This does nothing to counter the point that outside of Spielberg's 6 named movies, the others leave me cold. We can argue back and forth for days on end but nothing will or, indeed, can change the crux of the issue - we have a difference in perception; whereas you see depth in Spielberg's work, I do not.

In Munich, for example, the shot of the twin towers is proof beyond doubt, to my mind, of its lack of depth. I actually laughed out loud with I saw it. It was so incongruous that I forgot all about it until you mentioned it. Those types of shots are, to my mind, unintentionally hilarious. In fact, continuing with your Michael Moore analogy, those shots are on a par with Moore's obvious choices.

Moore's arguments, particularly in his own films, appeal to the emotional and use immature gimmicks to prove points that, in all honesty, are self evidently true to those of mature understanding. Granted he was only selling a film whereas Bush was selling a war but Moore's films could hardly be called "considered" or "adult" by even his greatest admirers.

Your understanding of issues is, necessarily, coloured by your perception, as is mine. You seemingly agree with Spielberg's perception that the conflict in the Middle East must go on and on. Why must it? Every war in history has ended. The French, Germans and British embrace each other in the EU. The Republicans and Unionists, while not quite hugging one another, sit in the same room in Northern Ireland. Why is the Middle East any different?

Munich, at best, avoids such difficult pronouncements - pronouncements that were made in the mid 60's in The Battle of Algiers and in the late 70's in Apocalypse Now. If better movies made better points decades before Munich, is it really a surprise that it left me cold?

But leaving aside these issues, your argument is entirely self defeating. Spielberg, as you suggest "hammers home" his points. You are right. Spielberg hammers. And that, to my mind, lacks depth and leaves me cold.

That isn't to say I don't enjoy his movies. I do. But on a visceral level rather than on an intellectual or emotional or empathetic level. Again, as stated in my last reply, we see the very same things but whereas you see a maturity and profundity, I do not. His movies, to me, lack depth. We see the same things. We just interpret them differently.