Thanks for writing, but…did you actually go beyond the first two lines in this post?

I don't praise Cassavetes' film or his work in general. And I certainly didn't make the Cassavetes-Spielberg comparison to make the former come out on top. In fact, I find most of Spielberg's highly commercial movies — and that includes at least some of his "serious" efforts — much more interesting and watchable than Cassavetes'. (And I'm no Spielberg fan.)

The comparison was made so as to point out a double standard: auteur's independent film = good; auteur's commercial film = bad (or not so good). Though, admittedly, Spielberg is now much more respected than he used to be.

Nevermind my longtime admiration for Spielberg: it's very telling that, to praise Cassavete's work, you have to shoot down the former. And that is most certainly off-putting for John's fans.

One word: insecurity.

If I had to write something about Spielberg and praise him, I wouldn't even think of trashing, say, Roland Emmerich…

Most of Spielberg's work is trash? Really? Dismissive much?

And Indy 4 was largely accepted by both audiences and critics (check that RT score) just fine. It a superbly directed film and whatever flaws it may have in it's screenwriting, it an excellent tribute to 50s Sci-fi and whatever cheesiness it may have had was purely intentional.

And you are a personification of shallow, elitist, quick to dismiss typist. Spielberg a man who made such films as "Munich" and "Color Purple", "Sugarland Express" and "Amistad", among many others is personifiaction of a master of range and depth. Don't make him sound like a Michael Bay clone. The man's budgets even for his blockbusters are routinely lower than that of other filmmakers and his still manages to make them look better.

And there's nothing self-important about his dramatic works. It's really sad to see someone praise one filmmaker without putting someone else down.