 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 4, 2016 - 9:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Well, I can list dozens of very popular movies that just don't do it for me, but the title of this thread opens a debate as to just what is a "classic" movie.
For instance, I wouldn't call THE ENGLISH PATIENT a classic film. It's only twenty years old, and although generally very well reviewed and a Best Picture Oscar winner, I also found it rather a bore on a second viewing and overlong and somewhat ponderous. I think it needs to age in the bottle a few more years before it can gain classic status, if at all.
THE DEER HUNTER has been talked about in another thread on it's director's recent death and that movie I could agree is now a classic movie, if only as an example of the best of '70s movies. I thought it a great movie when I first saw it when it was originally released, but I don't find it that entertaining now. The last time I caught it on satellite, it only held my attention for around 15 minutes, then I changed the channel. But is that the movie's fault, or just my own over-exposure to it?
I've probably seen it around six times completely since it came out. That's not that many times considering it's been nearly forty years since it came out. So, maybe it is something about the film itself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is going to turn into a thread where people say "How can you not appreciate X film, its a true classic! What are you, a stupid person?"
ive already gone to type that twice! Ha ha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 5, 2016 - 2:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rameau
(Member)
|
Tons of 'em, the only longer list would not very good films that I love. Anyway:
Chinatown '74 - I maybe should have seen this at the time, I caught up with it a couple of years ago, & found it a bit boring.
Blade Runner '82 - Style over content, there's no way I could sit through it again.
The Thing '82 - I did see this at the cinema at the time & was very disappointed with it, & if anything it's gone down in my estimation. Great special effects, but...a hero that's a miserable idiot (as I remember, the first scene with him is he's playing a video game, it beats him, so he wrecks it!). There's not one likable person in it (& no women), so I didn't care what happened to any of them, so it's just going from one special effects set up to another, & then it ends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 5, 2016 - 6:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Several, like most others.
But three I can think of, off the top of my head:
PERSONA - Ingmar Bergman (I prefer his earlier stuff)
ANNIE HALL - Woody Allen (never really cared for any of Allen's films)
DR. NO - Terence Young (or any of the classic Bonds, really....never cared for most of the pre-Brosnan Bonds)
Thor! We agree on something! ANNIE HALL doesn't do it for me much either. But....
MANHATTAN... different story. Love that movie. Generally I like Woody Allen's movies, especially RADIO DAYS.
I also agree with the mention of Carpenter's THE THING. Hawk's THE THING (FROM ANOTHER WORLD), a classic. Carpenter's THE THING, just a thing of a movie.
Sticking to Science Fiction movies... I really don't like ALIEN that much. It's shallow. And whatever the big deal is with BLADE RUNNER eludes me.
And I can't believe I'm going to type this, but.... FORBIDDEN PLANET.... really hokey and boring. I don't hate it, but I'm not crazy about it.
The big one though is STAR WARS, the original one. I'd like to scream from the top of the Empire State Building, WHAT THE HELL IS SO GREAT ABOUT THAT STUPID MOVIE?!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 5, 2016 - 7:47 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Only saw five minutes of "The Sand Pebbles". I was channel surfing and came upon the film just when a guy was being tutored to death by a thousand cuts. It was an awful scene, and I could never get myself to watch the film again.
Funny how I manage through some classics and not others. I love "The Great Escape" and "Papillon for example".
PAPILLON is a much more brutal movie than THE SAND PEBBLES. I'd give the critical edge to THE SAND PEBBLES, too. Both movies are flawed, but I'd say TSP is the better of the two, which are my two favorite Steve McQueen movies, plus it's nice both are scored by Jerry Goldsmith. I'd say both scores are equal in quality and status.
I'm trying to take this thread seriously, but finding it hard. Just looking at one decade, I've tried considering the 1930s. I really can't think of three movies from that decade that are universally considered classics that I don't like. I've never been that crazy about GONE WITH THE WIND, for instance, but I can't say I don't like it.
It's easier for me to knock movies generally considered "great" from the last thirty or forty years.
And I think the term "classic" is thrown around far too loosely these days.
Limiting the subject to American "Hollywood Studio" motion pictures since their invention, the list of truly great and classic pictures can probably be counted on just three or four sets of hands.
My favorite movie, the original PLANET OF THE APES.... I really only seriously would call it a classic in terms of it being an American Science Fiction film. As art is it classic? It's awfully derivative and commercial, so probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All this thread has accomplished is to expose the posters' particular tastes in movies (or lack thereof),
or, perhaps, the generational divide among our number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
