I never really watched your content a lot when I was younger, but I think as a young girl, just coming across your channel every once in a while made me happy. It was nice to see another woman who really cared about film. Anyway, years later I've found your channel again and I've subscribed! Love your videos and how your setup has barely changed at all lol
David Bowie was a great actor. Obviously, it was a side project for him, but he brought such a strong charisma and presence to every role that elevates the films he appeared in. He is unrecognizable in The Prestige as Tesla and The Last Temptation of Christ as Pontius Pilate. He’s even great in a strange little movie called The Hunger where he plays a dying vampire.
David Bowie did not have a great reputation as an actor at the time. However, I did not recognise him as Pontius Pilate, and I thought the actor was really good. He was good in The Man Who Fell To Earth.
For me, Spielberg's great fault is that he doesn't trust his audience. He never just puts the story in front of you and let's the material work on you in an organic way. He's always got to overdo it, there's always a false note, a closeup held a bit too long, a speech that's a bit too on the nose, a misjudged musical cue. It's like he's always got to wring that last bit of emotion out of you, and the result always crosses over the line into feeling manipulative.
Condescending and manipulative are good ways of putting a lot of his movies from Schindler's List onward, I think (there are some of his earlier movjes I haven't seen, so he might have been guilty of this earlier).
I totally disagree about Schindler's List. I saw it again when it was re-released a couple of years ago, and it's still powerful. His best film, really.
@@curiositytax9360 Not liking a movie and declaring it one of the worst ever are two different things. Anyone who declares Schindler's List one of the worst films ever is being ridiculous. On a technical level it is incorrect.
I saw “Crash” on release and thought it was terrible. I couldn’t get that it won the Oscar. I think it’s viewed now as one of the worst choices for “best picture”.
Schindler's list teaches us that even if you don't have the power to go and kill Hitler and change a society, you can at least go for meaningful victories and resist.
Yes they do, like everything does. A big percentage become obsolete and senseless, completely ridiculous and pointless, others just endure because their level of importance or quality content gives them the power to go across all eras like moving beacons for humanity. Also known as masterpieces, also known as mainstream cheesy dumb popcorn bullshit for the mind controlled sheep especially in the US.
There's a lot of great moments in Hook. I love the baseball scene, Peter finding his happy place, Dustin Hoffman telling Peter he will wake up the same dead beat dad he was as his hook hand grinds and sparks... I could go on. The artifice doesnt bother me cause it almost seems intentional.
I can agree with certain criticisms around the ‘Hollywood’ feel of Schindler’s List, but once the argument starts to flirt with “Spielberg should have made a different Holocaust film”, I can’t agree. He’s well aware of the horror of the Holocaust, but elected to use a tiny slice of that monstrous era of history to find the way ‘humanity’ survived amidst the suffering. Sure, you could just adapt ‘Night’ into a film and show us as harrowing a depiction of the camps as possible, but I don’t think that’s any more valid than crafting an elegy for the victims and survivors in the way Spielberg did with Schindler’s List.
Not sure why Misson impossible franchise made it into this discussion as I thought fallout was a great modern action film that for its genre, it offers great acting, set pieces, decent plot and of course action and delivered with heart and passion! These films have grown in quality and I'm really looking forward to Dead Reckoning 1 and 2! I'm also a fan of the Craig era Bond films ie. Casino Royal, Skyfall and No time to die. These six films make for two great trilogies on physical media in the modern action genre along with a variety of classic films and genres ie. musicals, westerns, horror, film noir and sci-fi modern and classics! Anyway, great channel and content, always enjoyable!!!
Most of the mission impossibles are very dated and feel very much like the decade they were made, goofy crashes, silly slo-mo etc. Fallout is modern and refined
@@Brantlins I find that the Bourne movies haven't aged very well either. They seem super silly nowadays, with the clichéd amnesia plot really seeming stupid especially. The only part that seems to hold up is the car chases. Oh and the shaky cam is still as annoying as it ever was.
@@mypersonalopinionhat’s nice and all but what she’s saying in the video is due to her frustrations with spielbergs transition from more daring and expressionistic films he used to make to these ones that are very tropey and oscar baity. i like schindlers list but i agree w her, it’s very hollywood and full of tropey scenes that felt really odd. like adding suspense to whether showers are gasoline or water. or the nail scene. the topic of the holocaust isn’t the problem, the pathos and every detail in its filmmaking can appear really gimmicky and very safe for a period that was horrifying.
Maggie, just wanted to say that I really appreciate your time and effort with these videos. You've basically become my only go-to TH-cam movie reviewer. Even though I disagree with your take every now and then, like the "Mission: Impossible" franchise and Hans Zimmer's music haha.
Yeah I guess Maggie is OK, but she's got some wack puke takes sometimes. Like when she said she wasn't buying "the whale" movie. She said it wasn't convincing enough. I was like WTF maggie that is some real gobshite if you ask me. But she alright sometimes.
Agree, I definitely love Red Letter Media, Brad Jones, and even much of Critical Drinker’s content but this channel is far more cerebral and refreshing
No way not to respect your take on Schindler's List... but, man, did we see different films in that one, and I think it is one of his four or five best to this day. Vital, beautifully structured, immediate in how it presents the terror, pain, and joy of its subject. it brings us in beautifully paced steps from the outskirts of this time right up to being face-to-face with the places of death, and then lets us back out, as it must. But it leaves a strong mark. I saw it three consecutive weekends when it was released in 1993, and was absorbed each time. I was equally absorbed watching it on blu-ray three months ago. To each their own, I suppose. But one thing I can never agree Schindler's List is is at a remove. It puts the banal evil right in your lap. On the subject of films I liked a lot more as a kid: The Cat from outer Space :)
@@TheCompositeKing you can say that about any commercial film based on a real life calamity. SL is a literate, intelligent, brilliantly crafted narrative film. Is it flawless? No. Is it great American filmmaking? Yes.
Hating Schindler's List has become the trend for whatever reason, I wouldn't put it on the same level as The Godfather 2 or Jaws but I still think it's a really good movie.
Call me a simple man, bit I have seen it twice and both times it made me cry so in my view it is perfectly good movie. The only critic I have ever heard that makes a lick of s sense was Kubrick's who was working on his own film that he abounded after he found out his friend was working on one. He said that the Holocaust was about losing while Schindler's List about winning.
I recently watched Poltergeist with my daughter and i hadnt seen it since I was a kid. I was fully expecting it to not hold up but I was happy to be wrong about it. I had a new appreciation for Jobeth Williams after it was over.
I felt that way about that movie upon its release. It’s so over the top it’s comical. Even Monique is ridiculous over the top. She’s good at the quieter scenes like the final scene, but the constant screaming, the arm flailing like a tube man and even tossing a fucking TV at her daughter just became hilarious by the end.
David here from Sebring Florida, I been a movie buff for over fifty years and I don’t think you understood the movie Hook 🪝. I just watched it again in 2023 and I thought it was very good movie! Not perfect but very good! I thought it was very well done. I will say that there was what I would call a lot of filler in it, do you know what I mean? There was some very old bits in it, as old as movies are, like the food fight. It all most felt like it was for adults not kids, so many grown up issues. The movie had some great lessons in it. Family should come first! 😊 I had tears in my eyes at the end and I think that’s what Mr Spielberg wanted. I hope you give it another try. See you at the movies 🍿
Spielberg actually hates Hook himself. He's said he'll sometimes rewatch it hoping to find something he likes in it but he never does. That's probably why he throws so much shit at the wall. He likely felt the film getting away from him and is trying to get something to work.
@@spanishprisoner No lies. Search on youtube "Steven Spielberg interviewed by Kermode & Mayo". Try the 10 yr old video with a closeup thumbnail of his face in black and white.
Always hated that term cause it completely discredits films that was the product for there time and is not a fair assessment to have that kind of negative mindset.
