Xixax Film Forum

What are some movies you are ashamed to admit you DIDN'T like.  Y'know, classics that you wouldn't call exactly classics, everyone else thought they were SO great, but just didn't work for you.  Go ahead, don't be afraid.

i was a bit disapointed by rosemary's baby. the first 2 acts were amazing - -- i found the last act to be a bit heavy handed --  its one of those films that people talk about over and over -- i hadnt seen it until a few months ago -- all the hype didn't meet my expectations -- however i must consider when it was made.

Anything by David Lynch. Can't stand his movies. Like individual scenes, but they just don't ever add up to anything for me.

Shoot The Piano Player. Seen it twice, don't like it.

Metropolis. Just saw the new remastered print, almost fell asleep.

But, you never know, I could watch these all again and love them.

Also, I've never liked Fargo.

i also found the wickerman very disapointing. i think the idea behind the film could be very intruiging, if handled correctly. i thought the director had no sense of tone for this film. i hear they're planning to re-make it -- any one know of this? id love to see the premise of this film executed with some more energy -- could be quite interesting.

my list of nonclassic classics include --

Spartacus, Singin' in the Rain (it's an enjoyable film, but I wouldn't say it's the best musical ever. I didn't see the greatness in it.. I prefer Cabaret and My Fair Lady.), Beauty and the Beast (disney).. I'm inclined to say Jaws as well, but I'm in the mood to watch that now for some reason. Anyone have any idea as to why?

I think JAWS is wonderul -- i dont know if its becuase i loved it as a child so much -- but its one films that i can watch over and over and it never ceases it put a large smile on my face -- same for singing in the rain, i love it -- different strokes for different folks

Usual Suspects:  Kind of bored by it.  Probably becuase of A. I already knew the surprise ending before I'd seen it. OR B.  I'd probably already seen other movies that were rip-offs of it, so it didn't seem original.

True Romance:   I think it was the first movie I'd seen that was written, but not directed by Quentin Tarantino.  I guess I was expecting the same magic that quentin's directing brings to the screen.  It just wasn't there.

kind of new, but classic to alot of people. fight club. never care for it much. i thought it started out fine like a good caracter study but then it fell to be too much smartass to be believable for me, and the whole psycological plot was just to stupid. nonesence.

citizen kane. i allways saw as a sort of prototype to modern cinema and it should of course be given A LOT of credit for that. but standing on its own, i dont think its that great.

Im sorry but 8 1/2,  just didnt do anything for me

I can't stand the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical films.  I don't know why, but they just bug me.

I was waiting for someone to mention Kane - I spend a lot of time defending that movie to people on my course. I think there's this inbuilt need in us to want to rebel against it because it's got this ridiculous status as "the greatest film ever made". I don't want to get into a big argument over it here, I just think its interesting. It isn't the "greatest film ever made" (who could ever possibly say there is one?), but I do think it is a wonderful, textbook example of how to make a movie - a shame its got so much pressure on it to live up to.

Anyway: not so classic-classics...? Erm... I was a little disappointed with Jules et Jim, but I think that suffered from too much anticipation. Gone With the Wind: absolute bollocks.

looking back, i didn't get a lot out of wild strawberries.  maybe that's because it was the inspiration for a lot of things.  it was a good film by itself, but i just didn't get anything from it.

'to kill a mockingbird' was somewhat well shot, but the book and the movie both bore the crap out of me.  :\

Citizen Kane, Goodfellas.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanCitizen Kane, Goodfellas.

what didn't you like about goodfellas? just out of curiosity.... i think i disagree with you before your rebuttle, but im still curious.

Quote from: cowboykurtiswhat didn't you like about goodfellas?

I just didn't get into the "atmosphere." Yes, it was visually amazing, but I thought the characters were contrived, too "cute" (to invoke a GT term), and any depth they might have had was stolen by the narration.

OK, Since my name was spoken term wise in looking down upon a movie I think is of pure excellence, I must come to defense. First off, the reason the movie never involves itself it with any characters is because to do so would bring it back to a normal drama, which in ways, The Godfather acted as that didn't really set itself apart as being a gangster film at all, but just a drama. The quick movements in going from story to story through narration has its reasons in trying to capture the life and style that the playboy gangster life felt like. To involve itself into a normal drama that was investigative of characters would ask for it to lose the identity and feeling that set this movie apart from all others in being the definitive gangster movie since then. Like The Thin Red Line sacrificed focus on any one soldier to get a feel for all the soldiers as one during that war, this movie aims for the general feeling of what it was like to be a gangster.

And, curiously, why dislike for Citizen Kane?

~rougerum

i do feel that V.O. narration is extremely hard to pull off in a film -- it does have the tendancy to make the audience very aware that they are indeed watching a film. however i fell scorsese is one of the few film makers that can pull off VO -- this may very well be attributed to Paul Schrader as well -- i think one of the very few films where the VO actually adds to the atmosphere is Taxi Driver. i think the intimate, lonely atmosphere is heightened by the narration -- it seems to handle it more as passages from his journal that are counterpointing the narrative -- instead commenting on what is already obvious withing the visual frame. goodfellas as well as mean streets seem to work as well for me. your point is repectively taken, i just think differently.

2001: A Space Odyssey

I also just watched the Wicker Man for the first time, though, and was very disappointed. And I also agree that Rosemary's Baby had a disappointing last act. I like Goodfellas, but I like Casino more (I'm biding my time right now, trying to think of something good that disappointed me -- I love most of the movies you guys already mentioned).

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetTo involve itself into a normal drama that was investigative of characters would ask for it to lose the identity and feeling that set this movie apart from all others

That's exactly why I don't like it. But it's strange how you say "normal drama"... I don't see Goodfella's drama as eccentric or new or innovative, just empty. You usually need characters to have a movie, unless you can pull it off like Kubrick, and Kubrick Scorsese is not. Raging Bull? Taxi Driver? Bringing Out the Dead? Great characters. I don't think he can make a good movie that doesn't have characters.

Quote from: cowboykurtishowever i fell scorsese is one of the few film makers that can pull off VO . . . goodfellas seems to work for me.

I like the VO in Taxi Driver, but the VO in Goodfellas is.. I don't know.. it's just trying too hard. The entire movie is trying too hard. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I dislike it.

Of course Goodfellas is a visual masterpiece, but I still don't think it's a good movie.

Here are just some that I couldn't find much good in....

apollo 13
a beautiful mind
the discreet charm of the bourguisie (sp?)
forrest gump
gladiator
happiness
spartacus (just saw it)
titanic
the usual suspects (fucking hate it)

Quote from: ebeaman69apollo 13
a beautiful mind
the conversation
the discreet charm of the bourguisie (sp?)
fargo (fucking hate it)
forrest gump
gladiator
happiness
jfk
spartacus (just saw it)
titanic
the usual suspects (fucking hate it)

You're right about most of those. Except for The Conversation, Discreet Charm, JFK Happiness and Fargo,  which are all brilliant with a capital B. Give 'em another try.

Oh, and Titanic too.

Quote from: Ghostboy

Quote from: ebeaman69apollo 13
a beautiful mind
the conversation
the discreet charm of the bourguisie (sp?)
fargo (fucking hate it)
forrest gump
gladiator
happiness
jfk
spartacus (just saw it)
titanic
the usual suspects (fucking hate it)

You're right about most of those. Except for The Conversation, Discreet Charm, JFK Happiness and Fargo,  which are all brilliant with a capital B. Give 'em another try.

Oh, and Titanic too.

agreed. the conversation is one of my top 3 favorite films. ive never seen titanic, but the others are all wonderful.

But you're missing the point, the character is focus in Goodfellas is not any one character, but the whole life of the gangster. That is the main character, like the tide of war felt upon many different soldiers in The Thin Red Line, the character is the overall event that is taking place. That's the reason for the reliance upon voice overs, because thats how these guys communicated, that is how they talked and told stories. Though the film on the outside follows the rise and fall of the man, its main message is the general feeling of losing that life, when it is all said and done, and how that life incompassed the best and worst of feelings. Goodfellas couldn't have succeeded in being the best gangster film made til then unless it spoke specifically to how the feeling of the gangster life was first and foremost.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetBut you're missing the point, the character is focus in Goodfellas is not any one character, but the whole life of the gangster. That is the main character, like the tide of war felt upon many different soldiers in The Thin Red Line, the character is the overall event that is taking place. That's the reason for the reliance upon voice overs, because thats how these guys communicated, that is how they talked and told stories. Though the film on the outside follows the rise and fall of the man, its main message is the general feeling of losing that life, when it is all said and done, and how that life incompassed the best and worst of feelings. Goodfellas couldn't have succeeded in being the best gangster film made til then unless it spoke specifically to how the feeling of the gangster life was first and foremost.

~rougerum

amen. took the words out of my mouth friend.

Donald Darko

Quote from: SubstanceDDonald Darko

ive already spoken my disdain for darko in earlier threads. i wont go there again. ive made my peace.

Dr. Strangelove -- nice photography, but I didn't think it was funny (even though I usually love Peter Sellers).  Just didn't click for me, and I've seen it a few times.

On The Waterfront -- too corny and earnest.

