Downturn of the early '80s

email this story
read comments (81)
post a comment

The Guardian's John Patterson has written a lament about the downturn of commercial cinema that manifested in 1982.

Despite the release of first-raters like Blade Runner, The Road Warrior, Diner, Missing, First Blood, E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial, 48 HRS., The Verdict, Sophie's Choice, My Favorite Year, An Officer and a Gentleman and Tootsie, Patterson notes that "one can indeed foresee today's mainstream Hollywood: special effects; science fiction replacing the moribund western; the rise of serious gore; one-dimensional worldviews and a paucity of powerful ideas."

1982 was the year in which everyone realized that the move-brat generation "had helped kill off their own 1970s renaissance with big-budget flops that frightened the studios" -- Cimino's Heaven's Gate, Scorsese's New York, New York, Coppola's Apocalypse Now (wait...it's made $91,383,841since opening in '79...how could it be consdiered a loss-leader?), Spielberg's 1941, Beatty's Reds, Altman's Popeye, and John Landis's gargantuan The Blues Brothers, "a huge flop until video made it a hit."

This left the field "clear for Steven Spielberg and George Lucas to solidify the foundations of the Temple of Dumb, and, well, here we all are today."

Let it be said again that in 20 years the name "Steven Spielberg" will have far fewer positive associations that it does today. Spielberg deserves respect for being perhaps the greatest hack of all time, but once the memory of his having made truckloads of money for himself and thousands of other people fades, his true legacy will start to take shape. His Duel-to-E.T. surge and Schindler's List aside, Spileberg's record is undeniably spotty. Always, Amistad, A.I., Munich....the man has been a "problem director" for too many years.

I'm linked to this before, but Pauline Kael spotted all the bad trends in 1980 in this brilliant New Yorker piece called "Why Movies Are So Bad, or The Numbers."

Better-looking "No Country" trailer<< previous | next >>1962 vs. 1982

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 15, 2007 at 10:31 AM

comment #1

christian says ...

THE BLUES BROTHERS was not a bomb.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #2

Pelham123 says ...

"Reds" was not a bomb.

Posted by Pelham123 at June 15, 2007 10:42 AM

comment #3

le corbeau says ...

Blues Brothers came in for a lot of condemnation before it was released for spending $30 million-- not that much less than Heaven's Gate-- on elephantine slapstick built around characters from a TV sketch show. Being successful didn't change that attitude toward it.

Likewise, Apocalypse Now did well, but it came into theaters after three years of publicity centering on Coppola going nuts in the jungle, Brando being nuts, unfinished work shown at Cannes, etc. etc. Frankly, without Walter Murch to make a coherent movie and style out of Coppola's miles of footage, he probably would have shared the same fate as Cimino (though there was obviously more potential in Coppola's footage than in Cimino's). Murch's rescue of Apocalypse Now and his imposition of a unified style through sound and music on a fucked-up movie with moments of brilliance is truly one of the great underappreciated artistic achievements in film history,

Posted by le corbeau at June 15, 2007 10:49 AM

comment #4

iamanerd says ...

I can see how Blade Runner might make that list because it is "not too distant" future sci-fi and has special effects. However, I think Ridley Scott has continued to use effects, big(ger) budgets, etc. to make good films genre-wise or other. To compare a sci-fi movie like Blade Runner to the crap that's out most summers is crazy. I can only wish there were more films like that being made. I'd through The Road Warrior in there too.

I think making the connection from 48hrs to the way too many buddy cop, FBI, whatever movies is more of a fair leap/comparison.

Posted by iamanerd at June 15, 2007 11:00 AM

comment #5

iamanerd says ...

And, of course, I mean I'd throw in The Road Warrior. I think some directors continue to make good films that please a large audience. It may not be as big as the audience has been before (say Gladiator's audience vs. The Kingdom of Heaven's), but the films are still thought provoking, epic-ish, action films.

Posted by iamanerd at June 15, 2007 11:02 AM

comment #6

George Prager says ...

I'd say 1982-85 were pretty grim years for American movies. 1986 was better--you had Blue Velvet, Something Wild--to name a few, but when you think about 82-85, there's so few good Hollywood movies. Besides Blade Runner, Reds, E.T. etc., there's, uh...um...Starman.

