User Reviews (1,446)

  • rhinocerosfive-119 November 2007
    7/10
    don't take this personally
    Warning: Spoilers
    Perhaps I should be shot, but I think four minutes of "Springtime for Hitler" is a more ingenious and powerful argument against anti-Semitism than four hours of "Shoah."

    Many Jews attribute the resilience of their culture to a capacity for laughter in the face of catastrophe. As Saul Bellow said, "Oppressed people tend to be witty." Pogroms didn't start with Hitler; by the time the Spanish Inquisition burned a hundred thousand Jews, the story of Jewish oppression already could fill many volumes. Many peoples once multitudinous have perished from the earth: there are no Carthaginians left. There are no more Thracians to speak of. The Celts live only in musical traditions and some old literature, having been subsumed by their conquerors. Their gods are dead, and their languages, or nearly so. But the Jews thrive on. Something kept hope alive under Stalin, under Isabella, under the Caesars. A sense of humor is a great virtue, not to be undervalued.

    But in order to make sure I appreciate the horror of the events portrayed, this movie cheats me of a glimpse at real life. The situations don't live as they might, because all the time I'm being flogged with message. There is no even partially redeemable Nazi in this movie, and Schindler's own late-stage change of heart is presented with such suddenness that the movie veers into melodrama. And even melodrama need not be propaganda; Minnelli and Ray always left us with choices. But "Schindler" must be classified as propaganda because it lacks the truth of even gallows humor, which by many reports existed in great abundance in the ghettos and even in the death camps.

    The films of Bunuel and Altman are often political but rarely propagandist. The films of Michael Bay and Marcus Nispel are always propagandist and not always political, though they are of course always bad. So propaganda need not be political, and politics need not be propaganda. This shouldn't need saying, but in the modern age of American politics, it's worth remembering. I wish Steven Spielberg remembered it.

    One can define propaganda objectively as a sort of forced perspective, a narrow range of potential reactions for the viewer. Propaganda is the use of art to persuade. It turns art into an expository essay. Propaganda is therefore by definition a limited form, limited by its very agenda. The tools of propaganda become less necessary the more inherently obvious the subject matter; the mass extermination of a people would seem to me to fit this category. So I think the style of this movie is unfortunately maudlin, an overkill on the negative. I am not heartless; I hate hate as much as anybody, and I celebrate Jews and all humans as valuable and not for burning. But is there no other way to express a political point than to make me cry for three hours?

    The fact is that film as a medium lends itself to propaganda. There is a decision made about every angle; literally, the perspective is chosen for the viewer. This is not the case with other arts, with musical performance, acting, writing, sculpture; but the more visual the medium, the greater its tendency to make statements and the less its potential for ambiguity. It takes a lot of skill to manage a visual art form into something with real depth, into a question rather than an answer.

    You can make propaganda about love, like "Love Story" or "English Patient"; you can make propaganda out of character, like "Patton" or "Lawrence of Arabia." The easiest and most common sorts of propaganda are flag-waving and hate-mongering - what's found in state of the union addresses and election campaign ads. At its best, propaganda can remind us of our values, of our responsibilities, of our mythologies and potentials; and so it can be a great good. At its worst, propaganda may contain any of the faults of any medium - it may be bland, dull, predictable. When it is these things, it is not very persuasive, and so it fails at its main intent.

    In this light, "Schindler's List" is maybe the second-best type of propaganda. It has real emotion, a compelling story, myriad technical virtues; it leaves me with no choice but to agree with it, but of course I agree with it already insofar as genocide is not a force for good. The movie moves me to an extent. But it lacks comedy, the propagandist's most effective tool; and so when it pretends to explore a range of humanity, it tells a half-truth.

