FItzMularkey

Films Which Are Considered Classics Which You Can't Stand.

165 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Roy Cronin said:

I don't mind Dr. Zhivago at all, and in fact, almost like it. 

And I though saying 'not so bad' was faint praise (see my avatar).     I hope when your wife asks you how she looks in that new dress you don't say 'I almost like it'!   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Peebs said:

Wouldn't that translate into other Tracy/Hepburn movies being as successful?  ("Sea of Grass", "Keeper of the Flame", and "Without Love" aren't as well-loved T/H vehicles).  I think Hepburn and Tracy have great chemistry on screen in "Woman of the Year."  Hepburn's haughty demeanor fits her famous, globe-trotting, worldly character who is out of touch with more normal aspects of life. Tracy is perfectly cast as a the sports writer who falls for her.  While the orphan storyline may seem odd it underscores how much influence her character had and how clueless she was to the immense responsibility she had to that child.  It was a wake-up call to Tracy's character that she didn't have the emotional capacity or room in her life for the child or for him. It's not a perfect movie but it's more than just gliding by on the lore of their real-life affair.  That ending though...yikes. 

Well, I think their on-screen pairing after WOMAN OF THE YEAR was a continuation of the perceived success in that initial combination. And, of course, their star personae shaped everyone's perception of their characters, so the sense that we are watching a real-life relationship is unavoidable - but also intended. 

Everyone is free to judge the merits of WOTY and the other movies - but if you imagine that movie with other stars from 1942 (e.g., Walter Pidgeon/Greer Garson) it's difficult to think it would be regarded as a significant movie.

Fitting their star personae to new material obviously became more and more difficult as the decade continued - apparently because Tracy was less and less capable of keeping up the responsibilities of his roles

I think ADAM'S RIB is the only one of their other teamings with any merit, owing to an above average screenplay and a very capable director. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Brrrcold said:

Everyone is free to judge the merits of WOTY and the other movies - but if you imagine that movie with other stars from 1942 (e.g., Walter Pidgeon/Greer Garson) it's difficult to think it would be regarded as a significant movie.

 

Yep, it certainly benefits from the star power of Tracy and Hepburn, as do many movies they were in together and alone.  Walter Pidgeon and Greer Garson would, I agree, not have improved WOTY.  I could think of a few other stars with a little brighter wattage that might have worked, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Peebs said:

Yep, it certainly benefits from the star power of Tracy and Hepburn, as do many movies they were in together and alone.  Walter Pidgeon and Greer Garson would, I agree, not have improved WOTY.  I could think of a few other stars with a little brighter wattage that might have worked, though.

Let's try some examples ... the particular era presents casting problems because of military service for the bigger (male) stars. Jack Carson and Rosalind Russell? Dennis Morgan and Ginger Rogers?
I'm sort of at a loss for alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I think Woman of the Year is very strong for the first 90 minutes. I usually find myself turning it off before it's over, though. It goes off the track somewhere with about the time Tracy takes the Greek boy back to the orphanage. We're supposed to find it hilarious that Hepburn finds for the first time a skill she doesn't master with ease: that of being a domestic goddess. But I don't.

But it's a movie I will happily sit through the first two-thirds or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Wow! Like Sewhite said, everyone should give some movies outside your bubble a try once in a while. I may not like a certain genre, but try watching the best example of that genre. It wouldn't be popular if it had no redeeming qualities. 

No Astaire, no Temple? I've seen their movies enrapture hard core goth boys - their eyes were glued to the screen.

My movie buddy has said "every movie is worth watching ONCE" and doing so has changed my opinion-especially when seeing them in a theater. Also some movies get better as you age....while some movies diminish. The movies don't change, you do.

That's how I felt about THE EXORCIST. When I finally saw it about 15 years ago, all the shock scenes just turned into another aspect of the story. And it turned out to be a pretty good story with tolerable gore effects.

Like 2001, when you put all the "parts" of GWTW together, it makes a pretty epic story. One guy I knew refused to see it because of the preconceived notion of Scarlett being a silly spoiled girl. He was sobbing by the intermission.

Remember-those are the qualities needed to perform on stage in front of people. Maybe Mickey didn't know how to tone it down as well as others for the intimacy of the camera.

Well, the classic movies I'll never watch again already have been mentioned-

STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE- I loathe Brando in this especially. 

MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON- dull, unbelievable & too corny for even me!

DR ZHIVAGO- an entire film that celebrates adultery

CASABLANCA, VERTIGO, THE THIRD MAN- I never "got" what was so great about these meh.

GODFATHER- terrible stereotype, terrible violence, terrible Brando

 

I would agree with stepping outside of one's movie bubble.  When I watch "new" films, I don't look for what I dislike about it.  If I enjoy a film, there was just a certain something that grabbed me.  Other films just don't have that effect.  I am not the biggest science fiction fan, but will not avoid watching science fiction.  I just have to have a reason to watch it.  Right now, I have The Day the Earth Stood Still in my stack of library materials, waiting to be watched. I borrowed it because of the recommendations here on the board and because it's revered as one of the classic science fiction films.

There are actors who aren't my particular favorite (Mickey Rooney, Kathryn Grayson, Betty Hutton), but their appearance in a film is not enough to dissuade me from watching it.

I really dislike Brando as well.  I do not see what the big deal about his acting is--only that he rose to prominence at a time when his acting style was much different than that of his predecessors.  But I just cannot take the mumbling. The only Brando film that I've seen so far that I actually liked him in was On the Waterfront. The mumbling worked for his character, I thought. 

I've seen The Exorcist.  I already knew about the pea soup scene and the general gist of the story.  I've seen it,  and really have no inclination to see it again.  But I am not a big horror movie fan.

I enjoy the films you mentioned being "meh" for you.  I don't even know if I can articulate what it is about these films that I enjoy.  Sometimes a film just has a certain something for me that makes it enjoyable to watch. I obviously recognize that these same films may not have a certain something for another person.  That's what is so great about film.  Here you have multiple people watching the same product, and each coming away with a different interpretation and feeling about the material. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

I mean ... wow. You're gonna do what you're gonna do, but I feel like you're depriving yourself. If you really want to have a broad base appreciation of some of the big themes and threads of movie history, I feel like you ought to take in some of this material. You could suffer some of these movies just once, surely!

That's why I would never make a good cinephile. There are some types of movies I'm just not

interested in. I've seen bits of some Shirley Temple films and I have no interest going any farther.

I wouldn't use the phrase I can't stand them, I just have no interest in watching them. I realize

I'm missing a bit of movie history, but I can live with that.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Janet0312 said:

I'm not a fan of Vertigo either. I'm with you on your other choices as well. I can't stand Kathryn Hepburn.

I personally have no respect for Kathryn Hepburn's acting either.  Good thing for that she only had a very short acting career.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I would agree with stepping outside of one's movie bubble.  When I watch "new" films, I don't look for what I dislike about it.  If I enjoy a film, there was just a certain something that grabbed me.  Other films just don't have that effect.  I am not the biggest science fiction fan, but will not avoid watching science fiction.  I just have to have a reason to watch it.  Right now, I have The Day the Earth Stood Still in my stack of library materials, waiting to be watched. I borrowed it because of the recommendations here on the board and because it's revered as one of the classic science fiction films.

Well, Michael Rennie comes off as an unintentionally funny total-snotbag, but I wouldn't put it on my list of "hated" classics...Now, if you've avoided "Forbidden Planet" because of avoiding sci-fi, that would be more of a problem.

11 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Wow! Like Sewhite said, everyone should give some movies outside your bubble a try once in a while. I may not like a certain genre, but try watching the best example of that genre. It wouldn't be popular if it had no redeeming qualities. 

My movie buddy has said "every movie is worth watching ONCE" and doing so has changed my opinion-especially when seeing them in a theater. Also some movies get better as you age....while some movies diminish. The movies don't change, you do.

I remember during '88, the neurotically toon-phobic 80's NBC David Letterman tried to get an entire summer of material out of making schoolyard nerd-pokes at the fan-hype for "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", while guffawing that he'd never go to see it in his life.  It was funny for about two days, and then the experience of listening to a comic stretch his limited knowledge into bigoted opinions about something he'd never seen just...got...annoying.  At one point, fans joked about abducting him, tied and gagged, and forcing him into a theater showing it, just to break up the MONOTONY.  A year later he thought this new kiddie "Batman" movie Tim Burton was making would be ripe for the same nerd-pokes, but went to see it, discovered...it wasn't quite the 60's Adam West movie he joked it was going to be, and fan-raved about it on his show for the next few weeks.  (Even deliberately annoying Teri Garr with "What was it like working with Michael Keaton on 'Mr. Mom'?")

