Sacred cows

Dudess

The Blade Runner thread and someone mentioning a trend of people starting threads about movies they hear only great things about but didn't see what the fuss was about themselves, inspired me to start a general thread.

Taste and opinion are subjective and just because something is pretty much set in stone as being a masterpiece doesn't mean people have no right to not like it (with the exception of The Godfather ).

Mine is Dr Strangelove. It's clever and original for its time but... meh, I can't warm to it.

Karl Hungus

I think there's certainly no accounting for taste, and people are free to like or dislike what they want, but often a film is regarded as a masterpiece because it's been a landmark that's been highly influential and in some way changed cinema. So it's not just about them being really good films, it's about the impact they've had on film in general, and Blade Runner is a good example of that. A lot of films like Blade Runner, or The Godfather aren't just great films, they're more than that.

Another example would be Night of the Living Dead, it really did change the face of horror for good, and the amount of other films, books, games and so on that that film inspired is impressive to say the least. I'd say a lot of people wouldn't like it, possibly wouldn't even watch it, but that doesn't take away from it being a masterpiece.

Pigman II

Pans Labyrinth. Pretentious rubbish by a fanboys director who will eventually be found out just like the last dork-favourite Peter Jacksons was after King Kong.

Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Decent movie but IMDB top10? It's about 30mins too long and the dub is irriating. If it wasn't for Ennio Moricone and Eli Wallach it would actually be a bad movie.

Apocalypse Now. It has good "moments" but it's not a good movie. Brando sinks the whole project with his arsing around during the final 1/4. It's god awful watching him hamming it up. I felt sorry for Copolla trying to control that freak.

Karl Hungus

I can't decide if you're trolling or not, Pigman. :pac:

Dudess

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I think there's certainly no accounting for taste, and people are free to like or dislike what they want, but often a film is regarded as a masterpiece because it's been a landmark that's been highly influential and in some way changed cinema. So it's not just about them being really good films, it's about the impact they've had on film in general, and Blade Runner is a good example of that. A lot of films like Blade Runner, or The Godfather aren't just great films, they're more than that.

Another example would be Night of the Living Dead, it really did change the face of horror for good, and the amount of other films, books, games and so on that that film inspired is impressive to say the least. I'd say a lot of people wouldn't like it, possibly wouldn't even watch it, but that doesn't take away from it being a masterpiece.

Yes indeed, but dare to say you don't like any of the above films and you'll get lambasted from certain quarters. It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate and understand all of the above yet still not like the particular film(s) in question.

johnny_ultimate

I'd say the Godfather is the one I just didn't 'get' when I watched it, but thats because pop culture is so heavily in debt to it: I had been subjected to hundreds of spoofs and references before getting to watch it, and everyone saying it was a masterpiece.

What really annoys me is when people jump down peoples throat when they criticise one of these 'sacred cows'. As long as there are decent criticisms to be made (not just the "everyone loves this so I'm going to hate it" brigade that comes out everytime something gets praised) no film is sacred. Sometimes you can like a film so much you will defend it to death, but there is always someone who will disagree, and you can't dismiss someones taste (unless Meet the Spartans is involved :pac:).

There are still loads of classics I come across that impress the hell out of me though. Rashomon's complex structure and intelligent story still seem as fresh and unique today (at the time it must have been mindblowing), Sunset Boulevard is still as dark and engrossing as it was in the 50s, and Kubrick's stuff is still as wonderful as it ever was. There are films like this whose influence can still be felt today - and the likes of the Godfather are the same, even if it didn't impress me as much - and they are hugely important films. They advanced narrative structure, visuals, editing and other technical aspects of film-making: who knows what would've happened without Citizen Kane. Without Star Wars, for example, cinema could have gone a different way altogether, and no matter your feelings on it, its still important.

Whatever about liking films (thats up to taste) but there are some that had such an influence on cinema in general that their relevance can't be denied.

Karl Hungus

Dudess wrote: »

Yes indeed, but dare to say you don't like any of the above films and you'll get lambasted from certain quarters. It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate and understand all of the above yet still not like the particular film(s) in question.

Oh certainly, it is reasonable that you can appreciate the importance of a film, but not actually like it. Come to think of it though, I'm not sure there's really any sacred cow that I don't like.

