Overly appreciated movies?

[AntonAAK]

WTF is wrong with some of you people? Critical much?

"Anything by Stanley Kubrick."
You obviously know nothing about cinema, bud.

I know over-blown, pretentious trash when I see it.

 

[herringbonekid]

i forgot to mention an overrated movie: The King's Speech.

 

[Two Types]

i forgot to mention an overrated movie: The King's Speech.

I've not seen it but I always thought I would hate it.

My problem is that I have often quite irrational prejudices against actors/filmmakers/subjects etc. So I find myself not watching films because of these prejudices. For example, I refuse to watch Woody Allen films: I saw the first five minutes of one (I can't recall the title but it was on a double-bill with Young Frankenstein sometime in the late 1970s *) and I thought it was truly awful. I walked out and, as far as i recall, I haven't seen one of his films since then.

* I can't remember the film's title but can remember who I was with (my dad), the cinema we were in(Granada 2, Bedford) and where we were sitting (by the aisle, halfway down, right hand side). It's strange how memory works.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The historic distortions in The King's Speech irritated me, but it was the highest grossing picture we've ever shown -- so I can't argue with that. Any picture dealing with the Royal Family does very very very well here -- maybe it's because a lot of Mainers are descended from Loyalists.

A very recent film we've had that I don't ever want to see again was "Philomena." Manipulative slop from start to finish.

 

[Two Types]

Out of interest: I haven't seen The King's Speech: what were the historical distortions?

 

[LizzieMaine]

The one that really bugged me was the portrayal of Winston Churchill during the abdication crisis as being an ally and supporter of Bertie -- when in fact he strongly supported keeping Edward VIII as king. They clearly felt it necessary to show Churchill as being on the right side of history, given that they'd already established Edward as a Nazi sympathizer, but the reality was that Churchill didn't just support Edward -- he was a *vociferous* supporter of him, right up until he abdicated.

The other big distortion was George VI's support for Chamberlain's policy of appeasement -- which remained in place right up until the start of the war. That whole angle wasn't even mentioned, so the viewer comes away with the idea that the new king was always a staunch foe of fascism and an advocate of military preparedness. In reality, he wanted more than anything to avoid a war, and it took the actual outbreak of war to change his views.

It was an entertaining film, but it was poor history.

 

[herringbonekid]

Hitchcock's Vertigo is currently number one in the critic's poll (voted for by film critics, academics, programmers etc.), knocking Citizen Kane off the top after fifty years:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

i have mixed feelings about Vertigo. i find the whole premise implausible. much of it overblown, melodramatic, plain daft. yet there is something haunting and hypnotic about it too.
i can appreciate it as a dream-like exploration of the guilt associated with obsessive male desire. i have no idea if that's what Hitchcock intended or if he was simply trying to make a decent thriller.

 

[Nobert]

I never saw The King's Speech, but I found it an interesting civic display that the British public would accept the notion that any male member of the Windsor family looked like Colin Firth.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hitchcock's Vertigo is currently number one in the critic's poll (voted for by film critics, academics, programmers etc.), knocking Citizen Kane off the top after fifty years:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

i have mixed feelings about Vertigo. i find the whole premise implausible. much of it overblown, melodramatic, plain daft. yet there is something haunting and hypnotic about it too.
i can appreciate it as a dream-like exploration of the guilt associated with obsessive male desire. i have no idea if that's what Hitchcock intended or if he was simply trying to make a decent thriller.

Hitchcock's fifties Hollywood films always leave me feeling uneasy, and not a good kind of uneasy, as though I'm being shown things about the director's psyche that I would prefer not to be shown.

I much prefer his low-budget British pictures of the thirties -- tight and taut, without the padding that shows up in his American work.

 

[Two Types]

Hitchcock's Vertigo is currently number one in the critic's poll (voted for by film critics, academics, programmers etc.), knocking Citizen Kane off the top after fifty years:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time

i have mixed feelings about Vertigo. i find the whole premise implausible. much of it overblown, melodramatic, plain daft. yet there is something haunting and hypnotic about it too.
i can appreciate it as a dream-like exploration of the guilt associated with obsessive male desire. i have no idea if that's what Hitchcock intended or if he was simply trying to make a decent thriller.

Quite a lot of nonsense gets talked about Hitchcock. In particular you will often read about his voyeristic nature, using the scenes between Donat & Carroll in The 39 Steps in which they are handcuffed together and she has to remove her stockings. Having spent the last few months watching loads of British films of the 1930s and it appears that british directors were obsessed with scenes of women removing their stockings. When viewed in that context, the scene in the 39 Steps becomes less notable, thus undermining the arguments about Hitchcock's nature.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I've not seen it but I always thought I would hate it.