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 11:10 AM

comment #7

travis b says ...

Spielberg a hack? i don't know about that. His late 80's through 90's work was spotty (with the exception of Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and maybe the Last Crusade), but his work in the 2000's has almost been on par with his earlier work. The biggest problem that he has is he can't really close a movie. A.I., War of the Worlds, and Munich all have endings that feel tacked on or out of place. But, to call him a hack? There are far worse directors out there, just look at Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by travis b at June 15, 2007 11:10 AM

comment #8

George Prager says ...

You can call that era the "Goonies era."

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 11:11 AM

comment #9

nemo says ...

According to the-numbers.com, "Reds" grossed $50M in the US, which translates to about $110M to $120M in today's money. Didn't blow the doors off, but not a flop. And $50M well exceeded its $33M budget.

"Reds" got 12 Academy Award nominations, and won 3, including Best Director for Beatty. The Academy is not noted for rewarding flops.

That fits with my memories of the time. I saw "Reds" in the biggest theater in a big cineplex in the early 80s, and the place was sold out. But it's hard to imagine a film like that doing similar business today.

Posted by nemo at June 15, 2007 11:14 AM

comment #10

iamanerd says ...

Films like Reds wouldn't do that business, and I don't think Blade Runner would either, because I think the audience is dumbed down. Nothing against the people in the seats, and I love summer "popcorn" movies, but the ones today seem more about the coolest CGI shot or chase scene over substance.
The directors have followed suit.

Posted by iamanerd at June 15, 2007 11:22 AM

comment #11

MAGGA says ...

Bla bla, everything was better in the past etc. The comments about Spielberg are so unbelievably stupid that they should not warrant comment, but I would like to point out that what many see as problems in Spielbergs films are artistic decisions that piss off a lot of people, yet he does it because that is who he is as a filmmaker. Which has nothing to do with being a hack. And even if we are to accept your opinion that Spielbergs run in the last ten years, considered by many to be among the great collection of films by any director this decade (just look at your own message board or any other, for chrissakes!), having the Duel-to-ET run plus Schindlers list is in itself enough to be a great director. How many truly great movies does Coppola have, for instance. And 1999 was one of cinemas great years if you ask me. There were a few years in the seventies when american cinema was experimental and daring, but the modern pandering and focus on genre is the same as any other period in Hollywood history. Is a standard western really more complex than a standard sci-fi? Really? There are movies that are more than their genre in all genres, but simplistic morality, machismo posturing, red-state ideologies are almost the definition of a western. This is maddening, and mostly ramblings of a bitter man. Hate to piss on the host, but negativity towads everything that happens today is destructive, and this kind of nostalgia is precisely why movies have retreated to the comfortable cliches of today.

Posted by MAGGA at June 15, 2007 11:32 AM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Spielberg's reputation will only go up once peoples' knee-jerk resentment of him dissipates over the years. People will be able to look beyond the Alwayses and see his filmography as running from one strong film to another. To call him a 'hack' indicates that you don't know what the word means.

Next, I have always thought that Blade Runner was pretty crummy. Bad performances except for Hauer, tedious, meandering storyline, redeemed only by the production design and Scott's flashy visuals. Hey, isn't that what this article was bashing?

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 11:33 AM

comment #13

Cadavra says ...

People forget (or don't know) that BLADE RUNNER was an enormous flop when it first came out; the little girls who made up Ford's fan base didn't wanna see their idol getting the shit kicked out of him all thorugh the movie (twice by women). It wasn't until it became a regular at rep houses and hit video that it became a "cult classic." BLUES BROTHERS, on the other hand, was a hit--not a substantial one, but a hit nonetheless.

You could also make a case for 1984: TEMPLE OF DOOM, STAR TREK III, GHOSTBUSTERS and GREMLINS all came out within a month of each other.

Posted by Cadavra at June 15, 2007 11:39 AM

comment #14

George Prager says ...

"You could also make a case for 1984: TEMPLE OF DOOM, STAR TREK III, GHOSTBUSTERS and GREMLINS all came out within a month of each other."

But all of those movies suck (Gremlins is ok.)

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 11:47 AM

comment #15

VedaPierce says ...

Kael's diatribe would've been more valid had she not used ALIEN as her whipping boy.

Posted by VedaPierce at June 15, 2007 11:48 AM

comment #16

MAGGA says ...

By the way, this decade has seen a tremndous rise in the quality and popularity of feature documentaries, and we are in the midst of the golden age of television. Which makes it a pretty good time to be interested in film

Posted by MAGGA at June 15, 2007 11:49 AM

comment #17

George Prager says ...

Spielberg also made The Color Purple, Hook, Lost World (OUCH!). He also exec produced a lot of crap made in the 80s. Anyone remember batteries not included? The Money Pit? Harry and the Hendersons?

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 11:52 AM

comment #18

T. S. Idiot says ...

One of many problems I have with Spielberg is that most of his movies seem much less effective on second viewing, with the exceptions of Jaws and Catch Me If You Can. I loved Close Encounters when it came out but was bored silly a few years later. I like Minority Report and Munich but haven't seen them a second time. I didn't care for ET the first and only time. ET's goal is to call home, but once he does, he's dying. Shouldn't he be hopeful of rescue cause the message is out there? Can anyone explain why achieving his goal makes him sick?

Posted by T. S. Idiot at June 15, 2007 11:57 AM

comment #19

MAGGA says ...

Yeah, and in 2001 when that old dude sees the square thing in the middle of the room, he points at it without calling his doctor to see if heÂ´s crazy. And why does he live in that big, white room?

Posted by MAGGA at June 15, 2007 12:18 PM

comment #20

travis b says ...

"Spielberg also made The Color Purple, Hook, Lost World (OUCH!)"

yeah, but does that take away from his early and latter day periods? the middle years were fairly lean, but he's no hack.

of all the golden boys that came out of that 70's period, spielberg, ridley scott and martin scorsese are the only ones who have escaped the dull periods and still make great films that mean something past the box office receipts. lucas, coppola, de palma, landis, cimino. . . . those once greats are continued has beens.

though, coppola's youth without youth seems intriguing.

Posted by travis b at June 15, 2007 12:19 PM

comment #21

jeffmcm says ...

I don't care for The Color Purple, but it was still a hit and is considered a classic in various circles.
Let's not get into DePalma-bashing here since he's continued to make some very good films. Hell, even Lucas.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 12:21 PM

comment #22

DavidF says ...

Since when does producing (even from someone as involved as Spielberg) count on their tally as a filmmaker? IF you're going to penalize him for batteries not included you have to give him credit for Poltergeist, Back to the Future and a zillion other things.

Someone upthread mentioned Coppola and it's worth remembering that since like 1975 he's made four good movies for every decent project. What has Spielberg made that compares to Jack?? Even 1941 is at least Spielberg's own and not some for-hire job. Heck. The Rainmaker is a decent popcorn film, I guess, but hardly worthy of the director of The Conversation and Apocalypse Now.

When Spielberg sinks to those depths come back to me. In the meanwhile he has made a few questionable stinkers (Hook and Always being obvious) one bloated outright mistake (1941) and then films that range from good if trivial (Catch Me if You Can) to among the best films ever made by anyone.

Heck, even Scorsese turns out clunkers every now and then. Even the God Known as Kubrick made some misguided films. People deify FMJ and The Shining because they are Kubrick but each has brilliance mixed with flaws.

I'm of the belief that some of Spielberg's reviled recent films (AI and Munich) will age quite well indeed. Certainly they'll be studied in more classes than Peggy Sue Got Married (no offence!)

You can call Spielberg a lot of things but "hack" is riddiculous. Even if you deem his work mediocre (riddiculous, but you're right) you have to acknowledge that he is behind it and not working as a hired gun, a la Coppola.

As for TS Idiot's question about ET - man, you should watch it again cuz you didn't get it AT ALL. He was sick because he was not (as you may have noticed) an earthling. His goal was not to CALL home, it was to get home. Only once the mothership was approaching earth did his health return. Watch it again, pay attention to the stuff about divorce and the bond between ET and Elliot and you may begin to appreciate what the big deal is.

Posted by DavidF at June 15, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #23

Mark G. says ...

I agree with MAGGA, 1999 was a really good year for movies and it has nothing to do with nostalgia as my youth was in 1982... (I'm 40).

