A coincidence that you'd post this thread now...because I just tried watching this "classic" a few nights ago. I'd heard it was great, but had never seen it. And I couldn't get past the 40 min mark. The longest most boring first act I've ever seen. I was going to try again, and maybe fast forward a bit, but from the sounds of it, it might not be worth it either. I guess it was unusual when it was released and it had great performances and people concluded it was some kind of work of genius. I think it's dull and sloppy from what I've seen. But I"m gonna give it another try when I'm in the mood for something slower.
In the Mood For Love is another "classic," though more recent, and it's another film that is just so long and slow. I tried to watch it 3 times before I got through the whole thing. Yes, it's beautiful. Yes, it has realy artful moments and interesting, emotional ideas. But it's like watching paint dry.
While watching Deer Hunter, I did notice that so much of the shooting for the first act was from down low, looking up. It had an interesting effect, but I'm not sure why it was done that way. CineObscure could probably shed some light on the question.
In the Mood For Love is another "classic," though more recent, and it's another film that is just so long and slow. I tried to watch it 3 times before I got through the whole thing. Yes, it's beautiful. Yes, it has realy artful moments and interesting, emotional ideas. But it's like watching paint dry.
While watching Deer Hunter, I did notice that so much of the shooting for the first act was from down low, looking up. It had an interesting effect, but I'm not sure why it was done that way. CineObscure could probably shed some light on the question.
Last edited: