Hate Citizen Kane? Think The Godfather is overrated? It's okay, you're among friends

[iamWZA]

Drive was really weird. I had a little skip through my copy to check the quality and every scene it landed on, Ryan Gosling was just staring at the girl and not saying anything. I thought he was a mute. Loved the soundtrack though, and the use of music in the opening scene was really cool.

 

[Nektonic]

Drive was really weird. I had a little skip through my copy to check the quality and every scene it landed on, Ryan Gosling was just staring at the girl and not saying anything. I thought he was a mute.

Gosling definitely gives off an odd vibe. I think that if Sir Ridley Scott ever gets around to his Blade Runner sequel, that Ryan Gosling could fit in there somewhere. Either as a replicant or a very creepy blade runner.

 

[iamWZA]

I cannot stand color. All color films. Period.

Srs? That's bold!

 

[refocusedmedia]

Blade Runner was visually arresting, but rather dull otherwise. An uninteresting execution of a very interesting concept. It is incredibly overrated as some sort of "deep" and philosophical film when in reality it is fairly straightforward. If you want depth, read the book. Also, the score that everyone raves about was incredibly dated and hard to take seriously. Suffice to say, after years of everyone under the sun praising it as the best sci-fi ever made, I was more than a little underwhelmed.

A Clockwork Orange is a shadow of something that was once shocking, visceral, and intriguing. Watching it for the first time last year, I wanted to stick my eyes in the very same contraption but without any liquid solution to keep me from going blind. It was painful to sit through, and not in a good way... in a boring way. Kubrick's films certainly have historical value, and I'm glad I saw it, but that is the only reason I'm glad I saw it.

The Shining isn't the slightest bit scary, and it is a poor film in general in my opinion. I'm sure when it came out, like ACO, it was incredibly enthralling... however watching it now is not an enjoyable experience except only to "see what everyone has been talking about" or to catch all the references people have made over the years. Nostalgia really screws with people's perception of this film.. more than most, I think.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Hate:

Avatar, not that it was critically acclaimed or anything, but literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. A bad after school special with over-hyped visual effects.

Virtually everything produced by the French New Wave.

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Swedish version was crap, the American remakes was 100X worse.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The reason people are saying they hate certain films is that that's what the thread is about!! The thread isn't "Give me a critique of a film you enjoyed but have a few minor issues with".

In terms of 'hate'... There is only one film that I've watched that I really 'hated', and that was for cinematography/casting/philosophy reasons. The film "Domino"(2005) with Kiera Knightly playing the role of the 'real life' bounty hunter "Domino Harvey".

Cinematography: I don't really care for 'shaky cam', although I'm getting more use to it... until "Beasts of the Southern Wild"(2012)... but this film was just filled with shaky cam, 'bleach by pass' look, and many other 'tricks' that left me cold.
Casting: Kiera Knightly can not portray a tough as nails 'bounty hunter' worth a damn. And pretty well confirmed with her characters 'growth' into a 'pirate captain' in the last installment of "Pirates of the Caribbean".
Philosophy: The 'real life' Domino Harvey was a lesbian, and committed suicide while under house arrest awaiting charges involving drugs and dealing... The resulting 'caper' film basically uses the name of the Real Life(tm) Domino and nominal occupation, and not much more...


There are of course films I run out and watch a number of times... but there's only this one that I 'hate'...

Here's a comparison between Knightly and Harvey (perhaps a younger Jody Foster could have pulled it off...)...

 

[ethan cooper]

I hate 2001: A Space Odyssey. And it's not because I dislike slow films or anything like that, because I love Terrence Malick's films.

2001 is just a truly unwatchable POS.

May all your descendants curse your name and spit upon your grave.

Guilty pleasure of mine is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I know it's not cinematic genius but darn it, I enjoy it.

I didn't make it past page 5 yet, time to keep reading.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Nostalgia really screws with people's perception of this film.. more than most, I think.

No... in fact I'd claim the opposite. When viewing 'old' films, it is through the lens of 'modern convention'. "Citzen Kane"(1941) can't be evaluated in terms of modern convention, short shots, shaky cam, heck even 'color' let along 'color grading'...

The 'classics' must be evaluated in terms of their contemporary setting... and as such "Citizen Kane" stands out, and still has many 'technical' points that can be useful in the modern age(*)... just as "Touch of Evil"(1958) has many elements that are worthy of 'consideration' for modern film making, one significant element that would not be useful, is casting a 'white guy' as a 'mexican law man'... They are what they are for their time.

*But such technical points could be lost on the ADHD suffers that seem so popular today...

By the same token there's these lists of 'sexiest women alive'... and some pretty 'old' divas tend to 'top the list'... well no... I've long grown out of thinking of Raquel Welch as a 'sex bomb'... Cher was always too damn skinny... etc... Kate Winslet is still on my list... but probably will be graduating to list of 'great actresses'... rather than 'sexy actresses'... Along those lines, there's Helen Murrin... former sexy actress... now great actress... And if I think that way about actresses still living... what is to be said about an actress that has been dead for 50 years... Marilyn... in the era I preferred the Blonde named Jayne Mansfield... and apparently Sofia Loren had 'issues' with Mansfield, despite Loren's being called a 'sex goddess' at the time... (The modern guy would probably be put off by Mansfields 'bleach blonde' look... or if he got that far... her 'pink office' including a 'pink Royal typerwriter'... but I digress...)

Here's a couple of 'telling' shots...

 

[ethan cooper]

Those photos are entertaining. The first one is 'Holy mother of..." the second is 'hope she's not auditioning for any of my roles'

 

[refocusedmedia]

No... in fact I'd claim the opposite. When viewing 'old' films, it is through the lens of 'modern convention'. "Citzen Kane"(1941) can't be evaluated in terms of modern convention, short shots, shaky cam, heck even 'color' let along 'color grading'

Well, my point is that people who grew up watching certain films or viewed those films at earlier, more formidable times in their lives, have a tendency to put those films on a pedestal based on that nostalgic fondness alone. If you were to view some of these films in the modern-day, with a contemporary perspective, they would fall apart rather easily. Filmmaking has evolved and improved, it is only natural that the quality of craftsmanship and the films themselves would as well. Obviously there is always a bell curve to take into consideration, but I think my point is clear.

 

[OldCorpse]

Well, those are two separate issues. One is "is that a great/genius/innovative film" and the other "would audiences enjoy it today". Two completely different things. Many great/innovative films are great because they changed cinema and opened up completely new artistic horizons - but audiences would not enjoy them today, because it's old hat today and has been done. Think of it as the invention of transistors - it was a work of genius, and the world would be much worse off without transistors, we wouldn't have modern electronics - but if you took that primitive old transistor today, it would be severely lacking compared to modern transistors. But it's still genius invention and can stand on the list of greatest technological inventions. You can not ever call it "bad" or "poor science". What Einstein discovered was genius. Today, a high-school student is familiar with the concept and nobody is impressed that e=mc*2. But Einstein was still a genius and his achievement has not been downgraded, nor has Einstein suddenly turned into a punk.

Many of those classic films, were genius and innovative. Just because modern audiences cannot enjoy them on the same terms as old audiences could, doesn't make those films any less great or genius. And so, sometimes I experience a piece of art (music, film, painting, literature, whatever) and I acknowledge the genius behind it, how innovative it is, how without it art would not be the same, how we owe where we are today to the work of yesteryear - but I may not always enjoy it... though often I do.

It is said, that we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Just because we stand taller than the giants, should not lead us to call the giants "midgets" just because today we see further thanks to standing on those shoulders. Without those shoulders most of us would be the midgets.

 

[refocusedmedia]

I can respect the impact/influence of an older film, while still recognizing that it is not an enjoyable viewing experience today (or that it's "quality" has been surpassed). I'd like to think most can, but it seems that one aspect is always equated with the other, often with the aforementioned tinge of nostalgic fondness driving the praise.

 

[kylevant]

I've always been saying it: You need to watch the classics in-context.

I enjoyed Citizen Kane, purely because I've taught myself to watch older things in context? Possibly. But nonetheless, I still wouldn't rate it "the best film of all time". Literally, there are countless essays and articles describing it as the "best film ever made". You can't do that, not while taking into consideration what filmmakers have made over the last 70 years (curve balls aside). In fact, I don't think one can say any film is "the best film ever made"; that doesn't do justice to the many great films out there, old and new.

 

[refocusedmedia]

I understand that reasoning, but too often the reason I hear a film is considered "great" is because of what it meant to someone or to some thing at some point in time. In my opinion, a film can be "important" and still not be very enjoyable or "good" by today's standards. But I find it disingenuous to claim the reverse.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

I've always been saying it: You need to watch the classics in-context.