    Liam Neeson plays an excellent cad, and Ralph Fiennes' raptor beak was never used to more terrifying effect. (It is among the many faults of the "Harry Potter" movies that they cut off his nose.) But I prefer "The Pianist" as a portrait of Nazi-occupied Poland. Aside from possessing greater artistic powers than Spielberg, Roman Polanski has an immensely deeper capacity for human truth. He does not preach, and he is not strident, and he is not sentimental. And he allows Adrien Brody to make me laugh occasionally, not as often as he makes me cry but sometimes. Shakespeare's trick of contrasting tragedy with comedy is not simply effective storytelling; it is a view to a more realized universe. "Jaws" has it. "E.T." has it. But Spielberg apparently felt that to be funny about the Holocaust would be in bad taste.

    As far as propagandist filmmakers go, I'll take Charlie Chaplin or Paul Verhoeven. They are at least funny; the pill of "Great Dictator" or "Starship Troopers" goes down more easily, more persuasively, therefore more effectively, than the pill of "Schindler" or "Private Ryan."
  • the_bike9 March 2004
    1/10
    Spielberg's Sentimentality, Again
    Spielberg is now the Numero Uno director of schmaltzy cinema. I thought Saving Private Ryan was the ultimate good guys save the poor soul, but this one outdoes Ryan in every conceivable heart-tugging, noble humanity fashion. Don't view this film as accurate history, if

    Private Ryan is any guide. Historical accuracy is not a Spielberg characteristic. It's the heartstrings he keeps tugging. I next expect a new Pollyanna by Spielberg any day now. The problem with Spielberg's characterizations is that people are either black or white, no inbetweens are allowed. But even old Adolph can be presented in a way that makes him the human being that he was, regardless. This is what makes Shakespeare such a genius in his plays - he never failed to see all sides of a personality. Spielberg's characterizations are cartoons. This could have been a really good movie, if it had acknowledged the

    humanity in every person and been realistic.
  • Ripe Peach24 February 2001
    1/10
    Yes, yes, we get the message
    Ah, Spielberg's favourite theme: every single Germans pre 1950 was utterly evil and/or calculating and self serving. Still, at least after being bludgeoned around the head with this one note message for the best part of 3 hours, I had stopped noticing that the acting consists of just reading lines and not tripping over the furniture.

    The cinematography is admittedly impressive, but the sound is either overbearing or cynically manipulative, and the emotional crecendo at the end is so overdone as to be positively irritating.

    And lastly, while the history is substantially correct, there are enough errors or omissions to shove a stick in the spokes of any claim to authenticity. This isn't entertainment, and it's not accurate enough to be documentary, so what does that leave? Sadly, propaganda.
  • 1/10
    predictable pandering schlock from the king
    Just in case you didn't learn from the first 4000 holocaust films that the holocaust was really bad........Speilberg goes out on a limb and hits you over the head with the fact that the holocaust was really bad. He also did it in a very exploitative pandering manner...to the point of being grotesque. If you didn't learn from those 4001 holocaust films that the Nazis also exterminated gypsies, gays etc.... Well the Nazis wiped out a lot of other groups beside jews too. This sort of thing tows a very dangerous line...that it was more significant not that 6 million plus people were exterminated but that it was 6 million jews....according to the majority of these films and various holocaust memorials the gypsies and gays etc. do not count.

    Where are the numerous memorials documenting the genocide that happened in this country? (native americans...also numbering in the millions) That would make a historically relevant film. You think perhaps if native americans had a very powerful militaristic state that is subservient to u.s. power there would be more native american genocide memorials? Probably. The fact that much of this comes from elite american jewish organizations reeks a bit of hypocrisy, since historically American jews haven't suffered at all at least compared to native and afro americans (and to even suggest to the contrary would be a joke). So how does this film function? One might conclude that it panders to American jews, exploiting guilt perhaps for their lack of sufficient suffering? If you are interested in actual holocaust history (one might be shocked that it has very little to do with american jews). I would suggest reading more serious, less pandering sources. 'the Seventh Million' by Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist, is very good...'the Holocaust Industry' by Norman Finkelstein is very good too. One might be shocked to find that the jews aren't one big group but a bunch of very diverse groups with radically varying histories etc.
  • thomadsen15 December 2002
    1/10
    Spielberg, stick to alien abductions and monster movies
    As a (Jewish) professor of mine once said, "Spielberg doesn't have a glimmer of what it would take to do this material right." Don't be suckered by the subject matter--it's still schlockified for mass consumption. And worse still, it's likely the reason why every year since then we have to put up with some sappy Spielberg backed Holocaust movie or documentary winning another Oscar. Is this really how we want to respond emotionally, intellectually and otherwise?
  • lhhung_himself11 February 2002
    1/10
    No more than a useful public service announcement...
    Schindler's list is not a bad film per se - Liam Neeson is very good as Schindler and if you edit out some of the more overblown scenes - the story is still riveting. Yet it could have been so much more if the story just told simply and if the central theme were fully understood and developed.

    Before the war Schindler and his friend, Goeth were boozy, flirtatious German businessmen. Both would have likely been uninspired failures had there been no war. In a kinder world, Goeth's and Schindler's moral differences might have manifested themselves in the size of the tip that they would leave the barmaid. In war, the consequences of moral choices are greatly magnified, resulting in Schindler becoming a most unlikely heroic figure, and Goeth becoming a loathed prison commandant. In the film, Spielberg elevates Schindler to sainthood status and portrays Goeth as a sadistic psychopath. By sanitizing Schindler's many faults (boozing, gambling, womanizing...) and by demonizing Goeth, Spielberg severs our connection with them and, ironically, blunts the conflict between them. Adolf Eichmann was far more chilling than Charles Manson. Unlike Manson, whom we could dismiss as psychotic, Eichmann was the faceless functionary that we have all experienced, whose defense of "following orders" is one that we have all heard, a defense that was used by many during the war, and one that we might see ourselves using under similar circumstances had we not Schindler's courage. By making Schindler a saint, Spielberg diminishes both his accomplishment and his inspiration to us - saints have no problems making the right decision - the rest of us do. Rather than a gaping chasm, there is but a fine moral line between Schindler and Goeth - one that we tread every day, which fortunately for us, rarely does more than determines a barmaid's salary.

    Spielberg does not develop this simple theme, preferring to impress us with a grandiose view of a great moral tale. Instead, he comes off as the underskilled sous-chef drowning a wonderful filet mignon in an overly rich sauce. The quality of the ingredients still shine through despite the clumsy handling but does not approach its great potential. In the end, the best thing about the film is that it reminds Americans of a monstrous event in history. It is unfortunate that this reminder is necessary and that it reduces such a timeless parable to a useful public service announcement.
  • elaurens8820 September 2000
    1/10
    My list
    Here is Barbara's List of all the reasons why Schindler's List is the most annoyingly overpraised film of all time. 1.Overlong 2.Spielberg's most self-indulgent film, which is pretty pathetic, considering that he also made Saving Private Ryan 3.self-consciously arty 4.overabundance of cheesy filmmaking gimmicks.

    If I had more time, I could go on forever....
  • Molotov21 May 2000
    1/10
    Not THAT good
    for gods sake this movies is not THAT good, of course no one will say that because to say anything that isn't "best movie of blah blah" would be antisemitic and the words of a nazi. This movies does not deserve to be so highly ranked. I could direct a claymation nazi death camp movie with a budget of $7 and probably get on the top 250. I write this in hope when you go to vote for this movie you remember that NO ONE IS WATCHING feel free to actually vote your thoughts on the movie not the events it shows.
  • Mr Lombardo24 April 1999
    1/10
    Black and White
    I've watched this film about half a dozen times over the last five years and I still don't really understand what Spielberg was trying to do. Was he trying to outline the horrors of the holocaust or was he trying to examine Schindler himself - why the man did what he did? Maybe both. In neither case does he succeed. One can't help but feel the atrocities were greatly toned down for this film thus not really reflecting the true horror of what really happened, and he fails completely in exploring the character of Schindler. Why did Schindler do what he did? The man was a philanderer and a shrewd business man who didn't exactly go out of his way to be nice. Did witnessing what he did make him wake up to himself or perhaps there was an ulterior motive? Spielberg looks at none of this and serves up a modern day saint. It is kind of ironic that Spielberg shot this movie in black and white because that is the approach he has taken to his subject material. He gives us the saintly Schindler, the stereotypical evil Nazi, the honourable Jew and none of the complexities that made these people what they are. This was Spielberg's attempt to become accepted as a serious film-maker but yet he takes exactly the same approach to making this as he did with his marvellous popcorn movies resulting in a rather dictatorial film that has more answers than questions!
  • gubacs23 June 2005
    1/10
    this movie is cheap
    Warning: Spoilers
    Spielberg makes money out of one of the greatest mass murders in history.great! its disgusting how he makes a success story of the holocaust where 6 million people gets killed. besides the movie:- has no opinion about the holocaust -it is straining for effects(for example the red coated girl is a kitsch) -there is no character development in it -it is long and boring -the emotions presented are shallow. on the other hand the acting is good but that's all. if you are interested in the subject i recommend you to watch a good documentary(the eyes of the holocaust for example) or read these books(i am not sure they are accessible in your language but give it a try) Sorstalanság by Imre Kertész Primo Levi:Survival in Auswitz
  • Lincoln Smith29 May 2006
    1/10
    Representation misused
    This is just another film like Amistad that Steven Spielberg thought might be important to put to film. But, after seeing a film like United 93, I feel that, going back to this film, I see it as exploitation. That it is exploiting the pain of the entire holocaust and the tragedy that it really was, and exploiting that for emotional reasons but worse, to give Oskar Shindler an opposite, and something to purify him from a narrative character perspective. It's not that I hate the film, it's well made in every aspect, but it is basically a Frank Capra picture set within a really huge tragedy. One character is not the hero or villain here, there is no black and white. Since it chooses to display the Holocaust so graphically, do it in a better way. But watching the film and contrasting it to what actually did happen, I have to wonder, is there a really truthful way of representing the Holocaust? It's such a monstrous tragedy, the big abomination of the 20th century, should it really be put onto film, and are the words now used to describe it, "Never Again", really a truthful representation? Is this how we want people to remember the Holocaust? Through a film that presents a hero struggling to be a capitalist and struggling to be a good man by Western standards by saving as many people as possible. If he had saved "one more" person, it wouldn't have mattered. The film is permanent, and the Holocaust itself is as well. I firmly believe this is not the appropriate way to depict something that actually happened and was so important. It's the singular voice of the director here, this film might as well by "It's A Wonderful Life", because that is essentially what it is. The same story, the same character arc for Shindler. It's just not appropriate and I think that the time has not come yet for us to truly be able to grasp the atrocity of the Holocaust. I believe the means of representation are not available for us or at our disposal.
  • manco-258007 May 2017
    1/10
    one of the most overrated movies
    this is one the worst movies I have ever seen about the holocaust. This movie doesn't do anything to me. If I was to doubt that the holocaust ever happened, this movie would make me a non-believer of the holocaust. To set the record straight I believe and know the holocaust happened. The movie is predictable, badly shot, has one of the worst scripts and the location looked more like a holiday camp than work camp from WWII. Thru out the whole picture there is not one moment of human emotion. In this picture mister Spielberg shows his short comings in his intellect again, after bad movies like ET, Jurrasic Park and Saving private ryan(this movie is only saved because Tom Hanks played in it). And now Iam reading he is involved in a movie about Anne Frank, I really hope he doesn't have to much influence on the script and the in the shooting of the movie
  • alex632221 December 2001
    1/10
    boring and contrived
    Many people have told me how devastated they were when they saw this movie. But I was just bored. We talked about it and, in the discussions that followed, I was accused of not caring about the victims of the Holocaust. One person even said I was denying the Holocaust happened!

    And that soured me on the movie even more. The fact is, Holocaust movies have insurance against criticism: if you say the movie is a waste of time, someone might attribute your opinion to the Holocaust itself. I don't understand it, but that weird emotional blackmail made me really uncomfortable with Schindler's List.

    I thought Liam Neeson was horrible. His acting is very stiff and unconvincing. The use of hand-held cameras and black-and-white cinematography *should* work, but ultimately they amounted to subtle special effects.

    I thought the movie was emotionally flat, as well. I watched each character go through the motions, wondering when something unexpected would happen. The horror of the Holocaust is shown in an almost clinical way.

    I don't know. I just felt that this movie would feel less like a bid for an Oscar and more like a personal film.

    At the risk of being a complete jerk, I'll give Spielberg this advice: Do it again. Make another Holocaust movie. Why not? He finished Kubrick's "AI." Kubrick had another movie in the planning stages, a Holocaust film called "Aryan Papers" (aka "Wartime Lies"). I hope he'll finish *that* Kubrick movie, too, and create a better Holocaust film, something I can sink into and be surprised by, something that feels much more personal.
  • Wombat-4631 May 2000
    1/10
    Over-hyped and not over quick enough
    This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Only Steven Speilberg could take an astonishing story of courage and determination in the face of hideous oppression and turn it into a poorly made schmaltz-fest like this. Chief in a series of tacky, amateurish filming techniques is the legendary "girl in red coat". Having decided on black and white in an attempt to show that he can be serious about something, the paucity of Spielberg's imagination is clear in that he can think of no other way to make the girl stand out and be recognised - he seems to think that his audience is incapable of recognising, say, a face, and has to hammer home the identity of the girl by presenting her in an entirely different way from everybody else in the film. The monumental cheesiness of the closing scenes with the people saved by Schindler goes way beyond the point of tackiness - just more evidence of Spielberg's extraordinarily sentimental side sabotaging what should have been a meaningful film. On the plus side, most of the acting is superb, but on the whole the film sensationalises the violence and oppression which it should have set out to attack. Oskar Schindler was such an extraordinary man that his remarkable story, which everybody should know, deserved far, far better than this.
  • jandon7518 July 2000
    1/10
    awfull
    this is one the worst movies I have ever seen about the holocaust. This movie doesn't do anything to me. If I was to doubt that the holocaust ever happend, this movie would make me a non-believer of the holocaust. To set the record straight I believe and know the holocaust happend. The movie is predictable, badly shot, has one of the worst scripts and the location looked more like a holiday camp than work camp from WWII. Thru out the whole picture there is not one moment of human emotion. In this picture mister Speilberg shows his short comings in his intellect again, after bad movies like ET, Jurrasic Park and Saving private ryan(this movie is only saved because Tom Hanks played in it). And now Iam reading he is involved in a movie about Anne Frank, I really hope he doesn't have to much influence on the script and the in the shooting of the movie.
  • paladeen2 August 2008
    5/10
    Schindler's List, or How I Learned to Stop Profiteering and Love the Jews
    Schindler's List is one of the most overrated films of all time: It won seven Oscars. It is the 6th highest rated film on IMDb. The critics loved it, and the Internet is flooded with reviews where people rave about being "deeply moved" or "touched."

    Ultimately, the film is a shallow failure.

    A good drama film needs several qualities. Of these, the most important is the exposition of characters and their interactions. Schindler's List flops spectacularly in this respect. We start out following the tale of Oskar Schindler, an opportunistic, profiteering businessman. But midpoint in the film, this Schindler persona has disappeared, and we have a new character clothed in the same flesh -- a self-sacrificing philanthropist who spends his entire amassed fortune to save the Jew workers. How did we get from one to the other? How did Schindler transform from the evil Mr. Hyde to the benevolent Dr. Jekyll? Steven Spielberg certainly doesn't show us -- maybe it happens via magic, like the bicycle ride in ET?

