comment #1

raygo says ...

Huge waste of time for everyone, like most remakes. Unless they use the rabbit from Donnie Darko. Is Harvey even watchable? I've had many opportunities to see it and never once watched it.

comment #2

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

As a big Spielberg fan, I'm not at all enthused by this announcement. But it's far too early to write him off. By all accounts this Harvey thing is ready to go and it sounds like Spielberg just wants to direct something quickly to get back into the habit. Didn't he do something similar with The Terminal, then go on to make War of the Worlds and Munich back-to-back?

His track record is so good that the missteps can be overlooked. He's not like the modern directors who make 2 films every decade, and thus the stinkers stand out more. He's produced more than enough classics to allow himself to coast a bit when he feels like it, and I'm sure that we'll get 2 or 3 more cast-iron classics out of him before he retires.

Long live the Beard.

comment #3

markj says ...

Saving Private Ryan is pretty terrible, apart from the opening and closing battle sequences. But even they are tonally different, the opening beach incursion being closer to documentary recreation whilst the closing battle is a big Hollywood-style action/adventure scene. Ryan is a schizophrenic film, from a director clearly striving for a 2nd Oscar. It's all over the place. And the cemetery visit scenes are perhaps the worst directing work Spielberg has ever done.

Spielberg has done some interesting work since then though. I personally find A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Catch Me If You Can to be wonderful films. And despite some huge flaws Munich is pretty great too.

comment #4

markj says ...

Oh and Last Crusade is really lazily directed Jeff, hardly a return to form for Spielberg. You can almost see him wandering around the soundstages in a daze wondering why Empire of the Sun flopped.

comment #5

Jeffrey Wells says ...

War of the Worlds was totally ruined by the sentimental ending -- it's all anybody thinks of when they think back to it (which happens rarely). Munich gets worse with each passing year. I popped it into the DVD player a couple of years ago and it wasn't painful, but mainly it just droned on from scene to scene. It was wildly over-praised in certain quarters when it first came out. A.I. was pure Haley Joel Osment agony -- bamboo chutes under the fingernails. Catch Me If You Can was labored and tonally hard to decipher and way, way too long.

comment #6

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Last Crusade is absolutely mint. "He chose... poorly." Awesome fun. The closest Spielberg got to a Bond film in many sequences.

Catch Me If You Can and Minority Report are both really solid top-drawer entertainment. A.I. is an underrated gem and Munich was stylish and powerful. Only The Terminal has really been a misstep this decade.

Also underrated are Empire of the Sun and Amistad. His only real swing-and-miss in terms of weighty stuff was The Color Purple, which was not helped by a sickly sweet Quincy Jones score.

comment #7

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

War of the Worlds is great for the first half but the Tim Robbins house sequence is kind of a weird diversion that doesn't really work. But the set-pieces are brilliant and show again that Spielberg is head and shoulders above most other hacks when it comes to the use of CGI.

comment #8

Sabina E says ...

count me out... what a terrible idea.

comment #9

raygo says ...

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was one of worst viewing experiences I've ever had. Terrible film from beginning to end. Steven Sommers would have done better, because the reverential tone would have been abandoned, because clearly it was a joke of a movie to begin with, and greatly diminshed the whole Indiana Jones history.

comment #10

markj says ...

I agree War of the Worlds was destroyed by the ending Jeff. It was almost as if Spielberg got bored with the film and just decided to have some troops come in and start taking the aliens down so he could go home.

I do feel A.I. gets a hard time though. There are certain sections i'm not too fond of (The Flesh Fair and Rouge City visits) but overall I think it's a fabulous thought-provoking work. People dismiss it as being sentimental but it's actually the complete opposite.

Kubrick's version is one of the great 'What If?'s of cinema though. I'd love to have seen the opening 45 minutes in particular from Kubrick, that would have been a devastating piece of filmmaking.

comment #11

roquentin says ...

Your underestimation of Spielberg has been argued against to death on these boards, but fuck. From this vantage point, your hatred of old media, which declaratively anointed Munich a masterpiece, got bound up with your hatred of Spielberg and his ethos of suburban values. Except you're too blinded by this connection to see that Munich is a masterpiece of sorts, and it is over and against any old media hype. I hope that the Munich backlash, which resulted in that cartoon-y Indiana Jones comic book, hasn't soured Spielberg from his more daring mature works. You know, the ones you've reduced and dismissed and relegated to "twenty minutes" like every other critic who felt shamed into the hype. Apart from that plodding post-script (one of a few missteps in an otherwise great - GREAT - film).