I have to respectfully disagree on Schindler’s List. It still delivers that gut wrenching punch 30+ years later, especially the scene with the girl in the red coat; I am sorry, it is nothing but gimmicky and with Williams extraordinary score makes you tear up every single time. Ok if you expect to see artistic take in the vibe levels of Kubrick, Angelopoulos, Tarkovsky or Ozu then you will be severely dissatisfied with the result. Having said that you cannot call it with a serious face “too Hollywood” either. The filmmaking pallet used is so totally different to Hollywood blockbuster style. You can tell by the way Spielberg has completely changed his whole shooting style (no fancy crane shots, zoom ins, dollys, fast edits etc). Kaminsky’s lighting and photography is absolutely masterful and totally different to what Spielberg had done before. As far as Kubrick’s comment on the film, Christiane herself (Kubrick’s wife) has debunked that statement. Kubrick actually loved Schindler’s List (despite the fact he was working on his own Holocaust film) and did talk to Spielberg about it afterwards. That particular argument came from Terry Gillian’s infamous video on the topic of Spielberg being a comforting director and that the end of Schindler’s List traumatic and sad as it was yet Spielberg managed to wrap a hopeful story around it - Schindler’s successful attempt of saving some Jewish people - and therefore wink “hope” to the viewer at the end. And somehow that was a comforting ending. No I am sorry but it wasn’t. I and most of the people I know that came out of that theater were an emotional wreck ‘cause the final taste we got from the movie was not Schindler’s good action but the tragedy and horrors of the Holocaust and what those people went through. That message was far more overpowering and loud than Schindler’s story that was used as a core guidance for what was wrapped around it. So at the end of the day I’d say the message was received with a sledge hammer to the stomach. You don’t have to go completely cynic to drive your point. And that applies to other serious films Spielberg has done. Some have hopeful endings (Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln) other have cynic ones (Munich) but all have a artistic taste (especially Munich) that very few filmmakers can bring to the celluloid. It’s also hard to believe that the blockbuster guy who made JP the same year delivered something so different and has continued to do so on so many other occasions. That alone speaks for Spielberg’s ability as a filmmaker and guts to move outside his comfort zone. Cause as much as I love Kubrick, Bergman or Polanski they wouldn’t be able to pull of JP, Jaws, Close Encounters or Indiana Jones. Does Spielberg always get it right? Of course not, many examples to go by. But Schindler’s List was one of those cases that he absolutely nailed it (Munich and SPR the other two) hence why its place as a timeless classic on the AFI has been rightly solidified and to this day is considered, along with The Pianist, the most truthful and horrific accounts on the topic. PS: Come and See is a great film but not as masterful as they’re trying to make it. I can easily mention 3-4 other war films way better. Das Boot, Stalingrad, AQOTWF, Apocalypse Now, Ran, BOB, SPR, Platoon.
Think your take on Spielberg is dead on. He started his career doing edgy work and making some truly great films ("Sugarland Express," "Jaws," "Close Encounters," "Raiders," "E.T.") but he wasn't winning those Best Director and Best Picture Oscars. When I saw "Schindler's List" I thought moments like the little girl in red were screaming "Give me the Oscar!" and I wasn't surprised it worked for him. I am a child of the 70's and 80's, and Speilberg will always be a hero to me based on so many thrilling moments he provided me growing up at the movies (a couple favorite memories: being at a kiddie matinee for "Jaws" and jumping out of my seat as a theater full of tykes screamed bloody murder when the head rolled out of the boat bottom, only to subside when an older kid yelled for everyone to "Shut up!!," and seeing "Raiders" at a preview screening way up in Northern California, wherein we rarely were given a chance to do this, and no one had a clue about the movie- I thought it was going to be a boring Western and was awestruck). He certainy warrants an ample armfull of Oscars; I just wish the bias against the genres (Adventure, Sci-Fi, Suspense) he so wonderfully toiled in early on hadn't prevented him from winning Academy Awards for his greatest works.
@@homerjs225 I enjoyed it when it came out (haven't seen it since, but it would be worth another look), but also thought it was more Oscar-baity than the previous Speilberg output and was annoyed that "Oh sure, now they're talking Academy Awards, with him directing a serious drama" when I thought he should have had several in the bag by that point for superior films.
Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s list are GREAT historical referenced movies. Get with it girlfriend. Keeping history alive is important.
I disagree about Schindler’s List. It’s an incredible film. However, I agree Spielberg hasn’t made anything interesting in a long time. And he plays things way too safe. Maybe the last movie of his I appreciated was Munich. And that’s almost 20 years ago!!
I'm experiencing the opposite effect on certain movies I saw as a young guy and was "meh" about but years later love and consider great films i.e. An Unmarried Woman, Straight Time, True Confessions (weirdly, 2 & 3 same director, Ulu Grosbard). That said thanks for this video. Would love to hear the reversals from - to + someday.
So, really...the title should be: "Movies that I once thought were great or at least good...don't have the same effect on me today because I'M DIFFERENT and my tastes have changed along with how I see things!" It's not that the films themselves "didn't age well!" We revisit things as we're older and perhaps, have different perspectives at an older age and/or our tastes change, political views..etc, etc, evolve....we're not "as impressionable!" Breakfast Club - I was a freshman in high school when that came out and I saw it. So guess what....at THAT time...seeing THAT film...those characters....it hit me TOTALLY different than it does when I watch it .....these days!
Oh, and so basically, 'Crash' did it's job when you were 15! ?? So how doesn't it "hold up?" It didn't need to be...written on some deeper level. It did exactly what it was suppose to do and was accessible for most watching it. Regarding the MI franchise - Ummm...it's Mission Impossible, it's not an indie, foreign film / tear jerker, art film. lol. Part of understanding film....is understanding what a film is meant to do and...what it is. And for the record - the first MI directed by De Palma was great. (for what it is!) The later films (the last 3 or so) have been damn good as well mostly due to the collaboration with Christopher MacQuarrie.
Here's one. American Beauty. Every point was too on the nose. When there is a take on suburbia and its seemingly normal perfect children, home and spouses it was clear it was going to be revealed they are different quite different beneath surface level in the movie. I saw it again not too long ago and was asking myself "Why is this such a basic bitch movie with not very much commentary other than the blaring obvious things that aren't so unique.
Braveheart. The fact that the majority of it is completely made up takes away a lot of the gravitas of the movie. Was once a top 10 in my list but now its a tough watch.
I think it would be interesting to start a convo about Films You Couldn’t Make Now. Blue Velvet Clockwork Orange Never On Sunday Five Easy Pieces are a few that come to mind..
I am not trying to sound mean. I just feel like this video is like those kids with the fake bubblegum cigars trying to sound sophisticated. Man, just enjoy the films. Not everything has to be Oscar material or “Preachytainment”. Hook was fun. It had Robin Williams. Labyrinth was weird, and Bowie’s music is connected to the weirdness of the film. I’ll take Goonies or Dark Crystal anytime over a lot of the noise produced today. And Schindler’s List told a story no one else really knew at the time. Who knows where this is all going. With AI taking over, Disney imploding, and Hollywood drowning in its own confusion, I am just hoping the next Ghostbusters makes it out of strike hell. And now everything is just a remake or a reboot or a resomething. Wait until your next film was written by ChatGPT, Midjourney, Deep Fakes, and Dall-E. As an OCD sufferer who has been in tech for over 3 decades, we might be grateful for those old movies. At least they weren’t simply a video data file a server puked out that was completely created through automation and was entirely constructed through trend metrics that Google data mined. *shrug*
Just to add perspective, I am in tech. We always seem to sound like bubblegum smoking, sophisticants…. Thats why we are littered with acronyms everywhere.
Hook is not Spielberg's worst that has to be 1941. Crash's Best Picture is perfectly easy to understand. It is all about Los Angeles where nearly all the Academy voters live. No mystery. Mission Impossible's last several film are the New Bond films for our present time doing what Bond did in the 60s and 70s. Bond franchise has forgotten how to be entertaining and nearly all of Daniel Craig's films have been duds or unBond like with the exception of Casino Royale.
What Hollywood film before Schindler's List had that look and feel? It sounds like you just don't like Classical Hollywood technique. The objective quality of his films is no less valid than the "immersive" (and tedious and simple minded) approach of "Come and See". People don't go to see his latter films because films aimed at adults do not draw audiences to theaters anymore. He should be praised for not chasing the Marvel zeitgeist. Since you talk about SL so often you should finally just screen it again and really review it with an open mind,
Disagree with Schneider's list. Being "too Hollywood" is what makes it good years later. I just finished watching come and see because of this video and that movie is the one that didn't age well. It's pretty much unwatchable.
Y'know, I don't see Spielberg's historical movies that way. These aren't Brit/Mirimax productions, they've moved from subject to subject and created movies about subjects in history and science which always flummox everybody else who tries. Virtually the whole movie world agrees that moviemakers need to engage more with the world, so here's the world's #1 director of escapist fare putting the world in touch with issues that matter, and a lot of people resent him for it. His historical movies aren't 'issue movies' like Aaron Sorkin's or Stanley Kramer's. The historical movies just get us inside the heads of the people to whom all these issues matter most. Put them together, they form a kind of primer on what it means to be American in our era, and I think there's very serious value in that.
