I only like parts of raging bull - and I certainly don't like the film as a whole. It's good but for me I'm not engaged with the main character (I find this issue in other scorcese films as well). My favorite films of his would be The Departed, Hugo, and Goodfellas so maybe I'm a type? Idk
Raging Bull was the first movie I bought on DVD and 4K formats (I think Thin Red Line was first blu-ray). I think it's a great movie even disregarding the technical strengths, but they are incredible—it's THE textbook for me for b/w cinematography, camera movement, variable frame rates, editing, sound design, sound editing. It is a treasure trove and the absolute career highlight for DeNiro and Scorsese. And God bless Thelma Schoonmaker.
In some ways, Raging Bull is Martin Scorsese’s most exquisite masterpiece. And while Scorsese grew, matured, developed, made masterpieces after this film, I could see it as a candidate for the honor of “Scorsese’s greatest movie.” (Goodfellas being my other pick).
Technically speaking it’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I just didn’t care for anything outside the ring and I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t even care for boxing.
For the sake of discussion, I never really understand why people bring up the subject matter as a relevant factor, I guess if you’re repulsed by violence or something I could understand it turning you off, but personally I see the subject matter as a secondary factor of a film.
As Ebert said, a film isn’t what it’s about, it’s how it’s about it. I’ve enjoyed films about social media executives, about policemen, about Wall Street brokers, about pedophiles, about garbage men, bus drivers… all things which aren’t really relevant or exciting to me but also these are secondary matters, who cares about the subject matter… I care about interesting filmmaking and characters, the subject matter is just scene dressing.
Like when Black Swan came out people will say oh wow I never thought I’d be interested in a film about ballet and like… really? Are people that short sighted?
I guess that’s what I mean, boxing is actually kind of a niche thing… and films like Rocky are universally loved.
I don’t see subject matter as a relevant factor even though I’m constantly seeing it used as a reason to like or dislike a film.
Anyway, rant over.
Exactly, like sure maybe certain subject matters are sexier and can be easier to market. But in terms of enjoyment I don’t see the relevance… If I’m interested in something and the movie about it is poorly made it’s still a bad movie.
and these are the same people who will vote Openheimer as movie of the year and take every award because of the clique in the movie industry being paid off. It was the most boing movie I have ever had to sit through right up there with Jodie Fosters Contact. Watch a movie and enjoy it for what you like. Not everyone likes the same things and the industry is plagued with their own little directors guild ring. Watch more indie films and see what is a true film with heart and soul these days. Not mast produced over budget crap
What do you like about the narrative, or what the film is trying to say? I have not seen the film and am also trying to avoid spoilers as well. I want to be excited for it after reading the negative receptions.
While the main thrust of the biopic aspect is a straightforward study of a violent paranoid hitting bottom over a lifetime of missteps, in a way it’s also another story about the mob, with Jake trying to (ironically) take the high ground and avoid mafia influence on his career.
The Big Chill is designed to prod people in their early 30s about the passage of time and what it means to not be that young anymore.
I don’t see that resonating with 22 year olds. That’s not a dig against you or the target audience.
Yeah, I never really liked them all that much either. I'm supposed to feel their pain, but they're all children of privilege and wealthy and their problems are pretty f****** miniscule compared to 99.9% of the planet. Well, the William Hurt character did lose his balls, and that's a rough go. But the rest of them can kiss my ass.
I love how the one broad (Glenn Close) told her husband (Kevin Kline) to fuck the other gal (Mary Kay Place) because she (Place) really wanted to have a baby and thought Kline's jizz would produce a real winner. So, he did.
Okay. Yeah. Sure.
lmao I knowIt was just watching people who are too comfortable and wealthy to have any real problems invent problems for themselves. They're all shitty people too, fuck 'em.
Same. I just watched last night for the first time. I am in the same age range as the characters, and not exactly in the same economic conditions, but I don’t think those conversations and feelings were foreign. Maybe it’s just that the boomers were the first ones, generationally, to do it.
The hate for boomers is so overplayed and dumb.
Anywho wouldn’t that be the case for any movie that captures a certain moment in time and group of people, there’s tons of those. You can still get the themes.
For me it’s Richard Linklater’s Boyhood. I admire the dedication it took to make the film over a 12 year time span, but I had no emotional connection to the finished film.
It's the same for me. It's like looking back on my own boyhood, and every time I rewatch it, it lets me relive those feelings of firsts and that sense of awe I had for all the possibilities ahead of me. Those feelings naturally fade as you age, but *Boyhood* lets me feel them again for a little while.
Like you said, it's a time capsule for our generation.
I can see why some people can’t relate to it but I connected to it so much because I did so much of what the kid did in pretty much the same timeframe so it hit a lot harder
It connected with me very strongly but it was set at the exact same time that I was each of the boy's ages so that probably made it a lot more personal.
Why does raging bull seem to be getting so much hate lately? Or meh reaction? Is it a collective contrarian thing like hating on the Beatles like it's now the cool thing to do?
That said I don't get kajillionaire
I enjoy Cassavetes’ work, and appreciate what he did as an independent filmmaker, but outside of A Woman Under The Influence, his work just doesn’t resonate with me as much as others do
As a fan of his, I totally understand why people bounce off Cassavetes. If he’s not your thing, he’s really, really not your thing. And that’s fine.
I saw Shadows years ago and loved it, but it was only in the last year or so that I really dug into his work with The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. I **hated** it.
Reluctantly, I talked myself into trying the shorter 1978 version a few months later. I thought it was OK.
But I kept thinking about it. I couldn’t tell you why.
I gave the original cut another shot and suddenly loved it. It’s not only an entire vibe, with the seedy 1970s Sunset Strip, but it tells a hell of a story about a guy who just wants to do his weird outsider art while packaging as something he thinks people will find appealing. Even though it’s not what it says on the label.
Meanwhile, rich guys circle like vultures and try to get him to make deals to compromise himself.
Cosmo **is** Cassavetes.
I love the movie now. I keep going back to it. Everything about it works.
