Director Dive - Steven Spielberg: Part 2 'Growing Up With the World'

Welcome to Watch More Movies and today we are discussing arguably the most legendary American filmmaker to ever put a movie on screen, Steven Spielberg. If you have a favorite blockbuster pre 2000, good chance is that he directed it. Given his massive filmography, today will be Part 2 and concluded with Part 3; including his newest release in theatres June 12th - Disclosure Day.

With this series, I hope to visit or revisit all of a filmmakers work and discuss either themes, stories throughout their filmography; or just discuss their work as a whole

Whether you’re here for recommendations, nostalgia, or to argue about what should have made the list, you’re in the right place.

📩 Drop your personal favorite Spielberg films below! We all have several!

🎧 New episodes coming soon, so hit that Subscribe button for more film takes, deep dives, and unfiltered movie talk.

Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4GfD...

Apple Podcasts

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

Letterboxd 

https://boxd.it/rBkx

Instagram

@podwatchmovies

Bluesky

@watchmoremovies.bsky.social

#WatchMoreMoviesPodcast #WatchMoreMovies #watchmoremoviespod #stevenspielberg

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:21

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to Watch More Movies. I'm your host, Ricky, and we are back for part two of three in our director dive for the one and only Steven Spielberg. Like I touched on in part one, from Duel to Hook in broad strokes, his career in that time frame felt like he was directing and telling stories through the lens of a child growing up or being exposed to the real world, but with lots more wonder in it. There are horrors and dangers out there, and it was seen more innocently like in E.T., where Elliot was helping a friend from another planet that he met, but the government gets involved and ultimately helps. Probably not I would go more than likely. In Hook, being kidnapped by a murder isn't as whimsical as it was in Neverland, or in always the idea of dying or a loved one dying and having to move on from that and say goodbye. They are all heavier themes he touches on, but never feel like he exposes the ideas to harsh outcomes or gives them a realistic or grim outlook. Of course, not every story in that first part of his life was like that, Sugarland Express, Duel, the color purple are all heavier themes in stories, but the broader scope of his storytelling felt like he wanted to see life through a more innocent lens. Now, what the section of his films feel like are a lot more mature and heavier, as I will go over, and we are starting with 1993's Jurassic Park. After billionaire John Hammond has found a way to recreate and genetically engineer dinosaurs back to life, he recruits three experts to evaluate the new theme park expected to attract people from all around the world. In the truest sense, this is a pure blockbuster popcorn film. You have charismatically characters, incredible spectacle, and real stakes that you never know if your favorite character will make it out alive. What I think Jurassic Park does in terms of his filmmaking, maybe intentionally or not, is he wants to show the wonder and magic he did in the beginning of his career, the unexpected and what could be, and just like the characters in the film constantly telling John Hammond that there are issues and not sustainable, it is him showing himself, changing course on his path and maturing to a violent and dangerous spectacle. Of course, it isn't some gory or horror film, but it certainly plays like it and maybe his scariest to date in terms of keeping you terrified of what's to come and what things are coming at you in hiding or in this environment. This Blockbuster is a classic for a reason, and what Spielberg does is truly make it feel effortless. The entire film from beginning to end feels like the smoothest ride, and that's not easy to do. Never once did it feel like he was did not have control on this. Some filmmakers need three to four years on a movie like this to even make it half as good, and yet he did it, while making another film that would come out a few months later as one of his pure masterpieces. Later in 1993 is said masterpiece, that is Schindler's List. It follows German businessman Oscar Schindler as he arrives in Krakow in 1939 looking to make a profit off of World War II, starring Liam Neeson as Oscar Schindler, very convincingly, despite him being Irish and in his best film role to date personally, hands down. His vulnerability and moral struggle is always under the surface, but it's in his eyes that you can constantly see it, and what really drives home his performance to an emotionally towering ending that hit like a ton of bricks for me. The film, aside from the lead performance, is a genuine towering achievement. Schindler's list, while yes another Holocaust World War II film, brings another perspective on this and