"Classic" Movies That You Just Don't Get

I really didn't like Breathless by Jean-Luc Godard. It's one of those films my culturally savy / somewhat pretentious uncle recommends me as a must-see classic and I'm sure it seemed really fresh, cool and all in the 60's. Now it's just cringe-worthy. Shades, a smoke and a pose doesn't really cut it anymore. It's the film equivalent of The Doors' music. Empty posturing.

Also didn't like Blow Up by Michelangelo Antonioni for the exact same reason. There seems to be nothing going in this film other than chasing some now outdated definition of "cool".

The few films I've seen by Jacques Tati. Haven't watched them all, but the ones I have do nothing for me. These have also aged badly. Not funny at all to me. It's a bit like Benny Hill, just less pervy.

The Untouchables is a baffling one, genuinely one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Agree fully. Laughably bad in fact.
 
Last edited:
Scarface. So many better movies out there, and Al Pacino's acting in this was ordinary at best IMO. Liked the "Say hello to my little friend" bit though.

Absolutely love that film because it tries so hard to make you hate it with its sheer ugliness. Sets, music and costumes are all hideous which is completely intentional and really captures the crass elements of 80's culture and the hollowness of consumerism and material gain. Great flick.
 
Of the more recent highly rated films (not sure they're classics, but...):

Casino Royale - James Bond plays poker for an hour, followed by an exciting action sequence where James Bond...sits in his car nearly choking on a drink, before getting better, just in time to allow him to...continue playing poker for another hour. Then suddenly loads of buildings collapse and for some not adequately explained reason one of the characters gets electricuted and wheeled away at the end. Seriously what was this? It was one of those times you watch a film purely on the recommendation of others then are forced to come to the conclusion that everyone except you is an idiot.

Avatar - For some reason it being in 3D seemed to make everyone overlook what a terrible film it was. I found the problem was that at the start of the trailers it was like "3D yeah, wooo. this is amazing!", then by the time the film started "3D, woo, yeah", then by 20 minutes into it "actually, this is a bit shit"...then it seemed to carry on for another 6 hours or so. Afterwards I had a headache due to being exposed to natural light after wearing darkened 3D glasses for hours.

Forest Gump - It wasn't that I didn't like it, just, I didn't really get what the point in any of it was...and I can't remember like the entire last half of the film because I always get bored and stop paying attention at around the same point.

Inception - This will probably be unpopular. It was ok, but, here's some cool things my dreams often include that don't appear in this film: sex, flying, pirates, big massive lava explosions, robot spiders, general absolute mental surrealness, etc.
Here's some things I never dream about that were in this film a lot: rooms with nothing happening in them, people walking about in suits, walking, people unecessarily explaining things, sitting around, entirely normal looking buildings, meetings, etc.
Also the spinning top bit at the end was the most predictable ending to any film ever.
Avatar was crap, apart from the jaw dropping visuals it's dances with wolves in space.

Thank you! Finally. I find it hilarious that dreams, one of the most abstract things are reduced to set organic fully formed worlds in this supposed 'masterpiece'. Added to that in this hypersexualized world there is literally no distraction in the form of sex or the dreamers desire.
I don't get the love for Skyfall. Oh, and American Beauty. I think Slumdog Millionaire is utter drivel too. Not sure if they're classics, but they're Oscar winners and Skyfall has been called the best Bond ever... huh?
You and the entire population of India buddy. You're not alone.

I'd add "The French Connection". The most mediocre best picture winner I've ever seen. Apart from that chase scene I'd rather pick my feet in Poughkeepsie. I think 'The Untouchables' was a very average movie. No to mention a complete lie because it was not Ness but Frank Wilson, a taxman who caught Capone.
 
Taxi Driver :nervous:
*runs*
Just asking. How old were you when you saw it. Because there are movies that younger audiences sometimes don't get. I know I didn't get 'Blood simple' and 'Magnolia' when I was younger.
 
Just asking. How old were you when you saw it. Because there are movies that younger audiences sometimes don't get. I know I didn't get 'Blood simple' and 'Magnolia' when I was younger.

Around 19/20 I think...I saw it late at night after waiting for my friend for a couple of weeks (we were supposed to watch it together)

I don't remember it very clearly because of that (I must have finished it by 3am or something), but I just couldn't get his whole 'mission'.
He was going to clean up New York by killing everyone in that building? He was pushed over the edge because he was already too crazy for his girlfriend who then ran from him? He sprayed bullets all over and he got a hero's reception? I just couldn't believe much of it. And he's easily the least identifiable lead of any film I've ever seen.
 
I think you should stick with Sharknado type movies.

See this is the other thing that gets me about Inception. All these people who think it was somehow deep or complicated/intelligent just because it was about dreams and had actors with serious looking faces.

It didn't particularly require you to switch your brain on to understand what was happening. It didn't really even matter if you didn't understand what was happpening because most of the suspense was based around people shooting guns at each other and stuff exploding.
 
