quote:

---

Chariots of Fire

What a piece of garbage that was. Can you believe that techno-garbage noise won the Oscar for best musical score? I don't remember why I even tried to watch it...I think is was showing in a double feature with a real movie!

---

The (mostly piano) Vangelis music doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the movie won an Oscar for...BEST COSTUMES! The only costumes were gym shorts and t-shirts, and period costumes which were merely rented
 

---

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 07-01-2010, 04:20 PM:
 
The Wizard of Oz.

...because when my brother and I were younger (much) WE wanted to see Bambi, but my sister, SHE wanted to watch The Wizard of Oz and she won the straw poll.....AND she spent half the movie under the seat scared because of the green witch.

Oz sucks.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-01-2010, 04:35 PM:
 

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

Lawrence of Arabia

---

I'll have to go for another David Lean film, 'Brief Encounter'. I like most of his films, but this one is just so boring. If you go to Carnforth Station, where the location scenes were filmed, they actually play it continuously in the refreshment room, so you can watch it all day long if you want to. Carnforth is pretty much in the middle of nowhere, so very few people get off the train there except for fans of the film who run up and down the subway (the sort you walk through, not the sort that trains run through) ramp, look at the clock, and have a cup of tea in the refreshment room (I'm not even sure if it's the original one, or a reconstruction).

I've never really liked 'Citizen Kane' either.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-01-2010, 04:41 PM:
 
Thunder Road, starring Robert Mitchum, has left me cold. This was a popular movie out here when it was released in the 50s, and maybe it's something to do with the period, or with the moonshine running, but I find little to like about it.
The 2 things that stand out is the casting of Robert Mitchum's son as his brother and Mitchum's smashing of the bad guy's hat.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2010, 06:30 PM:
 
I have never seen 2001 but based on everything I've heard and read about it over the years, I think I would agree with Joe on it.
 

---

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 07-01-2010, 07:09 PM:
 
Re: Chariots of Fire...
In addition to the Oscars mentioned above, it also won Best Picture and Writing.
I haven't seen it for a long time, so won't give an opinion.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-01-2010, 08:10 PM:
 
I've never been a big Lawrence of Arabia fan though I think it is technically beautiful.

I was never an ET fan either.

But "The Last Picture Show" is one I definitely don't "get." It is supposed to be great but not for me.

-Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2010, 09:48 PM:
 
2001 - Joe's review is spot on. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Lawrence of Arabia - Again, boring but as Steve says, "technically beautiful". This just goes to show you that a movie that looks pretty isn't necessarily entertaining.

Avatar - Maybe this isn't old enough to be called a "classic", but it was the biggest movie of all time, and yet we have another Lawrence lesson...a movie that looks pretty isn't necessarily entertaining. James Cameron, one of my favorite directors, you have failed me.

A Clockwork Orange - Just retarded. I could only make it 30-45 minutes into this not-funny-at-all gargantuan turd. I'm pretty sure you have to be a brain dead pothead to get the humor in this.

Gandhi - Couldn't make it very far into this one either.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2010, 11:11 PM:
 
Amadeus. Ghandi. I don't "get" Slumdog Millionaire either.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-02-2010, 12:04 AM:
 
GONE WITH THE WIND is not extraordinarily terrible, but it is extraordinarily over-rated. Thankfully, I've only seen it once. But I remember spending the whole nine hours thinking about how the main character is not even remotely likable. Not the worst movie, but certainly the most highly-regarded bad movie.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-02-2010, 12:11 AM:
 
I liked Amadeus but it has been a long time since I have seen it. It was perhaps a little bit long for its own good, thinking back.
 

---

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 07-02-2010, 06:17 AM:
 
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind.....
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-02-2010, 06:21 AM:
 
I second "Gone With The Wind". The second act is just plain boring.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-02-2010, 09:33 AM:
 

quote:

---

GONE WITH THE WIND . . . I remember spending the whole nine hours thinking about how the main character is not even remotely likable

---

She's not supposed to be likable. Scarlett O'Hara is supposed to be a selfish, manipulative tw*t. That's what drives the whole story. If the picture had been about her good and virtuous cousin Melanie Wilkes, everyone would have been bored to shit and it wouldn't have been nearly the classic that it became.

