Masterpieces You Don't Really Care For

[boblipton]

There were a bunch of those movies in the 1960s..... just saw CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE on TCM. As for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, it does need to be seen on the big screen at the proper aspect ratio, preferably in a theater where the air conditioning has broken down and it's a dry summer day. But my, how it does go on! "Here's Lawrence at the front of the desert. And here's Lawrence going around the side of the desert and here's Lawrence standing in Riyadh, but you can see the desert to the left." Makes you wonder when the Spanish Inquisition is going to show up.

Bob

[FrankFay]

It's one of those films that needs a big screen, a fine print, ideal projection and a great sound system.

[Susann]

And while I'm a great fan of the Coen brothers, am I the only person who does not appreciate (gulp!) THE BIG LEBOWSKI?

[/quote]

No, I didn't like THE BIG LEBOWSKI either.

[boblipton]

I appreciated it too. I appreciated the fact that it is a sendup of Altman's version of THE LONG GOODBYE with the Coen Brothers' "everyone in this movie is an idiot unless it's my wife and she'll make me sleep on the couch if I don't let her play this character right" style of film-making. Sometimes it works brilliantly, sometimes it works well, sometimes it gets on my nerves and sometimes, when they burlesque other film-makers -- their version of THE LADYKILLERS made me want to ask for my money back and their take on Capra in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY made me wonder why they didn't simply get a couple of rifles and climb into a belltower.

THE BIG LEBOWSKI varied between sometimes it works well and sometimes it gets on my nerves.

Bob

[Mike Gebert]

I had a simpler response to The Hudsucker Proxy-- why didn't they fire Robbins and Paul Newman, and make the movie about Bruce Campbell and Jennifer Jason Leigh as fast-talking reporters?

i appreciated the fact that it is a sendup of Altman's version of THE LONG GOODBYE

Crossed with a Jesus parable. (I still have never seen anyone really comment on that aspect, even though everyone knows they did a comedy Odyssey, so why not a New Testament?)

[Dee Deforest]

I looked back through the threads and did not see one about overrated classics so I wanted to start one...Sometimes I feel like I'm the only film buff that find some of the classics that everyone loves to be totally boring...Citizen Kane and Casablanca come to mind and just about anything with Marlon Brando in it.... Ouch I said it! Anyone else feel the same about movies that you feel you should love but just don't. Someone invited me over recently to watch Gone With The Wind knowing my love of films and I told her I would rather have a root canal! It's not that I don't appreciate these films, they just don't do it for me..

Dee

[boblipton]

Detour.

Bob

[sepiatone]

The Gold Rush

[entredeuxguerres]

...just about anything with Marlon Brando in it.... Ouch I said it!
Dee

Let me say it as it needs to be said: I detest that swine.

Kane & Casablanca I found "satisfactory" the first time I saw them, which was on the Big Screen several eons ago, but today I'd far prefer "Pawn Stars," if those were my only two choices. But a picture like Bachelor Apartment, shown this morning on TCM, and featuring a host of players I adore, I'm going to watch again tonight, though I've already seen it 4 or 5 times.

[silentfilm]

Actually, there already is a long thread on this topic, so I'm merging this thread in with the older one.

Note that it would be helpful to others if you explained why you thought a classic was overrated, rather than just saying that you hate it. For example, I can appreciate the fantastic editing of Battleship Potemkin, but the film lays down the Soviet propaganda so thick that I find it difficult to sit through the film.

[Dee Deforest]

Actually I never used the word hate... These are just some of the so called classics that I feel like I should like but don't...Citizen Kane and Casablanca are ridiculously long and boring in my opinion...I don't hate Gone With The Wind but would probably rather have a root canal than watch again..same reason as the others ... Incredibly boring ..... I did say I appreciate these films .... They just do nothing for me? As far as Brando...once again he just dosent do a thing for me? Like I said before these are just a few films that I feel I should love but don't...

Dee

[Roscoe]

The alleged "masterworks" of Harold Lloyd always leave me cold. For all the brilliance of the production, I just sit there not laughing, not smiling, and, in the case of SPEEDY, thinking what an absolute ass that Harold guy is.

[Dee Deforest]

Also the accents in Gone With The Wind are like nails on a chalkboard to me! I realize that a southern accent may be a little trying to do, but being from the south and having one myself...it's quite irritating..

Dee

[CJBx7]

I'm sure I'm going to incur the wrath of some silent fans here....But I didn't like Broken Blossoms as much as I hoped I would. I think the movie did have an intriguing atmosphere and you could really feel the stark hopelessness of the characters' lives in that way. The cinematography was great, very emotive in its own right. However, I found the performances a bit too... mannered, I guess is the word I'm looking for (especially Donald Crisp, who seems to gurn his way through the threatening scenes). I liked Lillian Gish and Richard Barthelmess more in Way Down East personally. The characters seem to be conceived more as types than multifaceted individuals, and while I can appreciate Lucy's unfortunate situation, I feel like the title cards hit me over the head with what Griffith wants us to feel, rather than simply allowing us to see and feel it for ourselves. I have been thinking that I might give it another shot one day, but I don't know...

[Bob Birchard]

I find these discussions endlessly fascinating, because we all have bete noirs that others will go to the mat to defend.

First, I don't think you can say you have seen any movie until you have seen it on a big screen with an audience, and that goes especially or silents and any talkie made before about 1970. I used to think most 1950s American films couldn't hold a candle to even the most modest programmer of the 1930s, but I've seen quite a few 1950s films in theaters in recent years and I've come to realize that they, too, were meant to be seen BIG.

I always joke about young folks watching Lawrence of Arabia streaming on their cell phones and wonder what they might make of the six-minute shot in which Omar Sharif approaches on camelback across the desert?

But, I have only seen occasional flashes of Lawrence on TV since I saw the film on its first release at the Beverly Wilshire theater, and I still have vivd memories of the visuals lo these 52 years later, and the thrill comes rushing back every time I see a snippet. The film received mixed critical comment when it was released, but it lingers long after other films have faded from memory. If this isn't great cinema, I don't know what is.

I find it fascinating that Vertigo has replaced Citizen Kane as the greatest movie of all time in the BFI critics poll. I like Vertigo, always have, but it first captured my imagination on TV, and I have to say every time I've seen it in a theater audiences ten do laugh at some of the more overwrought scenes. So this one, I've concluded, must be seen alone (or with the smallest of crowds), whether on the big or small screen--it is too fragile to strike a sympathetic response with a large crowd.

Looking back at Greta's comment on Bringing Up Baby--I think this may be a matter of changing tastes over the years. Aside from It Happened One Night, which I first saw on TV, I first saw most of the classic screwball comedies in packed-audience revival screenings in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But I noticed when things like Bringing Up Baby, Bombshell or Libeled Lady are screened today, audiences seem to get worn out by rapid-fire patter and the confrontational characters and situations. I think these sorts of characters and situations were when society in general was a lot less confrontational than it is today.

With Casablanca, you have great dialogue and characters--almost to the point here they have become cliche through over referencing, but just for a kick, turn off the sound and watch it silent, and I think you come under the spell of Curtiz's moving camera and wonderful staging. Casablanca ain't perfect--the Marseillaise is a bit to propagandistic for today's tastes-but it is a wonderful movie, nonetheless.

The internet age has brought out the "Citizen Kane sucks" brigade. Certainly some of the film's sterling reputation through the years is based on cultural politics--Welles was an artist, movie critics love artists . . . studio heads and newspaper publishers were philistines hell-bent on making artists come to heel . . . Citizen Kane is the only "full flowering" of the art of Orson Welles minus studio interference, ergo CK must be the greatest movie ever made. I think it's been over sold, and I actually prefer Ambersons, but Citizen Kane is still a hell of a movie.

When I see people's lists of "over-rated" films, I find I often I agree with one or two choices and rabidly disagree with others. I've always felt Red River to be over-rated--as I find many of Howard Hawks dramatic films--Ceiling Zero, The Big Trees and Rio Bravo being other examples. I don't find these films terrible--merely overblown phony uber-heroics scattered among good moments.

Wagonmaster and The Sun Shines Bright may be among John Ford's most personal films, but they don't hold a candle to How Green Was My Valley, The Grapes of Wrath or even Submarine Patrol, for that matter.