Just try to do a 1999 Top Ten list out of these movies:
THE 6TH SENSE
GO
THE MATRIX
AMERICAN BEAUTY
RUN LOLA RUN
THE GREEN MILE
FIGHT CLUB
ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER
BEING JOHN MALKOVICH
MAN ON THE MOON
NOTTING HILL
DOGMA
THE IRON GIANT
THE CIDER HOUSE RULES
OCTOBER SKY
RUSHMORE
EXISTENZ
STRAIGHT STORY
THE LIMEY
EDTV
BUENA VISTA SOCIAL CLUB
STIR OF ECHOES
HURRICANE
THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY
ANY GIVEN SUNDAY
BOWFINGER
THREE KINGS
GALAXY QUEST
BLAIR WITCH PROJECT
TOY STORY 2
SLEEPY HOLLOW
AN IDEAL HUSBAND
ELECTION
LIBERTY HEIGHTS
MUMFORD
BOYS DON'T CRY
ARLINGTON ROAD
SUMMER OF SAM
MUSIC OF THE HEART
And some guilty pleasures like:
DEEP BLUE SEA
CRUEL INTENTIONS
10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU
BLAST FROM THE PAST

Posted by Mark G. at June 15, 2007 12:42 PM

comment #24

T. S. Idiot says ...

Thanks, DavidF. I stand humbled.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at June 15, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #25

George Prager says ...

"I don't care for The Color Purple, but it was still a hit and is considered a classic in various circles."

Yeah. Gene Shalit said "It should be against the law NOT to see The Color Purple!!!!"

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 12:48 PM

comment #26

cinefan says ...

How is Munich a reviled film? It was nominated for a Best Picture oscar and made many critics' top ten lists the year it was released. Even Wells called the film "very good" (although he seems to have forgotten that now).

Posted by cinefan at June 15, 2007 12:51 PM

comment #27

iamanerd says ...

Nice list Mark G. Glad you put Straight Story on there too. Ah, the good ole days of 1999. And there's nothing wrong with Deep Blue Sea. Sam Jackson getting eaten by the shark is only topped by Dave Chappelle doing an impersonation of Sam Jackson selling beer and bitching about getting eaten by a shark.

Posted by iamanerd at June 15, 2007 12:54 PM

comment #28

nemo says ...

The Russians often refer to director Nikita Mikhalkov (Burnt by the Sun, Barber of Siberia) as the Russian Spielberg. They don't always mean it as a compliment.

Like Spielberg, Mikhalkov is a supremely talented filmmaker. Like Spielberg, Mikhalkov routinely combines financial success with critical acclaim. Like Spielberg, Mikhalkov can easily put together a huge budget for his films (a real feat in modern Russia).

But like Spielberg, Mikhalkov also receives a lot of flack for resorting too readily to schlock and sentimentality to sell a movie to a broad audience.

Unlike Spielberg, Mikhalkov is also an actor and a good one. He does like to cast himself, often in a starring role. He starred as a famous general in Burnt by the Sun, and as Tsar Alexander III in The Barber of Siberia. The joke is going around that in his next film he's going to cast himself as God Almighty.

Posted by nemo at June 15, 2007 12:57 PM

comment #29

christian says ...

of course 1982 was a banner year for genre films. that's why the american cinemateque is presenting some cool double bills from 82 this month.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:02 PM

comment #30

iamanerd says ...

I'd also add Election and the South Park movie to that list. I am pretty sure both came out in 1999. Man, that 1999 was a great year. All this movie talk has made me all nostalgic for New Year's 1999. I don't know about the rest of you on this thread, but that night was quite memorable.

Posted by iamanerd at June 15, 2007 1:06 PM

comment #31

christian says ...

1999 was the best year of my life. so far.
i'm waiting...

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:07 PM

comment #32

Geoff says ...

I was waiting for someone to bring up 1999. Nice list Mark G, although I don't see MAGNOLIA.

Posted by Geoff at June 15, 2007 1:07 PM

comment #33

Arizona Joe says ...

The rise of the Temple of Dumb was concomitant with the ascension of management with MBA degrees in the studios and agencies who began pandering to the lowest common denominator of taste and intelligence.