Brazil, Blade Runner, Pennies From Heaven.

Silence of the Lambs -- basically a B-movie pretending to be an art film.  How this won so many Oscars and earned the reputation as a classic is beyond me.  I love Demme, but this is his weakest film.

Quote from: soixanteDr. Strangelove -- nice photography, but I didn't think it was funny (even though I usually love Peter Sellers).  Just didn't click for me, and I've seen it a few times.

On The Waterfront -- too corny and earnest.

Brazil, Blade Runner, Pennies From Heaven.

Silence of the Lambs -- basically a B-movie pretending to be an art film.  How this won so many Oscars and earned the reputation as a classic is beyond me.  I love Demme, but this is his weakest film.

i will now excersize my right to disagree.

Brazil is the only thing that comes to mind at the moment.

Some of the films mentioned... :cry:...why oh why them?  (Fargo and Citizen Kane for christ sakes!)

Others I completely agree with.  (Donnie Darko, Brazil, and The Usual Suspects stick out the most.)

Fellini and Godard have a few I'm not too crazy about too.

Quote from: ebeaman69Here are just some that I couldn't find much good in....

apollo 13
a beautiful mind
the conversation
the discreet charm of the bourguisie (sp?)
fargo (fucking hate it)
forrest gump
gladiator
happiness
jfk
spartacus (just saw it)
titanic
the usual suspects (fucking hate it)

forrest gump? fargo? the conversation? jfk? usual suspects? even gladiator? geez louise... somebody take too many idiot pills.

Calm down, cbr. Explain instead of name call. Say why you think he is wrong, if even in one sentence incriments for each movie, but still attempt to explain.

I'll disagree with you though on Usual Suspects and Gladiator. They are hideous. The Usual Suspects amounts to an hour and a half of character interaction driven by violence with an ending that brings nothing into clarification or completion, but acts for its own cuteness. The ending could have been added to just about any other crime movie and still operated as a good ending. Gladiator is a minor attempt to bring a gladiator drama that can never get past cliche in its story, but finds moments of attention in the execution of its actions scenes. The problem here, the movie never identifies what movie it wants to be in order to focus on those main points and bring some kind of movie that is interesting, albeit a pure action movie or drama. This is Shakespeare as made to be understood by 6th graders.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetBut you're missing the point, the character is focus in Goodfellas is not any one character, but the whole life of the gangster.

But it tries, doesn't it? It tries to make a cast of characters out of these character actors. Compare it to Full Metal Jacket. We follow Joker in FMJ, and we follow Ray Liotta in Goodfellas, but Scorsese can't do it right... like I said, I think Kubrick can pull it off, but I haven't really seen that anywhere else. Kubrick equated all the troops with each other.. they're all the same... and I don't see that with Goodfellas.... Scorsese definitely tries to create personalities from all these people, I mean look at the character introductions. How can you say he doesn't try to create individual characters? It's a delicate thing, and I don't think Scorsese alienated the characters enough from themselves and from the story to avoid an attempt at a character drama. If the "life of the gangster" is supposed to be a character, it's a pretty uninteresting one, and the point is over too soon... and the creation of a conglomerate character is definitely in conflict with the creation of separate individual characters. I thought the movie was a failure.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
I'll disagree with you though on Usual Suspects and Gladiator. They are hideous.

You meant to say agree, right? I'm just making sure, cause I said I hated The Usual Suspects, I hate Gladiator too...I too think they are hideous. Or were you talking to cbrad? Just wondered. I don't want anybody thinking I like those two fucking "movies".

Anyway, I came up with some more classics I dislike. Before I do that I just wanted to say that I did not forget Barry Lyndon, I really do like the movie and have been planning to see it again. I never hated it. I don't HATE all the ones that I list...like casablanca and gone for the wind...I don't hate them. I just don't think they're classics.

casablanca
crouching tiger, hidden dragon
dances with wolves
election
gone with the wind
heathers
lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring
memento
monty python and the holy grail
the princess bride
se7en
the sixth sense
unbreakable
x-men

Also, I don't think American Beauty is anything close to a classic but...I like it too much to list it here.

you may not like casablanca, but to say its not a classic, is a reckless statement, my friend.

Quote from: cowboykurtisyou may not like casablanca, but to say its not a classic, is a reckless statement, my friend.

I definitely respect it for it's influence it had on films of the past and today...I don't even really dislike it. Cause I realize that a lot of my favorite films wouldn't have existed if not for Casablanca. It is a classic, I just don't see why...I guess that's what I mean to say. I would never call it a bad film...like I would some of the films on that list.

Quote from: ebeaman69
It is a classic, I just don't see why

probably for those reasons:

Quote from: ebeaman69it's influence it had on films of the past and today...

a lot of my favorite films wouldn't have existed if not for Casablanca.

It is not trying really trying to create invdivual characters within a conglomerate character, but trying to create personalities within a congomerate character to push the latter forward in getting the point across of what it means and feels like. And can you really say that these personalities don't come alive on the screen? In your argument that it ends too soon, that is in conjucture with the feeling of what the movie wants to feel like, like you got a touch or a wiff of a world that is another world, like a dream come true in some ways but then, like that, its all gone. The fast pace storytelling and hollowness of intraspection upon these characters speaks exactly for who they are, empty people who live live in a daze of half stardom and half notoriety that is not possible for any of us. That's why I say the movies comes alive in showing us their personalities really only, and we get a feel for how extreme they can be in their obcessions and crime risks. For the movie to operate on intraspection of these characters, it would loose that feeling of what this life personified for these guys.

And ebes, in saying I was disagreeing, I was responding to cbr.

~rougerum

American Beauty (I've tried, but failed)
A bout de souffle (zzzz...)
Fargo (too deep frozen)
La Dolce Vita (poncy)
and K*****k. God, how I'd love to love him, but I just can't.

Concering Goodfellas...

There are truly only two parts in the entire glorious movie that I can say I don't like very much:

-the part with all the mary's and paul's
AND
-the part with the jimmy two times guy.

Those are the only two parts that even come close to annoying me...they're just a little too cute. I get that it's tongue-in-cheek but it's just a little too cute for the good of the movie. It doesn't take away from the movie at all...but it definitely doesn't add to it. Thank god those parts are so short...they could have really done some damage to the overall greatness of the movie had they been longer.

Anyway, it's still one of my favorite films ever...and still perfect in my eyes.

Quote from: budgie
and K*****k. God, how I'd love to love him, but I just can't.

Don't think you can slip by...  I already knew you had felt that way, but I really thought you might be coming around...

and I have trouble understanding how people could sit through Braveheart and not laugh the whole way through... let alone call it a classic.

Quote from: RegularKarate

Quote from: budgie
and K*****k. God, how I'd love to love him, but I just can't.

Don't think you can slip by...  I already knew you had felt that way, but I really thought you might be coming around...

and I have trouble understanding how people could sit through Braveheart and not laugh the whole way through... let alone call it a classic.

Yeah, I've seen parts of Braveheart...not enough to judge it but quite a few parts...it's pretty horrible.

some of these movies, i hate and have no idea what's so great about them. others, i don't hate, but don't particularly enjoy either. i'm too lazy to segregate them, though.

the wild bunch
straw dogs
shoot the piano player
jules et jim
boondock saints
the usual suspects
citizen kane
jaws
rocky
north by northwest
lawrence of arabia
se7en
the sting
chinatown
annie hall
lock, stock & two smoking barrels
snatch - it seems like everyone loves ritchie films because of all the great lines and nothing else. not even because the lines are "great", but because of the way the actors say them.

and i guess that's it. i just skimmed down imdb's top 250 list because i couldn't think of shit off the top of my head.

this is what happened


. sphinx sees lock stock for the first time many years ago
. sphinx raves to others about how amazing it is
. sphinx is dimismissed
. years later, snatch is released
. everyone sees it and raves to sphinx about how amazing it is, who thinks it is only mediocre in comparison to lock stock
. sphinx makes them see lock stock
. enlightenment

-Everyone sees Lock Stock and tells RK how great it is
-RK finally sees Lock Stock and tells everyone that recomended it to him to never recomend a movie to him again.
-Out of morbid curriosity, RK tries to watch Snatch
-After twenty minutes, RK sets fire to the disk, runs it over with his car and tries to convince Blockbuster that's how he found it.
-RK is arrested for driving his car into Blockbuster and repeated running over the "S" section of the new release wall.

^Lol. I'm not sure I like Snatch anymore either...I don't know. I definitely don't hate it...I've just seen so much since I was a real hardcore fan of it (translation: I've discovered Scorsese).

Tarantino is better than Ritchie anyway.

Quote from: ebeaman69^Lol. I'm not sure I like Snatch anymore either...I don't know. I definitely don't hate it...I've just seen so much since I was a real hardcore fan of it (translation: I've discovered Scorsese).

Tarantino is better too...concerning the hip violent movies.

I don't know though, ebeaman, what does Snatch have to do with Martin Scorsese? I'd say it's more of a Tarantino rip-off than anything (or perhaps it's a Guy Ritchie rip-off).

