I was discussing this thread with a buddy of mine, and he suggested Legends of the Fall.
It’s funny, one day we were talking about movies and realized that Brad Pitt is one of our favorite actors. At least, he’s an actor that is almost always in movies we like. Kalifornia, Se7en, Fight Club, 12 Monkeys, Legends of the Fall; the man can read scripts. Certainly not on the level of a Benicio del Torro or Steve Buscemi, but of all the mega-famous superstars, Pitt has done by far the most good work.
Santa with Muscles. Wait, did you say good movies?
Seriously, I’ll second Requiem and add Pi, also by Aronofsky.
Others: Chasing Amy. For someone used to Clerks and Mallrats, this one is just gut-wrenching.
Consider this: if anyone else had filmed that story, true or not, what would its reception have been? If a German director had chosen, for his “fact-based” WWII film, a story in which the hero is an Aryan and the Jews come through the war relatively unscathed–and the most prominent Nazi was not responsible for his actions–he’d have been run out of the country. The film would surely have been universally denounced.
In emphasizing the ordinary (and cynically opportunistic) decency of Oskar Schindler and turning it into an act of heroism with his equally cynical skills at manipulation, Spielberg cheapened the Holocaust. It’s quite likely that Schindler wouldn’t have done anything at all if it weren’t for the profit motive; that contradiction is not explored. THe only thing that made Schindler a hero was the total vaccuum of human decency that surrounded him. The POINT of Schindler’s story, insomuch as there is a point, is the tragedy that no one else did as he did: that the Germans surrounding him abdicated their humanity. Spielberg largely gives them a pass by focusing on the much better story arc of the Lone Hero.
He uses the Nazis the same way he did in Raiders: as cartoonish movie cliches to provide some plot obstacles for his Hero. He’s afraid to address the real human evil–and the real human cost–that millions of other stories, without Aryan heros and loopy Nazis, might have addressed.
Sorry; more to add.
Seriously, please think about this for a moment:
Seriously imagine a film by a German director making a hero out of a war profiteer. A hero. He’d be sitting with Leni Riefenstahl in Hell right now.
Oh, and I forgot to include a line I read in a review of Schindler’s List: that Spielberg reduces the Jews to a MacGuffin.
I think this is what always bothered me about the scene in which the old man is nearly executed at point-blank range. The gun misfires or whatever, evoking nervous laughter from the audience. I never really felt comfortable with that. It’s like he’s using these cheap movie tricks to make the Holocaust more palatable, as you said.
Still, the movie was obviously very moving for many people. I remember people describing it almost like a religious experience or like they’d just been through a car wreck.
Granted.
Still. What bothers me is–especially with its being used as an educational tool–it gives people just enough of disturbing experience so that too many people think, once you’ve seen the movie, you really know what the Holocaust was like, and nothing could be further than the truth.
So people have good taste if they like manipulative, over-produced, slick indiewood films that are ultimately pretty empty? 
No; the film tried to portray him as a daring hero, pretending to the Germans that he was a war profiteer, all the while swinging by his whip over a pit of flame to save the poor Jews. A businessman with a secret heart of gold!
As for Goeth, the movie portrayed him as an empty psychopath, a completely one-dimensional character with no motivation other than being an “Evil Nazi![sub]tm[/sub].”
Steven Spielberg is the Antichrist.
I have to cover my eyes and ears at some points during that movie…like the last wolf scene…oh dear. 
Requiem for a Dream – I own this movie and have only seen it about three times. I always keep meaning to watch it again, but I feel like I have to be in a certain “mood” for it. I have not found the right mood yet because each time I watch it I burst into hysterical tears before the movie has even ended. The book is just as depressing.
Ghost World– This is one of my favorite movies, one that I love so much that I own the DVD, VHS, comic book, and soundtrack–but Thora Birch’s character reminds me so much of myself that it stings…from the eccentric clothes to the fear of growing up to the constant snide remarks and the ability to fuck up relationships. The end always has me saying, “Why? WHY?” And then I get so angry at her for leaving Seymour that I want to leap into the screen and strangle her.
Schindler’s List – I don’t care what everyone else is saying, but I thought this movie was brilliant and moving. Unfortunately, I could barely get out of bed for days after watching it because it made me so sad.
Dead Man Walking. I’m firmly opposed to the DP, so it was preaching to the choir. But even so, the movie is so depressing and disturbing and Sean Penn, of course, is a very accomplished actor. I’ll never see that again.
Well I would agree with some of these, disagree with others, and I’ll add a new one.
I’ve seen almost every Hitchcock film made, some are brilliant and I watch whenever I can, others are mediocre or poor.
There’s only one I can think of that was brilliant and I couldn’t watch again. Vertigo.
I’m surprised nobody has brought up The Loss of Sexual Innocence. It has been on pretty regular rotation on HBO lately. Definitely an arthouse movie, but it has a story and some great acting. I don’t wish I’d never seen it. In fact, I enjoyed it, but man does it have some psychological daggers. “Plummett” is a good one word description for the film.
Just thought of another one…
O Lucky Man. It’s not really a depressing movie, but it did f*uck me up and leave me with a splitting headache… much like Pi.
Reminds me of another one (in current rotation on cable) that meets the OP’s criteria, with the sole caveat that I haven’t decided if I thought it was good or not. High Art with Ally Sheedy. I’ll watch anything with lesbians, so it’s tough to form an objective opinion.
Uh, yeah. I mean, doesn’t this description fit all of Tarentino’s work, plus Memento and countless other good movies? Or do you not like any of them?
I guess a look into the destructive power of adiction is empty for you. That’s cool. Some of us might have some experience with addiction, and find the content of the movie more substantive than you.
Also, name me a movie that is not manipulative.
As for over-produced, I don’t understand specifically what you mean. Wait, that friggin’ shaky-cam might qualify, and I’d probably agree on that score. But other than that, you don’t like anything that has a decent cinematographer? What do you mean by over-produced?
I’m confused.
Looking for Mr. Goodbar
Falling Down
Tarantino is overrated, yes. Destructive power of addiction? The Lost Weekend. The Man With The Golden Arm. The cinematography was flashy-MTV-mediocrity.
The film completely lacks subtlety, relying instead on camera tricks and emotional manipulation to get its message across, which ultimately boils down to “Drugs are bad, mmmmkay? Don’t do drugs.” The ending is a copout, and the body of a film very narrowly escapes Reefer Madness-esque self parody.
Dude! Pulp Fiction is one of the most important films ever made. Certainly about the most important film made in the last ten years.
But yeah, he pretty much sucks otherwise. Still. Pulp Fiction.
I’m really surprised that no one’s mentioned Monster. Probably the finest single piece of acting I’ve ever seen, and a great movie in all other ways as well. Nonetheless, I doubt I will ever want to see it again.
Important, sure. But I could take it or leave it but for the dialogue (Do I have a sign saying ‘Dead nigger storage!?’). The minor irritations are numerous enough to distract me. Jackie Brown is his best film. Reservoir Dogs was okay. Kill Bill jes’ plain sucked.
Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece, more astonishing every time I see it; probly ten times by now.