Hence, the studios throw "idea movies" out the window as being too risky, and give the dumb audience what they want. The old moguls were greedy, but they had taste. And they took chances.

I eagerly awaited "Munich," because a friend went gold in Munich, and I really wanted to see the terrorists punished on the screen. However, its entertainment quotient was so low it was almost unwatchable. The cast had no star power, the editing was poor, the writing was stodgy and did not build tension. The whole thing was a poorly conceived, half baked mess. And the lighting was so dark and overcast, I had to sit under a sunlamp after it was over to rid myself of depression.

We should also place the blame on Speilberg for giving us Chris Columbus.

I hate to say this, but maybe the movies we watch as a society say something about us as a culture and a country. Maybe all the electronics have empowered people and accelerated life to such a point that there is little time nor inclination for thought, reflection, and examination of ourselves and our society.

Hence, the majority lurch forward to whatever crap the marketing people serve up. Hence, Iraq. Hence, buying oil from terrorists. Hence, the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Hence, George W. Bush.

Posted by Arizona Joe at June 15, 2007 1:08 PM

comment #34

George Prager says ...

I stopped reading after "concomitant", zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 1:10 PM

comment #35

Mark G. says ...

Nice that some more people agree that 1999 was a good year at the movies...
ELECTION is already on the 1999 list,
SOUTH PARK and MAGNOLIA are indeed 1999 releases...

Posted by Mark G. at June 15, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #36

christian says ...

the real death of the film industry came with the marketing folk. they don't know from art or film or even entertainment, they only know numbers. they know their charts and demographics, branding,s tentpole franchising four-quadrants -- barbarous adspeak that i hear filmmakers use in serious conversation. the marketing peole are in charge, from film to politics and they have americans lapping up shit and thinking it's good.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #37

George Prager says ...

Don't forget The Mod Squad...

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 1:13 PM

comment #38

christian says ...

are you related to dennis prager, george?

i wish you were so i could tell you that your brother is an ignorant moral putz.

if not, carry on.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:15 PM

comment #39

Dan Revill says ...

While I do agree that Spielberg has had trouble closing some of his films at the appropriate spot or way, I don't think he's a hack. I'd take ten minutes of AI or Minority Report over two hours of any Brett Ratner or Paul WS Anderson.
I think AI and Minority Report both could have used bleaker endings, but they're still enjoyable to watch.
War of the Worlds is near perfect except for the son surviving.
And Munich, well, it's an amazing film. Given time and space, it'll still be standing.

As for his 90s stuff, spotty yes, but Jurassic Park is still one of the best fun movies out there. Plus the CG hasn't aged too badly. It looks better than some new movies in fact. Go figure.

Posted by Dan Revill at June 15, 2007 1:18 PM

comment #40

christian says ...

"War of the Worlds is near perfect except for the son surviving."

and tim robbins. and the ending. and the tacky 9/11 references. and...

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:43 PM

comment #41

DavidF says ...

"Reviled" may have been strong but there is a harsh anti-Munich backlash out there (see Arizona Joe's post) despite its Oscar noms. People seemed to regard the critical success as kissing Spielberg's ass and I think it only made about $65 mil, didn't it?

The only thing I don't like about Minority Report is that, as I understand it, they made the ending "happier" by omitting a title. Someone can correct me but I believe after showing the precogs in the cottage it said something like "the next year 200 homicides were committed in Washington, DC." I just imagine it is there when I watch it. Losing that (if that's the case) moral complexity was a chickenshit move on Spielberg's part.

And let's not forget he put out Jurassic Park (amazing technical achievment, huge box office, popcorn movie that still stands up) the same year he put out Schindler's List (100% opposite tone, amazing artistic achievment, still good box office). Arguably he made his most commerical and artistically succesful films back to back within months of each other.

Coppola's GodfatherII/Conversation year and Soderbergh's Brokovich/Traffic year are the only things that strike me as close to that achievment.

Posted by DavidF at June 15, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #42

christian says ...

yes spielberg removed that critical last title from MR and destroyed the chance to have a conversation after the film ended. we needed to see everybody happy and protected.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:57 PM

comment #43

christian says ...

FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, the best teen film of the decade, came out in 82.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 1:59 PM

comment #44

jeffmcm says ...

Christian, Tim Robbins is great; you can't count the son living and the ending as two separate things; and the 9/11 references are the whole point of the movie.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 2:05 PM

comment #45

lipranzer says ...

Glad to see all the love for 1999 as a movie year (I wouldn't put The Green Mile on a list of great movies from that year, though. It was bloated and pedestrian and everything that Darabont's previous Stephen King adaptation, The Shawshank Redemption, wasn't).

The great movies I think of when I think of 1982 - and I'm talking U.S. release dates - are E.T., Shoot the Moon (still Alan Parker's best film), Diner, Tootsie, The Long Good Friday (again, U.S. release dates - I know it was made in 1980, but it didn't come here until '82), Personal Best, Smash Palace, Diva, Night of the Shooting Stars, and Pink Floyd: The Wall. I also like The Border (probably Nicholson's most underrated performance) and Fast Times at Ridgemont High (though I'd call Say Anything the best teen movie of the decade) a lot. I liked the theatrical version of Blade Runner, but I prefer the director's cut.

Posted by lipranzer at June 15, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #46

christian says ...

tim robbins is great to until his character warps into some oddball pervo whatever.

and a movie about martians that uses 9/11 imagery better be fucking deep and have resonance.

WOTW had neither.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #47

christian says ...

i'll try again using more readable english.

the son living was hollywood bs and the family living in an untouched neighborhood was equally silly. allowing a character to lose his family member makes the 9/11 references more valid, without that, it's just trivializing tragedy.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 2:13 PM

comment #48

jeffmcm says ...

The son living was out of tune, but it didn't destroy the movie. The family's neighborhood was hardly 'untouched' and there's no 'trivializing' going on since the movie as a whole is intense and emotional. Frankly the idea that 'I can't take this movie seriously unless someone dies' is kind of a silly generalization.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #49

travis b says ...

a lot of the problems with war of the worlds that people contribute to spielberg are more issues with the source material than the director who chose to stay somewhat true to the way the book was designed in terms of narration and plot (i.e. the war from one man's point of view, instead of a complete behind the scenes look at the war room, the crazy tim robbins character, etc. etc.). people tend to forget that.

still, the ending was fairly weak, which is another example of spielberg failing to "close" out a film properly.

Posted by travis b at June 15, 2007 2:26 PM

comment #50

christian says ...

"Frankly the idea that 'I can't take this movie seriously unless someone dies' is kind of a silly generalization."

then using 9/11 imagery to give weight to an alien invasion film that has nothing to do with the event is even more trivializing tragedy.

i was offended by the 9/11 stuff for this reason and the movie never recovered for me.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #51

jeffmcm says ...

It's not an alien invasion movie that uses 9/11 imagery to provide weight; it's a 9/11 movie that uses alien imagery to get people into the theater.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 2:44 PM

comment #52

MAGGA says ...

"yes spielberg removed that critical last title from MR and destroyed the chance to have a conversation after the film ended. we needed to see everybody happy and protected. "
Maybe that was such an obvious fact that putting it as a credit would be spoonfeeding the audience

Posted by MAGGA at June 15, 2007 2:55 PM

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

Unfortunately, probably not. The movie provides no other indication that ending the Precrime program is a bad thing.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 3:19 PM

comment #54

christian says ...

since it's called WAR OF THE WORLDS and is based on another source entirely, using 9/11 as an engine makes even less sense. there's nothing in the film to make you ponder anything but mass destruction. godzilla films do the same thing.

oh, and speaking of awful narration...

i give you the end of WOTW.

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 3:26 PM

comment #55

George Prager says ...

Jeez, I wish you guys would quit debating War of the Worlds. I'd rather you tear each other a new one over SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS.

Posted by George Prager at June 15, 2007 3:35 PM

comment #56

christian says ...

are you sure you're not related to dennis prager?

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 3:57 PM

comment #57

jeffmcm says ...

Huh? The original Godzilla film is pretty explicitly about nuclear bombings. It's called 'metaphor.'

