Steven Spielberg's Bridge of Spies (2015) (Tom Hanks)

[GorillaGuy]

Meh

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by jabbercash

Spectre08 is just a hipster who likes to be in the minority. Everyone likes to hate Michael Bay! I LOVE HIM! Everyone loves and respects Spielberg! He's not a true artist! I like indie movies better! That's where the true art is at!

close. But it's never been about indie or studio. There are plenty of auteurs who make big studio blockbusters; Fincher, Tarantino, Nolan, Besson, Snyder....


Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams are heads in the direction of Spielberg and Cameron, even though they too have more stylistic films in their past as well.

Maybe Spielberg used to be an artist, but that doesn't mean he is anymore.

and I never said his movies weren't good or that I didn't enjoy them

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by dgoswald

It looks like an action / spy thriller in the same vein as The Hunt For Red October or Harrison Ford's Patriot Games.

That's what i was thinking cant want wait for this to come out it will be a blast

[DisneyBlu]

Great trailer. This movie looks fantastic!

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by jabbercash

Well, let's be honest here, Tarantino is not safe. Look at Django, a western film (they've always been risky since Heaven's Gate) surrounding slavery (most mainstream audience don't like slavery movies since they consider them "depressing") with extremely dark humor (laughing at somebody in agonizing pain when shot in the testicles) and excessive racial slurs (the n word is used 102 times) doesn't seem that "safe" to me. Pretty damn risky. What about Death Proof? A whole movie which is a homage to exploitation movies from the 70's? Starring an irrelevant actor as the lead, and a no name supporting cast? You can't say Tarantino doesn't take risk. What about Inglourious Basterds for **** sake? 90% is subtitled. However, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your argument. Even though I'm not huge on Spielberg, he's an incredible filmmaker and one of the best. Spectre08 is just a hipster who likes to be in the minority. Everyone likes to hate Michael Bay! I LOVE HIM! Everyone loves and respects Spielberg! He's not a true artist! I like indie movies better! That's where the true art is at!

Tarantino is very safe and very mainstream. Just because his movies have violence, lots of swearing, and use the "n word," doesn't make him not safe or not mainstream. His movies can be slightly edgy, but they're still R rated movies that have pretty wide appeal. Django was a typical revenge action flick, and is quite possibly the worst example that can be used, because it's probably his most successful and popular recent movie despite the subject matter.

[imsounoriginal]

Tarantino's riskiest movies are by far Inglourious Basterds (a movie that rewrites history so that a Jewish-American hit squad in World War II kills Hitler) and, even moreso, Jackie Brown (a relatively dense R-rated neo-noir about a middle-aged African-American air hostess and a middle-aged bail bondsman teaming up to swindle $500K from a ruthless arms dealer, done as an homage to 70s blaxploitation films).

[Pounder]

Looks like a snoozefest

[Foggy]

Why in cocks names are we talking about Tara-bloomin'-tino?

[Jasonic]

Looks fantastic. One of my most anticipated of the Fall.

[Riddler The Slag]

Looks absolutely solid. Sign me up for another Spielberg / Hanks adventure.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by spectre08

If you put a dozen random movies from Spielberg, Cameron, and Ridley Scott in front of somebody with no knowledge of the directors or their films there's no possible way that they could group them by the director.

What about John Huston or Billy Wilder? Or Fritz Lang or Sydney Lumet? Do you think somebody with no knowledge of directors could pick their films out of a pile?

Originally Posted by spectre08

But they're still generic, safe, and lacking in vision. There's a reason everybody loves them, and that's ok.

They're damn entertaining, but their artistic value is next to none.

One could argue that Michael Bay has a distinctive style but how exactly would one go about arguing that he has 'vision' (whatever that even means) or that his films have 'artistic value' that go beyond mere style?

Originally Posted by spectre08

Some directors are artists who make movies. Some directors are executives who can manage the movie making process really well. Spielberg is a great executive who can manage one hell of a production into existence. But he's not an artist, not by any measure or any stretch of the imagination.

So a reasonable person could not define artist in a way that would encompass Spielberg. Okay, fair enough.

But while we're on the subject, how would a reasonable person define artist?

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

As for "Munich", there were criticisms of the film, but if you don't show the Israelis as 100% right and the terrorists as 100% wrong, there will be criticism. That doesn't mean that Spielberg was taking a political position. It means he was accurately conveying what the protagonist (Avner) felt. I can assure you that Spielberg is a strong supporter of Israel, for better or for worse.

Having not seen Munich that's what I assumed Spielberg's position would be too, considering his roots. Not that there's a problem with that if that's what he believes to be right.

[kristoffer]

Looks really good. I hope it is like the underated Munich.

[Chaotic]

Originally Posted by Pounder

Looks like a snoozefest

Yeah, where are the damn explosions?

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by jabbercash

What about Death Proof? A whole movie which is a homage to exploitation movies from the 70's? Starring an irrelevant actor as the lead, and a no name supporting cast?

[chris_sc77]

Looks like a good movie for adults.
Hope it's more exciting than the Good Shepard though

[jabbercash]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Tarantino is very safe and very mainstream. Just because his movies have violence, lots of swearing, and use the "n word," doesn't make him not safe or not mainstream. His movies can be slightly edgy, but they're still R rated movies that have pretty wide appeal. Django was a typical revenge action flick, and is quite possibly the worst example that can be used, because it's probably his most successful and popular recent movie despite the subject matter.

My point wasn't that he isn't successful, it's that he takes risks. Swearing and violence have nothing to do with not being mainstream. It's that he is in no way safe. That's ridiculous as hell. He can get away with it because he's talented and his films are entertaining. Think about it this way, if one of Tarantino's movies, say Django for example, was written by a totally unknown filmmaker, do you really think it'd get produced?

"Alright so there's this slave, who gets unleashed and starts killing all these white people! Then he meets this guy who's a really evil plantation owner who feeds his slaves to dogs! Did I mention that there's a scene where the KKK starts getting into a really funny argument about not being able to see out of their bags? Think I could maybe get Jonah Hill for that part?" That's safe filmmaking alright .

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

I meant irrelevant in terms of today's general audience. Kurt Russell isn't a big movie star. When do you ever see him in leading roles anymore, or in roles in general? He had a small part in Furious 7 but that's about it.

[JimboTHX1138]

Trailer looks good.

John Williams came down sick and was replaced with Thomas Newmen. Nothing against Newmen but was looking forward to another Spielberg/Williams collaboration. Bummer!

[aiman04]

[Mandalorian]

That Saul Bass poster blows the other one to smithereens, then desecrates its remnants. Props to Peter Mahoney, the artist.