Absolutely love that film because it tries so hard to make you hate it with its sheer ugliness. Sets, music and costumes are all hideous which is completely intentional and really captures the crass elements of 80's culture and the hollowness of consumerism and material gain. Great flick.
One of my favourite films too.

Back on topic, I think most Gus van Sant films are extremely overrated. I especially loathe Good Will Hunting.
 
The Matrix. My go-to example when it comes to overrated films.
 
Around 19/20 I think...I saw it late at night after waiting for my friend for a couple of weeks (we were supposed to watch it together)

I don't remember it very clearly because of that (I must have finished it by 3am or something), but I just couldn't get his whole 'mission'.
He was going to clean up New York by killing everyone in that building? He was pushed over the edge because he was already too crazy for his girlfriend who then ran from him? He sprayed bullets all over and he got a hero's reception? I just couldn't believe much of it. And he's easily the least identifiable lead of any film I've ever seen.
I think that's kind of the point of the film. Travis is surrounded by women he can't have. He's trying to rescue women, who don't really want to be rescued. He thinks a good date is a trip to a grindhouse/porno theater. He's basically a psycho so yes of course he is not someone you can (or should) relate to. It's about a guy who is a wreck mentally. In the opening moments he says he's a 'Nam Vet, clearly affected but yet has a yearning for violence. He's a guy who is comfortable with porn but ambivalent towards sex. He says he hates the 'scum' of the city yet prefers to work at night time when the scum are out and about. The disturbed state is also evident in the first shot, the taxi emerging from the fog with a booming soundtrack that gives way to Bernard Herman's lighter melody, then its loud again. In the end we see him go off the rails but technically he wants to stop Keitel who is whoring out a teenage Jodie Foster, so really he's a good guy right?
The whole thing is sort of an individual vs society type movie. Sometimes I find repeat viewings (not totally but little bits) are helpful.
See this is the other thing that gets me about Inception. All these people who think it was somehow deep or complicated/intelligent just because it was about dreams and had actors with serious looking faces.

It didn't particularly require you to switch your brain on to understand what was happening. It didn't really even matter if you didn't understand what was happpening because most of the suspense was based around people shooting guns at each other and stuff exploding.
All fanboys are the same. If you don't like what they like you must be - (a) a hipster who's too cool for school (b) a fecking idiot.
 
Around 19/20 I think...I saw it late at night after waiting for my friend for a couple of weeks (we were supposed to watch it together)

I don't remember it very clearly because of that (I must have finished it by 3am or something), but I just couldn't get his whole 'mission'.
He was going to clean up New York by killing everyone in that building? He was pushed over the edge because he was already too crazy for his girlfriend who then ran from him? He sprayed bullets all over and he got a hero's reception? I just couldn't believe much of it. And he's easily the least identifiable lead of any film I've ever seen.
I watched it and had pretty much the exact same reaction as you. I was so confused by how weird the ending was that I actually ending up googling it only to find out you're not meant to sympathise with the main character or his actions at the end. Its meant to make a point about vigilantism where the main character is celebrated because he lets out his psychotic rage on terrible people when in reality his original target was a political figure. I completely missed that and so it came across like the exact opposite where this psycho gets a happy ending for no reason.
 
Top Gun - if you consider it a classic.

Do agree that the Godfather is perhaps overrated, the acting is great but the pace and length just bored me.
 
I don't care if it's not historically accurate, chiefo, I love the film & wish it was a novel, tbh. :)
 
You and the entire population of India buddy. You're not alone.

I'd add "The French Connection". The most mediocre best picture winner I've ever seen. Apart from that chase scene I'd rather pick my feet in Poughkeepsie. I think 'The Untouchables' was a very average movie. No to mention a complete lie because it was not Ness but Frank Wilson, a taxman who caught Capone.

Can't agree with you on The French Connection but yeah, The Untouchables seemed to be De Palma's attempt at portraying a wholesome, honourable man (which is quite funny, since Ness himself was a big boozer and divorced a few times), but it all falls flat on its face since the scenes with his family are really badly handled as well as the dead girls mother coming into the office to plead for justice.... eurgh. De Palma was never known for heartfelt, authentic moments really. And yet I can't completely hate it since it has some great scenes and a score from Ennio Morricone.
 
See this is the other thing that gets me about Inception. All these people who think it was somehow deep or complicated/intelligent just because it was about dreams and had actors with serious looking faces.

It didn't particularly require you to switch your brain on to understand what was happening. It didn't really even matter if you didn't understand what was happpening because most of the suspense was based around people shooting guns at each other and stuff exploding.

You oversimpliffy things in this,imo. If the movie was all about shooting guns and stuff exploding, it would be another Die Hard / Rambo (both great btw).

Yes it does have those stuff, but the core is about concepts like shared dreaming, corporate espionage planting ideas into and extracting data from sub conscious. Quite new at least not popular concepts in film making. This actually has a 'new concept' and intelligent story line.
 
I don't care if it's not historically accurate, chiefo, I love the film & wish it was a novel, tbh. :)
Neither do I, it's a great film in and of itself.
Would be a great novel, I agree.

The Great Mass in C minor is so well represented in that film, but I'll post a link in the classical music thread (to lure folk over).
 
I second Breathless. In fact not much of the new wave has aged very well. I also nominate Terence Malick's films, which have steadily got worse since Badlands. I disagree with Haddock on The French Connection but, if we on the subject of Hackman, I've never found The Conversation quite lives up to the hype.
 
Breathless is mentioned above, which I agree with. La Dolce Vita a bit too, both directors have done far far better, though this is becoming more common thought anyway.
 
Breathless is mentioned above, which I agree with. La Dolce Vita a bit too, both directors have done far far better, though this is becoming more common thought anyway.

Agree on La Dolce Vita. Its modern day equivalent, La Grande Bellezza, bored me to tears - films about ennui are not entertaining (see also Sofia Coppola's "Somewhere"). Sorrentino has done better films which received less acclaim.
 
Can't agree with you on The French Connection but yeah, The Untouchables seemed to be De Palma's attempt at portraying a wholesome, honourable man (which is quite funny, since Ness himself was a big boozer and divorced a few times), but it all falls flat on its face since the scenes with his family are really badly handled as well as the dead girls mother coming into the office to plead for justice.... eurgh. De Palma was never known for heartfelt, authentic moments really. And yet I can't completely hate it since it has some great scenes and a score from Ennio Morricone.
I second Breathless. In fact not much of the new wave has aged very well. I also nominate Terence Malick's films, which have steadily got worse since Badlands. I disagree with Haddock on The French Connection but, if we on the subject of Hackman, I've never found The Conversation quite lives up to the hype.

I'm curious what do you see in the French Connection? I see a good cops and robbers movie with a great chase scenes that may have been a good movie for it's time but no where near being a great movie. It's a good genre movie at best but hardly one that has retained it's relevance. There are no fleshed out characters we can see (Popeye comes closest) and even the plot is hardly Chinatown or LA Confidential.
I second Breathless. In fact not much of the new wave has aged very well. I also nominate Terence Malick's films, which have steadily got worse since Badlands. I disagree with Haddock on The French Connection but, if we on the subject of Hackman, I've never found The Conversation quite lives up to the hype.
I have seen just one of his movies. "The Thin red line" which was superior to "Saving Private Ryan", I saw both in the American consulate screening, back to back with a few ex American Soldiers , every single one said 'The Thin red line' was better which shocked me. I implore anyone reading to watch that movie.
 
I'm curious what do you see in the French Connection? I see a good cops and robbers movie with a great chase scenes that may have been a good movie for it's time but no where near being a great movie. It's a good genre movie at best but hardly one that has retained it's relevance. There are no fleshed out characters we can see (Popeye comes closest) and even the plot is hardly Chinatown or LA Confidential.

I have seen just one of his movies. "The Thin red line" which was superior to "Saving Private Ryan", I saw both in the American consulate screening, back to back with a few ex American Soldiers , every single one said 'The Thin red line' was better which shocked me. I implore anyone reading to watch that movie.

It's been a long while since I saw The French Connection so I'll have to come back to you...As for Malick, the impressionistic, disjointed style irritates me, despite the beautifully framed shots. It gets worse with every film as he seems beyond any editorial control.
 
Alien. or Aliens. I can't remember which one I watched, but it was terrible.

If you mean Aliens (the sequel) then I agree wholeheartedly. If it's the original, then I can't agree at all.

In the original I especially love the dense atmosphere. To me it's among the best sci-fi films ever made. Then fecking James Cameron gets to do the sequel and turns the whole thing into some 80's action heavy dudebro shooter fest with terrible "banter" etc. The Aliens that used to be this scarce powerful presence are all over the place and get mowed down by the dozens. feck yeah!
 
Sure, Randall. Not WUMing at all.

What's to love about it? Name one single thing.

“My mama always said, ‘Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know when you're going to need to shut the feck up talking shit about an awesome film.'" (Gump, F. 1981).
 
It's easy to tell, did the humans have feck all weapons, or big guns, grenades and a tank?
If you mean Aliens (the sequel) then I agree wholeheartedly. If it's the original, then I can't agree at all.

In the original I especially love the dense atmosphere. To me it's among the best sci-fi films ever made. Then fecking James Cameron gets to do the sequel and turns the whole thing into some 80's action heavy dudebro shooter fest with terrible "banter" etc. The Aliens that used to be this scarce powerful presence are all over the place and get mowed down by the dozens. feck yeah!

From those descriptions, it was probably the first one. I remember it being very dark and dull. But I generally dislike all sci-fi.