Badmovies.org Forum

I have just finished my film class and I have to say, just about every single film shown did not impress me.  Don't get me wrong, they were all good and I get why they are considered classics, but they all seem to be overhyped and not as good as everyone sets them up to be.  As such, I found Psycho, Blade Runner (ESPECIALLY Blade Runner), Bonnie and Clyde, and The Silence of the Lambs not really amazing or knocking my socks off.

How about you guys, are there any films that are classics that you just don't get or are just not that amazing to you?

I agree with you on those, except for Silence of the Lambs.

I thought M was incredibly boring.  I stopped watching it, intending to go back, and never finished it.  8 1/2 I didn't find boring, but didn't like much personally.

I do disagree with you on Blade Runner, but I do have the advantage of having seen it when it was released on the big screen. Though I like it as much on the small set, there is for any movie something added by seeing it on the big screen; that advantage could have affected my opinion of it regardless of subsequent viewings. Also when it came out, it was something quite different; over time, with so many big budget movies and effects, it may well not be all that for someone seeing it today.

One that I don't quite yet get as a classic is Caddyshack. I guess overall it is funnier than it is not, but other than having some well known cast members in one movie, I just don't get what's suppose to be great about it.

There are some others, I just can't think of them right now.

I love Blade Runner.
I just think you have to be in the right mood for it and know what kinda genre it is. Its not an action film and that disappoints a lot of people.





E.T. is mine.
Its well made but I just don't get it.  :question: I think it tries too hard for my liking.

The film that is probably the worst for me in terms of hype vs. delivery would be Rear Window. I came in expecting a tense thriller, I got a garden-variety murder mystery that didn't utilize its full potential thrill-wise (at least I didn't think it did), and that intercut the tension with some rather awkward seeming romantic interludes. I know RW is famous for both, but I think the dual plotlines kind of leech off each other; had it been a film about either the romantic plot or the murder investigation I think it would have been a lot more effective to me.

I also agree about Caddyshack, though the film has a few detractors already, so it doesn't take top-spot for me.

Horror of Dracula and Dead of Night are two others I find puzzlingly popular, but they aren't so much regarded as classic by the general film-watching public but by the horror community.

I thought Silence of the Lambs was a huge disappointment.  Ooh, here's the bad guy, he's Mr. Evil - isn't he scary?  No, not at all really.  Psycho was another bland movie.  I suppose it was scary at the time, but it's no longer that time. 

All those Hitchcock movies don't do a thing for me either.

Blade Runner was good, but I don't understand the gigantically high regard some people have for it. 

Halloween is another one.  A very ordinary, average slasher.  Don't really care for Jamie Lee Curtis' character at all.  Never found Micheal Meyers to be scary.  He kind of makes me laugh actually, sort of like Hannibal Lecter.

STAR WARS. I seen it on the big screen when it first came out. Overblown Flash Gordon serial (oodly-I love the old Flash serials!).
ET-blah. Sugary sweet mush.
The GODFATHER. Overlong gangster soap opera.
GONE WITH THE WIND. Frankly my dear,I dont give a sh!t.
TITANIC.Took too long to sink.
I'll catch hell for this one-The CAT PEOPLE. Boring. The pool scene is interesting. I enjoyed CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE much more.
Any LORD OF THE RINGS or HARRY POTTER movie. Yuch. Good for tweens,I guess.
BATMAN movies. Except the 1966 one!

I think part of the problem with a lot of classic movies is that they've been copied, ripped off, parodied and homaged so much that we don't realize what kickass movies they were when they first came out (there's probably a term for this, but I can't think of it off-hand.) 

For me, one of the films I thought was overhyped was Apocalypse Now.  Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a good film, but for starters, I thought it was WAAAAY too damn long.  I don't mind long in the "We have a lot of story to tell, so this may a bit."  But long in the "Lets....pan....sloooowly...over...this....swamp.  See....the.....swamp.  Scene.  Cut to now, let's pan....slowly....over....the...boat..."

And the ending seem kinda silly to me.  It's like, "Okay, you're here to kill me, but I've captured you!  So, I'll talk to you a WHOLE bunch, then I'll go ahead and free you, so you can kill me anyway."

Um.. okay. 

A cult film that most people assume I would like-ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. A Broadway musical. With Meatloaf! Ack! Meatloaf alone is enuff to turn me off.  :lookingup:
I kinda agree with SILENCE of the LAMBS. OK movie...but an Acadamy Award? Wha?  :question: If any serial killer movie should have gotton an Oscar,it should have been HENRY:PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER. I cant watch a movie with Michael Rooker without feeling like he's going to kill someone at any given second.
OK. Here goes. The MUMMY (1932). Now...the photography is beautiful,and Karloff is...well...Karloff,but it's too slow-and boring. Jack Pierce did a bang up job though!
The MATRIX- "Check it out,dude! Im in slow mo!" Nuff sed.

GANGS OF NEW YORK.  I've seldom been more disappointed in a historical film.  Slow, pretentious, and WWAAAAYYYYY too long!

APOCALYPSE NOW has the dubious honor of being the only movie I ever walked out on in a theater.

I had gone with a good friend and we KNEW it was gonna be long, but it was quality and supposed to be good for us. After figuring at least two hours or more had passed I asked him how long this thing's been on. We were both surprised it had barely been an hour! We bailed.

Mind you - I saw JAWS: THE REVENGE, ANNIE, and NIGHT OF THE LEPUS during their theatrical runs!  :teddyr:

Going by IMDB's top 250 of which I've seen...

The Dark Knight - Horribly overhyped and rather boring in parts
Psycho - As Jack said above, not a Hitchcock fan.
Wall-E - Very slow and awfully boring
Blade Runner - Maybe because I saw this later on in life, to me the film simply doesn't hold up.
Avatar - Dances with wolves meets CGI overload.  No thanks...
The Lion King - Honestly, I've always felt it was one of Disney's weakest entries.
Rocky - The first one bores me on rewatch value.  The sequels seem much better on rewatch level.
Mystic River - Terribly boring, you figure it would be better with the talent in it.

I'm surprised by the anti Hitchcock thing! I believe that Hitch is among the greatest film makers ever! Up there with Kubrick,Scorcese (did  I spell that right?) ,Fritz Lang,Walter Lantz (yes-WALTER LANTZ), Mario Bava, and Sergio Leone.

I know I wont convince those who dont like Hitch-but I gotta try! Hitch wasnt about gore...it was about showing people like you and me...and putting them into horrendous situations. The films start slow so you can identify and care about the people...and he hurts or kills them. Great filmaker.

And his camera was all over the place!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGJEqjYIEaE

The BIRDS is a classic!

I don't think any of the films mentioned in the original post are overhyped. I rather like them.

Citizen Kane is certainly not a poor film, but I've never thought it deserved the "pefect example of filmmaking" tag it customarily gets.

Agree!Found it long and dull.

The Exorcist.

I always found The Omen far scarier.

Really? I thought the OMEN was kinda cheezy!

Course I think BRIDE OF THE MONSTER is one of the best films ever made..so whatta I know.... :lookingup:

Life of Brian (1979)

Basically any Monty Python movie from the 70s and 80s. Not even sure if they are "classics" but they never did anything for me.

The Shaw-shank redemption. I thought It was a really good movie, but its far from one of the greatest movies ever made.

Breakfast At Tiffany's.  The lead character was a total ditz, and she never got likable at any point in the film.  By the end of the film George Peppard became a ditz too!  And of course, the incredibly racist portrayal of a Japanese person by Mickey Rooney.

Blade Runner was boring and unmemorable for me.

Almost anything out of the giallo genre hyped as a classic is awful IMO.

I didn't care for Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or pretty much anything John Hughes.

Didn't care for The Matrix or Men In Black because I don't care for Keanu Reeves or Will Smith.

I know I'm going to catch flack for this but anything Kubrick ever did ussually has about an hour extra footage that could have been cut from the movie without altering them any.  I watched a Clockwork Orange as a teenager, once you get past the shock value you have a pointless movie which drags from one horrifying sociopathic act to another to its pointless cyclical ending.  A Space Odysee 2001 has about 15 minutes of storyline and 1 hour of watching glowing lights on the main characters face.  He could have done something usefull in that time such as character or storyline development but no, we have some boring shot meant to show off the special effects of the day.  I know there are probably a ton of Kubrick devotees out there but I just can't stand his style.

