Can you name the Spielberg-directed movies which fit the good and bad critiques given for each? by grapefruitking

Good Critique	Movie	Bad Critique
Colossal entertainment -- the eye-popping, mind-bending, kick-out-the-jams thrill ride of summer and probably the year. [Rolling Stone]		Perfectly passable kiddie escapism. It has a thrill or two, and a chill or three, but it has no poetry, little sense of wonder, no resonant subtext, no art. [Globe and Mail]
The father-and-son team gives (movie) unexpected emotional depth, reminding us that real film magic is not in special effects. [Variety]		The action simply doesn't have the exhilarating, leaping precision that Spielberg gave us in the past... The joyous sureness is missing. [New Yorker]
This nuance-filled story about how eye-for-an-eye stuff differs from theory to practice is one of the most considered, thoughtful, and involving movies of its kind. [Premiere]		Somehow a massacre of unarmed innocents that shocked the world should be more than just fodder for ginning up the tension at the end of a commercial movie. [Washington Post]
A happy surprise: a timely antidote to the comic-book mindlessness of 'Spider-Man' and repetitive space fantasy of 'Star Wars'. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]		Give Spielberg a philosophical story about technology changing what it means to live in this world and he'll craft a hodgepodge of shallow and unexplored ideas. [TV Guide]
It was the nightmare that invented the 'summer blockbuster', launched the genius on a global scale and delivered an effective thriller built on a primal level: fear. [Empire]		Spielberg's mechanical thriller is guaranteed to make you scream on schedule if your tolerance for weak motivation and other minor inconsistencies is high. [Chicago Reader]
An unabashed romantic comedy and Capraesque fable that takes Spielberg into realms he's rarely traveled before. [Chicago Tribune]		Spielberg believes, admirably, that art can grow from love, and vice-versa. But in (movie) he makes the mistake of insisting on it, repeatedly. [Baltimore Sun]
A reminder of the freedom of youth and the quest for adventure, one that looks to the stars and sees the possibilities are as bright as a child's imagination. [Cinemaphile]		The exposition is so underlined and re-underlined, you could teach yourself to fly waiting for something to happen. [Washington Post]
Spielberg has achieved something close to the impossible--a morally serious, aesthetically stunning historical epic that is nonetheless accessible to a mass audience. [TV Guide]		A ruthlessly unsentimental portrait of a German war profiteer's epiphany that inspires neither sorrow nor pity, but a kind of emotional numbness. [Washington Post]
The movie has tremendous scope and charge and a dense period fabric, along with a volcanic performance by Djimon Hounsou. [Dallas Observer]		A conventional film that veers between stoic political correctness and mushy pop-Hollywood platitudes. [San Francisco Chronicle]

Good Critique	Movie	Bad Critique
This movie made my heart glad. It is filled with innocence, hope, and good cheer. It is also wickedly funny and exciting as hell. [Chicago Sun-Times]		A dog movie. Genre-wise, I mean. Of course, it is superficially disguised as science fiction, as was the fashion at the time. [Village Voice]
Crammed full of the dash, filmmaking flair, magic, impossible stunts and tongue-in-cheek humor that made the series a phenomenon of its time. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]		It's clear the creators wanted to bring our hero back but were uncertain where to put him. Sadly, he's not even recognizable in the pixilated universe of recent cinema. [Premiere]
(Movie) remains a solidly engaging story of heroism in the face of adversity, as filtered through the eyes of a boy obsessed with planes and flight. [ReelViews]		The movie's weakness is a lack of a strong narrative pull from beginning to end. The whole central section is basically just episodic daily prison life and the dreams of the boy. [Chicago Sun-Times]
Aware of its genre's conventions, it transcends them as it transcends the simplistic moralities that inform its predecessors to take the high, morally haunting ground. [Time]		Nothing that suggests an independent vision, unless you count seeing more limbs blown off than usual. [Chicago Reader]
Leaps head first into the action, rushing to get the film's real stars to the screen as quickly as possible, and it does so with considerable verve. [Austin Chronicle]		The biggest sequel of the summer has better special effects and more action than the original... But the inspiration is gone, and with it most of the fun. [San Francisco Chronicle]
(Movie) instills a sense of awestruck wonder and delivers long stretches of delirious excitement that remind you why people go to the movies in the first place. [Miami Herald]		The film is a toss-up with George Pal's very watchable 1953 version: the special effects are even better here, the drama even lamer. [Time]
One of the most deliriously funny, ingenious and stylish American adventure movies ever made. [New York Times]		When it's over, you feel as if you'd been to the desert digs: your mind is blank, yet you're parched, you're puffing hard -- you want relief. [New Yorker]
Everything about this swift and tremendously enjoyable film is played out in a rush of staccato edits, crisp performances, and charmingly giddy subplots. [Austin Chronicle]		What begins brightly gets bogged down over 140 minutes. A film that took off like a hare on speed ends like a winded tortoise. [Rolling Stone]
A film that might make you cry watching it is just as likely to give you the creeps thinking about it afterward, which is as it should be. [Chicago Reader]		A grim disappointment for grown-ups, and far too violent for young kids. I found it to be clumsy, misanthropic and intractably lifeless. [Wall Street Journal]

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)