Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Steven Spielberg - classic or dud

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
over the course of a long career in film making, has this man proved himself to be one of the greatest film makers who ever lived, or a tired peddler of cheap sentimentality?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

Little of both.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

classic who's done dud

― philmy, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

what eric said... the two are not mutually exclusive. see also griffith

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

what eric said but he tends to be extremely dud when he is.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

example?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

how much better would war of the worlds have been if you didn't see the alien until the end, when the tripod crashes and the alien flops out... but it's ET!! and they died not from bacteria but from homesickness!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

Mostly Dud. Jaws is fun. Raiders is great. Empire of the Sun is pretty good, but mostly ruined by Williams' oppressive score. Everything else is pretty much worthless. (tho I am curious about Duel).

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

I haven't seen his "Twilight Zone: The Movie" segment in a long time but I remember that being pretty good. Also there was one episode of "Amazing Stories" that I really liked.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 23:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

tonight i was having dinner with some relatives i haven't seen in a while and i mentioned i was going to minor in film studies and one of them said, "oh, are you going to be the next STEVEN SPIELBERG?"

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 July 2005 02:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

i think i might like "close encounters" more than any truffaut film.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 July 2005 02:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

Spielberg has two issues: the need for deep, moral messages and a perpetual underestimating of his audience. This translates to about twenty minutes of movie time we don't need. Families return to go hug Schindler and cry. Tom Cruise's character gets saved from the deep freeze in Minority Report so he can exact his revenge. He's usually better when he's being schlocky, Jurassic Park aside. I still think he did some of his best work with Gremlins and Gremlins 2.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Dud. I love the Indiana Jones trilogy (the latter two more as childhood memories than for the films themselves), Jurassic Park was one of the last good blockbusters, the first part of Saving Private Ryan is still riveting. Other than that, I'll go with cheap peddler of middlebrow twaddle.

The Terminal stripped him of any claim to classicness.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

Not that he directed those, but that he was involved. Yeah, Gremlins.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

if producing counts, then Band of Brothers almost redeems the bullshit that was The Terminal.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

Steven Spielberg - meh.

It's one thing to get excited in a 'film school' sort of way about his technique. It's another thing to sit in a dark theater and be moderately entertained by his movies. But has Speilberg overcome the limits of his medium to create great and lasting art in the way of Cocteau or Fellini or Howard Hawks or Preston Sturges? Not in my view. He generally makes clever confections. He's a great chef.

However, his depiction of the D-Day landing in Saving Private Ryan is a classic that stands head and shoulders above his normal work, including the remainder of SPR.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

i knew it was only a matter of time before someone had to make the distinction between mere "entertainment" and "great and lasting art."

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

did anyone else enjoy Catch Me If You Can? overrated, but once you lay the hype aside it's a fun bit o fluff. Tom Hanks entertainingly stiff and starchy, well-plotted, etc. most of Sbergs other movies i can't stand, but that one gets a pass from me.

― yuengling participle (rotten03), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

Lemme see if I can make this a bit clearer on the "lasting art" business.

Take, for example,Brininging Up Baby. It aims at nothing more than sheer entertainment, but it is so entertaining that it sheerly delights me with its artistry and wit, its little-red-wagon sense of fun. It is an exemplar of light-hearted foolery, a gush of google-eyed silliness, a whole 'nother world you step into.

E.T. - The Extra Terrestrial aims at something a bit more than 'mere' entertainment. It wants to achieve a certain modicum of significance, in a warm and fuzzy sort of way - as a statement about wonder and innocence or something like that. But it doesn't really work on that level. It achieves a sappy, happy sentimentality about wonder and innocence. You cry when ET is dying at the hands of the mean, cold-hearted scientists because, um, never mind why. But can you take any part of it back into your life and make it work for you.

That's why Spielberg is meh. He's a perfect B+ student. He gets all the low-hanging fruit and most of the middling stuff, but never quite bags the topmost stuff.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 28 July 2005 03:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

That's a workable theory, but doesn't take into account some of Spielberg's fantastic second-gear movies that I don't see aiming for anything much other than 'mere' entertainment... other than to question why the prefix 'mere'... stuff like Temple of Doom, certain showcase scenes in the two Jurassic Parks and, yeah, War of the Worlds.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 28 July 2005 04:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

On balance, classic. Especially for Jaws, ET, Raiders, Schindler and Close Encounters.

