1,495 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Bring me the head of Hitler n Himmler.
Fella_shibby9 September 2013
Schindler's List is undoubtedly the best Holocaust film ever made. There just isn't anything like this film. Various other films have tried to show the true horrors of the Holocaust, but none of them succeeded the way that Schindler's List did. Schindler's List is a difficult film to watch. When you see the true atrocities of the Holocaust, your jaw drops. When you see the pain that all of the innocent people were going through, the only thing you can do is cry. The true goal of all Holocaust films is to make you feel sorrowful, and Schindler's List did that to me. If you want to see the best depiction of the Holocaust, make your way towards Schindler's List.
64 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The most shattering film of all time.
giraffelover29 September 1998
I've seen this film one time in 1994. This is one of the best movies ever made, but many scenes of the film are so brutal, that I'm afraid to see this film for a second time.
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent - Spielberg's Best
ving135 August 1998
An incredible movie. One thing that stands out in my mind about this classic film is the great characterization of all the players due to superb acting, directing, and scripting. Ralph Fiennes character is especially vile but at the same time human. He may be 95% evil but to not present a stereotypical and archetypical 100% bad character makes him infinately more realistic. Filmed in black and white, this story certainly shows the shades of gray that is the duality of man. This is further exemplified by Schindler's own declaration of being a bad person because he could have done more good and saved more lives.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Vehement
onlyumangsri16 January 2018
A movie which is so beautifully portrayed and is so hopeful that it won't let you take your eyes off it. The black and white portrayal is just exquisite and beyond words. I had a pleasure watching it and people out there must watch it there as well. This is literally one of the best artwork of cinema and the crown for Mr. Spielberg. The direction and screenplay is just astounding and for me this really is the most astonishing work of Mr. Fiennes. It was a great cinematic experience.
70 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing!
crawdidd4243 May 2002
This Movie was sensational. It was a piece of art along with being informational. It told people about the holocaust, and it also told people about the human spirit. It shows how people can just triumph over anything with just some help from one person The things that Spielberg did with the movie was incredible too. The black and white was genius, and how he had the little girl in red and the fire was phenuminal. I have never seen anything like it, Schindler's List is beyond all words.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eye opening
s-tb20 November 2011
This movie, Schindler's List, is hands-down without a doubt one of the greatest films I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. Regardless of how much praise I include in my review, I should still think it deserves more. Few movies are actually able to pull tears out of my stubborn eyes, and the two that come right to mind are this one, and It's a Wonderful Life. Schindler's List is a grim portrayal of events in the Holocaust, while at the same time actually bringing light to some of the humanity still there. I was embarrassed when I actually started clapping in that classroom where I first watched this movie. I'd recommend it to anybody and it remains in my top selection of movies. Outstanding.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Emotional Release
Docterry31 March 1999
I don't know why but a couple of days ago I pulled out my copy of Schindler's List. At first I thought, well, maybe I'll watch a few minutes of it- it's so depressing but I feel like watching a good movie for a change. I hadn't seen this picture in several years since it was released. The first time I saw the film, in the theater, I went with my parents and was somewhat in denial. I tried to block out the pain that was before me and retain my composure. After realizing its brilliance, I tried to forget the film. It certainly wasn't something to dwell on.

This time when I watched the film I really surprised myself. I sat and cried like I haven't in years- but that's a good thing. I've been so divorced from my feelings and so wrapped up in my own selfish hell that I forgot what life is capable of becoming.

Now, Spielberg himself has admitted that he tends to over-sentimentalize things. Take the scene when Stern has just been rescued from the train by Schindler and as the two men walk away the camera pans to a large room where the suitcases of countless other souls less fortunate are being trifled through; a pile of personal photographs of family lay strewn amidst wasted boots and eye glasses. That scene destroyed me with emotion yet it was something that actually happened.

I will admit that towards the end, when Schindler was going on about how he could have sold his car to save more lives or sold his pin- even on second inspection, that scene seems rather forced- even enough for Jerry Seinfeld to mock. I was kind of mad at Spielberg. I mean, doesn't he know when to back off. It seems with an absolute masterpiece like this film, he would have been more careful and edited out this truly "sentimental" passage with violins going haywire.

Regardless, I'm in awe of this picture and with his latest- Saving Private Ryan, I do think that Spielberg is truly one of, if not, the greatest directors of film ever.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
If I could give a serious 10 for this movie
Andres-Camara25 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Too bad you can not give a ten because I think nothing is perfect, if I would not give it without hesitation. Spielberg shows again that directing is the best. Narrates like no one and as always uses the camera to make the best shots of the story in every way. With the plans, with the camera tells the story.

