Seriously? How?
You want me to talk about movies. I'm talking about movies. And I don't get you people who don't rate these absolutely amazing filmmakers.
It's almost akin to a classical music fan saying they hate Beethoven.
Spielberg only has 1 good movie....Jurassic Park.
Scorsese has zero good movies.
Spielberg's movies have different strenghts i think but i would say Duel is probably his best, it's simple yet so horrifying in it's concept and it doesn't spoil the mystery by revealing things in the end. It just leaves you pondering. It always felt like an outdrawn episode of Twilight Zone to me. He had a massive drop after the 90's though. Today he is far from the cinematic master that he was considered as once. I don't know exactly when he fell into this mediocrity but he definitely has. If someone speaks about how great he is they always refer to his older movies and nothing he made in the last 20 years. I feel kids today don't know who he is. They might've seen some of his films but they couldn't tell they were directed by him.
shareI think they're the standard of modern filmmaking. By "standard", I mean mediocre. "Ready Player One" was a nice movie, but lacked heart. Scorsese films have the best lighting, but his movies are choppy. I haven't seen the departed, but Goodfellas, Casino, Bringing out The Dead, etc...all have choppy editing.
I don't hate them, their movies just aren't my taste. But I know plenty of people who 'hate' their films. Mostly do to Spielberg being a pedo, allegedly.
It seems that every talented artist is a 'pedo'.
Either there's a genetic connection between talent and paedophilia, or maybe some of these rumours and allegations are bullshit...
Hmm...which explanation sounds the most credible?
Being that there's many accounts of former child actors and actresses coming forward of alleged sexual abuse, the former. Moreover, in Indiana Jones (I forget which one) there's a scene where Indie admits to having sex with a 14 year old. Also, a Spielberg film.
shareBOINK!
Wrong answer!
But no doubt you and others will cling on to such misanthropic conspiracy-orientated bullshit. It's the current fad.
And no, there isn't a scene in any of the Indiana Jones films where he admits to having sex with a 14-year-old, but if there was it's hardly a smoking gun, is It?
Malkovich, you used to be so level headed. What have these boards done to you?
In this scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwpLFHNgyiA), the lady is 24 years old (according to the script). So, you're wrong.
It's very sad that you see child-abuse whistleblowing as a "fad" and/or a conspiracy. Nonetheless, these (alleged) pedos DO make awesome mediocre movies.
You're accusing me of not being level-headed but I'm not the one bandying about child abuse accusations sans evidence.
Anyway, if you read this (otherwise typically sanctimonious and pearl-clutching) pop culture article, you'll see that Spielberg was the person involved with Indiana Jones that nixed the idea of the lead character being a creepy child molester: https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/3/9089181/indiana-jones-abusive-creep
Bizarrely enough it was George Lucas, the guy who is effectively responsible for every Millennial's favourite movie, The Last Jedi, who wanted to emphasise the dodgy age difference, not Spielberg.
Sans evidence, you say. Would you like me to cite sources about actors and actresses coming forward about being victims of child sexual abuse within Hollywood? I don't want to straw-man or put words into your mouth (and forgive me if I have), but are you saying that this isn't an issue, or doesn't happen? OR, are you just saying that Spielberg isn't a pedo? Just want to clarify.
Also, the link claims that they originally intended for Marian/Marion to be twelve, as opposed to fifteen. That's not a huge difference, Malkovich. Statutory rape is still rape.
I'm just talking about Spielberg.
I don't deny that abuse and molestation is widespread in ALL sections of society, particularly one like Hollywood, which employs many potentially vulnerable child actors.
Spielberg may indeed have worked with a good few of these scumbags, but that doesn't mean he was, or is, in on it.
And whilst I don't remotely defend statutory rape, bear in mind that the Indiana Jones franchise is set in the 1930s. States didn't start enforcing the statutory age limit until 1920, and until 2001 it was only 14 in Hawaii. I don't know when it changed in Massachusetts or California, the two states where Indiana and Marion were most likely to have met, but I don't believe the law would have been so stringently enforced during the era in which Marion was a teen.
You bring up good counter-points, Malkovich. But it's just hearsay regarding where they met within the lore of Indiana Jones. Point being, whether legal or not, Marion's character says she was "...just a child" and that Indie "...should have known better...". I concede that my talking points are hearsay as well regarding Spielberg being an alleged pedo, but my original point was that I know a lot of people who refuse to watch his movies because of the allegations.
As far as George Lucas, I WISH and HOPE he one day goes back to his American Graffiti roots and releases something in the same vein.