The fact alone that the most successful popcorn/blockbuster director will go out of his comfort zone to take on subjects such as the Holocaust, D-Day, 70s terrorism in Europe, American Civil War politics etc and tackle them with such a fine artistic panache and maturity is a remarkable feat in itself. Is he Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Goddard or Fellini? Of course not, those are artists of the highest calibre and form in their cerebral/artistic aspect of filmmaking. And I am sure even Spielberg himself would admit he is nowhere near their vicinity. But hell if he didn’t do a remarkable job with Schindler’s List, Munich, SPR, Empire Of The Sun. His artistry and transformation of another side of himself showed vividly in these projects and dare I say touched artistic elements taken from directors such as the ones I mentioned and executed extremely well. Now let’s see Goddard, Coppola, Polanski, Tarkovsky etc pull of Jaws or Close Encounters, Indiana Jones or Jurassic Park? Tarkovsky tried to put out his own version of 2001 (after Kubrick’s masterpiece) and failed IMHO. Solaris is awful and dull, especially the 1st half. And that comes from someone who adores Stalker, Mirror, Andrei Rublev and Ivan’s Childhood.
LOL, I agree with you, the first two movies are easily the weakest and this is one of the few franchises that got better later on. Also, most Bond movies are pretty boring and forgettable. Craig only has one great movie under his belt as Bond which was Casino Royale.
Spielberg's Hook was very weak, especially when compared to the 2003 movie, which IMHO was a million times better. Spielberg also included too much feel good messages in Hook: daddy throws away his cell phone to dedicate more time to his family (losing important clients who sustain the family?), the overweight kid will become the leader, etc. etc. The only thing I truly liked was the unlikely choice of Dustin Hoffman in the role of flamboyant Captain Hook. He killed it as always.
Schindler's List: disagree. I have heard critiques of this movie for decades now, and none of them ever seem to make any sense to me. Sometimes I wonder if we watched the same film. Hook: disagree. I acknowledge that it's flawed, but it's too charming and entertaining for me to dislike it, and I think its positives outweigh its shortcomings. Labyrinth: agree. I'm with you on David Bowie being the best part of the movie. The puppetry is also pretty great, but Jennifer Connelly unfortunately hadn't found her feet as an actor yet, and that hurts the film when she has to carry so much of it. Crash: I can't really agree that it didn't age well because I never liked it, but at least most of us can agree now that it's not good. Mission: Impossible: somewhat disagree. I agree that the 007 films are better despite having a spottier record, but since my expectations for M:I are usually pretty low, they usually exceed them, so they at least don't make me mad. Honestly, the only one I didn't like was Mission: Impossible 2.
would be cool to see a “movies that aged well” list! recently convinced my friend to watch the big lebowski for the first time and she was very surprised that she found it funny, we both thought it aged well.
Robocop and Robocop 2. I remember watching these as a kid and thinking yea they're cool, but they get better and better each time I watch them. These are fine wine films.
Movies that age well are rewarded, generally speaking, with the term "Classic." In other words, there sort of already are compilations of "movies that age(d) well."
@CWS and TKP 66-02 You mean the nihilists? They're supposed to be ridiculous and they form part of the film's overall message about the absurdity of life. I would argue The Big Lebowski is not just a hillarious comedy, but a film with heart that you can revisit and take comfort from. But that's just, like, my opinion, maan.
@CWS and TKP 66-02 the nihilist* subplot (not anarchist) is essential to the idea of a foreign threat as an analogue for the nation of Iraq and their WMD’s (or, bunny lebowski). big lebowski is a pretty simple metaphor for the gulf war of the early 90’s, that’s why walter (republican) is constantly rambling about vietnam and the glory found there, and the dude (democrat) is passively sedated and doesn’t really take any active agency in any of it, just getting dragged through the events and getting beat up for being a bum. it’s also why they bother to show that clip of HW Bush at the beginning in the ralph’s, and why they bothered to set it in 1991 even though the film was made in 1998. there are a lot of things in that film that seem entirely arbitrary and like they’re just there for simple absurdist humor that make a lot more sense if you look at it through that allegory for american culture in the early 90’s. hope this is worth somethin to you.
I have a soft spot for "Hook". Yes, the sets and wardrobe look like a theme park ride, BUT that scene with Peter Pan flying still remains one of the best and most convincing flying sequences to this day :-)
I feel like the first 3rd or maybe a little more of Hook is damn near perfect. It never gets full on "awful" to me, but it's just gets... too garish... too silly... etc. The second half(except for a few quieter moments and his first flying scenes) definitely fails to live up to what I consider one of the finest build ups of any fantasy/adventure film ever. Captain Hook's introductory scene is also, to me, one of the standout scenes in the picture, even though we're already in Neverland where the sets are what they are.
@TheHeater90 I loved every minute of it and remember that it was one of the rare movies I went to see twice at the theatre as a kid. Spielberg went full kid-mode and I love it to this day. I love everything about the movie, the story is touching and on point, Robin Williams and his entire family are stellar, even the usually grouchy Dustin Hoffman is having a blast (and I consider it one of his top 3 performances), John Williams was arguably never better, and it has a sweet ending. Plus the effects, all the effects are super visceral and really look stunning to this day. To me, the movie remains highly immersive, heartfelt, relatable, and surprisingly important as a social commentary.
As a new viewer of yours, I must say I've really appreciated and enjoyed your commentary on movies past and present. It's refreshing to hear a critic who is well-viewed, thoughtful, and articulate, as I myself try to be. Not sure if you're looking for future topics, but I have one you might consider that might require a bit of thought: What year in movie history, recent or years old, would you consider a true benchmark, which contains several of your favorites? 1939 is the popular choice, but I hope you have an even more creative selection. Keep up the good work!
Good list. I still think Schindlers List is a good and important movie, but not an all-time great and not even Spielberg’s best. I have a soft spot for Hook, because it really showed me how much great music can affect a so-so film. MI Ghost Protocol is my fave as well, I think because Brad Bird balanced the drama and outrageous so well. One for me that hasn’t aged well is Braveheart.
I think conventions change. Bond used to hit women but nowadays only a villain can hit a woman, never a hero character. Political films don’t age well either because world events change. Films about human nature and human psychology age the best.
Perhaps I’m one of the few who doesn’t hate Crash, perhaps because I never thought it was a masterpiece in the first place, and (edit) it clearly stole an underserved Oscar in the 78th ceremony. However, as over the top and melodramatic as it was, it had an message at that time, in the middle of the hunt for Bin Laden, and the Irak War, there was actually a serious problem of prejudice and hate towards muslims and the Middle East. Today, the perception is radically different because it resonates with our current culture of the “politically correct”, cancel culture and “everything is offensive”.
I am in no way defending _Crash_ (in fact, I've never even seen it), but it most certainly did _not_ 'steal the Oscar from _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'_ - primarily because the films were released four years apart from one another. The film which won Best Picture for 2000 (the year for which _Crouching Tiger_ was nominated) was _Gladiator._ For the record, the 2005 Best Picture nominees which _Crash_ edged out were _Brokeback Mountain; Capote; Good Night, and Good Luck;_ and _Munich._
@@bryangarcia5599 You’re absolutely right, I made I mistake. Crash stole the Oscar from absolutely everyone else because all other movies were better, although it was actually Good Night and Good Luck the one that perhaps deserved the award that year. I’ll edit my comment.
@@carl_anderson9315 No problem; it happens. Either way, your point is well taken. Personally, though, my biggest problem with Paul Haggis's _Crash_ (which, again, I haven't seen) is that due to its title, it could, at a glance, be confused with or mistaken for the 1996 Cronenberg film of the same name, which _is,_ in my opinion, a cinematic masterpiece.
Hook? Don't blame Steven. The summer of 91 was scheduled to be the creation of the biggest musical entertainment movie in years: Michael Jackson plays Peter Pan! Talent and crew were booked, milions were spent... and then Jackson went radio silent. I have two scripts for this film at home. One is a near original and the other is the rainbow shooting script from my last day on the set - different movies. The scramble to salvage Peter Pan by turning it into Hook, and to take it from locations to the stage, was crushing. Why did Steven inevitably opt to shoot Hook on stage? To spend the summer with his beloved family. I've had the great pleasure of working on three of Steven's films, and to listen to your discrediting him only serves to illustrate your distance from filmmaking. Steven is a cinematic genius, a kind cinematic genius.
Inglorious Basterds, when I was 15 I thought it was a "masterpiece" - probably cause the man called it so himself, but after nearly a decade I hate it more and more. Its a patchwork, self indulgent mess filled with characters I don't care about and no cohesion. I still love Hook though, I always loved the artiiface of old cinema like 20,000 leagues under the sea and Hook. I find it really charming and dreamlike.
Even as a young child, I remember being both enthralled and irritated by Hook; that insufferable food scene, where Peter has to suspend his disbelief in order to perceive the weird paintball coloured gruel; the mawkishness and schmaltz at times is unbearable, especially for a British audience. I HATED food fight scenes in movies when I was a child (Bugsy Malone was a nightmare for this as was also the case with old black and white comedies like Laurel & Hardy) & I hate them just as much now. There’s a stupidity about them and it’s like lazy scene filler by a director who thinks kids will fall for it. The lowest form of comedy & thank god it’s a device that’s became extinct. Great fun (some how )for those involved, but not so much for the viewer who doesn’t relate to such conduct. That ending in Hook with the clock tower Crocadile/Aligator…not satisfying for child Michael at all
The main criticism I’ve heard is that it was too watered down, but if they made a movie that was totally accurate in its depiction of the Holocaust, it would be unwatchable…
It’s just about maturing. I remember thinking Rambo, and the Christopher Reeve Super Man were the best. Now I can’t understand why anyone liked them. They are cartoonishly bad.
