>especially post-Color Purple (which IS one of the great
>comdies of the era, 'cept it's supposed to be a serious
>drama).
>
>Problem is, he don't seem to be willing or able to take the
>chances that great filmamkers will take to make great films.
>
>Ya boy constantly remakes 50's era morality plays with a lotta
>flash and gloss, and try and pass'em off as great. Thing is,
>most americans lives are very much beyond the leave it to
>beaver ass shit speilberg makes.
>
>Ain't nothin wrong with being a maker of films that are great
>entertainment, at all. Since he ain't got the stuff to make a
>Godfather or Apocalypse Now or Do The Right Thing,

If anything, Apocalypse Now is an example of Coppola "tryin to be a 'great' director." And just because you take chances doesn't mean you end up with a good final product.

>he should
>just go on 'head and be good at what he good at: making
>pretty, 50's kitshcy action flicks.

With what I said still in mind, I'm not mad at this analysis at all. Jaws, Jurassic Park, and Raiders of the Lost Ark would all be in my top five Speilberg movies, if not top three, and I think they fit, more or less, your description. But Hollywood gassed him up, only really gave him serious props when he did Schindler's List, and so now he thinks he has to be that serious director to get respect. (I haven't seen Terminal though and am still holding out on the direction of the next Jurassic Park movie.)