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

Always a hoot to see just how far some of you jerk-offs will go to appear intellectual or just soooo avant-garde. Raging Bull? 2001? Citizen Kane? Crap films?

Is art subjective? Well, duh. But I'd love to see you really break it down as to why these, of all celebrated works, are the films you think are "stupid" or "pointless" or even simply overrated.

Scorcese and Kubrick may have made a few missteps, but to just make some b.s. blanket statement calling all of their efforts garbage is little more than yet more predictable toddler-drool from the usual gaggle of dipturd, rich-kid runners who want to put their smart-mark on the world with as little effort as possible.

I can just see one of you chumps at a bar around the Dartmouth campus laying all this manure on some chick who just got out of her 3rd "Into to Film" class and after seeing her older, pot-bellied professor try to explain why "Raise the Red Lantern," signified a huge cultural uprising and the whole lecture hurt her C-cups just thinking about it, you come along like her knight in shining Izod to let her know there's a revolution happening, and your the "the right is the new left" leader.

And now, of course, someone will bash me for calling you out, but I hope you know, to someone who actually thinks past the atmosphere inside their ego and spends something other than family money, your dumb-ass insights and profundities are the equivalent of a 47 minute 10k.

The Godfather

Citizen Kane

I could not make it through either of these, despite trying 3-4x. I just did not care.

African Queen. I'm a bogie and hepburn fan but I never understood how the film makes the afi top 100.

I really can't stand the Matrix- yes the original. Hate it so much, can't say exactly why, but I can't sit through it never even got halfway through the 2nd and 3rd ones.

Both Scorcese and Kubrick have at least 4 films each on the AFI (American Film Institute) best 100 films list. Kubrick is listed in the best comedy list(black) Dr. Strangelove, horror the Shining, Science fiction 2001 (Number 1!), and in war epics with Paths of Glory.

Kubrick has always had his critics, but even his critic can find at list one or two films they really like. Some say Paths of Glory is the best war film ever.

Not considered a classic but is a hit today with the kids: Boondock Saints.

Characters are almost cool but are ultimately uninteresting and fairly one-dimensional. It's a little funny in a couple places and maybe makes an alright popcorn flick for the glimpses of humor and action, but I'm not sure what the hype is with this movie.

beachmouse wrote:

It's the wrong time of year for Christmas movies, and I assume that's why no one's brought up "It's a Wonderful Life" yet. I find it utterly insufferable and cliched.

Man... you're going to hell.

Just kidding. I can see your point. I love it, and think it's a victim of all the Holiday hype. Watch it this time of year - away from all the Christmas message stuff - and you might appreciate it as a good movie. George Bailey isn't near as perfect a character as some people think (exploding on his family Christmas Eve, for one), and that gets ignored. Jimmy Stewart - huge movie star, but a bit underrated as an actor. I love his films.

After reading all the suggestions on this thread, I'm going with Breakfast at Tiffany's. I just never found those characters very sympathetic.

I'll agree on "Boondock Saints." I couldn't stand it, couldn't even get through it. Nothing good there at all.

Good Fellas is one of the best movies never to win an Oscar for best picture.

"Breakfast at Tiffany's" is terrible for all sorts of reasons, and we haven't even gotten to talking about Mickey Rooney as the Japanese neighbor yet.

"It's a Wonderful Life" is a gem of a movie with one of the strongest lead performances ever. Yeah, it's overexposed by now, but its merits are undeniable.

I actually could not find a single pre-1980 film in this thread that I could agree is rubbish, and could not find any valid criticism of anything pre-1980. In fact, the re-occuring critical theme that films like Apocalypse Now and Kubrick films are too slow or meandering are actually the reason I really like those films. I really hate movies that put everything out there without requiring any sort of interpretation on the part of the viewer. Great movies make you think. Bad movies do the thinking for you.

With that in mind, I really hate the grotesque melodramas of the late seventies early eighties. I think it really started with Kramer v. Kramer and went on to such duds as Ordinary People and (to a lesser extent thanks to a brilliant performances by Jack Nicholson and Shirley MacClaine) Terms of Endearment. These films just hit you over the head with plots that are just "make you cry-porn". A family dealing with the loss of a young son--cry now. A little kid caught in the middle of a divorce--keep crying. A mother dies of cancer after her husband dumps her--cry mother-f-er, cry.

In my opinion the only truly unsuccessful Kubrick film is "Eyes WIde Shut". There was no chemistry between Kitman and Cruise, and the film did not seem to go anywhere. It also looked like Kubrick was using old tricks that had already been used. The scene of the mysterious orgy was very well done though. Barry Lyndon was slowly paced, but beautifully shot.

It is true what many critics say in that Pulp Fiction is basically a rip off of Kubricks the Killing, which also had a non-linear story-line.

I am starting warm up to the shining, which is very unique in its look and feel, but unfortunately is not very scary. It is almost too techical to be a horror film. It is if Hal 9000 from 2001 directed the movie.

Gosh, reading this post is like eavesdropping on someone's session with his shrink. (And I'd love to see the shrink's notes.)

I'll certainly agree that "Kramer vs Kramer" was overhyped. In 1977 or whatever, it was treated as some major revelation that a guy would discover he liked being with his kid. It's a very unexceptional movie. It contains Streep's dullest performance, and kid is not even a good kid actor.

MIcky LM wrote:

Good Fellas is one of the best movies never to win an Oscar for best picture.

Ray Liotta ruins that movie for me. He's a garbage actor. I'm happy to see him living a normal life at the end of the movie.

Bad "classic" movies:

1) Dances With Wolves - Nice cinematography, but as a movie, it sucked. Kevin Costner is the worst actor alive.

2) Rocky Horror Picture Show - Good Lord I don't get what people see in that movie.

3) A Clockwork Orange - Will jump on this bandwagon. Even as a horned out teenager (I first saw this when I was 15 when it was on HBO), this movie was just too disturbing to enjoy on any level. Saw it again in college as part of a film class, and once again I hated it. What a God awful piece of crap.

4) Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn - Lots of Star Trek fans say this was the best one, but man it is so slow. Worst one of the bunch by far if you ask me.

Now the rebuttals:

Rocky - Rocky is a GREAT movie...deserving of its stature as a great movie. Underdog gets his shot and LOSES...BRILLIANT! Mousy woman gains confidence by being pursued by brute fighter. Burgess Meredith is awesome. Apollo Creed is a great enemy. Great movie.

Speilberg movies - He's had great ones. ET is a great movie, and back in 1983 it was pure brilliance.

The Thing From Another Thing wrote:

I'll certainly agree that "Kramer vs Kramer" was overhyped. In 1977 or whatever, it was treated as some major revelation that a guy would discover he liked being with his kid. It's a very unexceptional movie. It contains Streep's dullest performance, and kid is not even a good kid actor.

Divorce came out of the closet in a way in the late 1970s. More states were adopting no-fault divorce, and the 1950s idea of staying together for the kids or the church had been rejected. Kramer v. Kramer was just emota-porn for showing that divorce is a very sad time for families, especially kids. These emota-porn movies were big at the time for being the first movie to address ______ (fill in the blank with something incredibly sad and tragic that was not something you would see on the Hallmark Hall of Fame). And they set a precedent for emotionally manipulative movies that do not organically develop characters through sad situations, but cram a sad situation down your through to justify putting the characters on screen.

Brazil

Did not care for The Godfather.

I have no idea what they’re talking about, it’s like their speaking a different language.

It insists upon itself.