RE: "Classic Films" that are actually utter rubbish.

onanisticisism wrote:

People would certainly hate someone who could ape all of Hendrix's technique even better than Hendrix but with none of his art. You could say the same thing about Robert Fripp or Jimmy Paige or even Eddie Van Halen who could actually play well in a good song (at least early on in his career).

Yes, that's exactly the point. Don't you think that if Hendrix came out tomorrow instead of back in the day people would hold him in far less estimation? If you go down to your local Guitar Center chances are you can find someone who can play almost everything Fripp, Page or Van Halen ever recorded, but the originals are still meaningful because what they did on, say, "Baby's on Fire" was so groundbreaking at the time, both expressive and innovative.

Today's guitarists who are also artists are expressing their art, the same "stories" someone else on this thread mentioned, as beautifully as these outstanding artists of the past, but with a vocabulary that builds upon that the artists of the past contributed to before them. You seem to be saying that just because Hendrix, Fripp, Page or Van Halen are less technically outstanding than many contemporary musicians it doesn't diminish the power and merit of their work. Substitute Kubrick, Welles, Hitchcock and many of the other filmmakers being hated on in this thread in for those guitarists and you'll find that the same argument applies to film as to music. Or the DJs of the late 70's/early 80's compared to today's turntablists. Or the marathoners of the past compared to today's best. Like I said, human achievement is a progression.

Easy Rider and 2001: A space odyssey were surprisingly boring.

Blade Runner is often called the best sci-fi film of all time yet it did nothing for me.

Manhattan didn't make me laugh once. Not one time.

The Big Lebowski and Office Space both have cult followings and reputations as great comedies but I struggled to get through Lebowski and I thought Office Space was funny but not THAT funny.

Here are a few that DO stand the test of time:

Dramas - Chinatown, Rear Window, Taxi Driver, Network, the French Connection

Comedies - Some Like it Hot, Modern Times, Dr. Strangelove, The Apartment

Clowns of the Purple Sage wrote:

I'm starting to get a little worried about this emphasis on "action," which suggests a lack of patience. I mean, do folks today actually think "Transformers" or "The Matrix" are better movies than "On The Waterfront" or "The Hustler?"

Most people definitely think this way. Definitely.

"The Last Picture Show" also stands up to the test of time quite well.

A movie that was loved by the critics, seems to be favored by film avant garde's, is on the AFI top 100 but doesn't seem to get a lot of play amongst the general public which I absolutely hated was "Nashville".

Without Limits and Prefontaine are actually pretty terrible movies. Most runners don't see that because of the fandom, but it's the truth.

moondog wrote:

"Forrest Gump" really sucked. The networks play it all the time so you think it is a good movie. It came out the same year as "Born on the Forth of July" ,which is a movie that actually portrays the time more more honestly. The better movie is buried and lost in place of the dumbed down version.

These two movies did not come out at the same time. And Born ain't that good because Tom Cruise. Any movie with Tom Cruise can't be that good.

Man there are a lot of uneducated boors in this thread. Most of the movies named here are phenomenal. Grow up a bit and learn to appreciate art, then see what you think. "Oh, movie such-and-such was too long and boring." What, not enough explosions, sex scenes, and cars transforming into robots to hold your five-minute attention span? Kids these days. "Oh, Apocalypse Now was too long and boring..." Well son, don't even BOTHER with something like Das Boot (one of the greatest war movies of all time). Spare us your embarrassing critiques of cinematic masterpieces.

Con Air

War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise

LL Cool J wrote:

Cannes Snooze Festival wrote:

Is Apocalypse Now a classic (1979)? If so that gets my vote. One great scene with Robert Duvall in the midst of hours (seemingly) of tedious crap with several more hours (seemingly) of Brando mumbling about something or other at the end.

It sounds like you watched the Redux version, which added what seems like an enormous amount of irrelevant crap. The low point is when they're eating dinner in some French plantation forever, nothing happens, there's an argument (in French, with no subtitles) and then Martin Sheen smokes opium and has sex with some woman.

