Movies you wish you could appreciate, but ultimately cannot - Page 2

Once again proving the points about elitists. Nobody has to fucking like it! It's a fucking opinion!

There is no "point" about "elitists". Irrespective of eveyone being entitled to their own opinion, there are those who are so insecure with, or unable to quantify, their own knee jerk opinions, that anyone who queries an explanation beyond "it's boring", or my personal favourite "I respect that it's a classic but I dont like it" is branded an "elitist". Those opinions are illogical. For instance, if it amazes you on a technical and artistic level, how does it bore you ? That makes no sense and I would sumbit is merely a cover-up to make you feel less insecure about not fully understanding the picture and what it represents beyond mere base entertainment.

Tellingly, it's always (and usually only) the ones with the worst tastes/judgement in film that use the term "elitist". And yes, that is something very quatifiable. Not getting the hype over the heavily stylised The Man Who Wasn't There or Donnie Darko is one thing, but if someone runs off a list of picture that includes 2001, Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, Rebel Without A Cause and Raging Bull and calls them boring (rather than, say, questioning their moral ambivilence, their eccentricites, their nihilistic visions, their naive politics/prognostications - you know, intelligent criticism) they have extremely poor judgement in regards to cinema as a form and should probably stick to E! polls or Imdb.

Like I say, these threads are the worst. So I won't ruin you tireless retreading any longer. Have at it.

Edited to fix tense agreement issue.

The problem with this thread is that there's a huge difference between liking something and appreciating it. You don't have to like a movie like 2001, lord knows I don't. But if you can't appreciate it as cinema, then your taste is suspect.

Indeed... opinions are like assholes, and some are kinder to dicks than others. Something has to account for good taste.

The problem is though (and this is really a jab at getting any kind of intelligent dialogue going), people are too willing to say "hey I aappreciate that it's classic n all..." merely as a get out clause when they find a towering achievement in visual arts "boring".

There are many questionable opinions in the world, Not right, nor wrong. But there are also a number of opinions that are plainly, irefutably wrong: Black people are inferior to white; You can breathe unaided in water; Mozart couldn't write a tune to save his life; Citizen Kane/2001/Gone With the Wind are boring.

Simply put, if you don't appreciate them and all their abundant riches, I'd submit that it isn't the picture that is the "boring" element in the equation.

Maybe people can appreciate that a film is a classic but they still don't like it. the problem comes when they use that as an excuse to dismiss it, rather than wondering why there is this disconnect. the problem, as strax points out, may well be with them instead of the movie.
'it doesn't speak to me, threfore it has no value' is a quite extraordinarily arrogant position to take.

Opinions are the very shallowest, knee-jerk form of expression and every one does indeed have them. the problem comes when people want their opinions to have the same weight as other's well thought out and considered judgements.
opinions can not be argued with. they are like grunting and hooting. judgements can be argued with and disagreed with while still being respected.
Even on a messageboard is is quite easy to tell the difference.

of course, expressing opinions can be a social exercise in finding like-minds and so building relationships and community (rather than an actual contentful discussion) but if the expressions are all negative and hateful (and it's interesting that a lot of the hate for a movie is often directed at the people who like it rather than at the film itself) then, really, what's the point? it is nothing i want to be associated with.

I'm just agreeing with Strax here, as it can sometimes feel like you are shouting into the wind.

I imagine all the finest arbiters of "tastes/judgement in film" have the creative talent behind Hellraiser 3 and Steven Seagal's newest DTV right there in their username.

look, it's really very simple. there's no need to claim great or even good taste. just like what you like, don't like what you don't like, and make no apologies whatsoever to tossers who try and call you on it.

The only film I can think of that this has recently happened with me was Hero. I enjoyed the cinematography, but I could not connect to any of the characters on an emotional level. I found myself not being emotionally moved by what I was seeing on the screen because of it. I really enjoyed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and I think looking back it was because they took a little bit of time to develop the characters to the point where you believed their relationships with one another. That scene with Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yung Fat in the gazeebo where they are just talking was amazing, this intimate little moment that two people who have been friends on the verge of something more would and could believeably share in real life. Things like this were completely abscent for me in Hero, and it made it less of a movie for me.

But talking with other people who saw it, they all say it was one of the best released last year. We argued quite a bit as to why they thought that and ended up agreeing to disagree.

As for the rest of you, some of the movies you are listing baffle me and I would love to hear what Strax is suggesting from you, which would be a critical thought or two as to why you think the way you do about argueably some of the best films ever made.