[Disclaimer:  Dear gods, I can't stand Who Framed Roger Rabbit either--and Robert Zemeckis's later disturbingly-unhinged fling with CGI has not since softened my sanity diagnoses of The Loudest Movie Ever Made--but at least that's an opinion formed from experience.  Like the Vietnam vets told the protestors, you weren't there, man.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Brrrcold said:

Let's try some examples ... the particular era presents casting problems because of military service for the bigger (male) stars. Jack Carson and Rosalind Russell? Dennis Morgan and Ginger Rogers?
I'm sort of at a loss for alternatives.

Yep, I agree with you that Jack Carson or Dennis Morgan in the lead would not have improved WOTY.  (Some bigger stars who made movies that came out in 1942:  Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Errol Flynn, Bogart.)  Claudette Colbert might have worked.  Bette Davis, Carole Lombard, Barbara Stanwyck, maybe.   Replacing the leads in any movie would have changed it.  Who knows, maybe for the better or the worse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

Oh, I think Woman of the Year is very strong for the first 90 minutes. I usually find myself turning it off before it's over, though. It goes off the track somewhere with about the time Tracy takes the Greek boy back to the orphanage. We're supposed to find it hilarious that Hepburn finds for the first time a skill she doesn't master with ease: that of being a domestic goddess. But I don't.

But it's a movie I will happily sit through the first two-thirds or so.

What bothers me about many of the Tracy/Hepburn films is that they are incredibly sexist.  "Adam's Rib" is a case in point.  She's an attorney, he's an attorney, obstensibly equals, but in the end, Adam "shows her" (and she likes it.) Seems to happen all the time in these Tracy/Hepburn films.  I know they were of their time but it still bugs me. I much prefer when she is teamed with Cary Grant.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'm not sure of the age here, but it's a good way to tell other Millennial movie-phobes when they have symbolic ideas of movies in their imaginations just from a decade or a genre.  They're always "90% certain", but a great movie gets you with that 10% of uncertainty, and looking for that is how we grow up.  😁

For example, you may think you know what "Astaire & Rogers" is about, until you sit down for "Shall We Dance?" and find out just what a snarky overconfident wiseguy Fred could be in his movies, and how much Ginger could be a romcom-sparring-partner for him...Or are we just going to quote that feminist t-shirt/coffee-cup/bumper-sticker again?

Now, when I was a kid, the very idea of watching Shirley Temple was insulting (an idea mostly formed by Cindy Brady, when Jan & Marsha told him dad's client was really a Hollywood agent)...But, sitting down one night with an old movie channel, they were showing "Heidi", and--well, yes, her movies were corny, but little Shirl was such a trouper, she's in complete command of every movie she's in.  Later on, I found out that EVERY movie she made was a clone of "Heidi", so I felt I'd gotten the essential cross-section, but it didn't kill me to get that basic ground information.

I'm a boomer, so we can't blame our millenial friends. As I've already said, I've sampled some of these

movies and have no desire to see them in full. I don't doubt the talent of Astaire and Rodgers or l'il

Shirley, I just don't have any interest in watching them. So my lack of interest in concrete, not symbolic.

I should add that I do like Shirley Temple in some of the movies she did as an adult. To balance things,

I do like Vertigo, 2001, Katharine Hepburn, Bringing Up Baby, Godfather I & II (III was pretty hard

to take), even Shadow of a Doubt. Sure Uncle Charlie almost wears a Kiss Me I'm a Psycho tee

shirt, but that never took away my enjoyment of the movie.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lydecker said:

What bothers me about many of the Tracy/Hepburn films is that they are incredibly sexist.  "Adam's Rib" is a case in point.  She's an attorney, he's an attorney, obstensibly equals, but in the end, Adam "shows her" (and she likes it.) Seems to happen all the time in these Tracy/Hepburn films.  I know they were of their time but it still bugs me. I much prefer when she is teamed with Cary Grant.  

I agree.   Note that the actual Tracy/Hepburn relationship was phony as well.   Phony in that Hepburn is often portrayed as some type of feminist icon, when,  at least in her relationship with Tracy,  she is anything but that.