Maybe I'm just strange...

Dudess

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

the "everyone loves this so I'm going to hate it" brigade that comes out everytime something gets praised

Yeah they're equally as annoying as the ones who get all precious about the masterpieces.

speedboatchase

WALL-E was awful IMO, but apparently its the 20th best film of all time (IMDB). And the pomposity of the films fans on the site's board is incredible :rolleyes:

Sandwich

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I can't decide if you're trolling or not, Pigman. :pac:

I doubt he is.

Pan's Labyrinth is a decent movie but only that. A great idea, but not fully carried off.

The Good, The bad, and the Ugly is a fine film. But yes, (just) a little bit long - but i wouldnt criticise it too harshly for that. It has Morricone, and Wallach so no point saying what it would be without them. Superb entertainment, great style, but would agree a bit thin to deserve top 10 movie status.

Never understood Apocalypse Now at all. Were it not for the bru ha ha, it would nver have caught my attention, and after seeing it about 20 years ago I never would have thought about it again.

Dave147

I have never met anyone who didn't like Cinema Paradiso by Guiseppe Tornatore, my favourite film of all time, Morricone's score is absolutely beautiful. The romance is well done, it's very nostalgic and the film just does it for me, especially seeing as I can relate to Toto's situation. The movie just covers so many themes, and so well at that. Opinions anyone?*





*Disagree at your own peril!

irish_bob

Pigman II wrote: »

Pans Labyrinth. Pretentious rubbish by a fanboys director who will eventually be found out just like the last dork-favourite Peter Jacksons was after King Kong.

Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Decent movie but IMDB top10? It's about 30mins too long and the dub is irriating. If it wasn't for Ennio Moricone and Eli Wallach it would actually be a bad movie.

Apocalypse Now. It has good "moments" but it's not a good movie. Brando sinks the whole project with his arsing around during the final 1/4. It's god awful watching him hamming it up. I felt sorry for Copolla trying to control that freak.

agree with some of your post especially about apocolypse now , as for the good the bad and the ugly , ive always thought a few dollars more is a far better film , oh and elli wallach was one of the reasons i disliked the good the bad and the ugly,

loved pans labyrinth and king kong 2005

Paligulus

Dave147 wrote: »

I have never met anyone who didn't like Cinema Paradiso by Guiseppe Tornatore, my favourite film of all time, Morricone's score is absolutely beautiful. The romance is well done, it's very nostalgic and the film just does it for me, especially seeing as I can relate to Toto's situation. The movie just covers so many themes, and so well at that. Opinions anyone?*





*Disagree at your own peril!

I fully agree. I think Cinema Paradiso is unique becase it is as much about the love of Film as anything else, so Film fans will easily identify with it. Some of the happiest days of my childhood were spent in the local Cinema were my Mam and Gran-Aunt worked, so I enjoyed that element of the film.
But it touches on so many other aspects of Film making (Censorship , Editing its relationship with pop coulture..) that it has to touch a nerve with film lovers.

faceman

in my view, a film cant always hold its value through the passage of time. As society, culture and attitudes changes so does opinions and tastes. Also there is nothing worse than over saturation.

To take some classic movies that when watched now carry less value (to modern audiences) due to them setting the benchmark for genres/movies and being over duplicated or homaged to:

Once upon a time in the west
the Dollar Westerns
The Exorcist
Blade Runner
The Godfather (1 and 2)
Alien

Take a film like Taxi Driver. A 20 something year old watching it now, what would they see in it? Certainly in Ireland, the socio status for many citizens rose with the celtic tiger. Is it possible to empathise with Travis?

Look at the popular epic religious movies of yester-year. As soon as the 60's hit, they died a death in popularity as people became less religious and more hippy!

TheIrishGrover

faceman wrote: »

To take some classic movies that when watched now carry less value (to modern audiences) due to them setting the benchmark for genres/movies and being over duplicated or homaged to:

Once upon a time in the west
the Dollar Westerns
The Exorcist
Blade Runner
The Godfather (1 and 2)
Alien

Unfortunately I have to agree with you faceman. Especially with Blade Runner and Alien. They defined a particular look that has been replicated, with various degrees of success, across all kinds of media: Everything from Pitch Black to (shudder) Spice Girls videos. I LOVE BR and Alien and all the films you have mentioned but, having recently shown BR to my niece, it's a pity having to explain how breakthrough it was at the time and, to her, it now looks like a kind of poor man's, pre CGI version of any sci-fi film that has ANY kind of urban element.

