my favorite", to me that implies some sort of indication that you think this is the way other people should regard the work as well. Like, in my personal reckoning I rank Empire Of The Sun waaaay higher up than nearly everybody else does in a subjective consideration. But if I step back and just look at the work as its own thing and ignore my own draw to the characters and story, I can easily see it's squarely upper mid-pack in his filmography.

of course there’s always subjectivity involved, but I meant it in the genuine “his greatest work”, not necessarily my favorite (though it is also my favorite)

[nocera]

I consider Raiders to be Spielberg's best. Fight me.

[NTP66]

JP is probably my favorite movie of all-time if I had to pick one.

[nocera]

This is fun because any Spielberg movie could be argued to be his best. Well, most of them anyway.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

Spielberg has a lot of great films but unfortunately has done so many movies that there are some stinkers in there too; or at least a bunch of “why bother”s


Hook is one of those for me. Never particularly cared for it, even as a kid.


Compare that to a Kubrick or Tarantino who only have a handful of films but each one is very high quality (I definitely go to the mat for Deathproof)

[nocera]

I don't know if you can compare Kubrick and Tarantino to Spielberg. For one, Spielberg has almost exclusively and entirely unapologetically directed big blockbuster films whereas those two feel more comfortable in an art house. He's also very firmly a director, not a writer/director/auteur. I think Spielberg has maybe one or two writing credits on his films. All three are great, but comparing them just doesn't really work for me. Kubrick and Tarantino could not create a Spielberg movie and vice versa. Hell, we got to see Spielberg try to do Kubrick with AI and, well, that's one I don't think you could argue as his best.

[skullman80]

I don't know if you can compare Kubrick and Tarantino to Spielberg. For one, Spielberg has almost exclusively and entirely unapologetically directed big blockbuster films whereas those two feel more comfortable in an art house. He's also very firmly a director, not a writer/director/auteur. I think Spielberg has maybe one or two writing credits on his films. All three are great, but comparing them just doesn't really work for me. Kubrick and Tarantino could not create a Spielberg movie and vice versa. Hell, we got to see Spielberg try to do Kubrick with AI and, well, that's one I don't think you could argue as his best.

[shafnutz05]

JP is one of the few movies where I crank my sub up as far as I can without distortion. I want the windows to shake when the T-Rex makes his appearance.

I can't wait to watch this with my daughter. She turns 10 in the fall, I think it's about time

[tifosi77]

A.I. is also one of Spielberg's few writing credits.

Which part did he write?

The sucky part.

*ba-dum-tiss*

[tifosi77]

To that last point...

I think Spielberg has maybe one or two writing credits on his films.

Don't forget the 'story' credits, and maybe more significantly the (Executive)Producer credits where............ he's not necessarily writing the film, but he's wielding a lot of influence over what is getting photographed, let's say. In a creative sense, not just a purse strings sense. His contribution to films like Poltergeist, The Goonies, and Gremlins (for example) go way beyond the title next to his name.

[nocera]

For sure. Maybe I’m wrong for not thinking of him as an auteur in the same vein as Kubrick or Tarantino. Spielberg is without doubt the true “author” of his films. He has distinct characteristics and themes that he adds to most of his work. You know a movie is a Spielberg movie without seeing the “directed by” credit. I take it back, he’s absolutely an auteur but I’m still not buying the comparison with the art house folks.

[tifosi77]

And re Tarantino

Not a fan. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown might be the greatest triplet to start a filmmaker's career in my lifetime. But I have found nearly everything he's done since then to be pretty Johnny One-Note. You take the same character types and predilections for cursing, and change the scenery around behind them and *poof* it's a 'new' Tarantino movie. I actually liked "The Man From Hollywood" in Four Rooms way better than any of his features since 1995. (And of course, about a 8-minute chunk of From Dusk Til Dawn, but he only wrote that and co-starred)

Each subsequent film post-JB has certainly had elements of outright greatness in them, (Hans Landa is a top-ten movie villain of all-time, full stop), but the whole somehow always seems lesser than the parts.