never seeks to absolve Schindler for being part of the Nazi party or make him a savior, rather someone who genuinely saw the Jewish people that worked for him as humans and the people that worked with him as inhuman. Not to mention, out of any atrocity displayed on film, whether that be the Holocaust, slavery, etc., some of the images shown are some of the most heartbreaking and devastating that show you just how brutal it was without being overly graphic. In the lens that the Nazis saw Jews as just non-humans. Some of the shots here definitely sit with you and have not left my brain. I still think at least once a week about a scene involving a boy looking for hiding. Schindler's list may be Spielberg's best and most perfectly executed film. It just goes to show that he can create masterpieces out of nearly every genre. The Lost World, Jurassic Park from 1997, follows Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm returning, coming to visit John Hammond as he is sick, presumably dying, and recruiting Malcolm to travel to Site B of his Jurassic Park plan, Isla Sorna, to observe some of the dinosaurs there. Meanwhile, another group of mercenaries are there to kill dinosaurs and extract their DNA to reclone them for profit. While the Lost World certainly doesn't live up to the original, it is not short of spectacle and magic in Spielberg's vision. If Jurassic Park was about wonder and magic and coming to grips with growing up, past childlike wonder and all, the Lost World comes more straightforward as a mean and vicious dinosaur action movie. Nothing about that is negative. It just doesn't have the same goal as the original, which is refreshing in its own right. The action scenes are all there for Tap Spielberg, and he really has fun going scene to scene with what he wants to do next. Jeff Goldblum is fun as always here, if a little bit annoying at times, seeing as how he's now the lead and not supporting. His relationship with his daughter feels a bit forced in the story at first, but I think that's what the story was more about. Despite warnings and history, these people journey still to the island they know they shouldn't. He is someone who's stuck as a partner and father and doesn't let go of what makes him enjoy these things. I don't think the Lost World is as good as the original Jurassic Park, but if you want to follow up with some returning characters and some mean dinosaur fun that actually cares about making it an event and something worth watching, Lost World is a then a worthy sequel. Also in 1997 is Spielberg's Amistad. It follows a group of slaves on a ship being shipped and rebelling against their captors, only to be captured, and following is a courtroom drama about loopholes in the system at the time and a few men trying to fight for their freedom. As a courtroom drama, it's solid. There were horrific flashback sequences that are hard to stomach by nature of these atrocities that took place at this time, led by some incredible performances, namely Zha Menhansu. There are some moving scenes and compelling ideas here. Where it falters is the movie as a whole. It's very formulaic and never feels like anything more than a standard courtroom legal movie, aside from the few sequences I mentioned of backstory and flashback. Everything feels very safe, paint by numbers. It was solid, emotional, and engaging to an extent, but never did it feel like it was trying to elevate beyond a story onto the screen. Soft recommendation from Spielberg, but nonetheless overall a bit disappointing. 1998's Saving Private Ryan is probably in my top four personal favorite Spielbergs. It may be my favorite. It is just the one I've watched the most and recently wanted to revisit the most. Following a group of soldiers in the midst of World War II, they are tasked with finding one single soldier in the entire war, Private James Ryan, whose four brothers have all been killed in combat, leaving him as an only child. To begin, this has been noted, and I would wholeheartedly agree, to being one of the most brutal and realistic depictions of war. It isn't just the body parts flying off or blood spooling out of bodies, it is the soldiers and their anxieties of being in this war, tagged along with the bravery being questioned for young corporal that tags along. Up him. Tom Hanks gives truly one of the most unappreciated performances here in his career, someone who grapples with his duty and job while wanting to go home and be over with this war. It's the subtle face and body movements that he makes as these events unfold that make him someone vulnerable and scared, but trying to keep composure for himself and his whole outfit. I think there's a lot to be said too how much Spielberg attests war as a whole and how he is terrified of its results and consequences. Some of the scenes here, either just before or just after something's taken place, really shows how he doesn't want this to be glorified or just like a typical action movie. He wants you to feel like each corner you turn or person you encounter, no matter how good or how human they may be, war ultimately can turn them into something they may not be or show who they truly are. I think above all, this is what the biggest strength of Saving Private Ryan is of this gritty masterpiece. 