What's the most recent classic film you've seen for the 1st time & how'd you like it?

Cafe Society
61

Within the last few months:

Annie Hall: Liked it a lot, didn’t quite love it. I saw the roots of a lot of modern comedy in this. I think if I’d been in my early 20s when it was released, it would’ve been by far my favorite movie.

The Sting: Really good acting. Unfortunately the plot isn’t as fresh now as it probably was when it was released. I predicted the big payoff at the end.

The 400 Blows: I loved the camera work. I can’t call it original, though; it was very derivative of Welles. That’s not really a bad thing, of course. The story was decent. The closed-captioning was ghastly. Whoever did it made simple spelling errors that revealed they didn’t speak native-level English, and neglected entirely to caption several long exhanges. I probably would’ve liked the story a lot more with better subtitles.

Did you? Do you now?

62

This made me laugh because this is exactly the film I came in here to mention. My wife mentioned to me a few months back that she had never seen it, which made me realize that somehow neither had I.

Rented it… and hated nearly every second of it. Bogart was fine, I suppose (although I thought he spent pretty much the whole movie playing the character “Humphrey Bogart”); but if I’d had a genie nearby, I would’ve gladly wasted one of my three wishes on a chance to travel back through time and into the world of fiction just to slap Katherine Hepburn’s character Rose. Just thinking about her is making me grind my teeth.

63

Casablanca. It was okay, I guess, but I don’t understand why it’s so highly thought of. None of the characters was especially sympathetic, and the two leads have little chemistry so it was hard to swallow the “love story” part of the plot.

64

I thought it was the only major flaw in an otherwise excellent little film. I wasn’t particularly offended at the ugly stereotype, however I think it makes the film seem more dated than it should be.

65

I finally got around to seeing Traffic a few days ago.

Like Reservoir Dogs, I was totally pissed that what I saw was this “great” movie that everyone said I had to watch.

I mean, I did not see why Traffic was great.

66

I caught Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt on TV recently.

I enjoyed it very much. The Hitchcock touch was excellent as always … striking compositions, lovely performances, overall great aesthetics, everything.

On the other hand, like many Hitchcock films, when you actually pay attention to the story, it’s just demented now. Why would a detective (Macdonald Carey) decide to confide in a teenager (Teresa Wright) that her uncle (Joseph Cotten) is a suspected SERIAL KILLER and then just … leave her to her own devices? Our teen is very worried that such news will devastate her mother, and the detectives’ big reaction is along the lines of “gosh, that really would be a shame.” There’s also a quirky neighbor (Hume Cronyn) who pops around periodically for comic relief, although it plays more weird and disturbed than comic these days.

67

Well, I don’t know if it’s a fair representation of 1960s Rome specifically–I think it could be seen as a statement about modern culture in general.

Since the story of La Dolce Vita is actually a series of vignettes, some of the sub-stories are more interesting than other ones. Some of them are kind of fluff, but the ones dealing with Marcello’s friend, Steiner, become increasingly important as the movie progresses. You probably saw the first two, where Marcello runs into him at a church, and then the party (maybe “gathering” is a better word–not exactly a lively party) at Steiner’s house. But you may not have watched it all the way to the third Steiner “episode,” which appears quite late in the film, but which is critical to Marcello’s development (or lack thereof) as a character.

Remember how at the party, Marcello expresses his wish that he could have a life like Steiner’s–settled down, maybe raising a family, and doing what he (Marcello) really wants to do–write literature, not the sensational tabloid articles that he usually does. Plus having cultured friends instead of shallow idiots like Paparazzo. Steiner tries to warn Marcello that his life isn’t really as happy and fulfilled as it might seem, and how he worries for the future of his children.

I’ll spoiler the third Steiner story, in case you want to go back and watch it again:

Marcello gets a call from the police, asking him to come to Steiner’s house. It turns out that Steiner has shot his two children to death, and then committed suicide. It’s a shocking scene from Marcello’s perspective, when he realizes that even a cultured and comfortably bourgeois lifestyle doesn’t necessarily offer meaningful happiness–he might be better off with his shallow friends chasing after empty-headed movie stars and decadent aristocrats, and, indeed, that’s ultimately the choice he makes.

One last thing I’ll add here: some of the appeal of this movie, and most other Fellini films, is the inherent goofiness of Fellini’s characters. There are a lot of different personalities presented throughout the film, and most of them are eccentric oddballs. I’ve come to love these characters, but upon first viewing, I can see how they might be a bit annoying. One gets the impression that in some cases, Fellini thought the characters were more interesting than the plot itself, so you’ll end up with long stretches of the film where the plot isn’t really advanced much at all. I personally like this about Fellini, but I can understand it’s not for everyone.

68

I don’t know if it’s considered a classic, but I just watched Charlie Chaplin’s last film, A King in New York. Despite all the inexplicable raves it gets from IMDb users, it is by far the worst of his films. Unfunny, poorly structured, incoherent plot, heavy-handed political message, bad acting, and on and on.

In general Chaplin’s sound films were not as good as his silents, but this is several steps below even them.

(I haven’t seen Monsieur Verdoux yet. It’s also supposedly not very good. It’s next on the DVR.)

69

**Traffic **was good.

**Reservior Dogs ** was great.

Do I really need to make the obvious statement about **Citizen Kane.? **It’s already been said.

70

Ah, yet another one I felt Gypped on. To be fair, the ending was spoiled for me.

I Didn’t even finish Amadeus, The Graduate,The Godfather, or Ran.

I couldn’t believe that Seven was what it was. Psycho was underwhelming. Casablanca was more or less just there for me. I’m fairly sure I didn’t get pulp fiction. yet Kill Bill was great.

I was interested in the plot of Soylent Green and Westworld, but, it didn’t quite make it for me.

I didn’t get Mystic River, and I couldn’t tell the actors apart in The Departed.

I mean, I almost feel like I am being Punk’d / or am on Candid Camera. I seriously get a feeling of “No, this sh*t can’t be the film everyone talks about. Can it?”
Seriously. Everyone older than me tells me that these are great films.

My Mom went so far as to compare The Matrix with Gone With The Wind.

For argument’s sake, lets say I was born in 1982 (Because I was.)

Further, lets say aside from Walt Disney animation and live action, I have seen a very small handful of the best of the best movies from before I was born. I have seen a LOT of movies after 82.

There is no way I am going to be able to older films with different eyes, is there?

Another way of looking at the above question :

Was the first half of Full Metal Jacket supposed to be as funny as I found it? Then again, when your first two Kubricks are 2001 and A Clockwork Orange (Great, GREAT GREAT mindFcks that those two flicks are) the rest of his work seems to let you down, HARD.

**That is, most of the great films are going to suck for me. Right?
**
For comparison here is my top 10 or so:
Crash (2004)
Benjamin Button
About Schmidt
Cube
Pi
Requiem for a dream
Memento
The Matrix
Saw (The original)
V for Vendetta
Paprika (Anime)
Any Airplane!/Naked Gun paced comedy. (UHF, Idiocracy, Clue, Rat Race) – That I happen to be watching at the time.

I do have ADHD, and frankly, I think there is something to be said for the pacing of the films I enjoy, and the … less pace of the more typical “classics”.

71

You’ll get no argument from me that Kane is a magnificent film, but the rest of this post is, quite frankly, utterly preposterous. Movies were “filmed plays” until 1941? Sure, if you completely ignore the work of Murnau, Renoir, Mamoulian, Sternberg, Hitchcock, Eisenstein, Clair, Sjostrom, Fritz Lang, Buster Keaton or Busby Berkeley (just for starters). And “all modern cinematography” does not date back to Kane either–Gregg Toland, the DP, had already shown extraordinary work pre-Welles, and that’s not to mention the seminal work of Karl Freund, Karl Struss, William Daniels, George Barnes, Lee Garmes, and Eduard Tisse (among many others).

Kane managed to meld skill and ambition while inspiring incredibly talented artists to aim higher and farther than the Hollywood system might traditionally allow–and Welles has to take huge credit for being both a visionary and an astute collaborator. But to say that “Nobody had yet realized all of the things you could do with a movie” is to ignore Strike, Sunrise, Napoleon, Footlight Parade, Shanghai Express, The 39 Steps, M, The Italian Straw Hat, Sherlock Jr., The Grapes of Wrath, The Bride of Frankenstein and The Rules of the Game. Kane wouldn’t have been possible without them.

It often has been said that you can’t really overstate the importance of Kane. But you actually managed to do it.

72

The Wizard of Oz.

I honestly don’t see what’s so great about it. Even from a historical perspective, I can’t find anything that would have impressed audiences 70 years ago besides “HOLY SHIT IT’S IN COLOUR”. I’d give it maybe two stars.

73

How can the ending of Kane be spoiled? It’s not a “guess what Rosebud is” mystery. You didn’t like the movie because it went right over your head.

74

I know, there are so many disturbing things about that movie. The whole dynamic between the girl and her uncle, even before his dark side emerges . . . and the ring that he gave her . . . and yes, how she has to deal with him singlehandedly. And the younger daughter . . . at the beginning of the film, it seems that she’s the one who will put two and two together . . . then she just sort of drops out of the movie. And the Hume Cronyn character.

I’ve seen that movie twice, and found it very creepy (and not in a good way).

75

For comparison . . . none of these would make my top 500 or so.

76

I saw Raging Bull for the first time a while ago. It was extremely well acted. Seeing Robert De Niro in his prime is a bit of a treat, really.

77

I saw Double Indemnity (1944) for the first time on TCM a few weeks ago. I thought the ending was bit hokey, but everything up till then was extremely interesting – gripping, even. Excellent flick.

I also rented Hannah and Her Sisters (1986). Very good, but not great. I like Woody Allen, and this was a good Woody Allen flick, but not the best.

Man, you is nuts. This scene alone is worth the price of admission; the French prostitute with tears in her eyes just slays me, every time.

78

I do hate to rag on somebody’s taste in movies, but yes, if Saw is in your top ten list, you will probably not enjoy a lot of the great classics unless you just haven’t been exposed to them. You’ve exposed yourself to them, you don’t like them - that’s fine, just stick with what you like.

79

I guess qualifying the statement by saying the FIRST saw movie makes no difference?

The movies went over a cliff the moment they decided to make it a yearly thing.

The first one actually had a plot, and in hindsight, was actually quite tame.
But in general, Non-pejorative:: They don’t make them like they used to. And that is PRECISELY the issue for me, correct?

80

My fiancée told me Wild at Heart was a classic, so we watched it together recently. I had to try very hard to not make fun of it for how god-awful I thought it was. Bad writing, bad acting, weird only for the sake of being weird, shocking on for the sake of being shocking… I thought it was at best boring and all too often just plain annoying.

Then a while later we watched Love and a .45 on Hulu, and, while not a great movie by any imagination, I thought that it did everything that Wild at Heart tried to do but a bit better. So instead of being painful it was at least watchable. My fiancée found it intolerably boring. Go figure.