So underwhelmed, in fact, I wrote Adams instead of Abrams! (I almost “Addams” instead.) :smack:
Forrest Gump by a mile. Forrest himself was exploited by just about everyone he came into contact with, Jenny was a terrible person in general, and the story itself was too clever by half. Basically, it was a way to show off some cool technology that allowed the filmmaker to insert Tom Hanks into historical footage.
I don’t get the love. I really don’t.
^ I came to say. A hodgepodge of cliched characters and a moderately entertaining plot do not a #1 make. It’s possible that because I’d read the story I didn’t get the fun of the big reveal…other than that, I can’t explain it either.
I love good B&W movies. But, IMO, Citizen Kane is not one of them.
Most of the reaon why I don’t like it is that I find most all movies from before 1935 or so are just not watchable.
It’s partly the level of technical quality - i.e. the video and the sound.
But it’s also because societal mores have just changed so much from then to now that it’s almost like watching a move that was produced by aliens from another planet.
When I watch most movies from before 1935, I just cannot relate to the people or the situations or the lifestyles. It’s just completely out of this world to me. I can’t relate to any of it.
There are some exceptions. But for the most part, most any movie made before 1935 is just a bunch of whack AFAICS.
Sorry to all those people who love those films.
In one way, I get it. But in a bigger way, I just don’t get it.
Would you like to see some examples of B&W films I love?
Here they are: Raging Bull, Schindler’s List, Psycho, On the Waterfront, To Kill a Mockingbird, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Invasion of the Body Snatchers,
Manhattan, The Best Years of Our Lives, Young Frankenstein, Portrait of Jennie.
This, and I’d say none of it held up in 1999 either. What a mess.
You have curious criteria for judging a film’s quality. I can name plenty of outstanding movies in which there is exploitation and terrible people in general.
mmm
You forgot Paper Moon! 
I agree. Although, I do like me some Chaplin. Maybe comedy “translates” better, both in terms of changes in society, and in its not being so dependent on film and sound technology.
Also I wanted to chime in on “Forrest Gump” - don’t like it, don’t get why so many do. But that’s a slightly different category – “films which were widely praised at the time, but now are seen as okay by many, good by some, and great by just a few”. Such films don’t quite rise to the level of “most overrated”, unless we mean “were lavishly overrated for a year or two”.
Andie MacDowell.
Paper Moon was in black and white? :dubious:
I know this is just me but I never thought Caddyshack was all that.
Your mentioning that reminds me of Groundhog Day, so I hate you a little bit, but Groundhog Day wins the award for me. I’ve had so many people tell me what an amazing movie it was, and I sat through about 90 minutes of it waiting for it to get amazing before finally giving up on it. Andie MacDowell was the most obvious problem with that movie, but the other problem was that a great premise was wasted on obvious lame comedy about a jerk learning to be a better person, and I never cared about the jerk or the better person he was becoming.
Um, yes it was.
The Graduate
Slight nitpick: Citizen Kane came out in '41, which is why we get that jarring bit with him and Hitler early on.
You’re right, it was! :smack: I haven’t seen it since about 1974…
But you didn’t take into consideration the rest of my post, which is that the story itself is awful. It’s superficial, cutesy, and contrived.
I am well aware that exploitation and terrible people are part of storytelling, and they can be very effective in character development and plot. But not here. We know something about Jenny and why she is the way she is, and Lt. Dan and the way he is, but we don’t know that much about Forrest, except that he’s very naive. And it’s not even that he’s naive, it’s that he doesn’t change. He just bounces from one vignette to another, stumbling his way into goldmine after goldmine, and being exploited by one person after another in the process.
I just found it very unlikeable.
But I did consider the rest of your post; I found it relevant to the question, so there was no need to address it.
The two items I cited are not, in my mind, criteria for considering a film’s quality. You listed them as examples of why the film is bad.
Superficial, cutesy, and contrived; now those are legit reasons to dismiss a movie.
A character being a terrible person? Not so much.
mmm
Taxi Driver. Zzzzz.
Apocalypse Now
Superficial, Cutesy and Contrived.
“scholars have made too much of the psychological aspects of Heart of Darkness while scanting the horror of Conrad’s accurate recounting of the methods and effects of colonialism”.
Done.
What do I win?
I disagree with your dislike of Apocalypse Now, but that’s not why I’m posting…I just wanted to point out that Coppola filmed, and intended to include, a long sequence where they come across a household of leftover French colonialists, bravely trying to maintain their lifestyle in the jungle. He intended to nod to Conrad’s subtext with this sequence, but it didn’t make the final cut – perhaps because, cinematically, it was a distracting detour, or maybe because it was rather implausible.