Don't believe me? Think of this -- coke made Vanilla Coke, which everyone was curious about and enjoyed. Now, Pepsi made Vanilla Pepsi because of Vanilla Coke's success. Maybe the scientists over at Pepsi really tried hard to make a great product, but the bottom line is this --- the Pepsi CEO's wouldn't have demanded their company to produce Vanilla Pepsi unless Vanilla Coke were successful.

Quote from: MrBurgerKing

Quote from: ebeaman69^Lol. I'm not sure I like Snatch anymore either...I don't know. I definitely don't hate it...I've just seen so much since I was a real hardcore fan of it (translation: I've discovered Scorsese).

Tarantino is better too...concerning the hip violent movies.

I don't know though, ebeaman, what does Snatch have to do with Martin Scorsese? I'd say it's more of a Tarantino rip-off than anything (or perhaps it's a Guy Ritchie rip-off).

Don't believe me? Think of this -- coke made Vanilla Coke, which everyone was curious about and enjoyed. Now, Pepsi made Vanilla Pepsi because of Vanilla Coke's success. Maybe the scientists over at Pepsi really tried hard to make a great product, but the bottom line is this --- the Pepsi CEO's wouldn't have demanded their company to produce Vanilla Pepsi unless Vanilla Coke were successful.

That's true, it definitely was more of a Tarintino rip off. What I was saying was...when I discovered Scorsese, my expectations for EVERY type of film were brought up a notch or two, especially if they were violent. Same thing happened when I discovered PTA, and more recently David Gordon Green. And Kubrick. And Altman. And Truffaut. And Godard. And many others.

Concerning the vanilla coke thing: one could argue that the everyday joe that started the idea of putting real vanilla in regular cokes had a lot to do with the idea of it...maybe even more to do with it than the manufacturers who followed through with it and produced it worldwide. So, therefore...coke wouldn't have led to vanilla coke. It was done before it was manufactured. It wasn't thought of to make more money. It was thought of by a normal guy or girl that was bored with regular coke. At least that's what my mom told me, that they were putting vanilla in coke way before they were selling it. But then, who am I? I fell hard for cherry mountain dew.

Quote from: ebeaman69

Quote from: MrBurgerKing

Quote from: ebeaman69^Lol. I'm not sure I like Snatch anymore either...I don't know. I definitely don't hate it...I've just seen so much since I was a real hardcore fan of it (translation: I've discovered Scorsese).

Tarantino is better too...concerning the hip violent movies.

I don't know though, ebeaman, what does Snatch have to do with Martin Scorsese? I'd say it's more of a Tarantino rip-off than anything (or perhaps it's a Guy Ritchie rip-off).

Don't believe me? Think of this -- coke made Vanilla Coke, which everyone was curious about and enjoyed. Now, Pepsi made Vanilla Pepsi because of Vanilla Coke's success. Maybe the scientists over at Pepsi really tried hard to make a great product, but the bottom line is this --- the Pepsi CEO's wouldn't have demanded their company to produce Vanilla Pepsi unless Vanilla Coke were successful.

That's true, it definitely was more of a Tarintino rip off. What I was saying was...when I discovered Scorsese, my expectations for EVERY type of film were brought up a notch or two, especially if they were violent. Same thing happened when I discovered PTA, and more recently David Gordon Green. And Kubrick. And Altman. And Truffaut. And Godard. And many others.

Ohh, okay.. so you're saying when you discovered Scorsese your expectations for every type of film were brought up a notch or two, especially if they were violent.. I understand now.. thanks for clarifying that.

...pepsi made vanilla pepsi?

Okay, here we go:

Mulholland Drive (I got it, I just thought it wasn't worth getting. Silencio indeed)
Glengarry Glenross (finally saw it today--been on my list for a while--and I'm frankly not too impressed. As much as people talked it up I was expecting a lot more than excellent deliveries prefacing a very dull story)
Rules of Attraction (downright loathed this movie. Terrible waste of time)
Taxi Driver (I've tried again and again to like this--and there are some parts that I thoroughly enjoy--but as a whole, nya ah)
Requiem for a Dream (again with the trying. Again with the nya ah)
Waking Life (Jesus, if I wanted to wax philosophical I'd go hang out at Dodd Hall and chat up all the hippies)

The Matrix - to really like this movie I've always felt you have to look at alot of the scenes and characters and think they are so "cool".  Sorry.  I can't.

American Beauty - thought it was a pretty pathetic attempt at showing familial dysfunctionality.  Maybe my senses were dulled after already having seen Happiness.  Never thought Spacey had much talent either.

Leaving Las Vegas - pretty inaccurate portrayal of a drunk and piss-poor dialog.  Watch Barfly written by a real drunk, Charles Bukowski.

Quote from: RaikusWaking Life (Jesus, if I wanted to wax philosophical I'd go hang out at Dodd Hall and chat up all the hippies)

yeah, but nobody's really shoving the movie down your throat, are they?

i admit it's a philisophically heavy movie, but i guess you have to be in the mood for it.  or you can just hate it

The Sound Of Music

Quote from: RaikusOkay, here we go:

Mulholland Drive (I got it, I just thought it wasn't worth getting. Silencio indeed)
Glengarry Glenross (finally saw it today--been on my list for a while--and I'm frankly not too impressed. As much as people talked it up I was expecting a lot more than excellent deliveries prefacing a very dull story)
Rules of Attraction (downright loathed this movie. Terrible waste of time)
Taxi Driver (I've tried again and again to like this--and there are some parts that I thoroughly enjoy--but as a whole, nya ah)
Requiem for a Dream (again with the trying. Again with the nya ah)
Waking Life (Jesus, if I wanted to wax philosophical I'd go hang out at Dodd Hall and chat up all the hippies)

please try watching glenn gary again -- i think its one of the best ensemble casts ever to be put on celluloid. shelly the machine levine, is also one of the most perfectly realized "tragic hero"... ALWAYS BE CLOSING.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThe fast pace storytelling

...is what I liked about the movie, but that's so meaningless and generic, and can really be done with any movie. You could even call it laziness or impatience.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpettrying to create personalities within a congomerate character to push the latter forward in getting the point across

But Goodfellas really sincerely tries to differentiate individuals from the whole. It doesn't go for either extreme (all character or no character), so I think it fails. There's no balance with something like that... it's all or nothing.

Oh, I thought of a good one. Fast Times At Ridgemont High. I finally watched it a few months back, and the more I think about it, the more I dislike it. It was a fluffy teen sitcom that tried to be real by including serious issues like sex and abortion -- including, but not doing justice to. It felt somewhat insulting, actually.

The swimming pool scene is great, though. That's probably the only reason the movie is a classic.

JB,
I think we reached a stalemate where it is obvious we both got different reactions from the film personally and debatting seems milked. But, as always, it was fun. You should get into this argumentive mode some more. I feel like you are holding back in responding these days in a lot of posts.

Now, onto what I considered overrated classics, the most obvious for me is the Star Wars Trilogy. The effects for it were great, but much has dated. The plot is the most evident in it really being a B grade one. Instead of the movie supposebly being about the deep power of mthological themes, it runs closer in blood to soap opera stories. Normally, if the movie was still effective in doing this I wouldn't mind but Star Wars is built up to a seriouness where a religion has been created out of the series and people claiming it to be the best science fiction films ever. The Indiana Jones movies are like this, but imo much better handled in way of presenting the action with the story and also, they are not put as serious works. My Star Wars is Princess Mononoke, that will likely do a better job in lasting through effective action scenes and effects and resinates a billion times more powerful in deep meaning and belief.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYou should get into this argumentive mode some more. I feel like you are holding back in responding these days in a lot of posts.

:?  .... give me the links and I guess I can try.....

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetNow, onto what I considered overrated classics, the most obvious for me is the Star Wars Trilogy. The effects for it were great, but much has dated.

I think Star Wars (first three, anyway) has rightful place as the king of all cheesy mythological sci-fi film. I like it.

You're assessment of Star Wars is better than what most fans are willing to say. Either way, it appeals on cult level. You either are on the train or not.

And also, I guess it is a general feeling of you holding back than anything.

~rougerum

The people who like Star Wars the most now are the people who saw it as preteens.

The best movie ever was Primal Fear.  You know I fooled you all by the end.  Cause i'm just that damn good.

But the best classic is Fight Club.  Oh man, when i punched myself in the face, it felt so bad.  I was swallowing blood for days afterwards.  My wife thought i was an open sore.

fight club is overrated

Quote from: ewardfight club is overrated

you're probably right, but i still think it's fucking brilliant.

i think the first forty-five minutes are brilliant, then it just turns into shit

Quote from: ewardfight club is overrated

fightclub is entertaining

to a point, i guess

Quote from: ewardi think the first forty-five minutes are brilliant, then it just turns into shit

I don't know, I think the whole film is hypocritical of itself in many ways. Perhaps there lies the brilliance.. Here's what I can think of right now

*It deals with anti-commercial and capitalist issues, yet it had a huge budget, campaign, memorabilia, blah blah etc..

*Ed Norton escapes the repetitive, nihilistic, lemming lifestyle of a corporate executive only to end up as a repetitive, nihilistic, lemming. Seems like he becomes exactly what he was escaping throughout the first half.

What is Fight Club trying to say? Perhaps its message is just as responsible as Ronald McDonald teaching kids McDonalds propaganda?

You wouldn't understand because you're a corporate whore for BK

is that a threat?

:arrow:

Quote from: ewardi think the first forty-five minutes are brilliant, then it just turns into shit

I agree with you 90%. For me, the first hour  or 55 mins is brilliant, then it turns to shit.

Quote from: Duck Sauce

Quote from: ewardfight club is overrated

fightclub is entertaining

Fight Club is, at heart, a love story.

Guys! You're not supposed to talk about Fight Club.  :roll:

i saw angel heart a few months ago -- didnt live up to the hype. there were some wonderful moments. it had a really nice atmosphere. i just thought the ending was a bit hoaky.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

Quote from: dufresnePlanes, Trains and Automobiles.

What?

Quote from: ewardi think the first forty-five minutes are brilliant, then it just turns into shit

I actually think it gets better after the whole testicular cancer thing, I didn't really like that whole thing...with the "bitch tits" and everything, that I did not like. I really like everything after that, after he meets Tyler and everything, all that stuff is great. It's a cool movie, just overrated.

see, i started to really not like it once the fight club aspect of it actually went underway -- although i will say that the "pick a fight, and lose it" sequence was very funny.

Quote from: ebeaman69

Quote from: ewardi think the first forty-five minutes are brilliant, then it just turns into shit

I actually think it gets better after the whole testicular cancer thing, I didn't really like that whole thing...with the "bitch tits" and everything, that I did not like. I really like everything after that, after he meets Tyler and everything, all that stuff is great. It's a cool movie, just overrated.

yeah, im not really a fan of the Bob having breasts thing, I didnt really find it that interesting or funny. It sounded like something me and my friends would joke about in Jr High.

Quote from: ebeaman69I actually think it gets better after the whole testicular cancer thing, I didn't really like that whole thing...with the "bitch tits" and everything, that I did not like. I really like everything after that, after he meets Tyler and everything, all that stuff is great. It's a cool movie, just overrated.

Quote from: Duck Sauceyeah, im not really a fan of the Bob having breasts thing, I didnt really find it that interesting or funny. It sounded like something me and my friends would joke about in Jr High.

And you guys don't see that that was the point? Bob having women's appendages, or rather, overly-emphasized parts that couldn't have made him any less like a man. Because they are tits, they are out there for the whole world to see. He was a body builder before; the ultimate manly man. Fight club was a way for Bob to feel like a man again and be accepted by his peers. Look at how giddy Bob gets when he finally admits to Narrator/Jack that he found a better place than the cancer meetings. He's bonding with men that, outside of fight club, would make fun of him...just like jr. high kids would. Bob is the one who needed fight club the most.

bob may have needed fight club, but not me... :wink:

but i will say i do like fincher -- the game and se7en were good, can't say i cared much for panic room or alien 3 tho

i'd like to see him go in a completely different direction filmwise, see what other kinds of things he can churn out

Quote from: RegularKarate

Quote from: dufresnePlanes, Trains and Automobiles.

What?

http://us.imdb.com/Details?0093748

one of the best comedies i've seen.

Quote from: dufresne

Quote from: RegularKarate

Quote from: dufresnePlanes, Trains and Automobiles.

What?

http://us.imdb.com/Details?0093748

one of the best comedies i've seen.

Right... I was wondering why you posted it in a thread called Not so Classic Classics.  Especially if you liked it.

The 20 Most Overrated Movies of All Time?
We let our staff at Premiere Magazine go at each other regarding some of the more beloved movies of all time in our September issue.

It happens to everyone who loves movies: You’re in a conversation at a bar, or at a wedding, or online, and someone begins rhapsodizing about one of their favorite movies and you can’t help but say, “Uh, that movie sucks. It’s totally overrated.” How two perfectly well-balanced individuals can have such drastically different views of the same film is one of the great wonders of being a film fanatic. It happens to us at Premiere all the time, enough so that sometimes we find ourselves questioning who we work with (boy, did it get ugly here when Love, Actually came out, and some of us are still snickering over our boss’s love for Bowfinger, not to mention his affection for The Last Samurai). Well, we decided to put this phenomenon on the page in our September issue. We let our staff go at each other regarding some of the more beloved movies of all time, and, sure enough, sobbing can still be heard coming from the bathroom stalls. Relationships have been strained. Egos bruised.

2001: A Space Odyssey
A Beautiful Mind
American Beauty
An American In Paris
Chariots Of Fire
Clerks
Chicago
Easy Rider
Fantasia
Field Of Dreams
Forrest Gump
Gone With The Wind
Good Will Hunting
Monster's Ball
Jules And Jim
Moonstruck
Mystic River
Nashville
The Wizard Of Oz
The Red Shoes

Interesting to see nashville on that list

Of the films I have seen on this list..

So not overrated.. (The folks at Premiere are smokin crack)

2001: A Space Odyssey
American Beauty
Chariots Of Fire
Fantasia
Field Of Dreams
Gone With The Wind
Good Will Hunting
The Wizard Of Oz (Especially this! What the fuck? Might as well say Mozart was overrated too.)

Overrated..
A Beautiful Mind
Forrest Gump
Clerks

How did Monster's Ball even get recognized for this list?

Films which are generally loved/acclaimed but I don't care for..
TITANIC (Worst popular film of the 90s, hands down..)
Spartacus
Chinatown
Gladiator
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Finding Neverland
8½
Brazil

Quote from: MacGuffin
2001: A Space Odyssey
A Beautiful Mind
American Beauty
An American In Paris
Chariots Of Fire
Clerks
Chicago
Easy Rider
Fantasia
Field Of Dreams
Forrest Gump
Gone With The Wind
Good Will Hunting
Monster's Ball
Jules And Jim
Moonstruck
Mystic River
Nashville
The Wizard Of Oz
The Red Shoes

they're right except for nashville, fantasia, the red shoes and 2001 obviously.

and myxo, WARNING: i'm about to disagree with u..

Quote from: MyxoSo not overrated.. (The folks at Premiere are smokin crack)
American Beauty
The Wizard Of Oz (Especially this! What the fuck? Might as well say Mozart was overrated too.)

the wizard of oz is NOT the mozart of film, when mozart can be compared to a single popular film in ppl's minds, it becomes automatically overrated, if only as an insult to mozart. that's the point i think they're making.

Quote from: MyxoFilms which are generally loved/acclaimed but I don't care for..
8½

i'm finding it hard to think of a more hardcore invalidation than that. modage with barry lyndon comes close..

2001: A Space Odyssey - Can't be overrated... there's too much to explore in it.  It's overrated when your DVD is so worn down from use that you can't watch it anymore
American Beauty - Overrated simply because it's so accessible.  A fucking beautiful movie.
Clerks - Kevin Smith has released 6 films.  Chasing Amy and this are the only ones worth watching.  I guess it would become overrated after a while.
Monster's Ball - I've never heard anything but bad about this movie... I am yet to see it.

Maybe I missed the basis of what constitutes "overrated" but this list sucks quite a bit.

Where the fuck did this thread come from? This is uncharted xixax territory for me. Hardy har har.

Quote from: Pubrick

Quote from: MyxoFilms which are generally loved/acclaimed but I don't care for..
8½

i'm finding it hard to think of a more hardcore invalidation than that. modage with barry lyndon comes close..

That's because you can't.  You have the best movie about making movies, and the best Ryan O'Neil movie... what's not to like?

Quote from: Pubrickthe wizard of oz is NOT the mozart of film, when mozart can be compared to a single popular film in ppl's minds, it becomes automatically overrated, if only as an insult to mozart. that's the point i think they're making.

Oh, I simply meant that it's a classic that never gets old. Poorly stated on my part for sure. In 100 years, (I believe) people will still watch and respect the Wizard of Oz just like we still listen to Mozart. Otherwise you are right. Apples and oranges.

Quote from: MyxoFilms which are generally loved/acclaimed but I don't care for..
8½

Quote from: Pubricki'm finding it hard to think of a more hardcore invalidation than that. modage with barry lyndon comes close..

I've seen 8½ twice as well. I'm not saying it is a bad film but simply (as I stated) that I don't care for it. I might need to give Fellini more of a fair shake. After 8½ I moved right on to Ingmar Bergman and loved Wild Strawberries. Never did watch another Fellini film.

You can't base a director with as many movies as Fellini has on just one, even it's his most acclaimed film.

Also... Did you not like 8½ as a movie, or did you not like certain aspects of it?

I personally felt it runs a bit long, but the whole thing is pure black and white eye candy and is beautifully formed.

It is best to start with La Strada and La Dolce Vita if you're going to get into Fellini.  8 1/2 is a very complex film.  Just like with Bergman, you should start with Wild Strawberries before you get to Persona.

American Beauty--DIE DIE DIE DIE.
Nashville was so great though.

Quote from: \W/You can't base a director with as many movies as Fellini has on just one, even it's his most acclaimed film.

Also... Did you not like 8½ as a movie, or did you not like certain aspects of it?

I personally felt it runs a bit long, but the whole thing is pure black and white eye candy and is beautifully formed.

Maybe I was at a place in life where I was unable to really enjoy it. I felt like the movie was constantly trying to get me to read into things. There is a story, but watching it felt like looking at an iceberg. Everything wonderful about it is underneath. It seemed like Fellini was actually trying to hide intent from his viewers so much so that the story takes a back seat.

It is a beautiful black & white film though. Shot very well. I'll agree with that. I need to see it again.

(By the way, the anime series "Evangelion" is a bit like this as well for me. There is soooooo much gnostic stuff and hidden meaning in that series. If you're not paying very close attention and stringing things together about religion and philosophy in your mind, it's just another robot anime series. Sounds like a wierd comparison I know, but anyone who has seen Eva and understands the story will get it.)

Quote from: MacGuffinThe 20 Most Overrated Movies of All Time?


2001: A Space Odyssey
A Beautiful Mind
American Beauty
An American In Paris
Chariots Of Fire
Clerks
Chicago
Easy Rider
Fantasia
Field Of Dreams
Forrest Gump
Gone With The Wind
Good Will Hunting
Monster's Ball
Jules And Jim
Moonstruck
Mystic River
Nashville
The Wizard Of Oz
The Red Shoes

hahaha......i use to get a subscription to premier mag...now, i glad i quit a while back..those guys are idiots.....

2001 is cool
a beautiful mind is typical cheese ron howard
i love american baeuty for its score, cinematography, hilarity, and thoras tits..
aamerican in paris is ghey
i havent seen chariots..
clerks  shouldnt even be considered overrated/underrrated or whatever..its just a sillly movie..thats all
chicago sucks ass/balls/cocks
easy rider is underrated if anything...
fantasis is ghey
field of dreams made me cry
forrest gump is cheese.and dated as a motherfucker..[seriously, who would ever watch this agian/now?]
never seen gone with the wind
good will hunting is "okay"...good music
monsters ball has that overrated thug halle berry
i havent seen jules and jimmy
moonstruck is just a stupid movie even to put on that list, i don tknow anyone that even likes the film to begin with.........
i love mystic river
i havent seen nashville
the wizard of oz makes me tired now
the red shoes just sucks....

Quote from: NEON MERCURYmoonstruck is just a stupid movie even to put on that list, i don tknow anyone that even likes the film to begin with.........

Now you do.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: NEON MERCURYmoonstruck is just a stupid movie even to put on that list, i don tknow anyone that even likes the film to begin with.........

Now you do.

:oops:  no offense mac...you know i love ya......

Never cared for The Wizard of Oz, not even as a kid.  I remember seeing it a few times, but its not a favorite of mine like it is for many people.

I went out with a girl a few weeks ago and we just like wandered around the city for 10 hours--our last stop was sitting on a park bench while the wizard of oz played and she just laughed at it for a long time.  some people really really don't like this movie.

Ever watch it with Floyd and on weeed?

Garden State, The Godfather films, The Hitcher, Blue Velvet, Gladiator, The Usual Suspects, Titanic, Schindlers List and ..... ohh.....Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Quote from: 72teethEver watch it with Floyd and on weeed?

Watched it with DSOM once, but wasn't high.

Quote from: GaramBlue Velvet

Underrated if anything ... read Neon's Blue Velvet appreciation post somewhere on the David Lynch forum if I remember correctly. Great stuff.

Quote from: GaramGarden State, The Godfather films, The Hitcher, Blue Velvet, Gladiator, The Usual Suspects, Titanic, Schindlers List and ..... ohh.....Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Wrong, 2/3 wrong, right, right, right, wrong, right, wrong, and right.

nobody but assholes would consider Garden State a classic, so that could go in this thread http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=6852 .  you had the right idea with the rest of them, though you could try to back them up with some thoughts as to why they're not as good as everyone says they are.

Quote from: GaramI thought this was a personal opinions thread?

It is.  Those were my personal opinions.   :kiss:

Quote from: GaramHaha, i knew that would be the reply. I was foolish to pull out the opinions card.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your right to have opinions about movies, and while I may not agree with them, I would die to defend your right to have them... I just can't not like "Garden State", no matter how many people tell me I should (although, yeah, "classic" would be a little strong).

Like it or hate it, Garden State can't be considered a classic.

So we're settled.  Everyone here likes Garden State.

Quote from: Garam

Godfather's good, but it's not THE GREATEST FILM OF ALL TIME like so many people say it is, so that does make it pretty fucking overrated.

The title of the thread being "not so classic classics" - you obvious think that this is an embraced film that doesnt desrve the status in which it's regarded.

this is quite a stupid arguement on any account - if you think godfather doesnt desrve its "classic status" - what does?

Godfather is a classic and its not overrated - if you want to root for underdogs, that's fine - but your opinion at the end of the day really doesnt change whether or not this film is a classic.

What film is not overrated, not underrated, but perfectly rated?

Quote from: cowboykurtisWhat film is not overrated, not underrated, but perfectly rated?

Die Hard

Quote from: Pas Rap

Quote from: GaramBlue Velvet

Underrated if anything ... read Neon's Blue Velvet appreciation post somewhere on the David Lynch forum if I remember correctly. Great stuff.

yo, thanks man :yabbse-grin:




garam, you might not make much sense....
how could you lump blue velvet and the godfather films with garden state.??? :cry:

as a general rule remeber lynch is always underrated..and yes, i say this with my own biasede opinion...but i think it can be backed up and proven to be fact.....

Quote from: GaramI like The Godfather, i think it's great, but it is so goddamn overrated. I prefer Once Upon a Time in America.

I don't believe you... seriously, you HAVE to just be saying this... who could possibly say this and mean it?

How about everyone just admit throwing out movie titles in this manner is dumb anyways.

Quote from: RegularKarate

Quote from: GaramI like The Godfather, i think it's great, but it is so goddamn overrated. I prefer Once Upon a Time in America.

I don't believe you... seriously, you HAVE to just be saying this... who could possibly say this and mean it?

truly.  OUATIA is like puke on godfathers shoes.

Quote from: cowboykurtisWhat film is not overrated, not underrated, but perfectly rated?

Back to the future

It's interesting to think -- if some movies that are consider classics were made now, exactly the way there originally made, would it be called a classic?  I feel a lot of movies are considered classics because they were innovative at the time, but how do they stack up if you take that away from it?

Is Casablanca really that good?  Are Godard and Truffaut's films really that brilliant?  How bout Fellini? Is Citizen Kane a masterpiece, or just good?  How bout movies like Birth of a Nation, or the General?

Take away the "innovation/it's never been done before" factor and answer these questions.  It's fun to think about.  

I wish this thread weren't so long cause I would read it all and probably find the answers I'm looking for.

Well, if Citizen Kane wasn't made back then, the films it influenced wouldn't exist either, so if it came out 60 years later, it'd still be amazing to everybody.

Or not. Somebody else would make a similar film.

what i'm saying is just pretend that it wasn't influential and just a regular movie that came out.  is it still a masterpiece?

Godard wouldn't be hailed nearly as much.

Quote from: JimmyGatorwhat i'm saying is just pretend that it wasn't influential and just a regular movie that came out.  is it still a masterpiece?

I think the same thing would happen.  When movies like Citizen Kane came out, they were just regular movies (seeing how it didn't win the Oscar).  I think probably 60 years from now, like Garam said, it'd be just as influential and considered to be just as great, I think.

vaild point.  i think citizen kane is a bad example cause it really is that good, but i think casablanca wouldn't be considered that good.  godard wouldn't  be all that original.  i think a lot of films made in leiu of him are better than his actual films, but his films are considered greater because of what they inspired.  

not sure if that made sense.   my point is:  as a young kid who is viewing foreign films for the first time, i don't see them for how influential they are but how are they are as regular movies.  some are still brilliant.  some aren't.

Godard's films were so big because of the period they were released in. If they were released now, not many people would care. Or not. I dunno really.

I'm not sure if the same applies for Truffaut. I think he's a better storyteller than Godard, so he has that going for him.

i still love lawrence of arabia as much as i did before i knew anything about movies.

Quote from: JimmyGatornot sure if that made sense.   my point is:  as a young kid who is viewing foreign films for the first time, i don't see them for how influential they are but how are they are as regular movies.  some are still brilliant.  some aren't.

yes, i went through this same dilemma 2 years ago.  the answer is: they wouldn't be considered classics if they were made today, but most that are classics are considered so because not only were they innovative at the time but they hold up pretty well.  so even if they wouldn't rock the world today, they'd be pretty damn good.  or atleast a C+.

Quote from: Garam
And i like Lynch, but i think Blue Velvet is overrated. It's always made out to be his masterpiece, and i don't think it is at all.

well, in those terms i can sort of see what you're saying by overrated in the lynch catalogue.  but as a film on its own, saying its overrated is quite ridiculous.

Quote from: GaramGodard's films were so big because of the period they were released in. If they were released now, not many people would care. Or not. I dunno really.

I'm not sure if the same applies for Truffaut. I think he's a better storyteller than Godard, so he has that going for him.

if you haven't, you should check out godard's later stuff (numero deux, every man for himself, passion, hail mary, prenom: carmen, forever mozart, notre musique)....