    And what about Amon Göth, the representative Nazi? A "grotesque caricature" if there ever was one. He's an evil, sadistic, Jew-hating Nazi bastard -- but do we get to know why he wakes up every morning, takes a swig of booze and snipes Jew prisoners for fun? No. Spielberg thinks the answer is obvious -- he's a Nazi, and Nazis don't have reasons for the things they do. They're just rabid dogs out for blood, utterly devoid of any moral dimension. But this sort of shallow political correctness can't possibly cut any slack with intelligent viewers. We want to know why Göth hates the Jews so much that he fires his pistol into a pile of decimated corpses, but we never get to know. Apparently, he does it because he's an Evil Nazi, and that's all there is to it.

    The attempt to add depth to Göth's character by dwelling on his twisted love affair with a Jewish girl is easily seen for what it is -- a cheap exposure of Nazi hypocrisy. How about trying to dwell on real issues here, Spielberg? How about trying to pass these people off as genuine (albeit twisted) human beings?

    This shortcoming is not restricted to Spielberg. When will Hollywood own up to the fact that the men who ran the Third Reich were not mindless monsters? Some of them were cultivated intellectuals and scientists, others compassionate family men and devoted friends. Germany was the best educated country in Europe when the Nazis rose to power. The true intrigue of the Holocaust does not lie in the brutality, but rather in Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil". How can a man (or millions of men) arbitrarily narrow the moral sphere to exclude people seemingly no different from neighbours, friends and family? How can a man fall under the sway of a dispassionate and cruel ideology while leading a normal life of compassion?

    Needless to say, none of these issues are explored by Spielberg.

    Another peeve of mine: Accents. There are English-speaking films and then there are German-speaking films. Schindler's List, on the other hand, does not belong to either of these categories. Instead, Spielberg opted to have the characters speak English with a German accent. What the hell? Listening to Liam Neeson strut about trying to sound like an Anglicised German is just pathetic. : Spielberg's trying to please Hollywood audiences by making the film accessible to them (and hence, no spoken German), but for the love of God! We get the point! They're in Nazi Germany. Yes, Hitler's in charge. Yes, it's a nasty, genocidal regime. Please, no cheesy accents.

    One of the truly unforgivable aspects of the film is the ending. A mildly touching speech by Schindler about being a war criminal on the run, wanted by the victors of the war, set just the right mood. It would have been perfect. But no, Spielberg couldn't resist messing it up -- he had to have Schindler break down, bawl and cry, grief-stricken and lashed by pangs of conscience. Spare me the anguish, Spielberg. The grief should have been that of the Jews, not Schindler.

    When Schindler took off his gold ring and blubbers out "I could have saved one more", I experienced a feeling of mild revulsion. Look, the guy did a great job, he saved a lot of lives. No point in getting all worked up about the fact that he didn't literally sell the skin of his back to save people he didn't know.

    What does this film leave us after 195 minutes of running time? Let's see:

    * The Nazis were *Really Evil* * There was a man called Schindler who didn't care about anything but money at first, and then for some reason he started to care about saving the Jews.

    Brilliant, Spielberg. Positively brilliant.

    All of the above-mentioned flaws are bad enough -- but the way the film manipulates the viewer really takes the cake. Shots of emaciated, shaved potential Holocaust victims starving and screaming, with tragic violin music to boot. It has been done in many films before, and will be done again. It doesn't take skill for a film-maker to coerce the viewer into sorrow -- It takes skill to produce the same feelings without resorting to cheap, melodramatic trickery. The Pianist is a superb counter-example. A journey of the mind is so much more satisfying than a journey of the senses...

    Like most of Spielberg's films, Schindler's List is technically outstanding. It captures the mood of wartime Germany perfectly. The sets, costumes and cinematography are all top-notch, and the acting is not too bad either. However, none of these things can overcome the fact that Spielberg is a director of extremely limited vision. His moral and intellectual depth is that of a child.

    Stick to making films for children, Spielberg. Stick to making children's films. You're out of your depth.
  • dawidbleja7 March 2002
    1/10
    This goes beyond being just a bad film.
    As possibly the world's most influential film-maker, Spielberg has a responsibility. And that responsibility entails NOT using his cheesy, shallow sensibilities to turn one of the most profoundly horrible parts of human history into a soap opera-style piece of fluff. This film is more than just a bad film, it is a downright dangerously bad film that will be watched by millions of impressionable people who might have had few other sources to base their knowledge of the Holocaust on. Most of us agree that the worst thing to do about something like the Holocaust is to forget it, lest it happen again. The next worst thing is to trivialise it to the point where it resembles so many other Hollywood pieces of trash.

    What possesses a man who has become rich and powerful in the film industry solely through the making of shallow, transparent films for children to think that he is talented and wise enough to present to the masses a subject which should only be touched by the most careful and socially responsible hands? A Mid-life crisis, and an over-inflated ego, most likely, not that it matters though.

    Only someone with many years of study may be a doctor; only an experienced engineer may build a bridge, and even the guy who fixes your toilet must be a qualified plumber. Yet this fool, whose only previous qualifications have been cheap, shallow, movies made strictly for entertainment, thinks he is in a rightful position to educate our children. Because, unfortunately, many people have a frighteningly limited amount of knowledge about the second world war, and Schindler's List will be for many of them their main source of information. Showing it to them in as cheesy and hollow a fashion as almost only Spielberg can, is simply a crime.
  • bart14421 August 1999
    hollywood drivel
    oh dear, spielberg really should stick to his normal forte of brainless hollywood epics because he is WAY out of his depth here.

    I didn't hold out much hope for this one despite all the ridiculously overblown praise. Its amazing how one can go from being the epitome of film-making mediocrity to genius just by choosing the holocaust as your theme!

    This film is not a tribute to those that died it is an insult, it reduces their suffering to the level of Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park. I'm surprised he resisted the temptation to stick a dinosaur in it.

    But he is, as always, laughing all the way to the bank! This should get 0 out of 10 but unfortunately i'll have to award it a 1.
  • Duncan Drury26 July 2000
    1/10
    An upbeat holocaust movie?
    Warning: Spoilers
    Only Stephen Spielberg could make a film about the holocaust where the point is that none of the major characters do NOT die. To me the message is lost because of this and the film becomes a glorification of one man surrounded by the deaths of millions. Oscar Schindler was a Nazi embroiled in the holocaust and the second world war. He managed to save his friends, yet profited from concentration camps. Ok, so he wasn't an anti-semite bent on destruction, but he only saved people he was connected to, and their families.

    And the evil Nazis in this film are all slightly comical. Where is the evil? Where is the horror? Where is all the death and torture and misery.

    Scrape the surface of this film and you find a gratuitous "entertainment" movie. If you want to know about the holocaust watch Shoah.
  • jlvilandre26 July 2006
    1/10
    Oskar's humanitarianism gone for nought
    Poor Oskars's remarkable and more than brave endeavor in saving human lives during the dark days of WW2 in Europe almost immediately takes a back seat to the lamentations of the filmmaker in perpetuating the plight of a certain group of people on which unspeakable atrocities were perpetrated upon. A film that helps promote liberties taken over the years by that certain group of people from anything to a good seat at the Opera to unabated attempts to destroy other people's beliefs and right to exist.

    This film is (unfortunately), not about a man's humanitarian well-meant efforts to do what he could to help to save a group of desperate and obviously(for most of them) doomed to their certain death, people.

