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

Whoa scary. Better be careful what we post. Those independent tea baggers are thin skinned backstabbers...! We don't want to offend their sensitive independence.Phoney Bullcrap, if ever I've seen it...

Independent voter wrote:

Prototype wrote:

Prototype for the Tea Party: 1925 Birth of a Nation

As an Independent, I can go eitehr way. But ever time I see a post like this I get pushed further and further to the right. I figure by voting Democrat I am aligning myself with people like you. There is no way I'll join such a despicable group. Sure, there are posts here from the far right, too, but I'd estimate there are AT LEAST 5-10 from the far left radicals for every 1 from the far right radicals. Thanks for helping make my voting decision for me.

Just read through all 9 pages. Some observations:

Not one mention of Life is Beautiful and possibly the biggest mistake made by the Academy, Roberto Begnini over McKellen, Ed Norton, Nolte, and Hanks (should have won by a mile). The movie was okay, just okay. Don't understand the hype it was given.

Why Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now (ORIGINAL), Deer Hunter, Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Blade Runner, and Full Metal Jacket are mentioned at all in this thread is beyond me.

The guy who can't stand Jack Nicholson befuddles me as well. Sure he's making some questionable decisions recently but guess what? He can! For every crappy film he's made there are 5 in which he's done a masterful job.

I couldn't bother reading this whole thread but I really really hope someone said "Burn After Reading". It's the biggest load of shit I have ever had to suffer through in my life. The worst part is so many guys on the team loved it and we ended up having it shown on many a bus ride. Pathetic excuse for an "insightful" movie.

It's definitely not a classic by any stretch but I felt compelled to mention it due to what a poor horrendous waste of time it was. I mean, at the end of the movie the Cohen brothers basically say to you "HAHA we just got you fukin dolts to watch this pointless movie... now we are gonna tell you the joke is on you... and you're going to think it's pure genius!" How does that happen?

Sorry I HATE that movie

P.S. if someone says it's awesome I will find you

No, I won't say it's awesome, but it reminds me that while many Coen Brothers films are great, some bad ones are overpraised. I'm thinking of "Miller's Crossing," to name one.

I don't get the hate for A Clockwork Orange. Yeah, it's a disturbing movie, but why does that make it bad? It actually has interesting ideas, beautiful and unique cinematography, and a great use of music.

I especially like that Kubrick rejected the original ending where Alex basically gets bored with causing mayhem and just settles down.

This is one of my all-time favorite movies. I really don't see what's "garbage" about it.

The opening scenes of "A Clockwork Orange" are viscerally exciting and Malcolm McDowell is terrific, but all the Ludovico Technique stuff is completely unwatchable at this point. I would not recommend the film to anyone.

The Ludovico technique is what, 10 minutes of the movie? Less? Why is it unwatchable now?

I would recommend the movie to people who like Kubrick's movies and aren't prudes. Probably wouldn't recommend it to a girl unless I was absolutely certain she would like it, though.

Who ever said "Burn After Reading" is a classic? It's a funny movie, that's about it. I can see not liking it, but you seem to be amazingly passionate about it.

Don't know how you can hate the Coen brothers, they've made some very good movies.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

That is not true at all. Some movies are made a lot better by adding scenes. Good examples of that, while not great movies:

Agreed. Once Upon a Time in America is a tremendous example. All versions are absurdly long (and obviously take patience to get through), but the shortened version is a far worse movie.

sfsdsfdfsds wrote:

La Dolce Vita

Absolutely awful, pretentious drivel in virtually every way imaginable. Two films that film "experts" love to pretend they enjoy.

La Dolce Vita is a great movie. I enjoyed watching it and it certainly has a lot to say. I have no reason to pretend to like or to be moved by it.

Do you really think that all the "experts" say they like it just to be cool? That's ridiculous.

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

--------------------------------------------------------

In fairness I don't think you would find many professional reviewers listing these as classic

1) Dances with Wolves. Could be described as Epic but not classic. I actually liked this one maybe because I like that

into the wild thing

2) Rocky Horror Picture Show

This was a cult classic. But the cult was built up more on the live show. I went to this a very long time ago 1,000 women in the audience dancing wearing stockings and suspenders. Can't say I noticed what was happening on stage much

3) A Clockwork Orange

This is a classic book but the film sucks. It's hard to make because the lead is an absolute **** but the book deserves its classsic status

4) Star Trek

Come one!

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

The attention span of your average contributor to this thread is too low to appreciate older films. They are much slower. 'Jaws' was the first real mass market film of the new era to emphasize speed (Raiders of the Lost Ark was much faster and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom brought us to the contemporary mode of constant jump cuts, constant action without meaning), yet Jaws today seems characteristic of those 1970s American films today, being filled by long, slow, conversational scenes and only a few action scenes. The Deer Hunter is a great film, like Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, and many others condemned on this thread, because like the others it is a film of ideas, social significance, personal impact and transformation, and contains many stunning images. But they do not move like bam, bam, bam.

This is not correct at all. Movies now in general are longer than they used to be, and many of them are just as slow (or slower). Yes, there are people who get bored during slow movies today, but what makes you think that there weren't people who got bored during The Deer Hunter when it first came out?

Many classic movies are slow-paced dramas. And some people don't enjoy slow-paced dramas. This is not a generational thing.

MSCoach wrote:

Just read through all 9 pages. Some observations:

Not one mention of Life is Beautiful and possibly the biggest mistake made by the Academy, Roberto Begnini over McKellen, Ed Norton, Nolte, and Hanks (should have won by a mile). The movie was okay, just okay. Don't understand the hype it was given.

Why Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now (ORIGINAL), Deer Hunter, Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather, Blade Runner, and Full Metal Jacket are mentioned at all in this thread is beyond me.

The guy who can't stand Jack Nicholson befuddles me as well. Sure he's making some questionable decisions recently but guess what? He can! For every crappy film he's made there are 5 in which he's done a masterful job.

I mentioned Raging Bull.

I understand its artistic merit, but I just did not care for the movie.

Clockwork Orange.

It was just boring as shit. The cinematography was lame. There was no good point. Yeah, it was "disturbing" but with the amount of porn and slasher films and stuff like that I watch, I didn't really find it to be that crazy. Maybe for the prudes that were around when it first came out.

But come on, it was just stupid. The only people who like it like it because it is cool and they think it makes them artsy or whatever.

A River Runs Through It

Beloved

I can understand why "Grapes of Wrath" is near the top of most American Literature lists, but I don't think the film deserves the same accolades as the book. I didn't get the strong sense of desperation and social injustice from the characters, and I thought Tom Joad's closing speech would be more powerful. I don't know how advanced makeup was in 1940, but the book describes a pretty nasty beating that Joad takes to the face which forces him to hide away in a cave for weeks before leaving for good. The movie only showed a small scar on his cheek, and he returned to society openly. You miss the whole sense of him being a persecuted fugitive with a mangled face living in the woods planning to rise up and stick it to the man. I don't expect a perfectly faithful adaptation, but I really don't think the film stands on its own without the achievement of the book.

I think "Grapes of Wrath" went about as far as movies could do in 1940 (or whatever). I mean, they didn't show Ros O'Sharon nursing the guy at the end either, did they?

You need mental help. Seriously, you're not heading down a good path in life.

Peace is the Answer my Friends wrote:

Schindler's List is o.k. as a film but it has been used by haters to fund Nazi Israel.

Speilberg is an Anti-Semitic who hates his own Semitic people of the Islamic faith.

Speilberg collects German NAZI and Israeli Nazi war parephenalia and gives money to Nazi Israel.

fgfg wrote:

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.

Thank you, Peter Griffin.