Steven Spielberg’s Two Worst Movies According To Rotten Tomatoes

For a while, it seemed like everything Steven Spielberg did turned to gold. Having established the concept of the blockbuster with 1975’s Jaws, the director followed it up with Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and E.T. (1982). Even 1984’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a box office success, despite shocking some audiences unfamiliar with the director’s dark and strangely violent work. Critical reaction to the film was also more mixed than its predecessor. Of course, anyone who follows Spielberg’s career closely knows that Temple of Doom was not the first film the seemingly infallible director has faced critical slams.

Sandwiched between Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Raiders of the Third Kind in Spielberg’s filmography is 1941. This 1979 war comedy featured an all-star cast that included Dan Aykroyd, Ned Beatty, John Belushi, John Candy, and Christopher Lee. Unfortunately, the impressive talent on offer didn’t wow critics at Spielberg’s foray into comedy. The film grossed three times its production cost, but… $94 million Worldwide box office revenue.

Forty-five years after its release, “1941” remains one of Spielberg’s lowest-rated films on Rotten Tomatoes, a fact that probably doesn’t worry the director’s legend much. But while it was an early flop on an otherwise stellar record, “1941” was not the last film critics would slam for Spielberg. Ranking Of the film director’s work.

“1941” is a bit of an odd premise. The film tries to capitalize on America’s post-Pearl Harbor horrors for comedy, but as expected, it hasn’t garnered much praise from RT. “1941” currently sits at a 39% rating. Rotten TomatoesBut there are a few things I want to say here.

First, 1941’s RT score is based on only 28 reviews, only three of which are from “top critics.” Furthermore, two of those three actually liked the movie, and even Empire’s Ian Freer write The film has been described as “blessed with great writing.” In fact, if you look at the average rating of “1941” (which is the rating that Rotten Tomatoes gives to films by real critics), “1941” has a more respectable rating of 5 out of 10.

Still, there’s no denying the fact that, despite featuring some of the best comedic acting and a script by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale, “1941” wasn’t well received by critics. The New York TimesVincent Canby called 1941 “more awkward than funny” and “about as much fun as a £40 wristwatch.”

That said, the second big takeaway here is that 39% isn’t all that bad when compared to some of the lowest scores we’ve ever seen on Rotten Tomatoes rankings of directors’ and actors’ work. For example, John Travolta, who has seven 0% rated films, would be pretty impressed with a career Tomatometer score of 39% even at his worst. Filmography Unfortunately, it’s rated 26% – unfortunately, 39% isn’t the lowest score Spielberg has ever gotten on Rotten Tomatoes.

After Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, audiences weren’t sure the Steven Spielberg they knew still existed. While his previous films had revolved around celebrating childhood wonder, The Temple of Doom, with its literal violence against children, seemed to mark a turning point in the director’s creative approach. However, much of the darkness in The Temple of Doom was due to George Lucas’s script, and Spielberg himself would later dismiss it as a scam. say“I was never happy with ‘Temple of Doom.’ It was too dark. […] “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has absolutely no personal sentiment whatsoever in it.”

Still, there’s no denying that his subsequent work was much darker than E.T. and Raiders. The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun marked an unmistakable departure for the director, who welcomed his first son in 1985. That same year, he abandoned his longtime passion project, a live-action Peter Pan adaptation, and took his role as a father seriously, seemingly with a much more mature perspective.

But by the late ’80s, Spielberg was finally ready to make a Peter Pan film. 1989’s “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” was a return to the director’s more family-friendly approach, while “Always,” released the same year, seemed like another step back. “Hook,” as the 1991 film adaptation was eventually titled, was to be his true triumph. It was a true passion project that rekindled Spielberg’s interest and reverence for his childhood. The director identified with the original character of Jack, whose volatile relationship with his father somewhat mirrored Spielberg’s own. In that sense, like “ET,” “Hook” seemed to have all the makings of a Spielberg masterpiece. Sadly, the film is currently the director’s lowest-rated film on Rotten Tomatoes.

At the time of writing, “Hook” has a rating of 29%. Rotten TomatoesUnlike “1941,” of the 65 reviews collected on the site, 18 were from “top critics,” who were apparently less than impressed with Steven Spielberg’s sequel to J.M. Barrie’s 1911 novel, “Peter Pan.”

In the film, Robin Williams plays Peter Banning, an older version of the boy who never wanted to grow up. Peter is a middle-aged lawyer who is so wrapped up in his work that he has forgotten about his childhood. When Captain Hook, played by Dustin Hoffman, captures Peter’s children, Peter is forced to return to Neverland, rediscovering his childhood in the process. It’s not a bad idea really, especially since it’s a nice little allegory about how adulthood can separate us all from our innocence. Unfortunately, despite a decent box office success, the film never became the Spielberg masterpiece that many hoped it would be.

Critics did not give Hook much positive reviews, as evidenced by the fact that it had the lowest rating of any of Spielberg’s films on Rotten Tomatoes. Los Angeles Times “It’s clearly becoming harder for the director to free himself from material temptations and believe in simple magic,” he wrote. reviewRoger Ebert was similarly pessimistic, calling the film “a sad rehash of a once-magical idea” and writing, “The saddest thing about the Hook screenplay is that its title is all too apt: the whole structure is merely a hook on which to hang a new version of the Peter Pan story.”

It may not be all that surprising that Hook is Steven Spielberg’s lowest-rated film on Rotten Tomatoes. Spielberg himself claimed he wasn’t very confident about Hook during filming and was unsure of much of the script. But as mentioned above, Spielberg’s worst film was going to be a lot better than most other people’s worst films in Hollywood, and while 29% isn’t great, it’s definitely not the worst. It’s also worth noting that the film has an average rating of 4.5 out of 10 on Rotten Tomatoes, which is also a slight increase from its 29% rating.

But even years after its release, Spielberg still harbors regrets. Entertainment Weekly 2011:

“There are parts of Hook that I love, and I’m really proud of my work, up to the point where Peter is parachuted through the window and into Neverland. I’m not as proud of the Neverland scenes, because I felt uncomfortable in that highly stylized world. Of course, if I were to do it today, I’d play a live-action character on an all-digital set.”

Still, Spielberg can at least take solace in knowing that Hook inspired him to direct his upcoming Wicked, and when it comes to the well-intentioned but ill-fated Peter Pan sequel, the film’s RT score is likely the least of his concerns.