Will do, and i agree with Neon Mercury. I was incorrectomundo.

Quote from: JimmyGator...but i think casablanca wouldn't be considered that good...

I'm going to disagree with you.  Well crafted movies are going to be considered, "good, great, what have you," in any era.  Casablanca excells in story, character, acting, dirction, photography, and ect...  In the past ten years a lesser somewhat similar film, The English Patient, won best picture among other Oscars.

I don't think you can take the influential out of Great films.  That's a core part that makes them great.  That and age.  A lot of them like Metropolis and Citizen Kane were slept on their first releasse.  

Just think of Kevin Costner.  Waterworld was a bomb.  But I recall him comparing it to 2001.  And the Cosnter is always right, so let that little 'gem' age a little, and watch it shoot up the IMDB top 250 :yabbse-wink:

Well I think Casablanca would be considered a four star movie, but not a masterpiece.  I think that plenty movies each year come out that are better than it, but just don't have the "influential" factor.  Great movie?  Yes.  Masterpiece?  No.  Citizen Kane, however, is a masterpiece.  

I think a lot of French New Wave films are good for this topic.  Let's discuss movies like Breathless, Shoot the Piano Player, 400 Blows.

Let's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

I think it's really just impossible to determine how movies would be thought of now.  I think all these movies are named the best of all time just because of the influence they had on cinema as a whole, which really had a lot to do with when they were released.  I think if they weren't, movies would be very different, thus making them just as influential if they were released now.  But I do think some of them aren't as good as some of the movies released now, just these ones haven't sunk in yet.

Quote from: Figure 8I do think some of them aren't as good as some of the movies released now, just these ones haven't sunk in yet.

that's pretty much exactly how i feel. i think it's stupid to feel like you have to put certain movies in your list of favorite movies because they are widely accepted as classics when there are plenty of movies coming out now that are just as good.

Quote from: JimmyGatorLet's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

La Dolce Vita is definitely overrated. A major transition film for Fellini, he wants to convey the realism of Neo noir but he is as in love with his camera and self as his works to come. Many moments are too good to ignore, but the film comes off as meandering and over done as any film he has ever done. Compare that to the fact it debuted at Cannes alongside L'Avventura, both films subject of internal isolation, it comes off as the lesser realized film of the two. (though La Dolce Vita won the Palme D'or and L'Avventura was booed) Antononoi's art is in tact and for me, stands as his best and one of the best films ever.

La Strada, yes, is overrated. Well done and all, I just am not sure if Fellini's dabbling in realism really stands up comparable to other films.

I've never had much interest to defend Casablanca, so I won't here either. Its still a bad film. Citizen Kane, which I again watched recently, keeps degrading with every viewing. I think I may have to testify to what James Agee originally said, "just a series of shots already done in the 20s."

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: JimmyGatorLet's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

La Dolce Vita is definitely overrated. A major transition film for Fellini, he wants to convey the realism of Neo noir but he is as in love with his camera and self as his works to come. Many moments are too good to ignore, but the film comes off as meandering and over done as any film he has ever done. Compare that to the fact it debuted at Cannes alongside L'Avventura, both films subject of internal isolation, it comes off as the lesser realized film of the two. (though La Dolce Vita won the Palme D'or and L'Avventura was booed) Antononoi's art is in tact and for me, stands as his best and one of the best films ever.

La Strada, yes, is overrated. Well done and all, I just am not sure if Fellini's dabbling in realism really stands up comparable to other films.

I've never had much interest to defend Casablanca, so I won't here either. Its still a bad film. Citizen Kane, which I again watched recently, keeps degrading with every viewing. I think I may have to testify to what James Agee originally said, "just a series of shots already done in the 20s."

Are you as all intellect and nill emotion as I gather from your posts?  Your arguments on film are cold and distant, so it strikes me as appropriate that you would consider L'Avventura the better film here.

The gist of this post is that my school is not your school and I don't know how you can take such an even handed approach to film.  It seems to me that abundant passion is essential in appreciating film, that same kind you used to show for 2001, but now seem to bridle.

Quote from: Losing the Horse:

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: JimmyGatorLet's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

La Dolce Vita is definitely overrated. A major transition film for Fellini, he wants to convey the realism of Neo noir but he is as in love with his camera and self as his works to come. Many moments are too good to ignore, but the film comes off as meandering and over done as any film he has ever done. Compare that to the fact it debuted at Cannes alongside L'Avventura, both films subject of internal isolation, it comes off as the lesser realized film of the two. (though La Dolce Vita won the Palme D'or and L'Avventura was booed) Antononoi's art is in tact and for me, stands as his best and one of the best films ever.

La Strada, yes, is overrated. Well done and all, I just am not sure if Fellini's dabbling in realism really stands up comparable to other films.

I've never had much interest to defend Casablanca, so I won't here either. Its still a bad film. Citizen Kane, which I again watched recently, keeps degrading with every viewing. I think I may have to testify to what James Agee originally said, "just a series of shots already done in the 20s."

Are you as all intellect and nill emotion as I gather from your posts?  Your arguments on film are cold and distant, so it strikes me as appropriate that you would consider L'Avventura the better film here.

The gist of this post is that my school is not your school and I don't know how you can take such an even handed approach to film.  It seems to me that abundant passion is essential in appreciating film, that same kind you used to show for 2001, but now seem to bridle.

I am absolutely nothing you claim. The fact you take the preference of L'Avventura to La Dolce Vita as an admission of containing no emotions is ludicrous. Though L'Avventura is the more spoken about film in regards to structural achievement, far more has also been written about the film in what it achieves for the personal than La Dolce Vita. I'll also attest. Everytime I watch the film, I seem to identify with the film in a different way. It grows organically. The reason for comparing La Dolce Vita and L'Avventura in merely an academic tone before is that to explain why I think La Dolce Vita faulters would seem slim if I just explained how more "personal" I took L'Avventura to be. I'm not really trying to dig for a huge analysis. Its not necessary.

Continuing on, one of the most outspoken critics of a film like Citizen Kane has been Ingmar Bergman who has spoken of how little personality and all technical academics are wedged into the film. I'd mostly agree.

Its not that I am not personal, its just to really get discussion going, talking "personal" never seems to do the trick. This board continues to decay and some of the most adiment defenders of the board before now complain to me. They say there's no discussion. Everyone can say what they felt about a film and be happy to know their emotions aren't up for criticism the way analyzing a film would be. Talk to me in real life and the way I talk about movies is different.

i'm gonna step in and support GT, and possibly clarify his robotic text, to say it just isn't enuff to review a film by saying "this worked for me i don't know why." or my (least) favourite "the directing was good, lol, imo."

then again this was rarely a place where anyone really discussed the meaning of movies, in any absolute sense. godardian, JB, and GT maybe tried to in the past, samsong too. GB does his bit, a few others. in the end most members just want to say their opinions and have others agree with them, no thought necessary, it's a security thing.

Losing The Horse isn't one of the offenders btw, he's written decent reviews. but it's good we got this out in the open (again).

Quote from: Losing the Horse:The gist of this post is that my school is not your school and I don't know how you can take such an even handed approach to film.  It seems to me that abundant passion is essential in appreciating film, that same kind you used to show for 2001, but now seem to bridle.

any movie that you love enough to watch a countless amount of times will eventually cause this bridle reaction in the fan(atic).  2001 is in my opinion one of, if not the, greatest films ever made.  problem is, any film is a victim of time.  time as a technological factor; the film is now (finally) showing signs of obsolescence.  we no longer see the mind blowing pioneering sequences that would have captivated the audiences in 1969.  more importantly, time as a factor in your own subjective experience.  The countless hours spent with the film leaves opportunity for the viewer to look at all the elements individually, and in turn, see the errors of the filmmaker's approach.  this applies to all films.

like so many people i was a huge fan of pulp fiction when it came out.  i was 16 and found it both brilliant and original.  now over time (and countless viewings) i see the acting is shitty in some parts and the script is over written in others.  i could go into the specifics but that's not important.

i agree with losing the horse on one point however.  passion often is replaced by scholarly thinking.  as much as i hate it, it is inevitable.  it is only through analysis that one can learn how to talk the language and express feelings for other to react.  that is the beautiful cycle of creativity.   by learning this you often loose the innocence that you once had.  and of course innocence is bliss.  so even though i agree with him, it renders his arguement usless.  it is A. speculative and B. an easy way out, because we all go through the process of alienating from a work of art.

on a side note, i remember when i was younger i wanted to learn how to play the guitar because i loved music so much.  once i started figuring it out i realized how mathematical it was.  i hated that, so i chose to drop it and retain the magical/unknown aspects of that medium.  so the only way i could keep the raw purity of the "passion" was by disassociating myself with the analysis.  sorry LTH your point doesn't really stand up because if we all kept our "passion" this would be an empty thread on an unpopulated site.

i think we can talk in "personal" terms, they just need to be well articulated so there is understanding, even if the only way to do it is through metaphor.

the saddest thing that i've read is how GT mention that the adamant defenders of the board complain to him now that there are no discussions.  i couldn't agree more.  i haven't been around since the beginning, but i get a sense of that over the last couple years.  very often people rally behind a safe blanketed response because this is supposed to keep the status quo.