He may be pretty middlebrow, but stuff like Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, WOTW etc is very entertaining, well made cinema. I agree that he often feels like he's trying to make a bigger statement than he actually achieves, but I cannot think of another director working currently who has consistently entertained me so well over the last 25 years.

No mention of it yet here, but I'm on the side that feels A.I. is one of his best films, too. There's plenty not to like about it, but the stuff that works (the whole opening act, the journey to drowned Manhattan, fuck it, even the ending) is some of the most mesmerising, compelling sci-fi I have ever seen. Real cinema of wonder in a very pure form.

― Bill A (Bill A), Thursday, 28 July 2005 08:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

how did howard hawks 'overcome the limits of his medium to create great and lasting art'? he's about the most bog-standard shot-reverse shot directors in the history of film. great fun, but, come on, 'overcoming the limits of the medium'? all you've said is that 'bringing up baby' has teh robbles.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 09:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

i can think of like ten howard hawks films that qualify as "great art" if anything does. meh to anyone who thinks he's not great cos he doesn't do those BIG IMPRESSIVE CAMERA MOVES (though sometimes he did).

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 July 2005 09:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

funny i was thinking about just this lying in bed this morning. I recon War of the worlds was great. I found it really frightening at times, I wouldnt bother with it on DVD but in the cinema it was genuinly gripping.
He has always been flagged as an auteur the creator of modern blockbusters etc etc, i think the truth is that he is a director for hire, who makes a few personal projects, and a lot of projects personal.
Amoung my faves are empire of the sun, Jaws, 1941, gremlins 2 and it has to be said, catch me if you can.
so classic, though minority report and ai both sucked ass, as does close encounters, so much build up for so little pay off.

― lukey (Lukey G), Thursday, 28 July 2005 09:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's not just about that (although, you know, it's nice to have more than the two-shot, the close-up, the master -- nice also to have expressive editing JUST OCNE IN A WHILE). i don't care if he's "great art" (blah jargon) or not; it's just he isn't all that interesting. there are more interesting directors. like spielberg!!! they both have a somewhat limited and audience-minded view of 'human nature', praps.

xp

― N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 09:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm with NRQ here.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 28 July 2005 09:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

i'm gonna have to restrain myself from writing an entire essay here, but suffice to say i think hawks is one of the five greatest directors ever and i can't even begin to say why his best films transcend "expressive editing" and all that film school bullshit. this is verging on "the ramones aren't as interesting as frank zappa" territory. and i hope no one thinks i'm being a boring old film rockist because hawks is like the most ENTERTAINING great director who ever lived. and i don't think your last sentence shows much (or any) understanding of his attitude toward his audience.

i actually LIKE spielberg and feel he gets a bad rap from "entertainment is not art" types, but howard hawks is a greater director than spielberg for the same reason charles schulz is a greater artist than dave sim.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 July 2005 10:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

haha when ppl ask me tomorrow why i look so sleepy i'll have to say "cos i was up at 4 a.m. being the film geek version of that guy who throws a fit because you think picard is better than kirk."

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 28 July 2005 10:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

and i hope no one thinks i'm being a boring old film rockist because hawks is like the most ENTERTAINING great director who ever lived.

i. dis. agree. there, that wasn't so hard. in this context, i don't care about great directors. i care about entertaining films. hawks' films are *quite* entertaining. but they don't stand out particularly from hollywood films of the 'classic' (c. 1930 - c. 1960) period.

he has a slightly nasty, right-libertarian view of society based on the rugged-individualist/masculinist ideal (women have to be men). it's this glib view of 'how to deal' that i mean by 'audience-minded'. he's all about winners.

expressive editing (blah phrase, but whatevs) is not film school bullshit. following the aesthetic choices of 1950s cahiers du cinema is film school bullshit!!

― N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 10:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

when did great exciting crowd-pleasing moviemaking become "film school bullshit"?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

if indy running from the rock is now considered some abstract academic film-school braininess then i don't even know what we're talking about anymore

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

i think jd thought that what i meant [that was fun] by expressive editing and non-shot-reverse-shot moviemaking was, i dunno, something hyper-intellectual -- resnais, or whatever. i love resnais, but i *also* meant modern movies LIKE 'SAVING PRIVATE RYAN'. i have my qualms but as movie art there's a shitload more to chew on in 'SPR' than there is in anything by hawks.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

i'm gonna refuse to take sides on this one

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

would the oft-overlooked michael curtiz be a better predecessor comparison?

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

no-one has seen all of curtiz's movies. he made 100s. there's no pressing reason to separate his stuff from hawks' or from thatera of hollywood in general: more unites 'to have and have not' and 'casablanca' than, oh i dunno, two curtiz films i've forgotten the names of. it doesn't belittle classic genre films to say that the differences between them are not particularly big -- in the context of the history of film as a whole.

point is the kind of stuff spielberg does, like the beach scene, was beyond the dreams of any classic hollywood director. they'd have fucking killed to have done it. maybe sam fuller with spielberg's crew would be the best thing.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Hitchcock was also "middlebrow" (which seems to be the label for a great image-maker who also entertains a mass audience). Not that Spielberg has ever achieved the consistency of Hitch from 1954-64, but his films (esp post-Jurassic) generally show more complexity and disturbingly adult themes than directors who are taken more seriously (cf Spike Lee, Soderbergh, Coens).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

Here are some movies I have not seen and don't have any real intention of seeing.

# Indiana Jones 4 (2006) (announced)
# Untitled Steven Spielberg/Abraham Lincoln Project (2007) (pre-production)
# Untitled 1972 Munich Olympics Project (2005) (filming)
# War of the Worlds (2005)
# The Terminal (2004)
# Catch Me If You Can (2002)
# Minority Report (2002)
# Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)

This list, of films I have seen, arranged more or less in descending order of quality (last = best) is the reason why I'm not interested in any of the films above:

# Saving Private Ryan (1998)
# The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
# Schindler's List (1993)
# Jurassic Park (1993)
# Hook (1991)
# Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
# Empire of the Sun (1987)
# The Color Purple (1985)
# Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
# E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
# Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
# Jaws (1975)
# Duel (1971)

In conclusion, Thank You Mr. Spielberg for bringing some really fantastic adventures to the big screen, and showing us some highly exciting moments, No Thank You Mr. Spielberg for saddling nearly all of them with increasingly awful casting as time marches on and for trying to choke us to death with your faith in the human spirit or whatever you want to call that unbelievably smug annoying self-congratulatory horseshit.


xpost,
more complexity and disturbingly adult themes
So do the fucking Matrix movies. OMG HE DIES TO SAVE EVERYBODY

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

Such soul-crushing cynicism deserves, oh, Michael Bay.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

"unbelievably smug annoying self-congratulatory horseshit"

this is kinda otm -- it's there in the movies -- but the horseshit bits are outnumbered by the highly exciting moments. or, they're *both* there. same way fall-flat bits of unfunniness and misanthropy coexist with real chills in hitchcock.

otoh, is 'saving private ryan' really that smug? it has those terrible bookends, and the matt damon bits are really annoying, but i've seen far less convinving movies about war.

― N_RQ, Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Spielberg has always been very good at provoking a visceral reaction using whatever crap he has available. He knows how to make ostensibly exciting movies. Unfortunately, since you know that all of his ostensibly exciting movies will be ending in some fashion that makes you feel like a baby chickadee just regurgitated golden liquid cuddles of redemption directly into your stomach, the thrill isn't there, because you're just waiting for the hammer to fall and get the brainwashing over with.

The first time I saw Duel I knew it was supposed to be "atypical" Spielberg but I still spent probably half the movie waiting for some insipid deus ex machina to rob me of all my actual emotions and replace them with spoonfed lotus blooms. This is what he's done to his legacy.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

into the west was awesome - rachel leigh cook!!

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

i helped my friend videotape an audition for into the west! he didn't get the part though :(

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

I am the only person in the world who thinks Jaws is a shitty, shitty movie. I don't entirely blame Spielberg because the book it's based on is even worse than the film, so in that respect, he did well.

Looking at that list above I realize I've disliked a LOT of his movies, without even really realizing they were Spielberg flix. I mean the only movies that I like in that list are Raiders, Last Crusade, Duel, Catch Me If You Can (and that's not even an active like because I forgot I saw it until recently) and...uh...well, I don't actually like Jurassic Park at ALL but Jeff Goldblum dresses fantastically in it so I'll give it a little bit of a pass (THAT FINAL SHOT OF THE T-REX AND THE RAPTORS IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST SHOT IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF CINEMATOGRAPHY AND DIRECTION AND THAT IS A STONE COLD FACT PEOPLE). I'd like Saving Private Ryan better if the bookends were deleted and it was about a half hour shorter.

