A Masterpiece... you hate?

[Drew Ott]

The Seventh Seal (which is odd because Scenes from a Marriage is one of my favorite films)
Wings of Desire (which is also odd because Paris, Texas is another favorite film)

 

[Billy Pilgrim]

I'll preface by saying I love Eraserhead, Kubrick, Citizen Kane, The Godfather Trilogy, and a lot of other stuff people have listed. But I'm going to second Solyaris. Also, I don't like to use this word too much, but I think Solyaris is truly pretentious. I love a lot of weird, unconventional, and slow films. But Solyaris is just too damn much. I can't believe I even got through it. It didn't take long for it to become an endurance contest.

 

[refocusedmedia]

Oh that's another good one.. Eraserhead. Just abhorrently pointless and self-serving.

 

[Scott F]

Its important to note context.Citizen Kane for example... in context to todays film, yes, its a "average" story. But in 1938, it was a deep satire on William Randolph Hearst, the most powerful media man in america.It was also the first film to have .... how can I word it, "stylized cinematography". The Matrix of its day.... there was nothing like it up until that moment. It set the freedom of what future "auter" directors could do.Keep in mind context to the time, place, and culture of when it was made. Timeless films are few and far between.

Great post.That being said, I'm glad I'm not the first to poo poo 2001.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

I don't agree with yuz on these at all:

Taxi Driver, Scarface, Fargo, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Raging Bull & The Shining

That being said, I can see them possibly not being for everyone. In other words, debatable.


Hell, I concur with ya on these being grossly overrated:

2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Solaris & Requiem for a Dream

But what the poo poo are you thinking on these??

The Godfather, The Godfather Part II & Citizen Kane

Yes, everything is subjective.

It's like art. One should fully be able to say he doesn't care for Picasso without being frowned upon.

Then again, some things are not just iconic, but kinda universally beautiful:

 

[VGurcu]

But I'm going to second Solyaris. Also, I don't like to use this word too much, but I think Solyaris is truly pretentious. I love a lot of weird, unconventional, and slow films. But Solyaris is just too damn much.

it makes sense. If you are just 'watch' ing a Tarkovsky movie, it is great achievement just to be able to finish it.
His films are meditative and needs to be experienced. Till then you have 'sex in space with floating butter' to satisfy your inner movie animal...

 

[nickmarshallvfx]

I'm surprised to find Good Will Hunting and The Social Nwtwork listed, possibly just because I love them both. The score has a lot to do with my love of The Social Network, plus the cinematography, but Good Will Hunting jist has some amazing performances from Matt Damon and particularly Robin Williams. Each to their own though, I know others that werent as taken by them as I was.

I bought 2001 after hearing so many great things from so many people at work. I enjoyed some parts (in the ship and the human vs robot thread) but that was surrounded on both sides by a **** load of monkeys and abstract spacey images that bored me to tears.

I love Bladerunner but it took a second viewing for me to get into it at anything deeper than a 'nice visuals' level. Avatar was mentioned, as for that, I thought most people already realise that this movie carried itself on its own hype by now? Its a basic story with some decent visual effects and convinced so many people that it was the best film ever that nobody for a while wanted to be the one to question its merits.

I'm in two minds as to whether to see Tree of Life as I have sneaky suspicions that i will fall into the group that thinks it is a slow and self serving, pretentious if well shot borefest.... But I dont want to take the chance that it might move me to the point that I re-evaluate everything about life (as some friends have declared after seeing it)!

 

[IncMedia]

Gone with the Wind

and

Titanic

 

[Billy Pilgrim]

it makes sense. If you are just 'watch' ing a Tarkovsky movie, it is great achievement just to be able to finish it.
His films are meditative and needs to be experienced. Till then you have 'sex in space with floating butter' to satisfy your inner movie animal...

Didn't Tarkovsky himself say he included the traffic sequence to, and I'm paraphrasing here "drive the idiots out of the theater"? He also apparently made it as a response to 2001, which he found to be cold. I think Tarkovsky was trying to make a sci fi film with humanity. But that doesn't make any sense to me. 2001 is about man getting rid of his dependence on technology and evolving. It's optimistic, with a deep, expansive vision. Solyaris is myopic in it's vision and subject matter, and, I feel, is ironically much colder than 2001 because of Tarkovsjy's misanthropic disdain for film audiences. That's truly pretentious. But really, at the end of the day, I just didn't respond to it.

 

[VGurcu]

But really, at the end of the day, I just didn't respond to it.