I understand feeling cynical about his at times cloying suburban yearning. (That said, as awful as the scene was, wasn't he literally destroying that whole world in the nuclear fall-out scene in Crystal Skull?) But looking back on the work of masters, which Spielberg is and will be among, as many of them are accepted as brilliant despite their thematic obsessions as they are because of them. John Ford, Hitchcock, and Kubrick all sit in the same pantheon.

So, out of curiosity, who would be up to the task? Soderbergh's Lincoln? Michael Mann's tough guy Lincoln? Maybe Christian Bale can mumble his way through the Gettysburg Address. (Mann, by the way, is arguably just as sentimental as Spielberg, it's just subterranean and directed towards an ideal of clipped machismo and machines.)

How about another soft-focus late Mike Nichol's work? Or - I've got it, brilliance of brilliance - Guillermo Del Toro's monster fantasy Lincoln, replete with a zombie John Wilkes Booth!

comment #12

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Crystal Skull is not that bad. The only real problems were the stupid use of CGI which, despite my earlier comments, is actually the only time when it's really grated in a Spielberg film. The gophers were fucking silly.

Also I prefer the religious mythology of the previous films rather than aliens, but some of the set pieces are a lot of fun.

comment #13

markj says ...

Bosh: Yeah I enjoyed Skull, it was a fun throwback to simpler times. People complain about all the CG gophers but they're in the film for about 20 seconds of a 120 minute running time. I'm glad they explored the alien angle, at least it was something different, as opposed to Crusade which ended up being a weak remake of Raiders, with Indy relegated from hero to Sean Connery's stooge.

comment #14

Sean says ...

Why does everyone assume that Harvey will have a CGI pookah? I think the odds are definitely in favor of it having zero pookah footage, and the odds are overwhelming that, if we do happen to see the pookah, it will be less than 2% of the footage, and a near certainly to be less than 10%. Assuming that the screenplay is indeed based on the original play.

Also, is it possible that it's Neeson who's delaying Lincoln, taking a year off to get his sea legs again? Doing easy stuff to pay the bills but saving the hard stuff for when he can afford it?

comment #15

Steven Kar says ...

I agree with MARK COMMENT #3. Somebody has to be man enough to step up and declare how deeply flawed SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is. The best criticism of that movie that I've read came from screenwriter William Goldman in his 1999 Vanity Fair article criticising the Best Picture nominees. Spot on.

I watched the Indiana Jones movies recently, and I feel that RAIDERS just doesn't hold up as well, TEMPLE actually improves with time, and LAST CRUSADE remains my favourite of the three. (I don't know what CRYSTAL SKULL was.)

MUNICH is a filmed play. I can sit through a play and even enjoy it, but I can't sit through a filmed play.

comment #16

bluefugue says ...

Though both flawed, War of the Worlds and Munich are significant entries in the Spielberg catalogue. The first tripod-attack sequence in War of the Worlds is a masterpiece and exposes the younger generation of action directors (Greengrass excepted) as the tyros they are. Munich features one of the most perfectly staged murder scenes I have ever seen, and is generally a taut thriller with a political conscience, though the final 20 minutes lose their way.

Private Ryan opens with what is IMO the best battle sequence ever filmed, and the climactic one is very good as well. The middle is rather boilerplate WW2 ensemble drama. Competent, but not that interesting.

I'm excited to see Tintin. This idea that Spielberg is losing his way by making popcorn movies seems a bit off to me, as two of his greatest efforts (Jaws and Raiders) are about as popcorn as they come. They seem substantive to modern eyes (particularly Jaws with its triptych of indelible lead characters), but that's just because they're *good* popcorn, not because they're something else. Tintin is in some ways a forebear of Indiana Jones, so I think there's a good chance Spielberg could hit that one of the park. But I have admittedly been a fan of the comics since childhood -- in fact Tintin books are among the very first things I ever attempted to read.

comment #17

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Tintin seems to be attracting a lot of criticism from the online community because Americans just don't seem to know what it is at all. I grew up on Tintin and Asterix comic books rather than superheroes, so for me it's a great deal more exciting than, say, The Green Lantern. It makes sense for them to release it in Europe first.

comment #18

bluefugue says ...