Dr. Morbius, how about you discuss the "disturbing adult themes" in, say, Catch Me If You Can?

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

He's okay. I thought Minority Report was pretty decent, up until the ending, anyway.

― Leon C. (Ex Leon), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

anyway, i gotta agree with everyone praising band of brothers on this thread, i really liked it so much more than i expected (and overall a lot more than saving private ryan).

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

Dud. Fuck him. I am Filmist.

― Anti-Pope Consortium (noodle vague), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ok the more I'm thinking about that final shot of the T-Rex and the Raptors in the lobby with the fucking banner floating in front of them in Jurassic Park the more angry I'm getting. Goddamn hack.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

minority report had a pretty good first third/half, i guess, but boy does it ever go to shit. and it's about as dark and adult as an episode of young indiana jones

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

catch me if you can woulda been alot more disturbing/adult/fun if it'd kept true to frank abagnale's motivation in the book (pussy).

jaws fucking rules ally. jpark3's pretty great, the best of the bunch no doubt. poltergeist was pretty great. band of brothers was incredible. into the west was rousing fun.

― j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

catch me would've been better if it had been about 30 mins shorter

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 632 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

munich is basically the standard by which '70s geopolitical thrillers should be measured. i think the only better film in recent years in the same genre is probs 'carlos'

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Wednesday, 20 March 2013 18:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

arkin said 'argo fuck yourself' so many times i thought the sad coda was going to be that he'd developed dementia

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:26 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Wednesday, 20 March 2013 18:34 (2 months ago) Permalink

A helluva montage: audio of Arkin saying "argo fuck yourself" as Lincoln walks into Ford's Theater, Seward holds the Emancipation Proclamation in awe, and Donald Sutherland as X on the park bench saying, "In that document. Lay the Vietnam War."

Cut to title COMING SOON

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 20 March 2013 18:42 (2 months ago) Permalink

really, read what Kael had to say about Abby Mann (the writer of the teleplay and film of Judgment at Nuremberg) sometime. He accepted his Oscar "on behalf of intellectuals everywhere."

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 20 March 2013 18:44 (2 months ago) Permalink

http://www.indiewire.com/survey/the-spielberg-survey/

Film: JAWS
Direction: JAWS
Lead Performance: Daniel Day-Lewis, LINCOLN
Supporting Performance: Ralph Fiennes, SCHINDLER'S LIST
Scene: JAWS (various)
Shot: JAWS (various)
Hero: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
Villain: SCHINDLER'S LIST
Screenplay: LINCOLN
Score/Soundtrack: JAWS
Worst Film: HOOK

― alternately mean and handsy (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:11 (1 month ago) Permalink

"we have top men working on this survey"

― zero dark (s1ocki), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

Hook as the worst? It's definitely a bad one, but The Lost World and Always are way worse. wanna say The Terminal is on that level too but I kinda don't trust the viewing I had of it.

― ta-nehisi goatse (fadanuf4erybody), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

re-screened SPR - not as sappy as I remembered but the last half kinda drags. a lot.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:17 (1 month ago) Permalink

"we have top men working on this survey"

This line reads so kinky to me now.

― alternately mean and handsy (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:20 (1 month ago) Permalink

top. men.

― zero dark (s1ocki), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:24 (1 month ago) Permalink

We (heh, heh) are not sehr-stee.

― alternately mean and handsy (Eric H.), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 15:33 (1 month ago) Permalink

Spielberg was being interviewed by Kermode a few months ago and he admitted that he hopes to one day find something he likes about Hook.

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 2 April 2013 23:28 (1 month ago) Permalink

is it really that bad? i saw it again a couple years ago and actually kinda dug it. but it was new year's eve and i was pretty hungover so my standards were fairly low.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 23:43 (1 month ago) Permalink

I think the most effective lead performances in his oeuvre may be by Henry Thomas and Christian Bale.

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 23:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

hook is pretty horrible, the whole thing plays like the dwarf dinner in 'the hobbit' but with worse songs and even hammier acting, if possible.

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Tuesday, 2 April 2013 23:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

bale is really good in empire of the sun! ben stiller also surprisingly malevolent.

― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 00:00 (1 month ago) Permalink

Bale's best perf, period, is in EOTS.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 3 April 2013 00:06 (1 month ago) Permalink

I'm glad The Sugarland Express got some support down in that all-important #12-15 range in a number of categories.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 3 April 2013 01:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

what women got top billing in Spielberg films? Goldie Hawn, Dee Wallace, Holly Hunter?