Godfather 1&2 and Cinema Paradiso I love (But don't watch the director's cut. I thought it ruined it) but there are certainly films out there that need to be taken down a peg or two.

Forrest Gump, in my opinion, is one of the NASTIEST films out there. Looks prety and technically brilliant for the time but the underlying message: Don't think too hard, follow orders and you'll live the American Dream. But if you rebel you'll get AIDS and die!!!!

Dave147

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Unfortunately I have to agree with you faceman. Especially with Blade Runner and Alien. They defined a particular look that has been replicated, with various degrees of success, across all kinds of media: Everything from Pitch Black to (shudder) Spice Girls videos. I LOVE BR and Alien and all the films you have mentioned but, having recently shown BR to my niece, it's a pity having to explain how breakthrough it was at the time and, to her, it now looks like a kind of poor man's, pre CGI version of any sci-fi film that has ANY kind of urban element.

Godfather 1&2 and Cinema Paradiso I love (But don't watch the director's cut. I thought it ruined it) but there are certainly films out there that need to be taken down a peg or two.

Forrest Gump, in my opinion, is one of the NASTIEST films out there. Looks prety and technically brilliant for the time but the underlying message: Don't think too hard, follow orders and you'll live the American Dream. But if you rebel you'll get AIDS and die!!!!

Yeah I agree there, I watched the directors cut, I think it was just for people who needed some sort of happy ending.

TygerKrash

Interesting to see Apocalypse Now take a couple of hits here. I'd have to go along with that too. I think facemans right, it was a movie of its time and just doesn't have the same impact on society it once did. I think there a couple of things that 'artificially' boost its standing: It's literary roots and the stories surrounding the infamous shoot itself, heck theres another movie just about that.

how about 2001. I've tried to watch it and love it, but for me its got so much that lets it down. There are some great moments but If It was on telly I'd skip over it. y'know?

Karl Hungus

You know, I wouldn't really agree with Faceman completely. I'm sure there's plenty of people who just wouldn't be impressed with the films mentioned, but that could be as much to do with today's audiences as anything. I mean, there are people who actually pay money to see films like Meet The Spartans, and I don't think that kind of audience would really appreciate Once Upon A Time In The West, so it's not the film's fault, or that it dated badly.

A great film can be a great film regardless of it's time, as long as the person watching it can appreciate it. For example, I've only seen 12 Angry Men for the first time relatively recently, and I was absolutely amazed by it.

CraggyIslander

Karl Hungus wrote: »

A great film can be a great film regardless of it's time, as long as the person watching it can appreciate it. For example, I've only seen 12 Angry Men for the first time relatively recently, and I was absolutely amazed by it.

One of my all time favourites and one of the few that I'd recommend to anyone. The others being: Cool Hand Luke and Treasure of Sierra Madre (to lesser extent)

Love bladerunner and Apocalypse Now, but they're not for everyone...... same as me being a big sci-fi head (with Philip K Dick, Asimov and Vonnegut as firm fav authors) I never 'got' star trek...... maybe I'm just weird

Forrest gimp is one I hope to never see again, it can sink with the Titanic!

Galvasean

Dave147 wrote: »

I have never met anyone who didn't like Cinema Paradiso by Guiseppe Tornatore,

I think you'll find joe so in the street has never heard of Cinema Paradiso. Let's be honest it is a bit niche. I'd say there are a lot of people* who would hate it.
*I'm not one of them.


Although I agree opinions vary and everyone is entitled to an opinion... give Jurassic Park a 1/10 review and I will fight you. :pac:

constitutionus

2001 a space odyssey.

bores me to tears just thinking about it. havent seen the godfather and TBH dont intend to. just not my kind of film. ditto for taxi driver, and while i have seen most of it i just find it nasty.