That is the thing that bothers me with this one.  Nothing was new to this story of fish out of water experiencing Stockholm Syndrome.  People are wowed too easy now. 

As far as for myself, big movies that are overhyped. 

A Clockwork Orange.  I get the story but it seems more a blurry mess. 
Jurassic Park.  I get people were impressed but the story never identified with me. 
It's a Wonderful Life.  Never got into it, I suppose I was too young to experience prior to being parodied. 
Sgt. York.  Good but overexposed, I can still remember when it came on TBS every weekend. 

Maybe your taste are a little left of center. Mine are. If your a film student, I hope that's the case because one day you might make a movie that I'll love. The truth is I'd rather watch a bad movie that's entertaining than a good movie that's boring. Blade Runner is beautiful looking movie, but outside of that it's nothing special. Harrison Ford gives his weakest performance and the story is so so. I never got Jurrasic Park, it just didn't hold my intrest. Avatar was very good, but overated. For me it just didn't live up to the hype. Effects movies are kind of notorious for that. I also didn't like Independence Day, Men in Black or The Matrix.

STAR WARS - Sure, it's good fun.  Sure it revived the sci-fi genre.  But the movie itself . . . a classic?  I think not.  I'd rather watch 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, PLANET OF THE APES, FORBIDDEN PLANET, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS . . .

I'm more suprised that people considered this a classic already.  It's been just about a year now since it came out, so should it be considered a classic?  I did this topic about Film Classics, not ones that came out in the last decade, in hopes to talk about films from the past and not in recent years.  Plus, the way people talk here and on the Internet, can you even truly consider people thinking it is a classic?

I agree with the comment about Breakfast at Tiffany's. This is the only Audrey Hepburn movie I dislike. Her character is unlikeable, and that doesn't change over the course of the film.

I also found Citizen Kane to be overly obvious in its use of symbolism and just plain boring.

I freely admit that The Sound of Music is done well, tells a good story, and has some wonderful music. I'd still rather claw my way through the back wall than watch it. And I love musicals.

Now for a couple that haven't been mentioned. I don't find Fast Times at Ridgemont High to be funny. At all. Or engaging. Outside of the infamous Phoebe Cates scene, it's just a nearly unwatchable mishmash.

The Porky's franchise, if they can really be considered "classic," are also pretty dull and pointless. I guess I just can't relate to any of the characters well enough to care. Same with Animal House. None of these are funny or touching or at all reminiscent of my youth. Naked babes are great, but not great enough to save these flicks.

Good point. 

Does that include solo films like Brazil? :/

 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

I have never really understood the love that Woody Allen gets for his films: I have never 'got' any of his films at all. I also loathe any film that is made by foreign filmmakers that highlights the supposedly unique racial brutality and injustices in my country, much like German people dislike films like Judgement At Nuremberg.

Agree about Woody Allen. Whatta sniveling little worm! He needs to eat some BBQ meat and wash it down with some grog !!!! Grow a set,man!!!  :buggedout:

I've always found "Aliens" to be overrated. James Cameron ruined the franchise by turning an atmospheric horror movie with a mysterious, deadly monster into another brainless, bang bang, shoot 'em up. Also, we bid farewell to the mysterious unknown background of the alien 'cause now it has become another brainless bug from outer space.


Damn you, Cameron. Damn you.  :hatred:

I still enjoy Allen's Sleeper, Zelig, Purple Rose of Cairo, and a couple more of his earlier films, and Manhattan is gorgeously filmed and still good to watch. After those, he started to take himself seriously, and his films, while well made, were almost all unwatchable to me. But then, I seem to like quite a few movies and musicians that no one else here likes.  :bluesad:  :tongueout:

Oh, and I'll second and third RC's dislike for Rocky Horror Picture Show. Can't stand that one. People figure I must love it since I like really odd movies, but that one just tries too hard to be weird, and it fails. Give me Forbidden Zone any day.

