CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Spielberg on Spielberg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spielberg on Spielberg - Page 3

post #101 of 213
It really bothers me that they never explained why Malcom's daughter was black in The Lost World. Was she adopted or was Malcom's ex-wife black?
post #102 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMantis
It really bothers me that they never explained why Malcom's daughter was black in The Lost World. Was she adopted or was Malcom's ex-wife black?
Either explaination works. No need to dwell on it.
post #103 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMantis
It really bothers me that they never explained why Malcom's daughter was black in The Lost World. Was she adopted or was Malcom's ex-wife black?
Because the movie didn't yet have a black character to replace Ray Arnold or kids to replace Tim and Lex.

I also watched some of Lost World the other night, and still found it to be a fairly entertaining movie about character actors being picked off by killer dinosaurs. But that kid, and her gymnastics...Jesus. I love the guy, but Spielberg's fascination with putting children into the action often does more harm than good. Unless a shark eats them. Or they're friends with an alien.
post #104 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMantis
It really bothers me that they never explained why Malcom's daughter was black in The Lost World. Was she adopted or was Malcom's ex-wife black?
Because the movie didn't yet have a black character to replace Ray Arnold or kids to replace Tim and Lex.

I also watched some of Lost World the other night, and still found it to be a fairly entertaining movie about character actors being picked off by killer dinosaurs. But that kid, and her gymnastics...Jesus. I love the guy, but Spielberg's fascination with putting children into the action often does more harm than good. Unless a shark eats them. Or they're friends with an alien.
post #105 of 213
On a side note, It seems Spielberg is doing a space opera-type film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_%28film%29
post #106 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMantis
On a side note, It seems Spielberg is doing a space opera-type film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_%28film%29
Yeah, we know.
post #107 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark
Wow I'm stupid.

Hook was one of my childhood favorites, did he even mention it?
post #108 of 213
No Hook. No Temple of Doom/Last Crusade. No Lost World. No Always. No Catch Me If You Can. No mention of his work as a producer (sad, since he's one of the few guys for whom it's actually a job rather than a title.)

All of these omissions made me sad.
post #109 of 213
post #110 of 213

Bumping this after watching Jaws on the big screen om Friday, the release and box office floppage of The BFG, and reading this stupid, stupid article on Variety:

 

http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/steven-spielberg-bfg-box-office-flop-1201808161/

 

It's weird to say this about Spielberg, but I think we underappreciate just how good the guy is behind the camera.  There's pretty much no one else in mainstream filmmaking as elegant visually, or as deft tonally.  The Coens and Scorsese come to mind as other masters, for example, but Spielberg feels in a different category because of his command of a more populist style that pretty much no one else - not even Cameron - can achieve.  Sure, he can go maudlin, but there's such tremendous skill on display - and often in incredibly subtle ways.  The much-lauded oner on the ferry in Jaws is a perfect example of his more subtle craftsmanship.  And when he gets showy, it's often astounding - the transitions in Tintin alone show a filmmaking mind that's still incredibly fertile, as does the gorgeous sequence at the dream tree in The BFG.

 

The thing is, the guy is so consistently good at such a high level that when he releases a film like Bridge of Spies or The BFG, it's pretty much instantly undervalued because he's Steven Goddamn Spielberg and these films aren't on the level of ET or Schindler's List (or, hell, Lincoln - which is one of the best films of the decade, IMO).  Most filmmakers would kill to have one of Spielberg's "minor" films on their resume, let alone two or three.  If a director had only made, say, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, The Color Purple, Munich, Amistad, Bridge of Spies, The BFG, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in their entire run - that would be considered a hell of a career.  And Spielberg's been going nearly 50 years at this point.  That's staggering.

 

So the collective "But what have you done for us lately?" with regard to Spielberg is just ridiculous.  Even if he never delivers another out-of-the-ballpark smash and keeps delivering films on this level, he'll still be better than just about anyone else out there.


