To all of this I heartily say “Ditto!”
Tree of Life (T. Mallec, or however you spell it, that was my ‘artistic’ way) was a ball of WTF boring, with the possible exception for people who grew up in that area and time it might have some nosteglic (art agin! I’m so meta) value. Runtime was 5 hours but to be fair it felt like 10.
I’m going to assume the reason there have been 82 responses and no mention of “Begotten” is because no here has seen the film. Every movie mentioned here is more engaging than Begotten. It’s not bad, it’s just slow and boring. Which might actually mean it’s bad. But it looks pretty, I guess. I like that I’ve seen it. But man was I bored while watching it.
I liked it, but I agree that it needed somebody better than Ryan O’Neal. And whoever played Lady Lyndon (Berenson?) was passive to the point of catatonia.
But an adaptation of a Victorian novel can’t keep up with the expectations of the MTV generation.
My vote: just about all the Emanuelle films. I saw the first one in a cinema, and felt I had been robbed. I saw the rest on TV, and switched over pretty fast.
I need to see the whole film to decide, but some reviewers list “Tous les matins du monde”. Viols instead of violence, apart from a suicide.
Next choice: one of the later Star Wars films that I saw part of on TV. I don’t know exactly which one it was, maybe around number five. It looked like a $#%&ing video game.
Others: Just about anything by Merchant Ivory. Passage to India? I had to read the book at school. It was @#%$ing boring. The film was a faithful adaptation. Right down to the boredom.
Back in my youth, I used to hang out with Rocky Horror Picture Show regulars. They finally dragged me to a show. I had to get on stage and do the Conga Line because I was a Rocky virgin.
I fell asleep during the movie. They made me come back the next week and do the Conga Line again.
I’m unable to slavishly devote myself to any cult movie. The most I ever did was an exercise in animation class where I had a 3D model lip synch John Goodman’s “You want a toe?” scene from The Big Lebowski.
From the Mad magazine parody:
“Lady Lyndon, your son is dead.”
“How can they tell?”
“He hasn’t moved for an hour.”
“In this movie, that tells you nothing.”
Edited to add: By the way, I LOVED Barry Lyndon (and 2001). But my wife Pepper Mill feels the same way as most of you do about Barry Lyndon.
So I guess nobody else has tried to watch The Accidental Tourist?
Not a movie per se - but who here saw that Netflix had two hour long videos of logs burning in a fireplace available around the holidays? Obviously, they’re intended to create ambience, but that didn’t stop members of my household from noting that each video in the series (e.g. birch wood, hickory, maple, etc.) had a DIRECTOR. Now there’s a tough job.
So the family sat on the couch actively watching the fireplace video on Christmas day and kept a running commentary going…did you hear that pop just now? That’s, what, the second pop in less than a minute. Do you suppose the director chose wood that was inadequately seasoned?..yeah, the flames are probably 4-5% taller on that log on the left than they were ten minutes ago…I think it’s pretty edgy cinematography the way the fire started out near the sides and kind of worked its way toward the middle…
^ That’s hilarious; if you need an additional family member next holiday season, I’m available. 
Perhaps not the most boring, but after watching** Hold The Dark** a week ago on Netflix I was mad at myself for sticking with it to the end.
Yeah this will get me lynched by film buffs. But I’d second that for all Tarkovsky’s stuff. Maybe I am just a uncultured ignorante but its just sooooooooo boring. I get it, you are deep and philosophical and shit, but why does that mean I should sit though hours of NOTHING HAPPENING AT ALL.
I’d also add that for ratio of awesome sound track to boring actual movie, Shaft is right up there.
Yule logs are a long standing tradition, it’s not a Netflix thing.
Netflix also has a collection of a mostly Norwegian series of mundane events, Slow Television.
Edit: I just put on the salmon one and I am skeptical as I don’t see any beer drinking. Also I hope there’s an interlude where a guy using a baitcaster gets fouled and spends 30 minutes untangling it and cursing under his breath.
I’m a big 2001: A Space Odyssey fan, as it happens, but I totally get that some people find it boring. It’s very slow-paced but it’s so visually interesting and has such a great premise that I don’t mind at all. I’ve seen it, I think, five times now, and would gladly see it again tonight if I had the chance. To each their own.
The Talented Mr. Ripley
I saw this on a date back in 1999 and it was so boring I lost interest 20 minutes in. I think I just zoned out for the rest of the film since I couldn’t care less about any of the uninteresting socialites in the story. Even reading the wiki plot recap I got bored and didn’t finish.
Agree with this. One of the few movies I’ve actually walked out of due to sheer boredom.
Solaris (1972). Yes, it’s a classic of Russian cinema but it’s also 2 hours and 46 minutes of Russians Brooding.
Wings of desire (1987) was a close second.
Goddamn Tarkovsky again! I was going to say people above are complaining about 2001 being boring. They should try watching Solaris, it makes 2001 seem like Starwars.
In part, this was a limitation in technology.
As said, the film was shot in natural light–that is, candlelight. Since they didn’t have modern high-ISO digital cameras, their only choice was to go with a bigger aperture. Kubrick bought some lenses from NASA with an aperture of f/0.7. That is a ridiculously big aperture by any standard.
The downside is that it reduces the depth of field to a thin plane. The actors were told to not move too quickly since the cameraman was already having a hard enough time keeping everything in focus.