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 April 2013 00:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

Hmm, top billing? Sally Field? Kate Capshaw? Laura Dern?

It's a good question, though I would contend that Karen Allen in "Raiders" is one of the formative Hollywood strong woman roles.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 April 2013 01:06 (1 month ago) Permalink

I mean first. Although Hawn is arguably the only one who is the star of the film.

formative? in a retro film? after Hollywood had kinda fucking died?

surely Ebert musta wrote about Bette Davis once in a while?

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 April 2013 01:24 (1 month ago) Permalink

what women got top billing in Spielberg films? Goldie Hawn, Dee Wallace, Holly Hunter?

Whoopi Goldberg

― The Complete Afterbirth of the Cool (WilliamC), Friday, 5 April 2013 01:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

right

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 April 2013 01:33 (1 month ago) Permalink

I meant formative in that for a huge segment of the post-Spielberg generation of movies lovers, for whom "Raiders" is especially iconic, she stands tall as the perfect foil for one of the greatest action heroes. Though she (and the film) are of the retro template, the movie itself was, of course, contemporary, and strong female leads in action films are (and always have been) few and far between, making Allen's role particularly effective in its impact.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 April 2013 01:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

ah, "action films" again

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 April 2013 01:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

I've read that line, and to a degree you're right, but her strength gets exactly one scene to show itself: the bar scene. The rest of the movie Spielberg punishes her for it.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 April 2013 01:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

xpost

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 5 April 2013 01:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

I do like the ending, though, where they are both tied together and clearly both scared shitless.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 5 April 2013 01:55 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Steven Spielberg has found his next directing project: an adaptation of American Sniper, the autobiography of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, which is set up at Warner Bros.

Bradley Cooper is attached to star and has been developing the project as a producer.

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 2 May 2013 21:41 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

gross

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 May 2013 21:44 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

normally i'd say ugh yuck get it away, but i actually kind of trust spielberg at this point in his career to do something interesting with that.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 2 May 2013 21:47 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

with Bradley Cooper? that guy is such a worthless sack of shit

― four Marxes plus four Obamas plus four Bin Ladens (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 2 May 2013 21:50 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

it's hard for me to imagine how it could be good, but i guess i should trust spielby

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 2 May 2013 21:57 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

^^ xp

― Chris S, Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:03 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

ZDT pt. 2 - get ready, internet.

― Gukbe, Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:06 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i look fwd to glenn greenwald's 2,300 word 'i haven't seen it, but' review.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

is Spielberg hate ilx'S MOST BORING MANIA? even w/ ethan gone?

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:08 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

im closer to a spielberg apologist than hater. but chris kyle... ugh

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:10 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

ilx seems fairly pro-spielberg these days

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

basically everyone just said that they dont like the idea but they trust spielberg dude

― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

is consistently misreading other posters ilx'S MOST BORING MANIA?

― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:12 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

gimme a hug

― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 2 May 2013 22:17 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah I love Spielberg but given the material I'm not sure he's going to pull off what I'd like.

― Gukbe, Thursday, 2 May 2013 23:35 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Spielberg should make a movie out of "Where Men Win Glory," the Pat Tillman book, instead.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 2 May 2013 23:51 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

the Chris Kyle book has lots of opportunities for both first-20 minutes of SPR action and maudlin homefront stuff
there's no real narrative hook to it, though - he doesn't overcome anything, we don't even win the war; he was a very good shot who killed a lot of people and was apparently good at being a SEAL for his entire career.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Friday, 3 May 2013 00:04 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Well he was shot and killed at a gun range. I

― Gukbe, Friday, 3 May 2013 00:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

So you know he overcame "life"

― Gukbe, Friday, 3 May 2013 00:12 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Kyle and a companion, Chad Littlefield, were shot and killed at the Rough Creek Lodge shooting range in Erath County, Texas[16] by 25-year-old fellow veteran Eddie Ray Routh, whom Kyle and Littlefield had purportedly taken to the gun range in an effort to help him with his post traumatic stress disorder.

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Friday, 3 May 2013 00:14 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

― christmas candy bar (al leong), Friday, 3 May 2013 00:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

weird. I hadn't made the connection that the victim was the one who had written the book.

― sheer tip (how's life), Friday, 3 May 2013 00:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.