2001's AI Artificial Intelligence stars Hailey Joel Osman as David, an AI being that was created to give a couple a child to have as their own while they are unsure of their own surviving in a coma. What follows is an odyssey of David's as he discovers what it means to be a real boy, to love and feel loved, and what it means to be an AI being versus a human being. Haley Joel Osman is absolutely astounding here, and I think this is his best performance over Sixth Sense for me. He has this innocence about him, and that's not just due to the fact that he's a child in this film, but the look he's able to give when he's longing or feeling emotion. While it doesn't necessarily raise questions about AI and the impact it has in a very head-on way, Spielberg does do something that alludes to this throughout. He shows you glimpses of what humanity's misaligned priorities are amidst this world collapsing and dying while trying to accomplish this. However, it's not what the film is about. Ultimately, it's a film that is about a child looking to be loved and looking to find a mother, not caring about who he is as an AI, but wanting to be a real boy and wanting to feel the love that others around him seem to have. Unconditionally. His entire quest begins looking for someone that he thinks can turn into a real boy. At every turn, Spielberg never seems to give you a false sense of hope that something mystical or something magical will happen, but lets this reality sink in with the audience as the movie goes on, and then just like David at the end when he grows up and has this realization. Honestly, it's one of the saddest films in Spielberg's filmography, and a big part due to Haley Joel Osman and the screenplay and how Spielberg frames every shot of David throughout. Just the Following Year is another sci-fi classic from Spielberg Minority Report. It's a fantastic blockbuster that feels way ahead of its time. It's in the future where there is this pilot program in DC that's being run called Pre-Crime. They have three people, essentially, who can receive psychic visions of future crimes that will be committed, and it's this agency's job to stop the crime before it happens. Starring Tom Cruise as the head of this program, John Anderton. He has this deeply dark past that's a motivator for him joining the program in the first place. Cruz is being Cruz, and that's a genuine compliment. But there are a lot more moments for him to chew on here, and you just don't get to see him have this dark of a past in roles like this in films like Jack Reacher, Mission Impossible, or his other blockbuster work. An underrated performance of his that you can see put all of his heart absolutely into. It's another great sci-fi from Spielberg. It doesn't come out with great action set pieces at every turn, even in moving in and out of CGI sets, thrilling frame to frame, a solid supporting cast too, even if Colin Farrell is hamming it up here a little bit. I think that the archetype of a government agent plays into the opposing force angle of someone trying to disrupt something. And he has a line of dialogue that really sums up something intriguing about this story. I won't really give it away because it might spoil it. Spielberg really dives into something here that's a hot topic debate. Not necessarily the specific issue at the center of the story, although it might be. What does it mean when we are certain a crime would happen, but that has not happened yet, to the perpetrator and what it means for us to hold them accountable for something that they genuinely haven't even done yet? It's a fascinating debate topic that stuck out to me upon rewatching and how it really raises that question instead of just being a plot point. You can have this impulse and intent to do something, but without ever going through with any of it. As a society, does this lead to a peaceful one without crime? Maybe it can even lead quickly or slowly into a dictatorship where you're held accountable for your thoughts without action. It's really fascinating to hear about it and would love the question posed to people with their thoughts and what they think and interpret of it. Just a short while later is 2002's Catch Me If You Can. It stars Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abignell Jr., a teenager who runs away from home after some devastating news, then begins a true story of his several years as a con man and being chased by FBI agent Carl Hanrady, played by Tom Hanks. This is easily one of the more non-spectacle action movie complete Spielberg packaged films. He makes this intricate cat and mouse story feel completely digestible while giving you the heart to this film. While it is a cops and robbers story, sort of, the