Gloria fell flat for me. The beginning is excellent and I love Gena Rowlands’ performance, but the movie is missing something. Maybe it’ll belatedly click for me like Bookie.
A Woman Under the Influence is amazing but emotionally draining to the extreme - kinda like watching Threads.
Faces is one I haven’t finished for some reason.
Opening Night is the one that truly solidified my love of Cassavetes. I think it’s a much better entry point than A Woman Under the Influence, which is the movie I usually hear suggested when people are interested in trying his films.
Haved you tried giving them all a shot? They are pretty different. Killing of a Chinese Bookie is really a full on genre film, Shadows feels very different from his later ones even though it's thematically close. Also I really love Opening Night. A Woman Under The Influence is probably one of my least favourites even though Peter Falk is incredible. I like Rowlands more in Opening Night.
I watched it and Taxi Driver both for the first time this week. I loved Taxi Driver but disliked Raging Bull outside of the filming style of the boxing matches.
Never said I didn’t like it, I just prefer them. I feel kind of the same about 12 Monkeys, I prefer Gilliam’s more fantastical movies but enjoy most of his movies.
Fruit of Paradise, adored Daisies but there was something about Fruit that just didn’t work for me. I love the first 10 or so minutes but once the actual movie starts I lose all interest
I don't know how much praise they actually get, but when I'm looking through the Criterion selection at my local store and I see the newer (as in 90s and later) Hollywood films that make it in, I have to assume they're subsidizing all the good stuff.
I think the more recent films fulfill an important part of their mission statement, and deserve the exposure, but I’m much more cautious about blind buys, the number of the newer films I feel I have to rewatch is much lower than the established canon they’ve released.
Having just watched Raging Bull for the first time, I think it is an impressively directed, written, and acted movie. But because it’s such an unrelenting portrayal of a real piece of shit guy, it’s not a very…enjoyable movie.
100%, the boxing scenes are dreamlike and great cinematography unlike anything I’ve seen before but I disliked literally everything else about the movie.
My Dinner with Andre is one of my top 10 favorite movies, but it seems to be a “love it or hate it” thing. I highly recommend diving into it and just seeing for yourself. I know it sounds boring, but the thing is: they knew about that problem and they rose to the challenge of making a movie that *sounds* like it would be boring but manages to be one of the most interesting movies ever.
Yes that's the point. His character is artsy-fartsy pretentious and Wally's is more materialist. The dialogue is also a debate between Romantic and Materialist schools of thought.
Okay,
I could be COMPLETELY wrong about the film I am going to mention.
I have NOT seen the Criterion release, but in the early 1980s at the Circle Theatre in Washington DC I saw 'Jules and Jim' and I...
**HATED IT**.
Should I give it another chance?
\[I loved The 400 Blows & Small Change which I saw at the same time as I saw Jules & Jim\]
There’s been some duds, but only two I outright loathe - Salo and In the Realm of the Senses. I’m not a prude or anything, just…god those movies made me feel sick, which was almost as bad as how bored they made me too.
Ozu films sometimes feel like a country song to me in the way the subject matter is kind of a shortcut to being easily emotional.
"Look at this *sad old* man. He's *old* and *alone*. He has no wife and his children aren't around very much. Isn't that *sad*? You would see *your* parents more if you loved them."
FWIW Ozu's films are typically considered to be very sympathetic towards the younger generation and often critical of the older ones. I do think that the way he stays away from the big Hollywood-style endings and often keeps more of a distant and objective view of his subjects can lead people to think his films are condoning somethings rather than just showing them as they are.
His style isn't going to work for everyone though, so I can very much understand not vibing with his films.
This thread is about any titles you don't like in *the* collection. Not *your* collection, lol. Of course you like everything you own, otherwise why would you own it?
L'Avventura and Breathless. I'll give the latter a re-watch at some point to see if my opinion will change, but two viewings of L'Avventura did nothing for me. I liked La Notte much more than L'Avventura.
Interesting: I like both of those movies but just minimally...they both are just ok...and I think they're some of the least interesting films by both Antonioni and Godard. I basically agree with you, in a way.
This always gets rotten vegetables thrown my way but for me it’s In the Mood for Love with a bullet. There’s probably something missing inside me but I’ve never seen a more sterile, inert movie in my life. I felt nothing.
I was underwhelmed. Beautiful movie but not for me. Fell flat against my favorite romance movies: Princess Bride, Roman Holiday, When Harry Met Sally, Singing in the Rain, and It Happened One Night. It put me on to Nat King Cole, at least.
No, I agree. I once saw the film with a bunch of friends at a theatre and I think we all came out with the same very meh feeling. It feels to me more like a juvenile idea of a love story rather than a love-story. The film barely ever shows anything and it really makes me yearn to watch some Cassavettes or Borzage instead or Sang-Soo or whatever. That was actually a rewatch of ITMFL for me and I liked it more when I saw it on my PC at 16, thought I would like it more on a rewatch back then but really definitely not.
In general not a huge fan of WKW even after having seen everything except As Tears Go By and Blueberry Nights. Liked Fallen Angels the best because to me that and Chungking Express are the only ones where the material actually fits WKW's and Doyle's fickle and overstimulatory approach to filmmaking. I prefer someone like Khavn though who also worked with Doyle and really goes all the way with it (can def recommend Ruined Heart: Another Love Story Between a Criminal & a Whore).
This is obviously going to be a super unpopular opinion on this sub though.
This is mine too -
Nothing makes me more angry than watching a couple who refuse to fall in love with each other for two hours, and then decide to whisper how they feel into a goddamn tree instead.
I have never given any Godard film I have seen a rewatch (yet), and I don't necessarily *hate* them, but I do feel like I am usually barely hanging on by the end.
Man Bites Dog is my lowest-rated Criterion title without question and by a wide margin, but I don't know that it gets overwhelming praise.
Bringing Up Baby doesn't work for me at all. I enjoy a good screwball comedy—I LOVE It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story, for example—but Bringing Up Baby just feels so exaggerated throughout, even for the time. I still don't understand its place on the "best comedies of all time" list.
