Ranking Spielberg

[rothko]

[ QUOTE ]
I 100% agree with you that he is terribly underrated. Not necessarily among main-stream critics, since they seem to appreciate his work, but by elitist cinephiles who pack the arthouses, read Filmmaker religiously, and genuflect at whatever Foreign or Indie director is en vogue.

They really have no legitimate argument of why they hate him. They just know they have to. It's hipster cinesthete law.

Spielberg is definitely one of the world's great filmmakers. His great talent is to take pop formula and transform it into art. Tarantino does the same thing with pulp. Fassbinder, Sirk, and Ray did it with melodrama.

Yet all those directors are relatively respected, but not Spielberg.

It's a shame.

[/ QUOTE ]

how's that critical thinking class going?

[John Cole]

[ QUOTE ]
like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).



[/ QUOTE ]

No! In thunder.

[CharlieDontSurf]

His early films as a whole are far better than his later ones.
Age seems to have mellowed him out and he now is known as the guy who can never correctly end a movie.

Overall he is a fantastic director top 10-15 all time.
He and M Night are two of the best at creating suspense/tension.

Speilberg is obv his best when paired with a great script/writer...Zaillian, Scott Frank etc

[Peter666]

"I think Spielberg's kindred spirits are Hitchcock and Tarantino. Both directors can be accused for their lack of depth (Vertigo and Psycho are, however, very deep films), especially when they're compared to directors who take on more "mature" material, and again, such a comparison is unfair."

Whoever accuses Hitchcock of lack of depth has simply not studied the films outside of "Vertigo" and "Psycho". Even Hitchcock's lesser works are overflowing with psychological nuance and mastery of form. He is a genius, who also happens to be entertaining.

Also, I can't agree when people say that Spielberg is "underrated". He is the most popular director alive! If his work is considered not as demanding or deep as some arthouse directors, it's most likely because its true. But who cares when you are the king of Hollywood?

[andyfox]

I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[ClassicBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make it.

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case could be made for him being the most important person in the history of American cinema.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Lucas > Steven Speilberg in this regard

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).



[/ QUOTE ]

No! In thunder.

[/ QUOTE ]

A wiser head prevails - A rarity on this cosmic ball of space vomit. And Oliver Twist needs another bowl of gruel.

Anyway, I wanted to make a comment in this thread so my name could be associated with it; not because I would make any meaningful contribution to it - Sort of like Stephen King's contribution to literature. Poe still rules or even that Italian guy that wrote The Decameron, Boccaccio what's-his-even sillier first name suppose to be.

And what's all this talk of Spielberg? He makes movies, so did Roger Corman, so did Russ Meyers, so did A, B, C, and Z. It's not that important. Some people make apple pies with just the right amount of cinnamon, some people don't. But taste is subjective as is adding ice cream to apple pie or having just the correct amount of cinnamon.

Le Misanthrope

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
like the comparison of Stephen King as writer and Speilberg as director, I think there's a lot in that (however, I do think King will rank alongside Dickens in terms of stature in the future).



[/ QUOTE ]

No! In thunder.

[/ QUOTE ]

A wiser head prevails - A rarity on this cosmic ball of space vomit. And Oliver Twist needs another bowl of gruel.

Anyway, I wanted to make a comment in this thread so my name could be associated with it; not because I would make any meaningful contribution to it - Sort of like Stephen King's contribution to literature. Poe still rules or even that Italian guy that wrote The Decameron, Boccaccio what's-his-even sillier first name suppose to be.

And what's all this talk of Spielberg? He makes movies, so did Roger Corman, so did Russ Meyers, so did A, B, C, and Z. It's not that important. Some people make apple pies with just the right amount of cinnamon, some people don't. But taste is subjective as is adding ice cream to apple pie or having just the correct amount of cinnamon.

Le Misanthrope

[/ QUOTE ]

as amusing as your post is, I take umbrage: art is important, and debating its merits gives us more to do with our time than eating, crapping and sexing.

[DrewDevil]

I think Spielberg must be listed among the top 2 or 3 directors of all time, and I don't understand the arguments by people who disagree.

Yes, it's true that SPR and a couple of his other movies *could* have been better if this, if that, etc. But taken as they are, they are still stunning works of film. Why is Spielberg denigrated because his superb films aren't perfect? That doesn't mean they aren't incredible. If you evaluate his films as they are, and not what they potentially could have been if directed by God, then you're left with the conclusion that no director has ever made more consistently spectacular movies than Spielberg.

As someone said earlier, when Raiders of the Lost Ark is your 4th best film, you're doing something right.