>I watched the Indiana Jones movies recently, and I feel that RAIDERS just doesn't hold up as well, TEMPLE actually improves with time, and LAST CRUSADE remains my favourite of the three.

I've been defending Temple of Doom against critics for years. But in my opinion Raiders is far and away the best Indy film. Far and away. Best score (Williams's personal best after Empire Strikes Back), best heroine, best single action sequence (truck chase), best villain in Belloq (& the great long-take scene where Belloq talks to Indy and holds up the cheap watch), and maybe the most rousing moment in movies since the Marseillaise sequence in Casablanca ("I found him." "Where?" "There!") And the finale is absolutely a knockout. I mean, they spend so much time building up the Ark that if we don't get the wrath of freakin' God at the end we are going to be disappointed. AND WE GET THE WRATH OF FREAKIN' GOD. Hard to be impressed by a glowy Sankara stone or a rapidly aging bad guy after that. On top of all that, an absolutely pitch-perfect final shot that may have single-handedly created the X-files subgenre...

comment #19

bluefugue says ...

>I grew up on Tintin and Asterix comic books

Amen!

comment #20

markj says ...

Raiders is one of the greatest films ever made, 50 years from now people will still be watching it. Temple of Doom is very underrated though as bluefugue says, it was probably the last time that the pure joy of Spielberg's filmmaking imagination was unleashed on screen. Just look at the confidence in the filmmaking, in particular the minecar light gradually revealing Indiana Jones standing waiting to punch out the guard - genius filmmaking.

comment #21

Phatang! says ...

I could write my review for "Harvey" right now.

comment #22

cinefan says ...

Amen to bluefugue and markj. I feel that Spielberg's early action films haven't diminished over time but, in fact, hold up very well and actually get better with each passing year. Compared to recent dreck like Transformers 2 and the Mummy Returns, films like Jaws and Raiders seem very fresh today because of their intelligence and emphasis on interesting, well-developed characters and their lack of pointless and unnecessary CG effects.

comment #23

Rich S. says ...

I've tried to defend Spielberg's choices of late, even if I didn't particularly agree with them. But a remake of Harvey is just a terrible idea. Stewart so made the character of Elwood P. Dowd his own, that there's just no point in revisiting it.

Spielberg should know better. I can only assume that the screenwriter threw something in about Harvey being a manifestation of Dowd's poor relationship with his father. That seems to be the only theme Spielberg is interested in any more.

comment #24

Steven Kar says ...

I've always hated the idea of taking the hero/protagonist out of the action in RAIDERS' finale.

He's just tied up there on the hill top and he does nothing. In fact, ever since the Nazis seized the Ark from the hero, he became irrelevant to the story. Impotent. He stopped driving the action.

comment #25

Filthy Rich says ...

Crystal Skull was a mess from beginning to end from the terrible script with dialogue that didn't sound like anything Indy would ever say, to its plodding, awkard exposition (David's Koepp's biggest weakness), terrible character development (Indy and Marion's shallow, geriatric kiss instead of their great give and take, bitter banter from Raiders) and Spielberg's amateurish Stephen Sommer's like directing. Whenever anyone defends that film it automatically renders all of their other arguments completely invalid.

Most of the debate about Spielberg's other recent films, I think, comes down to a matter of aesthetics: I really enjoyed Catch Me if You Can, found Munich a dull bore, thought War of the World was great at the beginning (except for Janusch Kaminsky's shimmering cinematography) and poor and uneven by the middle, and felt Minority Report was pretty good but underwhelming. A lot of the movies are a disjointed mish-mash of good to great concepts and ideas that just aren't coalescing due to the fact that he's shooting too soon and not re-working the scripts to their fullest potential.

Private Ryan was the last time he dazzled but I agree with the criticisms that most of the middle was an uninsightful and overly earnest near failure.

I think he's making too many movies, too often, aiming lower, and settling for less than he did 20 years ago. Last Crusade and Schindler's List are the last truly great movies that he's made. And those were far, far too long ago.

comment #26

actionman says ...