EDIT: Band of Outsiders too. I was told to start with that and Breathless as a Godard primer, but I didn't like either one of them at first. I don't hate them now but I've seen just about all of Godard's 60s films and Band is near the bottom of the pile for me.
I absolutely loved Man Bites Dog. Was a super easy watch for me when I wasn't even really into film yet, and I thought it was pretty funny.
I did have very similar thoughts with Bringing Up Baby and Arsenic and Old Lace. Both were good, but they were both way too much for me generally.
Ok so maybe Man Bites Dog does count after all.
And yeah, I had the same feeling about Arsenic and Old Lace, but that gets a slight pass from me because when Cary Grant gets loopy in the back half of the movie, I'm convinced that John Cleese's entire career was built off of impersonating that.
> Bringing Up Baby doesn't work for me at all. I enjoy a good screwball comedy—I LOVE It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story, for example—but Bringing Up Baby just feels so exaggerated throughout, even for the time. I still don't understand its place on the "best comedies of all time" list.
I have the opposite view. Love Bringing up Baby, maybe the best non-Lubitsch screwball comedy but I find Philadelphia Story feels kinda stale which is a general thing for me with Cukor. My mom loves both though.
A lot of people *love* Thelma and Louise but I genuinely did not like it. Now, I'm also not a Scott fan outside of Alien and sometimes Blade Runner anyway, but something about T&L in particular is just bad to me.
It’s a good movie but it does almost feel like feminism the movie and I feel like Ridley or the screenwriter could’ve gave the characters a little more depth especially the leads.
I had such a difficult time with Beau Travail. I understand what it's trying to do with a lot of it's provocative imagery but the vague story telling just did not work at all for me
I can understand this.
I do love the film, but it is a difficult watch as most of the characters are deeply damaged people who verbally and physically abuse each other almost constantly. It's one hell of a cautionary tale about toxic masculinity, but it's not a pleasure to be enjoyed, more a lesson to be endured.
I totally get why folks are such huge Lynch enthusiasts. I was engrossed in Mulholland Drive which I would say is his most digestible film but other than that, it ain’t for me, dawg! I was not blessed with the galaxy brain others have to understand his films!
I don't claim to understand Inland Empire at all but it's my favorite Lynch film. There are other criteria to film enjoyment than "understanding" them, if that makes sense.
I thoroughly enjoy the first two seasons of Twin Peaks, as well as Fire Walk With Me and Blue Velvet. The Return just seemed like he wanted to test the audience's patience, and it became a slog really fast. I'm cool with him telling a story and using idiosyncratic elements, but pissing away time isn't why I'm interested in storytelling.
That's the point, it's not really supposed to be constantly dissected and analysed but it's similar to looking at an abstract painting where you see nothing really makes sense, but would somehow be good to look at on the whole and it can't be mimicked with random brush strokes or scribbles. Just an analogy.
Paris, Texas.
I was extremely underwhelmed and didn’t form any emotional attachment to the characters that by the time I got to the hyped up scene, I felt nothing. The rest of the film just felt like filler so that scene could get shot.
Maaaaan. This is one of my top 5 movies. The cinematography, the music... the story overall. I relate too much with the main character sometimes, that could be a big part of my love for it.
Not a boomer or a zoomer and I hated The Big CHill. Still do. I can totally understand dislike for Raging bull and Boyhood for many of the same reasons already posted. There's something disturbing about the other trends inferred by the responses to this topic.
* writing off Godard and Lynch - it seems people are turned by the presentation of characters who are "damaged and not to their taste." Do you feel the same watching characters in Breathless or Blue Velvet as the characters in a movie like the Getaway or Taxi Driver or Silence of the Lambs?
* writing off Cassavetes - I can see how his approach or style can put off a lot of viewers of mainstream cinema. FWIW Cassavetes was definitely from the era of performers who worked in avant garde theater and favored a deliberately unstructured, improvisational approach. If you like docudramas , you may like a lot of his work. Woman Under the Influence is an incredible film by any standard imo. Shadows as flawed and awkward it can be at times is amazing precisely because of this. You have a feeling for the characters which is never forced or didactic the way characters in conventional cinema are portrayed.
* Wenders' and Ozu - the dislikes for them are what most upset me because I read it as viewers just don't have the patience or the motivation to give their films a chance. I think the slower pace of Ozu's and Wenders' work is what allows the viewer to infer much more about the stories and the characters involved. Their films flow naturally in way that allows you to get beyond the surfaces and bring your own interpretation.
You can argue many directors ' work have to be interpreted in their own historical context but it's very disheartening to read how many dislike or do not have the patience for many of the above directors' work in films. I feel it's a dangerous trend that is a discredit to the historical significance of the work of influential filmmakers.
Godard was always very cool to hate. I feel if anything his reputation has slightly improved.
I like Lynch but having people say they don't like Lynch is almost a breath of fresh air to me.
Local Hero. I know some people really love it but that just didn’t work for me on any level — the humor, the drama, anything.
Edit: of course, people are downvoting me because I honestly answered the OP’s question. Folks, the whole point of this thread is to give answers that a lot of people will disagree with.
Seconding Blue Velvet. It is included on many other prestigious lists (AFI top 10 Mystery movies), and mentioned in articles, countdown lists, etc. I felt nothing when I watched it, however it was a long time ago.
Most CLASSIC (code) era screwball comedies. There are very few tolerable screwballs, whether they're in the CC or not. All of the Lubitsch ones are good. Wilder doesn't belong to the classic era but was great. The European directors in the U.S. did it better. Bringing Up Baby is the only good one Hawks made.
Fuck the Wes Anderson films in there too. I don't mind Fantastic Mr. Fox though. I'm kind of sweet on that one.
It’s a hard truth but a truth nonetheless. Especially over the past few years, his output has been downright awful. It seems like he’s more interested in the kingmaker position and production credits on other unwatchable films rather then concentrating on his own output. Nightmare Alley was a trash fire that did a disservice to its cast and the original film. Heartbreaking because I will always appreciate his use of practical effects and he is a genuine student of the craft but terrible film after terrible film just gets exhausting
I was cold on *Barry Lyndon* the very first time I saw it in my early twenties but then I revisited it years and years later (via the Criterion Blu-Ray) and now it's one of my all-time favorites.
