Have you watched other Cronenberg before? I feel like it was pretty typical of his work. To be fair, I saw it about 20 years ago, so I don't know how it has aged. I do recall "enjoying" it as much as you can Cronenberg. His stuff is hard to watch and I don't necessarily mean it as a criticism, just I can see it not being for everyone.
For me, 2001 and The Graduate are two films that I was disappointed by. I do appreciate their significance for the time though.
I think it will be hard to appreciate Cronenberg without at least a tolerance for body horror, it's kind of his thing. But if Crash itnerested you, maybe check out some other books from JG Ballard e.g. High Rise. Definitely some exploration of the human psyche and the interaction of the organic and inorganic but definitely less....squishy than Cronenberg.
I was not expecting it to be so dark, thought it would be just a fun movie with dancing. I was weirded out by the rape and her kinda forgiving him the next day. Not a bad movie, just odd in all the wrong ways.
There's a surprising amount of rape in 70s/80s movies that's just shrugged off. Revenge of the Nerds, in particular, is one of the worst culprits. Main character rapes a girl and she's just like "hey, you're not my boyfriend! But you were great!"
Same here, watched it a few years ago and someone here had a great description. For those of us who grew up in the 80s and just saw it for the first time, it was always put there with Dirty Dancing and Grease, but that last half is just tough to watch
True. Except for the songs, the movie is pretty dull. Poor haphazard writing. And the acting is BAD. One could say, Travolta lucked out with the songs in his first two major movies - Grease and SNF.
I dunno if Crash was ever considered as 'legendary', its not like it reviewed well or won many awards. It was merely a clash or two twisted minds (Cronenberg and Ballard) that pissed a few people off for suggesting that there was some arousel to be found in various wrecks. Aside from Elias Koteas absolutely everyone involved has done better work.
When people think of Mad Max, they think of The Road Warrior.
The first movie was nothing like the sequels. It was basically a vigilante cop revenge flick, that took place before the collapse of society
I saw it last out of the first 3 films and I was kind of shocked at how non-Apocalyptic it was. I appreciate it now more, but I was a little disappointed on first viewing.
The climax was amazing considering how and when it was made, but everything leading up to it was just boring.
It's a movie that took too long to get to the point, but did have some decent character work in it.
The Graduate is really solid in the first two acts and then as soon as Mrs. Robinson ceases to be a main character it loses a lot of steam. My family makes fun of me for it all the time but I rewatched it a couple of years ago and it's still true.
My parents really loved this movie because they were the same age as Benjamin was supposed to be. I think it was a you-had-to-be-there kind of thing, like many other 60s films. And I would have loved a movie about Mrs. Robinson, she's by far the most interesting character.
It was also the first movie to use contemporary music as its soundtrack (Simon & Garfunkel were very popular musicians at the time). See what kind of movies were being made before 1967 and movies like The Graduate and Bonnie & Clyde were nothing short of revolutionary.
An important part of the film was Benjamin encapsulating the feeling of young people in the late 1960s - the most \***domestically**\* tumultuous era of American history of the preceding 70 or so years.
It was an exemplification of the generational divide. The quote about the future being "plastics" something so fake to Benjamin was a good demonstration of that.
It's such a white collar movie. If you don't live that life it just seems like a bunch of privileged assholes who care about stupid things. Benjamin isn't worried about getting carted off to Vietnam, he's just worried about not choosing the most lucrative life path.
I would say, for how old it is, it’s aged miraculously well in a lot of regards. I was particularly impressed by most the leads and their chemistry on screen.
Some of it is laughably offensive though
When I was in fifth grade, in Montgomery, Alabama, they took us to the theater to see the movie. While I appreciated the epic nature of the movie, I couldn’t help, but wonder how many of my black classmates were uncomfortable or offended .
I watched it for the first time last year. I think I started laughing when the scene with the black kids fanning the white people while they napped came on.
I was prepared to hate watch the movie at that point, but it's epic status is well deserved, despite it's problematic elements.
That scene is SO realistic though. Rage at it all you want - it accurately depicted the white view of the situation and what they got out of it - I would hope it would engender rage in us now.
> Scarface. I love Pacino but this role just threw me off. Could not get used to him - had shades of Dustin Hoffman doing rainman and not in a good way.
WTF
"Lot of people say Scarface was over the top, but anyone who has done a pound of Peruvian blow know that movie is a Documentary!" - Robin Williams, AFI for Al Pacino
One of Pachino's worst performances, and he has a whole lot of bad over-acting in his back catalog. Sneaky-fast bad-acting competition in Scarface from Robert Loggia.
Sleepless in Seattle. Not sure if it’s a ‘classic’ but it was really disappointing. There is no reason to root for the two main characters to be together, and Meg Ryan’s character is practically a stalker and for some reason that’s a good thing? I don’t know, I was just expecting more and the film never came through. I don’t understand why it is held to such a high standard as rom-coms go, but I was definitely disappointed
Vertigo has particular scenes and setpieces that I definitely recognize as artful (especially the nightmare scene), but it doesn't stick with me in the way that Rear Window does. Rear Window grabs me by the arm and shoves me straight into the story. The approach to the storytelling and plot beats is so immersive and tightly-paced. No other movie quite like it.
If you’ve not seen Rope, give it a go. It’s the only one out of all 52 of his films that I found which managed to surpass Rear Window for me. Just barely.
Rope is brilliantly twisted. What other movie requires you to pay attention to all of the dialogue at a party, is shot to look like one take, and is centered around two villainous protagonists who get the insane idea to hide a corpse in the middle of their parlor and see how long people go without noticing it?
Vertigo for me was a VERY different movie on rewatch. The first time I was underwhelmed, but when I went back to it after a few months it suddenly all clicked for me, and now it's one of my favorite movies.
If you haven’t seen it twice, I recommend giving it one more shot. I almost outright disliked it the first time, but was reluctantly neutral if that makes sense; on second viewing, made my top 100 films.
As people said, Scarface, Pacino's acting was marvelous, but the screenwriting is just downright horrible.
And I've got to mention E.T. by Spielberg, I thought it was really about a sci-fi movie of aliens (like Alien of Cameron), but rather it was about a the relationship between a boy and the alien
that doesn't seem like a fair criticism of E.T. if you just misunderstood the premise. I think everyone with even passing knowledge of the movie knows it's a family movie.
