Bound to raise many a film buff’s hackles, The Guardian carries an entertaining piece today by novelist Tim Lott on the subject of “the worst best films ever made” — in other words, the roundly lauded and canonized classics that routine appear on “all-time greatest” lists but, well, simply aren’t all that.
It’s a wholly subjective issue, of course, and Lott is unashamedly provocative (if overly glib) in tackling it, taking down some seriously big targets along the way. Films in the firing line include “The Searchers” (which he accuses of both racism and “rude mechanicals”), “Les Enfants du Paradis” (“dated, overlong and absurdly wordy”), “On the Waterfront” (“a masterclass in ham acting”) and “Death in Venice” (“a colossal piece of soft-focus masturbation”).
I disagree on most counts, but now and then his venom strikes a chord of with me. I wouldn’t go as far as he does in calling “La Dolce Vita” a “turgid, lazy mess of half-realised conceits,” but I agree that it’s not a film that has aged particularly well; compared to the still-pristine “8½,” its experiments in anti-narrative look idle and incomplete. And I’m glad someone else has the courage to say that subsequent decades of radical reinvention in the field of the movie musical make “Singin’ in the Rain” look like a very ordinary achievement indeed. (I’ll just come out and say it: I can’t stand Gene Kelly.)
(But then Lott goes and slams “Three Colors: Red” — a personal top-tenner — and declares “Psycho” less effective than “The Blair Witch Project,” and thus loses me all over again. That’s the fun in such pieces.)
He takes on a few more modern standards as well, puzzling over how “The Shawshank Redemption” (“a perfectly OK B-movie”) has taken on classic status via public rather than critical consensus. (I tend to agree — I personally love the film, but missed the moment where it took on “all-time” status.) That, however, is mild compared to the spitting venom with which he attacks “Schindler’s List”:
This film is actively offensive. To watch a group of cringing Jews gather around the “good German” during the Holocaust is bad enough. To manipulate one’s emotions, as when a group of incongruously good-looking refugees are tempted into the camp shower block only to receive – yes, showers! – is disgusting. And the final scene, straight out of a prime-time soap, when Schindler breaks down in tears and weeps “I didn’t save enough”, is enough to make the toughest stomach regurgitate its contents.
(In a handy coincidence, today also finds The Film Experience’s Nathaniel Rogers and friends insightfully, and rather more charitably, taking on “Schindler’s List” — including a discussion of that very shower scene — in the latest installment of their must-read “Best Pictures fom the Outside In” series. Check it out.)
What titles would I add to Lott’s list? That’s tricky. I rarely get as actively resentful as he does over universally acclaimed titles; I am usually able to understand and appreciate what others revere about such titles, even if I stand at a comfortable distance from them myself.
Thus, there’s a lot thats falls into the category of “films I admire, but don’t like.” I can, for example, absolutely see the livewire combination of inventiveness and ambition that lands “Citizen Kane” in the top spot over and over again, but nothing about the film moves me on a personal level. I find Robert Bresson’s work formally beautiful, but oddly calculated and unstimulating, and “Ninotchka” aside, I put far too much effort into laughing at Ernst Lubitsch comedies.
Moving to more recent territory, I sometimes feel like the only person in the world who found “Fargo” a smug, heavy-handed exercise in underlined irony, while the explosion of critical (and Academy) adoration for Roman Polanski’s dramatically stilted, stylistically embalmed “The Pianist” befuddles me still. But I’ll save my exasperation for later in the year, when “The Lord of the Rings” series inevitably top multiple decade-best lists.
What are your worst “best” films? What classics are you chastised for not loving, or even getting? Vent away in the comments.
Comments
90 responses to “The films you’re supposed to love, but don’t”
For me it is definitely The Godfather – in fact, make that anything by Coppola. When he’s trying to be mainstream, he’s dull, and when he’s trying to be arthouse, he’s clumsy. Also, anything by Sirk or Haynes. Sirk isn’t in on the joke, guys – trust me. His films are near-genius visually but he has no grasp of tension or pacing and the lack of control he has over his actors is incredibly apparent. Kudos to him for giving political subtext to shitty scripts, though. Haynes IS on the joke, but he’s too inept a technician to make any of his far-out ideas work.
Funnily enough, I love Fassbinder! But I think it is because he’s more honest and immediately affecting in his storytelling than either Sirk or Haynes.
