>Mel admits to openly cribbing Miller, who is great, but not
>quite on Spielberg's level. Seriously, Mel himself would
>disagree with you.

until he does, i'm gonna keep arguing for his place in the top 5.

>Realism? Mel? Which films are you talking about? Because you
>couldn't mean Braveheart or Passion. Lots of blood does not
>automatically equal realism.

actually, it does. scorsese just won an oscar for it. no, but seriously, you've tried to simplify his vision which is lame. braveheart captured the essence of field battle like no other film before it. i will admit, he added from visual flair with those damn painted faces, but that was even an amazing effect. how many WWII and alien/sci-fi movies were spielberg able to pull from?

>>speilberg does it
>>with special effects and a dumb ass orchestra and hits
>people
>>over the head to get a response.
>
>John Williams is dumber than James Horner? I'm not sure where
>you're coming from here.

who makes the music has nothing to do with its volume and placement.

>If you have a hard-on for gore dressed up with pretentious
>historical ideas, Mel is your man.

your entire critique of the man is pretentious and climate-controlled, which mistake for "cool." mel is not a popular guy to be a fan of these days, but i ain't gonna jump in and try to dismiss his work.

>But that doesn't make him a
>better director of action or anything else.

the work speaks for itself, really. we can go back and forth.