Try the original. It's a masterpiece and if you still think it's crap then you are just wrong about movies.

Totally Agree on the Redux Version - it is dreadful. The original is fantastic. No movies are made better by making them longer or adding scenes.

"Monster's Ball"

"Million Dollar Baby"

"Winter's Bone"

As was said before, "The English Patient"

Once liked, but cannot watch anymore: "Pulp Fiction"

anything by Woody Allen is painful for me to watch. Bananas

etc.

I understand that directors sometimes are upset with the loss of control over the final edit of their films, and their are legendary stories about how butchered a film like "Magnificent Ambersons" was. But honestly, some of these "director's cuts" are just ridiculous. Oftentimes, it's not that any key scenes were cut; the director just restores footage that makes existing scenes go on and on. "The Deer Hunter," mentioned repeatedly here, is a perfect example. None of the added footage of the Russian wedding is of any value at all. The Leaner version was by far better.

The Sane One wrote:

"Monster's Ball"

"Million Dollar Baby"

"Winter's Bone"

As was said before, "The English Patient"

Once liked, but cannot watch anymore: "Pulp Fiction"

Not liking Million Dollar Baby either means you have never been an athlete and cannot understand why anyone would become one, or you do not have a soul. That is the single greatest sports movie ever made. WTF is wrong with you?

"Million Dollar Baby" is terrific.

People who don't like Woody Allen movies should give "Radio Days" a try.

sub3over40 wrote:

No movies are made better by making them longer or adding scenes.

I'm not sure if you are really serious about this. There are numerous instances of terrific movies that, prior to their theatrical release, have been cut down to two hours or less for no better reason than to fit into standard theatre schedules and the expectations of average viewers with average attention spans.

The original theatrical release of "Apocalypse Now" was pretty long, but some competent critics nevertheless thought that it gave short shrift to Kurtz after the long trip down the river. I tend to agree with that view. I also agree that the Redux version needlessly expanded the trip down the river with the French plantation scenes and the odd little scene of the soldier and the playmate.

I don't think there's much justification for some of the absolute statements being made on this thread -- people under thirty are disqualified from serious discussions, people who think that some movie is too long must be incapable of appreciating careful character development, people who dislike some particular film must be imbeciles, and so on. There are films that I love that others routinely dismiss as boring, and there are films that others love that I find virtually unwatchable. I wish that I could enjoy more of these movies, and I tend to think that my inability to enjoy some of them is, more than anything else, a product of my own limitations, and not necessarily a fault within the films.

This is a really interesting thread. I think that one of the truly fascinating aspects about movies is their rapid development of technical ability - AKA special effects - during an era when art itself is changing, perhaps, faster than at any other time in history. Movies were still in their nascence around the time when art was becoming highly commercial - and if that isn't one of the protagonists in any great form of art in the last 100 years I don't know what is. The art form is perhaps the most ambitious of any, and yet appeals to us in a more base way than any. The beginnings of film would be a fascinating subject to study in a few hundred years.

I say this all as a pretentiously open-minded snob, because I haven't disliked any of the movies you all are posting. And I've seen them all. I don't know that all would make my top 100 of all time, but quite a few would be there.

I also think that the Academy is a little apprehensive of giving best movie of the year to something that can't appeal to everybody, ie The Kings Speech was great but it was hardly challenging, and if the art doesn't challenge us, is it really great? Sure, some people might be offended or totally miss the mark, but appealing to our sympathy or empathy should only be 1 part of a film, not the main purpose. Another part of what detracts from art over the course of its life is that it doesn't push us as much as it would have when it was made. Empathy tends to fair better in this regard. This is what I have noticed is true about this thread, but it's all great discussion and shocking for Letsrun.

"Star Wars" did absolutely noting for me.It was quite boring.

"American Beauty" was another terrible movie.

There are obviously some generational issues in play here. For example, I can't help but notice how obvious fake the CGI is/are on some 21st century "action" films. I suppose younger audiences don't mind this, but I sure do.