Just from the AFI List
Star Wars
On the Waterfront
African Queen
Maltese Falcon
Jaws
Close Encounters
Oh, as for ‘Citizen Kane’ – its a dazzling film visually and in terms of scope but it is sentimental, hugely indulgent, overambitious, bombastic and a million miles away from the ‘best film of all time’.
And I agree with you about Fargo! The only time the Coens haven’t come off as pompous, self-obsessed, smug brats (at least for me) is in ‘No Country for Old Men’ where, of course, they leaned on more traditional genre staples.
As for Bresson, I find him incredibly fascinating. Watching his films I feel like I’m tapping into some primitive channel of emotion – as if his films were ones from prehistoric times, full of grace and spirituality so simple yet so profound that it can’t really be explained. If films were to be made in the time of early man, I’m sure they’d be like Bresson’s.
Completely agree on The Lord of the Rings Triology
A lot of older films don’t age well simply because we are not used to such filmmaking. Westerns are the only exceptions to this rule and I love the Searchers, certainly one of my all time favorites.
Shawshank Redemption is stunning simply because it is one of the most perfect films ever, including a perfect ending. It is impossible not to like that film.
Citizen Kane might be the most resonant example of a film that doesn’t age well. It’s a milestone in history but in the end it’s more a scientific object of study than an entertaining film.
Oh and LotR is still as great as I remember it to be.
Thanks for the link, Guy. It’s worthwhile for a critic to discuss elements of evaluation. I’d never read that Mamet quote before, but he and Lott are right: films, like all other art forms, should be taken as whole experiences, which is why I think there are less 5-star films out there than most people want to acknowledge.
Lott’s essay is generally an amusing read for the first half, but by the second half it’s probably the worst best essay I’ve ever read on worst best films. Not that I have a problem with someone hating a movie I love (in fact, I wish he hadn’t begun with an apology — who in his right mind should apologize for disliking a film, no matter how much ire that opinion causes?), and not that I have a particular problem with someone vainly exorcising unwelcome cinematic experiences from his mind; but I do have a problem with scorched-earth criticism that amounts to two or three words (“nothing happens,” “more innovative than”) and leaves it at that. For me, the essay was engaging until he starts dropping sentences that just swap out film titles (i.e., see this instead of that) and vacates any notion of legitimate analysis.
Anyway, of the films Lott mentions and are mentioned above in this post and comment thread, I find none that “profoundly dislike,” just many that I admire but don’t love. I guess I’d like to read more criticism along those lines (detailed examination, more formal- and content-based) instead of criticism looking to score points for being an outlier.
Last year at Marienbad’ – can’t get through it for the life of me. Tried several times but I always end up re-watching ‘Philadelphia Story’ or whatever else if playing on TCM.
I think the stain of fanboyism cheapens some otherwise great movies. The Godfather movies are still great, but my appreciation for the LOTR trilogy has slightly lessened. I still love the first movie in the series, but I have reconciled myself to the fact that films are called great not just for mastery in artistry but also for mastery in technique, and we have to respect that. LOTR falls in the latter category.
Singin In The Rain, I have to admit baffles me as it is considered to be 1 of the 10 best films ever made. I find it too simple to sit alongside Citizen Kane, 8 1/2, 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc.
Citizen Kane, La Dolce Vita (1 of my favorite movies) & Psycho deserve their places in the canon. I always loved Kane but it was on my 3rd viewing that the film took me by the gut.
Schindler’s List is a very important film and sort of transcends its medium to become an educational exercise as well but its not even Spielberg’s best film. The importance of the movie and its cinematic worth should be divorced while analyzing it.
The canonical classics that perplex me are Blade Runner ans Don’t Look Now.
“A lot of older films don’t age well simply because we are not used to such filmmaking. Westerns are the only exceptions to this rule”
I disagree with a lot of this, Jonathan. I don’t always necessarily apply the adjective “dated” as a pejorative. It’s true that many films reveal their age via filmmaking structures and tropes that have been outphased, but the greats retain an element of truth or relatability in their storytelling that keeps them immediate. It’s when the message, as opposed to the medium, dates — which I would argue is the case with “La Dolce Vita,” which actually stays far fresher in form than in function — that I have a problem.
And westerns are the ONLY exceptions to your rule? You can’t mean that.
Good article/discussion.
As much as I love Humphrey Bogart, three of his “classic” films leave me scratching my head:
The American Queen
The Maltese Falcon
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
They are all either boring or have poorly-constructed plots. I normally don’t hammer on dialogue much, but The American Queen’s dialogue I thought was ridiculous. I know people spoke differently 50-60 years ago, but mercy.