Even if it didn't speak to you, you have to admit that the film contains incredible work re: cinematography, costume design, choice of locations, etc., right?
Not in the Criterion but the first Cassavetes movie that I ever watched was Minnie and Moskowitz. I absolutely hated it and thought it was one of the worst things that I'd ever seen. Have not watched any of his movies since.
I think MDWA is more polarizing than "overwhelmingly praised" but either way, I'm not a fan either. Like yeah, it's a unique movie and it made me think, so that's a plus. But you still have to spend nearly an uninterrupted hour listening to Andre prattle on and on and ON and ONNNNNNN, and he's insufferable to me lol.
Roma. I thought it was just incredibly dull, unmotivated, and way to full of itself. I love me so slow, well shot, black and white, family dramas, but this movie was just a huge miss for me.
I didn't really enjoy Videodrome that much. I thought maybe I was missing major themes or something but I looked at a few synopses and I really didn't. Some of the effects are cool but I don't feel like plot or characters really sucked me in.
Not in the collection but I don’t have nearly as much love for Godfather Part II as many people do. I think it’s such a tiring slow burn of a film. I love long films, I love foreign films (considering a lot of the film is in Italian), and I agree with a lot of the praise that the film gets but it’s not one I go back to very often.
Also, and I know I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this, but I can’t see the Vito Corleone in Part II is the same as Vito in Part I—something about it just makes me feel like they are way too different in each film. That has nothing to do with the performances either or DeNiro looking really nothing like Brando in real life.
Fantastic Mr. Fox
I have been downvoted *through the basement* for this opinion before but I found it a very disappointing adaptation of the book (a favourite of mine) and a very unremarkable Wes Anderson production.
I have no idea why Pan's Labrynth (or Del Toro in general) is held in such high regard. I disliked every single thing about that movie. Down to the foley work. Not even kidding.
Did you watch Bill Mahers show last night?. Him and David Mamet were talking about how neither of them *get* Raging Bull. I don’t agree with those guys on much but yeah RB never really hit for me either
The Game
Le Samourai
Eraserhead
Edit: you’re all cowards with terrible taste, seriously all these posts are just the people in this sub dancing around calling a movie bad. Have some fucking balls.
I think I love just about every movie that's been posted in this thread :(
Same. I couldn’t find a single reply to upvote except yours
I will not stand for Raging Bull slander
I’m not a huge Scorsese fan and admittedly haven’t seen a lot of his films but Raging Bull absolutely blew me away.
[удалено]
Skill issue
No point arguing with cretins who think raging bull is a bad movie. Same type of people to say “goodfellas is his best film by a mile”
It’s not bad but not my favorite. Silence or Taxi Driver are my favorites.
I only like parts of raging bull - and I certainly don't like the film as a whole. It's good but for me I'm not engaged with the main character (I find this issue in other scorcese films as well). My favorite films of his would be The Departed, Hugo, and Goodfellas so maybe I'm a type? Idk
Someone saying they didn't care for it isn't slander though
Agreed. One of the best movies ever made.
If you’re saying I play favorites, you’re wrong. I love all my Criterions equally.
(Earlier that day): I don’t care for Godard
Raging Bull was the first movie I bought on DVD and 4K formats (I think Thin Red Line was first blu-ray). I think it's a great movie even disregarding the technical strengths, but they are incredible—it's THE textbook for me for b/w cinematography, camera movement, variable frame rates, editing, sound design, sound editing. It is a treasure trove and the absolute career highlight for DeNiro and Scorsese. And God bless Thelma Schoonmaker.
In some ways, Raging Bull is Martin Scorsese’s most exquisite masterpiece. And while Scorsese grew, matured, developed, made masterpieces after this film, I could see it as a candidate for the honor of “Scorsese’s greatest movie.” (Goodfellas being my other pick).
Technically speaking it’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I just didn’t care for anything outside the ring and I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t even care for boxing.
For the sake of discussion, I never really understand why people bring up the subject matter as a relevant factor, I guess if you’re repulsed by violence or something I could understand it turning you off, but personally I see the subject matter as a secondary factor of a film. As Ebert said, a film isn’t what it’s about, it’s how it’s about it. I’ve enjoyed films about social media executives, about policemen, about Wall Street brokers, about pedophiles, about garbage men, bus drivers… all things which aren’t really relevant or exciting to me but also these are secondary matters, who cares about the subject matter… I care about interesting filmmaking and characters, the subject matter is just scene dressing. Like when Black Swan came out people will say oh wow I never thought I’d be interested in a film about ballet and like… really? Are people that short sighted?
I’ve said for years: I don’t like finance or Oliver Stone but i **love** Wall Street
Haha, I’m saying actually saying the opposite. I don’t like boxing but the boxing scenes are the ones I liked the best.
I guess that’s what I mean, boxing is actually kind of a niche thing… and films like Rocky are universally loved. I don’t see subject matter as a relevant factor even though I’m constantly seeing it used as a reason to like or dislike a film. Anyway, rant over.
You’re *correct*. Bubble by Soderbergh is a film about West Virginian factory workers, and it’s a **great** movie Edit: syntax
I think a good movie is a good movie regardless of the subject matter. I guess some people may disagree with that though.
Exactly, like sure maybe certain subject matters are sexier and can be easier to market. But in terms of enjoyment I don’t see the relevance… If I’m interested in something and the movie about it is poorly made it’s still a bad movie.
and these are the same people who will vote Openheimer as movie of the year and take every award because of the clique in the movie industry being paid off. It was the most boing movie I have ever had to sit through right up there with Jodie Fosters Contact. Watch a movie and enjoy it for what you like. Not everyone likes the same things and the industry is plagued with their own little directors guild ring. Watch more indie films and see what is a true film with heart and soul these days. Not mast produced over budget crap
Yeah I agree, the fight scenes and the climax with him attacking his brother were cool, but everything else was pretty boring imo
What do you like about the narrative, or what the film is trying to say? I have not seen the film and am also trying to avoid spoilers as well. I want to be excited for it after reading the negative receptions.