Another awesome episode, as always. Your take on movies, the choice of words, the duration are all perfect, really like this channel, keep up the good work, thanks!
Speilberg replaced the guns in ET with walkie talkies, I don't feel like I need to add to that. I do think Hook has aged well, I don't think it was a good movie when it came out, but a sound stage film looks good now in the digital age. I don't mind films like Muppets or Ninja Turtles, with an extremely artificial appearance. I don't mind when films don't even try to look real and just acknowledge it's make believe.
Been going through Spielberg's catalogue with the release of the fablemans' & couldn't make it through 15mins of hook (I went to see it on its release in my younger days) and I think it's the right film for him but the wrong time it probably would have faired better between his tin tin & the bfg films as the graphics would help fix some of the issues.
@@Tolstoy111 I remember going to seeing it and kind of enjoying it but even at that age recognizing I was watching something that wasn't as good as it was built up to be and remember heading home trying to figure out why I hadn't enjoyed it as much as everyone else, their are ingredients that work in the film robin Williams was huge star at the time and force of nature, Hoffman is still probably the best thing in it and bob Hopkins is solid as usual and even if he makes a bad film it's still going to have a little bit of that Spielberg magic but non of it was enough to save the film, I kind of knew it probably wouldnt have aged Any better since I'd last seen it but didn't expect it to be as bad as it was.
That's why i wish Kubrick had made the Aryan Papers.. Come and See is both brilliant and utterly bleak..The director's wife,Larisa Shepitko made another brilliant WWII film,The Ascent,eight years before Come and See I would also add The Cranes Are Flying to that list
Sorry the Misson Impossible movies are in another league compared to most of Craig Bond movies. The later MI movies are some of the best action movies being produced right now.
I would argue that the first Mission Impossible was a bad movie to begin with. What skyrocketed its "worth" are the iconic heist scene and Tom Cruise being good looking.
Bad movie? That movie is still thrilling with great iconic action sequences. To think there isn't even a gun fight in it. Yet it is still a great action thriller
It certainly seems that the films many of us revise/ change our opinions of are those which were over-hyped and had a word-of-mouth buzz which made them fashionable to think they were great. But once the clever marketing of them lost their effect, they fizzled out which resulted in many of us to ask ourselves 'what was the big deal about that movie anyway?' As Maggie indicated the list is of those movies are endless, but a fine film will age well for a very long time; and many older films which we appreciate today often were not successful at the box office or in winning awards.
I like this post. So, here's my take on films that I liked on first viewing, but don't like so much now. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Seemed to be right on at the time of release, now seems to be an over the top caricature study with little depth. Shadowlands. Worthy but dull biopic about CS Lewis, the musty writer of children's stories. I thought it so sincere at the time of release. It's really just Fifty Shades of English Greyness. The Third Man. Shock horror, I am slagging off a classic. Everything that I loved on first viewing I dislike now as stylised nonsense. Incessant musical score, irritating jaunty camera angles, the coolness is just indifferent acting, particularly from Welles. Seven. The incident with the box. Seemed perfectly normal on first viewing. Well, the last thing a policeman would do is to open the box. Procedures would be followed. Chicken Run. What's not to like, all those feathered friends attempting to escape Mrs Tweedy's pie machine? Nothing on first viewing. Second look, the film makers at Aardman really have got in in for the male fraternity. The message is men are useless. You threw in a Spielberg, I will too. Not Schindler's List. This film improved for me on second viewing. Mainly because the cast is superb. No, I'm going for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Seemed relevant at the time, now looks like an excuse to sensationalise a fad. Great special effects, but the family dynamics with all that angst seems a bit off. Please post a video on films that have improved over time
I never really watched your content a lot when I was younger, but I think as a young girl, just coming across your channel every once in a while made me happy. It was nice to see another woman who really cared about film. Anyway, years later I've found your channel again and I've subscribed! Love your videos and how your setup has barely changed at all lol
Are you hot?
Maggie is OG TH-cam. One of the originals.
David Bowie was a great actor. Obviously, it was a side project for him, but he brought such a strong charisma and presence to every role that elevates the films he appeared in. He is unrecognizable in The Prestige as Tesla and The Last Temptation of Christ as Pontius Pilate. He’s even great in a strange little movie called The Hunger where he plays a dying vampire.
David Bowie did not have a great reputation as an actor at the time. However, I did not recognise him as Pontius Pilate, and I thought the actor was really good. He was good in The Man Who Fell To Earth.
The Hubger had a fairly original vampire death sequence.
Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence
@@nicholasbarrett3018 Still need to see that
For me, Spielberg's great fault is that he doesn't trust his audience. He never just puts the story in front of you and let's the material work on you in an organic way. He's always got to overdo it, there's always a false note, a closeup held a bit too long, a speech that's a bit too on the nose, a misjudged musical cue. It's like he's always got to wring that last bit of emotion out of you, and the result always crosses over the line into feeling manipulative.
Condescending and manipulative are good ways of putting a lot of his movies from Schindler's List onward, I think (there are some of his earlier movjes I haven't seen, so he might have been guilty of this earlier).
That was the case with Shiledler's list; at times almost mawkish.
Couldn't agree with you more.
That's why I now prefer John Carpenters The Thing over Spielbergs E.T.
@@davidfrost901hen I was kid I thought ET was going to be PETER COYOTE because in the trailers he looked like he was wearing a spacesuit
That Spielberg Hollywood sheen doesn't age well. But I do love some of his films. Catch Me If You Can is an underrated banger.
I’m pretty sure Spielberg disowned Hook somewhat himself, so no harm done there.
Hook was also one of my first movie going experiences. I still adore it. I think Williams score completely carries the film on its shoulders.
Found your Channel about a week ago, subscribed and rang the bell and have been binging your videos on walks to work since.
I totally disagree about Schindler's List. I saw it again when it was re-released a couple of years ago, and it's still powerful. His best film, really.
I'm sorry that you can't see how much of a cinematographic abomination that movie truly is. One of the worst films ever.
@@aldriel8274 Are you a holocaust denier?
@@aldriel8274 You don't see a lot of movies do you?
@@curiositytax9360 Not liking a movie and declaring it one of the worst ever are two different things. Anyone who declares Schindler's List one of the worst films ever is being ridiculous. On a technical level it is incorrect.
@@curiositytax9360 you need therapy
I saw “Crash” on release and thought it was terrible. I couldn’t get that it won the Oscar. I think it’s viewed now as one of the worst choices for “best picture”.
Schindler's list teaches us that even if you don't have the power to go and kill Hitler and change a society, you can at least go for meaningful victories and resist.
You’re right, and that is an important concept, but some people are desensitized to subtly of meaning.
Yes!
Great channel. Munich is for me Spielberg’s best…it strangely doesn’t seem to have much of his normal imprint on it.
Movies don't age. The art doesn't change with time; the scenes stay the same over the years. It's the audience who age and change.
Yep, that's the conclusion I've come to as well.
Bingo
Excellent point
This is just semantics. When people say a movie doesn't age well, they mean it no longer has the same effect it once had.
Yes they do, like everything does. A big percentage become obsolete and senseless, completely ridiculous and pointless, others just endure because their level of importance or quality content gives them the power to go across all eras like moving beacons for humanity. Also known as masterpieces, also known as mainstream cheesy dumb popcorn bullshit for the mind controlled sheep especially in the US.
There's a lot of great moments in Hook. I love the baseball scene, Peter finding his happy place, Dustin Hoffman telling Peter he will wake up the same dead beat dad he was as his hook hand grinds and sparks... I could go on. The artifice doesnt bother me cause it almost seems intentional.
I can agree with certain criticisms around the ‘Hollywood’ feel of Schindler’s List, but once the argument starts to flirt with “Spielberg should have made a different Holocaust film”, I can’t agree. He’s well aware of the horror of the Holocaust, but elected to use a tiny slice of that monstrous era of history to find the way ‘humanity’ survived amidst the suffering.
Sure, you could just adapt ‘Night’ into a film and show us as harrowing a depiction of the camps as possible, but I don’t think that’s any more valid than crafting an elegy for the victims and survivors in the way Spielberg did with Schindler’s List.
I don’t think that Spielberg played it safe with Munich and Saving Private Ryan. They’re extremely violent.
