One star Amazon reviews of classic movies, music and literature. Today we take a look at Schindler’s List:
Anyone who makes a feel good movie about the Holocaust is a total crackpot. Move over, Mel Gibson.
Mr. S should stick with kiddie flicks like ET – although even there he was cruel to the actress who performed inside the ET suit.
This film is very empty, for not only does it portray the Germans as “evil, lop-sided, devil worshippers” but it shows the Jews as being “promising, alluring, good guys”. If one is to question morality, then do so, but do not give us the black vs white issue found in this film. Speilberg, immature since day one as director, tells us what to think, he strips away our humanity by overdosing us on excessive amounts of guilt and sentimentality. In effect, the film lacks any moral basis except to denounce all evil men and with that, we learn absolutely nothing…..
Hey don’t get me wrong I like Holocaust movies as much as the next guy , but this one was a real let down. First of all there are no Americans(at least not American characters)hey spielzy what gives, wheres are hero, schindler is no indiana jones. Perhaps he should of handed the script over to michael cricton.I think spielberg is our greatest “dreamweaver”, to quote someone else, but this film has no pizazz, or more importantly no color. plus it doesn’t have any great action scenes or excitement like saving private ryan. I guess the holocaust is a good topic to make a movie about, but brother this movie aint no “hook”. hopefully people will forget about this turkey and pay more attention to stephen’s better work, ‘amistad’ ‘field of dreams’ ‘ the lost world’.
It makes me very sad that people so love Steven Spielberg movies. Spielberg only makes movies about the most simplistic emotions in the most simple ways. Most of the time it boils down to a child’s feeling of fear running away from a monster. Is there really any difference for Spielberg between running from a killer shark or a killer dinosaur or a killer Nazi? I don’t think there is. Showing bad things happening to people and saying, “Here’s a great holocaust movie” is so insulting. It’s the worst thing one can possibly do to take something very complicated and through propogandistic techniques (cutting between party scenes and scenes of suffering etc.) make it look simple. I beg you not to go for the cheap and easy way out.
Yeah. Easily. Spielberg has to stop with the Germans. It’s becoming uncomfortable. What is the word when you constantly portray an entire race, it’s culture and it’s language as evil and subhuman? I await the next Indiana Jones film with interest.
I don’t understand why, but throughout the movie, I felt like a message was being shoved down my throat: everyone seemed to scream “THESE ARE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST! FEEL PITY FOR US!”
My heart wasn’t touched by this at all; It was somewhat disappointing. But I suppose Steven Spielberg knows he can make money by making people swallow it.
no where as compelling as ann franks for me.i thought the film gloryfied a hustler.a car or lives? i just didn’t identify with the film at all.
The fact that the American Nation, and with it the entire Western Civilization, is getting sillier by the minute, is not only Spielberg’s fault. But one can not underestimate the immense contribution that Hollywood, to which this person is a dear son, has had in desensitizing people to everything that is human. “Schindler’s List” a simplistic, mathematically melodramatic attempt to, popularize a subject that should not have been popularized at all. The Jewish Holocaust was not a Hollywood melodrarma, but a reality, and this reality is still with us, as humans, whether direct or indirect victims, as perpetrators, or as potential victims and perpetrators of similar realities.
After making a fortune on silly but entertaining blockbusters like Jaws and the Indiana Jones movies, Spielberg decided to take himself seriously as a Jewish filmmaker and do a holocaust movie. The predictable reflex is to say the movie is great, because it is about the holocaust. But I find the BUSINESS of recreating the holocaust for Hollywood a disturbing and potentially dangerous endeavor. A re-enactment can remove the audience from the reality of the event, so authenticity is critical. This movie, which was purported by many to be realistic, was filled with flaws. It was in B&W, which was a big problem for me. There seems to be an ongoing debate about this issue with some of the other reviewers, but my feeling is that the holocaust happened in color, so the movie should have been in color to bring it closer to home. I sensed the B&W was an unnecessary and unsuccessful attempt at an artistic touch. The movie also should have been done in German with English subtitles. Imagine a German watching Schindler’s List in Germany, reading subtitles to understand the English dialogue. Does that sound realistic to you? If you want to learn about the holocaust, watch Shoah or read a book by Primo Levi. Don’t watch the Hollywood version by billionaire profiteer SS.
As good as Malcolm X, JFK, Nixon, the last Emperor and Titanic, with the same degree of subtle low key propaganda and deep insight into the human spirit. The lack of historical falsification in service of a political agenda at odds with American culture is, of course, typical of modern Hollywood product but gratifying never the less. One looks forward to Spielberg’s next film with Nazis. He does them so well. One point. The black and white photography was a bit poor. B&W is not just without color but an art in and of itself.
This movie has been acknowledged as the definitive movie made about the Holocaust, and in it all the Jews survive. This is really a slap in the face to the 6 million Jews who were slaughtered, their suviving families, and the 5 million other gypsies, Catholics, unionists, and others Hitler had killed in concentration camps. Spileberg made the movie this way because he knew it would be guaranteed commercial and critical success as it would be more palatable to the average person than a movie showing the real horrors of the Holocaust. He portrays the nazis as mostly men who act out of corruption, and meanness, but ignores the true fact that these men were evil. Liberals like Spielberg have a very difficult time acknowledging the fact that evil exists. They attribute the actions of evil people to feelings of necessity on their parts, or just to sheer lunacy. The Holocaust was an evil action perpetrated by evil men. It wasn’t just thrown together. It was well thought out in terms of logistics, transportation, and means of killing and disposing of bodies. A classic Spielberg moment was when Schindler beseeches the Nazi guards to not kill the plant workers when the war has ended. “Return to your families as men, not murderers.” The fact is the Nazis did their best to liqudate the Jews when they knew they had lost the war and even up to the very end. The simple reason that more Jews weren’t killed at the end is that the Nazis had ran out of ammunition to kill people en masse. This isn’t meant to denigrate people like Schindler who really did good. The fact is though that most Germans were indifferent at best and helped the process along at worst. By highlighting Schindlers story Spielberg told the easy story and still came out smelling like roses. Meanwhile almost 12 million victims are ignored.
I warn you not to see this movie. Watch your dog sleep instead!!!!!
In which Steven Spielberg replicates Ophuls’s “Sorrow and the Pity” with all the subtlety of “The Color Purple” or “1941.” This film proved to be the signpost of the decade, in which technical superiority reigns over the film itself. Spielberg grabs the audience and forces emotion down it’s collective throat. Vile, insincere, and a thin-veiled attempt at an Academy Award (albeit successful). Spielberg is saved by his ace cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski, and a top-flight cast.
I cannot for the life of me think of what the point was behind the scene where a supposed gas chamber actually turns out to be a shower room. Is Spielberg implying that the mass murder of Jews in Auschwitz never happened? Probably not, but this scene can definitely be interpreted that way. The only conclusion I can come up with is that Spielberg intended to convey some form of relief for his audience, but since the gassings of Jews and other “undesireables” was pretty much the cornerstone of the Holocaust, it seems to me that he just copped out. Granted there were other scenes that were difficult to watch, but if he wanted to create an accurate historical document, by some accounts, he should’ve portrayed the unfathomable horror of a gassing. However difficult that might’ve been I’m sure the audience would’ve gotten the message. This movie fails because of this scene.
Do not misunderstand me: I neither like what the N-Socialists did to the Jews, nor do I care for the decades of the world pointing its finger at Germany (or holding its hand open for cash…).
But – if Spielberg wanted to make a movie about how bad the Jews are treated in this world – why does he trample on Germany’s AND the majority of Europe’s nerves for a war that’s almost 60 years gone now?
If he wants to pull the world on his side, why doesn’t he make a movie about the Muslin terrorists bombing Israel to pieces – instead of criticising the long obsolete Facisism?
Why doesn’t he make a movie about Israely soldiers defending their country and families – instead of reawakening the slaughter of Omaha Beach and wasting German soldiers defending THEIR country?
I still think that Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all times, but it definitely is time for him to come back to what he does best: bringing fantasy, heroes, and sci-fi into the cinema like nobody else does.
I’de Rather Die than watch that boring movie again, A shame for a Steven Speilberg Movie.