That i cant debate about, and as I said it makes perfect sense. As Barry mentioned certain movies requires certain maturity+time to be appreciated, and when it comes to transcendental cinema* an appreciation of spirituality** is essential to connect to the film on a deeper level. When it rarely happens, reality of the film (technical aspect:visuals, story, actors etc which is mostly composed masterfully) left behind, and then you deal with the consequence of the reality.
{*term coined by filmmaker Paul Schrader in his book Transcendental Style in Film}
{**term refers to realization or having a sense of being a part of a universal consciousness}

Rest of your post it is highly debatable.
Tarkovsky deeply concerned about humanity. His films always had misantrophic characters ending up somehow recognising their miserability. Every single of his films had a somehow optimistic end about humanity's ability to recognise the right act. Solaris is not about lost love or despair, it deals with the inner concsiousness' relation to the outer(universe) consciousness. In a spot called Solaris a more comprehensive consciousness allowing indivuduals to reshape the reality: its upto the individuals what to create out of it. When faced with this illogical new reality, one of the scientisct tries to justify why it needs to be destroyed, he says: We don't want other worlds; we want a mirror. (to expand our scientific foolishness)

So Solaris it is a very ambitious project and anything but myopic in its scope.

I dont think you got the 2001 right either. I think this article explains it rather nicely, not just the 2001 but Solaris as well:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/culture-warrior-kubricks-2001-vs-tarkovskys-solaris.php

Some excerpts:

"2001 explores the necessity of forward-moving innovative technology for human evolution as well as the unavoidable potential for such innovation to damage man in the process..."

"2001 sets out, at best, an agnostic approach to space travel, using the cosmos not as an analog of the heavens but as an extension of western expansion ready to be conquered by western men..."

 

[David G. Smith]

There are quit a bit of varied points of view as to films here. That is very interesting and, I believe, really points to the power of cinema.

Of the so called "Masterpieces" of cinema, I would, personally, say that I do not like most of the highly regarded films of Michelangelo Antonioni. Especially "L'Avventura". It bored me to tears. I would say the same for "Blow Up". Of his films, the only one, that I have seen, that I like is "Red Desert", and that is mostly for the absolutely stunning cinematography. I also think that the actress Monica Vitti is very hot, so that helps (except for "L'Avventura").

You can put me down as another second on "Solyaris". I have no problem with a slower pacing, but I thought that was ridiculous. I was going to to a Tarkovskiy block off of Netflix, but after watching "Solyaris", I moved most of his flicks to the bottom of my queue. I understand the comparison to "2001: A Space Odyssey", but do not think that it can hold a candle to Kubrik's film. I am in the "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a masterpiece camp, and it is one of my favorite films. Of course, I have seen it twice projected from a 70mm print and I will concede that helps.

I also understand folks having a bit trouble with "Citizen Kane". I don't think that it has aged well for modern audiences, even modern film aficionados. My biggest problem with it is Wells' use of music. Through out the film, comedic points are emphasized by the music, in a technique that I have heard called "Mickey Mousing". I hate that. It is a fake, and annoying, as a laugh track. Now I do watch the film on a regular basis, and am a HUGE Wells fan, but think that he made other films that are better. My favorite Wells films are "The Trial" and "Touch of Evil". I do acknowledge that those two films may also not be accepted by modern audiences, especially "The Trial", which is based on a Franz Kafka novel, but if you are a film aficionado, they should be on your list of flicks to watch. Wells' visuals are just outstanding.

Another filmmaker that is regarded to have produced "Masterpieces" that I have a hard time with is Federico Fellini. Wow. I have seen 81/2, a long time back, and just remember thinking, "WTF?'. I recently tried to watching "La Dolce Vita", but once Anita Ekberg got out of the fountain.., I pretty much lost interest. I want to give the guy a real day in court, and watch his flicks, but I really ain't in that big of a hurry to do it.

Now, I have to say, I have never seen a bad movie by Akira Kurosawa. The thing about Kurosawa is that since he was pretty prolific you get in the situation, when talking about his movies, of comparing all of his movies to his other movies, and develop a kind of batting order of great films versus lessor efforts. I do have to say that even Kurosawa's lessor efforts are better movies than most other filmmaker's best efforts. I have not seen all of his movies, and understand that many of his early movies are pot boilers, at best, but I do recommend that anyone interested in film to make an effort to see as many of his films as possible.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

To what "masterpiece" of today's cinema are you guys sayin Kane doesn't hold up to (story, theme, narrative or otherwise)??

I gotta know because I've been seeing the wrong flicks.

 

[David G. Smith]

To what "masterpiece" of today's cinema are you guys sayin Kane doesn't hold up to (story, theme, narrative or otherwise)??

I gotta know because I've been seeing the wrong flicks.

I wasn't really comparing "Citizen Kane" to any specific modern films, but to modern films in general. Most of the innovations in Kane have been absorbed into the modern language of film that it may be hard for modern audiences to appreciate them as innovations. I think this in an issue with most great, innovative films. As the years go by copy cats take the innovations and sometimes dilute them to the point of cliche.

 

[Batutta]

To what "masterpiece" of today's cinema are you guys sayin Kane doesn't hold up to (story, theme, narrative or otherwise)??

I gotta know because I've been seeing the wrong flicks.

There's no sense trying to figure it out Cal. There's crazy talk going on in this thread. CRAZY I TELL YA!

