Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am Posts: 2465 Location: A dark place
A Mary Todd movie would actually be far more interesting. The shit that woman lived through... the death of her husband, then all but one of her kids. Then, I believe, her only remaining son had her committed to a mental hospital.
At one point she was nearly homeless. She got no money from Abe being killed. Nothing. All the civil war widows got money, but not Mary. She had to beg senators to got to bat for her, then she finally got a little pension.
_________________ Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm Posts: 11320 Location: Brooklyn Gender: Male
I Hail Randy Moss wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
Listen, frankly, Speilberg doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt. Zero. He hasn't made a worthwhile movie since the 90s.
Um, I'm sorry, d,t, but Catch Me If You Can is one of the more underappreciated movies of of the last 10 years and Munich was fantastic. I fricken love Munich.
Admittedly, I haven't seen Munich. So I can't comment on that. But Catch Me If You Can is fine. I don't think it's underrated or under appreciated. Listen, I haven't even seen Schindler's List, and that's the one I was referring to in my post. I'm guessing that's the last good movie he made. The last goo movie he made, that I saw and gave a shit about, was probably Last Crusade.
Honestly... I'll just say it... Speilberg is probably the single most overrated director in Hollywood's history. Some of his movies are fun. But mostly, I think he's overly manipulative and sappy. He goes for money shots over real substance. His movies are by the numbers and rarely worth more than a single viewing. Obviously, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure most people will disagree), but the guy bores the shit out of me. He's obvious, one dimensional, and manipulative. He's a very mediocre film maker, on the balance.
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am Posts: 23078 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Gender: Male
durdencommatyler wrote:
Honestly... I'll just say it... Speilberg is probably the single most overrated director in Hollywood's history. Some of his movies are fun. But mostly, I think he's overly manipulative and sappy. He goes for money shots over real substance. His movies are by the numbers and rarely worth more than a single viewing. Obviously, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure most people will disagree), but the guy bores the shit out of me. He's obvious, one dimensional, and manipulative. He's a very mediocre film maker, on the balance.
True of about 60% of his output. But when he's on, when he strikes gold, he's capable of some really beautiful moments with very powerful imagery. I think people forget exactly how influential and revolutionary a filmmaker he was once. There's a reason why so many of his movies are so enduring and emblematic, representing the best parts of that old-time wide-eyed Hollywood magic. I wrote a post about his decline here: http://jorgefarah.com/2011/07/23/raider ... t-dignity/
"Munich" and "Catch Me if You Can" were ok.
_________________ For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
theplatypus wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
Honestly... I'll just say it... Speilberg is probably the single most overrated director in Hollywood's history. Some of his movies are fun. But mostly, I think he's overly manipulative and sappy. He goes for money shots over real substance. His movies are by the numbers and rarely worth more than a single viewing. Obviously, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure most people will disagree), but the guy bores the shit out of me. He's obvious, one dimensional, and manipulative. He's a very mediocre film maker, on the balance.
True of about 60% of his output. But when he's on, when he strikes gold, he's capable of some really beautiful moments with very powerful imagery. I think people forget exactly how influential and revolutionary a filmmaker he was once. There's a reason why so many of his movies are so enduring and emblematic, representing the best parts of that old-time wide-eyed Hollywood magic. I wrote a post about his decline here: http://jorgefarah.com/2011/07/23/raider ... t-dignity/
"Munich" and "Catch Me if You Can" were ok.
Yeah, I kinda think that "by the numbers" critique of Spielberg doesn't give him enough credit for being the one, in a lot of cases, that laid those numbers, that framework, out.
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am Posts: 23078 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Gender: Male
Skitch Patterson wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
Honestly... I'll just say it... Speilberg is probably the single most overrated director in Hollywood's history. Some of his movies are fun. But mostly, I think he's overly manipulative and sappy. He goes for money shots over real substance. His movies are by the numbers and rarely worth more than a single viewing. Obviously, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure most people will disagree), but the guy bores the shit out of me. He's obvious, one dimensional, and manipulative. He's a very mediocre film maker, on the balance.
True of about 60% of his output. But when he's on, when he strikes gold, he's capable of some really beautiful moments with very powerful imagery. I think people forget exactly how influential and revolutionary a filmmaker he was once. There's a reason why so many of his movies are so enduring and emblematic, representing the best parts of that old-time wide-eyed Hollywood magic. I wrote a post about his decline here: http://jorgefarah.com/2011/07/23/raider ... t-dignity/
"Munich" and "Catch Me if You Can" were ok.
Yeah, I kinda think that "by the numbers" critique of Spielberg doesn't give him enough credit for being the one, in a lot of cases, that laid those numbers, that framework, out.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:42 am Posts: 11014 Location: Mizzou Gender: Male
I Hail Randy Moss wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
Listen, frankly, Speilberg doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt. Zero. He hasn't made a worthwhile movie since the 90s.
Um, I'm sorry, d,t, but Catch Me If You Can is one of the more underappreciated movies of of the last 10 years and Munich was fantastic. I fricken love Munich.
Catch Me if You Can is a great TV movie. One of those movies you can start watching at any point and enjoy every couple of months when nothing else is on.
_________________ "Red rover, red rover, let Mike McCready take over."
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:55 pm Posts: 11320 Location: Brooklyn Gender: Male
Skitch Patterson wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
Honestly... I'll just say it... Speilberg is probably the single most overrated director in Hollywood's history. Some of his movies are fun. But mostly, I think he's overly manipulative and sappy. He goes for money shots over real substance. His movies are by the numbers and rarely worth more than a single viewing. Obviously, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure most people will disagree), but the guy bores the shit out of me. He's obvious, one dimensional, and manipulative. He's a very mediocre film maker, on the balance.
True of about 60% of his output. But when he's on, when he strikes gold, he's capable of some really beautiful moments with very powerful imagery. I think people forget exactly how influential and revolutionary a filmmaker he was once. There's a reason why so many of his movies are so enduring and emblematic, representing the best parts of that old-time wide-eyed Hollywood magic. I wrote a post about his decline here: http://jorgefarah.com/2011/07/23/raider ... t-dignity/
"Munich" and "Catch Me if You Can" were ok.
Yeah, I kinda think that "by the numbers" critique of Spielberg doesn't give him enough credit for being the one, in a lot of cases, that laid those numbers, that framework, out.
I guess. But where? Where does he lay those numbers out?
I think Jorge's right to the extend that he is enduring and emblematic. But, I think, my argument, or at least my thinking at this point in my life, is... so? There are plenty of things in life and art that last but aren't good. And I'm not sure emblematic is a compliment. That might be one of my biggest issues with Speilberg's film making, actually.
Of course I love some of his earlier work. But I can't think of a Spielberg movie that I love for it's craft, or it's risk, or it's characters more than for it's BIG IMAGES, or it's familiarity, or it's nostalgia or it's plot. E.T. might be the one exception, but again, I saw that for the first time when I was four. How much of what I love about E.T. is nostalgia and how much is merit?
I'm an asshole and long winded. The guy is obviously an icon. What the fuck have I ever done? It's stupid. And the bottom line is, whatever his history, I'm really stoked for this Lincoln thing.
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:51 am Posts: 43609 Location: My city smells like Cheerios Gender: Male
theplatypus wrote:
Skitch Patterson wrote:
theplatypus wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
Honestly... I'll just say it... Speilberg is probably the single most overrated director in Hollywood's history. Some of his movies are fun. But mostly, I think he's overly manipulative and sappy. He goes for money shots over real substance. His movies are by the numbers and rarely worth more than a single viewing. Obviously, this is just my opinion (and I'm sure most people will disagree), but the guy bores the shit out of me. He's obvious, one dimensional, and manipulative. He's a very mediocre film maker, on the balance.
True of about 60% of his output. But when he's on, when he strikes gold, he's capable of some really beautiful moments with very powerful imagery. I think people forget exactly how influential and revolutionary a filmmaker he was once. There's a reason why so many of his movies are so enduring and emblematic, representing the best parts of that old-time wide-eyed Hollywood magic. I wrote a post about his decline here: http://jorgefarah.com/2011/07/23/raider ... t-dignity/
"Munich" and "Catch Me if You Can" were ok.
Yeah, I kinda think that "by the numbers" critique of Spielberg doesn't give him enough credit for being the one, in a lot of cases, that laid those numbers, that framework, out.
Remember when trailers merely appeared on TV screens and in front of movies at the theater? Those days are long gone. Now trailers get premieres of their own. It should thus come as no surprise that the trailer for Steven Spielberg's hotly-anticipated "Lincoln" will debut at an epic scale, being live-broadcast in Times Square through Google+ Hangout on September 13 at 4pm PT. Spielberg and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who plays Robert Todd Lincoln across from Daniel Day Lewis' Abraham Lincoln) will also have a live conversation as part of the event. Want to participate and ask them questions? Submit a short video on your YouTube channel with the #LincolnHangout tag and explain who you are, why you are interested in the film and what your question is.
And the dialogue had to sound like the opening line of an 8th grade history paper. Oh well.
yeap, pretty much what i said...long shot of the war, our hero lincoln watching the crazyness, he is ready to be a hero for our world. of course the flag is going to be there somewhere right? it has to be!!
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am Posts: 2465 Location: A dark place
I Hail Randy Moss wrote:
Um...pretty underwhelming. Like someone elsewhere stated, Spielberg really War Horsed this. Looks too Hollywood.
As much as I don't like Spielberg, I was really hoping this was going to be decent. So much for that. Still, maybe it will be one of those where the performance outshines the movie itself. Daniel Day Lewis could make a Burger King commercial seem amazing.
_________________ Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