So what are you saying ? I'm a tosser for loving ripe old classics and ridiculing those who don;t. Or am I a tosser for liking Anthony Hickox pictures which have little to offer those an unforgiving disposition ? Because those are two pretty conflicting low blows. Which only render Andrew's comment the problem of weighting of judgement and considered arguments quite true. You jab at me rather than bolster a pposition on film. For what ? I'm quite happy spilling appreciation for exploitation, DTV, arthouse and Golden age - why that kind of thing would be considered insulting is another fine mystery of message boards that could to be explored had one the inclination.

Some think a film sucks ? I think their judgement sucks. Difference is, there's some real evidence to back my assertions up.

Open-mindedness and willing to look beneath surface "opinion" is the true test of a judgement's worth. And every time this thread comes up, the same tired bleating provokes the same ire which provokes the same petty jibes which just goes to show it's movies that matter. More than most think.

Yes! i actually agree with this! expressing opinions can be good and healthy. As long as you never speak about anybody else's opinion including film-makers and those that like thier movies (see most of this thread), expect to have an intelligent debate or learn anything. ever.

As for Hero. It is very dry. i think it is because the characters are expressions of philosophical ideas rather than people. the different versions of the story reflect the three stages of the warrior that the emperor expresses right at the end. the reason why Jet li tells the story the way he does is to get the emperor to go on the journey from the first stage to the final stage. Jet's true intentions were for the emperor to reach that final stage of wisdom rather than to assassinate him and the only way he could do it was to tell stories. so the characters are just ciphers for ideas, which can make the film seem a bit distant.

anyway, that's my take on it, unless someone wants to show me how i'm wrong.

So it's fine to find the film a bit lacking in emotion because, well, it is. the characters, as portrayed, are not real people. I think having characters you give a shit about is important to a film, no matter how intellectual the motives of the film are.

I will go on record as saying that I do not "get" 2001, and that as a story, I think it's pretty dull. So when I say I don't like it as a movie, that's why. However, I like it very much for the technical aspects of filmmaking displayed within it. I just.. really have to force myself to watch it.

Of course opinion will come into a thread like this, but the thread title itself and the first post implied to me that some backing up of said opinions would be a good thing to do. You don't have to write a 3000 page essay as to why you dislike/don't get the love for 'film X', but most of you should be able to write more than what you have been writing.

I never really thought of the film in this way. I think I will rent it this week and try to view it using this cypher, as that description of the film interests me. I don't have a great enough memory to validate or invalidate it though (hence the need for rental action)! Thanks Andrew!

You will tell me if i'm wrong, Mike? I've only seen it once. it's in my rental queue.

Helix: "Dull" is so much better a criticism than "boring". The former implies an engagement with and critique of what's going on onscreen. The latter really comments on nothing except the reaction that that onscreen action instills in the viewer. It also implies that it must instill that reaction in all viewers - as a film it's primary action is that is "bores". Bores who ? It's wrong and it's lazy.

As an aside, would reading the novel help me to better understand the narrative of 2001?

Pretty much. Although it's less a novel and more Clarke's take on the same situation in book form - as opposed to Kubrick's in film form. It mightn't liven the picture up for you (though brilliant, it's a slow, infuriating and deliberate picture for a (Kubrick's) reason) but it makes plainer certain things which are slightly obscure and oblique on screen.

Helix/Mike/Giles/Trin have made great points.

It's like me and PULP FICTION really. I've never really liked it a great deal, and I never enjoyed it that much. However, I know enough to know it's a really fucking good picture.

I agree with Charles. It's my least favourite Tarantino and I feel it's dated the worst of his pictures. For me it's too willfully hip, self conscious, posturing and false. But it's also the trailblazing, behemoth of indie-spirited talent, creativity and sheer technical filmmaking prowess it's reputation will mark it as throughout cinema history. It's great cinema, if not something I repeat with any consistency other than to marvel at on a purely scene by scene basis at the guy's balls.

Also, Tokyo Story which while somewhat riviting and hypnotic, is infuriatingly (and purposefully) glacial in pace. It doesn't mean it's an easy watch. It's transandental cinema and that kind of cinema doesn't engage you, but rather asks you to engage with it. Almost brutally. It's not an experience I particularly enjoyed, but it's something that's stayed with me and who's cummulative effect has moved me, long after I left the screening. Much like some people and 2001 I suspect.

(edited so Dev's comment really makes me gayer)

I knew you marvelled at balls, you ponce.

I'm British.

hehehe, well, I don't know if I will be able to say your opinion is wrong or not, I think that will involve doing some research outside of just seeing the film. It's just that your view really interests me, and even though it's been a year since I've seen the flick something is stirring in the back of my mind which is screaming out "Hey, maybe I missed something!"

To risk going against the point of this thread a little bit, another film that I just saw last week where I can't 100% understand the unbridled love for was Kung Fu Hustle. The tone in that film was very uneven to me, but I confess this was the first Stephen Chow film I've ever seen, and this may be par for the course for how he likes to tell stories. The first 15 mins I am thinking this is a slick little gangster/mob revenge flick (what with axe VS leg action and cold-blooded girlfriend killing), then some of the comedic elements come in and I am thinking "Ok, cool, they aren't taking themselves very seriously and this could be really refreshing", then some of the really outlandish elements come in (the bionic landlady) and now I am all messed up not knowing what to think about the film. I enjoyed watching it, but I thought it could have benefited by deciding what kind of film it wanted to be and sticking with that through the entire run. But again, this could be an ignorant opinion, as I have not seen the rest of his work.

Well, no. I think Strax just wanted to illustrate that the same level of not questioning one's own opinions is similar between saying "I'm no rascist, but..." or "I can appreciate this film, but...". The stuff on the right-hand side of the "but" usually isn't thought out or thought about too much by people writing lines like this.

Having said that, I love both Blade Runner and Robocop...I guess that makes me some kind of B'Nai Brith or something...

They're the best two sci-fi movies of the 80s.

Mike is right. Don't be facetious, it was a qualitative statement illustrating that some opinions are wrong. Fact. That's all.

what's fact is that any monkey with a gift for rhetoric can provide the required evidence to show that a particular film is "bad" or "good", that someone else's opinion on that film is categorically "wrong".

there is no evidence to prove that blacks are inferior to whites.

so one of these has been trivialized. I'll let you guess which one.

I'm not sure what's worse: people who have missed the point of this thread entirely, or people who know what the point is but persist in argueing for people who don't know what the point is.

There was a point?

The Third Man. Someone help me out. I think it has something to do with the score.

I can see why people love LotR a bunch and why it is such a seminal film. I can appreciate the aesthetic appeal of the film, from the wonderful shot composition, scoring and mise en scene to the truly remarkable integration of special effects and CGI.

And yet I am left cold by the films, I just can’t connect with them on any level other than a feeling of being washed over. I am hoping that when I get around to watching the EEs my love for the films might grow.

The Motorcycle Diaries left me a little cold really, I just couldn’t really focus on the story and as such I got mesmerised by the vistas. It didn’t help that I watched it with a bunch of student wankers who all idolise the little revolutionary.

I also find all of the Matrix films to be an oddity. As an Asian film fan I watched the matrix and just found myself watching a hotchpotch of themes, ideas and set pieces from much better films.

I also find a New Hope to be quite a dull film personally. I just think that ESB and RotJ are far more interesting and dynamic pictures. I just find that A New Hope seems to be mired in the 70s and I just can’t get away from it.

Obviously he's not saying that racism and bad movie taste are equatable. He's just saying that both statements are usually excuses to say things that people know they shouldn't otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with not liking Citizen Kane or 2001, but you need a reason. A lot of people are quite willing to refuse to approach these films except on the most shallow level possible, and then when they come away from the experience nonplussed, attribute it to their "unique" taste.

It's lazy. Just like someone who has racist thoughts, if you have poor film taste, you should challenge yourself to understand and appreciate film better. If you find legitimate reasons for your tastes, that's one thing. But I suspect that very few people in this thread actually have legitimate reasons, especially the ones that seem so proud that they don't like affirmed classics.

LlamaRama took the reading comprehension course and got an A.

Star Wars...all of them. They look great, grand technical achievements to say the least, I just don't care for them.

It is sort of sad that they took away the pathos in FB2 but it is one of the most sastisfying and archetypal action films ever made. It's also re-godamn-diculously funny.

You know, James Cameron personally and brutally sounded out a high profile meeting of Fox marketing execs who tried to push Aliens as Rambo in space. It's about motherhood. Not gung ho militerism and the perils thereof.

My "looking deeper" point: perhaps proved ?

I'm glad that willful myopia on legitimate query and comment is open season here, but looking at the title Movies you wish you could appreciate, but ultimately cannot and asking "why?" is somehow off limits.

But you carry on not challeneging yourselves.

Thanks Llama, Mike and Helix.

Forgive me, but I imagine you speaking like Captain Caveman every time I read one of your posts.

American Splendor - Where's the funny...?
Cannibal Holocaust - Absolutely bored the shit out of me....
I Heart Huckabees - *nothing here*

Define "irony"...

Irony (irn-i) adj. - To be very similar to iron.

A bunch of idiots on a plane singing a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.

Duh.

define irony?

pushing the importance of quantified opinions, as one's own perfectly unquantifiable opinion that certain films are not, and can never be, boring comes back to bite one on the ass like a werewolf from Full Eclipse?

Fargo - my wife and I saw it in the theater when it was released and it just didn't do it for us. I think that I need to give this one another try though.

Donnie Darko - Never saw it in the theater, bought into the hype and picked up the bare-bones DVD when it came out. Not horrible, but was pretty bored with it.

I Heart Huckabees - I rented this recently and it was almost painful sitting through it.

There's Something About Mary - I like a lot of stupid comedies and even some of the Farrelly Bros. movies, but this one was only slightly funny to me.

Die Hard - It's okay, but I enjoyed Lethal Weapon much more.

Men In Black - Shit.


Any Woody Allen movie. I haven't seen them all, but the ones that I did see were less than satisfying.

I could say this about a lot of the movies listed here, but I can't even comprehend how someone couldn't laugh like a demon at The Big Lebowski. And Heat? Mother of fuck that is a great action flick!

Adam, if I were pushing for only Anthony Hickox pictures as a definition of quality you'd perhaps have a leg to stand on. Given the fact that I wasn't, you have...not so much. Are you that insecure in your own mind that Steven Seagal pictures are the zenith of culture and that all else should be sneered at with euphemism for pretention abound ? I suspect not. So why bother with that line of rhetoric ? It makes you look like an ass.

Joe Dante once said, "there are people who love film and there are people that only love the films they love.". Which wouldn't matter, but this is a film specific message board, and this is a thread that seems to want to justify a dislike (or non appreciation) of classic cinema that by admission of the thread title, people believe should be loved. And the reasons given for this dislike (or non-appreciation) has rarely been argued as poor quality on any level, but that the film is "boring" to the viewer/poster. I think that is perfectly worthy of discussion. I would have hoped people here would love film as a medium, and even though they cannot appreciate a picture try to find out why. You however would rather make unteneble slugs at an imaginary target.

Like I say, have at it.

Did I say that films could not be boring ? Some are. Or more to the point, some are "dull". But certainly not any of the ones mentioned thus far in this thread. Which is what is on discussion here. These films are quantifiably not boring. How do I quantify that ? Because they have all contributed immeasurabley to the very cinematic langauge/style the films you love utilize. They contributed to the development of the form. If you care at all about film and cinema, how are these things "boring" ? You may find some more enjoyable than others, but the title of this thread is specifically about appreciation. If you don't care about film, why post ? Why discuss at all ? Most importantly why care about what someone who does love film has to say ? Is opening one's mind really that argumentative an issue for you. Because you seem totally averse to it. If not in person, then in your tone here.

And to correct your answer: I just found it funny that my non literal "racist" analogy was swiftly followed by someone ragging on a mini series for no other given reason than he couldn't give a toss about African American history is all. Maybe you missed it.

First off, anyone who says Citizen Kane is boring and lifeless--what film were you watching? That picture's got more energy in a single sequence than most Bruckheimer actioneers (and I say this as the board's biggest Bruck Disciple) do in three hours.

Second, yeah, these threads are pretty bad, and Strax, Fett, et al., make good points, but Molisanti's intent (films you appreciate on a technical level, but cannot feel an emotional connection to, if I read correctly) is better than some of the "[blank] You Cannot Stand And Want To Watch Ripped To Shreds By Weasals" threads we get around here every six months.

So I'll offer my two cents, and maybe somebody can straighten me out.

Requiem For A Dream-My feelings on this film are well-documented around here, and the first time I expressed dislike for this film, it wasn't very thought-out. Since then, I've read about it, studied the screenplay, and tried (unsucessfully) to read the original novel. Now, I'd say my opinion of it is one of respect and appreciation--the perfomances are stellar, and Aronofsky's a helluva writer/director. I admire what he tried to do with the "hip-hop montage" style of editing. I fucking love the Kronos Quartet/Clint Mansell score.

But I simply can't bring myself to watch it again. It's too wrenching (I can't watch A.I., a film I loved on the first viewing, for the same reason), and large parts of it remind me of little more than a sadistic morality play for the twenty-first century.

And then there's The Godfather, Part II, a film I WANT to love, but cannot. Don't get me wrong--the film's a masterpiece. Coppola's command of the camera, particularly in Havana or during the San Genarro festival, blows my mind whenever I see it. And DeNiro's Vito is truly one of the great performances. It's a sequel that's better than the original in every way.

What stops me? Michael Corleone. From a purely critical standpoint, Pacino knocks it out of the park. But his creation of a completely unlikable, briefly sympathetic character is why I can't express the same passion for it the way others do. I'm not talking about falling in love with Michael--but, as a viewer, I need to be able to identify, somehow, with the characters. Michael Corleone, here, is alien to me.

This, however, is an all too common occurrance in my development as a film viewer. I remember hating The Searchers the first time I saw it (I was eight.). And long-time CHUD MB denziens will remember "Royal Tenbaums is overrated." Both are now among my favorite films of all time. Other films, like Brian DePalma's Carrie, are ones that I don't count among my most beloved, but have been turned around on due to these boards.

Hmm. Maybe it's time I give these films another spin.