Movie "greats/classics" that you just didn't get...

Earthhorse

I have to say I find the whole of the Coen brother's ouevre overrated. Their movies are quirky which seems to attract a lot of praise but over the whole film there are only one or two great scenes and the rest is fairly dull.

2001 - sat down to watch it around five times and can't get through the first half hour. It's probably not fair to judge a movie without seeing the whole thing but what does it say about the film if you can't standst no more?

The Deerhunter - long and drawn out. Really really boring.

Can't agree with Seamus on Hitchcock. I love his films. Have you seen Rope? Some great dialogue and performances in that film. I think there's more to Hitchcock than cinematography.

Dancing duck

Originally posted by Evil_Bilbo
Gladiator is a total pile of ****e.

Lost in translation was crap (why all the hype?)

Agree that Gladiator wasn't worth it's weight in dust, but...

With Lost in Translation, it's either made for you, or made to bore you.
I went with my friend and at the end she said, trust you to bring me to a film you'd love and I'd hate. She was right and anything to do with any Coppola is going to put style over substance.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I have to say I find the whole of the Coen brother's ouevre overrated. Their movies are quirky which seems to attract a lot of praise but over the whole film there are only one or two great scenes and the rest is fairly dull.

I'd disagree wholeheartedly here!
While I'd be the first to admit that the Coen's work has suffered since Fargo (O Brother Where Art Thou?, and The Man Who Wasn't There were good, but not exactly classic), but previous works are nothing short of cinematic gold.

I mean, you'd hardly say that Miller's Crossing is quirky, with one or two great scenes, and the rest is fairly dull, now would you? In fact, it seems to lack any of the 'Quirkyness' that the Coens are currently attributed with, but it's one of the most fantastically shot films in history, with many downright fantastic preformances, and a thoroughly gripping storyline taken straight from Dashiell Hammet. In fact, it's probably one of the greatest gangster movies ever made.

Pigman II

Nabbed these from the Imdb top 250.

77. 8.2 Ran (1985) 9,531
86. 8.1 Metropolis (1927) 9,728
124. 8.0 Philadelphia Story, The (1940) 8,874
126. 8.0 African Queen, The (1951) 11,885
132. 8.0 Bringing Up Baby (1938) 7,716
150. 7.9 Lost in Translation (2003) 26,643
191. 7.8 Being John Malkovich (1999) 45,784
195. 7.8 Mulholland Dr. (2001) 27,610

I went thru that list and saw plenty that I didn't like (eg Gladiator). But these are the ones that stood out to me because I 'just don't get' how ANYONE can like them! Note the particular hatred for Katherine Hepburn films.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Pigman II
77. 8.2 Ran (1985) 9,531

I'm quite honestly shocked! :eek:
What exactly did you dislike about it?

Pigman II

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
I'm quite honestly shocked! :eek:
What exactly did you dislike about it?

Besides the plodding storyline there was something about the way it was staged that just put me off completely. It could have been that (as far as I noticed/remember?) there wasn't even one single close up shot on any of the characters during the entire 150mins+ of the film which just left me feeling completely detached from what I was watching.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Pigman II
Besides the plodding storyline there was something about the way it was staged that just put me off completely. It could have been that (as far as I noticed/remember?) there wasn't even one single close up shot on any of the characters during the entire 150mins+ of the film which just left me feeling completely detached from what I was watching.

Well I wont begrudge you any personal opinion, but it doesn't seem you've that much problem with the film to say that you can see how ANYONE could like it? And I'm not quite sure how to take your comment about there not being one single close up shot during the film. I honestly don't know how anyone could claim something like that with a straight face, so while I am taking that with a pinch of salt, I also just set out to disprove that statement by sticking the DVD in, and skipping through it breifly just to see how man close up shots on the characters I could find.

Right from the start of the film I could see many close up shots on the lead, Tatsuya Nakadai's character, and skipping a few scenes in I could find plenty more of various other characters. In fact I've even nabbed a screen capture for proof if needed, which you will find attatched.

Like I said though, I wouldn't exactly disagree with your opinion on the film, as certainly Kurosawa had already made a far superior Shakespearian adaptation to Ran in the shape of Throne Of Blood. It just seems extremely strong to say that you don't see how ANYONE could like it.

Pigman II

Clearly from the stats at least 9,000 people on planet earth like the film enough to have voted for it on IMDB. And for all we know each of those 9,000 represent probably another 1,000 people each who like the film just as much! So clearly a lot of people DO like this film.

What I'm just saying is that I can't understand WHY they or ANYONE could like it. I'm not saying that I don't accept that anyone truely likes it. I'm just saying that I find the endearment hard to understand.

//

My main point about the close-ups was probably too general. I was particularily interested in close-up shots during interior scenes involving dialogue (ie not the exterior or battle sequences).

It seemed to me at least that if for example two characters were exchanging dialogue that the scene would be shot similar to watching a play and that we would get no (or noticibally few) close-up shots of the characters speaking.

Everything would be fullbody shot and a lot of the time a character might be looking away from camera and the viewer would be left looking over their shoulder as their full body shot took up about 2/3's the height of the frame.

Again you have the DVD and I'm only working from memory so feel free to contractict me but I think you'll find numerous examples of what I'm talking about in the film.

Also, like you say Ran is derived from Shakespeares King Lear so maybe he was delibertely going for a 'stageplay feel' but I just found the whole look of the production very off putting and uninviting from the very first scene on the hill involving the father and the 3 sons.

Earthhorse

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
I'd disagree wholeheartedly here!
While I'd be the first to admit that the Coen's work has suffered since Fargo (O Brother Where Art Thou?, and The Man Who Wasn't There were good, but not exactly classic), but previous works are nothing short of cinematic gold.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "whole". But when everyone raves about Raising Arizona, Fargo or The Big Lebowski I just can't help but remember how mediocre they were and wonder what the appeal is.

Still, a friend did recommend Miller's Crossing when I raised this point before and I won't hold anything against it if I ever sit down to watch it.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Pigman II
What I'm just saying is that I can't understand WHY they or ANYONE could like it. I'm not saying that I don't accept that anyone truely likes it. I'm just saying that I find the endearment hard to understand.

I liked it myself very much, I found it to be a good film, but like I said, it wasn't the film that Throne Of Blood was. Now that was a masterpeice! But odly enough, it isn't even on the imdb.com top 250, so I kinda half agree with you. But thanks for the clarification, I see more where you're coming from with this.

Originally posted by Earthhorse
I guess I shouldn't have used the word "whole". But when everyone raves about Raising Arizona, Fargo or The Big Lebowski I just can't help but remember how mediocre they were and wonder what the appeal is.

Still, a friend did recommend Miller's Crossing when I raised this point before and I won't hold anything against it if I ever sit down to watch it.

I thought Raising Arizona was a bit on the naff side myself, but I'd certainly rave a bit about Fargo and The Big Lebowski myself. They really are utterly magnificent films, but for very different reasons.

The Big Lebowski is just a film I never get bored of, at all. It's the perfect film for sticking on when you've a few mates around, and it never stops being funny.

Fargo is just completely different altogether, but perhaps harder to pin down why I like it. Maybe it's just the strong characters and storyline that just doesn't reek of hollywood cliché? The characters really seem quite real, and the actors turn in some amazing preformances, especially William H. Macy who is probably one of the most under-rated actors at the moment. Perhaps it's something to do with how the bleak winter of the setting is shot so beautifully? I think it could be the fact that the film shows how the many downright idiotic characters bungle everything up, yet it's treated with a seriousness, showing a very real human stupidity? I don't quite know...

But Fargo definetly counts as a masterpeice in my books.