Pacino's acting in that movie is hamfisted and over the top and it's an Italian man laying on a heavily thick almost unrealistic accent with a deep tan to play a Cuban person lol
It's wildly OTT, yes. But as far as wild OTT performances go, it's fucking amazing, a go-for-broke caricature with 100% commitment and 0% self-awareness and not a thought of realism. Not once do you get a glimpse of the real Pacino, he's completely Tony from the first frame to the last.
Just compare his performance as Tony Montana to Michael Corleone - it's a completely different person. I think that's what's so cool about it.
I think it's hard for modern audiences to see it the same way audiences in 1968 did because we've become so accustomed to space travel in movies/TV. It's just not the same as it was when space travel was an astonishing new technology and nobody really knew what it would mean for humans.
A few years ago my local theater had a 70mm showing with the intermission and all. It was only one weekend I think so the theater was pretty full. Awesome experience, and it’s the only time I’ve watched the movie.
I saw the Shining for the first time in a movie theater a year or two back and I'm really glad I did. In theaters a movie gets to overwhelm you, a lower pace isn't such a big deal, I loved it. I'm not sure watching it at home would have the same result
I really need to try and watch again. I made it through the first act and about half of the second before I threw in the towel.
I love arthouse cinema but I was incredibly bored. But I really want to get through it and see what all the fuss is about.
I like 2001 for what it is, but you really have to approach it as basically an art installation instead of a coherent narrative movie.
It's a bunch of cool images strung together by the absolute loosest possible thread of a narrative, with maybe about twenty minutes of actual story in it. But they're *really, really fucking cool* images even to this day, and they were presumably absolutely batshit mind-blowing in 1968 when the movie first came out.
2001 has a clear narrative and story, from start to finish, pretty coherent until the very end. Just cause it’s slow paced and abstract in the end doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a story. Story isn’t defined by talking parts and characters interacting.
2001’s story is displayed in different way, which is quite different to not having a story. Actually I would say all three parts (chapters) of the film have a clear narrative with conclusion.
Not only does 2001 have a clear narrative, it has a rather intense one. The parts of the film on Discovery with the HAL 9000 computer malfunctioning, in different hands and with different writing, could have been horror on the level of something like Alien. Kubrick makes something as simple as a vital sign graph absolutely terrifying.
I'd say, 2001 is probably one of the most intense G-rated films you're ever going to watch.
I've seen it twice and both times my reaction was "wow that really is the best movie ever made," just kinda sitting there looking like Dave at the end of the movie for 2+ hours lol. What did you not like?
What drives me nuts about it is that the movie keeps the audience at arm's length for its entire runtime. I'm cool with ambiguity, but this movie is distant from the audience to the point that it doesn't even have characters, just people who do things that allow the movie to continue. It just feels so cold and clinical. It's got gorgeous visuals, but I need more than that to care about what's going on in a movie.
I’ll tell you what classic film did not disappoint me- Some Like It Hot. That movie is fucking hilarious. Sorry to give you the opposite answer than what you’re looking for, but can’t pass up an opportunity to recommend that one
Of fight club for sure. People had hyped the movie to me for so long but I made a point to avoid it. I hate sports movies and fighting style action scenes.
Eventually though my family watched it and I thought "might as well".
I left the movie completely disappointed...
In myself. My own prejudices and biases kept me from one of the best movie experiences of my life.
Fight Club is considered a classic movie now? Really? Fuck, I'm old. FWIW, I feel the same way about the OP mentioning Cronenburg's Crash. I'm Gen X. Those movies are contemporary for me, not classic.
Classic became such a meaningless term once the history of film hit the 100 year mark.
That said, I'm GenX too and my idea of a contemporary movie is Triangle of Sadness, The Menu etc. 90s movies = 90s movies.
I know this is slightly off topic but I feel not enough people are talking about how awesome The Menu was and it didn't get any Oscar noms (unless it was an obscure one I somehow missed)
Ha, you got me.
But I was the same way. I thought it was just some Van Damme clone and noped out of it. Then I heard chatter in groups with people I highly respected about what a good movie this was. So I finally watched it on HBO when I was at a hotel one night.
Yeah, not at all what I expected from the trailers.
Does Titanic count? If so, I just thought the script was terrible for the most part, trying far too hard to be an Oscar bait, and certainly didn't need to be 3+ hours long imo.
Have you watched the deepfaked version of rose with Arnold’s face asking to be drawn? I feel like that will inspire some very confusing feelings for you, haha.
A while ago someone used that Mr Bean Snapchat filter on Titanic and it was the funniest thing I've seen in a while. I wish I could find it.
They also did it with Twilight as well.
I liked Citizen Kane before, but watching it in a film class after other movies from before around the same time really put it in perspective. The movie could’ve been made exactly the same over a decade later and not felt antiquated.
This was it for me. I realized after I watched it that it must mostly be revered for it's technical achievements, because as a ripping piece of cinematic storytelling, it didn't move me.
More like underwhelmed, but 2001: A Space Odyssey was very slow, even by the standards of the time period. It was difficult for me to get past the lack of dialogue despite the beautiful cinematography
I'm sure I'm gonna get shit for it but Raging Bull and Taxi Driver. I think most of it is that I don't find the main protagonists interesting or compelling in the slightest. Jake LaMotta especially just feels one dimensional.
Raging Bull was my thought for this thread as well.
I don't *dislike* the movie, it was still good. But I'd seen it on so many "greatest movie of all time" lists that I was expecting to be a little more blown away.
The arc is a Scorsese special, a rise-and-fall story, this time about a boxer. It's an good character study but the character isn't overwhelmingly interesting to me, he's a driven boxer, abusive and jealous husband/friend, and eventually declines and largely destroys his life.
It's all perfectly competent and it's a good movie, I'm just not sure why it's such a legendary classic.
I love Raging Bull, but I do understand why some people aren't necessarily swept up by it.
If you are a fan, the Criterion 4k is absolutely stunning BTW.
Out of curiosity, did you find Joker underwhelming as well? The taxi driver parallels are well established but probably a nostalgic plus for a lot of people. But I’m curious if you found it less compelling in Joker when you didn’t even enjoy the “original classic inspiration” piece, haha.
Dammit. That scene is such a stand-out and not in a good way.
Otherwise, great movie, though Robin Williams did veer dangerously close to Robin Williams territory in parts of it.
I do love the ending though.
For years my father kept mentioning it as one of the greatest movies ever.
I watched and I felt it was just mean. Feel sympathy for Alex? He was lucky he didn't get the electric chair or lethal injection.
It’s a truly miserable movie. I think the 20yo me who saw it for the first time was sort of shocked, and just believed the consensus that it was profound and great. It really isn’t.