Good video. As someone who gets tired of hearing about things "not aging well" (PC connotation) y'all are nailing the TRUE "not aging well".
Thought you were talking about Cronenberg's Crash! Phew.
Not sure why Misson impossible franchise made it into this discussion as I thought fallout was a great modern action film that for its genre, it offers great acting, set pieces, decent plot and of course action and delivered with heart and passion! These films have grown in quality and I'm really looking forward to Dead Reckoning 1 and 2! I'm also a fan of the Craig era Bond films ie. Casino Royal, Skyfall and No time to die. These six films make for two great trilogies on physical media in the modern action genre along with a variety of classic films and genres ie. musicals, westerns, horror, film noir and sci-fi modern and classics! Anyway, great channel and content, always enjoyable!!!
What is Fallout?
Most of the mission impossibles are very dated and feel very much like the decade they were made, goofy crashes, silly slo-mo etc. Fallout is modern and refined
Fallout is one of the best pure action movies of all time in my opinion. So many jaw dropping set pieces by true masters of their craft
@@Brantlins I find that the Bourne movies haven't aged very well either. They seem super silly nowadays, with the clichéd amnesia plot really seeming stupid especially. The only part that seems to hold up is the car chases. Oh and the shaky cam is still as annoying as it ever was.
@TheJackTheSnake you are talking purely about the 2nd one and parts of the 3rd. The 4th, 5th and 6th ones are all great
Can not disagree more on this Schindler’s List take.
I agree. Having talked to people who’s family lived it, a lot of folks during the timeframe seemed to appreciate its work. *shrug*
@@mypersonalopinionhat’s nice and all but what she’s saying in the video is due to her frustrations with spielbergs transition from more daring and expressionistic films he used to make to these ones that are very tropey and oscar baity. i like schindlers list but i agree w her, it’s very hollywood and full of tropey scenes that felt really odd. like adding suspense to whether showers are gasoline or water. or the nail scene. the topic of the holocaust isn’t the problem, the pathos and every detail in its filmmaking can appear really gimmicky and very safe for a period that was horrifying.
@@tacosarethebest7377 we shall agree to disagree. Have a good day.
@@mypersonalopinion you as well 👍🏻
Maggie, just wanted to say that I really appreciate your time and effort with these videos.
You've basically become my only go-to TH-cam movie reviewer. Even though I disagree with your take every now and then, like the "Mission: Impossible" franchise and Hans Zimmer's music haha.
Yeah I guess Maggie is OK, but she's got some wack puke takes sometimes. Like when she said she wasn't buying "the whale" movie. She said it wasn't convincing enough. I was like WTF maggie that is some real gobshite if you ask me. But she alright sometimes.
Ethan Hunt is NOT James Bond. He's a moral hero.
This channel is underrated AF
No, it’s about right.
Agree, I definitely love Red Letter Media, Brad Jones, and even much of Critical Drinker’s content but this channel is far more cerebral and refreshing
No way not to respect your take on Schindler's List... but, man, did we see different films in that one, and I think it is one of his four or five best to this day. Vital, beautifully structured, immediate in how it presents the terror, pain, and joy of its subject. it brings us in beautifully paced steps from the outskirts of this time right up to being face-to-face with the places of death, and then lets us back out, as it must. But it leaves a strong mark. I saw it three consecutive weekends when it was released in 1993, and was absorbed each time. I was equally absorbed watching it on blu-ray three months ago. To each their own, I suppose. But one thing I can never agree Schindler's List is is at a remove. It puts the banal evil right in your lap.
On the subject of films I liked a lot more as a kid: The Cat from outer Space :)
Yeah it's trendy to dismiss it now. It's a brilliant film and much more complex than she let on.
@@TheCompositeKing you can say that about any commercial film based on a real life calamity. SL is a literate, intelligent, brilliantly crafted narrative film. Is it flawless? No. Is it great American filmmaking? Yes.
Hating Schindler's List has become the trend for whatever reason, I wouldn't put it on the same level as The Godfather 2 or Jaws but I still think it's a really good movie.
@Steven Watchorn completely agree.
Call me a simple man, bit I have seen it twice and both times it made me cry so in my view it is perfectly good movie.
The only critic I have ever heard that makes a lick of s sense was Kubrick's who was working on his own film that he abounded after he found out his friend was working on one.
He said that the Holocaust was about losing while Schindler's List about winning.
I recently watched Poltergeist with my daughter and i hadnt seen it since I was a kid. I was fully expecting it to not hold up but I was happy to be wrong about it. I had a new appreciation for Jobeth Williams after it was over.
My biggest problem with Schindler's List is after learning how much of that history has been falsified
“Precious” for me… I remember being absolutely shocked by it when it first came out and now I just see it as misery porn for the sake of misery!
I felt that way about that movie upon its release. It’s so over the top it’s comical. Even Monique is ridiculous over the top. She’s good at the quieter scenes like the final scene, but the constant screaming, the arm flailing like a tube man and even tossing a fucking TV at her daughter just became hilarious by the end.
I always thought it was trying too hard to be Oscar bait and it's really just a lifetime movie with a little more of a budget.
Thankfully, anyone who has ever suffered sexual abuse, knows you're a moron.
When she grabbed that chicken. Wow!
Every time I get on TH-cam there’s a video of your that I haven’t seen 😂 here we go!
That sweater looks comfortable by the way.
She looks like she did coke all night, rolled out of bed, and recorded this video.
Hook is meant to have a childlike wonder to it that many adult critics don't get, with its stageplay theme park look.
Agreed. I’m wondering why it’s on this list. It was never a classic or even a very good adult flick. It’s cool fun for kids, which is its point.
I remember them making a big deal about Hook 🪝 that the film was shot on the same studio lot as wizard of Oz . 😮 Years Peter I’m like sooooo what 😂!!
I still love hook. It's a solid rendition of peter pan, well paced and John Williams score makes certain scenes slap. 😅
David here from Sebring Florida, I been a movie buff for over fifty years and I don’t think you understood the movie Hook 🪝. I just watched it again in 2023 and I thought it was very good movie! Not perfect but very good! I thought it was very well done. I will say that there was what I would call a lot of filler in it, do you know what I mean? There was some very old bits in it, as old as movies are, like the food fight. It all most felt like it was for adults not kids, so many grown up issues. The movie had some great lessons in it. Family should come first! 😊 I had tears in my eyes at the end and I think that’s what Mr Spielberg wanted. I hope you give it another try. See you at the movies 🍿
Completely agree. Hook displays the types of awesome fantasy backyard treehouse set pieces we all WISHED we could play on as kids.
Completely off topic but that hoodie looks so comfie
I disagree 100% with Hook and Schindler’s List. Those are both really great films.
Spielberg actually hates Hook himself. He's said he'll sometimes rewatch it hoping to find something he likes in it but he never does.
That's probably why he throws so much shit at the wall. He likely felt the film getting away from him and is trying to get something to work.
@@spanishprisoner No lies. Search on youtube "Steven Spielberg interviewed by Kermode & Mayo". Try the 10 yr old video with a closeup thumbnail of his face in black and white.
@@spanishprisoner this is the interview he did with Simon Mayoth-cam.com/video/cnwQDgssrwk/w-d-xo.html
@@spanishprisoner I've heard in the past that he doesn't like Hook.
Hook is good. I remember so many details about my first viewing of it in the theatre, the car ride there, etc.
Always hated that term cause it completely discredits films that was the product for there time and is not a fair assessment to have that kind of negative mindset.
I have to respectfully disagree on Schindler’s List.
It still delivers that gut wrenching punch 30+ years later, especially the scene with the girl in the red coat; I am sorry, it is nothing but gimmicky and with Williams extraordinary score makes you tear up every single time. Ok if you expect to see artistic take in the vibe levels of Kubrick, Angelopoulos, Tarkovsky or Ozu then you will be severely dissatisfied with the result. Having said that you cannot call it with a serious face “too Hollywood” either. The filmmaking pallet used is so totally different to Hollywood blockbuster style. You can tell by the way Spielberg has completely changed his whole shooting style (no fancy crane shots, zoom ins, dollys, fast edits etc). Kaminsky’s lighting and photography is absolutely masterful and totally different to what Spielberg had done before.
As far as Kubrick’s comment on the film, Christiane herself (Kubrick’s wife) has debunked that statement. Kubrick actually loved Schindler’s List (despite the fact he was working on his own Holocaust film) and did talk to Spielberg about it afterwards.
That particular argument came from Terry Gillian’s infamous video on the topic of Spielberg being a comforting director and that the end of Schindler’s List traumatic and sad as it was yet Spielberg managed to wrap a hopeful story around it - Schindler’s successful attempt of saving some Jewish people - and therefore wink “hope” to the viewer at the end. And somehow that was a comforting ending. No I am sorry but it wasn’t. I and most of the people I know that came out of that theater were an emotional wreck ‘cause the final taste we got from the movie was not Schindler’s good action but the tragedy and horrors of the Holocaust and what those people went through. That message was far more overpowering and loud than Schindler’s story that was used as a core guidance for what was wrapped around it. So at the end of the day I’d say the message was received with a sledge hammer to the stomach. You don’t have to go completely cynic to drive your point.
