For myself this was a difficult task. Because I haven't seen
a lot of classic cinema or recent popular films, I found that I had seen maybe
seen fifty percent or less of the movies on each inclusion list. On one hand
this made my selection easier as I simply had less to work with, but on the
other I feel Mike will have a far more comprehensive list than I will because
of my lack of knowledge in this area. I also wanted to make sure I wasn't
simply picking movies I didn't like. Quite honestly there are plenty of movies
I just don't like on these lists - "2001: A Space Odyssey", "A
Few Dollars More" or "V for Vendetta" are good examples. But I
can recognize that all those films have true goodness and even genius in them,
even if I don't enjoy them. It was important to me to only pick films I felt
were either truly flawed or ones that defied my every attempt at understanding
why they are so loved. In the end, yes, whether or not I liked a film was part
of the equation, but I did my best not to make it a popularity contest.
Mike: My approach was identical, although I’m probably not
as versed in classic cinema as Donna likes to think! J I’ve already done a long series of posts on my own site where I went through the Oscar Winners one at a time to see which ones were
bad. So I excluded Best Pictures from that list. One tweak I put in was to
recommend better movies, when I could think of them. I also, like Donna, left
off movies that I think are over-rated but where I can see why people like
them, such as “Donnie Darko” or “A Christmas Story” or “Forrest Gump”. I found
that a number of my picks were stand-ins for general categories of movies I
think are over-rated. You’ll see what I
mean when we get there.
***********************************
Donna's #5: "The Green Mile" - At the time of
writing, this film was #45 on the IMDB's Top 250 list, and I have never ever
understood why this film was so loved. I know I am treading on somewhat sacred
ground for putting this on my list, but hear me out. I read "The Green
Mile" books when they came out - I think most every fan of King did given
that these were his first releases after a long spell of silence. I adored the
books and have always thought that the detail of them was their genius - it was
possible to live in and fully understand the world Kind created in this tale.
Most importantly, there was a "why" for everything. Nothing happened
in these books for no reason - King always gave us a "why" for each
and every moment. When I saw the film, I was angered beyond belief at it, as
was my husband, so much so that we had to keep pausing the film to yell and complain
about it. Why? Because all that precious detail, all the "whys" that
made the book so believable, was missing from the film. Now, I realize that
most book-to-film adaptations suffer from a loss of detail, but in this case I
feel that loss is egregious. The "why" for nearly everything that
happened in the film was omitted, and without that "why" the film
made little to no sense. In the world of the film, there was simply no reason
given for most of what took place, and that, for me, destroyed the integrity of
the story. I would start a list of examples but honestly I would be here all
day. The only reason I felt I could even follow the film was that I was filling
in the missing details from my reading of the books. I believe that is why most
people don't notice how many things have been stricken from the film - they
remember the books too well. Without those books this film would have no
context or rationale to it, and that is why I feel it is one of the most
overrated films of all time. I could go on, but I won't - I've ranted enough as
it is I think.
Mike’s #5: “Rope” – Regarded as a marginal classic, rated
#242 on IMDB and praised effusively for inventive technique of using long
unbroken takes, I find this film to be over-rated like a lot of Hitch’s early
stuff. I haven’t seen it since college, when I reviewed it for the Carletonian.
But I found the characters to be wooden, the suspense to be a bit trite and
Stewart’s character to a bit of a snotty professor type. It’s not a bad movie and I would recommend
seeing it. But IMDB gives it an 8.0 and
many critics give it four stars. I’d say
it’s a 6 at best. Stick to the meat of
the Hitchcock cannon.
Donna's #4: "Hachi: A Dog's Tale" - At the time of
writing, this film was #189 on the IMDB Top 250 list, and this entry on my list
probably needs far less explanation than
my last. I mean... seriously? "Hachi"? Sure, it's a cute
enough movie. It's sweet and sappy and sentimental and based on a true story,
so I get that people enjoy it. But a Top 250 movie? Not a chance. It just isn't
good enough in any way. The acting is stiff, the plot overly saccharine, the
directing absolutely average. In fact, "average" is probably the best
way to describe this film - there is simply nothing extraordinary about it. So
why is this film so beloved? It's honestly beyond me. If you want to watch a
tearjearker animal move, why not "Black Beauty", "Old
Yeller" or "Lassie Comes Home" - they are all superior films and
will certainly make you cry. I simply have never understood why this film seems
to hit people as hard as it does, and I certainly cannot understand how it wound
up on the IMDB Top 250 list, so I am including it as my #4 pick.
Mike’s #4: “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” - This is
another pick that isn’t a bad movie, per se. It’s been 20 years since I watched
it and I probably should watch it again.
But it’s status as a classic (on the AFI and IMDB lists) is
unmerited. It drags in the later parts
and I didn’t care for the characters. This is representative of a class of
movies from the 60’s and 70’s that are badly over-rated. Movies like “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Six Easy
Pieces” and “The Graduate” are frequently over-rated because, in their day,
they were revolutionary. Now that the
language of cinema has evolved, they’re still good, but not amazing. “Butch Cassidy”
is not bad and IMDB gives it a sterling 8.1 rating. I just don’t think it’s
that good. I’d give it a 6, maybe. You’d be much better off watching The Man
With No Name trilogy, which is truly great.