The Marx Brothers? I would have agreed that the Paramounts, at least, were undying classics, but in recent years I've seen Duck Soup die a horrible death in a large public screening where few laughs were had by all, and I've also seen Hip, Hips Hooray! with Wheeler and Woolsey kill with a modern audience. Likewise, when I first saw Unfaithfully Yours I thought it was the funniest film I'd ever seen and couldn't wait to see it again. When the opportunity cam a few tears later, I found the film to be ill-timed and completely unfunny. So a lot of these preferences must be toted up to mod, life experience to the time of viewing, openness to something new, and also openness to making up one's own mind and allowing the critics to be guides rather than slave drivers when it comes to molding opinion.

[Donald Binks]

Most of Ingmar Bergman's pictures. Now, I know that is sacrilege to a lot of film buffs - but the point with me is, that I just don't understand them or I get bored beyond fidgeting restlessly - I want to scream in pain! Perhaps one day someone will present me with a code book that will allow me to work them out.

[ColemanShedman]

Two fairly recent Best Picture winners, Titanic (1997), and Crash (2005) come to mind. I don't know about Crash but I'm pretty sure there are many who consider Titanic a masterpiece. Give me A Night to Remember any time. The 400 Blows (1959) does nothing for me but then I've never seen it on the big screen.

[Donald Binks]

Two fairly recent Best Picture winners, Titanic (1997), and Crash (2005) come to mind. I don't know about Crash but I'm pretty sure there are many who consider Titanic a masterpiece. Give me A Night to Remember any time. The 400 Blows (1959) does nothing for me but then I've never seen it on the big screen.

I agree, the 1997 "Titanic" had 1997 standards and speech whereas the 1958 "A Night to Remember" was adept at re-creating the period (1912). I found the 1997 film ridiculous and preposterous - but I go against the grain of populist opinion.

[entredeuxguerres]

First, I don't think you can say you have seen any movie until you have seen it on a big screen with an audience, and that goes especially or silents and any talkie made before about 1970.

Yes, of course, the big screen makes it better, though the degree to which it makes it better varies with the picture's content. To see Rio Rita "large" might well provoke in me such a rapture as would over-tax my nervous system; the viewing enhancement of such a modest picture as Bachelor Apartment would be correspondingly modest...I think. But viewing even Bachelor Apartment on a laptop, or similar-sized screen, is a degradation no picture deserves.

But only those who fear the company of their own minds & emotions, or enjoy the feeling of surrendering their minds & emotions to mass-consciousness, require the audience. When I was in my most avid theatre-going mode decades ago, I'd always try to see the 5 or 6 o'clock presentation, if the theater offered one, because the audience often consisted of no more than a half-dozen; none would have been quite acceptable to me.

[Donald Binks]

First, I don't think you can say you have seen any movie until you have seen it on a big screen with an audience, and that goes especially or silents and any talkie made before about 1970.

Yes, of course, the big screen makes it better, though the degree to which it makes it better varies with the picture's content. To see Rio Rita "large" might well provoke in me such a rapture as would over-tax my nervous system; the viewing enhancement of such a modest picture as Bachelor Apartment would be correspondingly modest...I think. But viewing even Bachelor Apartment on a laptop, or similar-sized screen, is a degradation no picture deserves.

But only those who fear the company of their own minds & emotions, or enjoy the feeling of surrendering their minds & emotions to mass-consciousness, require the audience. When I was in my most avid theatre-going mode decades ago, I'd always try to see the 5 or 6 o'clock presentation, if the theater offered one, because the audience often consisted of no more than a half-dozen; none would have been quite acceptable to me.

It all depends on what you consider to be a suitable cinematic presentation?

If I could be guaranteed a comfortable seat in the dress circle of a properly designed cinema palace instead of a shoe box - i.e. one of many in what is termed a "complex" for obvious reasons. If I could be welcomed to my seat by a pleasant usher/usherette. If I could be presented with live music in the form of a cinema organ or orchestra prior to the commencement of the film programme instead of a non-stop parade of screeching advertisements. If I could be guaranteed that fellow patrons would remain relatively quiet and well behaved - i.e. refraining from eating popcorn or other nauseous products in my vicinity or fiddling around with electronic gadgetry. If there was someone in the projection booth who might be over the age of 12 and who knows something about projecting films - I wouldn't mind going! The experience these days is usually not a nice way to spend a couple of hours.

The inventions of the DVD, the large wide-screen television and a hi-fi sound system all go towards making the in-home viewing of films a far more enjoyable experience these days.