Posted by jeffmcm at June 15, 2007 4:22 PM

comment #58

christian says ...

i was talking about the later sillier ones. i can understand GOJIRA as a cultural reflection, but WOTW was nowhere near as grim. so the 9/11 visual references just bothered me. i don't think it's a bad film,i think cruise is always good with spielberg, the effects cool, but i'll take the george pal version.

now about SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS...

Posted by christian at June 15, 2007 6:57 PM

comment #59

Craig Kennedy says ...

You know, I've been waiting for someone to mention that smug, sanctimonious prick Dennis Prager for a while.

Now that it's been done, I'm not sure why I was waiting for that.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at June 15, 2007 6:59 PM

comment #60

DavidF says ...

Christian said:
"oh, and speaking of awful narration...
i give you the end of WOTW."

Just to be clear - are you talking about Morgan Freeman's word-for-word narration from the original HG Wells novel? That's wack, man.

All this proves is that you don't get War of the Worlds whether Spielberg did it or not.
I 100% concede that the son living is bullshit but everything else about the ending is straight out of Wells. If the aliens having not done their research doesn't impress you I can point you to a far more satisfying ending.
How about aliens invade, kick our asses but then we beat them by using a Mac laptop to give their ships a virus and then have Randy Quaid fly an F18 into a laser beam?
He dies, so I think we can all agree: THAT is a movie right there.

Posted by DavidF at June 15, 2007 7:21 PM

comment #61

DavidF says ...

Oh, and I see MAGAA's point about Minority Report but I have to agree with jeffmcm. Certainly there are arguments throughout the movie about the nature of pre-crime but throwing up that title over that lovely sunset would have been a sock in the gut to the audience who were left only thinking about the good side of things.
Woulda cost Spielberg nothing to leave it in.

Posted by DavidF at June 15, 2007 7:25 PM

comment #62

D.Z. says ...

MAGGA: "And 1999 was one of cinemas great years if you ask me."

It was a great year for condescending, populist tripe.

Cadavra: "People forget (or don't know) that BLADE RUNNER was an enormous flop when it first came out; the little girls who made up Ford's fan base didn't wanna see their idol getting the shit kicked out of him all thorugh the movie"

Part of the problem back then was that the little girls wanted to marry Luke Skywalker, not Han Solo. People attributed Indiana Jones' appeal to the action and special effects, not the lead, hence why TOD disappointed.

Posted by D.Z. at June 15, 2007 8:22 PM

comment #63

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z., 1999 is universally recognized as one of the great years of cinema, up there with 1939. Rock and Roll. Deal with it.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 15, 2007 10:49 PM

comment #64

christian says ...

yes, i know the narration is from the book. a book set in victorian times and that would have made for a unique epic alien invasion film. so it's a 9/11 parable except for the narration from the book as intoned by morgan freeman. i get it. but it don't work.

Posted by christian at June 16, 2007 12:21 AM

comment #65

christian says ...

hey cj, remind to tell you about the one time i called prager's show. i told him that whenever he used his buzz word "clarity" i knew he about to obfuscate. he's not a mean host but his intellectual sloth and arrogant moralism makes him no better than limbaugh or hannity. a three times divorced guy who spends hours pontificating on the value of marriage. just like rush. anyway.

Posted by christian at June 16, 2007 12:29 AM

comment #66

Dan Revill says ...

I'm a Spielberg apologist it seems, so I'm gonna say that although upon initial viewings I had problems with the endings of AI, Minority Report and WOTW, I've come to accept them and enjoy the films as they are.
Now, I too wish that Spielberg had left the title card during the end of MR when it came to DVD, but what's done is done. It's still one fun film.
The son not dying in WOTW does still bother me, but not as much as it once did. Then again, I haven't rewatched the film in ages, so maybe I need to be re-enraged.

Anyhow I think that Catch Me If You Can is near perfection. I can't remember being bothered by anything in it. Plus Chris Walken rules.

Posted by Dan Revill at June 16, 2007 2:16 AM

comment #67

MAGGA says ...

I can remember critics lamenting the decline of cinema back in 99 as well. Which is added indication that this is a knee-jerk journalistic response to any cultural epoch

Posted by MAGGA at June 16, 2007 2:49 AM

comment #68

gruver1 says ...

