Posted on 07/05/2005 7:47:27 PM PDT by CaptIsaacDavis
His movies are haunted by images of abandonment and broken families. Close Encounters has been called one of the most psycnoligcally unhealthy films ever made. The guy leaves his family forever! A.I. made lots of people uncomfortable. E.T. is on par with Bambi and Pinnochio in its evocation of the ephiphnies and emotional experience of childhood. All great artists eventually begin to reference themselves. Hitchcock included. And unlike Capra, SS isn't fizzling out.
Rumor has it the young girl had to walk in a trench next when playing opposite Cruise as to not tower over him ala Alan Ladd and Jean Arthur in Shane.
Why can't they make a decent movie based on one of the books by Rober Heinlein? Starship Troopers doesn't count: it wasn't based on the book, and it was a lousy movie.
On a related note, comparing War of the Worlds and Starship Troopers: Why is it that when hollywood makes a movie based on a work of a libertarian like R.A. Heinlein, they allow a hacky scriptwriter to butcher it, but when they base a movie off a work of a socialist like H.G. Wells, nothing is so important as "staying true to the book"?
Not true. Actually, Cruise walked on top of his B.S. and appeared higher than his film daughter. Her screams, BTW, were when Cruise began to emote or Spielberg sought to convey a message to all of us in the unwashed heartland.
Nice to give some reasons? Anyway the film of Starship Troopers was a satire. On that basis it was brilliant.
Check.. aliens clueless about biology.. probably some other science too..
then Scientologist saves world.?. I see..
Cuss.... drop popcorn, walk out of theater..
You'd think that if he was so haunted, he'd get it right or at least reveal himself. I see his movies and they are like these perfectly calibrated machines. Completely passionless. You look at a movie like Bringing Out the Dead -- every shot isn't perfect -- but the people are three dimensional. Like life, it's messy and almost out of control. And yes, it was smaller in scale, but maybe abandoning that sweeping scope and repetitive use of "money shot" special effects set pieces would have helpe the movie.
Still remember Robbins was playing a sort of right wing survivalist crackpot. But Spielberg has always shown the military in a positive light. From Saving Private Ryan to the returning WW2 soldiers at the end of Close Encounters. Not to menion his production of Band of Brothers.
He does though. Fear of abandoment. This kind of view of historical consequences that's almost Mizoguchi like. And he's the heir to Kurosawa in directing spectacle. The special effects in WOTW happen to be in the back of the frame most of the time! I love how it hews so closely to Cruise's POV that there is a major battle going on over the hill but we never see it. We just hear it and see barest remnants of gunfire. He uses whip pans all the time so I don't see why you think every shot looks perfect. And Scorsese has an MA in film so he's the last one to just let things slide. If a shot looks off its because he wanted it that way. It's every bit as calculated as any money shot.
Didn't get that. I and I believe most would believe he was just cracked because he had lost his family.
No, his portrayal of WWII soldiers is deferential. In WOTW, he portrays the military as the kind of robotic buffoons that were typical of the 50's B-Sci-Fi movies. That is, the are simply shown going to their inescapbale deathes by virtue of the fact that they are military drones. Cruise even says as much in his little face to face with his son. Recall ET and the use of military force. Or how 'bout Indiana Jones and the way the military-intelligence establishment deep sixed the Ark of the Covenant. No, Spielberg is right in line with the lefties of his g-g-generation in nodding to the invincible righteousness of WWII and pissing on all the rest of military efforts.
Well that's what most reviews are saying. Now that I think about it perhaps many liberal critics are associating being a loner with weapon who wants to fight back to being a 'right-wing crackpot'. Good point.
I remember that they said the same thing about Battlefield Earth. It would take its place right up there with 2001: A Space Odyssey. "THEY" happen to be knuckleheads and Battlefield Earth will get no closer to 2001 than this movie will attain cult status. Unless your cult is Scientology, of course.
Those were real American soldiers in WOTW btw. He had a premiere with them and they had a great time. In Raiders I always thought it was the Goverment Beauracrats who do that. In E.T. the military was just doing their job. I don't know how you go from there to 'pissing on all the rest of military efforts'
What does this movie have to do with Scientology? forget about Cruise for a moment. This is a superior piece of pure suspense film making and nothing more.
I don't even know how to respond to the Kurosawa comment. You're obviously a smart guy, so I'll chalk it up to a temporary loss of perspective.
The difference between Scorsese and Spielberg is that
Scorsese has somehow retained his connection with actual people. One of the benefits of l Scorsese's iving in NYC, I suppose. All of Spielberg's people are based on a "theory of people" rather than actual knowledge of people. I won't go so far as to say he's a "hollywood elite" because I don't know what that means, but he should definitely get out and about more. Talk to someone other than his laura ahsley wearing hordes and studio executives.
I feel the opposite. I was disappointed with the Batman movie after hearing such good things about it.
In contrast, after hearing such lousy stuff about the "War of Worlds" movie, I was pleasantly surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.