[tifosi77]

For sure. Maybe I’m wrong for not thinking of him as an auteur in the same vein as Kubrick or Tarantino. Spielberg is without doubt the true “author” of his films. He has distinct characteristics and themes that he adds to most of his work. You know a movie is a Spielberg movie without seeing the “directed by” credit. I take it back, he’s absolutely an auteur but I’m still not buying the comparison with the art house folks.

Nah, I get the point you're making. They're all very different stylistically. If you were to do a 'coaching tree' for the movies, I think Spielberg would be more in the line of David Lean, John Ford, and Hitchcock, while Kubrick and Tarantino are more on the Kazan and Welles branch.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

oof, idk if I agree with that. Kubrick was much more in the Hitchcock vein than Spielberg (start to finish filmmaking, highly psychological, shitty treatment of actors on set, etc)

[NTP66]

Definitely going to watch this for an upcoming family movie night.

[Pavel Bure]

And re Tarantino

Not a fan. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown might be the greatest triplet to start a filmmaker's career in my lifetime. But I have found nearly everything he's done since then to be pretty Johnny One-Note. You take the same character types and predilections for cursing, and change the scenery around behind them and *poof* it's a 'new' Tarantino movie. I actually liked "The Man From Hollywood" in Four Rooms way better than any of his features since 1995. (And of course, about a 8-minute chunk of From Dusk Til Dawn, but he only wrote that and co-starred)

Each subsequent film post-JB has certainly had elements of outright greatness in them, (Hans Landa is a top-ten movie villain of all-time, full stop), but the whole somehow always seems lesser than the parts.

Really bad take here. Inglorious, Django, Hateful 8 are all pretty good. Once upon a time in Hollywood and Kill Bill were middling but the quality has been pretty good.

[dodint]

Nah.

[nocera]

And re Tarantino

Not a fan. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown might be the greatest triplet to start a filmmaker's career in my lifetime. But I have found nearly everything he's done since then to be pretty Johnny One-Note. You take the same character types and predilections for cursing, and change the scenery around behind them and *poof* it's a 'new' Tarantino movie. I actually liked "The Man From Hollywood" in Four Rooms way better than any of his features since 1995. (And of course, about a 8-minute chunk of From Dusk Til Dawn, but he only wrote that and co-starred)

Each subsequent film post-JB has certainly had elements of outright greatness in them, (Hans Landa is a top-ten movie villain of all-time, full stop), but the whole somehow always seems lesser than the parts.

He's been stuck in this weird revenge porn kick since Kill Bill and for me that's why the whole seems lesser. I did love both Kill Bills, though. He seems to have gone for simplicity of plot and thinks he can make up for it with Tarantino dialogue. He went on a run of elevator pitch movies that I enjoyed but don't really go back to very often. "What if a bunch of Jewish soldiers killed Hitler?!" "What if a slave got revenge on white people!?" "What if somebody killed the Manson family before they could kill Tate?!" The latter felt like a lame Shyamalan twist tacked on to try and save a mediocre movie.

The main thing that has salvaged his later films are the performances. As you said, Hans Landa is a top-ten villain, and it's largely thanks to Christoph Waltz, who also steals every scene in Django. I really love Kurt Russell as John Ruth, but Hateful Eight is a slog. And Brad Pitt is easily the best part of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. There's absolutely nothing redeemable about Death Proof.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

h8 u guys

[NTP66]

I'm kinda into this.

[tifosi77]

Pretty much 100% what nocera said. I didn't make the elevator pitch connection, but henceforth I shall claim it as my own thought in informed filmic discussions amongst my fellow Hollywood elites.

To be clear, I'm not saying they're bad movies. They just stopped being really unique and special a lot more quickly than I would've guessed.

[nocera]

Source of the post but henceforth I shall claim it as my own thought in informed filmic discussions amongst my fellow Hollywood elites.

Nothing more Hollywood than that.

[Dickie Dunn]

Watched Se7en on the flight home yesterday. That movie has aged so well. Probably Fincher's best as well, though not without competition.