I always assumed the "just a child" line wasn't literal. I always assumed it meant that she was young, and most likely in her late teens or early twenties but not literally a child (although bear in mind that one is still technically a child until they reach the age of 18 - Marion may have been 16 or 17 when she and Indy first fell in love).
It reminds me of the line in Batman (1989) when The Joker says "I was just a kid [when I killed your parents]." Of course he wasn't a literal kid, but he was still young (probably late teens, or more likely early twenties), and from the perspective of a guy who was now in his forties or fifties, he looked back on that period as if he was only a kid.
As for the Spielberg stuff, what is the exact nature of the allegations? I read one thing about Corey Feldman, where someone speculated that one of his abusers might have been Spielberg on the set of The Goonies, which the latter produced, but this just struck me as idle speculation/reaching. I have no doubt Feldman was abused as a child actor, but why does everyone immediately assume Spielberg must have been in on it?
Also, Spielberg strikes me as a fairly normal guy. Admittedly, I was hoodwinked by Michael Jackson, but even when I believed he could have been innocent, I never thought for a moment that he was remotely normal. Most of these shady child abusers and serial rapists, like Jimmy Saville, give off a creepy vibe.
Because he and George Lucas raped Indiana Jones.
I have witnessed it and have had years of counseling and I am still not over it.
I think Spielberg is the worst director of all time. His emotions are forced, his morality is fraudulent. He's pro-war, so of course that's a hard sell even with government funding. He makes sadistic base level propaganda.
Lots of people think he's too sentimental, or has daddy issues. But I think he's completely untalented even from a technical perspective. Look at Saving Private Ryan which probably won him the most technical accolades. He stole everything from his own protege, Michael Bay and Armageddon. Shaky cam, overexposed lighting, and grainy washed out color is a very crude way of proving to us that something is "serious" anyway, that's why it's in all Spielberg movies now. But what's worse is it led to an entire generation of movies ruined. A lot of people don't know this but Spielberg produces Michael Bay (and JarJar Abrams). Michael Bay is a subject of mockery. What does Spielberg see in him? He sees himself, and so do I. Spielberg should not be revered. We should be able to recognize the same cheap style, disregard for writing, for acting, the autistic preference for objects over people. But even that's no good. Try to imagine the worlds of AI or Minority Report. What do they look like? I draw a blank. There are no worlds, no atmosphere. Just a series of discret and disconnected set pieces, clumsily bumbling from one to another.
You can tell a lot about an director from their worst movies. When something they tried to do didn't work, it stands out. In a good movie you don't always notice what made it good, because you were immersed and feeling it emotionally. The bad movies expose themselves to analysis. Why don't people like Sugarland Express, or 1941? Maybe because it's too obvious that Spielberg's idea of humor is having a character scream loudly with their mouth hanging open. It's a very awkward mugging for the camera sort of look. Someone who doesn't understand how to connect with humans would do this, someone socially awkward. What I saw in Sugarland Express, I now see in all Spielberg movies. There's no difference once you're aware.
Supposedly Spielberg makes movies for kids (kids love movies schools use to teach lessons). But like I mentioned about forced emotions, Spielberg doesn't trust his audience. He doesn't give much credit to kids and underestimates their ability to understand. Kids hate being patronized. At least I did. I never liked Spielberg movies. I always had an instant negative vicseral reaction.
As I got older it only got worse. Here's the scary part. Imagine a love scene in a Spielberg movie.
Scorsese is/was great, but he makes guy movies. I can see why people don't like him. Age of Innocence was a disappointing waste of a good cast. Now all his movies are increasingly obnoxiously cloying, like Aviator. Why is he trying to win awards? Did you ever think you could watch a by the numbers biopic like a Walk The Line and think it was a Scorsese knockoff? This old man really crashed and burned, like a rock star.
shareDisagree completely
In the last 17 years he has made Shutter Island, The Wolf of Wall Street, Silence, Gangs of New York, The Departed and The Aviator, as you mentioned...
If those were the guy's ONLY movies he should be considered a director of note
I realize that you enjoy stirring up attention for yourself but at least put in some effort
You just sound silly
Yes he does have a fetish for LeoDio doesn't he?
You didn't mention Hugo. I don't know if that was intentional. I think the ones you listed are a mixed bag. For example, I do like the Departed, but even that took time for me to warm up to it and I still don't like a lot of the stylistic elements. It's too much like other modern movies. It was a remake. Scorsese replaced Asian people with white people, and blared the speakers as he switched tracks on the Pandora classic rock radio station the whole time the camera was running. Do you really disagree completely that his older movies are better, or are you just being argumentative because you think of his newer stuff is okay too, just a little bit more okay than I think it is?
Who hates them?
😎
we are expanding to maake films for those who will by tickets.
share