Everybody's entitled to their own opinion but I don't see how Cameron "ruined" the franchise. If anything, he gave it a cool boost (surpassing Alien at the box office) and Sigourney Weaver an Oscar nomination. So much for brainless bang bang eh? ;) Should be:

Thank you, Cameron. Thank you.  :wink:

Dances With Wolves - and this is coming from a guy who should love it because I love historical stuff. But I just never got into it. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. And something about the white Indian chick who was somehow able to get ahold of a bottle SprayNet in the 1800's with which to tease up her hair just rubbed me the wrong way.

I loved DANCES WITH WOLVES (I have only seen the extended version, not the original theatrical version).  I thought the only drawback was the ending.  I thought, "That's it?"  I was expecting a really spectacular ending, but it just sort of ended without a big bang.

Most of the brat pack movies from the 80s.  The Breakfast Club, Pretty In Pink, Peggy Sue Got Married, etc.  I just never liked them. 

I wouldn't call it a 'classic' by any means, but even when I was 5 I knew of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula'. That film was a big deal when it came out.

Saw it recently and it was clunky and over acted acted.
A bit rubbish really.

Ugh I never liked them either.  I also don't like any of the Kevin Smith movies, but I don't think they're really considered classics.

This board's always interesting when it comes to topics like this.  It's fun (and sometimes baffling) seeing the variety of views on cinema.  I can't imagine not getting enjoyment from films like Blade Runner and Apocalypse Now, but anywho, here're some of my choices:

Gone With the Wind - I'll give it credit for a few impressive moments, and although it's super-long it goes by in no time, but I hated Scarlett so much and to spend such an amount of time with that character isn't much fun for me.  And I also like a quote from a a capsule review on Criticker.com, " I cannot forgive a film which presents a cotton plantation as a symbol of hope and glory."

Blue Velvet - There are things I admire about it, but overall it left me empty.  I'll probably watch it again.

A Clockwork Orange - Kubrick presents some bold stuff here, but again, and empty experience.

A.I.- Artificial Intelligence- Went WAY too long and it is... a fairy tale? When the *SPOILERS* Aliens came, it just went down hill from there
*/SPOILERS*

Citizen Kane- Boring beyond belief. People loves it, I HATE it with a passion! :thumbdown:

Hit or miss for me on brat pack movies. I can't stand The Breakfast Club, Pretty In Pink, or St. Elmo's Fire (gag). However, I can appreciate Sixteen Candles and Weird Science.

Technically, I don't think there were *SPOILERS*Aliens.  I think they were advanced Mecha that had survived whatever wiped out the living humans. *SPOILERS*

But yeah, A.I. just went on waaay to damn long and it seemed like they couldn't figure out what they wanted the storyline to be.  It's like, okay, he's with the mom and dad, their real kid is in a coma, so we're going to explore whether or not an artificial being can be a replacement for their "real" son, what it means to be family, something like that?  Oh, no, wait, the kid woke up!  So, now we're going to explore the dynamic of the whole family with the newly awoken kid adjusting to all the time that's passed and things that have changed and perhaps accepting his robotic "brother" and everyone's going to learn stuff from each other and this will be.. oh, wait, nope, they tossed the robot out.  

Okay, now the robot is on his own with just the teddy bear, he's on this quest to find the Dr. No guy.. oh, and we got a Gigolo robot falsely accused of murder, now we'll probably talk about whether or not to treat mechs so badly just cause they're not human, and the nature of jealousy and how it can affect.. oh wait, nope, they dropped that thread.  Okay, so, the family will figure out it was all a misunderstanding, they come after the boy, oh, wait, guess not.  

Alright then, we'll find Doctor Know and he'll have some kind of answer.. maybe we're going for a Wizard of Oz type thing we're they'll tell the boy... wait, no, now we're off to find this Blue Fairy and, DAMMIT TO HELL, will you guys f**king PICK a plot line to follow!

This was originally a Stanley Kubrick project. Then, I think, at some point Speilberg got involved, then Kubrick passed away, and Speilberg took the helm. I respect Speilberge, but I got the impression he was trying to be respectful of Kubrick and keep it somewhat a Kubrick film and since that's not his thing it just failed in the translation. I appreciated what the film was trying to do and liked the concept, but it just didn't work well. I'm curious how the film would have turned out had Kubrick had helmed it as intended.