I can remember the heady days of going to the pictures - and I agree that seeing say a Marx Bros. comedy with three thousand others probably enhanced the enjoyment - laughter is infectious. Still, we must move with the times mustn't we? No time for all this nostalgic nonsense!

[Donald Binks]

Oh happy days!

[entredeuxguerres]

If I could be guaranteed that fellow patrons would remain relatively quiet and well behaved - i.e. refraining from eating popcorn or other nauseous products in my vicinity or fiddling around with electronic gadgetry....

If pigs could fly...

[Mitch Farish]

One movie I know I would not like at any size or with any audience is John Ford's The Searchers. It has the worst type of Ford's hokey comedy that makes even admirers cringe. Ebert said fans need to filter out the numerous comic interludes until the real action resumes. But how many times can you reboot your brain without it killing the pace of the film? It's gorgeous to look at, but it is also virulently racist and owes a lot to The Birth of a Nation. Wayne's homecoming is very reminiscent of the homecoming of Ben Cameron, the founder of the Klan in BOAN. And Scorsese's propaganda that Ford made Wayne a complicated Indian-hating antihero whose actions are supposed to be repellent doesn't persuade me. I have a handful of Ford films that I love - mostly ones with producers who could keep a tight rein on him. The Searchers is not one of those. Not only is it not Ford's best film; It's not even his best western, by a wide margin.

[Roseha]

I am bound to be hit by a virtual tomato, but every time I try to watch a John Ford film, even his silents, I find examples of bad acting that make me unable to keep watching. Usually this is in the supporting cast, he seems to just let them do whatever overacting they feel like, whereas a director like Hitchcock could get extra complexity from a well known star like Cary Grant.

I agree on GONE WITH THE WIND. I saw it when I was maybe 14 and hated it. Haven't watched it since. I just couldn't stand Scarlett O"Hara as a character. No offense to Vivien Leigh really. I read somewhere by the way that she wanted to play Cathy in WUTHERING HEIGHTS with Olivier and I think she would have been so much better than Merle Oberon though I hate the way the film leaves out half the book.

I don't dislike Harold Lloyd, but the more I watch Charley Chase the more I am preferring him to Lloyd, even though he didn't get to make features (I do think they have some things in common, I get the idea they represent the average person of the time, or how people wanted to see that person). I think Chase feels more like a real/sympathetic person to me, even though he didn't go for the athletics that Lloyd did and that were popular in silent comedy.

[Mitch Farish]

every time I try to watch a John Ford film, even his silents, I find examples of bad acting that make me unable to keep watching.

I know exactly what you mean. Please, John Qualen, a Swedish rancher, with that accent, in Texas? I swear, If Zanuck did not produce The Grapes of Wrath, Ford would have Qualen using that same Swedish accent. I've never liked Ford's stock company, most of whom had roots in New England and before that, Ireland. Acting ability seems to have been a secondary consideration, or none at all. On the other hand, I like 3 Bad Men, Fort Apache, My Darlin' Clementine, and above all, Stagecoach, which I still feel is Ford's best. Wayne was OK in the last, but Claire Trevor was terrific.

I agree on GONE WITH THE WIND. I saw it when I was maybe 14 and hated it. Haven't watched it since. I just couldn't stand Scarlett O"Hara as a character.

That's the way my wife feels about GWTW, I'm not wild about it, but I'm a little more forgiving. However, there is something about a southern accent that makes non-southerners over-act outrageously, and that does annoy me. See Elizabeth Taylor in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, or Raintree County as examples.

[boblipton]

I'm glad this thread was revived. After all, we see new movies to hate all the time.

The one that springs to mind is the musical version of Les Miserables. Hugh Jackman is very badly miscast physically. The songs are boring -- I walked out on the stage show during intermission. Whereas before I had gone to the theater once or twice a month, now I go once or twice a year.

I decided to see the movie anyway because of hearing about how they were going to perform the songs live, not through lip sync. I quickly noticed that it wasn't a movie; it is a photographed and edited stage show. Like the musical versions of Chicago and The Producers, it demonstrated that Hollywood had forgotten how to make musicals.

Bob

[bobfells]

A classic that I have never been able to fathom, i.e., why it's such a great film, is WUTHERING HEIGHTS (1939). Its credentials are impressive and I like everybody's work - in other films.

