I should state at the very beginning so my preexisting bias is known that I’m not much of a Stephen Spielberg fan….Sure, JAWS is a great film and should be on any best of list….The first and third INDIANA JONES films were nice reproductions of pulp fiction and old time Saturday morning serials but were nothing original….Enjoyable if taken as a homage….However, the second INDIANA JONES bordered on racism with its portrayal of Indians (Spielberg seems to have something against Indians….He has stereotyped them a few times….Another noticeable example is YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES which he produced).
So three out of what 30 or 40 films he has directed and/or produced?….The rest I find either simple-minded action fare or attempts to go for the big meaning that fall flat on their face….In case anyone brings up SCHINDLER’S LIST, that is a film that borrows shamefully from many sources including the red balloon sequence that is a direct copy from German expressionist films of the 1920’s and early 1930’s….Highly overrated IMO.
This brings me to the new INDIANA JONES AND THE SACRED VIAGRA OR whatever it’s called….CRYSTAL SKULL….yeah that’s it….I have no interest in seeing it and I’ll just mention a few reasons why.
First off, it’s ridiculous to see 67 year old Harrison Ford flying through the air and beating people up….I’m sorry but very few 67 year olds I’ve met would have the ability to do that….Perhaps he could use his walker as a base launching martial arts moves….I’ve had the same problem with some of Sean Connery’s films of the last 10 years and he is a much tougher looking, imposing film presence than Ford (as well as a better actor).
What else bothers me about this film is the substitution of Soviets as the villains in the place of Nazis….That just reeks of old cold war propaganda….Say what you want about Stalin and communist totalitarianism, they were our allies during WWII and this just feels like a misplaced jibe….Like saying something bad to someone after you’ve won the argument.
Since this film takes place in Central and South America, perhaps it would have also been appropriate to have as villains some of the regimes the USA helped prop up during the cold war….For example, Paraguay which became a haven for Nazi war criminal including Klaus Barbie who was on the US payroll for a number of years or Guatemala where the CIA was directly involved in genocide committed against the local indigenous tribal people under the phony banner of fighting communism.
But I don’t think you would see things like that in a Stephen Spielberg film….He’d rather show Nazis and dinosaurs and the KGB and aliens….The problem with Spielberg isn’t that he makes films about those things, it’s that in his mind and those of his fans his films are more than that….let me tell you something…THEY’RE NOT!….He’s no Hitchcock or Bergman or Scorcese….He’s just the cinematic equivalent of McDonald’s….Quarter Pounder coming right up!!!
Oh and one another thing….This idea of bringing back again and again a successful franchise because it makes money until it is no longer fun and just a big joke will kill movies eventually!
Raj Dronamraju 
Mr Raj,Although I did not have the chance to watch most of his films, I believe a director who have won an Oscar and whose movies have also won many Oscars deserves some praise. He obviously have that extra “something” that won him Oscars and winning an Oscar is not something any Tom, Dick and Harry can accomplish. So, I think we should accord him praise too for what he have done and not mindlessly bashing him up.I am not a big fan of him, but he did produce quite OK films and I suppose the judges aren’t blind enough to award him Oscars for nothing.
KS,The Oscars as a measurement of talent I think is incorrect.The Oscars are very political and often people win for reasons other than the relative value of the film they were either in or made.Case in point; Martin Scorcese arguably the greatest living American director(and many film critics feel that way) only won once for a lesser movie and that was fairly recently.Many of the greatest films in cinematic history never won Oscars(including Citizen Kane which routinely turns up at the top of many greatest lists)
It is just your very subjective opinion. Good movies in your eye may not be good in mine or the Oscar judges. You can claim all you want about how biased the Oscars is, but the truth remains that the Oscars are the most prestigious thing one can win in the world of acting. Moreover, he won them 3 TIMES! That is no small feat!Speilberg also won many other awards and mind you, he has been awarded a KBE by the Queen and bestowed knightship by ex-President Jacques Chirac of France. He is also the highest grossing filmmaker of all time; his films having made nearly $8 billion internationally. How can you say that the Jurassic Park is a flop? Letter of Iwo Jima! One of the most magnificent movies! Jaws!His movies are internationally recognised as the best of the best!By the way, he is also worth 3 bil and he has donated 800k to the Democratic Party. He is probably the richest director around!
Money is not how we gauge all success….McDonald’s is not the same as a gourmet restaurant….All awards are subjective….History is filled with classic films that did not win Oscars the year they were nominated but instead other movies won that have long since been forgotten about but were popular at the time. Jaws is a great film….The problem is that people think of Speilberg as another Hitchcock or Scorcese….He’s nowhere near on that level….And yes that is my opinion!
Keep in mind that Mr Speilberg here is the 3rd best director in movie history, behind hitchcock and scorcese. Saying that he is NOWHERE near them is a tad cruel.
There certainly is qiute a debate going on here. I must say that I haven’t watched much films( I dont even think I’ve watched any by Spielberg). But in my opinion I dont get this debate. It really does not matter who directs a movie. All you need is the satisfaction of watching it. I mean if you watch a movie, whether you enjoy it or not who cares about who produced, directed, acted or even sponsored it? Just watch it and get it out of your mind.
Well Ashwin actually the original post was about how silly the film sounded and why I wasn’t going to see it….Speilberg was just one factor there
The recent Indiana Jones movie is actually quite ok. I would give it a 4 out of 5.Steven Speilberg is a man who had accomplished much more than anyone of us had and will. His contributions deserve to be remembered, not rolled up and kicked around like a ball.
I’m a Spielberg fan, but I get your gripe with him Raj. He tends to walk a tight rope, balancing his personal meaningful films on the one hand and then diving into populist entertainment on the other. His drawbacks are that he can be heavy-handed at times, and frankly the middle act of his films often tends to get lost and bogged down in minute distractions or showy set pieces, or a lot of the times he saves the middle for overt character development which often seems forced and not too believable (War Of The Worlds, Temple Of Doom, Minority Report, 1941). He has trouble with the second act. And he can lean too heavily on special effects at times.But I do find his films, for the most part, to be well crafted and enjoyable. And one thing he shares in common with Kubrick is his willingness to tackle disparate stories that aren’t all of the same piece. Whereas Hitch and Scorsese tend to rarely stray from their respective fields of interest. Casino and Goodfellas were virtualy the same film (and I find Casino to be the far superior flick, though obviously Goodfellas is a great work). And of course we all know where Hitchcock’s morbid obsession lay.His best work is probably behind him no doubt, but he has been at it for 40+ years. Munich is one of his best, though I question the actual point of making it, and what he was trying to achieve with it. He still has the talent, but I assume his best work at this stage will be pieces he really feels a passion for. The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is probably not one of those pieces, but I’ll see it for the fun of it.See, as much of a film fanatic as I am, I think I differ somewhat than most other film freaks, in that I go into any film already willing to suspend belief, already willing to enjoy myself, already willing to have the experience as free from bias or animosity as possible. I’m willing to let the filmaker try and take me down his or her road; there are always any number of ways they might lose me on the journey, but I love the whole experience of seeing movies and so I try and give the filmakers the benefit of the doubt…up to a point.
@rgdinmalaysia – One or two notes about the Oscars…Scorsese not winning Best Director for Casino was when I truly lost all faith in the Academy. That film is a tour de force of directorial talent and skill.And Citizen Kane did win one Oscar, best screenplay for Orson Welles which he shared with Herman Mankiewicz. It was nominated for eight more, including all the major ones of the time.And its interesting to note that many critics described Citizen Kane as mostly style over substance, that it was technically brilliant but shallow in human terms. And Spielberg bought the “Rosebud” sled at auction for 60 K in 1982.
Still can’t believe Scorcese didn’t get best director for Taxi Driver or Raging Bull(two of my favorite films of all time in fact Taxi Driver is my favorite)….The year he lost for Taxi Driver, Rocky won so go figure!While I don’t believe Citizen Kane is the best pic ever made (in fact I think Touch Of Evil is 10 times better if we are discussing ther career of Orson Welles) it is an interesting skewering of William Randolph Hearst, a real nasty guy who deserved an attack film like that….It’s definitely not shallow IMO but is slightly melodramatic.