Edited by Dent6084 - 7/4/16 at 11:58pm
post #111 of 213

I can't describe the sense of security I felt while watching Bridge of Spies. The camera is always exactly where it needs to be, and the cuts come exactly when they need to come.

post #112 of 213
I think a lot of these later day Spielberg films will be reevaluated in a decade or so and deemed as classics (if not as well known) as his earlier stuff.
post #113 of 213
I feel the same disconnect with latter day Spielberg that I do latter day Ridley Scott. There's a cold, workmanlike "going through the motions" quality to their current output. Not that the skill at their craft isn't there...it's just more invisible. The last Spielberg movie I really LOVED was over a decade ago (War of the Worlds) but that (or Indy 4) hasn't done a whole hell of a lot to dampen my enthusiasm for Indy 5.

But....then again...Prometheus is my favorite Ridley Scott film since Black Rain so, what do I know??

...oh and Spielberg needs to ditch Janusz Kaminski ASAP..
post #114 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

I think a lot of these later day Spielberg films will be reevaluated in a decade or so and deemed as classics (if not as well known) as his earlier stuff.

 

This already seems to have happened with his run from 2001 to 2005, where he was dealing with a lot more prickly and ambiguous material than usual.

 

I'm not sure what people will think of his stuff after that. So far we've had three stately period dramas and three 'classic Spielberg' throwbacks. Haven't seen BFG yet but I get the feeling the period dramas are going to hold up better over time, if only for their impeccable craft.

post #115 of 213

You can really feel him showing off, and reveling in it, on Tintin.

post #116 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

I can't describe the sense of security I felt while watching Bridge of Spies. The camera is always exactly where it needs to be, and the cuts come exactly when they need to come.

Yeah, sometimes complaints about Spielberg have a tone of "UGHHH, more peerless craft. Pffft." I may enjoy some stories more than others, but I can't imagine being unmoved by Spielberg's skill.

 

There's maybe 3-4 movies in his entire filmography where it seems like he might be on auto-pilot, but even those, on a visual level, are light years ahead of, oh, 95 percent of directors who've ever lived.

post #117 of 213
If BFG is his latter day Hook (in box office), I'm thinking Ready Player One will be his latter day Jurassic Park.
post #118 of 213

The problem is, that "peerless craft" is now the main reason to see his movies, whereas in the early years, seeing the movie was what mattered. 

 

All Spielberg's movies up to (take your pick, Temple of Doom? Hook? Always?) were immersive experiences. Yes there were awesome set pieces, but you did not necessarily focus on them because the film was so propulsive that you were eagerly being carried along to the next scene. 

 

I think the storylines and scripts have gotten more..."patchy"? More obviously set pieces connected by character/dramatic tissue. Versus that impatient sense of narrative in Raiders and Close Encounters, or even Schindler's List. 

 

If he hadn't been so amazingly successful with those early blockbusters, the difference would not be so noticeable. 

 

Saving Private Ryan is maybe a good illustration of this transition: 1970's-1980's Spielberg wouldn't have let his foot off the pedal...you would have seen action scene after action scene. 1990's Spielberg not only wanted to pause to bring home the emotional, physical and psychological cost of war, he (IMO of course) now felt the audience needed a breather. 

 

I could be reductive here and say Spielberg's audience is now of an age where we need that breather. Or he thinks we do. But people under 30 (hell 40) could "take it".

 

That Variety article is spot on, because it focuses on Spielberg as an economic entity. He made his name with Blockbusters, and that's what people know him for. So it shouldn't surprise when, as he moved from that genre to his "civic lesson" films like Lincoln (and that's not a put down but a descriptor), his Box Office goes down.

post #119 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post

So the collective "But what have you done for us lately?" with regard to Spielberg is just ridiculous. 
This happens with many, if not all, major filmmakers. Late-period work is almost always underrated and reevaluated later on.