The Maltese Falcon plot? People trying to acquire a bird statue. Are you serious?
Treasure of the Sierra Madre was so bland, I’m not sure I saw the end of it. It was that slow and boring- I honestly might have shut it off. I can’t remember.
I love some of your other films, Humphrey, but if you started your career with those three, it would not have been the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Ben I am with you on
Jaws
Close Encounters
I liked Jaws and know what it did for Blockbusters and our film culture, but its not that amazing in my mind.
And Close Encounters was the same way (though there isnt the changing film culture in my mind).
Guy: I agree with you on La Dolce Vita. The black cynicism and “immoral” behavior doesn’t shock as much because its been nigh 50 years (compared to L’Avventura which I still think is 1 of the most cynical films ever made). It is true that I enjoy La Dolce Vita more for its film-making, for Fellini’s direction.
@Slayton: Even if I love his work, I understand many criticisms that are hurled at Todd Haynes — but “inept technician” is not one of them. Can you expand? I’m interested.
@T.S.: I agree with pretty much everything you have to say. I like Lott’s article as a conversation-starter, but his perversity is overly wilful towards the end. (I personally lost patience at the “Psycho/Blair Witch” mark.) But he’s writing not as a film critic (he isn’t one, after all) but as a film-watcher, so he’s welcome to his indulgences.
@Red Wine: I do respect the technical scale and scope of the “Rings” trilogy, though I personally think that, for very long stretches, they’re rather ugly films. That aside, I will never think that “mastery of technique” is enough on its own to constitute greatness. I’m sure you agree.
(By the way, just to clarify, I’d never dispute a film’s place in the canon. This is entirely a personally-oriented discussion.)
Everything by Godard, particularly Breathless.
And just to throw my film buff credentials down on the table, I’ll point out that I have no trouble taking great pleasure in the films of Bresson, Ozu, Tarkovsky or any number of other challenging directors.
But, lord, the effort I’ve expended trying to wring a few moments of enjoyment out of his films. The best I came up with is that I like some of the livelier moments in My Life to Live.
I even sat through Contempt twice trying to see what other saw in it. Nothing. I give up.
While I’m on my soapbox, the decade of the 1950s was arguably the worst for Best Picture winners.
1952- The Greatest Show on Earth
1955- Marty
1956- Around the World in 80 Days
1957- Bridge on the River Kwai
Most of these films are snoozers. Most of us could come up with at least 1 film from each year that has aged better. Perhaps the BP selections were a result of other films’ directors being blacklisted, who knows.
Guy, Westerns are the exception to me in person. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that.
I recently saw Jaws again and it’s still so superb. The one thing that struck me this time around is how it’s 2 completely different movies that are both crazily entertaining. Jaws is still magnificent.
Thank you red_wine for bringing up Blade Runner. I’ve taken so much crap for not liking that film that I’ve gotten to the point where I’m almost afraid to mention that I don’t like it.
And I’m completely on board with On the Waterfront, Citizen Kane, and Singing in the rain. Just don’t get it.
“And I’m glad someone else has the courage to say that subsequent decades of radical reinvention in the field of the movie musical make “Singin’ in the Rain” look like a very ordinary achievement indeed. (I’ll just come out and say it: I can’t stand Gene Kelly.)”
Radical reinventment? Really? “Singin’ In the Rain” is the greatest musical-comedy of all-time and Jean Hagen’s performance in that film is just brilliant.
“Treasure of the Sierra Madre was so bland, I’m not sure I saw the end of it. It was that slow and boring- I honestly might have shut it off. I can’t remember.”
You’re so wrong in so many ways.
@JonathanSpuji — So…”Shawshank” is perfect. “Citizen Kane” is aged and “LotR” is great? Are you one of those people that loses patience with anything made before 1988?
I also think there’s an interesting angle not explored in this discussion. I think there’s should be a separate list for films you “get” but don’t really effect you personally and films that you consider absolute crap, and whose inclusion on a list of greatness baffles you.
The first list would include Citizen Kane for a lot of people, and for me would definitely be topped with The Rules of the Game, a film that I would never question its quality for an instant but always leaves me cold.
On the other hand you’ve got stuff like The Sound of Music which despite several attempts I’ve never been able to overcome my nasuea to sit through beginning to end. Yes, I know its popular but Ten Commandments was a big hit back in the day too, and no one is mistaking that for a masterpiece.