I enjoyed Citizen Kane, purely because I've taught myself to watch older things in context? Possibly. But nonetheless, I still wouldn't rate it "the best film of all time". Literally, there are countless essays and articles describing it as the "best film ever made". You can't do that, not while taking into consideration what filmmakers have made over the last 70 years (curve balls aside). In fact, I don't think one can say any film is "the best film ever made"; that doesn't do justice to the many great films out there, old and new.

I understand that reasoning, but too often the reason I hear a film is considered "great" is because of what it meant to someone or to some thing at some point in time. In my opinion, a film can be "important" and still not be very enjoyable or "good" by today's standards. But I find it disingenuous to claim the reverse.

That's because "good" and "bad" are illusions when it comes to film. There's no formula for writing a "good" or "bad" screenplay, only for telling different stories. The stories are crafted as screenplays and told with cameras, actors, sound technicians and editors, and they all follow the story via the director. "good" and "bad" doesn't factor into it when you think about it. That's all subjective opinions forced on the final product through the filters of any person watching the film.

If you rate 1000 films on IMDb from 1-10 that were made in the 1980's, the average rating you have given these 1000 films doesn't tell how "good" or "bad" movies from the 1980's are.
It only tells How Much You Like Films From The 1980's.

If your average rating is 3, it means you don't really like films from the 1980's, right? If your average rating is 8, you really like films from the 1980's.

If 1000 people does this, and you take the average rating of all of them for all of these films, that doesn't tell you how "good" or "bad" films from the 1980's are either, it only tells you how popular they are.

 

[timbook2]

Can you give some examples of ones you didn't like?

I am now living in Germany where this has become a major selling part of private tv stations. Its a fake documentary and pretends to be real documentary but its scripted, thus scripted reality. everybody hates it but the daily quotes show that its watched by millions. these millions must be the ones from the old italian saying: la mama dei imbecilli e sempre in cinta

 

[nickmarshallvfx]

I watched 2001 (bought it actually) because a few people who's work i really admire and who's opinions I respect cited it as a major influence on them and their work and said it was their favourite all time movie. I found it to be incredibly slow, largely incomprehensible, and with no character development.
Maybe it needs a second viewing, i dont know...

Bladerunner I also find quite slow and can see why people hate it, but i really love Bladerunner. I'll admit tho that this is in no small way down to the amazing production design, brilliant cinematography and phenominal traditional visual effects. I actually find I agree with a previous post in the thread that the ideas and concepts are better than the execution... Strange as i do love Bladerunner...

Waiting to watch Tree of Life now to see what I think of that... Seems to polarise people between masterpiece and boring POS, so will be an interesting one!

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I watched 2001 (bought it actually) because a few people who's work i really admire and who's opinions I respect cited it as a major influence on them and their work and said it was their favourite all time movie. I found it to be incredibly slow, largely incomprehensible, and with no character development.

I realize that hallucinogenic substance use has grown rather out of style, to be replaced with more 'kinetic drug use', such as cocaine and methamphetamine, which would explain the lack of 'patience' in sitting around watching a film that is 'slow and incomprehensible'... but the hallucinogenic substances did 'improve' the readability of "2001"(1968)... along with 'tune in, turn on, and drop out'... you had to have been there...

 

[nickmarshallvfx]

I realize that hallucinogenic substance use has grown rather out of style, to be replaced with more 'kinetic drug use', such as cocaine and methamphetamine, which would explain the lack of 'patience' in sitting around watching a film that is 'slow and incomprehensible'... but the hallucinogenic substances did 'improve' the readability of "2001"(1968)... along with 'tune in, turn on, and drop out'... you had to have been there...

Haha, perhaps this is where I failed then, it was doomed before I ever hit play! On next viewing I will be sure to take your advice and load up on any and all hallucinogenic narcotics I can lay my hands on!

 

[timbook2]

I realize that hallucinogenic substance use has grown rather out of style, to be replaced with more 'kinetic drug use', such as cocaine and methamphetamine, which would explain the lack of 'patience' in sitting around watching a film that is 'slow and incomprehensible'... but the hallucinogenic substances did 'improve' the readability of "2001"(1968)... along with 'tune in, turn on, and drop out'... you had to have been there...

))))
I just watched "Night Moves" where Hackman says "I saw a Rohmer film once. It was kinda like watching paint dry."
2001 is nowhere near that and one of my favourite movies which I saw when it came out. If you understand the idea of HAL, watch Alien and maybe find a parallel in the android....