My problem is that I have often quite irrational prejudices against actors/filmmakers/subjects etc. So I find myself not watching films because of these prejudices. For example, I refuse to watch Woody Allen films: I saw the first five minutes of one (I can't recall the title but it was on a double-bill with Young Frankenstein sometime in the late 1970s *) and I thought it was truly awful. I walked out and, as far as i recall, I haven't seen one of his films since then.

* I can't remember the film's title but can remember who I was with (my dad), the cinema we were in(Granada 2, Bedford) and where we were sitting (by the aisle, halfway down, right hand side). It's strange how memory works.

I too am not a fan of Woody Allen. His humour generally leaves a funny taste in my mouth but the only Woody Allen film that I did like was Zelig.

 

[Nobert]

. Having spent the last few months watching loads of British films of the 1930s and it appears that british directors were obsessed with scenes of women removing their stockings.

Well, we had the Hayes office, so someone had to pick up the slack in terms of risqué movie scenes. I expect the production of Canadian whiskey went up during Prohibition as well.

 

[p51]

Hitchcock's stuff never did much for me. But I think that has more to do with a perspective on what has been filmed since then. His work was groundbreaking, no question. It just doesn't do much for me.

"Anything by Stanley Kubrick."
You obviously know nothing about cinema, bud.

An opinion is an opinion, but that said I must admit I feel that if you're outright dismissing all the work of a specific director, perhaps the analytical side isn't being used much.

 

[skydog757]

The Horror genre has way too many films deemed "classic". There is a very devoted and knowledgeable fan base of this type of film, but as a more mainstream viewer many of their charms are lost on me. For instance, The Blair Witch Project was an excellent concept (hyped as "discovered" footage) but not such a great movie (to my taste). It did inspire a host of similarly styled films (some quite good, others not so much).

 

[Nobert]

The Horror genre has way too many films deemed "classic". There is a very devoted and knowledgeable fan base of this type of film, but as a more mainstream viewer many of their charms are lost on me. For instance, The Blair Witch Project was an excellent concept (hyped as "discovered" footage) but not such a great movie (to my taste). It did inspire a host of similarly styled films (some quite good, others not so much).

Dave Barry had a good line on Blair Witch, something like: "It shows that you don't need A-list actors, a huge budget and tons of hype to produce a successful movie. You just need tons of hype."

 

[Zombie_61]

The Horror genre has way too many films deemed "classic". There is a very devoted and knowledgeable fan base of this type of film, but as a more mainstream viewer many of their charms are lost on me. For instance, The Blair Witch Project was an excellent concept (hyped as "discovered" footage) but not such a great movie (to my taste). It did inspire a host of similarly styled films (some quite good, others not so much).

The Blair Witch Project was clearly a case of clever marketing over substance. I knew a few people who bought it hook, line, and sinker, and their cages were still rattling until I told them it was indeed a work of fiction.

On a semi-related note, can a movie that's less than 15 years old be considered a classic? [huh]

With regards to the genre, I do enjoy classic horror movies such as Frankenstein (1931), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931), and The Old Dark House (1932), but I'm not a fan of modern horror movies which, in my opinion, aren't much more than pseudo-paranormal, torture porn, and/or gorenographic rubbish. That said, I realize the genre is not to everyone's liking, and I think a lot of good movies have been dismissed and overlooked over the years for that reason.

 

[celestial]

I know over-blown, pretentious trash when I see it.

Such as whenever you look into a mirror? :eusa_doh:

 

[jamespowers]

Such as whenever you look into a mirror? :eusa_doh:

Enough already...

 

[celestial]

One thing he does know about cinema is that he doesn't like Kubrick's films.

It's called opinion. And this particular thread exists solely to offer the voice of dissent against the generally accepted views of what is great.

P.S. I realise that in my earlier posts i forgot to mention two particular films whose reputations are, in my opinion, undeserved: One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest and The Shining.

That isn't something about cinema.

No, it's called trying to act clever and original by pretending to dislike anything that is objectively well-made.

Because??? It isn't Kubrick's fault he wasn't born a pom.

Enough already...

Come at me, bro!

 

[Two Types]

That isn't something about cinema.

If it's a personal opinion about a director's films, based on watching them and not enjoying them, that that is knowing "something about cinema": i.e. knowing the films he doesn't like.

You may disagree but your opinion is no more valid than his. The difference is that he isn't trying to tell you that he is right and you are wrong.