IMDb > Schindler's List (1993) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Schindler's List
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Schindler's List More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 138:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1371 reviews in total 

751 out of 1079 people found the following review useful:

The color of the film isn't the only thing that's black and white.

1/10
Author: Levi Ferry from Australia
7 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Nazis in Schindler's List are portrayed as evil heartless demons who seem to lack any kind of soul (well, Amon Goeth was pretty evil), while Schindler and other "goodies" are portrayed as saints with hearts of butter; It's time to wake up people! My grandfather who is now 85 served in the war verses the Germans. I've had many talks with him and his war buddys and I can promise you that what you see in this film (and many others that are "based on truth") is purely fictional and shouldn't be allowed to even claim it is based on truth. And if it must it should have to give us a percentage of truth that it is based on, eg: based on 6% truth. Honestly, just take a look at the war on Iraq to see a current example of how the victors completely turn the truth on its head and sell it to the masses; who readily accept it as fact.

Schindler at the end of the film is seen giving away his watch and a few rings (last of his possessions) as to save a few more Jews. Well, truth is Schindler made off with A LOT of money in reality. He profited from the Jews slave labor just as much as they profited off his humanity. I'm not saying that Schindler wasn't a good man for saving the many Jews that he did, I'm just saying lets not go overboard with the exaggeration. And this is just one of the many liberties the director took with this story to spice it up a bit. Some of the scenes which were designed to shock the audience with brutality from the Nazis towards the Jews were so over dramatized and fake they made me want to blow chunks in my popcorn. I don't mind fantasy but for gods sake don't mix it with truth, especially when you have an audience which sadly seem to often refer to this film when they are in a debate about world war 2 or the holocaust, as if it was some kind of historical reference with any credibility.

PS: For a good film about world war 2 and the Nazis, check out "DownFall", a German film which is very, very well made.

Was the above review useful to you?

549 out of 686 people found the following review useful:

the most overrated movie ever

1/10
Author: Mohammad Albazz
9 November 2013

when i say overrated, really i mean it..

i just watched this movie and i found it boring 3 hours for nothing this movie is just to make people feel sorry about the Jewish i want to say we must feel sorry about any human .. Jewish have made many holocaust in Palestine and no one said a word.

and why they screen it in black and white i don't know i think there is better movies about war and Nazis or Jews i wonder why this movie have this high rating i think Liam neeson and Ralph fiennes acting was very good specially for ralph but there is many actors in the movie they not good .

Was the above review useful to you?

475 out of 644 people found the following review useful:

Spielberg's Sentimentality, Again

1/10
Author: the_bike from Mclean VA
9 March 2004

Spielberg is now the Numero Uno director of schmaltzy cinema. I thought Saving Private Ryan was the ultimate good guys save the poor soul, but this one outdoes Ryan in every conceivable heart-tugging, noble humanity fashion. Don't view this film as accurate history, if

Private Ryan is any guide. Historical accuracy is not a Spielberg characteristic. It's the heartstrings he keeps tugging. I next expect a new Pollyanna by Spielberg any day now. The problem with Spielberg's characterizations is that people are either black or white, no inbetweens are allowed. But even old Adolph can be presented in a way that makes him the human being that he was, regardless. This is what makes Shakespeare such a genius in his plays - he never failed to see all sides of a personality. Spielberg's characterizations are cartoons. This could have been a really good movie, if it had acknowledged the

humanity in every person and been realistic.

Was the above review useful to you?

437 out of 585 people found the following review useful:

Overrated, manipulative, dishonest garbage. Classic Spielberg, in other words...

1/10
Author: werewolfsex from Svalbard and Jan Mayen
26 December 2007

This is honestly one of the most overrated films of all time. Stephen Spielberg (one of the most overrated directors of all time, who has not made ONE honestly good film (yes, even including "Jaws")) knew that nobody could objectively criticize this movie, and basically exploited the memory of the Holocaust in order to guarantee himself a "masterpiece".

I am rating this movie as 1(awful), because of all the undeserved praise. If this film were being judged solely on it's own merits, I would probably rate it a 2 or 3 at best, for being exploitative, dishonestly emotionally manipulative, historically inaccurate, and artistically bankrupt.

Was the above review useful to you?

477 out of 665 people found the following review useful:

Yes, yes, we get the message

1/10
Author: Ripe Peach from Glasgow, Scotland
24 February 2001

Ah, Spielberg's favourite theme: every single Germans pre 1950 was utterly evil and/or calculating and self serving. Still, at least after being bludgeoned around the head with this one note message for the best part of 3 hours, I had stopped noticing that the acting consists of just reading lines and not tripping over the furniture.

The cinematography is admittedly impressive, but the sound is either overbearing or cynically manipulative, and the emotional crecendo at the end is so overdone as to be positively irritating.

And lastly, while the history is substantially correct, there are enough errors or omissions to shove a stick in the spokes of any claim to authenticity. This isn't entertainment, and it's not accurate enough to be documentary, so what does that leave? Sadly, propaganda.

Was the above review useful to you?

