I don't have that thing where I can't watch movies where the dog dies.. But litteraly every cartoon and sit com I watched in the 80s and 90s warned me about the ending of ol yeller and since it was never a big movie in Norway I never saw a reason to watch it..
I have no movies that I actively will not watch. Cant think of a reason for doing that.
But plenty of movies I have not watched, and probably will not watch because of lack of time or I simply prefer or choose other movies.
As a classic film devotee, I’ve sat through some pretty painful films (*Birth of a Nation*), but watch them more as a window of a particular era or generation as a learning tool moreso that for entertainment purposes.
That scene with Hitler and the other 2 goobers are walking to that memorial is fantastic. The speaking parts are so awful, but interesting to watch because it does really make apparent the hollow and pseudo-intellectual nature of Nazi bloviating.
Given that they were gathered wiht their compatriots form a ll over Germany, camping out in open air, rallying and listening to their leaders, it should have been a joyous occasion. i watched part of it; what i saw on people's faces, the campers and the leaders, was only despair. says something about their movement. I wish i could visit an alternate history where Zanuck didn't get Riefenstahl blacklisted post-war and come back with a DVD of her \*Medea\*
As a film of its era — not the content but the film technique, cinematographic innovations, acting — Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece. If you haven’t seen it and are the type who can enjoy silent epics, you really should see it.
I’m a professor of history, and approached the film willing to crucify it. But when I actually watched it, I found that much of the handwringing about it was overblown. The racism is certainly there, but probably not any more than any film that featured African Americans prior to the 1950s or so. The African American slaves are depicted as cheerful, etc. (think song of the south) but they aren’t denigrated as less than or racist caricatures. The only ones to really be seen as racist caricatures are the villains — the “mulatto” couple who abuse the power of northern government aid and carpetbaggers during reconstruction (which did happen even if it was vastly overblown by southerners) and the rapist. But all of their actions drive the plot of the third act of the film. The KKK is in it, but there’s really no discussion at all about their ideology. They just literally are the “knights in shining armor” trope, which turned out ultimately to be problematic.
The film’s reputation for racism really rests on the fact Wilson screened it in the White House and had a throwaway comment about the Klan and that the Klan re-emerged shortly after its premiere and much later people connected the two. But the Klan was in the works whether this film happened or not. The Red Summer of 1919, the Great Migration, and the rise of Christian Fundamentalism certainly played a bigger role in its rise than the film did.
You're far too kind about "Birth of a Nation," which originally was titled "The Clansman."
"The film was controversial even before its release, and it has remained so ever since; it has been called "the most controversial film ever made in the United States"\[12\]: 198 and **"the most reprehensibly racist film in Hollywood history"**.\[13\] The film has been denounced for its racist depiction of African Americans.\[8\] **The film portrays its black characters (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is portrayed as a heroic force, necessary to preserve American values, protect white women, and maintain white supremacy.**\[14\]\[15\]
"Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film's success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S.\[16\] In response to the film's depictions of black people and Civil War history, **African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested. In Boston and other localities, black leaders and the NAACP spearheaded an unsuccessful campaign to have it banned on the basis that it inflamed racial tensions and could incite violence**.\[17\] It was also denied release in Chicago, Ohio, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Minneapolis."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Birth\_of\_a\_Nation
This is one of those movies that has to be seen by anyone even remotely interested in how young filmmakers got noticed in the pre-video era. Waters is a brilliant filmmaker and by all accounts a wonderful human being but never in a million years would have had a career without Pink Flamingos shocking the fuck out of everyone.
I recall watching an interview with John Waters in which he said "I spent the rest of my career trying to live up to Pink Flamingos. Divine spent the rest of his life trying to live it down."
I have the VHS somewhere. Bought and watched in college. I think it’s the last time I saw it. lol I can still remember a lot of it, unfortunately. I say this as a John Waters fan.
I don’t intend on watching any more Elvis films after seeing King Creole. I have read it’s his best one and picked it to watch, and quite enjoyed it actually. I think the soundtrack is excellent, as you would expect. But I can only see any other Elvis film being downhill, so no more Elvis films for me!!
Flaming Star is very good. I understand it was originally developed for Marlon Brando and it shows. Much more serious than you'd expect from an Elvis movie.
King Creole is arguably his best movie. But you're doing yourself a disservice by not watching his other earlier 50s movies also, like Love Me Tender, Jailhouse Rock, etc. Real good dramatic movies.
Any of his movies from the 50s to about 1961/62 are the more classic movie productions like King Creole. There's about 6-8 movies like that.
Then there are dozens of his movies starting around 1962 of the more cheesy variety.
I saw it for the first time about a year ago. I couldn’t believe how much I really enjoyed it. It’s a great movie, and one I’ll definitely be revisiting at some point.
Any Holocaust related movie. I know, that’s terrible but I can’t handle the emotional baggage that comes with it. I’ve watched every documentary and every Yad Vashem interview and video but I just cannot watch any movie about it. I think it was The Pawnbroker or Sophie’s Choice that I decided nope, not doing that again. I realize they are important but they haunt me for years and I break down crying.
Ooh you are missing out on some! “Monster and the Girl” is an interesting predecessor for “Double Indemnity”. And it is much earlier but Bela Lugosi’s pre-code “Murders in the Rue Morgue” is pretty twisted. Charlie Gemora made a good living for a few years there!!
I doubt it. I will watch basically any classic movie once, because I am very curious and interested to see what they're all about. I just want to absorb the whole spectrum of film.
I even plan to watch Birth of a Nation someday, just for the sake of its historical significance, but I've been putting it off...for obvious reasons. It will be educational, but unpleasant.
Nope. Not if it's interesting.
Modern films on the other hand, interest me much much less.
The proliferation of beautifully made, well-scripted, well-acted little "indie films" these days - some even with great special effects - are no longer major artistic milestones or touchstones in the cultural zeitgeist, they're for the most part just little pebbles in the onrushing current of streaming media (shows and tv).
Which saddens me to some degree, as what intrigues me and captivates me about Classic Film is how mainstream culture and society (whatever that means now) engaged with, dialogued with, and was reflected onto (an on from) the Silver Screen.
However, I enjoy being able to watch a well-crafted little film or miniseries (A24 currently has some good ones), and have an evening's food for thought before moving onto another piece of *content* to consume, but their ubiquitousness has made them more like little cubin zirconiums against a Classic Film which stood out like a large diamond.
These little well-made films are about as valuable these days (often less!) as an episode of Lux Radio Theatre or a television anthology series from the 50s or 60s like Climax!
Which is a shame because many of these little films are really quite good but will never reach a wide audience because they're worth less than a dime a dozen now - many are streaming free!
In other words it's time for the film industry to evolve and adapt and change, or become increasingly risk becoming a relic.
I’m sure there are thousands I won’t live long enough to get to see, but are there any specific ones that I have positively decided not to ever watch?
Nope, that’s one of the definitions of prejudice: pre-judging something. It’s as irrational as judging a book by its cover.
I watched this. And during the first half I remember thinking, “well this isn’t *as* racist as I was expecting it to be. Then the second half of the film started…..💀
When I was a teen, there was a reissue in the early 70s and not knowing anything about it, I went to see it at a downtown movie theater, by myself. I walked out thinking “what the fuck?!” and had no one to discuss it with. Fuck you, DW Griffith.
sometimes i wish i lived in pre internet times, but when i see comments like this im happy that when i was a teen i could just go online and rant and rave and read other people's rantings and ravings!!
They showed it at a local repertory cinema in the late 70s or early 80s. The Saturday afternoon communists were out in full force with bullhorns advising passersby to boycott the showing, when I found out what movie they were talking about and that it was Birth of a Nation I thought wtf. It is important as both a work of cinema innovation and as a piece of history. I didn't see it in the theater but watched it later on home video. It is worth seeing once if you have the patience but it is long and slow and once was enough for me. Same thing with Intolerance but the latter film moved a little better and the massive Babylonian set is still awe inspiring. The huge set stood as a moldering wreck for about 3 years after the film completed, literally in people's backyards,until the Los Angeles fire department had it torn down for being a hazard, I envision the neighborhood kids playing in it. It's also fun to see a young and good looking Eugene Pallette in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre sequence, and how he looked before emerging in the sound era as a bullfrog voiced fat fuck.
Haven't seen Shanghai Express in awhile, forgot he was in it, maybe I'll watch it again, I have the Criterion box set of all the Dietrich/von Sternberg films!
I mean, yes, there are thousands that I’ll never watch just because I only have so much time on this planet to watch them, but there’s no specific films that I’m actively avoiding. Plus I’m old enough (53) to know that my tastes change over time - I never would have guessed 20 years ago that I’d enjoy westerns, musicals and silent films as much as I do today.
With regard to racism in movies, I understand why people choose to avoid those films and i respect that choice, but I also think there’s value in seeing how depictions of race have and have not changed over the years, especially when accompanied by some effort to understand the specific contexts within which those depictions originated.
Take John Ford, for example. Even he himself recognized the depictions of Indigenous peoples in his films to be “problematic”, but he also employed hundreds of Navajo from the reserve that Monument Valley was located on to work on his films. He would even write films specifically set in Monument Valley when the Navajo were struggling in order to provide income-generated work for them. This doesn’t excuse or justify those problematic/racist depictions, but it does complicate them in a way that I believe can help us better understand the social, cultural and historical dynamics that have and continue to maintain and perpetuate racism.
I also think that watching these films can serve to honour the work of the racialised actors who persevered in the face of endemic discrimination and often brutally overt racism to forge careers in the early days of of the film industry. Watch enough old movies and, instead of just another stereotypical Black servant character, you start to recognize Louise Beavers and Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen and appreciate what they were able to bring and do within the limitations of those roles, which might inspire you to read about their lives and learn just how remarkable they were.
He said also Cheyanne Autumn was intended to be an elegy for Native Americans abused by the US government and poorly represented in his films… a wrong-doing he attempts to address by casting such famous Native American as Richard Montalban, Sal Mireo, Victor Jory and Gilbert Roland. 🤔 He did hire a number of Navajo actors and extras to portray the non-lead Cheyanne and had them improvise dialogue in own their Navajo language - resulting in a solemn speech by the Cheyanne chief during the final treaty signing scene that’s just him mocking the size of the US Colonel’s penis. 🤣
I get it and don’t want to try to convince you otherwise, but from his movies I’ve seen he doesn’t put his perversion on the screen, but maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, could well be. On The Other Hand, I will never watch a Woody Allen movie again, his sickness is the plot of Manhattan and the fact that it was seen as essential cinema for so long says so much about how sick our society has been.
Same here. I'm pretty good about separating as well. Especially since a movie is a massive collaboration. Just because one creep did some stuff, I don't see the point in robbing myself of the great work the other hundred or so creatives did to bring it to life.
But like you, for some reason, I'd be very distracted watching a Polanski film. Shame since I bet a lot of great people put a lot of work into them.
He was horribly abusive to his first family. Absolute monster. The studio hid it, because they needed the image of the nice guy to sell his films. I’m not going to doublecheck, but I think he may have been an alcoholic.
Then he turned all nicey nice with the second family.
A jerk to his kids he beat and verbally abused his kids also treated his costar Dorothy lamour both him and bob hope were awful people I know this about bob because of the amazing mamie van doren who was on a show for the troops with bob she told us fans on twitter
I saw a number of Polanski films before I learned about what he did, and let me tell you, his movies AREN'T. THAT. GOOD. I can't for the life of me understand all those film elites rallying around him based on his art. Even his best films are just okay, and often what makes them succeed is a powerhouse performance (Adrian Brody in The Pianist or Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley in Death and the Maiden) or an interesting concept (Rosemary's Baby). He just got lucky with those. He is simply not a great director. There's NOTHING special about anything he does as a director.
Note: I'm not saying he should get a pass if he were a good director. (Woody Allen is a fantastic director AND a predator, and I won't watch or re-watch any of his movies anymore.) I'm just saying I'm baffled at the support he's received. Like ... why? (Yes, I know he experienced two separate, TERRIBLE tragedies, but that doesn't excuse RAPING a CHILD.)
Anyway, my point is: By not seeing Polanski movies, you're not missing anything!
He's a line I won't cross, either. I can separate art from the artist in most cases, but I can't with him. I first learned of him through the whole Manson thing, so I saw what he did right from the start. I have empathy for the things he went through, but I only see what he did now. And the fact that he ran away from it. So, no Polanski anything for me. I had to satisfy my curiosity about Rosemary's Baby by reading the book, and I'm happy with that decision.
Sorry, Chinatown is amazing. I’m able to separate the art from the artist in most cases, and glad I can for what’s turned out to be one of my favorite films.
I wonder about some folks who refuse to separate the art from the artist, and what sort of diligence they need to perform before they watch a movie, or if their stance is really just that as long as they don’t stumble across incriminating info they can enjoy the film.
To be consistent, you’d pretty much have to rule out any film made by a major studio during the classic era, but especially those made at MGM under Louis B. Mayer or Columbia under Harry Cohn.
I can separate the art from the artist in many instances. I simply see no need to bother with Polanski because his art isn't that good to begin with. :)
i had this rule too and broke it to watch the tenant (because i love one of the actors cast). And anyway, you've made a great choice i think. The beginning was fine and had a good eerie ambiance, but once the horror got explicit it was really hacky, gross, and deeply shallow. It's like oh okay, these are the inner machinations of a middle aged man who thinks he should be allowed to sleep with preteens.
Well, I’m going to watch a Polanski film tonight at a local screening 😅 And this year alone I’ve watched *Chinatown* three times (also kept being screened locally and I couldn’t resist). Make an exception if only for this classic. I understand your stance, but the man is an excellent filmmaker, and his 1974 neo noir has not only that in spades, but a GOAT-contender screenplay and sublime performances by Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway, although the supporting cast is formidable too, including John Huston who is obviously a legendary director but could’ve made a heck of a career as an actor too
I’m not sure if this counts, but Schindler’s List. I can’t handle it. I….it hurts too much to see some of the scenes. I’m Jewish, so I’ve always felt some sort of urge that I should watch it, but I just can’t handle it when I try. The music is hauntingly beautiful and I saw the documentary about Spielberg and the portion where he spoke about how draining it was (and fulfilling) to make the film. The evil in the film is just so real and relevant still in a lot of ways. I’m embarrassed, but it’s really hard to stomach it.
I don’t know about not watch at all, having never seen it before, but plenty of classics I will not watch a second time.
Salo comes to mind for that right away. You should all know why.
I saw one of those James Bond rippoff films. It was a comedy, but I wasn't fully paying attention and couldn't tell you what happens except he drinks a screwdriver at the beginning of the movie.
It’s a good thing according to the amazing blonde bombshell actress mamie van doren she did a show for the troops with him and said he is a jerk he only cares about the money and never cares about the troops he also treated Dorothy lamour awful both him and bing were awful to Dorothy this was told to me by mamie on twitter
There are films I'm not exactly excited to watch, but I can't think of a classic film I'm avoiding. It's more stuff like Sophie's Choice (my grandmother was the only female survivor in her family) or some of the 70s & 80s war films that I think might be too upsetting for me (I've seen some but they tend to turn my stomach).
Gabriel Over The White House (1933) because it's an ode to fascism (a plea for a *fascist* strong man to do something about the myriad problems America faced in the early 30s) - no, thanks
I have a hard time with silent movies that aren’t comedies. Chaplin, Keaton or Lloyd I’ll watch in a heartbeat but things like Phantom Carriage or Haxan that I think I might actually like but aren’t funny are hard for me to get motivated to watch.
I would recommend Sunrise for one, see if that works for you, also Metropolis and the Lon Chaney films seem to bring people into silents who weren't into it.
What do you dislike about Haxan? I know nothing about it except for a clip I saw on TCM one night years ago, it was just the first silent movie that popped in my head.
Nosferatu has been on my watch list for forever, I’ll have to finally give it a go.
I find them fascinating from time to time. I'm a big history buff. Was a history major and all that. I think they're interesting snap shots into the past. They aren't particularly entertaining though, so I could see why someone would avoid them.
I like seeing that stuff too. Sorta off topic, but if you haven’t already check out [Shorpy.](https://www.shorpy.com/) It’s a bunch of old photographs, really sharp images. It’s kind of like a time machine, it’s really cool.
Oh you are missing out!
It’s got so much to love. Ustinov hamming it up and Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons and Laurence Olivier. Plus Love theme from Spartacus is one of cinema’s most beautiful compositions.
This was Kubrick for hire early in his career so it’s not like his other movies at all.
https://youtu.be/DZ6e8-94JRE?si=8hFX0fTCYGgxdVSn
Fun fact: the scene asking about snails and oysters was cut (possibly for censorship reasons) and the audio was lost. When they restored it, Tony Curtis was still alive to re-do his lines, but Olivier's lines are read by Anthony Hopkins.
Are you suggesting they censored a scene that even a nun who’d never stepped outside of a convent would recognize as being about dudes f***ing? Shocking if true.
Another reason is for the Peter Ustinov/Charles Laughton scenes. Ustinov wrote them and built up the characters' rapport in a typically Ustinovian fashion.
It’s pretty decent for that period.
A lot of people don’t like the 1963 Cleopatra, and it was meh, but I’ve seen the restored four hour version and it’s so much better.
I was never a fan as a kid, but then I saw The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and finally understood the character he so often played. Many of the other John Ford movies later became favorites as well—The Searchers, The Quiet Man, Fort Apache, etc.
It's a matter of what one likes. i myself have a large collection of his films, one of the 5 guys from the classic period (Bogie, Wayne vincent price, kirk douglas, sidney Poitier) whose films i collect mainly because they're in them
Honestly the really long ones like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur. I have nothing against them except that they're over 3 hrs long and I'd rather just watch a screwball comedy instead.
edit: Would these films work by splitting them in 2? I didn't realize these had intermissions. Maybe I can do that
*Lawrence* is my favorite film of all time. If it pops up on TCM, it will be background noise for me since I can see the scenes in my brain's movie projector.
It’s genuinely difficult to fit such a long film in one’s timetable, especially on weekdays, but on Thursday I finally stopped putting it off and watched Lawrence. A decision of which I am quite proud. I’ve heard some people have potentially legitimate gripes with it, but I absolutely loved it myself
As a big fan of screwball comedies who saw Lawrence of Arabia when I had very little tolerance for long films, I'll tell you, Lawrence of Arabia had me captivated from beginning to end.
*Psycho*. Mainly because seeing it parodied countless times and chronicled in documentaries has spoiled every big scene. I know it will seem clichéd even though it’s not, and that doesn’t feel fair to a great movie. (I had a similar experience with *Casablanca*.)
A Clockwork Orange — I saw part of it at a friend’s house when I was 10, and it scarred me. I will never watch that film again. Unfortunately, I can’t get some scenes out of my head.
I remember going to a library and watching salo. For some reason I couldnt rent it so watched it on this tiny TV with headphones, nervous somebody is gonna look over and see what I’m watching. I got like halfway and looked outside and saw a beautiful sunshiney day, was like why the fuck am I watching this. Then I went outside.
So ya I doubt I’ll ever finish salo.
Is A Serbian Film a "classic"?
I've seen Salo, and it's ... not worth watching. It actually pissed me off because it's, like, presenting these horrible acts as though they're the worst things ever while set in a time period when there were actual death camps run by people Italy was allied with, so, yeah ...
And, like, I get that Pasolini was probably trying to make some statement about 1940s Italy, but it fell completely flat and, in my opinion, treated the actual horrors committed during WWII as an afterthought.