Name one main character in any of the Godfather movies that's truly "likable".
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-02-2010, 09:44 AM:
 
The only good thing I have to say about GWTW is that it is not as bad as the book

The Sound of Music leaves me routing for the Nazi's

Not sure what the definition of classic is, but there are plenty of popular, critically acclaimed, academy award winning movies that are jaw droppingly awful (eg: Prizzi's Honor, The Big Chill, Jerry McGuire).

Of course, anyone forced to actually sit through The Rocky Horror Picture Show knows what a stupendous piece of crap that is.
 

---

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 07-02-2010, 10:23 AM:
 
Another for 2001. If it would have been 75 minutes long & stuck to Hal, the Killer computer, it might have been a decent "B" picture.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-02-2010, 10:48 AM:
 
GWTW, waaaaay too long, very boring, lame acting except for Hattie McDaniels, a nicely photographed turd.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-02-2010, 11:49 AM:
 

quote: Mark Ogden

---

Name one main character in any of the Godfather movies that's truly "likable".

---

I think that Michael is very likable. I'm not saying that I want to hang out with him on the weekends, but in the context of the movie, you can totally sympathize with his plight. That's what makes THE GODFATHER so much better than GWTW.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-02-2010, 12:45 PM:
 
Citizen Kane

I can respect the ground it broke but I found it to be very boring.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-02-2010, 01:52 PM:
 
GWTW, have never been able to watch it for more than 15 mins without dozing off. Therefore have never come close to seeing the whole thing. I think it's in my Netflix queue now, was going to give it another try but I know I won't like it so I'll go delete it right now.

I liked Amadeus a lot when it was fresh but I suspect I wouldn't like it so much now. Not sure why.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-02-2010, 02:15 PM:
 
All About Eve, with Bette Davis. "Fasten your seatbelts"...for what? zzzzzzzzzzz
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-02-2010, 02:36 PM:
 
The problem with Citizen Kane is that now everything in it has become a cliche. It is hard to look at it fresh.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-02-2010, 03:52 PM:
 
I would have to say that Tom is just as likeable as Micheal in Godfather 1 and 2. I agree that GWTW is one of the hardest movies to watch
 

---

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 07-02-2010, 05:16 PM:
 
The only good thing about 2001 is 2010 is its sequel and the firt film is nicely shown in 30 seconds in the opening "My God It's full of stars"!

Gone With the Wind should have blown away but then it didn't blow it sucked.

Citizen Kane may have been groundbreaking in its day and yes maybe it has all become cliche but it was boring way before it became cliche. How Citizen Kane was ever in any world rated over Casablanca is beyond me! IN fact how Citizen Kane is rated over Willy Wonka (either version) is beyond me.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-02-2010, 05:46 PM:
 
There are tons of old classic films I've never seen, but I tend to get overhyped on them. When I had the chance to see "Gone with the Wind" I was enthusiastic, because it was SUCH a classic and I was pumped to see it on the big screen....but it was kind of boring, and I still don't see why it's the big deal that it is.

I've never seen Citizen Kane either and I have a feeling I'd have the same reaction there. Mainstream movie fans of each generation have their own classics, I guess.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-02-2010, 06:18 PM:
 
Citizen Kane, like the original King Kong, was a ground breaker in it's day and time but now both have become such a television staple their relevance is lost. Orson Wells was perceived to be an uber genius at that time and King Kong was to have frightened its audiences in its day. King Kong is somewhat funny now for all the wrong reasons.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-02-2010, 08:03 PM:
 
CITIZEN KANE's importance in history aside, it still works on its own merits. If you haven't seen it, give it a shot. It's awesome.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-02-2010, 10:39 PM:
 
Speaking of vastly over rated, Hitchcock made about 80 movies, all but a handful stilted and tedious to the point of laughability. Yeah, The Birds sucks.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-03-2010, 08:36 AM:
 
Mike...by definition, a Classic movie has its fans. Thus, you need not defend it. My personal favorite movie is 2001:A Space Odyssey...others here find it a bore-fest. I can understand their reasoning. I could spend endless amounts of time trying to explain why it is so good (for me, at least)...but if you don't like it...you don't like it!

Steve
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-03-2010, 08:57 AM:
 
I always liked 2001 ... when it came out, there just wasn't that much 'quality' science fiction. And being a SF fan and a tech-geek, I loved it. But I admit, if you have not read the book, alot is lost.
 

---

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 07-03-2010, 08:05 PM:
 
I agree with GWTW, I can never make it past the intermission.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-04-2010, 09:04 AM:
 
Steve, I understand that, and I agree that 2001 is awesome. I was just pointing out to people who had not seen CITIZEN KANE that there is more to it than its groundbreaking status, and that a disinterest in that aspect of the film should not deter them from watching it.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-05-2010, 08:17 PM:
 
I'll add another vote for GWTW. Ugh. I understand its importance in cinema history, but I really can't stand that film. Scarlet is annoying and the film is mostly a snooze-fest.

"Grease" is another one that I hate. I'm not a big fan of musicals, anyway, and every song in this is truly annoying.

Sadly, I have shown both of these.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-05-2010, 08:39 PM:
 
An American in Paris: terribly boring and an absolutely awful ending that DOESNT MAKE SENSE!

AJG
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-05-2010, 09:39 PM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

A Clockwork Orange - Just retarded. I could only make it 30-45 minutes into this not-funny-at-all gargantuan turd. I'm pretty sure you have to be a brain dead pothead to get the humor in this.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Why would anyone get death threats over Clockwork Orange? I know the movie sucks, but threatening to kill the director is going a bit too far.

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

The version I saw in the US was slightly different to that which was released here. I don't know which, if either, was he same as the original release.

---

Which is appropriate as the American version of the book is different than the British version (at least 30 years ago when I was in college). The British version had an extra chapter.

Comedy, no way. Brutal rapes rarely cause chuckles. Vicious satire of the police state vs liberal dogoodism, yeah.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-06-2010, 09:13 AM:
 
It was the opposite with the film; a couple of scenes were longer, and I think there was one extra scene in the American print which I saw. The extra material wasn't violent, it was more political, but I can't remember exactly what it was now.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-06-2010, 12:57 PM:
 
JULES AND JIM. Gag me with a spoon. Had absolutely no emotional or intellectual connection for me. None, unless you can say bored to tears is a connection. Who cares about these people? Just typing the title I feel asleep.

Both GWTW and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS bore me to death except for the spurts of laughter at the stilted, dumbass dialog and laughable acting style (was there any director on the set of these pictures screaming, "All of you, STOP OVER-ACTING!).

BUT, and it's a big but, in spite of being unimpressed with them, I did LOVE running them. Because the BEST thing in both these films are the great, powerful scores. And the thrill a projectionist gets doing the Intermission "rubric."

In a perfect world, I could run the opening reel, the reels before and after the intermission and the last reel, and let some other poor slob run all the other reels in between, or, do the audience a favor and just skip them altogether.

2001 -- incredible; AND the one thing I would disagree -- you SHOULDN'T read the book. It is much more etherial if you can let your imagination run with the unanswered questions, because Kubrick gives you enough that it will make sense based on your own interpretation of what you are seeing and what your imagination brings to the film. How he could make such a "personal" statment and yet with such an epic scale. An incredible acheivement.

But I do respect those who give it two yawns, although I don't understand it. I guess it's just not everyone's cup of tea.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-07-2010, 08:42 AM:
 
I hated Mary Poppins even when I was a kid. I hate Chicago, Julia, and Out of Africa . Why? Because they were boring as hell(except for Chicago where my intolerance for those kind of musicals took over).

Bonnie And Clyde: parts of it I can still appreciate. But like Bullit, I guess you had to watch it back then to appreciate it. I find parts of Beatty's acting laughable.

Love Citizen Kane even now. Springsteen should watch it so that he wont keep forcefeeding us Patty Scialfa in his concerts.