He tells us a film, in which, although he changes the real story and retouches it to make it more human, since Oskar Schindler used the Jews, as he tells in a sequence, the price of each nationality, which causes us all kinds of feelings.

The design of production as always great, he can do it, of course, but there are some who can and do it very badly.

All the actors, supported by the magnificent costumes and makeup are great, they seem to be real. Liam's presentation is great, fast and simple.

What a way to use ellipses, which are sometimes even fun, like when a woman goes on the train.

No matter how much you see it, it will surprise you again.

The photography is great, even when we see the girl in red, it may seem simple but I think it is not.

The direction, is the own one of someone who dominates to the perfection, the visual narrative. He knows where to put the camera at every moment to tell a story. You do not have time to get bored. He knows when to make a slow plane. Know how to compose so that everything is where it should be and you can have everything in sight. Neither camera movement, nor the plane, nor the short between planes is free.

I know it will be noticed that it is my favorite director but I can not help but surrender to someone who, apart from being commercial, is very good, I compare it to a Mercedes or a BMW, they will be commercial but they are good.

Spoiler: It is impressive to see how the sequence in which the architect dies, with a slight movement of camera, characters and staging, is putting everything in place to make you look where you should look. That if it is not going to prohibit you from looking anywhere, everything to focus and everything telling you at once, bring the woman on camera so you can see who is going to be killed while a German drinks a coffee, total symbol of tranquility, for enhance the moment more. What a great genius, moments like that there are many in the movie.
68 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
don't take this personally
rhinocerosfive-119 November 2007
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."
181 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
People were bawling in the audience
scammeplease16 December 2017
It had the sort of power you'd expect from Spielberg, the soundtrack is amazing, of course, and it actually contained many clever things as well.

Still sad about the little girl in the red.
73 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A SINGULAR ACHIEVEMENT
vtburns11 December 2000
I have only ever seen this film once, I only ever want to see this film once and I will only ever need to see this film once. It is etched on my mind. I, like many others, left in silence. I could not imagine inventing a critical analysis of this film, picking small points of detail or of style, or even scoring points off the Director. It stands alone as a monumental piece of cinema, a magnificent accomplishment.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Holocaust as Family Drama, Awful Junk
osloj10 March 2004
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.....
271 out of 505 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
My list
elaurens8820 September 2000
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....
556 out of 1,064 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No more than a useful public service announcement...
lhhung_himself11 February 2002
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.
415 out of 787 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Representation misused
Nerdboy142329 May 2006
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.
379 out of 717 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
boring and contrived
alex632221 December 2001
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.
407 out of 772 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This goes beyond being just a bad film.
dawidbleja7 March 2002
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.
437 out of 832 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Black and White
Mr Lombardo24 April 1999
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!
334 out of 630 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Over-hyped and not over quick enough
Wombat-4631 May 2000
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.
337 out of 636 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
awfull
jandon7518 July 2000
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.
294 out of 552 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oskar's humanitarianism gone for nought
jlvilandre26 July 2006
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.
381 out of 723 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An upbeat holocaust movie?
DunkD26 July 2000
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.
293 out of 551 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
one of the most overrated movies
manco-258007 May 2017
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
288 out of 542 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Devastating
zaremskya-2376123 October 2017
The Holocaust is a dark and touchy subject for many. Many believed it never happened, despite meticulous records kept by the Nazis themselves. Those who lived through it were scarred forever, and even now can barely bring themselves to discuss its horrors. Despite the controversy around the event, there is one thing for certain, Steven Spielberg created a masterpiece with Schindler's List. It is a film that will find no equal in terms of bleak, crushing drama. It sets out what it intends to do marvelously and leaves the viewer emotionally drained and questioning humanity itself.

The film is in black and white, a very conscious choice by the director that makes the subject matter, already disturbing, even more so bleak and harrowing. Oskar Schindler is known for saving thousands of Jews destined for a grim fate during World War 2. The movie depicts concentration camp life is fairly dismal, with constant brutal oppression by Nazi camp guards and the sadistic Amon Goth, with a terrifying portrayal by Ralph Fiennes.

Yes, this film will not make you cheery or happy. Yes it is about a miserable and dark period in human history, but it is an important film to watch for anyone interested in this historic subject matter and also a beautiful work of art for film lovers. Truly one of Spielberg's finest works. The fact that he is Jewish himself does add a personal touch to the tragic tale, but he never tries to overdo the sympathy or antipathy towards any group in the film. Everyone is human in it, the Jews and the Nazis; the tragedy is that humanity itself failed during this period of history, and we will never forget.
51 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Schindler's List, or How I Learned to Stop Profiteering and Love the Jews
paladeen2 August 2008
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.
145 out of 266 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed