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).
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.
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”.
Maggie, just wanted to say that I really appreciate your time and effort with these videos. You've basically become my only go-to UA-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Crash was the reason I stopped having any respect for the so-called "Academy." When it won best picture, I knew the entire industry was built on sand, and I haven't paid any attention to the Oscars since. Crash is one of the worst movies that any sentient creature could possibly make. It succeeds at failure so spectacularly; perhaps that is why it won the Oscar. I would feel better to learn that the Academy gave them the award to troll the filmmakers and the world. That would be actually brilliant.
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.
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.
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 :)
@@TheDraftHorse2025 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 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.
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
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.
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..
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.
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!
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.
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,
@@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.
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.
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.
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 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!!
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.
Thx for all the great Content🤩There's an interesting interview with Michael Haneke on YT, were he criticizes Schindlers List and Spielberg... Especially the Suspense-Shower-Scene...
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.
@@Tolstoy111 What really bugs me [and I should have clarified this], is that this particular work of reductionist history is also propaganda along with so many other Hollywood examples. Nuff said
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Touch of Evil aged well. The opening shot was so elaborate, might've been the earliest I saw that kind of gritty camera work & it seemed about 20 years ahead of it's time. Only 1 actor in it was too dated & silly (the employee at the hotel). that's a well made classic that aged pretty well though. it's hard to think of movies that didn't. Sunset Blvd seemed ahead of it's time too. I'd recommend those 2 to anyone who's just starting with the classics. If you like dialogue, The Maltese Falcon. I got a kick out of the old slang in that one.
@@miz4535 I never thought about that. He wasn't my favorite part of the movie, but it was also a long time ago so things change. That's what acting is though. You play characters that may be different from the actors' actual personality (or traits). It requires a suspension of disbelief, which requires a great actor. People who claim to want diversity, even though they may be well-intentioned, unfortunately they're taking part in the same worldview they criticize. Keannu Reeves isn't really a trained assassin. But people like him as John Wick. No one would suggest that only a trained killer should have been hired for the role. Dustin Hoffman played a woman in Tootsie & an autistic man in Rain Man. He's neither, but it doesn't matter bc the only goal should be to hire the best person for the job. Otherwise you'd be discriminating against the hardest-working & the most talented people. No matter which way you spin it somebody's going to be left out (or discriminated against - sans connotations). So while I admire the intent behind the ambition of wanting racial purity in casting, the irony is its equally discriminatory. Whether you hire a person because of race, or whether you won't hire them because of their race, both mindsets are focused on the wrong thing (I.e., the color of their skin instead of the core of their humanity). We shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin. Just their merit as humans, or in this case actors. Anything other than meritocracy is regression not progress. This is 2023. We should be 50 years past thinking in those terms. Even the whites who claim that they want diversity to provide opportunities for different ethnicities, I don't think they realize how condescending that is. It's pandering. People want to be recognized for their character and who they are, not simply what they look like. Like I said, it's well-intentioned but more condescending than they realize. My hope is that in my lifetime we'll move past race. It shouldn't even be a consideration
@@scoutwithoutclout Ok if adults played children and vice versa, and women played men and vice versa, you have no issue? But really in older films it was always white people playing other races, not the other way round. So that's the problem. You comparison to their job is ridiculous.
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 🍿
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
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.
You’re spot on about Basterds. I came away with that exact take on my first watch of it. Pitt is woefully miscast and the whole thing is a series of vignettes which means we don’t connect with any of the characters….except Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz was (and probably still is) the most compelling villain I’ve watched. I was mesmerised by his urbane persona, knowing he was in full control all the time. He scene with the farmer (who was also brilliant) in the opening 20 minutes is one of the best I’ve ever seen…right up there with Walkin and Hopper in True Romance.