Guy, I’ve got to know which parts of LOTR you find ugly.
And I’d like to add Lina Wertmuller. I spent one of the most painful afternoons of my entire life watching 3 of her movies with my dad many years ago. You couldn’t pay me enough to watch any of them again.
But Guy, mastery of technique is the only the reason I can think of for certain so-called great films. Citizen Kane first and fore-most is a technical achievement(though there’s more to it than that). Many films are considered great because they made great innovations, its here that the greatest films & most influential films lists start intersecting. Take Stars wars, the script is extremely poor, yet it is considered so great.
Play Time is a technical achievement(in production design and Mise-en-scène) but the movie is frankly pointless or makes some very feeble jokes and observations about urban culture. It is also a canonical classic.
Also the already-mentioned Blade Runner, films of Eisenstein.
“I think there’s should be a separate list for films you “get” but don’t really effect you personally”
That’s what I meant with the “admire but don’t like” designation, though you’re right — I haven’t separated the categories all that clearly.
By the way, as culturally ubiquitous as “The Sound of Music” is (and I’ll admit it’s a film I have a lot of personal affection for), I wouldn’t say it enjoys a major critical following.
@Hero: Well, three Wertmullers in one day IS a rigorous undertaking. Pace yourself ;)
The “Rings” question is difficult to answer with great specificity, since it’s been a while since I endured them. I do recall finding several battle sequences too muddy in palette and murky in texture for my liking.
WALL*E, it just didn’t move me.
THE GODFATHER, very talented, but “best movie ever”? I beg to differ.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY offers nothing new, just its gigantic scale.
THE SHINING, weird and not scary at all.
FINDING NEMO, it just tries too hard to be profound and moving, but fails.
The list goes on.
BTW, I feel embarassed for reading those aggressive, inarticulate attacks on SCHINDLER’S LIST.
I’m not going to make myself any friends but I find “Pulp Fiction” incredibly shallow.
“Singin’ in the Rain” is one of my “desert island” movies, so when I meet someone who doesn’t care for it, I’m always interested in why.
Most of the people I know who don’t like it usually say (with a sneer), “It’s just a dumb comedy.” They truly believe that if a movie is not Serious and does not tackle Important Topics, it cannot be great.
I’m curious, Guy, if you feel the same way. You refer to the “radical reinvention” of the movie musical. Do you prefer musicals that are thematically heavier (like “Cabaret”), rather than the MGM-style musical comedies?
(Please don’t think I’m being hostile. I’m truly curious about your point of view.)
Oh, I don’t know. I try to be a little less bombastic than Mr. Lott when it comes to deriding films. For example, Kubrick’s 2001 leaves me completely cold but I can certainly understand why it has admirers. But I love his Barry Lyndon and The Shining. The lesson: one can admire the art while — at the same time — acknowledging that it just might leave you cold.
Citizen Kane isn’t even Welles best film — The Magnificent Ambersons or Touch of Evil are better films to me — but I can certainly watch Kane over and over because its technique is astounding.
One really needs to reserve the venom for such morally reprehensible garbage as this year’s Taken and swill of that ilk.
It does pain me to see The Searchers treated so shabbily. A great and moving film, plain and simple. IMHO of course.
Have a great weekend everybody!
@Liz: Fair question, politely asked. My disconnect with “Singin’ in the Rain” has nothing to do with its lightness or its thematics. (For example, just picking from the Stanley Donen oeuvre, I absolutely love “Funny Face,” which could just as easily be dismissed as fluff by the snobs.)
I just don’t find “Singin’ in the Rain” formally interesting at all. While it’s true that I probably have higher personal regard for the structural daring that someone like Fosse brought to the genre, I think there is more inventive and arresting work to be found even in MGM’s own output from that era. (I think “The Band Wagon,” for example, contains far more visual beauty and storytelling ingenuity than “Rain.”)
Again, I get why you love it. I just can’t share in that love.
“I’m not going to make myself any friends but I find “Pulp Fiction” incredibly shallow.”
Chris, I’ll be your friend!
Guy–I’ll admit that some parts of the LOTR battle scenes are a little too shaky-cam/quick cut for my tastes.
Citizen Kane. Thought I was going to love, but I just thought it was ok. Quite a letdown. With all the praise it gets, I feel as though my subjective opinion is wrong, and I missed something.
