This movie has everything, 3 great top billing actors, outstanding dialogue, adventure on the high seas, and frightening scenes that changed people's behavior. Plus, this is the movie that invented the word "Blockbuster", at least as it applies to movies.
I can't think of a more seminal 70's movie, can you?
It's ok. But it was never considered a fantastic movie. It was cotton candy, get their ticket money and forget it film. Somehow it got turned into something monumental when it clearly wasn't.
And I now doubt Spielberg was that great a director. He had ideas but he was always immature and maudlin. I think the early films had a mentor in the background somewhere leading him. Because he always pulled back on the schmaltz. He was unleashed in the 80s and went on a downward spiral.
I don't think your statement about Spielberg is fair, Annkat. He can't win. If you like his early stuff, it's due to a phantom 'mentor'. You don't like his '80's movies, so those can be attributed entirely to Spielberg. Movies are a confluence of many people's ideas and input, no matter how bold the director. By your analysis, if it's bad, it's all Spielberg; if it's good, it's some unidentified genius operating behind the scenes.
shareHe had a mentor. It is obvious. There was a more balanced approach. On his own, he gravitates to the more manipulative, maudlin spectrum.
I'm sorry, Spielberg had so much power in the 80s and 90s, he could have filmed a dog taking a poo and no one would have said no. There was no outside interference and it shows.
In the interest of candor, Spielberg has never been one of my favorite directors. Whether it be his '70's films, '80's, up through the current time. So I am not rushing to his defense over some fanboy loyalty to my favorite moviemaker. I just don't like that sort of reasoning whether we're talking about politicians, athletes, performers, film directors, or any worker on whose project the end product hinges upon multiple people's efforts (or shortcomings). That kind of logic makes it too convenient for blind love or hatred of any single individual.
shareIt’s a winner takes all industry.
Spielberg is the main reason why any of his projects get filmed. Doesn’t matter who works for him. But the fact that he had a mentor who guided him strictly, without getting credit, indicates to me that Spielberg's position in the industry was created and given to him.
By the time he was on his own and making his own decisions, he could have made movies about men getting comb overs at a salon and people would have cheered. The people in the industry working with him would have proudly touted their involvement with Spielberg’s project Combover City.
Hahaha! That's a funny way of putting it!
shareI don't know if you're right, but what you said fits with my view that Spielberg made his best films in the 70s and early 80s (mostly Raiders of the Lost ark). Then there was a long time period of nothing special. In the 90s and later, he made a couple of notable films, mainly Schindler's List and Munich, especially Munich. Saving Private Ryan and Bridge of Spies were also okay, altough not perfect.
shareI have a feeling he went hogwild once he was set free from his mentor. So his work took a dip.
I think his age started to play a factor. But he still pulls his punches. Hence the addition of the old coot speechifying in Saving Private Ryan. The magically preserved eyeball in minority report. The miraculous survival of the son in War of the worlds. Again that speech at the end of Schindler.
Munich is the best of his later work. He didn’t shy in it and he got slammed for it.
The 70's had some damn good movies
shareThe 70's definitely had a lot of damn good movies including Horror and in a time when practical FX ruled over today's Digital CGI. Like when it came to Stephen King Adaptations, everything up to 1983 was the Best and after that, it began to go downhill
shareWhat were some of your favorite, specifically '70's, Stephen King adaptations? My favorite King adaptation is The Shining, but no matter how you reason it, that film was released in 1980.
shareThe SHINING(1980) CUJO(1983) CHRISTINE(1982) SALEMS LOT(1979) It's like everything after 1983 was either lackluster or flat out sucked
shareBesides Salem's Lot, which I think was made-for-TV, what other '70's King adaptations would you recommend. You set out an interesting premise: "The 70's definitely had a lot of damn good movies including Horror and in a time when practical FX ruled over today's Digital CGI."
However, all of your King examples are '80's (except for 1979's Salem's Lot).
Were there that many King adaptations in the 70's? Carrie and Salem's Lot are the only ones that comes to mind. Carrie (the movie) started King's career. Then there's The Shining, which was probably shot in the 70's, but released in 1980.
shareThat's what I thought too, pji69. I just didn't want to fact-check on imdb; I'd rather engage with a fellow moviechat member (BKB) and give him/her a chance to defend his/her thesis. But aside from Carrie and Salem's Lot, I too, am at a loss for any other '70's King adaptations.
The Shining is interesting because it really should be a '70's horror movie, but, alas, it is from 1980. I am sorry, but I'm an absolute purist about this idea. If it is released in '80, I can't call it a '70's movie despite the many touchstones of '70's filmmaking. A lot of the fashion (wardrobes), alone, simply would not have been around in the '70's: Shelly Duvall's dumpy overall skirt and turtleneck, Jack Nicholson's suede, fall jacket, Danny's ski sweater, Barry Nelson's blazer and thin, red tie.