"Macy's Day Parade"? Yeah, you're a new yorker. 🙂 I was 5 years old on the January day that mom and dad bundled up my sister and I and took us form our north NJ suburb to Rockefeller Plaza to go ice skating. 🙂
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
Interesting commentary on Mission Impossible. I agree that the earlier episodes with all of the face peeling was more than a little ridiculous and it doesn't hold up well. I think that between Bond and Bourne, there was this idea that Tom Cruise should get in on this genre. Later it didn't work with Jack Reacher. But Mission Impossible improved greatly with the introduction of the Isla Faust character in Rogue Nation. The stunts became more outrageous but there was more weight to the plot. I look forward to the next edition with the motorcycle stunt jump sequence this year.
I mainly grew up on action movies but found Mission Impossible incredibly dull and forgettable. I haven’t watched any of the sequels but notice they have some pretty eye-popping stunt work. However that doesn’t justify the slog of sitting there and watching the other 90 odd minutes of movie. The newer James Bond movies are the same - just dull and generic while trying to come off as edgy. The 60’s ones were so much sharper and better, even the slower-moving ones like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
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.
i saw Schindler's List for the first time pretty recently and i definitely appreciated parts but overall i was disappointed for the reasons you said. plus i didn't like the idea of focusing on a "good nazi"
For me it's Magnolia. The very first time I saw it I LOVED it. Loved the chances it took. But each time I rewatch the thing it sort of diminishes. I saw it recently and the scene where William H. Macy's character is professing his love to Brad the bartender with the big orchestral music playing in the soundtrack just struck me as cringey.
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.
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.
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
What I disliked most at the time of Spielberg's Hook was the fact that there was so much media surrounding Julia Roberts being a sad-sack the entire time during the filmmaking because she was going through a divorce, and as a kid even I didn't want to bother with it after that but I went to the theater anyway. Then I disliked it even more because of how artificial the sets were.
Spielberg was reportedly furious about all those tabloid headlines, fearing they would detract from the film. Also, he nearly fired Julia Roberts when she ran off to Ireland in the middle of filming to escape the media after her engagement ended.
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.
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 also completely disagree on “Schindler’s List”, Spielberg has a visual style that has become what is one of the “Hollywood” looks in film. That it is not as absolutely bleak and dark as another great holocaust movie of it’s era, “The Gray Zone” is literally the point of the story being told! The movie has a classic perfect passing of Spielberg’s best films but is also still dark and fully showing an intimate view from the two main characters(protagonist - antagonist) view. The film for me is emotionally engaging and relates the very true nature of those who risk themselves to help others in dark times. As corny as it may seem, these sort of things do occur and these sort of people do exist. I think people after GenX have been given a over sanitized view of current and recent wars/conflicts in the media and news. So these things if not shown in some sort of sudo cinema verity’ fashion feel it’s cliche and generic. Hook, well never cared for it but really? It’s a overtly stylized kids movie and in my opinion is not relevant to an adult critique of it not standing up the test of time. For that it should be seen by kids now and we can see how they view it. Labyrinth, saw it once as a kid in the 80’s, ehh was never into it to be honest and I general I’m a big fan of 80’s culture and music. Mission Impossible movie’s, Daniel Craig Bond films absolutely blow aware the at time corny Mission Impossible films. For me the 1st one was all right but that’s it. Just a note, the Craig Bond films are by far the best ones. Crash, I remember seeing it when it came out at Blockbuster. Was all right at the time but nothing great actually and I had no desire to see it again. I’m not really a fan of excessively mellow dramatic characters that are supposedly based in reality. Basically because they don’t actually feel like real people at all.
@@GuamoKun Oh lots of people. That's not uncommon. it's taken decades for the film to get the reputation it has now. "Barry Lyndon" is not for all tastes, and even Kubrick subsequently said he would have trimmed it a bit, especially the ending and I have to say I don't disagree with him. (even though I love Barry Lyndon.....and may watch it right now since you got me in the mood! lol)
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!
No clue why you think Jennifer Connely's acting was bad. When you descriptive statements like that you should back them up with examples or details on why you think it was bad.
You say you saw the mediocrity of Hook when you were young. Critics felt similarly when it was released. So I don't think it's an issue of not aging well.
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 UA-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.
Found your Channel about a week ago, subscribed and rang the bell and have been binging your videos on walks to work since.
Great channel. Munich is for me Spielberg’s best…it strangely doesn’t seem to have much of his normal imprint on it.
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!
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”.
Maggie, just wanted to say that I really appreciate your time and effort with these videos.
You've basically become my only go-to UA-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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
Crash was the reason I stopped having any respect for the so-called "Academy." When it won best picture, I knew the entire industry was built on sand, and I haven't paid any attention to the Oscars since. Crash is one of the worst movies that any sentient creature could possibly make. It succeeds at failure so spectacularly; perhaps that is why it won the Oscar. I would feel better to learn that the Academy gave them the award to troll the filmmakers and the world. That would be actually brilliant.
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
Thought you were talking about Cronenberg's Crash! Phew.
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.
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.
@@TheDraftHorse2025 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.
“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!
Hook is good. I remember so many details about my first viewing of it in the theatre, the car ride there, etc.
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
We get it, she’s easy on the eyes.
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.
I never fell for the “Crash” hoopla…but I was in my 30’s when I saw it. I turned it off halfway through.
Every time I get on UA-cam there’s a video of your that I haven’t seen 😂 here we go!
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..
Ethan Hunt is NOT James Bond. He's a moral hero.
The movies tackle significant historical events they make the huge into something small.
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.
Hook has always sucked. You liked it because you were young.
"Stripes" humor hasn't aged well.
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 Mayoua-cam.com/video/cnwQDgssrwk/v-deo.html
@@spanishprisoner I've heard in the past that he doesn't like Hook.
He’s absolutely right. Hook is terrible.
I don’t think that Spielberg played it safe with Munich and Saving Private Ryan. They’re extremely violent.
That sweater looks comfortable by the way.
She looks like she did coke all night, rolled out of bed, and recorded this video.
Maggie your almost at 50k subs should be 100k honestly but congrats ✨👌✨💪✨
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
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.
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,
Completely off topic but that hoodie looks so comfie
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 👍🏻
Jackson Littlewood's comment on Schindler's List echoes what Terry Gilliam said about it, s. "Terry Gilliam criticizes Spielberg and Schindler's List"
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 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.
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.
I was 16 when it came out, and I remember I couldn’t get over how bad it was.
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 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!!
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.
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.
Agreed with most of these... But not with _Labyrinth._ Adore it. Not everything about it but most everything.
Thx for all the great Content🤩There's an interesting interview with Michael Haneke on YT, were he criticizes Schindlers List and Spielberg... Especially the Suspense-Shower-Scene...
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.
I loved American Beauty the first time I saw it. Every time after that, all I could see was the obviousness of every scene.
My biggest problem with Schindler's List is after learning how much of that history has been falsified
It's a drama. Shakespeare's history plays aren't fully accurate either.
@@Tolstoy111 What really bugs me [and I should have clarified this], is that this particular work of reductionist history is also propaganda along with so many other Hollywood examples. Nuff said
DFL is my favorite movie critic!
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.
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"
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.
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.
a cricket landing and it starts singing if you wish upon a star Im tripping right
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.
"Ladyhawke" (1985) was great at the time, but the 80's synthesizer background music is quite jarring nowadays.
How is it compared to the Pianist?
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.
I think Hook is solid until he finds out he’s Peter Pan. Just found you’re channel and subscribed by the way.
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.
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.
Touch of Evil aged well. The opening shot was so elaborate, might've been the earliest I saw that kind of gritty camera work & it seemed about 20 years ahead of it's time. Only 1 actor in it was too dated & silly (the employee at the hotel). that's a well made classic that aged pretty well though. it's hard to think of movies that didn't. Sunset Blvd seemed ahead of it's time too. I'd recommend those 2 to anyone who's just starting with the classics. If you like dialogue, The Maltese Falcon. I got a kick out of the old slang in that one.
What about that they got a white guy to play a Mexican?