-sl-

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

I am absolutely nothing you claim. The fact you take the preference of L'Avventura to La Dolce Vita as an admission of containing no emotions is ludicrous. Though L'Avventura is the more spoken about film in regards to structural achievement, far more has also been written about the film in what it achieves for the personal than La Dolce Vita. I'll also attest. Everytime I watch the film, I seem to identify with the film in a different way. It grows organically. The reason for comparing La Dolce Vita and L'Avventura in merely an academic tone before is that to explain why I think La Dolce Vita faulters would seem slim if I just explained how more "personal" I took L'Avventura to be. I'm not really trying to dig for a huge analysis. Its not necessary.

Continuing on, one of the most outspoken critics of a film like Citizen Kane has been Ingmar Bergman who has spoken of how little personality and all technical academics are wedged into the film. I'd mostly agree.

Its not that I am not personal, its just to really get discussion going, talking "personal" never seems to do the trick. This board continues to decay and some of the most adiment defenders of the board before now complain to me. They say there's no discussion. Everyone can say what they felt about a film and be happy to know their emotions aren't up for criticism the way analyzing a film would be. Talk to me in real life and the way I talk about movies is different.

If I understand, it's more the board that has changed than you.  Which is a shame.  I wish I'd been here in the glory days.

As for L'Avventura, of course more could be written about what it achieves for the personal, because there is never going to be a succinct explanation of the film.  The sparse framework of the film requires the individual to translate the film, to sublimate, to project,  to interpret.  As an artist I respect this, and the speech Antononoi gave before the film (in the leaflet for the Criterion DVD) wonderfully summarizes the goal of the film.  It's beautiful, and it will survive always because it does not make any direct criticisms.

I think looking at it that way neglects the fact that Fellini's intention was polar to Antononoi's, although their theme the same.  He was meaning to be provocative socially, the latter intellectually.  Because of this Fellini's film was more bottle-necked emotionally, but more focused still.  The scenes are loud, they make you move, they draw you in.  They are intensely transcendent and equally abrasive.  And I think that that is fucking great filmmaking, not a reason to discredit the film.

One filmmaker was attempting to incite thought, and one was displaying a certain thought.  On neither side was there a deprivation of substance.

And socketlevel made that post but I have to go to class.  I'll read it after.

This discussion is springboarding to many different things. To clarify, if I came off as I was just disregarding La Dolce Vita, I wasn't trying to. Losing the Horse's summation of La Dolce Vita is as eloquent of a defense as I've seen on this board. I'm glad he loves the film. My position is just I prefer his later work. A mere disagreement.

Thing is, I also love movies. But P is mostly right about my text. It is quite rigid and with little emotion. I just hope to clarify my situation of interest in movies is not without emotion. Back when I use to argue JB for pages and pages on just one movie, I was showing emotion and passion for a film. My rigid writing is not arguing in favor of pure academics. I just write like this.

About the board, I hope things change. It's quite a dismal place. I have so much interest in writing about movies right now but am too disheartened by how this board is going to do so. I mentioned it to a few people to get Green Screen going again. The thing is, how?

I've come up with an idea. Instead of focusing on events requiring people to write long texts for a certain subject, we allocate people positions of columns to write. If we can get enough people to do so, we can start off by having just one column due for each participant every month. Subject, related somewhat to film, is up to every writer. The idea gives everyone the freedom to write on what they want to write. Like I said, if we get enough people, it should get Green Screen flowing with the end result our own unofficial magazine.

Everyone will be welcome to throw in their own ideas and works.

A little too much to read and not enough time so I'll give my full thoughts later but I will say this:  When Ebert originally saw La Dolce Vita when he was twenty something, he gave it three stars.  He said as he got older, the movie kept on getting better in his mind.  Just some food for thought.   I personally think La Dolce Vita lets each scene run on a little too long but I wouldn't say it lacked emotion.  I'm still yet to see L'Adventura.  

Again, I'll post more later.  

And GT I like your idea about the articles.

Quote from: JimmyGatorA little too much to read and not enough time.

^ probably why this board is on life support.

Quote from: modage

Quote from: JimmyGatorA little too much to read and not enough time.

^ probably why this board is on life support.

true, but that's what makes (some of) this site more original then other film appreciation forums.  i find what GT is saying very inspirational.  i think he's got a great idea.  i like reading the long posts, and i may be one of few people who do so, but it's more interesting then the typical "shit man, this movie fuckin' rocks" and the reply "ILMFAO, you're soooooooooooo phuckin' right!!?!?!?!?!"

... i know no one is quite like that here, but just look at ain't it cool news for the history.  that site used to be an alright and now it's degraded to utter trash replies.  "Great Harry, can't wait" or inversely "Shut the fuck up you fat bastard!"  this example should be a warning.

the more i think about it, the more i need to donate some cash money so the life support doesn't dwindle.  maybe i took that for granted.

For what it's worth, and hopefully it is somewhat, sign me on GT.  in eager for your ideas and would love to contribute.

-sl-

Likely later today, I'm going to start a thread that will be an open casting call for this project. Anyone who wants to contribute an article on anything film is welcomed to submit. Before anything else, I want to see how many articles I can get. I now know those who sign up will not automatically pull through.

Also, I will personally contact those I feel should be writing but may miss my thread. If ever I could accomplish anything, it would be to get Godardian back into the fold somehow.

I would be honored to write a coulmn.  Sometimes I find it hard to say all that I have to say in a post because I want to keep it short and easier to read, but with all the important parts to it.

With what you're proposing, I could be afforded some more space to write a little bit longer, analyze what I'm saying a little deeper, and I'm totally for this idea.

"Even if the good old days never existed, the fact that we can conceive such a world is, in fact, an affirmation of the human spirit." - Orson Welles

The good old days discussions are funny to me. Maybe it's just me, but this past era of 03/Ariel was pretty good. I would say the JJ days were full of strife and kinda annoying. They got in the way of discussions. Anyhow, transitory stages happen, I think these boards (quoting Dali now) are always altered, but they never change.

People go in waves of liking movies, their interests wane. For me, the idea of a column is cool, but I wouldn't read it, that's just me. I've got too much going on to really see movies, and then to even analyze them. This is antithetical to the time I submitted an article to the Green Screen (what happened to that?).

Anyhow, I'm glad to see some discussion going on.

these days are pretty good.

more intelligent movie discussion would be great and all but mostly i enjoy reading funny shit. as with the green screen, i don't hav much faith in this new column idea mainly cos ppl are slow to get organized. i'd read it tho, if it happened.. beats postwhoring threads where no one says anything, and currently only Neon's game in real life soundtracks fits that description, which is harmless enuff.

so yeah, i like the days we're in.

That column, isn't it the Green Screen. I fail to see the difference.

I promised myself to write some good shit for the GS ever since Cine asked me but no movie has made a great enough effect on me since then. I'm not even sure I like movies anymore. Hey maybe I should write a thing about that...... ANYWAY.

i had a dream last night that Greed (the von stroheim version) had sound and dialogue. it was really, really weird.

last night was good in general. but very strange.

Quote from: Reinhold Messneri had a dream last night that Greed (the von stroheim version) had sound and dialogue. it was really, really weird.

Was it the full nine-hour cut?

Haha damn, that's the dorkiest dream I've heard about in a while. It's awesome, though.

Quote from: polkablues

Quote from: Reinhold Messneri had a dream last night that Greed (the von stroheim version) had sound and dialogue. it was really, really weird.

Was it the full nine-hour cut?

i don't know... i think it was the four hour cut. the original cut doesn't exist. then again, niether does the one with sound.

The Eject Button: Classic Movies It's Okay To Hate
By Noel Murray, Keith Phipps, Nathan Rabin, Tasha Robinson, Scott Tobias; The AV Club/The Onion

It's a glorious time to love movies. TVs have gotten bigger, thousands of great films have hit DVD, and online rental services like Netflix have given viewers unprecedented access to classics that the local video store often doesn't bother stocking. But something funny happens when a film gains classic status: It becomes hard to criticize it without seeming sacrilegious. Still, sometimes a little sacrilege can be healthy. Below, The A.V. Club's film writers give you permission to hate the following movies—then explain why their fellow film writers might be wrong.

NATHAN RABIN

Star Wars (1977)

Reputation: Even before it evolved into a secular religion for nerds, Star Wars was revered as a swashbuckling space epic that brilliantly united the cliffhanging heroics of old-time serials with revolutionary special effects, just as director George Lucas, teaming with Steven Spielberg, would later do with the Indiana Jones movies.

Why it's okay to hate it: You know what else the Indiana Jones movies had? Clever dialogue and snappy pacing, two elements Star Wars sorely lacks. Remove Harrison Ford's swaggering charisma from Star Wars, and what's left? The Phantom fucking Menace. And has there ever a soggier slice of white bread than Mark Hamill? The prequels didn't violate the timeless genius of Star Wars; their awkward dialogue and stiff performances simply carried on the wooden tradition of Lucas' 1977 original.