heart of it is about a son's relationship to his parents and more specifically his father. About how our parents affect how we see the world and how inadvertently influence how we see ourselves and how we see the world and act into adulthood. Leonardo DiCaprio gives one of his my personal favorite performances of his. One that is understated in all of his prolific career. He really just nails the nuance of being a child in this home and someone who just idolizes his father and the way he conducts himself. Christopher Walken II as Frank Abignel Sr. is this man who his choices affect those around him, but it is who he is, and those choices are for what's for his family, even if he doesn't see the consequences long term at the beginning. Nothing ever has any malicious intent, especially at a time like any time in history, really, where people had to do what they had to do to get by or provide for their family. Tom Hanks has a pretty loud part to play as this agent Han Rady and a thick East Coast accent that's jarring at first, but just gets right and works for the story and the tone, especially with the inflection in his tone whenever he conversates with Frank on the phone or in passing before the story really propels forward. While at times each section or moments in this chase feel episodic, each contain moments of either maturing or lack thereof from Frank and realizations of his impending capture and imprisonment, while also having to be the son of his parents that he loves and wants to have this stable relationship with. Catch me if you can is such a non-action bombastic comedy drama that used to get made more. Especially like this one, true stories that really dove into personal aspects of the character of the center. Catch me if you can is one of my favorite Spielberg's adult grounded films, and I hope you can watch it as soon as you can if you haven't already. If you don't really have many streaming services, I know it's on Paramount, and it's also last I checked on Canopy if you have a library card. So definitely check it out. 2004's The Terminal is another entry in Spielberg's catalog of kind of overly sentimental and sappy drama comedy, but this one works better than some of his others, like always. It stars Tom Hanks as Viktor Novorsky, a tourist coming to New York from his home country of Krakosia, which is fictional. Upon arriving, he learns that there has been a coup d'etat in Krakosia, thus rendering his passport invalid, unable to enter the US, and unable to return home, and essentially leaving him stuck at JFK indefinitely. Hanks is absolutely charming here, as he is nearly every role in these sentimental films he does. His friendships he stirs up through this time here make you want to live in this airport with him. A well-known supporting cast that includes Stanley Tucci, Diego Luna, Zoe Saldania, Kath and Zeta Jones, and other recognizable faces here. This is a really charming movie that I hope more people seek as it is, does have a lot more to say than just being warm and cute. I think it says a lot, unfortunately, about how post-9-11, especially we were and are treating people from other countries and finding every way possible to make their lives difficult. This isn't some new concept, but one that I think was very prominent in the early 2000s after this difficult tragedy of 9-11, and even especially today, too. And the other side of the coin, how we should be treating our fellow humans from other places literally as they are at an airport during this whole duration. If you want an easy and pleasant watch on its own without the Spielberg flair to some degree, the terminal is one that I hope you check out because it really is delightful. 2005's War of the Worlds stars Tom Cruise as Ray Farrier, a crane operator at a dock in Brooklyn, divorced and a father of two. Living just a day-to-day life, the world is turned upside down by aliens coming down and invading Earth. I said this before on Letterboxd upon re-watching it, but have truly felt this way ever since I first saw it. This is one of the scariest movies that is not a straightforward horror film, and maybe Spielberg's most terrifying. While you do get spectacle and big action set pieces, there are military convoys going after these big machines. It isn't about that, nor is it focused on the big spectacle of explosions. Every time there's a big set piece, or even there are explosions, you're on ground level at the POV of the people and how they're dealing with this literal otherworldly event. It's no surprise that Spielberg wanted to make this an allegory for 9-11 as well, focusing on its citizens and how they persevere and survive on homeland from an unknown enemy. He has said as much about developing and making it, but if you want to look at it more straightforward, he just shoots the hell out of this as a sci-fi horror. Every frame captures scale like no one else can, and he never feels the need to depend on goofy effects or revealing so much at one time. The suspense