ANY woody allen film. i just dont get the guy or like him for that matter.

this is an interesting idea for a thread though. i think alot of people think the emperor has no clothes with alot of sacred cows but dont feel comfortable coming out and saying it.

heat for instance has people raving about it. the same with ronin. both were average in my eyes and if im honest i'd rather watch one of the bourne films. i guess alot of its coloured by peoples own personal tastes and associations with certain actors

well that and theres pricks that like to get up on their high horse about anyting

Dudess

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Once Upon A Time In The West... 12 Angry Men

Love those two films so much - Henry Fonda was awesome. Have you seen The Grapes of Wrath?

constitutionus wrote: »

havent seen the godfather and TBH dont intend to. just not my kind of film

I would strongly urge you to. Not dissing you but it's one thing to find a seemingly untouchable movie no great shakes when you've watched it, but to make up your mind before watching it? No guarantee you'd like The Godfather at all... but it's AMAZING! Watch it! And part II!

I was hugely interested in censored/banned movies and did a college presentation etc on this topic, heavily featuring Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. So when I finally got to see them, I was quite disappointed... Not bad by any stretch, and I appreciate the profound impact they would have had at the time, but definitely not the awesome cinematic experience I was expecting...

Actually a film which has similar themes to each of the above and doesn't garner a fraction as much acclaim is Ingmar Bergman's Jungfrukällan (The Virgin Spring, 1960) on which Last House On The Left is based... astonishing.

Galvasean

While we're all confessing, watched the first 40 minutes of the Godfather. Just didn't grab me..

Killme00

Dudess wrote: »

I was hugely interested in censored/banned movies and did a college presentation etc on this topic, heavily featuring Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. So when I finally got to see them, I was quite disappointed... Not bad by any stretch, and I appreciate the profound impact they would have had at the time, but definitely not the awesome cinematic experience I was expecting....

+1,000,000 You hear so much about them that when you eventually see them they can be nothing but a disapointment.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Another example would be Night of the Living Dead, it really did change the face of horror for good, and the amount of other films, books, games and so on that that film inspired is impressive to say the least. I'd say a lot of people wouldn't like it, possibly wouldn't even watch it, but that doesn't take away from it being a masterpiece.

Romero was inspired after reading I am Legend. Why oh why didnt he make that a film too, and then we would have 5 or 6 bad versions.

For me, one of the greatest films ever made would be Raging Bull. It really has stood the test of time.

Also, i hated Once upon a time in America. Its like Sergio Leones bastard child that he would not kill.

The only original films we are seeing these days are coming from the east.

Canis Lupus

Can only think of two already mentioned in here. (Well three)

Blade Runner

Apocalypse Now: heard so much about it and how amazing it was, watched it in disbelief cos it's muck. I couldn't help think my mates liked it because it was supposed to be cool....

Not particularly vehement on this one but A Clockwork Orange. Another pile of weird shyte. The things some people rave about amaze me.

Oh, I got another that'll probably be burned down.

The Shining: Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnathon

faceman

I agree with Dudess and Karl about Fonda, he was an outstanding actor. His versatility was second to none.

Just another comment on Taxi Driver to demonstrate how society changes. I remember from my days in Film School and how Taxi Driver was always the focal point on topics surrounding cathartic scenes for its infamous ending. The 80's brought with it a stream of shlock movies and eventually Tarantino and Roth brought it to the mainstream. The net result is that Taxi Driver's cathartic ending seems watered down and could appear to lose the true impact of the ending.

By the way, Canis Lupus, its ok not to like a Clockword Orange. It was film sold on its controversy. (Kubrick wrote to the censors asking them to ban it after he made it!) It wasnt a great film then and it isnt a great film now!

jim o doom

heh I loved most of the ones peolpe here have mentionned - especially a clockwork orange - I liked it because of the bizzarre(ness?) the slang, the whole crazy "future" that was invented - not because it had been banned at some stage. One flew over the cuckoo's nest - I don't know if it's regarded as being one of those ultra classics - but it utterly blew me away when I saw it..
Excepting for the Godfather which I haven't managed to see yet (I am planning on it, just trying to not let it get too built up in my mind so I don't ruin the experience) - a lot of the old asian classics are great too - rashomon was mentionned, there's also the seven samurai - animal, but a but of a bum number.
I know it's a ridiculous 80's black comedy, but I saw "The war of the roses" for the first time there a few months ago - also excellent
auld munchkin man devito sure does the shiny "doe-eyes" look a lot when he's being "sincere" doesn't he
still if someone doesn't like a movie, or a song or anything based on taste - there really is no point arguing with them because it's all subjective!