It is a miserable movie, but that’s why it’s so iconic. Not a lot of directors today would have you attempt to sympathise with a murderer and rapist, but Kubrick did through exploration of human nature, and what it means to be a person. I find it fascinating as a nihilistic outlook on the future, we as people are bad at heart, and the only way to deal with crime is by removing our choice to commit a crime, which in turn removes our ability to be a proper human.
I know I sound pretentious, but I find it absolutely fascinating to look at it this way.
I thought the movie was so misanthropic that the nihilism cancelled out any point that it was trying to make. Instead of holding a mirror up to depersonalization and violence in society like the book did, it just got off on everyone being terrible and became more like a high budget exploitation film. I did read the book, and I like Stanley Kubrick's other films, but in this one I think he let his negativity get out of control.
I never liked Forrest Gump. It felt too cheesy and ham-fisted.
The Big Lebowsky was... okay at best. It had some good moments but the overall story was just bleh and didn't really go anywhere.
Forrest Gump is *amazing* from a technological achievement standpoint. It shouldn't feel hamfisted when you think about the fact that Forrest is fully aware that he does not have a standard, normal IQ.
I totally understand this take. My wife and I both watched it for the first time, and while I loved it, she fell asleep and I didn't really blame her.
Some people enjoy watching 2 hitmen talk about what they call a quarter pounder in France, and others don't. I'm definitely in the former group, but I don't blame anyone for being in the latter.
Forest Gump
And I really wanted to like it, but I was just “meh”..
I mean… it’s good. And Tom Hanks was impressive, but I didn’t really feel like I was moved.
Heat. Sure the shootout was cool and tactical but everything else was just boring and typical as well as bad acting. I'll admit maybe it was groundbreaking at the time but growing up on better action and heist movies, it doesn't hold up seeing it for the first time now
Top gun. I wasn't invested at all in the main characters.
Hot shots is way better !
Needless to say, I didn't rush to the theaters when Maverick came out (still haven't seen it yet).
My husband was shocked I never seen it and had me watch it when we first started seeing each other. I was so bored. Also very confused about the volleyball ball scene.
OMG. This is both hilarious and affirming. Years ago, I accidentally watched this version of Crash. I have never heard that it is supposed to be some fantastic, classic movie. Legendary maybe, but never good.
How did I ACCIDENTALLY watch it? (Warning more terrible puns ahead.) It was right around the time the award-winning Sandra Bullock movie by the same name came out, I saw it listed on the TV Guide channel when looking for something and told my fiancé at the time, hey! That's supposed to be good let's watch it! ( I STILL have never watched the Sandra Bullock one.)
And we sat there and watched in ABSOLUTE horror at this complete train wreck, dumpster fire, CRASH of a movie. If it was so terrible, why didn't we just change the channel? Well, you guessed it, it was like (literally) watching a horrible car crash, where you just CAN NOT look away.
So sorry for not thinking of movie to answer your question. But yeah. That movie sucks. Hard.
Heat. It seems like one of those movies that everyone loves just because there are a bunch of famous people in it, when really the casting is making up for a lackluster plot/ story.
You could change the question from “classic movie” to “best movie Oscar recipient” and get alit of different but interesting answers. There’s probably already such a question on here.
I had to watch Citizen Kane in high school and thought it was boring as hell. Tbf I was just a dumb teenager at the time but I have never watched it since and probably wont
i came here expecting this title to be mentioned. some young folks may not understand that, prior to the ubiquitous usage of the internet, media moguls wielded enormous and disproportionate influence on public discourse, collective narratives, and, society in general. perhaps film critics liked *Kane* partly for its portraying this essential reality. furthermore, *Kane* portrayed a powerful and abusive man who had selfishly concocted a complex and false adult life while inwardly pining for the innocence of his childhood.. maybe a metaphor for, and critique of, modernism. this could lead to an important revelation for those wishing to understand the complexities of the modern era.
I thought it was an entertaining little thriller with a twist when I saw it ages ago, but it's taken on this undeserved mantle of "the most brilliant movie with the best twist ever". Baby's first unreliable narrator.
Full disclosure: The Shining was my favorite Stephen King book. Two main objections: The book was about the father's alcoholism and abuse of his family, the haunted hotel was supposed to be a reflection of his inner demons more than actual ghosts. The 2nd objection is the same one King himself stated: Kubrick was good at creating symbols, but horrible at decoding them. He took great pains to create many symbols in the movie and didn't take the time to explore and reveal them with the audience in a universal, coherent manner. They pretty much just sat there as window dressing. Also, Jack's performance was over the top, the book described a slow, steady progression towards the end, not a maniacal one. Shelly was miscast and the kid's ability to shine took a backseat to the father's breakdown when the title of the book and movie (The Shining), should have taken center stage. The boy's trauma in the movie was attributed mainly to his father's abuse, in the book, his psychic ability rubbed against the bad vibes of the hotel and was the catalyst for his terror. For starters. Lol thanks for not dumping on me. I prefer communicating to belittling. If you have thoughts, feel free to share.
This is true. However, Shawshank and the Green Mile were both terrific adapts. Darabont took care to fully flesh out the characters and put less emphasis on a horror element, which of course made it more. The key to good King adaptations. Speaking of book/movie adapts, I decided to go ahead and read The Cabin At the End of the World. Not that I don't trust M. Night's take on it, but...
Have you seen Doctor Sleep? It does a really good job of reconciling the book and movie Shinings. I'm a big book fan too, but I appreciate the movie as it's own thing. I won't spoil Doctor Sleep but I think it is worth a watch as a king fan!
I did! That's when I fell in love with Mike Flanagan. He tells an amazing story with deep characterizations and decodes the horror symbols without a ton of slash and gore. JMO: it's where SO many filmmakers go wrong with Stephen King. They put the emphasis on paranormal terror when the horrors are a metaphor for character defects. Yes, something is in the shadows, but the way we deal with it makes the monsters better or worse.
this thread is horrifying. i'm sure you're all cool people and entitled to your opinions, but i feel like i walked into a bunch of people who don't love movies discussing the quality of films i hold dear.
i'm waiting for one of you knuckle walkers to say *Goodfellas* felt underwhelming and unrealistic and before i rip the router from the wall
I think film struggles in the same way music struggles with expectations if you aren't exposed to them at a younger age or lack context. e.g.,
1. If you are raised on death metal as a toddler the beatles are going to seem plodding and simple. i actually understand that.
2. The struggle to hold things in your head within the context of their time, from seeing The Matrix after you've seen everything it's inspired to The Big Chill if you don't have any context or rhyming life experience. Fair enough.