465 out of 645 people found the following review useful:

Spielberg, stick to alien abductions and monster movies

1/10
Author: thomadsen from New York
15 December 2002

As a (Jewish) professor of mine once said, "Spielberg doesn't have a glimmer of what it would take to do this material right." Don't be suckered by the subject matter--it's still schlockified for mass consumption. And worse still, it's likely the reason why every year since then we have to put up with some sappy Spielberg backed Holocaust movie or documentary winning another Oscar. Is this really how we want to respond emotionally, intellectually and otherwise?

Was the above review useful to you?

543 out of 802 people found the following review useful:

predictable pandering schlock from the king

1/10
Author: Miike Ellis (flagrantsake) from austin TX
11 June 2003

Just in case you didn't learn from the first 4000 holocaust films that the holocaust was really bad........Speilberg goes out on a limb and hits you over the head with the fact that the holocaust was really bad. He also did it in a very exploitative pandering manner...to the point of being grotesque. If you didn't learn from those 4001 holocaust films that the Nazis also exterminated gypsies, gays etc.... Well the Nazis wiped out a lot of other groups beside jews too. This sort of thing tows a very dangerous line...that it was more significant not that 6 million plus people were exterminated but that it was 6 million jews....according to the majority of these films and various holocaust memorials the gypsies and gays etc. do not count.

Where are the numerous memorials documenting the genocide that happened in this country? (native americans...also numbering in the millions) That would make a historically relevant film. You think perhaps if native americans had a very powerful militaristic state that is subservient to u.s. power there would be more native american genocide memorials? Probably. The fact that much of this comes from elite american jewish organizations reeks a bit of hypocrisy, since historically American jews haven't suffered at all at least compared to native and afro americans (and to even suggest to the contrary would be a joke). So how does this film function? One might conclude that it panders to American jews, exploiting guilt perhaps for their lack of sufficient suffering? If you are interested in actual holocaust history (one might be shocked that it has very little to do with american jews). I would suggest reading more serious, less pandering sources. 'the Seventh Million' by Tom Segev, an Israeli journalist, is very good...'the Holocaust Industry' by Norman Finkelstein is very good too. One might be shocked to find that the jews aren't one big group but a bunch of very diverse groups with radically varying histories etc.

Was the above review useful to you?

466 out of 661 people found the following review useful:

Not THAT good

1/10
Author: Molotov from USA
21 May 2000

for gods sake this movies is not THAT good, of course no one will say that because to say anything that isn't "best movie of blah blah" would be antisemitic and the words of a nazi. This movies does not deserve to be so highly ranked. I could direct a claymation nazi death camp movie with a budget of $7 and probably get on the top 250. I write this in hope when you go to vote for this movie you remember that NO ONE IS WATCHING feel free to actually vote your thoughts on the movie not the events it shows.

Was the above review useful to you?

411 out of 561 people found the following review useful:

My list

1/10
Author: elaurens88
20 September 2000

Here is Barbara's List of all the reasons why Schindler's List is the most annoyingly overpraised film of all time. 1.Overlong 2.Spielberg's most self-indulgent film, which is pretty pathetic, considering that he also made Saving Private Ryan 3.self-consciously arty 4.overabundance of cheesy filmmaking gimmicks.

If I had more time, I could go on forever....

Was the above review useful to you?

287 out of 384 people found the following review useful:

No more than a useful public service announcement...

1/10
Author: lhhung_himself from United States
11 February 2002

Schindler's list is not a bad film per se - Liam Neeson is very good as Schindler and if you edit out some of the more overblown scenes - the story is still riveting. Yet it could have been so much more if the story just told simply and if the central theme were fully understood and developed.

Before the war Schindler and his friend, Goeth were boozy, flirtatious German businessmen. Both would have likely been uninspired failures had there been no war. In a kinder world, Goeth's and Schindler's moral differences might have manifested themselves in the size of the tip that they would leave the barmaid. In war, the consequences of moral choices are greatly magnified, resulting in Schindler becoming a most unlikely heroic figure, and Goeth becoming a loathed prison commandant. In the film, Spielberg elevates Schindler to sainthood status and portrays Goeth as a sadistic psychopath. By sanitizing Schindler's many faults (boozing, gambling, womanizing...) and by demonizing Goeth, Spielberg severs our connection with them and, ironically, blunts the conflict between them. Adolf Eichmann was far more chilling than Charles Manson. Unlike Manson, whom we could dismiss as psychotic, Eichmann was the faceless functionary that we have all experienced, whose defense of "following orders" is one that we have all heard, a defense that was used by many during the war, and one that we might see ourselves using under similar circumstances had we not Schindler's courage. By making Schindler a saint, Spielberg diminishes both his accomplishment and his inspiration to us - saints have no problems making the right decision - the rest of us do. Rather than a gaping chasm, there is but a fine moral line between Schindler and Goeth - one that we tread every day, which fortunately for us, rarely does more than determines a barmaid's salary.

Spielberg does not develop this simple theme, preferring to impress us with a grandiose view of a great moral tale. Instead, he comes off as the underskilled sous-chef drowning a wonderful filet mignon in an overly rich sauce. The quality of the ingredients still shine through despite the clumsy handling but does not approach its great potential. In the end, the best thing about the film is that it reminds Americans of a monstrous event in history. It is unfortunate that this reminder is necessary and that it reduces such a timeless parable to a useful public service announcement.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 138:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history