Munich is a masterpiece of filmmaking and storytelling. How anyone could think otherwise is mystifying. Minority Report was also pretty fucking awesome. Catch Me If You Can, as someone else said above, was a wonderful movie. War of the Worlds stuck with the original ending (hence the sentimentality) but the sheer spectacle in that film was awe-inspiring at times on the big screen.

I need to see A.I. again; was unimpressed with it on the one viewing I've taken in (in the theaters). I think I expected something different...

Oh, and The Terminal gets a bad rep; it's not great but it's no disaster. It's ALWAYS visually interesting, and for whatever reason, I have always liked the storylines in that flick.

This Harvey remake is POINTLESS, however. Just pointless. As is the proposed remake of Oldboy.

comment #27

Filthy Rich says ...

And I agree with Markj: Raiders of the Lost Ark is an incredibly well crafted, sophisticated, endlessly inventive and fresh action/adventure film that like, a great bottle of red, just keeps getting better with age.

It is a timeless, witty, perfect gem of a film with its confident restraint and mastertful tone. Its humour, character, economy and creativity are still awe-inspiring today. I was going to list my favourite aspects of the movie would spend the next hour typing and typing non-stop. Better I should just watch it again and shut up.

comment #28

poseidon72 says ...

I agree with alot of what you said. Spielberg was great in the 70's and 80's and some of the 90's but as a fantasy adventure filmmaker he's lost his touch. Even films like Hook had magic too them. His last Indiana Jones film was a massive disappointment. I liked A.I
and some of his other work but its not Spielberg of the 70's and 80's. War of the Worlds had a terrific first half but it falls apart in the second half. That should not happen with a guy who has had his body of great work.

comment #29

Joe Popcorn says ...

Yee-haw! Steven Spielberg? Tom Hanks? A six-foot invisible rabbit?! They've got my ten bucks right there. Hell, I'm going to start queuing for it at my local multiplex right now. And spend the time cussin' out those high-thread, blue-state types going in to see those fancy European movies with all the writin' on 'em.

comment #30

Travis Crabtree says ...

Jesus H. Halliburton I get sick of hipster contrarians punking on "Saving Private Ryan". Same old same old. "The first twenty minutes were good....", "The opening beach assault was good, as was the final battle, but everything between sucked".

Fuck off already. "Saving Private Ryan" is a masterpiece and one of the three or four best films of the decade. I can't believe how many people complain that there's a story involved. Really? So, if the film had been just 2 hours and 40 minutes of wall-to-wall battle scenes then it would've been okay?

The only flaw was, admittedly, the final scene in the cemetery. (the opening was quite appropriate and worth its existence if nothing else than as tribute...also to mark contrast) But ol' Steven hasn't ended any of his films well in years. Even the otherwise flawless "Schindler's List" gets a little wobbly at the end.

Knock der Spieglemeister all you want, but hands off "Saving Private Ryan".

As for "War of the Worlds". I have the DVD. Perhaps there is a reason I've seen the entire film once, but have watched the opening thirty minutes (super loud) about sixteen times.
I still get freaked out when the machines start booting up.

comment #31

Travis Crabtree says ...

Oh.... and so far as topic goes.

Ugh.

I've admittedly never made it through the original "Harvey". Sorry, it just has that dopey, 'fantasy' preciousness thing that feels so contrived and cutesy. I'd have watched it if Robert Mitchum showed up towards the end to beat the shit out of the rabbit, though.

Oh yeah.... and welcome Joe Popcorn! I expect greatness from you in the near future.

comment #32

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Saving Private Ryan is consistently awesome, plus it paved the way for Band of Brothers which is similarly outstanding. SPR and The Thin Red Line alone made 1998 a vintage year.

comment #33

Admiral82 says ...

Anyone else think that Spielberg has lost his balls? I don't want to use the term "mojo", because he still has the chops. I mean like, lack of ambition to take a chance. Remaking Harvey is soooooo safe. Munich, I liked, but people were and still are hating it. I'm not so sure an Oldboy remake is the answer either...

comment #34

Glenn Kenny says ...

Adding to the excitement is the fact that screenwriter Tropper's CV seems to be full of novels about Sensitive White Males and their problems. One of them is entitled "How To Talk To A Widower." Ouch.

comment #35

Admiral82 says ...

I'll take The Thin Red Line anyday over Saving Private Ryan.

comment #36

Floyd Thursby says ...