The second half of American in Paris was pure pretentious boring crap. It's is like that boring ballet thing in Singing in Rain(which I like) stretched out to an hour.

I don't get Caddyshack. It was OK fun, but I don't get the whole classic comedy vibe from it compared to other comedies made in that era.

I don't hate American Graffiti either, but I don't love it. I guess it was for the 60s generation what Fast Times at Ridgemont High was for mine.
 

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 07-07-2010, 09:04 AM:
 
I could think of a bunch of titles but I saw that someone mentioned Jerry Maguire earlier in the thread. Boy, was that a piece of garbage film and a waste of time! Everyone I knew raved about it and I thought it sucked beyond belief. It was stupid, pointless and just plain weird.

I have never seen many of the "classics" that many of you are referring to like GWTW, Citizen Kane and the others, but I did want to see them because of all the hype. I am rethinking that now.

I still have not seen Avatar even though we have tried to see it twice without success. The trailer seems very boring and uninteresting to me and I only want to see it since everyone raves about it and it made so much money last year. I have a feeling I am going to be let down.

My tastes seem to run with the dumb comedy movies. I can watch Old School, Wedding Crashers and Joe Dirt all day long. They have great lines to repeat and I like most of the actors in them. I know they are kind of dumb but at least they have funny parts. On the flip side, I can't sit through anymore remakes, action or drama films. They bore me and they have all been done before.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2010, 10:07 AM:
 

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

I don't hate American Graffiti either, but I don't love it. I guess it was for the 60s generation what Fast Times at Ridgemont High was for mine.

---

I love both of those movies -- I'm from the generation between the two. Graffiti has the better story, but Fast Times has Jeff Spicoli, Mr. Hand, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Phoebe Cates. So if I had to pick a desert island movie, I'd have to go with that one.
 

---

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 07-07-2010, 10:15 AM:
 
I like most of the classic movies mentioned here, but I must pile on with two of them.

First, I can't sit through the second half of GWTW, and I'm not entirely enraptured by the first half, either. I think it could be an excellent 90 minute movie (two hours if I'm feeling generous).

Then moving on from mere indifference, I could also be found with Martin rooting for the Nazis (or at least against the von Trapps) in The Sound of Music. I used to be ashamed of the latter, but the more I mention it, the more I find people that agree.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-07-2010, 10:33 AM:
 
If I remember correctly, "American Graffiti" was the first DVD I purchased. I'll buy it again on Blu-ray too.

I am a fan of "A Clockwork Orange", don't think it's funny it any way, and am not a pothead. I think the thing that sticks with me is the presentation...the style, the visuals. It's a pedestrian political "mind control" storyline told in a very over-the-top way.

For my entry, I'm going to choose "It's A Wonderful Life". Fucking sappy bunch of nonsense that it is.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-07-2010, 10:46 AM:
 
I remember falling asleep around the 20 min mark for 2001 the first few times I tried watching it on tv. Then one late night recently, I watched the entire movie. And I actually kind of liked it. Maybe it's one of those movies that you just have to catch at the right time. Some movies are only meant to be watchd when you are either high or at 4 in the morning in a certain state of mind. I will say this. 2001 is definitely a movie to be watched solo instead of with a crowd. I noticed that whenever I watch a slow movie with a crowd, we all tend to get very impatient.

Mad Max : as someone who LOVES Road Warrior and has watched that so many times, I find Mad Max to be kind of a disappointment. The movie just doesn't seem to get into that high geat at any point.

I saw Remo Williams last year and found it to be an outdated hokey movie.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-07-2010, 12:43 PM:
 
For me, 2001 becomes a huge waste of time when trying to watch it on any video format. Even on 35mm the film looses a lot of its impact. If you haven't seen 2001 in at least 70mm (preferably on a Cinerama screen) you really haven't seen it. The film truly needs and uses every square inch of a giant screen and every last line-pair of resolution available from 65mm origination.

Kubrick composed and edited it for a very large screen, lingering on many shots to give the audience time to take in all the details in those beautiful wide images. Sorta like IMAX, another group of films that have their own rules for composition and editing; a whole group of films that generally don't work well on anything less than an IMAX-sized screen.

To a lesser extent, all of those spectacular roadshow event films suffer on a small low-def screen (yes, even 1920x1080p is "low-def" here). Many of the titles you guys are dissing here fit into that category. They were all meant to be seen in a theater - no thought was given at all to how they'd look or sound on video. Sadly for a lot of you, video is probably the only way you've seen most of these titles. Do yourselves a favor and figure out a way to see any of these titles as they were meant to be seen.

Video copies of any of these kinds of films are a waste of time. At best, video, even HD video, is a thumbnail.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-07-2010, 01:15 PM:
 
2001 is good once you get past the ape shit beginning. I know the whole scene serves a point to the movie but after seeing it once it doesn't bother me skipping over it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2010, 01:35 PM:
 
Full Metal Jacket -- I was riveted by the first half of the movie but once they got out of basic training, it just lost me. I probably need to make more of an effort to really watch it again, but that first half...wow.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-07-2010, 01:51 PM:
 
Mike, one of us is getting old because I find myself agreeing with you more often. Full Metal Jacket's first half was awesome. The second half... I don't even remember what happens.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-07-2010, 04:16 PM:
 
Really? What is your major malfunction?


 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-07-2010, 04:59 PM:
 
I like the second half of FMJ too. The problem is you lose the best character at the end of the first half. Still, the second half gave us enough classic lines, one of which helped make a 2 Live Crew rap a major hit.

I saw 2001 in HD on a 60 inch screen. You are right. Even that is too small to appreciate the ambience of this movie. Problem is I don't think I can sit in a movie theater to watch the entire movie. It is that slow.

I can't get into Barry Lyndon. Admittedly, I gave up on it too soon. Plus, I have an allergy to anything by Ryan O Neil or Barbara Streisand or Julie Andrews. I find Robert Redford to be overrated. Love Story - blech.

I like the Odd Couple TV show better than the movie.

Dr Zhivago. cant get into it. Fiddler on the Roof. Cant get into that either.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-07-2010, 07:49 PM:
 

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

I have an allergy to anything by Ryan O Neil or Barbara Streisand

---

Unfortunately then, you'll never know the brilliance of 'What's Up Doc?'.


 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-08-2010, 11:13 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

Unfortunately then, you'll never know the brilliance of 'What's Up Doc?'.

---

Have to agree there. That's still my all-time favorite comedy (if not favorite movie). It's the only thing Streisand has ever done that I like.

If it makes you feel any better, she to this day STILL doesn't get why people loved it.

(PS - The Blu-ray streets August 10.)
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-08-2010, 03:27 PM:
 
Whats Up Doc is a favorite of mine as well!

"I am Hue" Hue.

"You are me"? judge

"No i am Hue" Hue

"stop saying that tell him to stop saying that"! judge
 

---

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 07-09-2010, 08:03 AM:
 
The Maltese Falcon. 3 times I've tried to watch it... and 3 times I fell asleep.(Can't be the genre. I love "The Big Sleep"). Anyway, some movies are overrated & catnaps seriously underrated!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2010, 09:22 AM:
 
"What's Opera Doc."

I love Looney Tunes and I realize this film is a great achievement in animation but I just don't find it all that fun to watch. I like "Rabbit of Seville" much better.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 07-09-2010, 01:16 PM:
 
I love GWTW. I've seen it about 25 times. The attention to detail is excellent. The only fire/explosion scene is enough for the fire bug in me. Could the reason for all the dislike here be that there are not enough explosions and screaming and cursing to keep modern audiences entertained?

The 'classic' movie I hate the most is, THE RULING CLASS with Peter O'Toole. I've tried to sit through it twice. First time, fell asleep. Second time, made it through, but didnt like it.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-09-2010, 03:51 PM:
 
I know it's more recent, but the way people gush on about "Forrest Gump," no doubt it will be considered a classic. I have yet to see what all the fuss is about.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-09-2010, 04:28 PM:
 
"Forrest Gump" was amazing!
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-09-2010, 05:31 PM:
 
Amazing? Well, maybe technically, but I much prefer "Zelig" for that kind of concept. In a good story, the hero is supposed to change from his experiences; Forrest never changes. Jenny changes too late. The only character who is redeemed is Lt. Dan, and he's peripheral.

IMO, it's about a dimwit who chances upon history, and then it's over. I was left thinking, "What's the point?" It seemed merely like an exercise in technology, and the story was crafted to serve that.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-09-2010, 05:55 PM:
 
You're too kind Hillary. I think it's a POS! Ya know... a double-flusher BIG "TURD"!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2010, 06:37 PM:
 
The scene in Forrest Gump where he says "....the rain stopped. And the sun came out." And then all this gunfire erupts with no warning was amazing for its sound. The rest of the movie is OK but I can't say I was amazed.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-10-2010, 01:40 AM:
 
In regards to 2001: A Space Odyssey:

I liked 2001 for its more plausible depiction of space travel & exploration. Many of the simple activities we take for granted on Earth are slow complicated affairs in space. Star Trek and Star Wars have a more entertaining pace but are less plausible. Sound isn't possible in a vacuum, so how is anyone going to hear a spaceship explode? There's a lot of stuff in "science fiction" movies that is pure bullshit. Roger Ebert called it on the newest Predators movie: the sun doesn't change position in the sky and large moons/planets are nearby in orbit -might look cool in a movie, but in reality that Predators planet surface would be a turbulent ocean of lava instead of a jungle. Oh well. Movies often put stuff on screen that looks cool but makes absolutely no damned sense at all when you think about it.

2001 was more relevant to the late 1960s and America's race to get to the moon during that period. People were fascinated about outer space and the possibilities of the future. Today, I don't think the topic generates nearly as much interest. A lot of dreams of the future have been crushed by the reality that any substantial progess will cost a giant fortune and take decades to complete. Many of us probably won't live long enough to see a successful mission to Mars, much less see the Moon or Mars colonized.

The recent movie, Moon has some similarities with 2001. However, its story is driven by its main character, Sam Bell, instead of the simple depiction of living/working in outer space. The movie doesn't move along at a fast pace, but it is arguably more involving because of its human focus.

As to film classics I don't like, here's a few acclaimed movies I didn't like or could not make myself appreciate/enjoy:

Intolerance - D.W. Griffith silent epic
I fell asleep trying to watch a press screening of this monster in Lincoln Center's Avery Fisher Hall. A live orchestra was included in the show. Top notch presentation effort. But, damn. I was not the only one falling asleep!

Out of Africa - 1985 Oscar winner.
I don't get it. I was bored. That's a movie that really feels over long.

Short Cuts
This movie from Robert Altman boasts a 94% rating on Rotten Tomaotes' tomato meter. It even had some 70mm blow up prints which automatically earns good points from me. Still, I just could not get into this 3 hour long movie. I think other movies like Magnolia (which many either love or really hate) have succeeded better with this sort of approach.

Reds - couldn't get into it.
Chariots of Fire - bored.
and that means Raiders of the Lost Ark should have won the 1981 Best Picture Oscar.

There's lots of other positively reviewed movies I didn't really like all that much, but I haven't thought of them yet and this post is too long already. Maybe others will mention those other movies.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-10-2010, 02:24 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Reds - couldn't get into it. Chariots of Fire - bored. and that means Raiders of the Lost Ark should have won the 1981 Best Picture Oscar.

---

For once, Bobby and I are in agreement.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-10-2010, 10:00 AM:
 
I repeat...nobody need defend ANY of the movies here...by definition there are MANY folks that find them great enough to call them "classics." The interest in this thread is finding out that some don't like various "classic" movies.

Note, Forrest Gump is definitely in my top-10 but I will not try to convince Hillary (and especially that freak in the pirate hat) or anyone else why THEY should like it...I'm cool with them not liking it/hating it...or whatever.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-10-2010, 11:23 AM:
 
Exactly Steve. "Gone With The Wind" is in my top ten, but it's status as a classic is assured enough that I don't have to defend it here. BTW, I can appreciate most of the criticisms of GWTW expressed on this thread, even if they don't bother me.
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 07-10-2010, 11:46 AM:
 
"Pirate hat"?!? I thought that was Phil's hair.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-10-2010, 12:39 PM:
 
And I note that the "freak" comment just sailed though!
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-10-2010, 01:55 PM:
 
Phil was distracted by my tirade in the SRD vs DTS dropout rate thread.

I agree that Chariots of Fire was a huge bore..and a real pain in the ass to run as there was dialogue through EVERY reel change! (of course being a professional I hit every one spot on. )
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-10-2010, 06:45 PM:
 
I tried to watch Chariots Of Fire and i think i left after a few minutes but may have fell asleep and dreamt i got up and left!
I only remember how grainy and dull it looked! This theater had a old xenon with a old Kollmorgan coke bottle magnocom to be fair!
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 07-10-2010, 08:36 PM:
 
Victor, it wasn't the lenses or lamps..it WAS dull and grainy.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 07-11-2010, 08:45 PM:
 
I like 2001 and Gone With The Wind.
However, I was bored with Visconti’s The Leopard. Definitely not my kind of cat.
The damn thing came back to bite me when it was the Sunday night feature of a Travelling Film Festival.
We were running reel to reel and, every time I laced up the last reel in the trunk, another trunk seemed to appear. Talk about nine lives! By the time it finished there were just a handful of pretentious festival followers left. It was way past everyone’s bedtime, including mine.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-12-2010, 03:44 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Reds - couldn't get into it. Chariots of Fire - bored. and that means Raiders of the Lost Ark should have won the 1981 Best Picture Oscar.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

For once, Bobby and I are in agreement.

---

 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-19-2010, 03:28 PM:
 
I've just sat down and watched Close Encounters of The Third Kind for the first time. What a load of junk. It's too long. (mind you it's only a little over 2 hours but felt like it was longer than 3). It's too slow, the effects are cheesy. It's the worst of the Spielberg films i've seen.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-19-2010, 09:21 PM:
 

quote: Michael Brown

---

I've just sat down and watched Close Encounters of The Third Kind for the first time. What a load of junk.

---

quote: Michael Brown

---

It's too long. (mind you it's only a little over 2 hours but felt like it was longer than 3). It's too slow

---

quote: Michael Brown

---

the effects are cheesy.

---

quote: Michael Brown

---

It's the worst of the Spielberg films i've seen.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

ALWAYS, 1941, or THE LOST WORLD

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

who likes HIGHLANDER please explain to me...

---

IMO, it was the interaction between Lambert (Connor Macleod) and Connery(Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez), his teacher, plus the bit of magic (and romantic drama since it deals with being stuck in bein immortal to face the final battle 600 years after the inital, thus, one could feel for the character that Lambert portrayed) that the movie contained.

Course, this was also 1986 and this was a first one of a kind movie to be released - the "Titanic" of the '80's even though, that same year was that "Titanic" release, being "Top Gun" which make Tommy Cruise's prior movie "Legend" quickly forgettable.

(but I did like "Legend" as well...)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-19-2010, 09:49 PM:
 
The nice thing about the Blu-ray of CE3K is you can watch whatever cut you prefer (original theatrical version, special edition or director's cut via seamless branching).
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-20-2010, 07:45 AM:
 
TCM showed 2001 yesterday and I have to admit I found it boring. I never thought I'd say that but I found many of the sequences over long and unnecessarily drawn out.

I still think it is the best Sc-Fi film ever made but it could definitely benefit from from some re-cutting. Sorry to all you purists out there but that is just the way I see it.

It was a blast running it in 70mm, especially the 9th reel with the light show, but even that sequence was overplayed.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-20-2010, 07:45 AM:
 
A few years ago, I showed 1941 to a couple of co-workers for our "lunchtime matinee," and it went over incredibly well. One said, "I can't believe I never watched this before!" He thought by the title that it was a war drama and didn't give it any further thought.

I guess I should put this one in the other thread since I appear to be the only one who likes it.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-20-2010, 08:50 AM:
 
Whatever you say about 1941... its March is awesome and arguably the best that John Williams ever made.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2010, 11:10 AM:
 
John Williams' march theme from 1941 was awesome. I can't say it's my favorite tune of his work, but saw a kick ass live performance of it back in my high school days. The Marine Corps Band and Marine Drum & Bugle Corps performed the march theme during a show at the Commandant's residence at 8th and I in Washington, D.C. The Marine Corps Silent Drill Team also performed.

With the kind of twisted sense of humor many Marines have, the march theme from 1941 fits perfectly.
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 07-21-2010, 01:42 PM:
 

quote: Michael Coate

---

Can someone who likes HIGHLANDER please explain to me what is so great about it.

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

Whatever you say about 1941... its March is awesome and arguably the best that John Williams ever made.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

John Williams' march theme from 1941 was awesome.

---

I couldn't agree more.

Interestingly, it holds a striking resemblance to Elmer Bernstein's theme to STRIPES, released two years later.

March from 1941 - John Williams

Stripes theme - Elmer Bernstein

Not exactly the same, of course...but I think Elmer quite liked 1941's theme also.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-22-2010, 10:01 PM:
 
And there is MacArthur's March By Jerry Goldsmith
 

---

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 07-23-2010, 08:38 AM:
 
THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT

Damn thing made me want to puke. All of the jittery camera movement was more than I could handle. My Sister-in-law & I hated it but her daughter and my son thought it was great.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-25-2010, 09:20 PM:
 
I personally prefer the Star Wars theme to 1941. And I love the Stripes theme much more than 1941's despite the similarity. My problem with 1941 the movie is that Spielberg seemed off by a tad on the comedic timing of several scenes and that makes a huge difference. Maybe if another editor took that movie and reedited, it can mask some of Spielberg's directorial mistakes with respect to the comedic aspect.
 

---

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-26-2010, 12:01 AM:
 
I love Spielberg and have a soft spot for 1941 but Hook put me to sleep in a packed opening night theater
I still have not gone back to it and i don't remember a thing about it!
 

---

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 07-26-2010, 07:39 AM:
 
I agree re: the march from "1941". I actually play this pretty frequently (the March, not the movie) and always used it as part of the intermission music during the July 4 period. It's definitely one of Williams' top ten pieces, though I think "Death of Jonathan Kent" from "Superman: The Movie" is his best piece ever.

As for classics I hate, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" is number one for me. I've never thought much of Audrey Hepburn as an actress, and this movie does her no favors. And the typically horrible Mickey Rooney will go down in history as one of the most grotesque racial stereotypes ever put on screen, with his buck-toothed, coke-bottle glasses wearing Mr. Yunioshi. I realize this was made only 15 years after the end of the war in the Pacific, but jeesh!

Oh, and anything with Gene Kelly.
 

---

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 07-29-2010, 03:21 PM:
 
ITT: The people that run your movies hate movies
or
I love explosions and things that go boom, Michael Bay is my hero.

also,
Life is Beautiful
Blow-Up
JFK and anything by Oliver Stone except Nixon
and anything by Cecil B. DeMille
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-07-2010, 12:47 PM:
 
Just saw Shampoo. Found most of the characters boring.
 

---

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 08-13-2010, 01:42 PM:
 
"The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"...just ran it last night..10 reels of screeching music, horrible dialog (and badly sync'd dubbing), and to top it off, the "restored" versions' SR track is badly done with a LOT of static noise and overmodulation. The stereo remix was not bad, but was ruined because of the noise issues. Reels 1-4 and reel 9 were the worst. (print # 1001 in case anyone runs into it.) This is the second MGM "restoration" I have run with the same analog track issues. (Can't recall ATM what the first one was.) I forgot to note on the end credits who was responsible for the remix.

As I mention in the picture warehouse on that room, my Dolby Digital readers aren't up to my satisfaction or I would have tried to run the print in Digital.

Honestly when this thing was booked I wasn't expecting a stereo print or I would have put a rush on getting the DD readers ready.
 

---