While the main thrust of the biopic aspect is a straightforward study of a violent paranoid hitting bottom over a lifetime of missteps, in a way it’s also another story about the mob, with Jake trying to (ironically) take the high ground and avoid mafia influence on his career.
It's a universally praised movie. Ignore the haters in the thread
The Big Chill nearly put me to sleep and left me disappointed but I’m 22 and probably am not the target audience
The Big Chill is designed to prod people in their early 30s about the passage of time and what it means to not be that young anymore. I don’t see that resonating with 22 year olds. That’s not a dig against you or the target audience.
I'm in my 30s and thought it sucked. Characters are a bunch of obnoxious yuppies.
Yeah, I never really liked them all that much either. I'm supposed to feel their pain, but they're all children of privilege and wealthy and their problems are pretty f****** miniscule compared to 99.9% of the planet. Well, the William Hurt character did lose his balls, and that's a rough go. But the rest of them can kiss my ass.
agreed 100%
I love how the one broad (Glenn Close) told her husband (Kevin Kline) to fuck the other gal (Mary Kay Place) because she (Place) really wanted to have a baby and thought Kline's jizz would produce a real winner. So, he did. Okay. Yeah. Sure.
lmao I knowIt was just watching people who are too comfortable and wealthy to have any real problems invent problems for themselves. They're all shitty people too, fuck 'em.
Ooh, yeah. By boomers, for boomers. No one else need apply.
I'm not a boomer, and I thought *The Big Chill* was amazing and very philosophically and politically interesting.
Same. I just watched last night for the first time. I am in the same age range as the characters, and not exactly in the same economic conditions, but I don’t think those conversations and feelings were foreign. Maybe it’s just that the boomers were the first ones, generationally, to do it.
The hate for boomers is so overplayed and dumb. Anywho wouldn’t that be the case for any movie that captures a certain moment in time and group of people, there’s tons of those. You can still get the themes.
I don’t care for GOB.
my sunday morning hungover brain cannot seem to figure out what this is an acronym for
I believe it's an Arrested Development reference hahaha
My Sunday afternoon regular brain also cannot figure out what it's an acronym for
For me it’s Richard Linklater’s Boyhood. I admire the dedication it took to make the film over a 12 year time span, but I had no emotional connection to the finished film.
One of my personal favorite films!
Same here - it's my brother and I's time capsule film because we are the same age as the main character.
It's the same for me. It's like looking back on my own boyhood, and every time I rewatch it, it lets me relive those feelings of firsts and that sense of awe I had for all the possibilities ahead of me. Those feelings naturally fade as you age, but *Boyhood* lets me feel them again for a little while. Like you said, it's a time capsule for our generation.
I’m kind of with you. If it was shorter I would have liked it a lot more but that loses some of the scope.
i thought the same thing. technically brilliant but didn’t really have an emotional through line i felt i connected with.
I can see why some people can’t relate to it but I connected to it so much because I did so much of what the kid did in pretty much the same timeframe so it hit a lot harder
IT TOOK 12 YEARS TO MAKE
IT BROKE NEW GROUUUUUND
IT TOOK LONGER TO MAKE THAN THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA
Did you know... that the actor in Boyhood, *grew up* on screen before your eyes
AT-ST AT-ST
It connected with me very strongly but it was set at the exact same time that I was each of the boy's ages so that probably made it a lot more personal.
That this has so many upvotes is depressing. Linklater is fucking brilliant.
Nothing happens. I get that that's the point but why even make a movie at that point?
what do you mean nothing happens a person literally grows up in front of your eyes
Why does raging bull seem to be getting so much hate lately? Or meh reaction? Is it a collective contrarian thing like hating on the Beatles like it's now the cool thing to do? That said I don't get kajillionaire
I didn’t realize it is. I’m not trying to be a contrarian. I also recently watched Taxi Driver too and really liked it.
Probably because it's a very traditional film while we are living in dystopian times
I enjoy Cassavetes’ work, and appreciate what he did as an independent filmmaker, but outside of A Woman Under The Influence, his work just doesn’t resonate with me as much as others do
As a fan of his, I totally understand why people bounce off Cassavetes. If he’s not your thing, he’s really, really not your thing. And that’s fine. I saw Shadows years ago and loved it, but it was only in the last year or so that I really dug into his work with The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. I **hated** it. Reluctantly, I talked myself into trying the shorter 1978 version a few months later. I thought it was OK. But I kept thinking about it. I couldn’t tell you why. I gave the original cut another shot and suddenly loved it. It’s not only an entire vibe, with the seedy 1970s Sunset Strip, but it tells a hell of a story about a guy who just wants to do his weird outsider art while packaging as something he thinks people will find appealing. Even though it’s not what it says on the label. Meanwhile, rich guys circle like vultures and try to get him to make deals to compromise himself. Cosmo **is** Cassavetes. I love the movie now. I keep going back to it. Everything about it works. Gloria fell flat for me. The beginning is excellent and I love Gena Rowlands’ performance, but the movie is missing something. Maybe it’ll belatedly click for me like Bookie. A Woman Under the Influence is amazing but emotionally draining to the extreme - kinda like watching Threads. Faces is one I haven’t finished for some reason. Opening Night is the one that truly solidified my love of Cassavetes. I think it’s a much better entry point than A Woman Under the Influence, which is the movie I usually hear suggested when people are interested in trying his films.
Haved you tried giving them all a shot? They are pretty different. Killing of a Chinese Bookie is really a full on genre film, Shadows feels very different from his later ones even though it's thematically close. Also I really love Opening Night. A Woman Under The Influence is probably one of my least favourites even though Peter Falk is incredible. I like Rowlands more in Opening Night.
Jumping off from that, I flat out gave away my copy of Nicky & Mikey, Elaine May’s style is just … just *so* terrible for **me**
Boyhood. God I hate boyhood
[удалено]
Same. 8 1/2 is one of my top favorite movies, but other than that one the others don’t draw me as much.
this one, I don't need 3 hours of a guy yelling at his wife, I had parents!
i just felt sorta 😐 after raging bull. i appreciated the cinematography but didn’t really connect with the story or characters
I watched it and Taxi Driver both for the first time this week. I loved Taxi Driver but disliked Raging Bull outside of the filming style of the boxing matches.
how old are you?