Pat and Mike has a solid ending in that the women leaves the sexist man.   As for how Mike will treat her going forward;   since Mike is also Pat's manager their relationship as husband and wife is murky.    A manager is expected to be controlling and dominate (and Mike is that way with all of this prospects).    We don't know how Mike will be as a husband when he isn't 'playing' Pat's manager.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the musical Woman of the Year with Bacall back in late 1981 I think it was.

I remember  she was a TV anchor and he was a newspaper cartoonist.

I remember very liitle else save for a Bacall song " I'm one of the girls who's just one of the guys" and The Grass is Always Greener, which debates domesticity v career.

I got a cheap good seat and was probably just thrilled to see Bacall so close!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the score wasn't one of Kander and Ebbs greatest......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 2:25 PM, RoyCronin said:

The great carrot, radish or turnip debate.  I always thought it looked like a dirty carrot but the book reads:

"A spicy, sharp-tasting radish was exactly what her stomach craved. She bit off half and swallowed it hastily. It was old and coarse and so peppery that tears started in her eyes."

Well, thank God that's been cleared up!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full disclosure here, I pretty much hate anything Brando did (no idea why he is considered such a genius) with the exception being The Godfather films. Way less being "over the top" in those films.  (Thank you, Francis Ford Coppola for keeping him under control.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't argue that, I suppose. Still, as the set up to the entire movie, it's still an odd note.  I don't buy that Tracy "threw a few lamps," as I see her as more of a verbal warrior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 1:54 PM, AndyM108 said:

Hysterical!

YES.  THIS IS DRECK. NO MORE CONVERSATION IS NECESSARY.
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (Post-1933 musicals in general are godawful, but this is the worst of the worst. Howard Keel's singing is almost as unnerving as Donald Trump's tweeting.)

YES, THIS IS OVER RATED. OF IT'S TIME, BUT STILL POINTLESS.
The Graduate (generational pandering on steroids)

YES, THIS MAUDLIN. (though I like Jean Arthur in it)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Right, this is just how things work in Washington!)

NO SHADOW AT ALL!
Shadow of a Doubt (How dense can all those relatives be?  Does Uncle Charlie have to wear a sign around his neck saying "I AM A PSYCHOPATH WHO DOESN'T LIKE ANSWERING QUESTIONS" for them to figure him out?)

KNOWN MAINLY FOR AN OVERLY TECHNIQUE-Y SHOT TO OPEN THE FILM, BUT THE REST?

Touch of Evil (Charlton Heston should have stuck to his six hour Bible movies)

 

 


 



 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is theyshootpictures.com top 100 movies of all times:  http://theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_100-1.htm

Looking at this list, 32 would be in my own top 100, another 45 would be in my top 500, and 15 in my list of movies to rewatch.  That leaves eight movies, of which the only I really don't like is Amarcord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skimpole said:

That leaves eight movies, of which the only I really don't like is Amarcord.

I love that one. Very funny film. :lol: One of Fellini's best. This scene and "want women" are my favorites.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree.   Note that the actual Tracy/Hepburn relationship was phony as well.   Phony in that Hepburn is often portrayed as some type of feminist icon, when,  at least in her relationship with Tracy,  she is anything but that.

Pat and Mike has a solid ending in that the women leaves the sexist man.   As for how Mike will treat her going forward;   since Mike is also Pat's manager their relationship as husband and wife is murky.    A manager is expected to be controlling and dominate (and Mike is that way with all of this prospects).    We don't know how Mike will be as a husband when he isn't 'playing' Pat's manager.

I would love to see PAT AND MIKE remade, but with lesbians.

(Dead serious.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, EricJ said:

Well, Michael Rennie comes off as an unintentionally funny total-snotbag,

Whoa. It took a few readings for me to realize you meant the ACTOR in THE FILM. (not the moniker changing poster on these boards) Whew!

And for the record: I hated Roger Rabbit walking out of the theater. I couldn't believe everyone else loved it. Then they said, "It was great seeing all my favorite charactors again." to which I replied: hollow gimmick. Bob Hoskins great acting couldn't even save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lydecker said:

It goes off the track somewhere with about the time Tracy takes the Greek boy back to the orphanage. We're supposed to find it hilarious that Hepburn finds for the first time a skill she doesn't master with ease:

I was AGHAST at the idea of her taking a boy "back" as if taking a dog back to the pound because it chewed your slippers! OY! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us