And that applies to other serious films Spielberg has done. Some have hopeful endings (Saving Private Ryan, Lincoln) other have cynic ones (Munich) but all have a artistic taste (especially Munich) that very few filmmakers can bring to the celluloid.
It’s also hard to believe that the blockbuster guy who made JP the same year delivered something so different and has continued to do so on so many other occasions. That alone speaks for Spielberg’s ability as a filmmaker and guts to move outside his comfort zone. Cause as much as I love Kubrick, Bergman or Polanski they wouldn’t be able to pull of JP, Jaws, Close Encounters or Indiana Jones.
Does Spielberg always get it right? Of course not, many examples to go by. But Schindler’s List was one of those cases that he absolutely nailed it (Munich and SPR the other two) hence why its place as a timeless classic on the AFI has been rightly solidified and to this day is considered, along with The Pianist, the most truthful and horrific accounts on the topic.
PS: Come and See is a great film but not as masterful as they’re trying to make it. I can easily mention 3-4 other war films way better. Das Boot, Stalingrad, AQOTWF, Apocalypse Now, Ran, BOB, SPR, Platoon.
Think your take on Spielberg is dead on. He started his career doing edgy work and making some truly great films ("Sugarland Express," "Jaws," "Close Encounters," "Raiders," "E.T.") but he wasn't winning those Best Director and Best Picture Oscars. When I saw "Schindler's List" I thought moments like the little girl in red were screaming "Give me the Oscar!" and I wasn't surprised it worked for him. I am a child of the 70's and 80's, and Speilberg will always be a hero to me based on so many thrilling moments he provided me growing up at the movies (a couple favorite memories: being at a kiddie matinee for "Jaws" and jumping out of my seat as a theater full of tykes screamed bloody murder when the head rolled out of the boat bottom, only to subside when an older kid yelled for everyone to "Shut up!!," and seeing "Raiders" at a preview screening way up in Northern California, wherein we rarely were given a chance to do this, and no one had a clue about the movie- I thought it was going to be a boring Western and was awestruck). He certainy warrants an ample armfull of Oscars; I just wish the bias against the genres (Adventure, Sci-Fi, Suspense) he so wonderfully toiled in early on hadn't prevented him from winning Academy Awards for his greatest works.
Just curious where you place the Color Purple? Good Stevan or bad Stevan?
@@homerjs225 I enjoyed it when it came out (haven't seen it since, but it would be worth another look), but also thought it was more Oscar-baity than the previous Speilberg output and was annoyed that "Oh sure, now they're talking Academy Awards, with him directing a serious drama" when I thought he should have had several in the bag by that point for superior films.
Schindler's List has held up beautifully though. It did not look like any Hollywood film ever made before. It's much more complex than people let on.
@@Tolstoy111 The Academy completely agrees with you.
@@slc2466 Not sure if that was meant to be negative. I don't really care what AMPAS thinks. In this case our tastes aligned.
Now THAT would be a good crossover movie: Peter Pan and The Lost Boys.
Peter Pan’s crew are called the list boys. It is not a reference to the vampire film.
Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s list are GREAT historical referenced movies. Get with it girlfriend. Keeping history alive is important.
The following articles may be of interest:
- "10 Classic Sci-Fi Movies That Haven’t Aged Well"
- "10 Things From Blade Runner That Haven't Aged Well"
The movies tackle significant historical events they make the huge into something small.
I disagree about Schindler’s List. It’s an incredible film. However, I agree Spielberg hasn’t made anything interesting in a long time. And he plays things way too safe. Maybe the last movie of his I appreciated was Munich. And that’s almost 20 years ago!!
"Stripes" humor hasn't aged well.
Maggie your almost at 50k subs should be 100k honestly but congrats ✨👌✨💪✨
I'm experiencing the opposite effect on certain movies I saw as a young guy and was "meh" about but years later love and consider great films i.e. An Unmarried Woman, Straight Time, True Confessions (weirdly, 2 & 3 same director, Ulu Grosbard). That said thanks for this video. Would love to hear the reversals from - to + someday.
So, really...the title should be: "Movies that I once thought were great or at least good...don't have the same effect on me today because I'M DIFFERENT and my tastes have changed along with how I see things!" It's not that the films themselves "didn't age well!" We revisit things as we're older and perhaps, have different perspectives at an older age and/or our tastes change, political views..etc, etc, evolve....we're not "as impressionable!" Breakfast Club - I was a freshman in high school when that came out and I saw it. So guess what....at THAT time...seeing THAT film...those characters....it hit me TOTALLY different than it does when I watch it .....these days!
Oh, and so basically, 'Crash' did it's job when you were 15! ?? So how doesn't it "hold up?" It didn't need to be...written on some deeper level. It did exactly what it was suppose to do and was accessible for most watching it. Regarding the MI franchise - Ummm...it's Mission Impossible, it's not an indie, foreign film / tear jerker, art film. lol. Part of understanding film....is understanding what a film is meant to do and...what it is. And for the record - the first MI directed by De Palma was great. (for what it is!) The later films (the last 3 or so) have been damn good as well mostly due to the collaboration with Christopher MacQuarrie.
Here's one. American Beauty. Every point was too on the nose. When there is a take on suburbia and its seemingly normal perfect children, home and spouses it was clear it was going to be revealed they are different quite different beneath surface level in the movie. I saw it again not too long ago and was asking myself "Why is this such a basic bitch movie with not very much commentary other than the blaring obvious things that aren't so unique.
Braveheart. The fact that the majority of it is completely made up takes away a lot of the gravitas of the movie. Was once a top 10 in my list but now its a tough watch.
Sixteen candles. Probably the cringiest film I’ve ever seen.
100% can't stand that film
Throw breakfast club in there as well
@@jayceeleon That movie is great. What is your issue with it exactly?
@@jayceeleon oof cant say I agree with that
@@dx315 cliche stereotypes BUT.. Some films create the cliche, thus only feeling that way from hindsight.
I think it would be interesting to start a convo about Films You Couldn’t Make Now.
Blue Velvet
Clockwork Orange
Never On Sunday
Five Easy Pieces
are a few that come to mind..
I am not trying to sound mean. I just feel like this video is like those kids with the fake bubblegum cigars trying to sound sophisticated. Man, just enjoy the films. Not everything has to be Oscar material or “Preachytainment”. Hook was fun. It had Robin Williams. Labyrinth was weird, and Bowie’s music is connected to the weirdness of the film. I’ll take Goonies or Dark Crystal anytime over a lot of the noise produced today. And Schindler’s List told a story no one else really knew at the time. Who knows where this is all going. With AI taking over, Disney imploding, and Hollywood drowning in its own confusion, I am just hoping the next Ghostbusters makes it out of strike hell. And now everything is just a remake or a reboot or a resomething. Wait until your next film was written by ChatGPT, Midjourney, Deep Fakes, and Dall-E. As an OCD sufferer who has been in tech for over 3 decades, we might be grateful for those old movies. At least they weren’t simply a video data file a server puked out that was completely created through automation and was entirely constructed through trend metrics that Google data mined. *shrug*
Just to add perspective, I am in tech. We always seem to sound like bubblegum smoking, sophisticants…. Thats why we are littered with acronyms everywhere.
Hook is not Spielberg's worst that has to be 1941. Crash's Best Picture is perfectly easy to understand. It is all about Los Angeles where nearly all the Academy voters live. No mystery.
Mission Impossible's last several film are the New Bond films for our present time doing what Bond did in the 60s and 70s. Bond franchise has forgotten how to be entertaining and nearly all of Daniel Craig's films have been duds or unBond like with the exception of Casino Royale.
Crash was highly criticized at the time - it is terrible. A lot of people were shocked at the time Oscar win.
What Hollywood film before Schindler's List had that look and feel? It sounds like you just don't like Classical Hollywood technique. The objective quality of his films is no less valid than the "immersive" (and tedious and simple minded) approach of "Come and See". People don't go to see his latter films because films aimed at adults do not draw audiences to theaters anymore. He should be praised for not chasing the Marvel zeitgeist. Since you talk about SL so often you should finally just screen it again and really review it with an open mind,
How is it compared to the Pianist?
Disagree with Schneider's list. Being "too Hollywood" is what makes it good years later. I just finished watching come and see because of this video and that movie is the one that didn't age well. It's pretty much unwatchable.
