Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 15, 1993
8.6
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 874 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
761
Mixed:
64
Negative:
49
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
AkashVijayJan 19, 2015
Sappy, manipulative and a ridiculously oversimplified version of the Holocaust.
Spielberg has made a name for himself in the film industry by reducing serious subjects to the lowest denominator until it's no more than any mawkish family
Sappy, manipulative and a ridiculously oversimplified version of the Holocaust.
Spielberg has made a name for himself in the film industry by reducing serious subjects to the lowest denominator until it's no more than any mawkish family melodrama. Why should a movie about the Holocaust be any different? Schindler's List is an aesthetic mess and exemplifies everything that's wrong about Hollywood.
First off, the movie's primary focus is to show us how Oscar Schindler, a slave owner aiming to run his factories through jew labour for monetary profit, turns into a defender of jews' rights and the protector of their lives. But the problem is Schindler's transformation is portrayed in an extremely poor way. In fact, there is no transformation. Midpoint in the film, the 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?
And then we have Amon Goeth. He's an evil, sadistic, Jew-hating Nazi - 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. The attempt to add depth to Göeth'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. The true intrigue, the true horror of the Holocaust does not lie in brutality alone, 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?
Another problem is the accent. 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. One of the truly unforgivable aspects of the film is the ending. When Schindler took off his gold ring and blubbered "I could have saved one more", I experienced a feeling of mild revulsion. Spielberg's invariable resort to sentimentality is quintessentially Hollywood, quintessentially cheesy and quintessentially inappropriate for the subject matter of the film. Schindler's List is technically brilliant but Spielberg is a director of extremely limited vision. His moral and intellectual depth is that of a child (and the funny part is Schindler's List may be the most mature movie Spielberg has made till now).
Expand
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
3
YoursTrulyNov 9, 2012
There were definitely some profound glimpses of cinematic power in this beloved classic. But it bored the f**k out of me.
2 of 20 users found this helpful218
All this user's reviews
0
GaryL.Aug 12, 2008
It was such a banal film, I think Spielberg rather wanted the audiences to symphathize with the Jews in the Holocaust rather than let the audience enjoy a good story.
3 of 48 users found this helpful
0
BrunoP.Jan 19, 2006
Propaganda movie. So static characteristics of jews is so unrealistic. Spielberg thinks he, and his religion has no bad people, and no flaws. This is so one sided movie that it reminds me a few spots about police how they work hard, and they Propaganda movie. So static characteristics of jews is so unrealistic. Spielberg thinks he, and his religion has no bad people, and no flaws. This is so one sided movie that it reminds me a few spots about police how they work hard, and they are such a nice guys, but everyone hates them. And this was the main point in the movie: Jews are great with no negative trait, but everyone hates them and wants to get rid of them. Expand
0 of 26 users found this helpful
0
jessvissOct 4, 2017
The movie "Schindler's List" was based on the novel written by Thomas Keneally called "Schindler's Ark/Schindler's List". This novel won the best prize for fiction (Booker McConnell Prize) decades ago. This movie was likely portrayed byThe movie "Schindler's List" was based on the novel written by Thomas Keneally called "Schindler's Ark/Schindler's List". This novel won the best prize for fiction (Booker McConnell Prize) decades ago. This movie was likely portrayed by history teachers as historically accurate, so it was jarring to learn of its origin. Of all the things that happened in WW2, there is no need to fictionalize things, especially just to sensationalize it to sell more movie tickets/DVDs.

The movie itself portrayed things in a needlessly sexualized manner, and was over-dramatic as a whole. For example, did the woman who woke up from sleeping with the German soldier have to be topless? Isn't that sexist objectification of women? Doesn't belong in this genre. Pervs may like this, but if a movie is going to portray a grim topic it shouldn't do so in a dishonorable way like that.

Another thing is that it stereotypes all Germans as psychopathic, sadistic murderers who take every waking moment to victimize innocent Jews. It dehumanizes the German people with this stereotype, and could be used to justify any abuses against them. The movie doesn't take into account historical facts that would balance this obvious false bias, such as the fact that Jews declared war on Germany (Daily Express on 24 March, 1934) which led to the Jewish boycott of German goods. Nor does it mention that there were Jewish supremacist groups like Nakam (Abba Kovner) that attempted to poison the water supply of German civilian cities after the war was over, or how they coated arsenic onto the bread inside the camp where the German POWs were being held (because apparently some thought that not enough Europeans died in WW2). What about the Soviet genocidal brutality that went on in the gulags? This of course was not mentioned.

Also, there is nothing really different about this movie, from all the other movies about this topic. Using emotional scenes to tug at heartstrings shouldn't ever be considered as a replacement for historical facts.

The truth fears no investigation.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews