Why does he get such a bad rep now? His new movies aren't

He's one of my favourites. Sure, he is bland and straightforward but he's always competent. He's like the Michael Bay of drama. Underrated despite being rated highly.

>>82732885
>bland

Says who for fuck's sake? I think people just think that because of how big he became and all the director's who cheaply emulated him

Spielberg is amazing

>>82733032
Sorry, I meant insipid. I genuinely enjoy his works so please don't use the f-word in your responses to me. WWSSD?

>>82732822
I like his 'white glow' movies

>>82733206
Ha ha, excellent observation.

>>82732822
I suppose he gets a lot of shit because his never films haven't been carrying the weight of his already existing legacy. While I think that movies like Lincoln are good, I wouldn't exactly call them compelling and memorable films. Still, I do agree that he does get a very bad rep.

>>82733640
Great points well made.

>>82732885
>He's like the Michael Bay of drama.
I came here to post this.

>>82732822
I think he's only done one great film, Schindler's List, that's drama and it's very good.

1.That aside, he ruined cinema by creating the Blackbuster, without that, we wouldn't have so shitty movies being at top box office.

2. His movies are cheap entertainment, like kid's stuff. Maybe ET did have a message, but what about the others? It seems like he just want to make cheap money by selling not really great ideas to a not really great audience

3. He had talent, and wasted it (because the cheap entertainment thing), you can see a very well executed dolly zoom in Jaws, really touching images in Schindler's List and a great sequence in SPR, but he seems like he doesn't want to take a risk because that wouldn't give him more money

>>82735568
Duel is awesome even though it's a TV movie and also cheapshit.

File: image.jpg (154KB, 996x1026px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 996x1026px

>>82732822
>And if you're gonna shit on him then give an actual critique
...but what if you really have to go?

>>82732822
>bad rep
>now
Critics called him the death of hollywood as far back as fucking jaws.

>>82735568
Jurassic Park had a great balance between entertainment with a few political ideas for flavouring. As a kid I remember being more interested in the debates the characters had with each other about the park than in the dinosaurs! The perfect example is the scene with the talking animated strip of DNA illustrating the history of the park itself -- that is a brilliant sequence. The dinosaurs were really kind of secondary. It was probably a mistake to make JP the same year as Schindler's List, because JP doesn't really cover as much ground as it could have.

>>82733032
Bridge of Spies was well-made, but you have to admit is was extremely bland. It didn't push the envelope of offer anything new. A good, paint-by-numbers movie that you would expect out of the 1990's, but also extremely bland and forgettable.

File: regioer.gif (172KB, 500x336px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 500x336px

Poltergeist is the truth, my dudes.

>>82736981
For your consideration:
https://youtu.be/qUaFYzFFbBU

>>82736981
>as a kid i can remember being more interested in the debates the characters had about the park than the dinosaurs!

holy shit don't even bother going back to <spoiler>reddit</spoiler>; kill yourself immediately. how is it humanly possible to type something that annoying and then actually put it out there for people to read? are you actively trying to make the world a worse place to live in?