Y'know, I don't see Spielberg's historical movies that way. These aren't Brit/Mirimax productions, they've moved from subject to subject and created movies about subjects in history and science which always flummox everybody else who tries. Virtually the whole movie world agrees that moviemakers need to engage more with the world, so here's the world's #1 director of escapist fare putting the world in touch with issues that matter, and a lot of people resent him for it. His historical movies aren't 'issue movies' like Aaron Sorkin's or Stanley Kramer's. The historical movies just get us inside the heads of the people to whom all these issues matter most. Put them together, they form a kind of primer on what it means to be American in our era, and I think there's very serious value in that.
The fact alone that the most successful popcorn/blockbuster director will go out of his comfort zone to take on subjects such as the Holocaust, D-Day, 70s terrorism in Europe, American Civil War politics etc and tackle them with such a fine artistic panache and maturity is a remarkable feat in itself. Is he Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Goddard or Fellini? Of course not, those are artists of the highest calibre and form in their cerebral/artistic aspect of filmmaking. And I am sure even Spielberg himself would admit he is nowhere near their vicinity. But hell if he didn’t do a remarkable job with Schindler’s List, Munich, SPR, Empire Of The Sun. His artistry and transformation of another side of himself showed vividly in these projects and dare I say touched artistic elements taken from directors such as the ones I mentioned and executed extremely well.
Now let’s see Goddard, Coppola, Polanski, Tarkovsky etc pull of Jaws or Close Encounters, Indiana Jones or Jurassic Park?
Tarkovsky tried to put out his own version of 2001 (after Kubrick’s masterpiece) and failed IMHO. Solaris is awful and dull, especially the 1st half. And that comes from someone who adores Stalker, Mirror, Andrei Rublev and Ivan’s Childhood.
DFL is my favorite movie critic!
Mmmm We are going to have to have a friendly debate about the recent mission impossible films
I appreciate your point of view, but it is so wrong
LOL, I agree with you, the first two movies are easily the weakest and this is one of the few franchises that got better later on. Also, most Bond movies are pretty boring and forgettable. Craig only has one great movie under his belt as Bond which was Casino Royale.
Spielberg's Hook was very weak, especially when compared to the 2003 movie, which IMHO was a million times better. Spielberg also included too much feel good messages in Hook: daddy throws away his cell phone to dedicate more time to his family (losing important clients who sustain the family?), the overweight kid will become the leader, etc. etc. The only thing I truly liked was the unlikely choice of Dustin Hoffman in the role of flamboyant Captain Hook. He killed it as always.
The Schindlers list critique is wild to me. Post-modern criticism for a renaissance story… why use modern critique for antique notions?
Schindler's List: disagree. I have heard critiques of this movie for decades now, and none of them ever seem to make any sense to me. Sometimes I wonder if we watched the same film.
Hook: disagree. I acknowledge that it's flawed, but it's too charming and entertaining for me to dislike it, and I think its positives outweigh its shortcomings.
Labyrinth: agree. I'm with you on David Bowie being the best part of the movie. The puppetry is also pretty great, but Jennifer Connelly unfortunately hadn't found her feet as an actor yet, and that hurts the film when she has to carry so much of it.
Crash: I can't really agree that it didn't age well because I never liked it, but at least most of us can agree now that it's not good.
Mission: Impossible: somewhat disagree. I agree that the 007 films are better despite having a spottier record, but since my expectations for M:I are usually pretty low, they usually exceed them, so they at least don't make me mad. Honestly, the only one I didn't like was Mission: Impossible 2.
I watched Bubba Ho-Tep recently, and this time it felt like a cheap Goosebumps episode.
😂. Is that movie meant to age well? Lol.
@@Swift_minus_one LOL you are right but I remember been so much better
As much as I loved it the first couple of times I saw it, it really doesn't stand up.
@@Swift_minus_one What's that supposed to mean?
@@HOTD108_ the movie is so ridiculous that i never thought of it as aging or not aging well. At least not compared to what was discussed in the video.
would be cool to see a “movies that aged well” list! recently convinced my friend to watch the big lebowski for the first time and she was very surprised that she found it funny, we both thought it aged well.
@CWS and TKP 66-02 chill out, lol. it aged well as a comedy film. many comedies age horribly.
Robocop and Robocop 2. I remember watching these as a kid and thinking yea they're cool, but they get better and better each time I watch them. These are fine wine films.
Movies that age well are rewarded, generally speaking, with the term "Classic." In other words, there sort of already are compilations of "movies that age(d) well."
@CWS and TKP 66-02 You mean the nihilists? They're supposed to be ridiculous and they form part of the film's overall message about the absurdity of life. I would argue The Big Lebowski is not just a hillarious comedy, but a film with heart that you can revisit and take comfort from. But that's just, like, my opinion, maan.
@CWS and TKP 66-02 the nihilist* subplot (not anarchist) is essential to the idea of a foreign threat as an analogue for the nation of Iraq and their WMD’s (or, bunny lebowski). big lebowski is a pretty simple metaphor for the gulf war of the early 90’s, that’s why walter (republican) is constantly rambling about vietnam and the glory found there, and the dude (democrat) is passively sedated and doesn’t really take any active agency in any of it, just getting dragged through the events and getting beat up for being a bum. it’s also why they bother to show that clip of HW Bush at the beginning in the ralph’s, and why they bothered to set it in 1991 even though the film was made in 1998.
there are a lot of things in that film that seem entirely arbitrary and like they’re just there for simple absurdist humor that make a lot more sense if you look at it through that allegory for american culture in the early 90’s. hope this is worth somethin to you.
I have a soft spot for toxic avenger
I have a soft spot for "Hook". Yes, the sets and wardrobe look like a theme park ride, BUT that scene with Peter Pan flying still remains one of the best and most convincing flying sequences to this day :-)
Agreed 😊
I feel like the first 3rd or maybe a little more of Hook is damn near perfect. It never gets full on "awful" to me, but it's just gets... too garish... too silly... etc. The second half(except for a few quieter moments and his first flying scenes) definitely fails to live up to what I consider one of the finest build ups of any fantasy/adventure film ever. Captain Hook's introductory scene is also, to me, one of the standout scenes in the picture, even though we're already in Neverland where the sets are what they are.
@TheHeater90 I loved every minute of it and remember that it was one of the rare movies I went to see twice at the theatre as a kid.
Spielberg went full kid-mode and I love it to this day. I love everything about the movie, the story is touching and on point, Robin Williams and his entire family are stellar, even the usually grouchy Dustin Hoffman is having a blast (and I consider it one of his top 3 performances), John Williams was arguably never better, and it has a sweet ending.
Plus the effects, all the effects are super visceral and really look stunning to this day.
To me, the movie remains highly immersive, heartfelt, relatable, and surprisingly important as a social commentary.
I've never understood the hate for it, except for maybe being too long.
As a new viewer of yours, I must say I've really appreciated and enjoyed your commentary on movies past and present. It's refreshing to hear a critic who is well-viewed, thoughtful, and articulate, as I myself try to be. Not sure if you're looking for future topics, but I have one you might consider that might require a bit of thought: What year in movie history, recent or years old, would you consider a true benchmark, which contains several of your favorites? 1939 is the popular choice, but I hope you have an even more creative selection. Keep up the good work!
Thank you so much. Excellent topic discussion. I'll add it to my list to get to.
That is a most thought-provoking and interesting topic for discussion.
Why is 39 a popular choice? Is that the year Wizard of Oz came out?
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Yes, and also ''Gone with the wind''
Good list. I still think Schindlers List is a good and important movie, but not an all-time great and not even Spielberg’s best. I have a soft spot for Hook, because it really showed me how much great music can affect a so-so film. MI Ghost Protocol is my fave as well, I think because Brad Bird balanced the drama and outrageous so well.
One for me that hasn’t aged well is Braveheart.
a cricket landing and it starts singing if you wish upon a star Im tripping right
I think conventions change. Bond used to hit women but nowadays only a villain can hit a woman, never a hero character. Political films don’t age well either because world events change. Films about human nature and human psychology age the best.
Perhaps I’m one of the few who doesn’t hate Crash, perhaps because I never thought it was a masterpiece in the first place, and (edit) it clearly stole an underserved Oscar in the 78th ceremony. However, as over the top and melodramatic as it was, it had an message at that time, in the middle of the hunt for Bin Laden, and the Irak War, there was actually a serious problem of prejudice and hate towards muslims and the Middle East. Today, the perception is radically different because it resonates with our current culture of the “politically correct”, cancel culture and “everything is offensive”.
I am in no way defending _Crash_ (in fact, I've never even seen it), but it most certainly did _not_ 'steal the Oscar from _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'_ - primarily because the films were released four years apart from one another. The film which won Best Picture for 2000 (the year for which _Crouching Tiger_ was nominated) was _Gladiator._ For the record, the 2005 Best Picture nominees which _Crash_ edged out were _Brokeback Mountain; Capote; Good Night, and Good Luck;_ and _Munich._
@@bryangarcia5599 You’re absolutely right, I made I mistake. Crash stole the Oscar from absolutely everyone else because all other movies were better, although it was actually Good Night and Good Luck the one that perhaps deserved the award that year. I’ll edit my comment.
@@carl_anderson9315 No problem; it happens. Either way, your point is well taken. Personally, though, my biggest problem with Paul Haggis's _Crash_ (which, again, I haven't seen) is that due to its title, it could, at a glance, be confused with or mistaken for the 1996 Cronenberg film of the same name, which _is,_ in my opinion, a cinematic masterpiece.
I thought Crash was preachy trash in 2005 and that probably was the beginning of Hollywood getting more heavy handed.
Comparing Mission Impossible to Bond is like conidering buying those off-brand lego-clones.
They’re the same thing, right?
Hook? Don't blame Steven. The summer of 91 was scheduled to be the creation of the biggest musical entertainment movie in years: Michael Jackson plays Peter Pan! Talent and crew were booked, milions were spent... and then Jackson went radio silent. I have two scripts for this film at home. One is a near original and the other is the rainbow shooting script from my last day on the set - different movies. The scramble to salvage Peter Pan by turning it into Hook, and to take it from locations to the stage, was crushing. Why did Steven inevitably opt to shoot Hook on stage? To spend the summer with his beloved family. I've had the great pleasure of working on three of Steven's films, and to listen to your discrediting him only serves to illustrate your distance from filmmaking. Steven is a cinematic genius, a kind cinematic genius.
Inglorious Basterds, when I was 15 I thought it was a "masterpiece" - probably cause the man called it so himself, but after nearly a decade I hate it more and more. Its a patchwork, self indulgent mess filled with characters I don't care about and no cohesion.
I still love Hook though, I always loved the artiiface of old cinema like 20,000 leagues under the sea and Hook. I find it really charming and dreamlike.
Yes, “Inglorious Bastards” is totally overrated, and I’m tired of Nazi’s.
"Ladyhawke" (1985) was great at the time, but the 80's synthesizer background music is quite jarring nowadays.
Even as a young child, I remember being both enthralled and irritated by Hook; that insufferable food scene, where Peter has to suspend his disbelief in order to perceive the weird paintball coloured gruel; the mawkishness and schmaltz at times is unbearable, especially for a British audience. I HATED food fight scenes in movies when I was a child (Bugsy Malone was a nightmare for this as was also the case with old black and white comedies like Laurel & Hardy) & I hate them just as much now. There’s a stupidity about them and it’s like lazy scene filler by a director who thinks kids will fall for it. The lowest form of comedy & thank god it’s a device that’s became extinct. Great fun (some how )for those involved, but not so much for the viewer who doesn’t relate to such conduct. That ending in Hook with the clock tower Crocadile/Aligator…not satisfying for child Michael at all
Jackson Littlewood's comment on Schindler's List echoes what Terry Gilliam said about it, s. "Terry Gilliam criticizes Spielberg and Schindler's List"
“Schindler’s List is too Hollywood” May be the most Film Twitter-ey take I’ve ever heard
The main criticism I’ve heard is that it was too watered down, but if they made a movie that was totally accurate in its depiction of the Holocaust, it would be unwatchable…
@@Knapptime95 it would also be exploitative. But yes it’s commercial narrative film. There is *plenty* of documentary material for those interested.
That was kind of a ridiculous comment.
@@Knapptime95 exactly film twitter can be really obnoxious
@@Gavin48 They’ve turned having your head up you’re own ass into an Olympic sport
I think Hook is solid until he finds out he’s Peter Pan. Just found you’re channel and subscribed by the way.
I never fell for the “Crash” hoopla…but I was in my 30’s when I saw it. I turned it off halfway through.
I think you are way to hard on th later Mission impossible films.
It’s just about maturing. I remember thinking Rambo, and the Christopher Reeve Super Man were the best. Now I can’t understand why anyone liked them. They are cartoonishly bad.
Another awesome episode, as always. Your take on movies, the choice of words, the duration are all perfect, really like this channel, keep up the good work, thanks!
She's something
The films may not have aged well but I'm sure of something that did.
Wow your almost at 50k?!!!!
Agreed with most of these... But not with _Labyrinth._ Adore it. Not everything about it but most everything.
Speilberg replaced the guns in ET with walkie talkies, I don't feel like I need to add to that.
I do think Hook has aged well, I don't think it was a good movie when it came out, but a sound stage film looks good now in the digital age. I don't mind films like Muppets or Ninja Turtles, with an extremely artificial appearance. I don't mind when films don't even try to look real and just acknowledge it's make believe.
The guns being replaced with walkie talkies hasn't been the case since the mid-2000s. Spielberg undid that mistake almost immediately.
@@HOTD108_ some sins are not to be forgiven ;)
Both him and George Lucas making some of the most bizarre and highly unnescessary changes in the 2000's.
Been going through Spielberg's catalogue with the release of the fablemans' & couldn't make it through 15mins of hook (I went to see it on its release in my younger days) and I think it's the right film for him but the wrong time it probably would have faired better between his tin tin & the bfg films as the graphics would help fix some of the issues.
Hook was always terrible. I’m surprised it was a childhood favorite for anyone. It was panned at the time.
@@Tolstoy111 I remember going to seeing it and kind of enjoying it but even at that age recognizing I was watching something that wasn't as good as it was built up to be and remember heading home trying to figure out why I hadn't enjoyed it as much as everyone else, their are ingredients that work in the film robin Williams was huge star at the time and force of nature, Hoffman is still probably the best thing in it and bob Hopkins is solid as usual and even if he makes a bad film it's still going to have a little bit of that Spielberg magic but non of it was enough to save the film, I kind of knew it probably wouldnt have aged Any better since I'd last seen it but didn't expect it to be as bad as it was.
That's why i wish Kubrick had made the Aryan Papers..
Come and See is both brilliant and utterly bleak..The director's wife,Larisa Shepitko made another brilliant WWII film,The Ascent,eight years before Come and See
I would also add The Cranes Are Flying to that list
Sorry the Misson Impossible movies are in another league compared to most of Craig Bond movies. The later MI movies are some of the best action movies being produced right now.
thank goodness Encino Man and Son In Law didn't made it onto your list and incidentally both movies has Pauly Shore.
None of those films I cared for all that much the first time I saw them, except Labyrinth which I still rather like.
I would argue that the first Mission Impossible was a bad movie to begin with. What skyrocketed its "worth" are the iconic heist scene and Tom Cruise being good looking.
Bad movie? That movie is still thrilling with great iconic action sequences. To think there isn't even a gun fight in it. Yet it is still a great action thriller
I mean…so, so, so much in cinema has been aped from Schindler’s List. I think looking at it through the lens of modernity is maybe a blurry lens.
Billy Jack. I saw it in the 70's and thought it was great. Now? What a crapper. 😊
Spielberg’s best film IMHO was _Duel._
It certainly seems that the films many of us revise/ change our opinions of are those which were over-hyped and had a word-of-mouth buzz which made them fashionable to think they were great. But once the clever marketing of them lost their effect, they fizzled out which resulted in many of us to ask ourselves 'what was the big deal about that movie anyway?' As Maggie indicated the list is of those movies are endless, but a fine film will age well for a very long time; and many older films which we appreciate today often were not successful at the box office or in winning awards.
This is like watching somebody who was brought up on fast food talking about gourmet food.
You may like it or not, but Schindler List hasn’t age a bit!
I like this post. So, here's my take on films that I liked on first viewing, but don't like so much now. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Seemed to be right on at the time of release, now seems to be an over the top caricature study with little depth. Shadowlands. Worthy but dull biopic about CS Lewis, the musty writer of children's stories. I thought it so sincere at the time of release. It's really just Fifty Shades of English Greyness. The Third Man. Shock horror, I am slagging off a classic. Everything that I loved on first viewing I dislike now as stylised nonsense. Incessant musical score, irritating jaunty camera angles, the coolness is just indifferent acting, particularly from Welles. Seven. The incident with the box. Seemed perfectly normal on first viewing. Well, the last thing a policeman would do is to open the box. Procedures would be followed. Chicken Run. What's not to like, all those feathered friends attempting to escape Mrs Tweedy's pie machine? Nothing on first viewing. Second look, the film makers at Aardman really have got in in for the male fraternity. The message is men are useless. You threw in a Spielberg, I will too. Not Schindler's List. This film improved for me on second viewing. Mainly because the cast is superb. No, I'm going for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Seemed relevant at the time, now looks like an excuse to sensationalise a fad. Great special effects, but the family dynamics with all that angst seems a bit off. Please post a video on films that have improved over time
All I could come up with was The Porky's franchise.