 

[VGurcu]

There are quit a bit of varied points of view as to films here. That is very interesting and, I believe, really points to the power of cinema. Of the so called "Masterpieces" of cinema, I would, personally, say that I do not like most of the highly regarded films of Michelangelo Antonioni. Especially "L'Avventura". It bored me to tears. I would say the same for "Blow Up". Of his films, the only one, that I have seen, that I like is "Red Desert", and that is mostly for the absolutely stunning cinematography. I also think that the actress Monica Vitti is very hot, so that helps (except for "L'Avventura").

Monica Vitti was(is) hot?! Of that period Emmanuelle Beart, Jeanne Moreau, Charlotte Rampling, Juliette Binoche comes to mind that was(is) hot. Whats wrong with you people...Note: My fav Antonioni's films are Eclipse and La Notte, and his most entertaining movie is 'Zabriskie Point' without a doubt...

 

[plundstr]

I agree with Star Wars. I laughed at everyone who complained about the prequels, saying they were such crap compared to the originals. The first thing I said was that's because you were 14 when you watched the original and now 25 years later the same basic movie sucks, but every 10-15 year old boy loved them. Not saying the prequels were good or even as good as the originals, but just saying the orginals weren't that great either.

Well... I saw the old trilogy quite late, when I was rougly 22-23 years old and I enjoyed them. No childhood memory bias there, then watching the prequels I simply thought they were crap.

 

[greymog]

This thread is tempting me, but I feel it's a trap. Do I really say this? Ok here's my take on big movies I 'should like' but just don't.

First embarrassing confession. Only last month did I see the star wars films for the first time ever. Old and new. The second time round I just made excuses for all of em I loved them. Even if the acting wasn't too hot, even if the jar jar binky guy needs a baseball bat to the head (v annoying character) I loved em. Old and new. For me they work. Even when I watch the new ones first and then flip to the old ones, it's like 'evil is everywhere, even messing with the PICTURE'.

Any hoo. I'm young, there are many classics I still haven't seen, and wasn't there for when they came out. I really believe that I won't get the same kick out of something if I see it past the time when it came out. I think that's huge. Hence, I can't really 'enjoy' citizen kane.

The first two that come to mind that I absolutely can't stand, that came out when i was around, that everyone loves are Requiem for a dream and Snatch. Snatch was just another lock, stock. I hated it. Requiem I choose for aronofsky, but I just don't like any of his work. It does nothing for me, sometimes it could really tick me off. Like I could be having a normal day, and bam, the fountain comes on, or requiem, and fifteen minutes of that can affect my mood, and not in a thought provoking way, that man's work can ruin my day and I can't express it cause then I have a bad attitude...

hmmm.... bigger than aronofsky and guy ritchie....

Ok, godard ticks me off all the time. I can 'get' what godard influences could be, but still, just ticks me off. Couldn't ever make it through a andrei rubliev, or the mirror...

... fellini. It would have to be fellini. Number one phenomenon my feeble brain refuses to understand. I tell everyone that 'I'm too young or new at this to really understand it' but really I just can't stand it. Even the quotes the man has written down in imdb tick me off. There.

Ppl who take themselves too seriously tick me off. I don't sense that any of the filmmakers I listed are truly having fun. Sure they could come across as 'playful' but I don't think it's real at all. I like craftsmen more than I like artists.

STILL... In everyone's defense that I just talked about... they are accomplished directors, I'm nothing. Also, I'm young. Way young. In aronofsky's case I stand by it, but I HAVE to say that I love libatique. Love him. Those flicks look great but everything about them ticks me off otherwise. I'm one of those kids who likes QT, you know the type. First flick I tried to do was a heist, then a western. I like revenge or greed as a theme to stuff I watch, I like that maybe one day I can blow a car up between good dialogue. I love cool music in movies. And I think I like the QT more than others is cause it was goin on when i was a teenager.

I feel awful for posting in this thread. At the same time I feel like a huge weight is off my shoulders lol. I can't say any of this stuff here. I kick my own ass for it.

 

[norvan5]

I'm about to give Bunuel's 'Discrete charm of the bourgeoisie' another go after struggling through it years ago. Likewise with Godard's 'Alphaville'. I just didn't connect with either at the time. I'm older and relatively wiser now, so maybe this time I'll get why everyone rates them so highly.

Not to single out poor ole Godard, but I also only managed about 20 minutes of his 'Histoire du Cinema' before my head started to melt. Not going back to that for at least another few years.

 

[Grug]

For the life of me I can't understand the praise The Dark Knight gets. I went to see it a second time simply because I assumed I must have missed something given how much everyone was raving about it - but in the end I could find nothing to connect to in that film. It just felt flat.

And although the SFX and set-design in Blade Runner is a thing of wonder, even my major man-crush on Harrison Ford can't get me to engage in Blade Runner one bit (with the exception of the film's climax).

 

[David Jimerson]

While I certainly do not "hate" it, I think Vertigo is a train wreck of a movie, except for the absolutely stunning Technicolor which looks like a moving painting.

I still have the poster framed on my theater room wall, though.