    The point that came across was visually witnessing the random acts of a certain person committing atrocities and exaggerating them to an extent that diminished what really happened to those people. In trying to add visual credibility via sensationalism made a mockery and a not so subtle message that a certain group of people have rights forever to commit atrocities to avenge what befell them over the centuries. If there is such a thing as a hate film, well this is it, generalizing 40 million people as monsters for the actions of a handful of lunatics sanctioned by the so-called Allies that were still full of boast and smugness and let's face it, blindness to what was going on. In short, the filmmaker's point was very subjective, to put it mildly.
  • 1/10
    Holocaust as Family Drama, Awful Junk
    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.....
  • MovieFanGuyy27 January 2008
    10/10
    Schindler's List is Steven Spielberg's masterpiece and the best film of the 1990s!
    Schindler's List, the Oscar winner for Best Picture of 1993 is definitely one of the great films ever made, it cemented Steven Spielberg's status as the greatest filmmaker of our generation, and it cemented the evil legacy that is the holocaust.

    Oskar Schindler, played masterfully by Liam Neeson is the center point of this masterpiece, all surrounded by some of the best professionals in the business, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes, etc.

    For years, I avoided writing a review to this film, because it is too painful and too powerful to write something about a film that has haunts you for many years.

    The holocaust was one of the most evil experiences in human history. For a director like Steven Spielberg to take such a horrible human tragedy and to make something poignant about it, demonstrates his abilities as the greatest director of our time.

    Spielberg takes the story of a greedy, selfish German businessman, and uses it as a force to demonstrate that human tragedy can turn anyone into a force for good, no matter what the consequences.

    Nominated for 12 Academy Awards, and winner of 7 including Best Picture, and Spielberg's first Best Director Oscar, Schinder's List can take it's place aside some of the greatest film achievements of all time.
  • x2smart2fightx5 August 2004
    10/10
    "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire"
    Those words, mean everything. This film, is Spielberg at the top of his game. I remember seeing it, and was completely floored. I have never cried at a movie, but I came close with this one. I don't think it is close to a war doc. But more of just one of the truest movies ever made. They didn't edit out death, they let people know, this is what happened, this is mankind at it's worst. The directing, the acting, the cinematography, the music, and everything puts this film at the top. It's hard to think it was made in 1993, because AFI's top 100 movies, put this at 9. Now important movies, are the ones who broke barriers, and ones other films follow. This was made in the 90's, and it is still that important. Steven Spielberg showed everyone, (including the Oscars) why he is one of the greatest directors of all time. I watch this movie a lot, but not just for the story. If you watch this movie from a different aspect (writing, directing, acting, etc.) every time, you wont get bored. Because each aspect can blow you away. Definitely one of the greatest films EVER made.
  • hans-c13 February 2001
    1/10
    Black and white
    It appears that the comments by IMDB users have to be every bit as black-and-white as the plot of the average Hollywood production? A film has to be either outstanding or miserable?

    Sorry, can't comply. I recommend Schindler's List to my friends on the basis of its beautiful photography and the outstanding performance by Ben Kingsley. I wouldn't have said that Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson do a great job. Charismatic though they both are, they just put on their usual stone faces for their respective parts.

    The film is definitely worth seeing, but I would argue that it's overrated all the same. Because... such an immoderate amount of praise has been heaped upon it. True, Spielberg's story about human kindness in adversity is a sweet and all-American story. But it doesn't have much to do with the black-in-black disaster that was the Holocaust.
  • jacobjohntaylor130 May 2017
    4/10
    One of the most boring movies of all time
    This is an awful movie. It has an awful story. It is very slow and boring. It is not funny to watch at all. I do not know why it got an 8.9. Just because people like sad boring movie. I do not like sad boring movie. If I want to be sad and bored I will just live my life. I do not need a movie to remind me how sad and boring life is. This is 4. It is not a 8.9 that is just hype. Do not wast your time. Do not wast your money. Do not see this movie. It a long movie and life is to short. If was a long movie and it was something good to see like Lord of the rings then it would worth the time. This is not. Good actors wasted there time being in this awful movie.
An error has occured. Please try again.