It doesn't help that Spielberg isn't really making many passion projects these days. I think he cares about these movies, don't get me wrong, but he's given enough interviews where his dissatisfaction with the state of things seeps through. Like every other working director, he's limited by what can be successfully greenlit.
post #120 of 213
Akira Kurosawa is the only director that comes immediately to mind who, in my opinion anyway, peaked in the twilight of his career. I love all of Kurosawa's films...regardless of genre.

But Ran....oh my lord, Ran. It's likely my favorite film of all time..
post #121 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

I can't describe the sense of security I felt while watching Bridge of Spies. The camera is always exactly where it needs to be, and the cuts come exactly when they need to come.

 

In 50 years, BoS will be placed within the top tier of his entire filmography.  I watched it again about a week ago and it's flawless.

 

And yeah, I'm glad to see a re-evaluation of his work from a decade or so ago.  I'd still place MUNICH as possibly...POSSIBLY...his best film.

post #122 of 213
I need to rewatch Munich. It's fantastic. But I don't remember it as well as I feel I should to really give it a thorough evaluation. It's definitely in his top five for me (out of his latter period that I'm less fond of, I mean). I just enjoy Spielberg (or any filmmaker to be honest) so much more when he's not dealing with reality. Gosh that's a really immature sounding view to have now that I think about it but, it is what it is..
post #123 of 213
Quote:
 That Variety article is spot on, because it focuses on Spielberg as an economic entity.

I understand that's Variety's main focus, but Jesus Fucking Christ what a boring-ass way to view movies.

post #124 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

That Variety article is spot on, because it focuses on Spielberg as an economic entity. He made his name with Blockbusters, and that's what people know him for. So it shouldn't surprise when, as he moved from that genre to his "civic lesson" films like Lincoln (and that's not a put down but a descriptor), his Box Office goes down.

And even then, LINCOLN was a solid little hit domestically.  $180m for a 2.75-hr. period piece is incredibly respectable in this day and age.

 

I think the Variety piece skirts around the real issue: Spielberg's tastes have evolved as he's gotten older, and he's now interested in somewhat more esoteric, idiosyncratic subjects.  He still crafts them for the widest possible audience, and for the most part they've been artistically successful to various degrees, but he's not terribly "into" the idea of blockbusters anymore, I don't think.  I still maintain that the SCHINDLER'S LIST experience forever tempered his appetite for what we think of as purely fun blockbuster entertainment of the RAIDERS or JURASSIC PARK style; he'll still crank one out every now and then, but his heart's not quite there for them like it used to be. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


This happens with many, if not all, major filmmakers. Late-period work is almost always underrated and reevaluated later on.

Yeah, even the (supposedly lesser) final Hitchcock run of MARNIE, TORN CURTAIN, TOPAZ, FRENZY, and FAMILY PLOT seem to become more highly thought of with each passing year.

 

It's already happened with Spielberg in a big way with A.I.  10 years ago, the general consensus what that is was a misfire.  Today, the general consensus is that it's at the very least very good, with some even proclaiming it a masterwork.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
 

 

In 50 years, BoS will be placed within the top tier of his entire filmography.  I watched it again about a week ago and it's flawless.

 

And yeah, I'm glad to see a re-evaluation of his work from a decade or so ago.  I'd still place MUNICH as possibly...POSSIBLY...his best film.

Spielberg's stretch from 2001 - 2005 is incredibly strong.  MINORITY REPORT, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and MUNICH are all in my Top 10.  There's a ferocity to MUNICH that pairs incredibly well with the 1970s spy thriller aesthetic.

post #125 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

I understand that's Variety's main focus, but Jesus Fucking Christ what a boring-ass way to view movies.

 

Well it IS a trade magazine intended for people in the entertainment business....

post #126 of 213
BOFFO!!!
post #127 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

It doesn't help that Spielberg isn't really making many passion projects these days. I think he cares about these movies, don't get me wrong, but he's given enough interviews where his dissatisfaction with the state of things seeps through. Like every other working director, he's limited by what can be successfully greenlit.

