"Classics" you just don't get.

[Allhallowsday]

fair enough AHD, I respect the opinion of anyone who happens to think it's deserving of classic status.

I'm half tempted to think it's a case of 'maybe you just had to be there'.. but of course that kind of thing shouldn't apply to truly classic movies. ...it is what it is, I guess.

No, I don't think so. 
When I first saw THE EXORCIST 40 years ago, it was on cable TV and I found it more shocking than frightening.  I suspect that though it was cable, the film was trimmed of its most unsavory bits (like the crucifix scene, and what she says...)  Nonetheless, if you were raised with Christianity, it is hard not to be affected by much of that film. 
Eventually, I saw a lot of much more violent, sexual, cruel and revolting movies, and THE EXORCIST is hardly the worst shocker I've seen.  BUT, I have only in more recent years come to appreciate what a very well made film it is, with a truly insightful script.   Given the right context, you may find a place for it. 

I grew up with THE WIZARD OF OZ, grew to loathe it, and rediscovered it by liking the part I did not like as a kid: the songs.  I had to find a way to appreciate it as a grownup.  Sometimes rediscovery is the key, as in a whole new appreciation. 

[RCMerchant]

It wasn't until just recently I started to appreciate the GODFATHER. It just always put me to sleep. But I have gained attention span in the last decade or so to have the paitence to discover what a great film it really is.

 I still don't get what all the hula-baloo was about was any INDIANA JONES movie.
 I liked when the nazi's face melted in one of them. And I have seen most of them once.

[El Misfit]

Wizard of Oz is, in my opinion, more of a technical achievement film.  It's one of the first color films and it shows with how bright the set is. Blade Runner is another film that falls in technical achievement instead of a good story. I really don't care for either, but I can appreciate the technical aspect of each. As for a classic that I never got, well that's Citizen Kane. I never got why people just go on and on with it. I found it to be a story about a guy told from other people's knowledge.

[Svengoolie 3]

Some people think "Men in Black" was good. I found d it horrifying and terrible. Mind control? Acceptable? Hell no! I wanted to ram that neutralizer up will smith's ass. To me the main characters were evil. Thier organization was evil. It might do humanity good to know there were aliens in the universe, get humans to step up their game.

[BoyScoutKevin]

I recently saw HOW THE WEST WAS WON.  it was so bad... acting, tone, pacing, script...feeble. but not in a good-bad way. some of the sets were quite nice maybe?

THE EXCORCIST... like a boring tv movie. not scary, not tense, not thought provoking. a slog to get through.

AVATAR...go away. just go away.

I must say I liked HTWW, if only for the shootout between the law and the outlaws aboard the train.

And here are six more reasons someone who has not seen the film may want to see it.

HARRY DEAN STANTON. As one of the outlaws aboard the train.

Little known as actors, but well known for playing the villain. JACK LAMBERT and RUDY ACOSTA. Again as outlaws aboard the train.

Blink and you'll miss him, but still instantly recognizable. LEE VAN CLEEF as one of the river pirates.

And you'll know him by his voice. KEN CURTIS in the Civil War scene.

RAYMOND MASSEY. Probably the only Canadian actor to play two American heroes. Depending upon how you define heroes. Not once, but twice. Here as Abe Lincoln and then again in Abe Lincoln in Illinois and John Brown in Santa Fe Trail and Seven Angry Men.

And the late western writer LOUIS L'AMOUR wrote the novelization of the screenplay, and as in most novelizations filling in some of the plot holes. Here what happened to some of the characters seen once in the film and then not seen again.