If he must do it, Hanks is a lazy choice. Take a chance on Rusty Crowe or Daniel Craig or D. D. Lewis.

comment #37

cinefan says ...

You couldn't pay me enough to sit again through the pretentious, "philosophical" BS that was The Thin Red Line.

comment #38

Travis Crabtree says ...

"I'll take The Thin Red Line anyday over Saving Private Ryan."

Yeah. I'm having 1998 flashbacks. That is/was the cool thing to say, huh?

Too bad you probably said that before you even saw "Thin Red Line".

Dumb comparison anyway. Same year. Both take place during WW2. That's about it.

Like feeling compelled to chose a fave between "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters".
"Nah man, you gotta pick ONE!"

comment #39

actionman says ...

"I'll take The Thin Red Line anyday over Saving Private Ryan."

Right on! (not that I wasn't a fan of most of SPR)

comment #40

Sean says ...

Prior to the release of War of the Worlds, I wrote defenses of Spielberg's previous five endings, starting with Ryan:

http://www.flakmag.com/film/spielberg/index.html

comment #41

Admiral82 says ...

That's bullshit! I saw The Thin Red Line seven times in the theatre. I saw Saving Private Ryan well before I'd even heard any buzz about Thin Red Line. It's hands down a deeper, more meaningful motion picture. I take exception to anyone that questions this. *Cough* Crabtree *Cough*

Anyone that calls "The Thin Red Line" pretentious is unable to appreciate it.

comment #42

Admiral82 says ...

I'll beat this drum all god damned day.

comment #43

SnarfTheFierce says ...

Seriously, is actionman the only person who's going to laud the brilliance that is Minority Report? The finale, for some, is up for debate--as is the case with many Spielberg films--but that movie is a stone masterpiece. Up there with Raiders and Jaws for pure popcorn delectability.

comment #44

Admiral82 says ...

Minority Report was pretty much stellar. Special effects, story, acting, cinematography, editing, etc. they were all top tier.

comment #45

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Minority Report was awesome. A great film noir in many ways, even down to the madcap characters he meets along the way like Peter Stormare's demented doctor.

Even The Lost World is better than 90% of modern blockbusters. If they cut out Jeff Goldblum's gymnast daughter it'd be even better.

comment #46

Travis Crabtree says ...

"Seriously, is actionman the only person who's going to laud the brilliance that is Minority Report?"

"Minority Report" is a good film.

Problem is, actionman pretty much lauds the brilliance of every film he's ever seen.

comment #47

Travis Crabtree says ...

I liked "Thin Red Line" very much.

I just have always been bugged by forced comparisons.

"Do you like dogs or cats? Pick one! You can't like both!"

"Pvt. Ryan" and "Thin Red Line" are completely different films. It's like comparing "Gone With the Wind" with "The Ten Commandments" because they're both long, in color and take place in "olden times".

comment #48

Admiral82 says ...

They both are completely different, you are absolutely correct Travis. They're synonymous because they came out in the same year. I loathe the comparison, but everytime Saving Private Ryan comes up in convo the Terrence Malick film is usually brought up.

Unfair comparisons are all over this horrendous polluted Earth we inhabit.

comment #49

the sordid sentinel says ...

Minority Report and A.I. are very good sci-fi IMO. I wish Spielberg would have resisted the silliness urge with the run away eye balls and overlong jet pack chase in Minority Report. It just doesn't fit with the overall dark tone of that film. And the insufferable brat the awoke from the coma in A.I...oh boy. Still, both get many viewings from this sci-fi junkie.

comment #50

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"War of the Worlds was totally ruined by the sentimental ending -- it's all anybody thinks of when they think back to it (which happens rarely). Munich gets worse with each passing year. I popped it into the DVD player a couple of years ago and it wasn't painful, but mainly it just droned on from scene to scene. It was wildly over-praised in certain quarters when it first came out. A.I. was pure Haley Joel Osment agony -- bamboo chutes under the fingernails. Catch Me If You Can was labored and tonally hard to decipher and way, way too long."

The large majority of the output of nearly the last decade of The Beard dismissed in one tidy paragraph. Somehow I don't think he's losing any sleep over this...

I actually think Spielberg's become a much more interesting filmmaker as he has gotten older. Seems more curious about life, more interested in delving into dark themes, more willing to step into unfamiliar genres and plots (never expected to see a movie like Munich out of him), and not just content to deliver his trademark one-two punch of adventure & sentimentality anymore.