I like CITIZEN KANE but when I persuaded a good friend to see he told me that he hated it. Stunned, I asked why. He said that he had an instant dislike for Kane and didn't care to watch him. I think I understood and grant that he had a good point.

[Gene Zonarich]

Was there ever a YEAR filled with more overrated films than 1939? Would anyone second my nomination for 1939 as the most overrated year in the history of American film? Can anyone pinpoint when this "greatest year, 1939" nonsense started? (We may have already had a thread devoted to this.) Today, TCM is devoting most of their daytime programming to the Oscar-winners of 1939, leading up to their 8PM broadcast of a documentary on the Academy Awards. Ninotchka (shown for the second time this week, and my least favorite Garbo sound film), the aforementioned Wuthering Heights, Stagecoach, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, all of which I find tedious, followed by a film that was miraculously good considering the circumstances of its production, The Wizard of Oz.

BTW, I despise the way TCM highjacks an entire month of programming, holding it hostage in slavish devotion to the Academy Awards via the annual "Month of Oscar." Yes, there are some interesting quirks shown, but drowned in a sea of overblown, overexposed Hollywood "product."

[Dave Pitts]

Almost any film with Ruth Roman -- boy, does she stink up the joint. It's a measure of Hitchcock's genius that she doesn't sink Strangers on a Train.
I agree with everyone who dumped on Sound of Music and West Side Story (Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer are awful!) And don't forget The Singing Nun -- yikes!!!
I've always loved Wings, though I get why some people don't. I consider it a guilty pleasure -- love that opening scene with Jack and Mary as he fixes up his jalopy.
I also love the '23 Ten Commandments -- what a layer cake of 20s kitsch!!! Sally Lung, the tempting leper? C'mon! Also loved how DeMille kills off the old Bible-thumping mom.
Never heard from a buff who didn't like Lloyd's The Kid Brother, but different strokes -- the tree climbing scene is the most satisfying sight gag ever (and a romantic one, at that!)
Here are 2 films I can't stand that I'm sure will have defenders on this site:
Intolerance -- I've read several commentaries where this one is described as the greatest film of all times. Uh, no. Not only is the theme of intolerance inconsistent in the four stories, but they're not all stories that are well told -- the French story, in particular, is a stone drag, with Griffith introducing the French court in dull poses with long intertitles explaining who everyone is. The standard defense of the film, i.e., audiences of 1916 just weren't ready for a film in which four narratives were intercut into a might fugue of...etc., etc....This presumes that audiences of 2014 are ready for such an approach?
Meet Me in St. Louis -- While I do like certain Garland films and recordings, she did have a tendency to gush, to be too winsome, to do those awful shimmery-eyed closeups... maybe on this one she coulda used Ruth Roman as her acting coach: 'Just pose, Judy. Be ladylike. Let your face freeze for a while.'

[Wm. Charles Morrow]

I don't dislike Harold Lloyd, but the more I watch Charley Chase the more I am preferring him to Lloyd, even though he didn't get to make features (I do think they have some things in common, I get the idea they represent the average person of the time, or how people wanted to see that person). I think Chase feels more like a real/sympathetic person to me, even though he didn't go for the athletics that Lloyd did and that were popular in silent comedy.

While I wouldn't say I prefer Chase to Lloyd, I agree with your point that Chase usually feels more sympathetic as a screen character. Maybe it's because he didn't go for the athletic stunts to such an extent, and kept his adventures scaled down to a more identifiable level. Harold dangled from high places and engaged in wild chases through city streets, while Charley struggled with embarrassing situations at home or at the office, or at parties. Of course, Harold also dealt with public embarrassment, quite often in fact, but for Charley it was his major stock-in-trade. Chase seems like the guy who lives across the street, while Lloyd comes off as someone special, even when he's playing an average Joe.

As for the topic at hand, I'd have to say the "masterpiece I don't really care for" is Lloyd's The Freshman. Or maybe I should say I don't like it as much as other people do. Like all his features it's beautifully produced, and there are a number of great bits, but Harold the clueless campus nerd wallows in humiliation way too much for my taste. I can think of at least five Lloyd features I prefer to that one.

P.S. Maybe the problem is, I don't give a damn about football. Super Sunday? Wake me when it's over.