The Denouncer

Who appointed these movies sacred cows anyway, is there a list of sacred cows out there? Who says Blade Runner is a sacred cow? It barely made its money back on release but I loved it when I saw it in the mid-eighties, I didn't think "Ah heres a sacred cow now I'm gonna like it". I loved Brazil too. I would never have considered A Clockwork Orange a sacred cow, whatever that is. I don't think Kubrick did either. I like its weirdness though.
Apocalypse Now a sacred cow? Well there's a sacred cow in it anyway. Is this just movies in IMDbs top ten or what? Is The Dark Knight now a sacred cow? Or bat?

Gunther_Gloop

Some of my favourite movies of all time have been dissed here, but that's ok. I didn't like many of them first (or even second) time around either.

I must have seen Apocalypse Now at least 10 times before I began to enjoy it -but that might have had something to do with the (bad) quality of the pirate vhs tape I was viewing it on at the time.

So many of these movies are just nothing like what they're intended to be without being seen as "the director intended". You need a big screen, volume to the max, no distractions, no interruptions. You can't talk. And you must actually engage the brain.

I don't say that to insult anyone, but most movies nowadays spoon-feed the audience in ways that are insulting to anyone who is actually actively thinking. I don't dislike all "brainless" movies, but nowadays it's seen as a compliment to say "leave the brain at the door". The inverse is also true... movies that require some thought are quickly slammed for no reason other than "they're too much effort -clearly crap!"

In my opinion, Stanley Kubrick has never made a movie that was anything less than *PERFECT*. You can watch and re-watch all of his movies (post Spartacus at least -which doesn't count anyway) and find new & exciting things every time. Often, they are [completely different movies depending on your own mood and attention. You get out what you put in -tenfold. Twentyfold! Believe me they are worth the effort.

That said, I've seen Blade Runner in many guises, many, many, many times and I can't honestly say I ever liked it. In fact, I've come to believe that myself and Ridley Scott just don't get on. I acknowledge that many others love most of his movies, so he must be doing something right, but to me they're humourless, almost-schoolboylike, plodding attempts at pretentiousness. They're not good enough or ambitious enough to be pretentious and not bad enough to be garbage. I can see why Ridley and Russell Crowe get on so well, because to me they embody the same characteristics.

I'll have to watch Cinema Paradiso again soon. To be honest it didn't do much for me the first -or second- time I saw it, but that was over 10 years ago and I'm ready, willing and able to prove myself wrong.

TheIrishGrover

a Clockwork Orange and 2001 mentioned so often. I idd enjoy the technical side of 2001 (Esp the jogging scene) but, on the whole, I find Kubrick to be very cold (Not as cold as he is NOW mind you. ). Watched A Clockwork Orange and just was a bit underwhelmed. Sure, it had it's moments but, let's face it, a hell of a lot of good films came out of that era.

Look at The Matrix. A "Modern Classic" (I love it but it seems to come with that tag now for better or worse) How long before it becomes a bit of a twee embarassment stylistically. How many variations of bullet-time did we see within 1 year of it coming out.

As for Heat and Ronin as somebody mentioned above: Heat didn't really do it for me the first time I saw it but, over time I grew to really appreciate it(Think there was too much focus on Pacino/De Niro face off at the time and not enough attention drawn to the fantastic "secondary" characters). and I just plain don't like Ronin apart from the amazingly brutal car chases

Dudess

The Denouncer wrote: »

Who appointed these movies sacred cows anyway, is there a list of sacred cows out there? Who says Blade Runner is a sacred cow? It barely made its money back on release but I loved it when I saw it in the mid-eighties, I didn't think "Ah heres a sacred cow now I'm gonna like it". I loved Brazil too. I would never have considered A Clockwork Orange a sacred cow, whatever that is. I don't think Kubrick did either. I like its weirdness though.
Apocalypse Now a sacred cow? Well there's a sacred cow in it anyway. Is this just movies in IMDbs top ten or what? Is The Dark Knight now a sacred cow? Or bat?

Well there is a canon of movies that just seem to be untouchable in terms of criticism and you're not a real movie fan if you don't like them etc - not so much their commercial success or lack thereof.

The Denouncer

Dudess wrote: »

Well there is a canon of movies that just seem to be untouchable in terms of criticism and you're not a real movie fan if you don't like them etc - not so much their commercial success or lack thereof.

Yes well i don't subscribe to this mentality, I watch a film and if I like it I don't care. I don't liker Heat but I like Taxi Driver, so what. I ain't gonna have my mind changed because some arty-farty-lets-get-sarky type tries to insist I should like it because its a classic of modern cinema in the eyes of the world, be it Citizen Kane or *yawn* Solaris.

Dudess

That's exactly the point of this thread - tell us what seemingly unquestionable greats you DON'T like...

The Denouncer

Dudess wrote: »

That's exactly the point of this thread - tell us what seemingly unquestionable greats you DON'T like...

I know what the point of the thread is but I don't know what makes one film become a member of the sacred cow club. For example the oft-mentioned Blade Runner..I would never have considered that a classic movie, but a classic sci-fi vision. There's no denying thats its look and feel has been ripped off so much since 1982 that its impact has been lessened, and the fact that most people have never seen it on the big screen..well now, that's a whole different ball game. I know you can say that for a lot of movies but Blade Runner is a cinematic marvel beyond reproach. But that doesn't make it a sacred cow. i think most of the sacred cows are the older movies again, the likes of Casablanca, Gone with the Wind and Singin' in the Rain etc.

Canis Lupus

The Denouncer wrote: »

I know what the point of the thread is but I don't know what makes one film become a member of the sacred cow club. For example the oft-mentioned Blade Runner..I would never have considered that a classic movie, but a classic sci-fi vision. There's no denying thats its look and feel has been ripped off so much since 1982 that its impact has been lessened, and the fact that most people have never seen it on the big screen..well now, that's a whole different ball game. I know you can say that for a lot of movies but Blade Runner is a cinematic marvel beyond reproach. But that doesn't make it a sacred cow. i think most of the sacred cows are the older movies again, the likes of Casablanca, Gone with the Wind and Singin' in the Rain etc.

You're taking this thread a bit too seriously.

Just throw up a movie that loads of people like and say why you don't like it

Earthhorse

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I think there's certainly no accounting for taste, and people are free to like or dislike what they want, but often a film is regarded as a masterpiece because it's been a landmark that's been highly influential and in some way changed cinema. So it's not just about them being really good films, it's about the impact they've had on film in general, and Blade Runner is a good example of that. A lot of films like Blade Runner, or The Godfather aren't just great films, they're more than that.

Sure, and I can appreciate that, like I can appreciate that JRR Tolkien invented a genre a fiction, but without actually enjoying the works themselves. I realise that's been covered already but I think it's true to say most of the criticism sacred cows come in for is in the enjoyment stakes; no one doubts their influence or technical achievements.

Gunther_Gloop wrote: »

So many of these movies are just nothing like what they're intended to be without being seen as "the director intended". You need a big screen, volume to the max, no distractions, no interruptions. You can't talk. And you must actually engage the brain.

Actually, I think there's a lot to be said for watching films the way they were meant to be watched. Eddie Izzard took on the role of Charlie Chaplin in The Cat's Meow and admitted that beforehand he had never really understood the appeal, having seen some of Chaplin's films on TV. Before shooting began he went to a Chaplin festival where they were showing his films along with having a pianist accompany them and all of a sudden it clicked.

Gunther_Gloop wrote: »

That said, I've seen Blade Runner in many guises, many, many, many times and I can't honestly say I ever liked it. In fact, I've come to believe that myself and Ridley Scott just don't get on. I acknowledge that many others love most of his movies, so he must be doing something right, but to me they're humourless, almost-schoolboylike, plodding attempts at pretentiousness. They're not good enough or ambitious enough to be pretentious and not bad enough to be garbage. I can see why Ridley and Russell Crowe get on so well, because to me they embody the same characteristics.