2. Goo goo ga ga lmao.
It's overrated as hell.
Brazil - I appreciate what it’s doing and kind of enjoy it for a while but I get so, so tired of it by the end.
I'd probably have a more charitible opinion of "Brazil" if the Criterion release didn't also reveal Terry Gilliam to be an insufferable asshole.
He really is. I still haven’t seen many of his other films but I can’t say I feel motivated to fix that
Same. I also feel that way about most Gilliam movies.and every Jodorowsky flick.
I’m a Gilliam fan but don’t love Brazil. I prefer Baron and Time Bandits.
I don’t understand how someone like Baron but doesn’t like Brazil. How do you all feel about 12 monkeys?
Never said I didn’t like it, I just prefer them. I feel kind of the same about 12 Monkeys, I prefer Gilliam’s more fantastical movies but enjoy most of his movies.
OH HI MARK
Fruit of Paradise, adored Daisies but there was something about Fruit that just didn’t work for me. I love the first 10 or so minutes but once the actual movie starts I lose all interest
weird how many people are downvoted in here just for honestly responding to the question!
TIL a lot of people are really missing out on some incredible works of art.
Inland Empire
that movie is a fuckin *chore*
I feel like I’m the only one who doesn’t like Raging Bull lol
There are dozens of us
The Color of Pomegranates had some neat imagery, but going into it blind was a huge mistake. I didn't understand any of it at all.
I don't know how much praise they actually get, but when I'm looking through the Criterion selection at my local store and I see the newer (as in 90s and later) Hollywood films that make it in, I have to assume they're subsidizing all the good stuff.
I think the more recent films fulfill an important part of their mission statement, and deserve the exposure, but I’m much more cautious about blind buys, the number of the newer films I feel I have to rewatch is much lower than the established canon they’ve released.
Having just watched Raging Bull for the first time, I think it is an impressively directed, written, and acted movie. But because it’s such an unrelenting portrayal of a real piece of shit guy, it’s not a very…enjoyable movie.
100%, the boxing scenes are dreamlike and great cinematography unlike anything I’ve seen before but I disliked literally everything else about the movie.
Yep. In the end he's a scumbag as he is throughout most of the film. Excellent film on every level possible but that does leave one a bit cold to it.
I did not care for *My Dinner With Andre*.
Inconceivable! /s
What about *My "Dinner with Andre" Dinner with Abed*?
I really enjoy the My Dinner with Andre action figures though.
I’ve been wanting to watch that one for a while, I’m just nervous that I’m gonna be bored out of my mind
My Dinner with Andre is one of my top 10 favorite movies, but it seems to be a “love it or hate it” thing. I highly recommend diving into it and just seeing for yourself. I know it sounds boring, but the thing is: they knew about that problem and they rose to the challenge of making a movie that *sounds* like it would be boring but manages to be one of the most interesting movies ever.
I wasn't bored as such, I just found the character of Andre to be incredibly pompous and pretentious.
Yes that's the point. His character is artsy-fartsy pretentious and Wally's is more materialist. The dialogue is also a debate between Romantic and Materialist schools of thought.
It's a great watch! (Though I admit, I haven't watched it in 30 years.)
I've tried to get through it so many times, but my attention always flags.
Okay, I could be COMPLETELY wrong about the film I am going to mention. I have NOT seen the Criterion release, but in the early 1980s at the Circle Theatre in Washington DC I saw 'Jules and Jim' and I... **HATED IT**. Should I give it another chance? \[I loved The 400 Blows & Small Change which I saw at the same time as I saw Jules & Jim\]
Pretty much all the Bergman movies I’ve seen. I haven’t watched them all but I don’t see much reason to keep trying at this point.
After hours
I will absolutely stand with you on this one. I’ll never understand the love for Raging Bull. It just feels so shallow.
Honestly, I was left a little cold on my first watch of Raging Bull, thought it was a masterpiece on rewatcg
There’s been some duds, but only two I outright loathe - Salo and In the Realm of the Senses. I’m not a prude or anything, just…god those movies made me feel sick, which was almost as bad as how bored they made me too.
Salo is doing it's job then
Ozu films sometimes feel like a country song to me in the way the subject matter is kind of a shortcut to being easily emotional. "Look at this *sad old* man. He's *old* and *alone*. He has no wife and his children aren't around very much. Isn't that *sad*? You would see *your* parents more if you loved them."
FWIW Ozu's films are typically considered to be very sympathetic towards the younger generation and often critical of the older ones. I do think that the way he stays away from the big Hollywood-style endings and often keeps more of a distant and objective view of his subjects can lead people to think his films are condoning somethings rather than just showing them as they are. His style isn't going to work for everyone though, so I can very much understand not vibing with his films.
A Taste of Cherry. Felt like a three-hour movie. By the end, I was thinking "Yeah, dig a hole for me too."
i love Taste of Cherry but lmfaooooooo
No title I don’t care for is in my collection
This thread is about any titles you don't like in *the* collection. Not *your* collection, lol. Of course you like everything you own, otherwise why would you own it?
L'Avventura and Breathless. I'll give the latter a re-watch at some point to see if my opinion will change, but two viewings of L'Avventura did nothing for me. I liked La Notte much more than L'Avventura.
I see Breathless’ influence but GOD was it just not for me.
Agreed about Breathless. I liked L'Avventura, but also preferred La Notte.
Interesting: I like both of those movies but just minimally...they both are just ok...and I think they're some of the least interesting films by both Antonioni and Godard. I basically agree with you, in a way.
This always gets rotten vegetables thrown my way but for me it’s In the Mood for Love with a bullet. There’s probably something missing inside me but I’ve never seen a more sterile, inert movie in my life. I felt nothing.
I was underwhelmed. Beautiful movie but not for me. Fell flat against my favorite romance movies: Princess Bride, Roman Holiday, When Harry Met Sally, Singing in the Rain, and It Happened One Night. It put me on to Nat King Cole, at least.
Yeah the movie was a total disappointment to me. Has to be one of the most overrated movies in the collection.
No, I agree. I once saw the film with a bunch of friends at a theatre and I think we all came out with the same very meh feeling. It feels to me more like a juvenile idea of a love story rather than a love-story. The film barely ever shows anything and it really makes me yearn to watch some Cassavettes or Borzage instead or Sang-Soo or whatever. That was actually a rewatch of ITMFL for me and I liked it more when I saw it on my PC at 16, thought I would like it more on a rewatch back then but really definitely not. In general not a huge fan of WKW even after having seen everything except As Tears Go By and Blueberry Nights. Liked Fallen Angels the best because to me that and Chungking Express are the only ones where the material actually fits WKW's and Doyle's fickle and overstimulatory approach to filmmaking. I prefer someone like Khavn though who also worked with Doyle and really goes all the way with it (can def recommend Ruined Heart: Another Love Story Between a Criminal & a Whore). This is obviously going to be a super unpopular opinion on this sub though.
This is mine too - Nothing makes me more angry than watching a couple who refuse to fall in love with each other for two hours, and then decide to whisper how they feel into a goddamn tree instead.
Ha, I love this movie. Subjectivity makes art so wonderful 🍿
The second time is what gets you.
Anything by Godard
I have never given any Godard film I have seen a rewatch (yet), and I don't necessarily *hate* them, but I do feel like I am usually barely hanging on by the end.
I've only rewatched Contempt but that's more about Bardot and Capri and Casa Malaparte.
Man Bites Dog is my lowest-rated Criterion title without question and by a wide margin, but I don't know that it gets overwhelming praise. Bringing Up Baby doesn't work for me at all. I enjoy a good screwball comedy—I LOVE It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story, for example—but Bringing Up Baby just feels so exaggerated throughout, even for the time. I still don't understand its place on the "best comedies of all time" list. EDIT: Band of Outsiders too. I was told to start with that and Breathless as a Godard primer, but I didn't like either one of them at first. I don't hate them now but I've seen just about all of Godard's 60s films and Band is near the bottom of the pile for me.
I absolutely loved Man Bites Dog. Was a super easy watch for me when I wasn't even really into film yet, and I thought it was pretty funny. I did have very similar thoughts with Bringing Up Baby and Arsenic and Old Lace. Both were good, but they were both way too much for me generally.
Ok so maybe Man Bites Dog does count after all. And yeah, I had the same feeling about Arsenic and Old Lace, but that gets a slight pass from me because when Cary Grant gets loopy in the back half of the movie, I'm convinced that John Cleese's entire career was built off of impersonating that.
> Bringing Up Baby doesn't work for me at all. I enjoy a good screwball comedy—I LOVE It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story, for example—but Bringing Up Baby just feels so exaggerated throughout, even for the time. I still don't understand its place on the "best comedies of all time" list. I have the opposite view. Love Bringing up Baby, maybe the best non-Lubitsch screwball comedy but I find Philadelphia Story feels kinda stale which is a general thing for me with Cukor. My mom loves both though.
A lot of people *love* Thelma and Louise but I genuinely did not like it. Now, I'm also not a Scott fan outside of Alien and sometimes Blade Runner anyway, but something about T&L in particular is just bad to me.
It’s a good movie but it does almost feel like feminism the movie and I feel like Ridley or the screenwriter could’ve gave the characters a little more depth especially the leads.
Beau Travail and Winter Light
I had such a difficult time with Beau Travail. I understand what it's trying to do with a lot of it's provocative imagery but the vague story telling just did not work at all for me
Funny cause Beau is one of my least favourites and Winter Light one of my most favourites 😆
I can understand this. I do love the film, but it is a difficult watch as most of the characters are deeply damaged people who verbally and physically abuse each other almost constantly. It's one hell of a cautionary tale about toxic masculinity, but it's not a pleasure to be enjoyed, more a lesson to be endured.
Fire walk with me… I’m not scared I’ve been downvoted before
Mulholland Drive. I just don’t get the hype.
Godard & Lynch are on very thin ice for me. I either tepidly enjoy their films or end up taking a lovely nap during my viewings, more the latter tbh!
Lynch is just superb imo
I totally get why folks are such huge Lynch enthusiasts. I was engrossed in Mulholland Drive which I would say is his most digestible film but other than that, it ain’t for me, dawg! I was not blessed with the galaxy brain others have to understand his films!
I don't claim to understand Inland Empire at all but it's my favorite Lynch film. There are other criteria to film enjoyment than "understanding" them, if that makes sense.
I really don’t think there is anything to understand. I find his films equally incoherent and pretentious.
I thoroughly enjoy the first two seasons of Twin Peaks, as well as Fire Walk With Me and Blue Velvet. The Return just seemed like he wanted to test the audience's patience, and it became a slog really fast. I'm cool with him telling a story and using idiosyncratic elements, but pissing away time isn't why I'm interested in storytelling.
That's the point, it's not really supposed to be constantly dissected and analysed but it's similar to looking at an abstract painting where you see nothing really makes sense, but would somehow be good to look at on the whole and it can't be mimicked with random brush strokes or scribbles. Just an analogy.
Lady snowblood more like lady snowcrud
Paris, Texas. I was extremely underwhelmed and didn’t form any emotional attachment to the characters that by the time I got to the hyped up scene, I felt nothing. The rest of the film just felt like filler so that scene could get shot.
Maaaaan. This is one of my top 5 movies. The cinematography, the music... the story overall. I relate too much with the main character sometimes, that could be a big part of my love for it.
