The "Boring" defence

johnny_ultimate

Came up in the No Country for Old Men thread, and thought it was an interesting one.

Can a film be completely dismissed due to it simply being boring? Lots of people hated the new Coens Brother's film, with said adjective being their sole arguement. As much as I loved that film though, I can kind of see where they are coming from.

Recently, I found the Assassination of Jessie James technically accomplished and well acted, but found the storyline to give me a temporary reprieve from Insomnia, It is a film that was boring enough to criticise strongly. Yet I was so bored by the Death of Mr Lazeracu that I fell asleep during it, and when I awoke nothing had really happened aside from another test or two. But.. I still liked the film. The point was to be realistic, and reality isn't always adrenaline soaked.

So.. any films you would dismiss as boring despite other qualities? Or any in which you would consider aching dullness a more minor flaw?

Karl Hungus

I don't think it's a very valid criticism. Maybe if someone was to say a film moved too slowly for their tastes, I can see where they're coming from. But that's probably just me being anal.

Running Bing

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I don't think it's a very valid criticism. Maybe if someone was to say a film moved too slowly for their tastes, I can see where they're coming from. But that's probably just me being anal.

I find many films "boring" in parts but overall I find them incredibly worthwhile experiences.


I found Begrmans "Hour of the wolf" boring at times but I am blody glad I seen it and I will watch it again.

Once upon a time in the west is another film that is very close to my heart but I was not riveted for the 175 minute run time.


There a loads of other examples that I cant think of off the top of my head but I do notice that older movies are more slower paced and more prone to being "boring" than modern ones. One of my pet peeves thoough is a long film that didnt need to be long. I didnt need to spend 160 minutes watching the good shepherd or Munich and do films like ratatouille need to be two hours long? C'mon for fvck sake, I feel genuinely reliveed when I see a run time of 90 minutes.


A lot of it depends what you want to get from a film though. If film is nothing but entertainment to you why would you bother watching something you found boring?

P.S. I dodnt find NCFOM boring at all. Another film that never bores me is citizen Kane which is routinely singled out for being boring? I

Smegball

Tbh I found most of No County For Old Men to be extremely boring! Acting was pretty good but I just wasn't interested, was too "slow moving" or boring, whichever way you want to put it.

Jack B. Badd

I think the "boring" defence only really falls down (at least in my eyes) if the poster/reviewer can't or won't back up why they found a particular film boring. The same could be said when someone says a film is great and just leave it at that. That said, I'm one of those film fans who disects every film I watch and I consider such behaviour to contribute to my appreciation of film both specifically and in general. Nonetheless, I've come across some films that don't engage my attention but I can compile a list of reasons as to why. I don't consider a one-word description to be sufficient regardless of the word in question.

Babybing wrote: »

A lot of it depends what you want to get from a film though. If film is nothing but entertainment to you why would you bother watching something you found boring?

I do agree with this alright. I think it was Victor that mentioned about people getting annoyed about going to see a film when what they wanted a movie. I definitely agree with there being a distinction between films and movies. Movies are a dime a dozen because production companies pander to most cinema goers who aren't fans of film. Doesn't make them any less "boring" though :rolleyes:

Fysh

I think it comes down to what people look for in film, and what they're prepared to accept if confronted with the unexpected.

For folk who want to be entertained, there are lots of films that probably aren't really suitable. But entertainment alone is a small part of the range of possibilities offered by film, and I don't think that "insufficiently entertaining" is by itself a valid criticism of a film.

Now, it's worth noting that I don't automatically rate films down if they are intended as entertainment. The likes of Crank show just how brilliant and accomplished a piece of entertainment can be made by a director armed with a decent script and a good knowledge of cinematic devices. But a film industry dedicated only to making entertaining films would be impoverished; films like No Country For Old Men, Eraserhead, Spring Summer Autumn Winter ...And Spring, Visitor Q, Santa Sangre probably wouldn't have been made, and they're all very rewarding if strange films.

On a tangentially related note, I'm inclined to think that the people who come out with "it's boring" as a dismissal of films they don't like and refuse to elaborate are people who don't enjoy film so much as they enjoy going to the movies. And, before I get accused of being a snobby ponce or whatever, I don't mean that in a dismissive or rude way. I've found people who are genuinely interested in cinema spend just as much time dissecting films they haven't enjoyed as they do films they've adored; thus I can only assume that people who won't elaborate on why they disliked a film beyond "it was boring" are those who don't really want much other than entertainment from films.

L31mr0d

Fysh wrote: »

On a tangentially related note, I'm inclined to think that the people who come out with "it's boring" as a dismissal of films they don't like and refuse to elaborate are people who don't enjoy film so much as they enjoy going to the movies. And, before I get accused of being a snobby ponce or whatever, I don't mean that in a dismissive or rude way. I've found people who are genuinely interested in cinema spend just as much time dissecting films they haven't enjoyed as they do films they've adored; thus I can only assume that people who won't elaborate on why they disliked a film beyond "it was boring" are those who don't really want much other than entertainment from films.

I'd tend to agree with this. I'd actually talk more so about a bad movie than a good one. Although in saying that there have been a few movies where I was so bored I nodded off for a minute, off the top of my head the 2 I can remember are "Batman & Robin" and "The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle". Although i'd never say I was bored, more that the movie was soporific

ztoical

Fysh wrote: »

On a tangentially related note, I'm inclined to think that the people who come out with "it's boring" as a dismissal of films they don't like and refuse to elaborate are people who don't enjoy film so much as they enjoy going to the movies. And, before I get accused of being a snobby ponce or whatever, I don't mean that in a dismissive or rude way. I've found people who are genuinely interested in cinema spend just as much time dissecting films they haven't enjoyed as they do films they've adored; thus I can only assume that people who won't elaborate on why they disliked a film beyond "it was boring" are those who don't really want much other than entertainment from films.

+1 I hate when people won't expend any further then "it's boring" The only film I can remember describing as boring was Metro with Eddie Murphy - I honestly couldn't come up with anything more then "its boring".

I actually find alot of action movies and face paced films boring as they tend to be devoid of decent camera work/lightening/set design or anything else that can make a film interesting to look at even if the story is dull. And films that rely to much on the big twist can be painful if you figure out the twist early on and the film has nothing else going for it. The 6th sense gets away with cus

pretty sure everyone knows but just to be safe - when you figure out Willis is dead you can at least enjoy how they set up the shots so it looks like he's taking to the mother or the princple but he's not

With M. Night Shyamalan's other films I found once you knew what was going on there wasn't anything else in the film to make up for that and they're certainly not films worth repeat viewing [The Village being the one that annoyed me alot]