“Gone with the Wind” is number one of my list, and I haven’t even attempted to actually watch any of the “Godfather” films. I keep telling myself that I will one day, but it it’s not something I’m interested in, which is strange because I have nothing against gangster/crime flicks. “Citizen Kane” as well…maybe I’ll get around to watching it one day, but if I never do I won’t feel like I’ve missed anything.
Guy, thank you for the response. I can see where you’re coming from now. And it’s nice to see some love for “Funny Face”! SO underrated.
@Kahn:
I do like movies before 1988. The Searchers, Jaws, Rear Window, The Wild Bunch, Ladri Di Bicicletti are amongst my all time favorites. The examples there were just respones to other people’s critiques and no summary of my likings.
The whole point is that I’m of a younger generation that is just so used to more modern films and television it is sometimes a bit difficult to adapt to the brilliance of old. Difficult, but not impossible. I regularly buy and go see old movies and even love them. No problem, but don’t call me narrow minded like you did.
Just from this decade alone, I could go for days:
Slumdog Millionaire – I don’t HATE it, but I thought it was vastly overrated. And I liked it, I really did. But I think it just had the moment going with it, and it was just impossible to deny. In a few years, I think it will lose some of its luster because we were all so quick to laud India as an emerging global market.
Lord of the Rings – I actually do kind of hate these movies. They are just SO F*$#ING BORING. I keep waiting for them to end, but they never do. 3 hours feels like a day sitting through one of these.
There Will Be Blood – It just made no logical sense. Again, overrated, especially Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance.
Lost In Translation – How Sofia Coppola won an Oscar for this hodgepodge of boring people doing boring things in a town that they find very boring is a mystery to me. Oh, wait, I know – NEPOTISM.
Wall-E – Too boring to keep my interest. I’m sorry if two robots touching their metal doesn’t make my heart weep. And political statements should be kept out of kids movies, in my opinion.
From other decades…
The Godfather – Maybe I should give it another chance, but I frankly just was not captivated by it. I was lost from the beginning.
The Shining – So over-referenced in society that I felt that I knew what was going to happen every minute of the movie.
Rocky – Best Picture? Really? It’s so terrible (and I heard that this is good compared to the 5 sequels – YIKES).
Hmm.. well, there are a few that I find highly overrated.
WALL-E (still don’t understand why some people thought this would be a serious Oscar contender in major categories)
PULP FICTION (one of those movies I admire, but I just think it’s been hyped up way out of proportion)
RESERVOIR DOGS (I guess it’s safe to say I am not a big Tarantino fan in general – easily one of the most overrated movies of the 1990s)
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (I actually like this movie, I just think it was way overpraised last year)
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (yeah, I just found this movie good, not 13 Oscar nominations worthy – and certainly way too long)
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (Roger Ebert really summed my feelings up for this movie in the last paragraph of his review; “I don’t know, but they’ve really hyped up A Clockwork Orange for more than it’s worth. It is just plain talky and boring. You know there’s something wrong with a movie when the last third feels like the last half.”)
There are other movies I could mention, such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Maltese Falcon, but I’ve listed quite a few already so I’ll leave it at that.
I agree 100% about Citizen Kane. I find it visually impressive and a very good character study, but nothing more. Certainly not the greatest of all time.
I wouldn’t really consider Rocky over-rated. I think most people today see what a hack job it is. The Best Picture Oscar is just a snapshot in time about what grabbed the public zeitgeist then and there. From this decade alone, I would argue that perhaps only Million Dollar Baby (’04), The Departed (’06) and No Country For Old Men (’07) will be discussed years from now. I’m sorry that I have to leave off LOTR #3 but I thought that Jackson — after creating such a magical universive in #1 — simply treaded water in the final two. I mean, really, how many shots of orcs running across the New Zealand plains did we need?
I have a hard time with Lawrence of Arabia, which I write with much trepidation. I’m always afraid that I’ll be scorned for it, but it just feels so flat for me and the length bogs me down so much (which I usually attribute to my age, but nonetheless, it’s long). At the end of the film, I didn’t feel particularly happy or bothered, which is really the worst reaction to a movie. I like to experience a film that leaves me with a really strong emotional response.