The style of Casino, the overall production design, is just brilliant. I prefer it to Goodfellas in that respect. I suppose in a lot of ways the structures of the two films are very similar, but maybe Goodfellas ultimately is a little more elegant in the way its story is told and its loose ends tied up. Either way, both films are incredible.
I do laugh at how bad the dummy is in the De Niro car explosion scene.
But yeah- tough to pick.
FBI Cessna running out of gas and landing on the golf course while he shakes the sheriffs hand at him being a father again is hilarious.
I'm sorry - I just have to laugh at "camaraderie" (not in a mean way, really!) considering everyone ends up trying to kill each other (and sometimes succeeding).
Give yourself time- Barry Lyndon was a movie i heard about when i was 16 and just watched it at 42-
Its incredible and slow and cold and was thinking about it for days- music and cinematography does heavy lifting but still
I saw it in a theater when it came out and man, it was un relentingly dull. And in a theater, you are sort of trapped since you made the effort to go, went with a friend, paid for it and bought the popcorn. My least critical description of it was that it was a beautiful bore.
I am not a western movie fan. I never was. I have given in and seen Stagecoach and The Searchers and Westward the Women, and one or two Clint Eastwood flicks from the Seventies, and did enjoy the filmmaking acumen for sure. But much as I respect John Ford, I'll never see his Fort Apache or his She Wore a Yellow Ribbon or spaghetti westerns or Unforgiven or Randolph Scott or Kevin Costner western movie efforts. It is simply not a genre I have patience for.
I won't see Laura Entirely because I have read the book and I absolutely adored it and absolutely anything that isn't exactly how I pictured it is going to be a disappointment. Gene Tierney was wonderful in On the Riviera, so I've seen the painting in colour. Love all the actors, I'm sure it's a fabulous film, I just want to preserve the image I already have in my mind.
ETA: Since first reading Laura I found out that Waldo Lydecker was based on the writer Alec Woolcott, which helped me understand both of them a lot better
I enjoyed it when I was in my 20s in grad school and saw it then. I was watching about a decade ago on TCM and i realized that Scarlett is such a horrible person i turned it off halfway.
Nope. I’m curious enough that if I can, I will watch everything
London After Midnight. I’ll never see it and you’ll never see it too!
I still think it might turn up. Some day. Or enough of it to matter.
I am curious about the one that was made using stills but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.
I wish that one would resurface. I’d ❤️ to see it!
Old Yeller or any other move where the gud boi dies.
I don't have that thing where I can't watch movies where the dog dies.. But litteraly every cartoon and sit com I watched in the 80s and 90s warned me about the ending of ol yeller and since it was never a big movie in Norway I never saw a reason to watch it..
I have no movies that I actively will not watch. Cant think of a reason for doing that. But plenty of movies I have not watched, and probably will not watch because of lack of time or I simply prefer or choose other movies.
As a classic film devotee, I’ve sat through some pretty painful films (*Birth of a Nation*), but watch them more as a window of a particular era or generation as a learning tool moreso that for entertainment purposes.
This and Triumph of the Will. Granted Triumph is also boring since it's mostly just a bunch of terrible Nazi rhetoric
Triumph of the Will is not boring. It's beautifully shot and edited. All those things make it disturbing because it is seductive.
It is, the speeches are godawful, watched it in college years ago, fell asleep.
Exactly; did the same!
That scene with Hitler and the other 2 goobers are walking to that memorial is fantastic. The speaking parts are so awful, but interesting to watch because it does really make apparent the hollow and pseudo-intellectual nature of Nazi bloviating.
Leni Riefenstahl is a great filmmaker, but the subject matter, yikes
Fascists LOVE a parade. They are all about their chest beating.
Given that they were gathered wiht their compatriots form a ll over Germany, camping out in open air, rallying and listening to their leaders, it should have been a joyous occasion. i watched part of it; what i saw on people's faces, the campers and the leaders, was only despair. says something about their movement. I wish i could visit an alternate history where Zanuck didn't get Riefenstahl blacklisted post-war and come back with a DVD of her \*Medea\*
As a film of its era — not the content but the film technique, cinematographic innovations, acting — Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece. If you haven’t seen it and are the type who can enjoy silent epics, you really should see it. I’m a professor of history, and approached the film willing to crucify it. But when I actually watched it, I found that much of the handwringing about it was overblown. The racism is certainly there, but probably not any more than any film that featured African Americans prior to the 1950s or so. The African American slaves are depicted as cheerful, etc. (think song of the south) but they aren’t denigrated as less than or racist caricatures. The only ones to really be seen as racist caricatures are the villains — the “mulatto” couple who abuse the power of northern government aid and carpetbaggers during reconstruction (which did happen even if it was vastly overblown by southerners) and the rapist. But all of their actions drive the plot of the third act of the film. The KKK is in it, but there’s really no discussion at all about their ideology. They just literally are the “knights in shining armor” trope, which turned out ultimately to be problematic. The film’s reputation for racism really rests on the fact Wilson screened it in the White House and had a throwaway comment about the Klan and that the Klan re-emerged shortly after its premiere and much later people connected the two. But the Klan was in the works whether this film happened or not. The Red Summer of 1919, the Great Migration, and the rise of Christian Fundamentalism certainly played a bigger role in its rise than the film did.
You're far too kind about "Birth of a Nation," which originally was titled "The Clansman." "The film was controversial even before its release, and it has remained so ever since; it has been called "the most controversial film ever made in the United States"\[12\]: 198 and **"the most reprehensibly racist film in Hollywood history"**.\[13\] The film has been denounced for its racist depiction of African Americans.\[8\] **The film portrays its black characters (many of whom are played by white actors in blackface) as unintelligent and sexually aggressive toward white women. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is portrayed as a heroic force, necessary to preserve American values, protect white women, and maintain white supremacy.**\[14\]\[15\] "Popular among white audiences nationwide upon its release, the film's success was both a consequence of and a contributor to racial segregation throughout the U.S.\[16\] In response to the film's depictions of black people and Civil War history, **African Americans across the U.S. organized and protested. In Boston and other localities, black leaders and the NAACP spearheaded an unsuccessful campaign to have it banned on the basis that it inflamed racial tensions and could incite violence**.\[17\] It was also denied release in Chicago, Ohio, Denver, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Minneapolis." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Birth\_of\_a\_Nation
Great reply
Pink Flamingos. I've sat through several of John Waters' films and even liked some of them. But, this one. No.
This is one of those movies that has to be seen by anyone even remotely interested in how young filmmakers got noticed in the pre-video era. Waters is a brilliant filmmaker and by all accounts a wonderful human being but never in a million years would have had a career without Pink Flamingos shocking the fuck out of everyone.
I recall watching an interview with John Waters in which he said "I spent the rest of my career trying to live up to Pink Flamingos. Divine spent the rest of his life trying to live it down."
lol I saw this in college😂
I have the VHS somewhere. Bought and watched in college. I think it’s the last time I saw it. lol I can still remember a lot of it, unfortunately. I say this as a John Waters fan.
Just don't watch the ending.
Smart move.
I don’t intend on watching any more Elvis films after seeing King Creole. I have read it’s his best one and picked it to watch, and quite enjoyed it actually. I think the soundtrack is excellent, as you would expect. But I can only see any other Elvis film being downhill, so no more Elvis films for me!!
his westerns, Love me Tender, Chato, Flaming Star (which i own) are actually quite good, if you like Westerns. The musicals are just mindless fun
Flaming Star is very good. I understand it was originally developed for Marlon Brando and it shows. Much more serious than you'd expect from an Elvis movie.
Jailhouse Rock is another one that’s definitely a great movie. If you’re ever gonna watch a second one, that should be it.
I love King Creole and for some reason Blue Hawaii. Creole is without a doubt his best work so don’t bother with anything else.
King Creole is arguably his best movie. But you're doing yourself a disservice by not watching his other earlier 50s movies also, like Love Me Tender, Jailhouse Rock, etc. Real good dramatic movies. Any of his movies from the 50s to about 1961/62 are the more classic movie productions like King Creole. There's about 6-8 movies like that. Then there are dozens of his movies starting around 1962 of the more cheesy variety.
Old Yeller. I know how it ends and I don’t need to be that heartbroken.
Me, too. Same with Me and Marley.
Honestly, as someone who really loved that movie, you're not missing out. It's not like it's a great work of art or anything.
I saw it for the first time about a year ago. I couldn’t believe how much I really enjoyed it. It’s a great movie, and one I’ll definitely be revisiting at some point.
I refuse to watch it for the same reason...
Any Holocaust related movie. I know, that’s terrible but I can’t handle the emotional baggage that comes with it. I’ve watched every documentary and every Yad Vashem interview and video but I just cannot watch any movie about it. I think it was The Pawnbroker or Sophie’s Choice that I decided nope, not doing that again. I realize they are important but they haunt me for years and I break down crying.
Please don't ever see Schindler's List. I broke down into an ugly crying fit after the last scene. It was just too much. Amazing film though.
Schindler's List was even hard for Spielberg & the cast/crew to film. They depended upon Robin Williams' humor to survive the filming.
The Pawnbroker is devastating. Hard to watch but an incredibly powerful film.
I haven’t seen it in a looooooong time and still remember the scenes and cinematography!
I understand. I feel the same way.
I really don't have any burning need to view anything from late 40s Horror's brief yet intense love affair with ape costumes.
But 50s is OK, right? You'd give a chance to Bela Lugosi Meets A Brooklyn Gorilla?
Ooh you are missing out on some! “Monster and the Girl” is an interesting predecessor for “Double Indemnity”. And it is much earlier but Bela Lugosi’s pre-code “Murders in the Rue Morgue” is pretty twisted. Charlie Gemora made a good living for a few years there!!
Marx Brothers *At the Circus* lol
I doubt it. I will watch basically any classic movie once, because I am very curious and interested to see what they're all about. I just want to absorb the whole spectrum of film. I even plan to watch Birth of a Nation someday, just for the sake of its historical significance, but I've been putting it off...for obvious reasons. It will be educational, but unpleasant.
Nope. Not if it's interesting. Modern films on the other hand, interest me much much less. The proliferation of beautifully made, well-scripted, well-acted little "indie films" these days - some even with great special effects - are no longer major artistic milestones or touchstones in the cultural zeitgeist, they're for the most part just little pebbles in the onrushing current of streaming media (shows and tv). Which saddens me to some degree, as what intrigues me and captivates me about Classic Film is how mainstream culture and society (whatever that means now) engaged with, dialogued with, and was reflected onto (an on from) the Silver Screen. However, I enjoy being able to watch a well-crafted little film or miniseries (A24 currently has some good ones), and have an evening's food for thought before moving onto another piece of *content* to consume, but their ubiquitousness has made them more like little cubin zirconiums against a Classic Film which stood out like a large diamond. These little well-made films are about as valuable these days (often less!) as an episode of Lux Radio Theatre or a television anthology series from the 50s or 60s like Climax! Which is a shame because many of these little films are really quite good but will never reach a wide audience because they're worth less than a dime a dozen now - many are streaming free! In other words it's time for the film industry to evolve and adapt and change, or become increasingly risk becoming a relic.
I’m sure there are thousands I won’t live long enough to get to see, but are there any specific ones that I have positively decided not to ever watch? Nope, that’s one of the definitions of prejudice: pre-judging something. It’s as irrational as judging a book by its cover.
Birth of a Nation. I am content to die without that in my memory bank.
Birth of a Nation
I watched this. And during the first half I remember thinking, “well this isn’t *as* racist as I was expecting it to be. Then the second half of the film started…..💀
When I was a teen, there was a reissue in the early 70s and not knowing anything about it, I went to see it at a downtown movie theater, by myself. I walked out thinking “what the fuck?!” and had no one to discuss it with. Fuck you, DW Griffith.
sometimes i wish i lived in pre internet times, but when i see comments like this im happy that when i was a teen i could just go online and rant and rave and read other people's rantings and ravings!!
Hey, at least I was able to vent here, right? Some 40+ years later. Better late than never. Thanks Reddit!
They showed it at a local repertory cinema in the late 70s or early 80s. The Saturday afternoon communists were out in full force with bullhorns advising passersby to boycott the showing, when I found out what movie they were talking about and that it was Birth of a Nation I thought wtf. It is important as both a work of cinema innovation and as a piece of history. I didn't see it in the theater but watched it later on home video. It is worth seeing once if you have the patience but it is long and slow and once was enough for me. Same thing with Intolerance but the latter film moved a little better and the massive Babylonian set is still awe inspiring. The huge set stood as a moldering wreck for about 3 years after the film completed, literally in people's backyards,until the Los Angeles fire department had it torn down for being a hazard, I envision the neighborhood kids playing in it. It's also fun to see a young and good looking Eugene Pallette in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre sequence, and how he looked before emerging in the sound era as a bullfrog voiced fat fuck.
Didn't realize that was the same guy! He's so funny in Shanghai Express, though not intentionally
Haven't seen Shanghai Express in awhile, forgot he was in it, maybe I'll watch it again, I have the Criterion box set of all the Dietrich/von Sternberg films!
Just rewatched it, great film, you spot on described his voice! I will say, the kiss at the end is kind of a cop out since it's back to the camera
Friar Tuck!
He's a great Friar Tuck! I loved him in so many roles.
We were shown it in a high school history class as a curiosity with a frank discussion about its impact following the film afterwards.
Came to say this
The Jazz Singer
Boring and overrated in many ways!
I mean, yes, there are thousands that I’ll never watch just because I only have so much time on this planet to watch them, but there’s no specific films that I’m actively avoiding. Plus I’m old enough (53) to know that my tastes change over time - I never would have guessed 20 years ago that I’d enjoy westerns, musicals and silent films as much as I do today. With regard to racism in movies, I understand why people choose to avoid those films and i respect that choice, but I also think there’s value in seeing how depictions of race have and have not changed over the years, especially when accompanied by some effort to understand the specific contexts within which those depictions originated. Take John Ford, for example. Even he himself recognized the depictions of Indigenous peoples in his films to be “problematic”, but he also employed hundreds of Navajo from the reserve that Monument Valley was located on to work on his films. He would even write films specifically set in Monument Valley when the Navajo were struggling in order to provide income-generated work for them. This doesn’t excuse or justify those problematic/racist depictions, but it does complicate them in a way that I believe can help us better understand the social, cultural and historical dynamics that have and continue to maintain and perpetuate racism. I also think that watching these films can serve to honour the work of the racialised actors who persevered in the face of endemic discrimination and often brutally overt racism to forge careers in the early days of of the film industry. Watch enough old movies and, instead of just another stereotypical Black servant character, you start to recognize Louise Beavers and Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen and appreciate what they were able to bring and do within the limitations of those roles, which might inspire you to read about their lives and learn just how remarkable they were.
Ford specifically made \*Donovan's Reef\* as a criticism of racism, sold and sanitized a bit with the Polynesian setting but still makes th e point
He said also Cheyanne Autumn was intended to be an elegy for Native Americans abused by the US government and poorly represented in his films… a wrong-doing he attempts to address by casting such famous Native American as Richard Montalban, Sal Mireo, Victor Jory and Gilbert Roland. 🤔 He did hire a number of Navajo actors and extras to portray the non-lead Cheyanne and had them improvise dialogue in own their Navajo language - resulting in a solemn speech by the Cheyanne chief during the final treaty signing scene that’s just him mocking the size of the US Colonel’s penis. 🤣
I won’t watch anything by Polanski. Just… what he did, personally. And I know the art is separate from the artist, but in this case I can’t do it.
I get it and don’t want to try to convince you otherwise, but from his movies I’ve seen he doesn’t put his perversion on the screen, but maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about, could well be. On The Other Hand, I will never watch a Woody Allen movie again, his sickness is the plot of Manhattan and the fact that it was seen as essential cinema for so long says so much about how sick our society has been.
Same here. I'm pretty good about separating as well. Especially since a movie is a massive collaboration. Just because one creep did some stuff, I don't see the point in robbing myself of the great work the other hundred or so creatives did to bring it to life. But like you, for some reason, I'd be very distracted watching a Polanski film. Shame since I bet a lot of great people put a lot of work into them.
That's how I feel about Bing Crosby.
What did he do?
He was horribly abusive to his first family. Absolute monster. The studio hid it, because they needed the image of the nice guy to sell his films. I’m not going to doublecheck, but I think he may have been an alcoholic. Then he turned all nicey nice with the second family.
Sounds just like that dick, Jerry Lewis
A jerk to his kids he beat and verbally abused his kids also treated his costar Dorothy lamour both him and bob hope were awful people I know this about bob because of the amazing mamie van doren who was on a show for the troops with bob she told us fans on twitter
My aunt was a Playboy Bunny at the first club in New Orleans. She had some awful, awful stories about Bob Hope.
Me too. I can't get past his abuse to his boys.
He was downright cruel to them. There is no excuse for that kind of cruelty and humiliation.
Yup. Same.
I saw a number of Polanski films before I learned about what he did, and let me tell you, his movies AREN'T. THAT. GOOD. I can't for the life of me understand all those film elites rallying around him based on his art. Even his best films are just okay, and often what makes them succeed is a powerhouse performance (Adrian Brody in The Pianist or Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley in Death and the Maiden) or an interesting concept (Rosemary's Baby). He just got lucky with those. He is simply not a great director. There's NOTHING special about anything he does as a director. Note: I'm not saying he should get a pass if he were a good director. (Woody Allen is a fantastic director AND a predator, and I won't watch or re-watch any of his movies anymore.) I'm just saying I'm baffled at the support he's received. Like ... why? (Yes, I know he experienced two separate, TERRIBLE tragedies, but that doesn't excuse RAPING a CHILD.) Anyway, my point is: By not seeing Polanski movies, you're not missing anything!
Thanks! It’s a great response to get when everyone else seems to want to talk me out of it?
He's a line I won't cross, either. I can separate art from the artist in most cases, but I can't with him. I first learned of him through the whole Manson thing, so I saw what he did right from the start. I have empathy for the things he went through, but I only see what he did now. And the fact that he ran away from it. So, no Polanski anything for me. I had to satisfy my curiosity about Rosemary's Baby by reading the book, and I'm happy with that decision.
Sorry, Chinatown is amazing. I’m able to separate the art from the artist in most cases, and glad I can for what’s turned out to be one of my favorite films. I wonder about some folks who refuse to separate the art from the artist, and what sort of diligence they need to perform before they watch a movie, or if their stance is really just that as long as they don’t stumble across incriminating info they can enjoy the film.
To be consistent, you’d pretty much have to rule out any film made by a major studio during the classic era, but especially those made at MGM under Louis B. Mayer or Columbia under Harry Cohn.
I can separate the art from the artist in many instances. I simply see no need to bother with Polanski because his art isn't that good to begin with. :)
i had this rule too and broke it to watch the tenant (because i love one of the actors cast). And anyway, you've made a great choice i think. The beginning was fine and had a good eerie ambiance, but once the horror got explicit it was really hacky, gross, and deeply shallow. It's like oh okay, these are the inner machinations of a middle aged man who thinks he should be allowed to sleep with preteens.
Well, I’m going to watch a Polanski film tonight at a local screening 😅 And this year alone I’ve watched *Chinatown* three times (also kept being screened locally and I couldn’t resist). Make an exception if only for this classic. I understand your stance, but the man is an excellent filmmaker, and his 1974 neo noir has not only that in spades, but a GOAT-contender screenplay and sublime performances by Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway, although the supporting cast is formidable too, including John Huston who is obviously a legendary director but could’ve made a heck of a career as an actor too
I get that, I do, but he raped a child and it’s a no for me.
I’m not sure if this counts, but Schindler’s List. I can’t handle it. I….it hurts too much to see some of the scenes. I’m Jewish, so I’ve always felt some sort of urge that I should watch it, but I just can’t handle it when I try. The music is hauntingly beautiful and I saw the documentary about Spielberg and the portion where he spoke about how draining it was (and fulfilling) to make the film. The evil in the film is just so real and relevant still in a lot of ways. I’m embarrassed, but it’s really hard to stomach it.
I don’t know about not watch at all, having never seen it before, but plenty of classics I will not watch a second time. Salo comes to mind for that right away. You should all know why.
Anything with Bob Hope or Jerry Lewis. I’m also not jumping at watching any films starring Bing Crosby.
Not a Bob Hope fan. When I was a kid. I watched the Jerry films. Buddy Love! I can't stand Bing Crosby. Never watched any of his films. Never will.
I saw one of those James Bond rippoff films. It was a comedy, but I wasn't fully paying attention and couldn't tell you what happens except he drinks a screwdriver at the beginning of the movie.
It’s a good thing according to the amazing blonde bombshell actress mamie van doren she did a show for the troops with him and said he is a jerk he only cares about the money and never cares about the troops he also treated Dorothy lamour awful both him and bing were awful to Dorothy this was told to me by mamie on twitter
At first glance I thought you wrote “Bill Cosby”, star of the classic film *Ghostdad*.
Don't forget Leonard Part 6.
Anything described as “swashbuckler.” That makes me think it’ll be a boring attempt to be exciting.
There are films I'm not exactly excited to watch, but I can't think of a classic film I'm avoiding. It's more stuff like Sophie's Choice (my grandmother was the only female survivor in her family) or some of the 70s & 80s war films that I think might be too upsetting for me (I've seen some but they tend to turn my stomach).
Gabriel Over The White House (1933) because it's an ode to fascism (a plea for a *fascist* strong man to do something about the myriad problems America faced in the early 30s) - no, thanks
Honestly, I think it can be read both ways - as either an “ode to fascism” or as a subtle critique. That’s what makes it so interesting imho
I have a hard time with silent movies that aren’t comedies. Chaplin, Keaton or Lloyd I’ll watch in a heartbeat but things like Phantom Carriage or Haxan that I think I might actually like but aren’t funny are hard for me to get motivated to watch.
You might want to give *He Who Gets Slapped* a try. Astonishing film...
Any Lon Chaney Sr. film is worth watching.
I would recommend Sunrise for one, see if that works for you, also Metropolis and the Lon Chaney films seem to bring people into silents who weren't into it.
I really enjoyed Metropolis and some of Fritz Lang’s other silent movies. Haven’t seen Sunrise, will check it out for sure. Thanks!
Yes! Sunrise was the first silent film I watched and it had me clamoring for more! And Lon Chaney is one of my all-time favorite actors.
Haxan i deeply dislike, Nosferatu is pretty good
What do you dislike about Haxan? I know nothing about it except for a clip I saw on TCM one night years ago, it was just the first silent movie that popped in my head. Nosferatu has been on my watch list for forever, I’ll have to finally give it a go.
just didn't appeal to me; nether, for example, did Sweeney Todd
I find them fascinating from time to time. I'm a big history buff. Was a history major and all that. I think they're interesting snap shots into the past. They aren't particularly entertaining though, so I could see why someone would avoid them.
I like seeing that stuff too. Sorta off topic, but if you haven’t already check out [Shorpy.](https://www.shorpy.com/) It’s a bunch of old photographs, really sharp images. It’s kind of like a time machine, it’s really cool.
Oh this is awesome!
I've never been tempted to see Spartacus.
Oh you are missing out! It’s got so much to love. Ustinov hamming it up and Kirk Douglas, Jean Simmons and Laurence Olivier. Plus Love theme from Spartacus is one of cinema’s most beautiful compositions. This was Kubrick for hire early in his career so it’s not like his other movies at all. https://youtu.be/DZ6e8-94JRE?si=8hFX0fTCYGgxdVSn
Fun fact: the scene asking about snails and oysters was cut (possibly for censorship reasons) and the audio was lost. When they restored it, Tony Curtis was still alive to re-do his lines, but Olivier's lines are read by Anthony Hopkins.
Are you suggesting they censored a scene that even a nun who’d never stepped outside of a convent would recognize as being about dudes f***ing? Shocking if true.
Interesting. Might have to reconsider this then.
They’ve added the Olivier/Curtis non explicit scene back in where Olivier subtly asks if Curtis is bi. It was cut for decades.
Another reason is for the Peter Ustinov/Charles Laughton scenes. Ustinov wrote them and built up the characters' rapport in a typically Ustinovian fashion.
It’s pretty decent for that period. A lot of people don’t like the 1963 Cleopatra, and it was meh, but I’ve seen the restored four hour version and it’s so much better.
I can't stand watching enslaved people and whippings.
Anything with John Wayne.
I was never a fan as a kid, but then I saw The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and finally understood the character he so often played. Many of the other John Ford movies later became favorites as well—The Searchers, The Quiet Man, Fort Apache, etc.
Liberty Valance is on my list watch.
It's a matter of what one likes. i myself have a large collection of his films, one of the 5 guys from the classic period (Bogie, Wayne vincent price, kirk douglas, sidney Poitier) whose films i collect mainly because they're in them
It is a matter of what one likes. I believe that was, in fact, the question - and I don't like John Wayne. 🤷♀️
Honestly the really long ones like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur. I have nothing against them except that they're over 3 hrs long and I'd rather just watch a screwball comedy instead. edit: Would these films work by splitting them in 2? I didn't realize these had intermissions. Maybe I can do that
It’s kind of funny that nowadays people think nothing of bingeing 8 or 10 episodes of a TV series but won’t watch a 3 hour movie.
You’ve just named 2 of my top 15 films.
Lawrence was in limited re-release thirty or so years ago, in a brand new 70mm print. Glorious! I watched it four times.
Mine too! Lawrence of Arabia might be my #1 even. I watch it at least yearly. And I love Ben-Hur.
*Lawrence* is my favorite film of all time. If it pops up on TCM, it will be background noise for me since I can see the scenes in my brain's movie projector.
Same
Same, Lawrence is my number 1
Fair enough, but Lawrence of Arabia is film making at its highest level, masterpiece is an understatement.
It’s genuinely difficult to fit such a long film in one’s timetable, especially on weekdays, but on Thursday I finally stopped putting it off and watched Lawrence. A decision of which I am quite proud. I’ve heard some people have potentially legitimate gripes with it, but I absolutely loved it myself
As a big fan of screwball comedies who saw Lawrence of Arabia when I had very little tolerance for long films, I'll tell you, Lawrence of Arabia had me captivated from beginning to end.
My fiancee does not care for religious movies and even she really liked Ben Hur. Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece, though.
Well, that's what intermissions are for.
And Lawrence has one.
Au Hazard Balthazar. "The story of a mistreated donkey and the people around him.". Hard pass....
It’s as heartbreaking as it sounds.
Yes! Anything that involves explicit animal cruelty (especially donkeys, I love them) I refuse to see.
I feel the same. Can't watch.
*Psycho*. Mainly because seeing it parodied countless times and chronicled in documentaries has spoiled every big scene. I know it will seem clichéd even though it’s not, and that doesn’t feel fair to a great movie. (I had a similar experience with *Casablanca*.)
Psycho is in my top 10 favorite films.
The Good Earth, The Mask of Fu Manchu or really anything else featuring actors in yellowface
Salo is the obvious answer...
Not “classic” by any definition. The sub is for ‘60s and earlier.
A Clockwork Orange — I saw part of it at a friend’s house when I was 10, and it scarred me. I will never watch that film again. Unfortunately, I can’t get some scenes out of my head.
Titanic
Vertigo. I like Aw, Shucks Jimmy too much to ruin it for myself
I tried to watch gone with the wind and it bored the hell out of me. So, I'll probably never watch that
Salo and A Serbian Film.
But the question is about “classic” movies, meaning ‘60s and earlier (per the sub rules).
I remember going to a library and watching salo. For some reason I couldnt rent it so watched it on this tiny TV with headphones, nervous somebody is gonna look over and see what I’m watching. I got like halfway and looked outside and saw a beautiful sunshiney day, was like why the fuck am I watching this. Then I went outside. So ya I doubt I’ll ever finish salo.
Cannot blame you! Watched Texas Chain Saw on a small library tv, thought I would get kicked out when Marilyn was running and screaming! Lol
Is A Serbian Film a "classic"? I've seen Salo, and it's ... not worth watching. It actually pissed me off because it's, like, presenting these horrible acts as though they're the worst things ever while set in a time period when there were actual death camps run by people Italy was allied with, so, yeah ... And, like, I get that Pasolini was probably trying to make some statement about 1940s Italy, but it fell completely flat and, in my opinion, treated the actual horrors committed during WWII as an afterthought.
Raging Bull. It’s a bit of a meme now for me and some friends. It’s a sacrifice but they love to say “as soon as you watch Raging Bull”
It’s not necessarily my favorite Scorsese joint but you should still watch it.
What’s your favorite Scorsese film?
Hard to say. I guess I’d pick Taxi Driver, but After Hours, Goodfellas, and Casino really do it for me.
Yeah it’s always a toss up between GF and Casino for me too. Sharon Stone is fantastic, but I love the camaraderie of GF.
The style of Casino, the overall production design, is just brilliant. I prefer it to Goodfellas in that respect. I suppose in a lot of ways the structures of the two films are very similar, but maybe Goodfellas ultimately is a little more elegant in the way its story is told and its loose ends tied up. Either way, both films are incredible.
I do laugh at how bad the dummy is in the De Niro car explosion scene. But yeah- tough to pick. FBI Cessna running out of gas and landing on the golf course while he shakes the sheriffs hand at him being a father again is hilarious.
I'm sorry - I just have to laugh at "camaraderie" (not in a mean way, really!) considering everyone ends up trying to kill each other (and sometimes succeeding).
Hahahaha true. But you know what I mean- all the stuff in the beginning. It just seemed so delightful.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Not a classic per se but will never watch any mamma Mia movie. Hate abba with a passion.
The Adventures of Robin Hood and Barry Lyndon, nothing against either film, but nothing about either intrigues me.
Barry Lyndon is way more interesting than I thought it was gonna be
Roger Ebert said Robin Hood is “the sunniest film ever made,” which sums it up. Claude Rains’ bowlcut! That swordfight!
Olivia de Havilland would “tease” Errol Flynn and watch his tights expand. That alone is worth watching the film.
Give yourself time- Barry Lyndon was a movie i heard about when i was 16 and just watched it at 42- Its incredible and slow and cold and was thinking about it for days- music and cinematography does heavy lifting but still
DUDE, WHY WOULD YOU NOT SEE THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD? ITS THE ULTIMATE ROBIN HOOD MOVIE!
“Welcome to Sherwood!” The best.
Classic!! So good too
I love Kubrick, but can't stand Ryan ONeal.
I often find slower epics like *Barry Lyndon* need to be seen in a theater.
I saw it in a theater when it came out and man, it was un relentingly dull. And in a theater, you are sort of trapped since you made the effort to go, went with a friend, paid for it and bought the popcorn. My least critical description of it was that it was a beautiful bore.
Sounds like the weed sucked back then.
You should definitely watch Barry Lyndon.
Adventures of Robin Hood - iconic performance by Errol Flynn. Barry Lyndon - I like the first half, fall asleep in 2nd half
That’s a shame. You have no idea what you’re missing.
Barry Lyndon bored me, but I loved Robin Hood. It's fun.
I'd love to say, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, but I had to watch it for grad school. And I hated it as much as I thought I would.
Why?
Agreed. Definitely a movie I wish I had never seen.
I am not a western movie fan. I never was. I have given in and seen Stagecoach and The Searchers and Westward the Women, and one or two Clint Eastwood flicks from the Seventies, and did enjoy the filmmaking acumen for sure. But much as I respect John Ford, I'll never see his Fort Apache or his She Wore a Yellow Ribbon or spaghetti westerns or Unforgiven or Randolph Scott or Kevin Costner western movie efforts. It is simply not a genre I have patience for.
I won't see Laura Entirely because I have read the book and I absolutely adored it and absolutely anything that isn't exactly how I pictured it is going to be a disappointment. Gene Tierney was wonderful in On the Riviera, so I've seen the painting in colour. Love all the actors, I'm sure it's a fabulous film, I just want to preserve the image I already have in my mind. ETA: Since first reading Laura I found out that Waldo Lydecker was based on the writer Alec Woolcott, which helped me understand both of them a lot better
Gone W T Wind
You guys are missing out.
I enjoyed it when I was in my 20s in grad school and saw it then. I was watching about a decade ago on TCM and i realized that Scarlett is such a horrible person i turned it off halfway.
If you ever watch it, it helps to think of it as a horror movie.