Absolutely agree with you on Scott. When I find out he's attached to a project I almost always lose interest. Can't see the appeal at all.

This is going to sound ultra dismissive of me but I have to say I find most films, including sacred cows, in the mobster genre and, to a lesser extent, the western and war genres, are terminally dull, over-rated and their appeal is based largely on the cache of the genre concerned i.e. the appeal of being a mobster, someone who plays by their own rules, living in a lawless society, the romance of war etc. Very often, when you scratch the surface of these films you'll find there's little substance underneath.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Maybe I'm just strange...

Well, yes, but not for that reason.

The Denouncer

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You're taking this thread a bit too seriously.

Just throw up a movie that loads of people like and say why you don't like it

So its basically a "Films everyone loves that you hate" thread. No its a classier version of one of those.
Hmph I don't know Doctor Strangelove is OK I suppose..Kubricks cold visions..Psycho isn't amazing by todays standard but like everything else you have you put yourself in the shoes of first time viewers, which ain't easy. Hmph Citizen Kane never appealed to me. Wasn't mad about The Wild Bunch I expected to love it. Not crazy about those weird zombie movies either, never saw the appeal, or those chop-socky films.

Galvasean

The Denouncer wrote: »

So its basically a "Films everyone loves that you hate" thread. No its a classier version of one of those.
Hmph I don't know Doctor Strangelove is OK I suppose..Kubricks cold visions..Psycho isn't amazing by todays standard but like everything else you have you put yourself in the shoes of first time viewers, which ain't easy. Hmph Citizen Kane never appealed to me. Wasn't mad about The Wild Bunch I expected to love it. Not crazy about those weird zombie movies either, never saw the appeal, or those chop-socky films.

That's the spirit!

johnny_ultimate

Gunther_Gloop wrote: »

So many of these movies are just nothing like what they're intended to be without being seen as "the director intended". You need a big screen, volume to the max, no distractions, no interruptions. You can't talk. And you must actually engage the brain.

Good point. I find watching films on a couch, no matter how good the set up, is still a poor substitute. The longer the film, the worse it is. I watched 8 1/2 (actually, La Dolce Vita is another film I wouldn't place as highly as others do - I just don't like the tone or pacing) last night, and while I thought it was quite intelligent/scathing with great visuals, I also thought my interest wasn't held over the lengthy running time and got easily distracted. In the cinema theres no distractions. Watching at home theres always something that breaks concentration. There are so many films I'd love to see on the big screen (I've heard the effect of 2001 is many times more impressive) but no luck. DVD is great for ease of access to films, but it'll never be the same, no matter how great the set up is. And the only time talking should be allowed is when you are watching a really, really bad horror / sci-fi / propaganda movie. And we have Mystery Science Theatre to do that for us.

And yeah some films do require second viewings. Dr Strangelove I just didn't get first time around, second watch I was in stitches.

constitutionus

you know its not just limited to cinema. try sayin the sopranos is a load of bollocks and watch the nutters come out of the woodwork.

TBH the whole sacred cow thing to me is just a bunch of elitists pricks trying to boost their egos and self esteem by attacking others.

generally you'll find if someone DOES attack a sacred cow you'll find the usual response is along the lines "your too thick to understand/appreciate it "

god forbid you just think its ****e.

ultimately what makes a sacred cow is time and "the right people" talking it up. kinda like the booker prize idiots. i mean lets be honest. do you REALLY want to hang around with people like that? i LIKE films, theyre not my life ! and the notion of watching a film i dont like 10 times to "get it" is frankly nuts. its not beer !

(oh and dudess, i tried, i REALLY did try to watch the godfather. but i just couldnt handle more than 20mins of it, painfully dull stuff. has about as much appeal to me as one of those jayne austin movies )

anonymous_joe

I love Apocalypse Now. Really think it's a great film. I liked Heart of Darkness too.

I'd mention Blade Runner. I enjoyed it a lot, and it has some moments of magic, but it's been aped so many times it's impact is lost. That and the confusion over the ending. (Different versions and all that.)

I love Cinema Paradiso, was made watch in school, and glad of that.

One I've never liked that much is Goodfella's. I really think it's overrated.