Regardless of your opinion of his recent films (I don't love all of them, myself), I would think you would at least be a little kinder to his efforts to grow and mature as a filmmaker. At his age and level of success, it would be soooo easy to coast -- and so many in his position have (and still are!). I think maybe he deserves at least a little more respect, eh?

comment #51

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Having said all that, I have to agree that this Harvey '10 sounds pretty ill-conceived, and a bit of a time-waster, frankly. Why is he interested in remaking this film, and who exactly is the intended audience?

Not automatically saying it's going to be lame, but there are already a lot of question marks here.

comment #52

Gordon27 says ...

"I can't believe how many people complain that there's a story involved."

Nobody is complaining that there's a story involved, the problem is that the story is never developed beyond the one sentence pitch, and all of the characters were cliched in the '60's "guys on a mission" movies, but they're moved into a highbrow "serious" war movie and suddenly nobody can call the writers out on it.

comment #53

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"MUNICH is a filmed play. I can sit through a play and even enjoy it, but I can't sit through a filmed play."

Please explain how a movie that includes the scene with the (begin minor SPOILER)

bomb in the phone

(end minor SPOILER)

is a "filmed play." Bullshit, that scene uses the exclusive language of cinema to a fucking t. Hitchcock would have applauded that entire sequence.

comment #54

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

bluefugue -- love your well-written & passionate comments in this thread. #18 in particular is a gem. That's really high praise for RotLA, but it's definitely earned.

Love the entire Indy series (well, let's not even get into #4...), but totally agreed that the first one is the absolute, stone cold classic.

comment #55

KC says ...

Catch Me If You Can is a stone-cold TBS classic, can't knock that particular hustle. And I'm not quite at Armond levels w/r/t Munich, but I come close.

comment #56

Terry McCarty says ...

Floyd Thursby wrote:
If he must do it, Hanks is a lazy choice. Take a chance on Rusty Crowe or Daniel Craig or D. D. Lewis.

MOVIELINE read your mind, sort of:
http://www.movieline.com/2009/08/is-there-any-actor-who-could-make-spielbergs-harvey-remake-interesting.php

comment #57

Terry McCarty says ...

Glenn Kenny wrote:
Adding to the excitement is the fact that screenwriter Tropper's CV seems to be full of novels about Sensitive White Males and their problems. One of them is entitled "How To Talk To A Widower." Ouch.

Why do I get the feeling that the above novel will eventually be filmed with either Ryan Reynolds or Bradley Cooper?

comment #58

KC says ...

Haha, Bradley Cooper. The only respite from feeling embarrassed for Sandra Bullock in that shitty trailer for her new romcom that plays before Funny People is lol'ing at the fact that she sees him for the first time and her reaction is "HE'S DEFINITELY NOT GAY!!!!" Existence is justified by the bits in The Hangover where he's wearing the black suit, though.

comment #59

Terry McCarty says ...

Noticing that no one's mentioned ALWAYS when discussing the topic of Spielberg remaking HARVEY.

comment #60

dkirk78 says ...

Seems appropriate:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GFhccl9cwg

comment #61

nakedmanatee says ...

Bob Zemeckis should direct Harvey.

comment #62

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Harvey sounds a bit like Lars and the Real Girl.

comment #63

bmcintire says ...

"Anyone that calls _____________ pretentious is unable to appreciate it" = Hilariously Thin Ice.

comment #64

bluefugue says ...

>Just look at the confidence in the filmmaking, in particular the minecar light gradually revealing Indiana Jones standing waiting to punch out the guard - genius filmmaking.

Also the way Spielberg stages the exposition-dump about the village's decline when the stone was taken away, with Indy translating over the villager's description, culminating in the line "they took their children." Everything about that scene works perfectly together to create a sense of sinister dread. "Let's go find a magic rock" is hardly an auspicious quest for Indy to embark on -- particularly after Raiders -- but that scene sells it.

Spielberg's technique, when it's on, is so muscular, so fluid, so innately cinematic -- his command of blocking is probably the best since Kurosawa, and he has a flawless instinct for how screen displacement (the size and speed of objects moving across the frame) can work on our nerves. Nobody but nobody can move bodies around the frame, in harmony with camera movement, to direct the viewer's eye and intention and impose mass and weight on the dramatic spine of a scene, as Spielberg can. (Verhoeven occasionally comes close -- some of his work in Robocop is as good as Spielberg, including the extended reveal of the Robocop character in the police precinct, and the magnificent long take entering the conference room before the ED-209 shooting.) Spielberg's a director's director, a born visual storyteller. Even in his lesser films like Amistad you'll invariably find shots that take your breath away because they are so right for the dramatic beat he's creating. His stuff FEELS like a movie, and makes so many other directors feel like television (or like a music video) by comparison; but you really have to break down the technique to understand why it has this quality. Michael Curtiz had some of the same ability, which is part of why Casablanca is such a relentlessly watchable movie (and in a totally Hollywood-storytelling sense, not an artier style a la Citizen Kane), but Spielberg takes it further.

comment #65

bluefugue says ...

>to direct the viewer's eye and intention

Eye and *attention*, I meant to say.

comment #66

MrTribeca says ...

I'll be interested to see if Spielberg does cop out and show Harvey onscreen - he held off showing the shark for 90% of Jaws.
I think Spielberg's in some career doldrums - he's made blockbusters and Oscar winners. What next? The Kubrickless reboot of AI and the motion capture toys of Tintin are probably what's interested him most In the last decade or so. I'm with Jeff - he should get out of his comfort zone and get stuck into making Lincoln.

comment #67

bluefugue says ...

I'd be interested to see Lincoln, mainly because that period of history fascinates me. But biopics are seldom altogether fascinating and I'd expect the result would be another one of Spielberg's serious-and-interesting-but-still-flawed efforts. Which isn't to say he shouldn't make it... I just doubt it'd mark a career resurgence. Be happy to be proven wrong, natch.

comment #68

markj says ...

Great post bluefugue, you're dead on about Spielberg's visual instincts and the exposition scene in Doom you mention is one of the most economical ever. Time to dig out the DVD again!

comment #69

DeeZee says ...

"And all the while Tony Kushner's Lincoln -- the biopic that Spielberg has delayed and dilly-dalllied with for years, the big creative-challenge project of his autumnal years that obviously terrifies him down to his cracked toenails -- continues to wither on the vine as poor Liam Neeson, who's dying to play Lincoln before he gets too old, waits and frets."

Cheer up, Jeff. Maybe when he gets around to it, it'll include a sequence where an ice-box protects Abe from a cannon ball.

"hit nothing but home runs from '74's Duel to '82's E.T.,"

Duel's from '71. But that just makes it worse. ^_-

"and who showed flashes of the old vigor three more times with '89's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the afore-mentioned Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan)"

I like how you omitted Color Purple.

As for WOTW, it also sucks, because Tom Cruise was in prime asshole form, at the time, and it shows in his acting. Oh, and Dakota Fanning certainly doesn't help as the white girl answer to Shortround.

Oh, well, it seems he hasn't learned from his mistakes the last time DW went under...

mark: I just dug Last Crusade, because it didn't have Capshaw in it. And on the contrary. I'd have liked if Skull was actually about aliens, and not poor social commentary about 1950s Americana.

Kar: Haven't seen Ryan myself, but anything's got to be better than Shakespeare in Love.

fugue: Tintin's gonna be another Casper and/or Scooby Doo, at best, guaranteed. And that's if Spielberg's on a roll. If not, we'll be stuck with another Garfield.

Travis: Yeah, I wasn't fond of the original Harvey, either, but Stewart still owns the movie, as he should.

Admiral: I'd take the Thin Red Line, too, if it wasn't a poor man's Glory.

Snarf: I'd like Minority Report, if it wasn't just The Fugitive Meets Blade Runner, and it explored the actual concepts behind the story a bit more.

comment #70

markj says ...

DeeZee: Yeah, that Malick guy could sure learn a trick or two from Ed Zwick.

comment #71

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

^So much stupidity it makes my head DeeZee.

comment #72

bluefugue says ...

>Tintin's gonna be another Casper and/or Scooby Doo, at best, guaranteed. And that's if Spielberg's on a roll. If not, we'll be stuck with another Garfield.

Have you ever actually read a Tintin book? The source comic has absolutely nothing in common with the others you listed. It's more of a pulp adventure in the vein of Arthur Conan Doyle or Edgar Rice Burroughs.

comment #73

bluefugue says ...

>But biopics are seldom altogether fascinating

Seldom altogether successful, I meant to say. Really need to proof-read these before I hit Post...

comment #74

KC says ...

I would be really geeked for Tintin but ugh, mo-cap

comment #75

DeeZee says ...

blue: Then it's going to be as bad as the Downey Holmes.

comment #76

Steven Kar says ...

I did a very geeky thing today...er...because I had some free time...

All this talk about Spiely's movies made me want to calculate how much his movies grossed after adjusting to inflation.

I found that his 24 movies grossed $7,071.3 billion in the US, which means that his average B.O. is $295 million.

Yes, it's like he directed 24 movies with each one grossing close to $300 million domestically. Nobody else comes close.

(I know, I know, I'm a geek.)

comment #77

COCO says ...

Hey Steve....call Ms. Foster.....get the script.....budget? $95 Million plus digital inserts......
film in Germany....Hitler's favorite film maker....
release date?......Fall 2012....it can happen.

comment #78

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

average DOMESTIC B.O. is $295 million? Just offhand, but that doesn't sound quite right...not saying you're wrong, tho'!

comment #79

Steven Kar says ...

Citizen,

I was shocked as well, but if you go to the AMPAS website (and many others), they have a record of the average cost of a movie ticket in the N. America for every year, going back to the 20s.

That's what I used to calculate Spielberg's adjusted gross to find out how much his movies would've made today (this year) based on attendance.

Of course it's not an exact science, but at least it gives you an idea of how big his movies were when they came out.

I'm also sure about the calculations.

For example:

JAWS made $260 million in 1975 when the average price of a movie ticket in America was worth $2.05.

Take 260 million, divide it by 2.05 then multiply the result by 7.18 (which is the average cost of a movie ticket in 2009) and the result will be $910.6 million.

So it's like JAWS back then made $910.6 million in today's money.

So this one movie should give you an idea of why Spiely's average gross is so high.

comment #80

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Ohhh, adjusted grosses...gotcha. Thanks for the explanation there. Yes, he's had quite an impressive run, no doubt.

comment #81

Cadavra says ...

"Harvey sounds a bit like Lars and the Real Girl."

Other way around. And LARS is EXACTLY like HARVEY, right down to the sister who wants him committed.

And for the record, Stewart did do the play on Broadway late in its run, but the role was originated by Frank Fay.

comment #82

TATE K. says ...

Saving Private Ryan is Spielberg's most overrated film. Munich is much better. One of the best movies of the last ten years, in fact.

comment #83

markj says ...

Thanks for the info Steven Kar. This is what riles me up when people say that stuff like Star Trek (2009) is as big as Jaws, Star Wars etc. Those 70s films played on a fraction of the screens available today. The fact they made so much money (especially when you look at the adjusted for inflation figures) really goes to show what massive cultural events they were. The only movie in the past 15 years to have that sort of cultural effect is Titanic.

comment #84

bluefugue says ...

>blue: Then it's going to be as bad as the Downey Holmes.

Except, of course, Guy Ritchie is Guy Ritchie, and Spielberg is Spielberg. When the source material is good Spielberg usually gets it done right, so it comes down to how well the Tintin comics have been adapted to screenplay form.

comment #85

DeeZee says ...

bluefue: Yes, and Spielberg slapped his name on Transformers and Casper.

comment #86

MeanSheets says ...

Check out the new Harvey poster!

comment #87

free online games says ...

Surely, the article is totally the finest on this noteworthy theme. I partially agree with your conclusions and will excitedly look forward to your next up-dates. Saying tnx is not going to just be adequate, for the fantastic lucidity in your article. I will immediately look for your rss feeds to keep well informed of any updates. Solid work and much success in your business endeavors! Cheers, ...

comment #88

dd says ...

Spielberg has done some interesting work since then though. I personally find A.I. Artificial Intelligence and Catch Me If You Can to be wonderful films. And despite some huge flaws Munich is pretty great too.

Designer Handbags

comment #89

istanbul says ...

sikismek isteyen kizlar istanbulda nerde bulunur bilinmez porno izlemek icin porno izle tikla sende gel turkce porno izle guzel sikis icin lolita porno