Donna's #3: "Bringing Up Baby" - This film appears
at #88 on the AFI's Top 100 of all time list, and I know I'm not alone in not
understanding the appeal of this movie. This film has divided audiences from
the start. Some think it a hilarious and side-splitting romp, while others find
it contrived, unbelievable, silly and inane. I'm solidly in the latter camp - I
disliked this film immensely. I didn't enjoy the comedy, I hated the acting,
and I found the whole setup ridiculous and cringe-worthy. I do not understand
what about this film is appealing or funny, I really don't. And it's because I,
like so many others, just cannot understand the appeal, I have to put this on
my list.
Mike’s #3: “Django Unchained” - #51 on IMDB and regarded by
many as the best film of 2012, this is really a stand-in for over-rated Quentin
Tarantino films in general. “Reservoir Dogs” is good; it’s not a classic. “Pulp
Fiction” might be great. “Kill Bill” is a great 150 minute film squeezed into
four hours. “Ingorious Basterds” is a great two hour film squeezed into 150
minutes. And “Django Unchained” is a
great two hour film squeezed into 165. It pains me to write this because
Tarantino has a very real talent and an extraordinary feel for the language of
film. His dialogue is fantastic, his characters memorable and the look of his
films is amazing. In every film, there are at least a half dozen shots that
make me say, “Wow, that’s great cinema.”
But he badly needs an editor. If his last three films were each about half
an hour shorter, I would regard them as classics, rather than bloated. The line
between classic and over-rated can often come down to editing. (There are a lot of recent films you could
throw into the pile of “awesome if half an hour shorter”, including both Hobbit
movies and the Dark Knight Rises.)
Donna's #2: "Duck Soup" - This film appears at #60
on the AFI Top 100 list, and again I realize I may be ruffling feathers with
this pick. But, honestly, I cannot stand this film, nor can I even begin to
understand the appeal of it to anyone. When I started trying to watch more
classic films I saw how highly this movie was regarded. I has a vague memory of
not enjoying the Marx Brothers as a child, but gladly rented this to see what
it was all about. I hated it so very much I could barely finish it. It was the
single most inane and insufferable film I've ever seen, and that's saying a
lot. I seriously do not understand how this film is funny for anyone, I really
really don't. I grant I'm not a slapstick, screwball comedy fan, but I can
appreciate pretty much anything in one way or another. Not this. Never this. I
don't get it and likely never will. I grant that this film is landing at my #2
spot due to a sheer hatred of it more than a quality issue, but that's how
strong my dislike for it is.
Mike’s #2: “Birth of a Nation” This was originally on the
AFI list but was eventually removed in favor of Griffith’s “Intolerance” likely
because the voters became uncomfortable with the racism apparent in the film.
It seems odd to compare this to Butch Cassidy above but it’s in a similar boat.
The methods and techniques it invented
were revolutionary; but they don’t stun the senses as much almost a century
later. What we’re left with is a film that glories the antebellum south and the
Klan. Defenders will tell you to put aside the racism and admire the
technique. But it’s difficult to put
aside the racism, especially when the technique is no longer that
revolutionary. If you want a silent classic, Griffith’s “Intolerance” and
“Broken Blossoms” are much better. And “Wings” has all the beauty of a silent
epic and the captivating Clara Bow.
Donna's #1: "Easy Rider" - This film appears at
#84 on the AFI Top 100 list, and I have long felt this must be the most
overrated film of all time. This film is loved and revered by so many and I
have never understood why. What happens in this film? What plot actually exists
here? If someone knows please tell me as I still have no idea. Fully half of
this movie is long shots of Fonda and Hopper riding motorcycles, which simply
bored me to tears. The acting was nonexistent, the directing ridiculous, the
plot absent. Why is this a cinematic masterpiece? For what reasons? There is
nothing here of value in my opinion, and I just don't see how it got included
in the AFI list. Considering I generally like films with very little plot you'd
think I'd love this, but it just annoys me to no end. Putting this film at the
top of my list was a no-brainer to me.
Mike’s #1: “Easy Rider” - Honestly, Donna and I did not
coordinate our answers on this! But I
agree with everything she says and then some.
One of the first negative reviews I wrote back in my college days was of
Easy Rider. And it has not improved with
age. It barely has a plot. The symbolism, such as it is, is obvious (I
could see Fonda was the Christ figure about 18 seconds in). The fates of the characters is not
foreshadowed at all but just occurs randomly (and I didn’t care anyway). It glorifies dim-bulb hippie “culture”. The LSD sequence set the stage for every
incomprehensible drug montage to come.
The film is frequently praised as “revolutionary” and “ground-breaking”
– like just about all the films in my list.
But the difference that elevates it to #1 is that the ground it broke
was almost everything that went wrong with film for the next ten years. I really can’t understand why this movie is
so well-regarded other than people’s misguided fascination with the lifestyle
depicted. (Interestingly, IMDB does not regard this as a classic, giving it a
7.4 rating — good but not great. I would
say even that was over-rating. I’d give it a 4 or a 5.) The soundtrack is OK, I guess. But I mostly watched this movie with a look
on my face saying, “Really?”
**********************************
Thanks for joining us again for another edition of "Five Favorites" and we'll see you all next month!
No comments:
Post a Comment