I think Tintin, Lincoln and BFG were definite passion projects. I can't imagine any director getting those three greenlit with the budget he did without his clout. All three he's been wanting to make for years (in Tintin's case since the 1980s).
post #128 of 213

Even as a child and seeing it (I was born in 1982), Hook never hit me on any sort of emotional level.. Not even on a "Hey this is the guy that directed my favorite movie (at the time) Jaws, I should gather some enjoyment out of this!" .. but none.. I remember seeing parts of it about 10 years ago and it left me cold.. All save for Hoffman and Hoskins work, and Hoffman's portrayal of the PTSD type memories he had of the croc (If I am even remembering the film properly)

post #129 of 213
Dreamworks picked up the rights to BFG in 2011, and Spielberg wasn't attached to BFG until 2014.

I'll accept LINCOLN and TINTIN as passion projects.
post #130 of 213

Why do I have it in my head that he wanted to direct it since the early 1990s?

post #131 of 213

Perhaps you're thinking about Jeff Bridges wanting to make THE GIVER since the YA novel came out in 93!

post #132 of 213
I'm very excited about Spielberg's EDGARDO MONTARA.

I'm not particularly excited for READY PLAYER ONE.
post #133 of 213
Ready Player One sounds....odd. And very un-Spielberg like. Something just feels off about that one. Bad film/director pairing maybe.

Or I could be talking outta my ass and it ends up being something GREAT!

Always hoping for the latter..
post #134 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
 

Why do I have it in my head that he wanted to direct it since the early 1990s?


There were stories about Spielberg wanting to direct it ages ago with Robin Williams as the BFG.  Not sure when those stories are from, though.

post #135 of 213

Have read the synopsis for Ready Player One no less than 7 times and I still cannot remember what the damned thing is about.. that in and of itself, does not fill me with hope. 

post #136 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent6084 View Post
 


There were stories about Spielberg wanting to direct it ages ago with Robin Williams as the BFG.  Not sure when those stories are from, though.

Reading what's out there now, it seems more like it was Kennedy & Marshall that wanted Williams for the character back in the 90s.  Since they're friends with Spielberg, I'm sure he was asked about it... but nothing was ever official, so that information is probably hard to find.

post #137 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

Spielberg's stretch from 2001 - 2005 is incredibly strong.  MINORITY REPORT, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and MUNICH are all in my Top 10.  There's a ferocity to MUNICH that pairs incredibly well with the 1970s spy thriller aesthetic.

 

I caught Catch Me If You Can on TV a few weeks ago and good lord is that film just so insanely watchable.  I think people tended to disregard it because its subject matter wasn't as weighty as some would have expected, but as a pure piece of entertainment, I'd put it up there with anything he's done.

 

And I'll argue the one-two punch of War of the Worlds/Munich in the same year is every bit as much of a feat as the one of Jurassic Park/Schindler's List was.  Maybe even more so, since the two share the thematic link of feeling like two aspects of Spielberg's reactions to 9/11.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

Ready Player One sounds....odd. And very un-Spielberg like. Something just feels off about that one. Bad film/director pairing maybe.

Or I could be talking outta my ass and it ends up being something GREAT!

Always hoping for the latter..

 

I wonder if Spielberg sees it as a chance to comment on and contextualize his importance as an icon of the era Ready Player One so embraces, and the nostalgia around it.

 

As for The BFG, I can't shake the feeling that just calling it The Big Friendly Giant would have added about 10 to 20 million to its gross.  "BFG" just doesn't do anything for anyone who doesn't already know the book.

post #138 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

Ready Player One sounds....odd. And very un-Spielberg like. Something just feels off about that one. Bad film/director pairing maybe.

Or I could be talking outta my ass and it ends up being something GREAT!

Always hoping for the latter..

Nah. It's an extremely easily digestible, "beach read". It's a silly, somewhat action oriented and extremely nostalgic (for the 80's, god I feel old!) trip. Not a great read, but fast paced and somewhat entertaining. Kinda like the weightlessness of Dan Brown's DaVinci Code, another dumb but mildly entertaining read that Spielberg probably could've elevated by directing the adaptation.

Ready Player One is super simple, a dystopian future where everyone is plugged into a VR-based internet. Public schools and other services all through his system, which was originally created and intended as an immersive MMORG. The creator/programmer, who became super wealthy and reclusive, has died, and left explicit instructions that anyone is welcome to play his game and find the Easter eggs he's spread about to solve his "ultimate riddle". Whoever wins will inherit his company, and therefor own the Internet, essentially. Black hats in the form of all-powerful corporate interests intent on profiting and controlling the world through this internet compete with a band of scrappy teens/expert players for the prize.

All very much awash in 80's nostalgia, as the system's creator was a child of said decade. Having an encyclopedic knowledge of classic arcade games and the movie WarGames, for instance, will likely improve your opinion of the book.

Again, mildly entertaining especially if from that era, and also entirely predictable story beats and ending.
post #139 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

I'm very excited about Spielberg's EDGARDO MONTARA.

I'm not particularly excited for READY PLAYER ONE.

Other way around for me!  I mean, I'm excited for both of them, but I think I have a pretty good idea what EDGARDO MONTARA is going to look like.  I have NO IDEA what RPO is going to look like.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
 

 

I caught Catch Me If You Can on TV a few weeks ago and good lord is that film just so insanely watchable.  I think people tended to disregard it because its subject matter wasn't as weighty as some would have expected, but as a pure piece of entertainment, I'd put it up there with anything he's done.

 

And I'll argue the one-two punch of War of the Worlds/Munich in the same year is every bit as much of a feat as the one of Jurassic Park/Schindler's List was.  Maybe even more so, since the two share the thematic link of feeling like two aspects of Spielberg's reactions to 9/11.

CATCH ME is just wonderful fun, albeit fun tinged with melancholy.

 

And yes, Spielberg's 9/11 duology of WAR OF THE WORLDS and MUNICH are incredibly impressive to me, especially when one considers both films were basically made in about a 13 month span (from principal photography beginning on WOTW to finalizing post on MUNICH).

post #140 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

 

Well it IS a trade magazine intended for people in the entertainment business....

Right . . . so why do we give a shit? (if you're actually Brad Grey, I apologize)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

The problem is, that "peerless craft" is now the main reason to see his movies, whereas in the early years, seeing the movie was what mattered.

The only recent movie of Spielberg's which suffers from that, for me, is War of the Worlds. That opening invasion is stunning and perfect, and I watch the film once a year solely to see that, yet the film kinda loses steam for me once Tim Robbins enters the picture.

 

post #141 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

Other way around for me!  I mean, I'm excited for both of them, but I think I have a pretty good idea what EDGARDO MONTARA is going to look like.  I have NO IDEA what RPO is going to look like.
Spielberg tackling the conflict between Judaism and Christianity holds more interest for me than a popcorn flick. He's tackled religious notions before, but never with this level of attention, and I've really no idea how he'll nuance that conflict. The last time he seriously grapped with Jewish identity, we got MUNICH, so I'm expecting similarly great things from EDGARO MONTARA.

I think Spielberg's days as the master of the action film are pretty much over, and READY PLAYER ONE is pretty thin to begin with. Maybe he'll turn it into something great, but I'm skeptical.
post #142 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


I think Spielberg's days as the master of the action film are pretty much over

 

Tintin was only five years ago and argues strongly against this premise.

post #143 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Spielberg tackling the conflict between Judaism and Christianity holds more interest for me than a popcorn flick. He's tackled religious notions before, but never with this level of attention, and I've really no idea how he'll nuance that conflict. The last time he seriously grapped with Jewish identity, we got MUNICH, so I'm expecting similarly great things from EDGARO MONTARA.

Make no mistake, I think the potential is there for really interesting stuff, and I suspect it will be a good movie, provided Tony Kushner's script delivers the nuance you talk about, and we don't end up with a final product that's just Catholic bashing.  I'm just fairly confident it will be more at the LINCOLN/BRIDGE OF SPIES end of the spectrum, which is fine, but I think I basically know what to expect from Spielberg in historical drama mode. 

post #144 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

Tintin was only five years ago and argues strongly against this premise.
TINTIN isn't a great movie, but the action scenes are inspired (or, rather, they would be if they had any weight)

But it's a special case because it forced a serious change in Spielberg's method. He was forced to meticulously plab sequences and his direction. It esentially forced Spielberg to actually storyboard again.
post #145 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

Make no mistake, I think the potential is there for really interesting stuff, and I suspect it will be a good movie, provided Tony Kushner's script delivers the nuance you talk about, and we don't end up with a final product that's just Catholic bashing.
Spielberg isn't hostile to religion, so I doubt that that's what he'd deliver. Montara went on to became a priest, so there has to be some nuance there.

When Spielberg deals with his Jewish identity, it lights a fire. It pushes him to go deep, to get raw. If this is just another BRIDGE OF SPIES, I'll be astonished.

EDGARDO MONTARA will be the third entry in a trilogy that began with SCHINDLER'S LIST and continued with MUNICH.
post #146 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Spielberg isn't hostile to religion, so I doubt that that's what he'd deliver. Montara went on to became a priest, so there has to be some nuance there.

When Spielberg deals with his Jewish identity, it lights a fire. It pushes him to go deep, to get raw. If this is just another BRIDGE OF SPIES, I'll be astonished.


It's a remarkably complex story, and if Spielberg and Kushner can get a handle on it and find a throughline, it could definitely be special.

 

I do think you might be writing off READY PLAYER ONE a bit too early, though.  I've not read the source material, so I'm just going on what I've heard, but I do think there's something exciting about Spielberg having a science fiction story in each of his active decades:

 

1970s - CLOSE ENCOUNTERS

1980s - E.T.

1990s - JURASSIC PARK

2000s - A.I., MINORITY REPORT, WAR OF THE WORLDS

2010s - READY PLAYER ONE

 

Seeing him come back to the genre from different angles is kind of a neat aspect of his filmography.

 

ETA A.I. because I'm a fool.

post #147 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


TINTIN isn't a great movie, but the action scenes are inspired (or, rather, they would be if they had any weight)

But it's a special case because it forced a serious change in Spielberg's method. He was forced to meticulously plab sequences and his direction. It esentially forced Spielberg to actually storyboard again.

 

To be fair, it's the closest thing to an action film he's done since, what, Indy 4?

post #148 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

But it's a special case because it forced a serious change in Spielberg's method. He was forced to meticulously plab sequences and his direction. It esentially forced Spielberg to actually storyboard again.

I feel like this implies that Spielberg is kinda resting on his laurels, and I'm not seeing that at all. We've seen filmmakers who've chosen to coast (DEAR LORD DAVID O. RUSSELL WHAT HAPPENED?!?), and lumping Spielberg with them doesn't seem fair.

post #149 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 


It's a remarkably complex story, and if Spielberg and Kushner can get a handle on it and find a throughline, it could definitely be special.

 

I do think you might be writing off READY PLAYER ONE a bit too early, though.  I've not read the source material, so I'm just going on what I've heard, but I do think there's something exciting about Spielberg having a science fiction story in each of his active decades:

 

1970s - CLOSE ENCOUNTERS

1980s - E.T.

1990s - JURASSIC PARK

2000s - MINORITY REPORT, WAR OF THE WORLDS

2010s - READY PLAYER ONE

 

Seeing him come back to the genre from different angles is kind of a neat aspect of his filmography.

 

A.I. DAMMIT.

post #150 of 213
Yeah, AI is peak Spielberg.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Spielberg on Spielberg