@@miz4535 I never thought about that. He wasn't my favorite part of the movie, but it was also a long time ago so things change. That's what acting is though. You play characters that may be different from the actors' actual personality (or traits). It requires a suspension of disbelief, which requires a great actor. People who claim to want diversity, even though they may be well-intentioned, unfortunately they're taking part in the same worldview they criticize. Keannu Reeves isn't really a trained assassin. But people like him as John Wick. No one would suggest that only a trained killer should have been hired for the role. Dustin Hoffman played a woman in Tootsie & an autistic man in Rain Man. He's neither, but it doesn't matter bc the only goal should be to hire the best person for the job. Otherwise you'd be discriminating against the hardest-working & the most talented people. No matter which way you spin it somebody's going to be left out (or discriminated against - sans connotations). So while I admire the intent behind the ambition of wanting racial purity in casting, the irony is its equally discriminatory. Whether you hire a person because of race, or whether you won't hire them because of their race, both mindsets are focused on the wrong thing (I.e., the color of their skin instead of the core of their humanity). We shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin. Just their merit as humans, or in this case actors. Anything other than meritocracy is regression not progress. This is 2023. We should be 50 years past thinking in those terms. Even the whites who claim that they want diversity to provide opportunities for different ethnicities, I don't think they realize how condescending that is. It's pandering. People want to be recognized for their character and who they are, not simply what they look like. Like I said, it's well-intentioned but more condescending than they realize. My hope is that in my lifetime we'll move past race. It shouldn't even be a consideration
@@scoutwithoutclout Ok if adults played children and vice versa, and women played men and vice versa, you have no issue? But really in older films it was always white people playing other races, not the other way round. So that's the problem. You comparison to their job is ridiculous.
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.
Love your channel!
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
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.
Never trust “the man”, SON!
You’re spot on about Basterds.
I came away with that exact take on my first watch of it.
Pitt is woefully miscast and the whole thing is a series of vignettes which means we don’t connect with any of the characters….except Hans Landa.
Christoph Waltz was (and probably still is) the most compelling villain I’ve watched. I was mesmerised by his urbane persona, knowing he was in full control all the time. He scene with the farmer (who was also brilliant) in the opening 20 minutes is one of the best I’ve ever seen…right up there with Walkin and Hopper in True Romance.
"Macy's Day Parade"? Yeah, you're a new yorker. 🙂
I was 5 years old on the January day that mom and dad bundled up my sister and I and took us form our north NJ suburb to Rockefeller Plaza to go ice skating. 🙂
New Yorker? She's a Hispanic woman from Texas dude...
Crash was highly criticized at the time - it is terrible. A lot of people were shocked at the time Oscar win.
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
Interesting commentary on Mission Impossible. I agree that the earlier episodes with all of the face peeling was more than a little ridiculous and it doesn't hold up well. I think that between Bond and Bourne, there was this idea that Tom Cruise should get in on this genre. Later it didn't work with Jack Reacher. But Mission Impossible improved greatly with the introduction of the Isla Faust character in Rogue Nation. The stunts became more outrageous but there was more weight to the plot. I look forward to the next edition with the motorcycle stunt jump sequence this year.
I mainly grew up on action movies but found Mission Impossible incredibly dull and forgettable. I haven’t watched any of the sequels but notice they have some pretty eye-popping stunt work. However that doesn’t justify the slog of sitting there and watching the other 90 odd minutes of movie. The newer James Bond movies are the same - just dull and generic while trying to come off as edgy. The 60’s ones were so much sharper and better, even the slower-moving ones like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
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.
i saw Schindler's List for the first time pretty recently and i definitely appreciated parts but overall i was disappointed for the reasons you said. plus i didn't like the idea of focusing on a "good nazi"
I have a soft spot for toxic avenger
Wow your almost at 50k?!!!!
Nah, she doesn’t look a day over 49. . .
Schindler's List is awesome and I also loved the Fabelman.