1999 was indeed one of the verybest yearsd of all time, no question. My top 25: RUSHMORE, AMERICAN BEAUTY, THE LIMEY, ELECTION, GO, THE MATRIX, THE SIXTH SENSE, RUN LOLA RUN, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, BOYS DON'T CRY, MAGNOLIA (for the singalong scene and the falling frogs alone), FIGHT CLUB, ALL ABOUT MY MOTHER, MUMFORD (one of the greatest endings in a mainstream film in the last ten years), ANY GIVEN SUNDAY (Pacino's "inches" speech), HURRICANE, THREE KINGS, Minghella's THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, BOWFINGER (the last truly respectable Eddie Murphy performance before he became what he became), OCTOBER SKY (Chris Cooper!), EXISTENZ, THE
STRAIGHT STORY, GALAXY QUEST, BLAIR WITCH PROJECT,
SLEEPY HOLLOW, LIBERTY HEIGHTS.

Posted by gruver1 at June 16, 2007 7:28 AM

comment #69

Howlingman says ...

Late to the party as always, but I always felt the truth critics tend to ignore about the "last great era" of American film (the 70s) is that more often than not, movies of that period were more like "Smokey and the Bandit" and "The Towering Inferno" than they were "Taxi Driver" and "Nashville."

If I recall, on the Pitt-Norton-Fincher commentary on the FIGHT CLUB dvd, they address the critical pile-up on their film, as well on others released at the time. Norton in particular does a good job of refuting the concensus of '99 being a bad year for movies.

And Spielberg forgot how to end a movie somewhere around Schindler's List. He's still a great director of sequences (the first tripod attack in WotW), but I can't recall the last time I was totally enraptured by one of his films. I think the problems with MP begin a long way before the final ending.

Posted by Howlingman at June 16, 2007 7:38 AM

comment #70

Mr B says ...

The Insider came out in '99 right? That would be my number one out of a great list and would make '99 a great year in my mind for that alone.

Posted by Mr B at June 16, 2007 8:24 AM

comment #71

christian says ...

even THE PHANTOM MENANCE came out in 99 and while it was a letdown, it had three great things: the john williams score; the light saber battle at the end; and sitting in the theater watching a new STAR WARS movie!

Posted by christian at June 16, 2007 9:07 AM

comment #72

George Prager says ...

While christian was typing that he drank 10 oz. of a cola slurpee and half a bag of Cheet-os. amazing!

Posted by George Prager at June 16, 2007 11:13 AM

comment #73

D.Z. says ...

christian: You're kidding, right? The score was some lame techno, the light saber battle was mostly them staring down their opponents.

Posted by D.Z. at June 16, 2007 11:19 AM

comment #74

christian says ...

"some lame techno?"

i have the soundtrack and i can't recall john williams dropping mad beatz in the strings except for the last celebration song.

"the light saber battle was mostly them staring down their opponents."

it was the first real kinetic saber battle of the films and i thought it was awesome that ucas showed how each character reacted in the heat of battle according to their personality. it's still my favorite scene in any of the new SW.

and yes they stare -- until heads fly.

Posted by christian at June 16, 2007 11:50 AM

comment #75

D.Z. says ...

christian: The composition still reeks more of Mortal Kombat than Star Wars. And I thought the battle was lame. It's just them getting into random fights with some random thug hired by the Alliance. The trailers made him out to be the next Darth Vader.

Posted by D.Z. at June 16, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #76

George Prager says ...

Another thread shot to hell by fanboy geekdom.

Posted by George Prager at June 16, 2007 12:48 PM

comment #77

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z. has never seen any of the Star Wars. His last post confirms it.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 16, 2007 1:45 PM

comment #78

christian says ...

sssh george, i can't respond gulping down a coke and licorice.

Posted by christian at June 16, 2007 1:53 PM

comment #79

DarthCorleone says ...

1999 ruled. Best year of my life, both inside and outside the movie theater.

Posted by DarthCorleone at June 18, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #80

DarthCorleone says ...

By the way, for all you people bitching about the ending of Minority Report, it helps if you imagine everything after the imprisonment of Cruise as his hallucination. The clues are there to support the interpretation; it just seems to me they didn't have the guts to make the ending that explicit of a downer.

Posted by DarthCorleone at June 18, 2007 11:51 AM

comment #81