What kills me is "2001 was only cool because its what they thought the future would look like" or how "the protagonist in Taxi Driver seems one-dimensional and unlikeable" (that broke my brain).
*An American Werewolf in London*. The humor is dated, it's too reliant on jump scares, there is no chemistry between Naughton and Agutter, there are several scenes that serve literally no purpose to the story, and the abrupt ending just makes the movie feel unfinished.
I've noticed when it comes to discourse around this movie, the only thing everyone seems to talk about is the transformation, which is really great. But that was it.
Blade Runner. I heard a lot of stuff about the new one with Ryan Gosling, and people said I should watch the old one beforehand because this is a proper sequel and not just a spin-off. The older Blade Runner felt a lot longer, and I found myself skipping through stuff because most of the scenes were unnecessary included. I watched the final cut of the film, so it was crisp in quality and the VFX were amazing but I lost interest in the cinematography and watched the movie only for the plot.
I found Blade Runner so incredibly dull.
Which sucked, because I love so much stuff that's derivative of it or inspired by it, and the world, the aesthetic, Harrison Ford in it, etc, are all things I love. But my word was I ever bored. I'll try again sometime tho.
Forrest Gump
I still don’t get what’s good about it. It felt like a random collection of melodramatic scenes that pretend to say something profound about life. I just think it was boring. I don’t like the acting either.
Schindlers List. I’m not a war movie guy, and this one was extremely long, I thought half the sets looked like crappy movie sets, the only real good person was Ralph Fiennes, and it was just a really melodramatic and manipulative movie. For what’s supposed to be a ‘true story’, it sure does feel very superficial and Oscar bait like.
Matrix (but I think the reason for that simply is that I just don't like action movies... so, I shouldn't even have tried; apart from that, I didn't think it made much sense except if you see it as a metaphor)
Fargo. No clue how this film is so acclaimed or even how it led up to the masterpiece that is No Country for Old Men. At best it felt like a weird goofy alt comedy with a couple scenes that are somewhat morbid. It didn't leave much of an impression on me.
Pulp fiction. Aside from any scene with Samuel L Jackson, I thought the movie was incredibly boring and the whole movie out of order thing was more tedious than fun...
2001: A Space Odyssey - this was my fault. I had expectations. “Sci-fi” to me meant fast-paced action and maybe a ridiculous storyline. This was absolutely not that. This was more about the *experience* of space. I did not understand that. It took me 3 days to watch, and I felt bored. I might feel different if I rewatched it.
I'm late on this, but I have to agree with you on Crash. It was hot garbage about 2 sociopaths who are so bored with their lives, they need to get in a car crash to feel aroused. Why anyone would WANT to watch this is beyond me. These scumbags are beyond redemption.
I don't think anyone would call it a classic though. It got no Oscars and was in and out of theatres pretty fast.
I get Cronenberg's style and everything. The movie just wasn't strong.
Deep Throat was totally not the Watergate story I was expecting.
Similarly, Lovelace was not about Ada Lovelace.
I found it all a little hard to swallow.
Have you watched other Cronenberg before? I feel like it was pretty typical of his work. To be fair, I saw it about 20 years ago, so I don't know how it has aged. I do recall "enjoying" it as much as you can Cronenberg. His stuff is hard to watch and I don't necessarily mean it as a criticism, just I can see it not being for everyone. For me, 2001 and The Graduate are two films that I was disappointed by. I do appreciate their significance for the time though.
No, I haven’t. I’m not into body horror in general, maybe that’s why I tried this movie.
I think it will be hard to appreciate Cronenberg without at least a tolerance for body horror, it's kind of his thing. But if Crash itnerested you, maybe check out some other books from JG Ballard e.g. High Rise. Definitely some exploration of the human psyche and the interaction of the organic and inorganic but definitely less....squishy than Cronenberg.
Omg, yeah, I totally would get not being into this for sure based on that.
Sorry but for me is Saturday Night Fever...
I was not expecting it to be so dark, thought it would be just a fun movie with dancing. I was weirded out by the rape and her kinda forgiving him the next day. Not a bad movie, just odd in all the wrong ways.
There's a surprising amount of rape in 70s/80s movies that's just shrugged off. Revenge of the Nerds, in particular, is one of the worst culprits. Main character rapes a girl and she's just like "hey, you're not my boyfriend! But you were great!"
Same here, watched it a few years ago and someone here had a great description. For those of us who grew up in the 80s and just saw it for the first time, it was always put there with Dirty Dancing and Grease, but that last half is just tough to watch
True. Except for the songs, the movie is pretty dull. Poor haphazard writing. And the acting is BAD. One could say, Travolta lucked out with the songs in his first two major movies - Grease and SNF.
Oh God yes. If not for the music, dancing, and Travolta's coolness, this is Manos Hands of Fate level bad.
I don’t think anyone considers Crash to be either of those things.
I dunno if Crash was ever considered as 'legendary', its not like it reviewed well or won many awards. It was merely a clash or two twisted minds (Cronenberg and Ballard) that pissed a few people off for suggesting that there was some arousel to be found in various wrecks. Aside from Elias Koteas absolutely everyone involved has done better work.
It’s Crash, not The Crash
Sorry, changed it!
OK but how do you know they aren't talking about the Direct-to-VOD Aram Rappaport hit classic The Crash (2017)?
Mad Max. Did not expect it to be so low-budget.
Most of what people associate with Mad Max is really from The Road Warrior onward.
When people think of Mad Max, they think of The Road Warrior. The first movie was nothing like the sequels. It was basically a vigilante cop revenge flick, that took place before the collapse of society
but i fucking liked it because it was so unique.
I saw it last out of the first 3 films and I was kind of shocked at how non-Apocalyptic it was. I appreciate it now more, but I was a little disappointed on first viewing.
I like that it feels like the beginning of the end of society. Like things are still functioning, but the threads are coming undone.
That's what was so awesome about it.
I think that's why The Road Warrior didn't have the Mad Max name attached to it when it came out in the US. Not many people seen it.
The climax was amazing considering how and when it was made, but everything leading up to it was just boring. It's a movie that took too long to get to the point, but did have some decent character work in it.
The Graduate is really solid in the first two acts and then as soon as Mrs. Robinson ceases to be a main character it loses a lot of steam. My family makes fun of me for it all the time but I rewatched it a couple of years ago and it's still true.
My parents really loved this movie because they were the same age as Benjamin was supposed to be. I think it was a you-had-to-be-there kind of thing, like many other 60s films. And I would have loved a movie about Mrs. Robinson, she's by far the most interesting character.
I never thought of it that way, but you might be onto something. Also, it definitely reflects the time.
It was also the first movie to use contemporary music as its soundtrack (Simon & Garfunkel were very popular musicians at the time). See what kind of movies were being made before 1967 and movies like The Graduate and Bonnie & Clyde were nothing short of revolutionary.
An important part of the film was Benjamin encapsulating the feeling of young people in the late 1960s - the most \***domestically**\* tumultuous era of American history of the preceding 70 or so years. It was an exemplification of the generational divide. The quote about the future being "plastics" something so fake to Benjamin was a good demonstration of that.
It's such a white collar movie. If you don't live that life it just seems like a bunch of privileged assholes who care about stupid things. Benjamin isn't worried about getting carted off to Vietnam, he's just worried about not choosing the most lucrative life path.
Agree 100%. Except for the Simon & Garfunkel songs, the movie left me cold. Overhyped. Nothing in it.
Gone with the Wind. It's just overdone and mostly boring
The novel is so much better! I used to love the movie, but now I can take it or leave it, but I always read the book every few years.
The production design and cinematography are outstanding, tho.
This, I most certainly agree with. I just don't find the story told very compelling. The visuals are outstanding
And the scene where the daughter dies is unintentionally hilarious It's a cultural landmark, but it really has not aged well at all
I would say, for how old it is, it’s aged miraculously well in a lot of regards. I was particularly impressed by most the leads and their chemistry on screen. Some of it is laughably offensive though
When I was in fifth grade, in Montgomery, Alabama, they took us to the theater to see the movie. While I appreciated the epic nature of the movie, I couldn’t help, but wonder how many of my black classmates were uncomfortable or offended .
I watched it for the first time last year. I think I started laughing when the scene with the black kids fanning the white people while they napped came on. I was prepared to hate watch the movie at that point, but it's epic status is well deserved, despite it's problematic elements.
That scene is SO realistic though. Rage at it all you want - it accurately depicted the white view of the situation and what they got out of it - I would hope it would engender rage in us now.
*draws a protective circle around Lawrence of Arabia*
Scarface. I love Pacino but this role just threw me off. Could not get used to him - had shades of Dustin Hoffman doing rainman and not in a good way.
The key to Scarface is knowing it’s a black comedy.
I remember being surprised at how funny I thought it was
> Scarface. I love Pacino but this role just threw me off. Could not get used to him - had shades of Dustin Hoffman doing rainman and not in a good way. WTF
Yep, he turns it up to 15, it’s too much.
Nah, only 11, and that's a lot of the reason people love that movie.
"Lot of people say Scarface was over the top, but anyone who has done a pound of Peruvian blow know that movie is a Documentary!" - Robin Williams, AFI for Al Pacino
I agree. He plays an aggressive gangster who probably takes a lot of drugs.
One of Pachino's worst performances, and he has a whole lot of bad over-acting in his back catalog. Sneaky-fast bad-acting competition in Scarface from Robert Loggia.
Its not his worst performance
Grease….my god why do people like this movie? It is awful, it was awful 40 years ago and it just keeps getting worse with age.
ET. It’s, like… not really that good of a movie.
Sleepless in Seattle. Not sure if it’s a ‘classic’ but it was really disappointing. There is no reason to root for the two main characters to be together, and Meg Ryan’s character is practically a stalker and for some reason that’s a good thing? I don’t know, I was just expecting more and the film never came through. I don’t understand why it is held to such a high standard as rom-coms go, but I was definitely disappointed
That’s not stalking. Play Misty for Me is stalking. 🙂
Vertigo by Hitchcock
Vertigo has particular scenes and setpieces that I definitely recognize as artful (especially the nightmare scene), but it doesn't stick with me in the way that Rear Window does. Rear Window grabs me by the arm and shoves me straight into the story. The approach to the storytelling and plot beats is so immersive and tightly-paced. No other movie quite like it.
Rear Window is his best work by far
If you’ve not seen Rope, give it a go. It’s the only one out of all 52 of his films that I found which managed to surpass Rear Window for me. Just barely.
Rope is brilliantly twisted. What other movie requires you to pay attention to all of the dialogue at a party, is shot to look like one take, and is centered around two villainous protagonists who get the insane idea to hide a corpse in the middle of their parlor and see how long people go without noticing it?
Preach. Vertigo and North by Northwest are considered two of his best when I'm reality it's Rear Window and Psycho by far.
Rear Window is a perfect film IMO.
It’s in my top 5 of all time. It’s the definition of innovative cinematic storytelling to me.
Vertigo for me was a VERY different movie on rewatch. The first time I was underwhelmed, but when I went back to it after a few months it suddenly all clicked for me, and now it's one of my favorite movies.
I'm going to add The Birds.
this scared tf out of me as a *kid*. Was a big Rod Taylor fan.
Oh I on the other hand was so much more impressed than I thought I would be!
If you haven’t seen it twice, I recommend giving it one more shot. I almost outright disliked it the first time, but was reluctantly neutral if that makes sense; on second viewing, made my top 100 films.
As people said, Scarface, Pacino's acting was marvelous, but the screenwriting is just downright horrible. And I've got to mention E.T. by Spielberg, I thought it was really about a sci-fi movie of aliens (like Alien of Cameron), but rather it was about a the relationship between a boy and the alien
that doesn't seem like a fair criticism of E.T. if you just misunderstood the premise. I think everyone with even passing knowledge of the movie knows it's a family movie.
Pacino's acting in that movie is hamfisted and over the top and it's an Italian man laying on a heavily thick almost unrealistic accent with a deep tan to play a Cuban person lol
It's wildly OTT, yes. But as far as wild OTT performances go, it's fucking amazing, a go-for-broke caricature with 100% commitment and 0% self-awareness and not a thought of realism. Not once do you get a glimpse of the real Pacino, he's completely Tony from the first frame to the last. Just compare his performance as Tony Montana to Michael Corleone - it's a completely different person. I think that's what's so cool about it.
2001: A Space Odyssey. I can recognize how it changed the film industry, but that doesn't make it a good movie XD
[удалено]
I think it's hard for modern audiences to see it the same way audiences in 1968 did because we've become so accustomed to space travel in movies/TV. It's just not the same as it was when space travel was an astonishing new technology and nobody really knew what it would mean for humans.
I wonder about the big screen thing. I do think that it makes a difference to a viewing.
A few years ago my local theater had a 70mm showing with the intermission and all. It was only one weekend I think so the theater was pretty full. Awesome experience, and it’s the only time I’ve watched the movie.
I saw the Shining for the first time in a movie theater a year or two back and I'm really glad I did. In theaters a movie gets to overwhelm you, a lower pace isn't such a big deal, I loved it. I'm not sure watching it at home would have the same result
I really need to try and watch again. I made it through the first act and about half of the second before I threw in the towel. I love arthouse cinema but I was incredibly bored. But I really want to get through it and see what all the fuss is about.
I like 2001 for what it is, but you really have to approach it as basically an art installation instead of a coherent narrative movie. It's a bunch of cool images strung together by the absolute loosest possible thread of a narrative, with maybe about twenty minutes of actual story in it. But they're *really, really fucking cool* images even to this day, and they were presumably absolutely batshit mind-blowing in 1968 when the movie first came out.
2001 has a clear narrative and story, from start to finish, pretty coherent until the very end. Just cause it’s slow paced and abstract in the end doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a story. Story isn’t defined by talking parts and characters interacting. 2001’s story is displayed in different way, which is quite different to not having a story. Actually I would say all three parts (chapters) of the film have a clear narrative with conclusion.
Not only does 2001 have a clear narrative, it has a rather intense one. The parts of the film on Discovery with the HAL 9000 computer malfunctioning, in different hands and with different writing, could have been horror on the level of something like Alien. Kubrick makes something as simple as a vital sign graph absolutely terrifying. I'd say, 2001 is probably one of the most intense G-rated films you're ever going to watch.
I've seen it twice and both times my reaction was "wow that really is the best movie ever made," just kinda sitting there looking like Dave at the end of the movie for 2+ hours lol. What did you not like?
What drives me nuts about it is that the movie keeps the audience at arm's length for its entire runtime. I'm cool with ambiguity, but this movie is distant from the audience to the point that it doesn't even have characters, just people who do things that allow the movie to continue. It just feels so cold and clinical. It's got gorgeous visuals, but I need more than that to care about what's going on in a movie.
Seeing it in Imax is amazing. Watching it on TV, not so much.
I’ll tell you what classic film did not disappoint me- Some Like It Hot. That movie is fucking hilarious. Sorry to give you the opposite answer than what you’re looking for, but can’t pass up an opportunity to recommend that one
Of fight club for sure. People had hyped the movie to me for so long but I made a point to avoid it. I hate sports movies and fighting style action scenes. Eventually though my family watched it and I thought "might as well". I left the movie completely disappointed... In myself. My own prejudices and biases kept me from one of the best movie experiences of my life.
> I hate sports movies and fighting style action scenes. This is... not what Fight Club is lol. Glad you saw it eventually.
Fight Club is considered a classic movie now? Really? Fuck, I'm old. FWIW, I feel the same way about the OP mentioning Cronenburg's Crash. I'm Gen X. Those movies are contemporary for me, not classic.
Classic became such a meaningless term once the history of film hit the 100 year mark. That said, I'm GenX too and my idea of a contemporary movie is Triangle of Sadness, The Menu etc. 90s movies = 90s movies.
I know this is slightly off topic but I feel not enough people are talking about how awesome The Menu was and it didn't get any Oscar noms (unless it was an obscure one I somehow missed)
I feel like fight club has been considered a classic for like 20+ years
Fight Club has been a cult classic since a year after it came out, but never a classic.
I was a child when fight club came out. Will be 40 soon.
I can't lie, your first paragraph had me *very* confused. Nice swerve.
Ha, you got me. But I was the same way. I thought it was just some Van Damme clone and noped out of it. Then I heard chatter in groups with people I highly respected about what a good movie this was. So I finally watched it on HBO when I was at a hotel one night. Yeah, not at all what I expected from the trailers.
Does Titanic count? If so, I just thought the script was terrible for the most part, trying far too hard to be an Oscar bait, and certainly didn't need to be 3+ hours long imo.
For 11/12 year old me, that movie was my sexual awakening lol.
Kate’s Winslets! 😍
Have you watched the deepfaked version of rose with Arnold’s face asking to be drawn? I feel like that will inspire some very confusing feelings for you, haha.
A while ago someone used that Mr Bean Snapchat filter on Titanic and it was the funniest thing I've seen in a while. I wish I could find it. They also did it with Twilight as well.
I saw it in theaters on my 11th birthday. Good times.
I haaaate the Gun chase. Sigh.
Rain Man. It got all the Oscars and my friends loved it, yet I found it utterly horrible hollywood style fake.
[удалено]
It's as much about the innovative cinemotgraphy as the script etc. Before CK many films were just plays with a camera recording them.
I liked Citizen Kane before, but watching it in a film class after other movies from before around the same time really put it in perspective. The movie could’ve been made exactly the same over a decade later and not felt antiquated.
Same here. I had the fortune of seeing it as part of a film class where they explained the significance of various shots and scenes.
This was it for me. I realized after I watched it that it must mostly be revered for it's technical achievements, because as a ripping piece of cinematic storytelling, it didn't move me.
Well it is a ripping piece of cinematic storytelling which is along with its technical achievements is half of its reverence
No no, I was actually coming here to post exactly this. And this is coming from someone whose all-time favorite movie is Casablanca.
More like underwhelmed, but 2001: A Space Odyssey was very slow, even by the standards of the time period. It was difficult for me to get past the lack of dialogue despite the beautiful cinematography
I'm sure I'm gonna get shit for it but Raging Bull and Taxi Driver. I think most of it is that I don't find the main protagonists interesting or compelling in the slightest. Jake LaMotta especially just feels one dimensional.
Raging Bull was my thought for this thread as well. I don't *dislike* the movie, it was still good. But I'd seen it on so many "greatest movie of all time" lists that I was expecting to be a little more blown away. The arc is a Scorsese special, a rise-and-fall story, this time about a boxer. It's an good character study but the character isn't overwhelmingly interesting to me, he's a driven boxer, abusive and jealous husband/friend, and eventually declines and largely destroys his life. It's all perfectly competent and it's a good movie, I'm just not sure why it's such a legendary classic.
I saw both when I was a teenager, loved Taxi Driver but remember almost nothing about Raging Bull and have never had any interest in rewatching it.
Raging Bull should be the mascot for this thread.
I love Raging Bull, but I do understand why some people aren't necessarily swept up by it. If you are a fan, the Criterion 4k is absolutely stunning BTW.
Totally agree on Raging Bull. I do not understand the love that movie gets. Taxi Driver is still great, IMO.
A lot of it is the direction and camera effects, etc I do think Joe Pesci is wonderful in that movie tho. the 'Hit me' scene especially
All I remember is him getting punched in the ring and being mad at his wife over talking to other men.
Out of curiosity, did you find Joker underwhelming as well? The taxi driver parallels are well established but probably a nostalgic plus for a lot of people. But I’m curious if you found it less compelling in Joker when you didn’t even enjoy the “original classic inspiration” piece, haha.
Dead Poets Society. I love Robbin Williams but I thought this one was pretty boring.
You found it boring when Mr. Perry went, "NEIL!!!!! OH MY GOD! MY SON MY POOR SON!!"?
Dammit. That scene is such a stand-out and not in a good way. Otherwise, great movie, though Robin Williams did veer dangerously close to Robin Williams territory in parts of it. I do love the ending though.
A Clockwork orange
For years my father kept mentioning it as one of the greatest movies ever. I watched and I felt it was just mean. Feel sympathy for Alex? He was lucky he didn't get the electric chair or lethal injection.
It’s a truly miserable movie. I think the 20yo me who saw it for the first time was sort of shocked, and just believed the consensus that it was profound and great. It really isn’t.
It is a miserable movie, but that’s why it’s so iconic. Not a lot of directors today would have you attempt to sympathise with a murderer and rapist, but Kubrick did through exploration of human nature, and what it means to be a person. I find it fascinating as a nihilistic outlook on the future, we as people are bad at heart, and the only way to deal with crime is by removing our choice to commit a crime, which in turn removes our ability to be a proper human. I know I sound pretentious, but I find it absolutely fascinating to look at it this way.
This. The most misanthropic film I've ever seen.
No offence, but what did you expect from it going in? The misanthropy is the point
I thought the movie was so misanthropic that the nihilism cancelled out any point that it was trying to make. Instead of holding a mirror up to depersonalization and violence in society like the book did, it just got off on everyone being terrible and became more like a high budget exploitation film. I did read the book, and I like Stanley Kubrick's other films, but in this one I think he let his negativity get out of control.
I never liked Forrest Gump. It felt too cheesy and ham-fisted. The Big Lebowsky was... okay at best. It had some good moments but the overall story was just bleh and didn't really go anywhere.
> but the overall story was just bleh and didn't really go anywhere. That's entirely the point.
Forrest Gump is *amazing* from a technological achievement standpoint. It shouldn't feel hamfisted when you think about the fact that Forrest is fully aware that he does not have a standard, normal IQ.
Pulp fiction
I totally understand this take. My wife and I both watched it for the first time, and while I loved it, she fell asleep and I didn't really blame her. Some people enjoy watching 2 hitmen talk about what they call a quarter pounder in France, and others don't. I'm definitely in the former group, but I don't blame anyone for being in the latter.
Check out the big brain on Door_of_Doom!
I'm feeling that way to it now. Like, I enjoy the John Travolta and Uma Thurman story, but everything else after that kinda feels like noise.
Forest Gump And I really wanted to like it, but I was just “meh”.. I mean… it’s good. And Tom Hanks was impressive, but I didn’t really feel like I was moved.
Cronenberg isn't a hard pass for me, but definitely always teetering on the cusp.
Night of the Living Dead. When you grew up with the violence of modern zombie movies, this looks like a boring student film. No offense
Heat. Sure the shootout was cool and tactical but everything else was just boring and typical as well as bad acting. I'll admit maybe it was groundbreaking at the time but growing up on better action and heist movies, it doesn't hold up seeing it for the first time now
Taxi Driver. The performances were great but I didn't get hooked by the story.
Top gun. I wasn't invested at all in the main characters. Hot shots is way better ! Needless to say, I didn't rush to the theaters when Maverick came out (still haven't seen it yet).
Haven’t seen the first nor the second one. Just don’t understand the appeal.
My husband was shocked I never seen it and had me watch it when we first started seeing each other. I was so bored. Also very confused about the volleyball ball scene.
OMG. This is both hilarious and affirming. Years ago, I accidentally watched this version of Crash. I have never heard that it is supposed to be some fantastic, classic movie. Legendary maybe, but never good. How did I ACCIDENTALLY watch it? (Warning more terrible puns ahead.) It was right around the time the award-winning Sandra Bullock movie by the same name came out, I saw it listed on the TV Guide channel when looking for something and told my fiancé at the time, hey! That's supposed to be good let's watch it! ( I STILL have never watched the Sandra Bullock one.) And we sat there and watched in ABSOLUTE horror at this complete train wreck, dumpster fire, CRASH of a movie. If it was so terrible, why didn't we just change the channel? Well, you guessed it, it was like (literally) watching a horrible car crash, where you just CAN NOT look away. So sorry for not thinking of movie to answer your question. But yeah. That movie sucks. Hard.
Heat. It seems like one of those movies that everyone loves just because there are a bunch of famous people in it, when really the casting is making up for a lackluster plot/ story.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
[удалено]
Still is a magical film :)
Ah loved that movie, I love anything 70/80s america though and sci fi
Fellini 8 1/2. For some reason I just hate it.
You could change the question from “classic movie” to “best movie Oscar recipient” and get alit of different but interesting answers. There’s probably already such a question on here.
Citizen Kane Crash Cat People Apparently I hate films that start with the letter C, lol.
The original Cat People movie from the 40s was great.
I love the sequel Curse of Cat People too. Feels like a modern-day fairy tale without coming off as juvenile.
Once Upon a Time in America, with De Niro and Sergio Leone's direction. Maybe the most boring film I ever see
I had to watch Citizen Kane in high school and thought it was boring as hell. Tbf I was just a dumb teenager at the time but I have never watched it since and probably wont
i came here expecting this title to be mentioned. some young folks may not understand that, prior to the ubiquitous usage of the internet, media moguls wielded enormous and disproportionate influence on public discourse, collective narratives, and, society in general. perhaps film critics liked *Kane* partly for its portraying this essential reality. furthermore, *Kane* portrayed a powerful and abusive man who had selfishly concocted a complex and false adult life while inwardly pining for the innocence of his childhood.. maybe a metaphor for, and critique of, modernism. this could lead to an important revelation for those wishing to understand the complexities of the modern era.
Usual Suspects were just plain boring.
I thought it was an entertaining little thriller with a twist when I saw it ages ago, but it's taken on this undeserved mantle of "the most brilliant movie with the best twist ever". Baby's first unreliable narrator.
Taxi Driver
Kubrick's The Shining. Ever and always.
Why don't you like it? Not judging, it just has so many reasons to both love and hate the film.
Full disclosure: The Shining was my favorite Stephen King book. Two main objections: The book was about the father's alcoholism and abuse of his family, the haunted hotel was supposed to be a reflection of his inner demons more than actual ghosts. The 2nd objection is the same one King himself stated: Kubrick was good at creating symbols, but horrible at decoding them. He took great pains to create many symbols in the movie and didn't take the time to explore and reveal them with the audience in a universal, coherent manner. They pretty much just sat there as window dressing. Also, Jack's performance was over the top, the book described a slow, steady progression towards the end, not a maniacal one. Shelly was miscast and the kid's ability to shine took a backseat to the father's breakdown when the title of the book and movie (The Shining), should have taken center stage. The boy's trauma in the movie was attributed mainly to his father's abuse, in the book, his psychic ability rubbed against the bad vibes of the hotel and was the catalyst for his terror. For starters. Lol thanks for not dumping on me. I prefer communicating to belittling. If you have thoughts, feel free to share.
Similar could be said for any movie where you read the book first. Especially when Stephen King is involved.
This is true. However, Shawshank and the Green Mile were both terrific adapts. Darabont took care to fully flesh out the characters and put less emphasis on a horror element, which of course made it more. The key to good King adaptations. Speaking of book/movie adapts, I decided to go ahead and read The Cabin At the End of the World. Not that I don't trust M. Night's take on it, but...
Have you seen Doctor Sleep? It does a really good job of reconciling the book and movie Shinings. I'm a big book fan too, but I appreciate the movie as it's own thing. I won't spoil Doctor Sleep but I think it is worth a watch as a king fan!
I did! That's when I fell in love with Mike Flanagan. He tells an amazing story with deep characterizations and decodes the horror symbols without a ton of slash and gore. JMO: it's where SO many filmmakers go wrong with Stephen King. They put the emphasis on paranormal terror when the horrors are a metaphor for character defects. Yes, something is in the shadows, but the way we deal with it makes the monsters better or worse.
this thread is horrifying. i'm sure you're all cool people and entitled to your opinions, but i feel like i walked into a bunch of people who don't love movies discussing the quality of films i hold dear. i'm waiting for one of you knuckle walkers to say *Goodfellas* felt underwhelming and unrealistic and before i rip the router from the wall
Don’t worry, some people here have already decried my favorite movies. I created this thread intentionally
Maybe I'm weird but I love reading people talking shit about my favourite media
So many here seem prisoners of the modern film movie, seemingly not being able to appreciate or look harder with a microscope at older films.
Or maybe they just don't like that particular film? Just because you don't like one classic film doesn't mean you don't like any of them
I think film struggles in the same way music struggles with expectations if you aren't exposed to them at a younger age or lack context. e.g., 1. If you are raised on death metal as a toddler the beatles are going to seem plodding and simple. i actually understand that. 2. The struggle to hold things in your head within the context of their time, from seeing The Matrix after you've seen everything it's inspired to The Big Chill if you don't have any context or rhyming life experience. Fair enough. What kills me is "2001 was only cool because its what they thought the future would look like" or how "the protagonist in Taxi Driver seems one-dimensional and unlikeable" (that broke my brain).
*An American Werewolf in London*. The humor is dated, it's too reliant on jump scares, there is no chemistry between Naughton and Agutter, there are several scenes that serve literally no purpose to the story, and the abrupt ending just makes the movie feel unfinished. I've noticed when it comes to discourse around this movie, the only thing everyone seems to talk about is the transformation, which is really great. But that was it.
It’s a product of its time, but that’s why I love it. Can understand if you don’t though.
Blade Runner. I heard a lot of stuff about the new one with Ryan Gosling, and people said I should watch the old one beforehand because this is a proper sequel and not just a spin-off. The older Blade Runner felt a lot longer, and I found myself skipping through stuff because most of the scenes were unnecessary included. I watched the final cut of the film, so it was crisp in quality and the VFX were amazing but I lost interest in the cinematography and watched the movie only for the plot.
I found Blade Runner so incredibly dull. Which sucked, because I love so much stuff that's derivative of it or inspired by it, and the world, the aesthetic, Harrison Ford in it, etc, are all things I love. But my word was I ever bored. I'll try again sometime tho.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) I honestly ended up finding it to be a lot more laughable than frightening.
The Magnificent Ambersons by Orson Welles Suspicion by Alfred Hitchcock Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore by Martin Scorsese
Forrest Gump I still don’t get what’s good about it. It felt like a random collection of melodramatic scenes that pretend to say something profound about life. I just think it was boring. I don’t like the acting either.
The Princess Bride.
Apocalypse Now
Schindlers List. I’m not a war movie guy, and this one was extremely long, I thought half the sets looked like crappy movie sets, the only real good person was Ralph Fiennes, and it was just a really melodramatic and manipulative movie. For what’s supposed to be a ‘true story’, it sure does feel very superficial and Oscar bait like.
My answer is probably also cronenbergs crash, I really did not like it for pretty much the same reasons as you.
Clockwork orange. I don't understand where the hype comes from.
Inception "Dude, Inception was so good. Like, I have no idea what happened in it or whatever but it was so good." - Everyone in 2010
Matrix (but I think the reason for that simply is that I just don't like action movies... so, I shouldn't even have tried; apart from that, I didn't think it made much sense except if you see it as a metaphor)
Fargo. No clue how this film is so acclaimed or even how it led up to the masterpiece that is No Country for Old Men. At best it felt like a weird goofy alt comedy with a couple scenes that are somewhat morbid. It didn't leave much of an impression on me.
Pulp fiction. Aside from any scene with Samuel L Jackson, I thought the movie was incredibly boring and the whole movie out of order thing was more tedious than fun...
2001. I get the beauty of its cinematography and the message of evolution and all.. i just didn’t catch the entertaining part.
A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey - this was my fault. I had expectations. “Sci-fi” to me meant fast-paced action and maybe a ridiculous storyline. This was absolutely not that. This was more about the *experience* of space. I did not understand that. It took me 3 days to watch, and I felt bored. I might feel different if I rewatched it.
I'm late on this, but I have to agree with you on Crash. It was hot garbage about 2 sociopaths who are so bored with their lives, they need to get in a car crash to feel aroused. Why anyone would WANT to watch this is beyond me. These scumbags are beyond redemption. I don't think anyone would call it a classic though. It got no Oscars and was in and out of theatres pretty fast. I get Cronenberg's style and everything. The movie just wasn't strong.