For me it's Magnolia. The very first time I saw it I LOVED it. Loved the chances it took. But each time I rewatch the thing it sort of diminishes. I saw it recently and the scene where William H. Macy's character is professing his love to Brad the bartender with the big orchestral music playing in the soundtrack just struck me as cringey.
agreed
Comparing Mission Impossible to Bond is like conidering buying those off-brand lego-clones.
They’re the same thing, right?
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.
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.
None of those films I cared for all that much the first time I saw them, except Labyrinth which I still rather like.
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
What I disliked most at the time of Spielberg's Hook was the fact that there was so much media surrounding Julia Roberts being a sad-sack the entire time during the filmmaking because she was going through a divorce, and as a kid even I didn't want to bother with it after that but I went to the theater anyway. Then I disliked it even more because of how artificial the sets were.
Spielberg was reportedly furious about all those tabloid headlines, fearing they would detract from the film. Also, he nearly fired Julia Roberts when she ran off to Ireland in the middle of filming to escape the media after her engagement ended.
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.
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 also completely disagree on “Schindler’s List”, Spielberg has a visual style that has become what is one of the “Hollywood” looks in film. That it is not as absolutely bleak and dark as another great holocaust movie of it’s era, “The Gray Zone” is literally the point of the story being told! The movie has a classic perfect passing of Spielberg’s best films but is also still dark and fully showing an intimate view from the two main characters(protagonist - antagonist) view. The film for me is emotionally engaging and relates the very true nature of those who risk themselves to help others in dark times. As corny as it may seem, these sort of things do occur and these sort of people do exist. I think people after GenX have been given a over sanitized view of current and recent wars/conflicts in the media and news. So these things if not shown in some sort of sudo cinema verity’ fashion feel it’s cliche and generic.
Hook, well never cared for it but really? It’s a overtly stylized kids movie and in my opinion is not relevant to an adult critique of it not standing up the test of time. For that it should be seen by kids now and we can see how they view it.
Labyrinth, saw it once as a kid in the 80’s, ehh was never into it to be honest and I general I’m a big fan of 80’s culture and music.
Mission Impossible movie’s, Daniel Craig Bond films absolutely blow aware the at time corny Mission Impossible films. For me the 1st one was all right but that’s it. Just a note, the Craig Bond films are by far the best ones.
Crash, I remember seeing it when it came out at Blockbuster. Was all right at the time but nothing great actually and I had no desire to see it again. I’m not really a fan of excessively mellow dramatic characters that are supposedly based in reality. Basically because they don’t actually feel like real people at all.
Billy Jack. I saw it in the 70's and thought it was great. Now? What a crapper. 😊
Love your channel. You should do a video about movie classics we hate. I can think of two, Barry Lyndon and The Deer Hunter.
I love both of those movies, and "Barry Lyndon" is in her top ten, lol.
I can’t think of anyone who dislikes Barry Lyndon
Hey I saw Barry Lyndon over 100 times .. it must not be that bad lol
@@GuamoKun Oh lots of people. That's not uncommon. it's taken decades for the film to get the reputation it has now. "Barry Lyndon" is not for all tastes, and even Kubrick subsequently said he would have trimmed it a bit, especially the ending and I have to say I don't disagree with him. (even though I love Barry Lyndon.....and may watch it right now since you got me in the mood! lol)
Most of us have already watched her take on "Movies you hate that everyone else loves" back from June 2020:
ua-cam.com/video/ZUMpyR6ELTg/v-deo.html
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''
I think you are way to hard on th later Mission impossible films.
No clue why you think Jennifer Connely's acting was bad. When you descriptive statements like that you should back them up with examples or details on why you think it was bad.
You say you saw the mediocrity of Hook when you were young. Critics felt similarly when it was released. So I don't think it's an issue of not aging well.
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.
I love david lynch work.
Love your content, love the first Mission Impossible!
I like it and has a lot of nostalgia but 1976 King Kong.
Hook isn't perfect and has some dumb moments but still is one of my favorites too.