Bingowings said:

I criticised it for being a being an unnecessarily stylised, unnecessarily melodramatic, derivative, inaccurate adaptation of the book, made with a eye more on the film makers career arc than anything else.

just where was it inaccurate?

Bingowings said:

I didn't criticise it for not being Shoah (I voiced an observation that Shoah was none of the above).

I didn't criticise the facts of history but their depiction in the film and how pointed it was that Spielberg should pick that story over all others knowing his preference for sending the audience away with a positive emotional response.

ok, Spielberg likes films with happy endings. Schindler's List has a kind of happy ending, so what?

you know what Shoah wasn't as well? a movie. I just looked it up. It was documentary with a lot of interviews. Its not a movie with actors, script, sets and plot and what not. You can't compare it to Schindler's List. That is like comparing the movie Gettysburg to Ken Burn's Civil War mini series.

Bingowings said:

Stanley Kubrick said of the film:

"Schindler's List was about 200 Jews who lived. The Holocaust is about 6 million who died"

And I agree with that observation.

1. it did show A LOT of the Jews being murdered. It never glossed over the horrors of the holocaust, or tried to make it seem better than it was or anything like that.

2. just what is so wrong about film about the 200 Jews who lived? Why is their story so unworthy to have movie made of it?