Kevin Smith movies are hit or miss for me with a mostly "miss" end result.  I like Clerks for it's offbeat humor.  I also thought Jersey Girl was a touching film that went outside Smith's d!ck and f@rt jokes.  However pretty much all the others I'd rather not partake in after watching them once.  Especially Chasing Amy.  :thumbdown:

that Batman movie that came out last year that everyone loved with Heath Ledger. I watched like half an hour of it and turned it off when the Joker was giving a speech about good vs evil and evoking Cicero or something.  yawn

Not sure if any of the following are considered 'classics', but I really didn't like:
It's A Wonderful Life
Miracle on 34th Street
Star Wars, and it's sequels/prequels
Lord of The Rings Series
Jaws
Indiana Jones Series
Terminator Series
Planet of The Apes
Superman Series
Titanic

I've never never been a fan of these films.  Gave a try, and was flat out bored by many of them

 :buggedout: Have to say I love a lot of the films mentioned here and honestly usually prefer slow-moving films with a thoughtful storyline that takes its time developing story and characters over fast-moving action flicks. I certainly wouldn't suggest the classic Solaris to the lot of you here who are complaing about slow-moving movies. Honestly Cameron is the director I typically find to be the most overrated (although I did enjoy a lot of his films, they just don't seem at all original) along with Kevin Smith (whom I seriously dislike as a director aside from Clerks). I also find the modern comedy favourites to be overrated such as Knocked Up and Superbad both of which I disliked although I did like to some extent The 40 Year Old Virgin and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Shocked at the mention of The Mummy (1932) which I still consider one of the absolute best Horror films I've ever seen...although I have to admit I really didn't like Suspiria too much.

Excellent points.  Most newer comedies are terrible.  I laugh at times but few hold my interest.  The 40 Year Old Virgin being the only exemption.  I also see what you mean on Suspiria.  It is rather jumbled at times.  I wouldn't consider it as high as many proclaim it. 

Saw "Zulu" a while ago. For all its fame, I found it a bit boring and populated with shallow characters. Don't take me wrong, it has its good things, but I'd call it very overrated.

Also... I don't like John Ford that much. I find some of his films excelent, such as "The horse soldiers" or "They were expendable", but for some reason his best known films don't work for me. Saw "My darling Clementine" a few weeks ago. Great opening, Henry Fonda is terrific... and then all it cares about until the very ending is about Wyatt Earp and Doc Hollyday's girlfriends. Also, Victor Mature as Hollyday? I can't buy him as a comsumptive. Saw "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" the week before and it was much better.

Some classics are hyped for what they were in their day - "Blade Runner for example was really cool in 1982 borrowing heavily from Mobius stylization of Sci-Fi comics of Heavy Metal magazine. In 2010 "Blade Runner" is rather tame and nothing new. It all depends on your definition of classic - for me I have two.

One being, a film that stands the test of time - a movie like "Patton" is a classic I can watch it anytime and enjoy it, nothing new or amazing in Patton just a damn fine movie that is well acted and can be seen again and again.

Another way of a film being classic is for it's groundbreaking and innovation, a film that raises the bar a little higher.

Remember how batsh!t everyone went for the Matrix? The freeze time 360 shot - that was new and it was cool and then everybody did it and it was boring. Early film amazed and frighten watcher and now we fine them quaint. So another way a film might be classic would be to move the bar - not always a great movie just something that redefines cinema.

But that's just one opinion of many.

The Matrix sucked, as did it's terrible sequels.

Someone mentioned Superbad.  Good movie.  Not great.  The highlight of the film is the interaction between McLovin and the cops.  The rest sucks.

For a good 'recent' comedy to watch: Pineapple Express.

I enjoyed the first Matrix when it came out, but over time it has become almost meaningless. What was once maybe a 7/10 for me has virtually dropped off the board completely, and the sequels I didn't like even when they came out. Honestly, if the first Matrix came on cable and I was flipping through channels I wouldn't even stop.

  Well I hate to say it, especially on a board like this one, but I really don't like the original Universal Wolfman. I drift off whenever I try to watch it. It's just boring. Even the dramatic aspects leave me cold. Except for Claude Rains the acting is pretty stiff.

 I can see where the make-up effects might have been exciting back when it first came out 70 years ago, but the horror element doesn't hold up today, and that's pretty important for a horror movie. Look at this picture, is it scary? No, the dude looks like he just needs a bath, a manicure and a shave and he could be your friendly neighborhood barista.  (Actually he'd probably just need the manicure.)

(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/wuherdb/wolfman.gif)

 :thumbup: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Better man than I, then.  I couldn't even enjoy the first Matrix. 

Agree. First and foremost:Kenau Reeves. :thumbdown:

Yes, I can't stand Keanu Reeves. It says something when the best thing he has ever done isBill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. I just liked the look and feel of The Matrix when it first came out, but over time I can't stand it anymore. So, yes, I am being a bit more gracious than you.

PSYCHO and BONNIE AND CLYDE are awesome.  I like BLADE RUNNER and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, but a class on "Film Classics" could do a lot better. 

Not fair.  He's also done the movie Freaked.

Beyond that...terrible.

"Blade Runner" is a strange animal. Being a sci-fi film and having Harrison Ford as the star it can be very, very misleading. Add to that that as a thriller or an action film the pace just doesn't work. What IMHO make it worthy are the visuals, the characters and the ideas in the script (what is what makes us human, real vs. simulated, etc.). I watched it a few times as a teenager and couldn't tell what the fuss was all about, I only started to enjoy it many years later.

"Bonnie and Clyde" is a good film, but what made it so special was the many rules it broke. I wouldn't be surprised if it had lost its appeal over the tears, as the film industry became more permissive.

And "Silence of the lambs" is another misleading film. After "Hannibal" and the other sequels you may expect a more thrilling and gorier film, but it tries hard to be subtle, it's almost entirely devoted to the relationship that develops between Lecter and Clarice, and the rest of it is downplayed.

"Psycho", on the other hand is a terrific film. It may a bit too slow and not that gory when compared by present day's psycho thrillers, but that shouldn't matter when Hitchcock's direction is that good.    

Psycho's problem is that we all know what its about and that might make it seem a little slow to people. The first viwers might have thought they're were watching a heist film or a thriller.





HUGE SPOILER BUT YOU ALMOST CERTAINLY KNOW:


Imagine the shock when the main character dies halfway through.

I reckon when it was first shown it must have been very shocking.
Its a victim of its own success like Planet of the Apes or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

PSYCHO is a great film-and I agree with you. When I first saw it,I already knew the outcome-(I owned the Richard Anobile frame by frame book that came out in the 70's-also the FRANKENSTEIN and 1932 DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE boooks;those type of things were made obsolete when video became avalible) but even so-it still works for me. The music in PSYCHO is great-its a major factor for me. Even when Janet is driving down the road in the driving rain-the music screechs in time with her windsheild wipers-genuis. Imagine PSYCHO without the music-half the impact-the build up-is gone. And the shower scene still gives me goosebumps. WEEET! WEET! WEEET!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOsgZWmvW50

Here's another for the list, John Ford's "Mogambo". It's a love triangle between Ava Gardner, Clark Gable and Grace Kelly while they're on a safari in Africa. Ava Gardner is easily the best of the film. She's sex on legs, a role she probably was used to. But Gable is boring, Kelly annoying as Hell, and the adventure elements are reduced to natives chanting and the characters reacting to animals from stock footage.

I can imagine why it was so succesful at the time. Exotic scenario and three great stars in a daring -for the times- love triangle. But now it only looks mediocre.

Like Menard wrote on page one of this thread, I saw BLADE RUNNER in the theater (three times  :buggedout:) which I expect helped a lot... you do a good job of pointing out what's best (and problematic) about the film, except one: VANGELIS' music.  Back in the day, I carried a tape recorder in to the theater to get the music which wasn't available for many years and is still incomplete in the currently available release...

BONNIE AND CLYDE is a great film.  I sat through it again in the past year.  It has not lost its appeal, reads quite modern (unlike dated "masterpieces" like THE GRADUATE made the same year) and even has the power still to shock. 

A very good film with brilliant performances, particularly by ANTHONY HOPKINS. 

Yep.  :thumbup:  There are some clumsy bits, but they are minor.  I do not think PSYCHO is slow, but perhaps claustrophobic.  Though I love REAR WINDOW best, PSYCHO is HITCHCOCK's most important film.

I really like most of the movies that have been mentioned in this thread, aside from SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and most of the comedies.  (I think the reason people hold CADDYSHACK in such high regard is the performances from Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, but I agree it was a pretty big letdown, certainly not in the same league as AIRPLANE! and GHOSTBUSTERS).

I loved THE MATRIX until I saw DARK CITY; and only watched the sequels because of Agent Smith.  I also didn't care much for CLOCKWORK ORANGE and I respect 2001 a whole lot more than I like it.  IMO Kubrick's best works were DR. STRANGELOVE & THE SHINING. 

The two big classics that I hate: THE SEVENTH SEAL and THE SEARCHERS.  Both felt really heavy-handed and preachy to me, in addition to being dull.  I especially hate THE SEARCHERS because that's the movie that critics and film-class types love to proclaim is John Wayne's only good film.  Yeah,  I'm calling total bullsh*t on that.  TRUE GRIT, MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, THE QUIET MAN, THE SHOOTIST - all miles better and I'm not even a John Wayne fan.

I hate to do this but chaostheory's post reminds me of another one: Dark City. The plot is recycled from a twilight Zone episode. The lead was wimpy, the vampy girl seemed shy instead of sultry, william hurt or whoever it was was not noir ish at all and the whole thing was rote and corny looking. I'll have to see it again maybe I missed something.

Would probably add City of Lost Children to the list but haven't seen it in a while.

The DC is a bit better, but yeah, for a cult film "Dark City" is quite dull. Wrong tone, wrong direction of actors. Kiefer Sutherland was fun, though. And I have to admit the ideas they handled were provocative at the time. But you have to give the Wachowski's some merit: they probably saw the movie and decided it needed kung-fu and bullet time. And they were right.

Actually Dark City borrowed a lot of its basic plot from a Classic Outer Limits episode entitled "A Feasibility Study". I still enjoyed Dark City too though.

The Wizard of Oz. 

Enjoyable enough, but really, incredibly, overhyped.  Not a GREAT movie by any means.

Martyrs has got a bit of a 'classic' status around the horror crowd.



I though it was intresting for a bit, but then it became tiresome gore.
I really don't see whats so special or scary about it.



Deadgirl is another film thats really popular and I can't stand it.
It was a real chore to sit through, well made but so grim that I didn't get any pleasure from it.

I would say Speed 2: Cruise Control, but that would imply that Speed had some kind of merit.

I will let that go because you are entitled to your opinion.  :tongueout: I vehemently disagree, however. TWoO is a far better film than it set out to be. In a nutshell, it is a troubled girl's search for self-worth, purpose and power in a world where the established authorities will grant her nothing. Each character she meets represents a quality she doesn't feel she possesses, but once she has assembled her "army," she is able to take on the most powerful evil figure she can imagine. She emerges from her dream a whole person, stronger and better able to deal with life. From a literary standpoint, I'd say that's a much deeper story than Citizen Kane's "I was only really happy when I was young and carefree."

Watched the entire AFI Top 100 (both lists) a couple years back.  Here were the ones I didn't like that were highly rated:

Some Like It Hot - Some don't like it at all.  Marilyn Monroe can't act and looked doped up the whole movie.  Which I'm sure she was.
Raging Bull - I don't hate this movie, but it's too much like every other Scorcese / De Niro movie, and I saw the others first.  Unfair, probably, but hey...
Apocalypse Now - I liked the spoof from The Critic a lot better - Apocalypse WOW!  Didn't see why this had to be 200 hours long.
West Side Story - I hate musicals, with few exceptions.  Singin' In the Rain is good, as is An American In Paris.  This one was not.
High Noon - zzzzzzzzz.  Somebody kill somebody already.  I hate westerns too, with few exceptions.  Stagecoach is good.
A Streetcar Named Desire - This is why we can't have nice things, Marlon.  Stop breaking things all the time!
Shane - Words cannot describe how much I hate this movie, or the awful things I want to happen to the annoying little kid.
The Searchers - Nice settings with the mountains and the sunsets and whatnot.  The rest of the movie is garbage.
Bringing Up Baby - Loved the Philadelphia Story.  Hated this movie.
Nashville - Robert Altman is the worst director in human history.

