• brown567@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    I feel like a lot of these films are important because they did something first. The problem is that it doesn’t mean that film did it best.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’ve always talked about The Rolling Stones like this. I respect what they did, but I was born when rock had really gone beyond it. The Beatles too for the most part. Even a lot of '80s punk. I wanted faster, heavier, more technical. All the old stuff just felt basic to me, but I know it’s a matter of perspective.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, these guys were inventing the sound of rock. I think they’re fantastic musicians. But Rush and Pink Floyd stand out more to me as timeless art.

        • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Those artists arrived much later than the invention of rock. It was invented by Chuck Berry and other black artists in the US during the 50s.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I didn’t think my point needed a “history of music” lesson attached. The rock bands of the 60s were taking the experiments of swing and blues musicians from the decade prior and refining them into the aggressive, over-driven and distorted arrangements. Not “rock & roll”.

  • FatVegan@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Ugh, lord of the rings. I tried watching it alone, with friends, with a girlfriend… Nope, just boring

    • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Books, sure. The books are dense as all fuck, and I get that a lot of people aren’t interested in things like the ancestry of a tree.

      Movies, though, are way more efficient with the storytelling. Especially the theatrical version, despite how much is missed out compared to the extended.

  • M137@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    And then, sometimes, you watch it years or decades later and it clicks. And other times you are just convinced everyone who likes it are saying so because critics like it.

  • trslim@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Blade Runner for me. Great themes, great plot, great visuals and music, horrendously boring and plodding. 2049 was better imo.

    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Wrong opinion. You can definitely enjoy 2049 more, but the better film is the first. I enjoy 2049 much more often, it is a very palatable movie that appeals to a greater, higher volume selling, family-friendlier audience than the original. It’s the lager vs a craft beer between the two, though.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        I mean, which version?

        I almost think the early low budget adaptations are better because of how zany they get with the art and effects.

        The Timothee Chalamet version is just another action movie. But Lynch gets wild with it.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          “Just another action movie” but the guy up the comment chain is literally dozing off. Part one actually has very little action in it, most of it is packed landscape shots, politics, and lore dumping. Which is very accurate to the source material. If you dislike Villeneuve’s adaptation, I can only assume you did not love the Herbert books because he was incredibly faithful to the tone, especially for material that was thought to be impossible to adapt to the big screen.

          Lynch’s stuff is simply not comparable because he said “fuck the source material” and just kinda did whatever came to him in some acid trip or other. Fine if that’s your thing but that’s not what Dune is - especially not the first few books.

  • tino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    The Godfather is far from being a difficult movie to watch. It has a rich story, plenty of action, great scenes,… You want serious stuff? Try Nouvelle Vague French movies from Eric Rhomer or Jean-Luc Godard, German or Finnish movies where absolutely nothing happens and it’s just people eating soup. Try Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger than Paradise. It’s great, it’s a classic, but you’re going die out of boredom if The Godfather is already too much for you.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah, some of these criticisms are bad just on their face. Godfather is too slow for you? Come on. Is Rambo to slow for you as well? What about Speed?

      Some of this just feels like kids who just graduated from watching Paw Patrol deciding they should veto what anyone else puts on the TV.

      If you want to throw a fit because everything isn’t Marvel, I guess that’s fine for you. But don’t be shocked when you’re not invited back to College Movie Night.

  • halvar@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I was like this with 2001: A Space Odessy. I love Kubrick, I love sci-fi, I even like art that may require a change in perspective/that is more abstract and I’m an old movie buff. Yet Space Odessy wasn’t for me for some reason. It’s long, streched-out and has some scenes you wish would already end by the second minute, yet they last for 20. I liked the surreal bits a lot but for the almost 3 hours it took to watch it I really can’t say I was entertained.

    I ended up watching Interstellar later and while it’s far from Space Odessy in artistic value I ended up feeling that was more like the movie I wanted Space Odessy to be. Obviously they are not very similar but it had some concepts that without watching I hoped Kubrick already figured out for some reason.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Interstellar is a very plot driven movie, it’s leads you by the hand saying “these things are happening, in this order, and it’s interesting and engaging”, and when the movie is done you get it: the journey is at an end, and the good guys conquered the big problems, emotions were felt along the way, and you’re not really left with any lingering questions afterwards. It’s a great movie, but it’s also a rather easy movie to enjoy if you’re into space stuff.

      Whereas 2001, aside from being an absolute visual feast, is more abstract and theme driven, about humanity’s place in the cosmos, and it makes you ask deeper questions, but you must actually pay attention and discover those questions and explore them in your own mind to actually engage with the movie. It’s not a passive experience, and your engagement with the movie can stay with you for days. It’s certainly a much more difficult movie to enjoy.

      When I was in my 20s, I hated movies like 2001 and Bladerunner, I found them so tedious, because I wanted scifi like Aliens goddammit. Later, I learned to really enjoy these more cerebral movies that took effort to engage with, because they were so rewarding when that effort paid off.

  • sachamato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    2001 a space odisey or most of Tarkovsky films (even though I love the concept and I do consider them as groundbreaking for their time)… I can’t stand them. I tried.

  • mr_noxx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    It’s kind of weird, but I find that the higher a film is rated by film critics and websites, the less I tend to enjoy it.

    • Broadfern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.

      It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can invent derive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.

      Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.

  • RattlerSix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Anybody ever read the Godfather book? It’s… kinda weird. Every time a new character is introduced, it’s goes into their sexual history. Like, do we really need to know Rocko is an attentive lover with a string of girlfriends that he has no trouble keeping satisfied before he goes and kills some dude?

    And then there’s a part of the book that is about… How do I put this…

    a woman getting a pussy tightening surgery.

    It’s the bridesmaid that Sonny fucks in the closet at his sister’s wedding. She sought out Sonny, as did all the other women “with big mouths and wide hips” because he had a legendarily big cock and it was her only hope to get any pleasure, on account of her gigantic pussy and all.

    After he dies, she tried to commit suicide. Not because she cared for him, she just figures she’ll always be alone because no one else in the world will have a cock that will be adequate to work with her ginormous pussy.

    But much later in the book, she’s living at the family casino in Nevada, and her doctor boyfriend finally talks her into having sex and discovers her pussy is huge and convinces her that he knows a great plastic surgeon that can fix it. It walks through the consultation and surgery and everything. Not in explicit detail, but, like, it’s so weird.

    And there’s weird comments like (not a quote) “Don’t worry, doll. I do great work. I’ll fix you up so nice he’ll be calling me every day to thank me.” Shit like that.

    And it worked. After she has the surgery and they have sex, her doctor boyfriend immediately proposes to her.

    So, anyway, yeah… I don’t know why they left the great pussy tightening subplot out of the movies.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    You should watch 2001 A space Odyssey it is exactly like this.

    It is a historical documentary set in the early days of AI and Space Travel before SpaceX and ChatGPT, it’s kinda neet to see how far we’ve came in such a short time though.

    • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      In 2006 I fell asleep watching that movie. Highly recommend falling asleep watching that movie. The background noise is artistically stunning and sleep-promoting soothing.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    If you don’t care for it, don’t let people make you watch it.
    No one (sane) will go “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!” .

    You don’t “have to” value any kind of art. If you don’t, you don’t. That said, it might be worth trying at least once, you never know if you find something that stays with you.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!”

      So you’ve never been dragged to Swan Lake?

    • Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think that most of Art needs a bit oft commitment to be consumed and understood, you cannot expect to immediately understand a piece oft Art just because you can see colour and hear sound. It boils down to education, as you need to learn most things in manageable steps. What im saying is: if someone offers to show you something they like, they are likely a good resource to guide you through the experience.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        More likely than the average Joe but guiding, like teaching or storytelling, is a distinct skill. Lots of people are totally blind to their own biases and the hypothetical 4 hour opera without context would definitely make me doubt their advice.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      As with everything, it all depends on what you find boring.

      There’s no action in Citizen Kane. There’s a small mystery who’s answer you may have seen in other media without knowing. Mostly it is a biography about a fictional character, complete with interviews with friends and enemies of said character (the titular Kane). You only actually get to see and know the character through flashbacks.

      It should be noted that the character is actually based partly on a real person.

      • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        For what it is worth, I found it thrilling as a snot nosed teen who watched it in class for some reason or another. It suffers a little from its reputation as “the greatest film ever made”, but, it remains a very good character drama. Interest in the history of film and filmmaking will also go a long way towards making the movie compelling.