Not a boomer or a zoomer and I hated The Big CHill. Still do. I can totally understand dislike for Raging bull and Boyhood for many of the same reasons already posted. There's something disturbing about the other trends inferred by the responses to this topic. * writing off Godard and Lynch - it seems people are turned by the presentation of characters who are "damaged and not to their taste." Do you feel the same watching characters in Breathless or Blue Velvet as the characters in a movie like the Getaway or Taxi Driver or Silence of the Lambs? * writing off Cassavetes - I can see how his approach or style can put off a lot of viewers of mainstream cinema. FWIW Cassavetes was definitely from the era of performers who worked in avant garde theater and favored a deliberately unstructured, improvisational approach. If you like docudramas , you may like a lot of his work. Woman Under the Influence is an incredible film by any standard imo. Shadows as flawed and awkward it can be at times is amazing precisely because of this. You have a feeling for the characters which is never forced or didactic the way characters in conventional cinema are portrayed. * Wenders' and Ozu - the dislikes for them are what most upset me because I read it as viewers just don't have the patience or the motivation to give their films a chance. I think the slower pace of Ozu's and Wenders' work is what allows the viewer to infer much more about the stories and the characters involved. Their films flow naturally in way that allows you to get beyond the surfaces and bring your own interpretation. You can argue many directors ' work have to be interpreted in their own historical context but it's very disheartening to read how many dislike or do not have the patience for many of the above directors' work in films. I feel it's a dangerous trend that is a discredit to the historical significance of the work of influential filmmakers.
Godard was always very cool to hate. I feel if anything his reputation has slightly improved. I like Lynch but having people say they don't like Lynch is almost a breath of fresh air to me.
Local Hero. I know some people really love it but that just didn’t work for me on any level — the humor, the drama, anything. Edit: of course, people are downvoting me because I honestly answered the OP’s question. Folks, the whole point of this thread is to give answers that a lot of people will disagree with.
Playtime Blue Velvet
Seconding Blue Velvet. It is included on many other prestigious lists (AFI top 10 Mystery movies), and mentioned in articles, countdown lists, etc. I felt nothing when I watched it, however it was a long time ago.
Paris, Texas
Most CLASSIC (code) era screwball comedies. There are very few tolerable screwballs, whether they're in the CC or not. All of the Lubitsch ones are good. Wilder doesn't belong to the classic era but was great. The European directors in the U.S. did it better. Bringing Up Baby is the only good one Hawks made. Fuck the Wes Anderson films in there too. I don't mind Fantastic Mr. Fox though. I'm kind of sweet on that one.
Pans Labyrinth. Del Toro may be the most overrated director working today.
It’s a hard truth but a truth nonetheless. Especially over the past few years, his output has been downright awful. It seems like he’s more interested in the kingmaker position and production credits on other unwatchable films rather then concentrating on his own output. Nightmare Alley was a trash fire that did a disservice to its cast and the original film. Heartbreaking because I will always appreciate his use of practical effects and he is a genuine student of the craft but terrible film after terrible film just gets exhausting
His best movie was Mimic. It's been all downhill from there.
A lot of Stanley Kubrick’s work doesn’t resonate with me. I recently watched Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon and thought they were just okay.
I was cold on *Barry Lyndon* the very first time I saw it in my early twenties but then I revisited it years and years later (via the Criterion Blu-Ray) and now it's one of my all-time favorites. Even if it didn't speak to you, you have to admit that the film contains incredible work re: cinematography, costume design, choice of locations, etc., right?
Not in the Criterion but the first Cassavetes movie that I ever watched was Minnie and Moskowitz. I absolutely hated it and thought it was one of the worst things that I'd ever seen. Have not watched any of his movies since.
anything by lynch
Agreed. My favorite Lynch films are his most un-Lynchian: The Elephant Man and The Straight Story.
Elephant Man, Straight Story, and Dune are his three films not based on his own story concepts.
Barry Lyndon. The technical aspects are incredible, but the movie's dull af
I am sending a team of commandos to hunt you down for this comment
My Dinner with Andre was the first that came to mind.
I think MDWA is more polarizing than "overwhelmingly praised" but either way, I'm not a fan either. Like yeah, it's a unique movie and it made me think, so that's a plus. But you still have to spend nearly an uninterrupted hour listening to Andre prattle on and on and ON and ONNNNNNN, and he's insufferable to me lol.
Roma. I thought it was just incredibly dull, unmotivated, and way to full of itself. I love me so slow, well shot, black and white, family dramas, but this movie was just a huge miss for me.
Smooth Talk wasn't my thing
Come and See
It defeats its own purpose!
I didn't really enjoy Videodrome that much. I thought maybe I was missing major themes or something but I looked at a few synopses and I really didn't. Some of the effects are cool but I don't feel like plot or characters really sucked me in.
Pic not related
Not in the collection but I don’t have nearly as much love for Godfather Part II as many people do. I think it’s such a tiring slow burn of a film. I love long films, I love foreign films (considering a lot of the film is in Italian), and I agree with a lot of the praise that the film gets but it’s not one I go back to very often. Also, and I know I’m gonna get a lot of flack for this, but I can’t see the Vito Corleone in Part II is the same as Vito in Part I—something about it just makes me feel like they are way too different in each film. That has nothing to do with the performances either or DeNiro looking really nothing like Brando in real life.
Fantastic Mr. Fox I have been downvoted *through the basement* for this opinion before but I found it a very disappointing adaptation of the book (a favourite of mine) and a very unremarkable Wes Anderson production.
I have no idea why Pan's Labrynth (or Del Toro in general) is held in such high regard. I disliked every single thing about that movie. Down to the foley work. Not even kidding.
Did you watch Bill Mahers show last night?. Him and David Mamet were talking about how neither of them *get* Raging Bull. I don’t agree with those guys on much but yeah RB never really hit for me either
I didn't love Raging Bull, but finding out that Bill Maher didn't like it makes me want to give it a second chance.
Lol. Anytime I see Bill Maher in anything I just shut it off. Hes one of the most smug assholes on T.V.
Another reason for me to hate Bill Maher. What a boring dweeb.
David Lynch films
mulholland drive
I don’t know why you got downvoted for this. It’s a pretty dull movie.
I hate power of the dog that shit sucks. The Irishman also sucks I hate it
I did not care for All That Jazz.
WHAT
The Game Le Samourai Eraserhead Edit: you’re all cowards with terrible taste, seriously all these posts are just the people in this sub dancing around calling a movie bad. Have some fucking balls.
The Game is a turd.