!!!!!

I can think of few films as timeless and excellent as The Wizard of Oz.

I'm not saying it's a bad film at all.  In my original post I did say it was enjoyable.

But, I don't think it's 'classic.'

Sorry, Happy, I have to join in with the others.  I think it was even better than MACGRUBER!  :wink:

But it's your right to think it's overhyped.  You like what you like. 

UHF was better than MacGruber.

Dont know why but I dont like Oz as much as others.

I'd rank them OZ>UHF>MACGRUBER.  :wink:

You would. :lookingup:

Then again, I'm not a big fan of many 'classic' movies to begin with but that's another topic altogether.

THE WIZARD OF OZ is about as good as Hollywood films get.  When I was younger, and having seen OZ so many times, I started to lose interest in it, but have since rediscovered it and now find it endlessly watchable.

You've overlooked a few good 'uns.  First, ROBERT ALTMAN was a great director who made films that were not typical Hollywood fare. Second, SOME LIKE IT HOT is still hilarious, who needs MARILYN to act?  :question:
HIGH NOON is overrated for me, too, and I love Westerns. 

Robert Atman was a great director, but he preferred to follow his own eccentric style rather than play by rules that could have made his work more accessible. I like some of his work, such as "Short Cuts" or "The gingerbread man", but I find others of his films completely unwatchable.

I watched NASHVILLE, THE PLAYER, COOKIE'S FORTUNE, and GOSFORD PARK and couldn't stand any of them.  The missus watched PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION and despite being a huge NPR/Keillor fan, she couldn't even finish it.

From all the work I've seen of Altman's, he seems to have no idea how to capture or hold the audience's attention.  And I sat through some real stinkers on that Top 100 list, so I consider myself to have be more patient and attentive than most when it comes to slow/pensive/meditative/old movies.

Just one Mitchell's opinion.....

I liked The Player.

Dances with Wolves never grabbed me, probably because I had read too many westerns by Louis L'Amour and Terry C. Johnston and knew what would happen to a soldier captured by the plains Indians (it wouldn't be pretty!). If you want to see a good film dealing with native/white relations see Little Big Man with Dustin Hoffman and Chief Dan George, who got Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his performance. And speaking of Louis L'Amour, the movie Hondo based on his book of the same name, is considered by many to be one of the best westerns out there.

Staying on the western theme, I would consider both the The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time the West as classics. Lots of action and the musical score for both movies is awesome and does a lot to carry both movies, at least in my view. My understanding is that Once Upon a Time the West also had a bit of shock value when it first came out. First  *SPOILER ALERT* for the the family is getting massacred and then having the leader of the killers turns out to be Henry Fonda! Both movies I can watch over and over and never get tired.

Matrix. Watched the first film and, yes, the special effects were awesome, but that was about it. Never watched any of the sequels.

As for Bonnie and Clyde, I was just a young kid when it came out and remember the outrage that the movie caused due to its graphic violence. Pretty tame compared with today's movies, but like I said, at the time it was quite controversial and ultimately a trend setting.

The Terminator- not terrible but definitely not great by any stretch.

I feel most of these acclaimed "Classics" are with good reason. i think that the directing, story telling and special effects for each particular time period when they were released makes them classics. In 1939 no one had seen anything like WOO so it was this awe-inspiring film of that decade, much like Blade Runner was and Psycho were. Nowadays classic films appear dated (most are of course) and lack the punch that once was for that particular time. We've seen so much and there is little to no originality anymore as far as story telling and film making goes. Those films are classics in their own right because of the impact they had made at that particular time. Unfortunately it takes much more than fancy CGI and a overly inflated budget to make an impactful film. The audience is much harder to please and capture more than ever because we have all become desensitized to special effects as well as "Old Hat" storylines.

Edit: Taste is also a HUGE factor for the replay and enjoyment of these movies.

Not old enough to be classic, but I was unimpressed with Avatar.
Not enough story too much scenery porn.