Jeffrey,
“Big” Lean — as I call his later career — isn’t really capable of grabbing the viewer emotionally, is it? A lot of it is intelligent, thoughtful film-making to be admired but they don’t have the emotional heft to enter the pantheon of my Top 10. Kwai, Lawrence, India strike me as his strongest of this period. I own them (and India looks absolutely gorgeous on Blu-ray b/t/w) and love watching them. Yet, it’s Guiness, O’Toole, and Ashcroft, respectively, who lend them their heart and soul, not Lean.
@Guy: As far as Haynes goes, I think he is the definition of making films for himself. ‘I’m Not There’ and ‘Far from Heaven’ were so wrapped up in their own devices and cross-referencing that I’m really surprised that they registered so strongly with a public who might not be experts on Dylan or Sirk. With ‘Far from Heaven’ he attempted an epic modern experiment that fell flat because of his inability to make the material politically biting without making it cheesy or half-baked, and he showed a lack of foresight in assembling a troupe of actors hardly equipped to handle the kind of overwrought acting that was necessary (I personally believe Moore’s misguided, underplayed-to-the-point-of-torpor performance is one of the worse nominations of the 00s). As for ‘I’m Not There’ – he was unable to escape the temptations of indulgence and pretension with that one.
However, I haven’t seen what is regarded as his best earlier work – ‘Safe’ – so I’m prepared to eat my words regarding his oeuvre.
E.T…hand me the barf bag.
I agree with the mentions of E.T. and Lawrence of Arabia.
I don’t understand how The Deer Hunter keeps appearing on these top 100 lists. I found it to be a massively bloated film that wasn’t as affecting as it could/should have been and felt that the only notable performance in it was Walken’s.
Agree with whoever mentioned Godard up there. I haven’t enjoyed any of his movies, and I understand that his later movies aren’t meant to be enjoyed, in fact he tries outright to alienate his audiences. But his earlier films, Breathless, Band of Outsiders, Contempt. Didn’t think any of them were particularly good. His films always felt a tad… I guess the best way to describe it is cinematically self-righteous.
Tim Burton’s Batman films were overblown, as was his Beetle Juice disaster. Atonement was cold, unmoving, and aggressively boring (though I can’t fault a game effort…or the actors). O Brother, Where Art Thou? I will never get.
Love much of Godard’s work from the 60s; to me, he was one of the few “artistic” directors of the era who also made truly entertaining films.
I admire Antonioni’s films more than I like them. I enjoy the atmosphere, but he piles on the ennui to such a degree that it starts to feel oppressive, and kind of dull.
On The Waterfront: the score and cinematography are great, but it’s way overcooked, and overplayed, and doesn’t possess the pulpy pleasures of, say, A Streetcar Named Desire (equally melodramatic, but in a good way).
The Shawshank Redemption is a compelling enough drama, but I don’t feel it achieves “greatness” on any level whatsoever.
Citizen Kane is technically brilliant, but emotionally shallow. Touch Of Evil, and even The Lady From Shanghai (as goofy as it is at times) get under your skin more.
Jaws, I go back and forth on. Part of me feels it’s actually pretty artistic for a “monster movie” (I realize that’s reductive, but it’ll do), but it has a bit of that bland late 70s/early 80s visual style to it.
Really like Three Colors: Red (the entire trilogy is quite impressive), but prefer The Double Life Of Veronique…it’s a bit more enchanting.
And — wait for it — Repulsion. I may need to see this again (in the new Criterion DVD transfer), but like many horror films of its ilk, it struck me as unpleasant, and little else.
Schindler’s List does indeed get way too schmaltzy, manipulative, and manufactured, towards the end (prior to that, it’s quite good). I was almost waiting for Schindler to proclaim, “If I’d just given them this jar of candy, I could’ve saved….one-third of a Jew. An amputee, perhaps.”
Anyways, I’m going to stick with films prior to this decade, as we don’t yet know how the critically-acclaimed films of today will be regarded ten years from now.
How could you hate ET? Did your parents force you to watch it when you were small and beat you with a broomstick if you didn’t? Not absolutely loving it ok, but hating it? That is just snobbish.
Some people hate sentimental films. ET is very sentimental. So it goes.
Godard. Ugh. He made indulgent movies solely for his own self-satisfying, masturbatory pleasure. For the audience it’s an outright chore. “Breathless” is the closest I would ever come to calling a film pretentious. SO hard to watch, despite its immensely influential style. Although I must say I do appreciate “Contempt,” but that’s the only one. “Pierrot le Fou” is a wreck.
I also don’t care for “The Shawshank Redemption.” Boring. And “The Piano” sucks too.