Dissent from Tasha: Flawed as it is, and overhyped as it's become, Star Wars still manages to establish a big, sloppy, fascinating universe, populate it with quirky, memorable characters, and still tell a complete and reasonably tight stand-alone story. None of the subsequent entries have lived up to that standard.

Network (1976)

Reputation: Network is widely considered a savage, visionary satire that uncannily predicts the sordid state of television's future and the rise of reality programming.

Why it's okay to hate it: Network is too choked with bitterness to be funny, and Paddy Chayefsky's revered dialogue sounds so mannered that the characters might as well be speaking in iambic pentameter. Furthermore, Chayefsky repeatedly violates the dictum "show, don't tell." He doles out his heavy-handed messages in shrill monologues. And does predicting that network television and its audience will grow increasingly degraded and desperate qualify as Nostradamus-like prescience, or mere common sense?

Dissent from Keith: Network is still better than all the cutting satires before it that suggested television might not just be dumb, but also dangerous. Wait? There weren't any? Hmmm...

SCOTT TOBIAS

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Reputation: Working at the height of his creative powers, Stanley Kubrick converted Anthony Burgess' novel into one of the most provocative films ever made, reframing the public debate over social aversion therapy and the cost of free will.

Why it's okay to hate it: In arguing against government-sanctioned dehumanization, Kubrick stacks the deck mercilessly by making Alex (Malcolm McDowell), the leader of a roving gang of thugs, far more likeable than the repulsive victims he terrorizes. Kubrick's control over his effects has never been more evident, but here it backfires, revealing him to be a cruel, manipulative puppeteer who engineers an argument by sucking the humanity out of his movie. His decision to cut the 21st chapter of Burgess' novel, in which Alex comes of age and matures on his own, resulted in a much darker ending, but one that opposes Burgess' faith that Alex will overcome the mistakes of his youth. As Burgess himself wrote of the film: "A vindication of free will had become an exaltation of the urge to sin."

Dissent from Tasha: Clockwork Orange is staggeringly effective at portraying violence without glorifying it, and virtually every shot is striking and memorable. And how could anyone watch the rape scene and call Alex "likeable"?

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Reputation: The ascendancy of this austere adaptation of Stephen King's novella from box-office disappointment to one of the top two or three films according to users at the Internet Movie Database may be the greatest example of a film finding life after death.

Why it's okay to hate it: Forget about one of the best two or three movies ever made: This film isn't even one of the top three King adaptations: It falls a few stops short of the high standard set by Carrie, The Shining, and The Dead Zone. King's story about troubled men finding friendship and, well, redemption behind bars comes off as a dignified throwback to classic Hollywood, but its bland austerity often turns the drama to stone. In the hands of director Frank Darabont, the brutality of prison life looks faintly like nostalgia.

Dissent from Noel: Better than almost any other prison movie, Shawshank gets the way jail-time is an allegory for all our lifetimes, as we learn to cope with what we've got to do to get by, while occasionally pining for escape. That was all there in King's masterfully plotted novella—nostalgia included—and preserved by Darabont with such care that the movie practically breathes on its own.

KEITH PHIPPS

The Exorcist (1973)

Reputation: William Friedkin's adaptation of the William Peter Blatty novel won critical acclaim, set box-office records, and had audiences fainting in the aisles with its tale of a good little girl (Linda Blair) who goes really, really bad when she's possessed by demonic forces.

Why it's okay to hate it: Sure, it's scary, but where's the subtext? At least Blatty's mostly terrible book tied the possession into crumbling families, the marginalization of religion, and the rise of the counterculture, while playing with the notion that it might all just be in the possessed girl's head. Friedkin barely brushes against these themes, and his nonstop shockfest removes all nuance, outside relevance, and even free will, boiling it down to a grody spectacle that can be summarized in one line: "The Devil made me do it!"

Dissent from Nathan: It's hard to overrate The Exorcist for sheer craftsmanship, and its enduring popularity and resonance attests to how well it taps into the Watergate era's free-floating paranoia.

Fantasia (1940)

Reputation: Walt Disney's masterpiece miraculously combines classical music with animation!

Why it's okay to hate it: Well, what's so miraculous about that? The abstract opening segment is kind of neat, and the violent dinosaurs fit well with "Rite Of Spring," but the other pieces try to shove cutesy stories and big-eyed animals into music that was never meant to accommodate them. Worse, it pretty much spoils the pieces for future listening. Try listening to "Dance Of The Hours" now without thinking of dancing hippos. It can't be done. (Of course, Allan Sherman's "Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh" doesn't help.) It's the classical-music equivalent of those Sunkist commercials that changed the words of "Good Vibrations" to sing the praises of soda. And it goes on forever.

Dissent from Noel: But even if you think Fantasia is the height of Hollywood ersatz art, you have to acknowledge the care and craftsmanship that went into making it—right down to those damn hippos, whose movements were based on research trips to the zoo. The movie is a fascinating, charming trip inside Walt Disney's head.

NOEL MURRAY

Caddyshack (1980)
Reputation: This raunchy, irreverent golf comedy slaps together the divergent comic sensibilities of Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Rodney Dangerfield, and Ted Knight, and is beloved by many for its memorable setpieces and quotable lines. (One of the best: Dangerfield asking Knight's wife, "You want to make $14? The hard way?")

Why it's okay to hate it: You know what name doesn't get tossed around much when people talk about Caddyshack? Michael O'Keefe. You know, the story's actual protagonist, whose blank personality and bland aspirations put a major drag on the movie's momentum. Not to mention that with all Caddyshack's "slobs against snobs" hoop-de-doo, people forget that chief "slobs" Chase and Dangerfield are both insanely rich. The movie's point of view is as choppy as its gags. Its understanding of golf is pretty shitty, too.

Dissent from Nathan: Does anybody really go to lowbrow comedies for coherent class analyses, strong youth protagonists, or substantive information about golf? No, they go for laughs and great one-liners. On that level, Caddyshack is an absolute triumph. You can't even resist quoting it while panning it.

Roger & Me (1989)

Reputation: The documentary that vaulted Michael Moore into the pop consciousness was hailed in its day as a smart, funny, incisive report on how callous Reagan-era corporate strategizing gutted the working-class city of Flint, Michigan.

Why it's okay to hate it: Much has been written about the ways Moore manipulates facts and chronology to make the politicians and corporate stooges he interviews look unfairly lousy, but that isn't Roger & Me's real problem. What stinks most about it is the way Moore pretends to champion "regular folks" while holding them up for ridicule, and the way he makes his self-congratulatory self-righteousness the real subject. The film spawned a generation of pseudo-documentarians who now routinely use real people as punchlines, and display a commitment to "working people" that ends when those people stand in the way of the filmmakers' trespassing camera crews.

Dissent from Scott: Yet there's no denying that Moore's cudgel draws some blood. Setting a montage of boarded-up Flint homes to "Wouldn't It Be Nice" may be blunt, but it certainly gets the job done. More importantly, Roger & Me introduced the concept of a documentary as entertainment, and the better documentaries that have followed owe it a debt.

TASHA ROBINSON

Carrie (1976)

Reputation: Stephen King's bestselling debut novel launched his career. But two years later, the film adaptation clinched it, along with the reputations of star Sissy Spacek and particularly director Brian De Palma, who gained a reputation for creating taut, graphic, memorable thrillers—not to mention being one of the few filmmakers to do right by King's work.

Why it's okay to hate it: Okay, the image of Sissy Spacek drenched in blood and full of crazy but righteous fury is beautifully iconic, but getting there involves wading through more than an hour of heinous overacting, blaring sound design, plodding pacing, and misty softcore-porn imagery. Cheap special effects and scenery-chewing make most of the film laughable today, but there's nothing funny about De Palma's opening sequence, which has Spacek slowly rubbing her naked body in the shower for ages. Yes, the shower scene is key in King's book too, but given that his protagonist was a dumpy, pimply, ungainly outcast, De Palma's cheesecake-aesthetic attempt to super-sexualize her utterly misses the point, and comes across as both hypocritical and exploitative.

Dissent from Scott: De Palma isn't sexualizing Spacek so much as allowing us to drift into the dreamy ecstasy of her late-blooming sexual awareness, only to snap back to the cruel reality of her estrangement. De Palma sustains that deliciously heightened atmosphere throughout the film, which finds poignancy and horror in Spacek's simple, thwarted desire to become a woman.


The Big Lebowski (1998)

Reputation: Joel and Ethan Coen's shaggy-dog story about an L.A. slacker who gets mistaken for a millionaire has been hailed as one of the 250 best movies of all time (by IMDB users) and one of the hundred funniest films in history (by the Bravo network). It's also been critically praised as a brilliant modern pastiche of Raymond Chandler's dizzying, character-heavy mystery noirs.

Why it's okay to hate it: The film contains a lot of amusing character business, but all in service to a protagonist who comes across as barely present and a bunch of intriguing plot threads that go nowhere. Compared with the Coens' usual energy and the tautness of their best work, Lebowski feels unfocused, uncommitted, and amateurish.

Dissent from everyone else: No. This is just very, very wrong.

love the "dissent from everyone else" for The Big Lebowski.

it's not ok to hate clork, but it's even LESS OK to think it's the best..

"height of his creative powers" -- uh, whatever that means.