Ahem. (Move over Chris, my turn.) However, did you HAVE TO SO THOROUGHLY TRASH
GUMP??? I mean you NUKED it until it glowed; you H BOMBED
that wonderful movie. (Knock off the applause, mlw.) It is a much
better movie than the sterile CONTACT. Note the brilliant use of
the naive narrator to...ahh heck, wrong thread. This is about WHAT
LIES BENEATH. Count yourself lucky, son. @#$%**#@.

To your room for a time out.

Christopher: I've written elsewhere that Spielberg foundered badly in the latest eighties and earliest nineties. It's clear from JURASSIC PARK that he was gearing up to do something more powerful, that he KNEW he was throwing away his talents ... and what did he do within a matter of months? SCHINDLER'S LIST.

Zemeckis has never done anything even close to that. Says me. Could he? Anything's possible. He's got some talent.

I wonder if you remember that Spielberg had first crack at ROGER RABBIT -- and quite deliberately and openly gave it to Zemeckis. Not because he feared the material, but because he thought (and said) "This is a movie I'd like to see, but perhaps I don't want to spend all the time that it would take." Laziness? Perhaps. I think it's more that he was trying to teach himself how to categorize his time. ROGER RABBIT would have been a waste of Spielberg's time, in my estimation -- not that that makes it a poor film, although I've never much liked it (I'll probably catch more hell for saying that than for disliking FORREST GUMP. None of you remember my address, do you? Hardly matters, I'm moving to Miami soon.)

Spielberg has made far more daring and interesting films than Zemeckis ever has or probably ever will. WHAT LIES BENEATH would have been something he'd easily have tossed off -- and I say that while reiterating that I DID respect the picture, and look forward to Zemeckis' holiday release CASTAWAY. But at present, we cannot logically speak of the pair in the same breath.

We'll go on agreeing to disagree, brother Chris. And yes, Spielberg is as much a legend (if not more so) as Kubrick is -- but I don't believe that's what Spielberg is thinking about when he chooses to film A.I. Once upon a time, I'd have thought so (remember what I just wrote at the COLOR PURPLE thread?) Today, I have a different take on it. And I'd remind you (and anyone else who's paying attention) how irritated I've been with Spielberg through much of the nineties, and how impressed I am with the manner in which he's managed to mature.

Spank the hell out of him, OK?

(Just kidding, Rocco!)

I wish that I could propel my spirit 100 years into the future, so that I could see how history will deal with our generation of cinema.

If I were to speculate upon that hypothesis (does that sound like a line from Miller's Crossing?), I would say that Steven Spielberg will remain unchallenged as the single most successful and influential film director in the long history of the cinema, even 100 years from today!
However, I also believe that future study will reveal Spielberg's body of work to be mostly superficial, face-value entertainment (in the Disney sense), relying primarily upon knowledge and imitation of past works in the medium, rarely willing or able to innovate (except for the contributions of ILM!).

Am I being too harsh?

I remember when Chris bitched about the repeated shots of the poor little black boy in HOOK. Message: Spielberg cares about poor little black boys. THE COLOR PURPLE killed 2 birds with 1 stone by combining black awareness with feminist man-hatred. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But that's not where his true talent lies.

Spielberg did a sentimental-fluff remake called ALWAYS. Which is about a ghost who plays matchmaker for his wife. (Or something like that. I told you---I never watch movies except for endless repeated viewings of 1776.) Pauline Kael essentially said that Spielberg is a tactless jerk because he failed to sense the inherent creepiness of that dramatic scenario.

I begrudge Spielberg's high-mindedness because it necessitates similar high-minded music from Williams. The solemnity of SCHINDLER'S LIST is as insufferable as Mahler. Spielberg's greatest judgement-call was his championing of Williams back when Williams was a borderline-nobody. But leave it to Spielberg to curb Williams's style with a bunch of crappy movies.

Not too shabby.

The film will do quite well here in the USA, and the overseas profits will take it well into and beyond the 9-Figure arena. Excellent return for a "small-budget" flick with only three big salaries (Ford, Pfeiffer, Zemeckis) to pay out.

I appreciate the Box Office update. This really gives me hope! Like with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and THE SIXTH SENSE last year, this kind of tally just proves that the audience really IS out there for a GOOD, ORIGINAL story done with style.

I hope you are here to read this:

As of Sunday, August 20, What Lies Beneath has grossed $123,411,000 in the USA ALONE!

That incredibly successful figure does NOT include ONE PENNY of any overseas grosses!

IT'S A HUGE HIT, MARK!!!

Bash Goldsmith because he scores films that don't make money. Bash What Lies Beneath because you don't like it, even though it made a lot of money. You confuse me! How do you really feel about things?

Just tryin' to understand where you's coming from...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Kinsinger:
That incredibly successful figure does NOT include ONE PENNY of any overseas grosses!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Kinsinger:
MARIAN!
You shouldn't be reading any of these posts!
It'll SPOIL the movie for you!

---

Don't worry, I'm VERY careful, since I read ONE SINGLE WRONG WORD before seeing Fight Club... So far, I don't know anything about WLB, except that it's supposed to be good.

PeterK

At least Hasta has been honest about that fact...

Well, if Hasta writes things that he (she?) doesn't MEAN, then that could have been a LIE.

SO...Hasta cannot BE "honest".

HARRISON FORD:
Random Hearts
Six Days, Seven Nights
Air Force One
The Devil's Own
Sabrina

There's only ONE real B.O. hit in that list, and Ford cannot grab the lion's share of the credit for it. Of the remaining four, one was a B.O. dissappointment, and three were absolute disasters. Right now, Harrison Ford's salary is in question. What Lies Beneath was a welcome respite for him. He desperately NEEDED a solid hit.

MICHELLE PFIEFFER:
The Story Of Us
Being John Malkovich
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Deep End Of The Ocean
A Thousand Acres

WHEN was the last time that Pfieffer has had a movie that actually registered on the boxoffice charts??? My guess is that she would be delighted to resurrect Catwoman.
What Lies Beneath is a Godsend for her...not only a welcome hit in a desert of failures, but a ROLE that may earn an award or two!

There.

The success of What Lies Beneath is in the combining of Zemeckis' many talents with Ford & Pfieffer.

NP: Lion Of Judah Dave Bell

[This message has been edited by Chris Kinsinger (edited 08 September 2000).]