I never really doubted that the Tom Hanks character would prevail. ... It sets it up so that you think he'll survive.

I think you might be mixing up the meaning of the words "prevail" and "survive". Film is drama. Drama does not exist if the ultimate success of the protagonist is not in doubt. Without doubt, all you're left with is the visceral roller coaster. That can be wonderfully fun, as many of Spielberg's movies are, but it is entirely lacking in depth.

As to whether Michael Corleone prevails in The Godfather; he doesn't. He fails entirely. At the beginning of the movie, after explaining his father's modus operandi, he very clearly states, "That's my family, Kay, it's not me!"

Even The Godfather acknowledges Michael's failure, "I never wanted this for you..." It is a heartbreaking scene, a father's realisation that his past sins have come back to damn his son.

The drama throughout The Godfather is a direct result of Michael's catastrophic failure to prevail and his succumbing to his demons. The closing scene captures this perfectly; he closes the door on light and on love and is embraced by evil.

Jaws is a pretty old-fashioned adventure story... I'm pretty sure that Munich has the most adult themes...

I'd disagree entirely. In Munich we're supposed to empathise with state sponsored murderers and while, during the film, we are, at times, aware of their internal conflict we begin and end the movie rooting for murderers because, tangentially, they're on the "good" side. This, to me at least, is the antithesis of adult.

There have been many, many adult movies about war. Munich, to me, is not one of them. To me, it was sophomoric but then I am Irish and, perhaps, harsher when examining the ambiguities of state sponsored murder and terrorist activities then I ought to be.

I don't think Jaws is an old fashioned adventure story at all. I think that an entirely superficial reading of the film. To me, the shark isn't even the antagonist. The shark eats. That is all it does. But eating isn't evil, is it?

So, if the shark isn't evil and isn't the antagonist, then who is? Well ask yourself what does the protagonist want? He wants to protect the people of the island, right? What is the best way to do that? By keeping people out of the water! And who prevents him from doing that? Isn't it the town elders? They are living and logical human beings and yet weigh money and innocent lives and come out in favour of money.

Jaws, to me, is a true film of the 70's; by the movie's end, the hero has lost all his friends, he has fought the "good" fight but his fight, ultimately, is entirely in vain as the true antagonists remain embedded in town.

Isn't that more reflective of the ambiguities inherent in life and, consequently, more adult than Munich, where the "bad" guys are all dead and the "good" guys return to live in peace after adopting "evil" only for as long as it was necessary to root out the "true evil"? That's an almost Bushian take on life and, what ever anyone accuses George W. Bush of, being adult is rarely at the top of the list.

Or, comparing Jaws to Jurassic, Flint describes a shark as having "lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn't seem to be livin'". See how different that is to the "clever girl" of Jurassic Park?

In Jaws, the shark is just a "lifeless" eating machine. In Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs are the antagonists. The dinosaurs are clever and responsible for their own actions in a film so anthropomorphic that it rivals anything from Disney. And what has become of the elders? They've morphed into a lovable, if sometime foolish old man. He dreams of creation, not of money and, ultimately, the people punished in Jurassic Park are not the innocents, they are the wayward and cartoonish bad guys who dream of money. They almost deserve to be eatenk! In Jaws, the teenagers are eaten, the heroes friends are eaten and all the elders survive. Jurassic Park is Jaws flipped 180 degrees. The visceral roller coaster is still there but the themes which make Jaws adult, to me, are removed entirely and all we're left with is the roller coaster.

Minority Report is similar to Jurassic Park in outlook, it takes all the ambiguity that exists in every Philip K. Dick book and, like Dwayne Johnson channeling Taylor Swift, shakes it off. It's masterful story telling and a thrilling ride but, of all films from Dick's books, it is the most juvenile. Compare it, for example, to Blade Runner. Or, hell, even to Total Recall, The Adjustment Bureau or A Scanner Darkly. A better film than those last three, for sure, but entirely lacking in their gravitas.

With Spielberg, his masterworks are also regularly cited in critics lists of top 100s.

This is true. But you rarely see a Spielberg movie at number 1 and the 6 movies I listed in the original post tend to be sprinkled across the top 200, with Schindler's and Raiders, generally in the top 20 or so. Again, this isn't to denigrate Spielberg, as stated in my original post I'm in awe of his career and his ability to create visceral roller coaster rides of movies but, the fact remains, many of his movies leave me a little cold.

It's more a case of non-pros, film bloggers and self-proclaimed buffs…

Like the vast majority of people that discuss movies, you mean? This is quite a self defeating argument. Ultimately, we are all only discussing our personal and entirely subjective tastes. The fact that one works in movies is no more relevant to one's appreciation of them than one needs to be a woman in order to appreciate breasts!

For what it's worth, I've worked in movies for close to two decades. Does that mean my opinions on what makes a good movie are more valid than my friend's who is a chef? Should he accept my opinion on movies? Should I accept his definition of what makes a good steak?

To dismiss others, whose views run contrary to your own, with such a facile argument is unbecoming, particularly given the beautifully lucid and intelligent way you write. You should know better! And, given the way my viewpoint has been down-voted and yours up-voted, the bloggers you denigrate actually agree with you! Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony!

There are some really interesting commonalities I don't see a whole lot of people talk about actually, from the obsession and subsequent disillusionment with the Greatest Generation, the complex role of religion and how his heroes all seem disinterested in it, absent or poor father figures, the dark side of Americana and how that coincides with capitalism.

Hmmm... I would tend to disagree with this. I would argue those points are often raised when Spielberg is mentioned and, certainly, anyone that has read any academic synopsis of his work would be overly familiar with those themes, as would anyone with even a passing interest in reading papers such as the LA Times.

Others like Scorsese and Coppola are more aggressive about it, putting topics front and center and pursuing more overtly difficult, unsympathetic characters and figuring them out. Spielberg goes more for analyzing the breakdown of nuclear families (which doesn't seem like a big deal now, but in the 70s and 80s, it was huge) and the everyman. Which is why the pairing Hanks & Spielberg couldn't be more ideal - had Spielberg been born 30-40 years earlier, Jimmy Stewart would've been his go-to guy for sure.

I would agree with much of this but would draw exception to the "aggressive" nature of Coppola. While his great movies often dealt with violence his style was languid to the point of ponderous. The Conversation could hardly be termed aggressive film making, neither could The Godfather or Part II. It is their subtlety and avoidance of "putting topics front and centre" that make them master-works. Even Apocalypse Now displays a languid style of storytelling that is entirely at odds with the acts of violence depicted on screen. It is surely the most "aggressive" of his film making - in that it's antiwar stance is "front and centre" - but to describe it as aggressive, you must agree, is to do it a disservice.

if you ever think about looking deeper into his films, some of them are quite blatantly subversive, others more contemplative, but they're all more than meets the eye (yes, even Always).

Again, your entire argument seems predicated on a failure to "look deeper". Has it not occurred to you that someone might look just as deeply and see something entirely different?

As to your last point, many of Spielberg's movies appear, to me, to be nothing but veneer. And that, to me, doesn't leave a whole lot of room for any real depth.

You may argue that your interpretation of his movies is different but, honestly, we see the same things. It's just that what strikes you as being adult strikes me as somewhat juvenile. I'm not denying his movies can be wonderful fun, I'm simply saying that, to me, they often lack more than that and, as a result, leave me cold.