built up carries throughout and ultimately leads to a third act that I had always been pretty dismissive of and have had issues with, but I ultimately have grown to like it more where Ray and his daughter have taken shelter in the basement of a man played by Tim Robbins. Some of those moments are probably the most scary ones out of the entire movie. War of the Worlds I think is really unappreciated in terms of scope and scale that Spielberg has ever offered. And if you want a terrifying and high-scaled sci-fi movie and you've not already seen it, War of the Worlds from 2005 is a personal favorite of mine. Now onto the final film of this phase of Spielberg, one of my favorites of his ground movies and one of my favorites in general, it is 2005's Munich. Making this today would be a touchy subject matter, to say the absolute least. Even seeing this revisited by others in today's climate is really interesting given what is going on in the world and how polarizing the topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict is. I saw this a few years ago before I was really even conscious or aware of the news of this conflict or had any personal opinion on the matter. And when with dealing with something like this, I don't want to come off as having an opinion that is saying I'm an expert. I'm not. I'm only here to talk about the movie and what human things it's trying to say. But before I get into it, because I know any grace toward any side is hard to try and give nuance to to a lot of people, I just want to say free Palestine. Now onto the film. Starring Eric Bana, after eleven Israeli athletes and their coach are killed at the 1972 Olympics, the Israeli government secretly assigns Avner Kaufman, played by Bana, and his team to find the heads of the snake that ordered these murders and to murder them. This movie is not revenge film about getting back at Palestinian groups for carrying out the murder of Israeli Olympic athletes. While the characters feel this way and have this mindset to begin with, it is more about how as human beings we are getting involved and in deep with these conflicts, realizing that violence only causes more violence and death. It's not about winning or who's right and wrong. What happens when something we believe in or follow to or put our life into betrays our moral beliefs and questions what's right or wrong. And what happens when we personally have a hand in it? This may be Eric Banner's best performance, and I think another remarkable standout from Kieran Hines as a member of his team. I know this film has been interpreted in many different ways, and that's okay, because it isn't fully committed to telling you what to believe in this conflict. It's telling you that no matter which war is going on, which side you're on, that violence never ends with more violence. It will always continue, and history is taught that. There is an absolutely incredible scene with Avner having a conversation in a stairwell with a rival PLO member named Ali about their homelands and who deserves it and why they feel this way. It doesn't go into a lecture about the history like a professor would talk about, but from their perspectives and their people about why they feel this way. This scene felt like a key to unlocking the film for me and what he was trying to say with it. Not to mention, as far as his grounded films go, Munich I feel like is his best made on every technical level. It truly is an achievement, and I wish Spielberg would get his hands dirty with something like this again. Munich, unlike Catch Me If You Can, is not as widespread known or popular. It's one of his lowest grossing films, but it's so worth every minute, and it's something I really want to rewatch even again soon. Now, during this period of his filmography, you can feel Spielberg's maturity growing. Whether that be with the specific stories he's telling or with the characters growing from point or POV in their lives to another and is growing from them. And how we begin with either a childlike mentality or one point of view we've been taught, and then that world either shatters or comes out of the realization of what you were taught and not taught as it seems. Whether that be the religious and moral ambiguity with something like in Munich or with an AI when David is unaccepting of the fact that he is an AI and not a real boy and can never be one. I love this period of Spielberg because he gets more serious while also not sacrificing technique or wonder for the sake of telling a super serious story, which he still does and balances all this so well. Thank you for tuning in to part two of his director dive of the one and only Steven Spielberg. Next week will be the final director dive, maybe a few days late so I can see it opening weekend and then review disclosure day as well. You can follow the show on Instagram, Blue Sky Threads, like, comment, subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple. It helps show out a lot. So until next time, watch more movies.