By anybodys standards, thats a pretty solid ten-year stint.
At times, Spielberg consciously seemed to take one step forwards and another backwards.
Had age finally caught up with Spielberg the Wunderkind?
Except, the same seemed true in 1985, when a Spielberg Pan project was first mooted.
Back then, Michael Jackson was to star in what would have been a Quincy Jones-powered musical.
Ad content continues below
Spielberg simply seems ill at ease with the whole thing.
The material wasnt there, the balance wasnt there, maybe even Spielbergs heart wasnt there either.
Its almost like hes forcing himself to want to makeHookby making it.
AsHookhit cinemas, Spielbergs production work continued with varying quality.
Its a neat concept and it would have worked, had the film itself not been so complacent.
Hes simply an analogue for the director himself, some critics have suggested.
Unlike Crichtons version of the character, Spielbergs Hammond is a fundamentally good man.
Spielbergs Disney-Hammond has a Jiminy Crickett on his shoulder, its just one he repeatedly ignores.
His goodness somehow makes his mistakes more villainous, his character more compelling.
IfJurassic Parkis Spielbergs scathing self-portrait,Schindlers Listis his redemption.
The same can be said for his other dramatic offerings of the 90s:AmistadandSaving Private Ryan.
In that sense, it anticipates Spielbergs current films, withLincolnandBridge Of Spiescovering similar ground.
What stands out just as strongly, however, is that those redemptions are only half achieved.
An American flag waving in the breeze concludes the film and was taken by many as a patriotic affirmation.
But the muted colour palette and slow fade to black suggests a more ambiguous answer.
Could he have done more with his fame and influence?
By making money off those films, Spielberg can confirm he funds those of a higher calling.
