For me, it's definitely Citizen Kane. I've seen it numerous times, and it still strikes me as a perfectly good movie, but I just don't get what's so awe-inspiringly fantastic about it. Its innovations aren't all that innovative, the storyline is solid but unremarkable (IMHO), and the drama surrounding the picture seems to have inflated its reputation beyond reason.

Posted by: allen | February 20, 2008 12:32 PM

"Silence of the Lambs". Great acting, but why is the whole movie considered great? Dunno.

Posted by: ed | February 20, 2008 12:44 PM

Add me to the list of those who think "Citizen Kane" overrated.

Posted by: Susan Davis | February 20, 2008 12:51 PM

2001: A Space Odyssey. Like most of Kubrick's work, it's very technically proficient but leaves me cold.

Posted by: Nick the Greek | February 20, 2008 12:51 PM

Let me try this again with the embarrassing misspells corrected. Was very busy at work last night...

"Showgirls" truly doesn't deserve the classic label it's always tagged with.........

Seriously, and to put a slight twist on things, can a movie be so bad it becomes, because of its wretched horribleness, somewhat of a classic? If so, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is right up there, with the added bonus that I don't think ANYBODY, including director Ed Wood, quite got it.

Sorry to get slightly OT Rod, just couldn't help it.

Posted by: Doug | February 20, 2008 12:53 PM

I'll have to second the mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm not at all convinced I don't get it, actually. I'm pretty sure I do get it, and that it's simply a smug, pretentious film that's entirely too satisfied with how clever and thought-provoking it is, taking itself far too seriously as art when it could have been immensely entertaining AND intellectually stimulating.

As you can tell, this isn't the first time I've made this particular rant.

Posted by: allen | February 20, 2008 1:01 PM

"Pulp Fiction" and "Fight Club" -- both wildly overrated IMO. I think "Apocalypse Now" is a bit of a mess overall, and also is somewhat overrated, but not nearly as much as those other two lamentable films.

Current most overrated film? 'There Will Be Blood' -- pretty much a huge waste of time, other than for Daniel Day-Lewis's performance.

Posted by: Rob G | February 20, 2008 1:20 PM

Agree that "2001" just does not stand the test of time well at all, despite a great opening sequence. To call it "cold" is accurate but actually an understatement -- this is a movie that with the exception of one or two moments hardly bothers with humans. Hal is more of a character than nearly anyone else in the story.

Disagree about "Citizen Kane," a towering achievement on so many levels -- story-telling, acting, cinematography, writing. The reverberations of its innovations (in deep focus, in its questioning of American heroism, in its reporter/stand-in for the audience) are still being felt in the movies. Spend a little more time watching movies from that era and you'll see how revolutionary (and how successful) it was.

Agree that by the standards of today's docs, "The Sorrow and the Pity" seems not all that well assembled, but I think that in its context that just wouldn't matter -- the power of those confessions and those lies doesn't really require a lot of framing. In fact, too much framing might have hurt the story-telling. It's really for the French, not us.

An over-rated "classic?" "Rio Bravo." It's second-rate on numerous levels, with a dreadful grimy look, forgettable teen idol stars, ludicrously campy dialogue, a meaningless plot -- can't hold a candle to Hawks at his best, in movies such as "Red River" or "Only Angels Have Wings."

Posted by: Kit Stolz | February 20, 2008 1:22 PM

Definitely 2001: A Space Odyssey for me. Especially as a science fiction fan, I found it a dud, and the effects overblown. The current crop being in the same category, the "remakes" of foreign films like The Magnificent Seven and the Bridget Fonda version of La Femme Nikita were wastes of celluloid compared to the originals.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 20, 2008 1:27 PM

I'll definitely second Franklin's "Point of No Return" (the American remake of "La Femme Nikita"). Waste of time; I loved the original though. What was the point of the remake? Adding in that one explosion at the hotel? Apparently American audiences will not watch a film without a big explosion scene?

I just did not get Wim Wenders' "Wings of Desire". Well, I got it, but it's greatness (which I'd been hearing about for years) completely escaped me. I was asleep in under a half hour.

This is also the film that, after making him watch it with me, caused my husband to completely lose his trust in me when it comes to picking out the Netflix movies. I'm lucky if I get one choice every six months now, after that movie.

Posted by: Anne | February 20, 2008 1:34 PM

I agree about "Citizen Kane" and "2001" -- both overrated and tedious. But neither are as bad as "Raging Bull" or "Blazing Saddles", two allegedly classic films that I could not finish.

Posted by: cnb | February 20, 2008 1:38 PM

Thank you, cnb, for mentioning "Blazing Saddles." I liked it more than you did, but why people go crazy over it I'll never understand. I think Mel Brooks in general is very overrated.

Posted by: trotsky | February 20, 2008 1:41 PM

I second "West Side Story." There are moments in that movie where I just break out laughing. I know it's not supposed to be a comedy. The part where they're singing "Cool," and shouting "Go! Crazy!" is just hilarious. Gang members do not dance ballet.

Posted by: iab | February 20, 2008 1:44 PM

THANK YOU, everyone, for validating what I've always thought about Citizen Kane. RKO 281, however, which is about the making of Kane, is a pretty darned incredible movie.

The Aviator. I hated that movie. By the end, I was actually *angry* that I had seen it. Then I spent the next 3 days obsessively making sure the oven was off and the door was locked.

Also? Castaway. It was the first half of a decent movie, but I hated how it just sorta... stopped.

Posted by: Elizabeth Anne | February 20, 2008 1:46 PM

There does seem to be a recurring theme here: a lot of movies people don't get are very much a product of their time. Blazing Saddles, for example, couldn't be made today, and West Side Story just looks ridiculous. But that was back when Scary Gang Fights involved knives and didn't kill babies in their homes with stray bullets.

Posted by: Elizabeth Anne | February 20, 2008 1:48 PM

Someone up above mentioned "Gandhi." While I originally thought it was a great movie, once I studied the man himself I realized what a fraud it was.
The best description of how the real Gandhi differs from the saint in the movie can be read here, "The Gandhi Nobody Knows":
history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Posted by: anti-pc | February 20, 2008 1:49 PM

'"Atonement" also seemed like a thoroughly phony story to me...'

Hmmm...I really liked it all the way around. Care to comment on what you found phony about it? (if you can do so without spoilers!)

"Who will remember Crash, the ridiculous Oscar winner of just a couple years ago?"

I will! I thought it was marvelous.

And I disagree on 'Citizen Kane' -- I'm pretty much with the critics on that one. I just watched it a couple months ago after not having seen it for about 15 years, and still think it's a great film. Maybe not the best of all time, but it's certainly up there, I think.

Posted by: Rob G | February 20, 2008 1:56 PM

anti-pc: I dunno, there's historical truth and there's dramatic truth. A film based on historical events can be grossly inaccurate but still be a good movie (see also: Braveheart).

Posted by: Nick the Greek | February 20, 2008 2:03 PM

I'll 2nd the comments on Forest Gump and Saving Private Ryan (2 great battle scenes book ending a standard B-Movie plot, The Big Red One covered the same theme, was much better and came out 20 years earlier!)

To add another over rated Best picture, Titanic, Lifetime movie of the week drivel with great special effects.

Posted by: Eric k | February 20, 2008 2:16 PM

One more vote for 2001: A Space Odyssey! My husband has tried to persuade me of its "greatness" on so many occasions, but I can't stay awake to see if he's right. Pretentious. Boring. Totally overrated...

I'm one who adored Shakespeare in Love, but my husband and I perform with a small Shakespeare company, and do other theatre, so maybe it's just for "theatre folk."

Just saw Atonement last weekend. Didn't think it was GREAT, but definitely enjoyed it. Thought the first half far superior to the second, though. And the ending, with the Vanessa Redgrave cameo, left me cold. My main take-away thought was this: James McAvoy is the most compelling male presence on the big screen since the young Paul Newman. I developed a slightly unsettling crush on him when he played Mr. Tumnus, the faun, in The Lion, The Witch, & the Wardrobe. It's great to see him as a "leading man," sans hooves and horns, so that I can now indulge in legitimate adult lust! The guy's really a heartthrob...

What were your thoughts on Juno, people? Mine are a bit mixed...

Posted by: MargaretE | February 20, 2008 2:27 PM

I definitely think Scorsese's earlier work is overrated: Raging Bull and Taxi Driver in particular just have not aged well. Another similar "classic" from that era that leaves me cold is Midnight Cowboy.

But I have to take issue with the Citizen Kane-bashing. The movie was a dramatic leap forward in moviemaking, and it still stands out in its ability to combine epic sweep with the aching humanity of individual characters.

Posted by: Thane | February 20, 2008 2:30 PM

Oh, and triple dittos and bravos to Larry Parker regarding The Big Chill. It's one of the few films that I can say I loathed.

Posted by: Maclin Horton | February 20, 2008 2:46 PM

Maclin brought up Fellini, and I haven't seen enough of his work to have an opinion. But I think Ingmar Bergman may be the most overrated director of all time.

One foreign director who actually lives up to the hype: Akira Kurosawa.

Posted by: movie buff | February 20, 2008 2:55 PM

I hated "2001: A Space Odyssey." I guess you'd have to have been tripping to have understood it. Similarly, I didn't get Fellini's "8 1/2" at all. I loved "My Dinner With Andre" when I first saw it, but I went back to it a few years ago for the 20th or 25th anniversary, can't remember which, and it left me cold. (Plus I interviewed Wallace Shawn around that time, and boy, was he ever an unpleasant person).

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 20, 2008 3:06 PM

Rod, do please dish on Wallace Shawn!

Posted by: Insane Kitten | February 20, 2008 3:16 PM

Aw, c'mon, Rod, 2001 is not that obscure. But it does help to know that Arthur C. Clarke was taken with the idea that humanity's evolution was guided by super-intelligent aliens (a fairly common fantasy among atheists, it seems).

Sorry, movie buff, I think you're wrong about Bergman. 180 degrees wrong, as a matter of fact: he's the greatest. Listen to Uncle John (Simone).

Posted by: Maclin Horton | February 20, 2008 3:26 PM

The English Patient. What a piece of crap.

The French Connection. What happened at the end, anyway?

Posted by: stan7 | February 20, 2008 3:36 PM

I always thought the Saturday Night Live satire of the Big Chill was better than the movie itself: "We're going upstairs again. I forgot to take out my diaphragm the first three times!"

Posted by: Josh | February 20, 2008 3:39 PM

Rob G, I thought "Atonement" was technically a gorgeous film, and I loved James McAvoy as the hero. He was terrific. But, I didn't buy the story so I probably wouldn't like the novel - it reminded me of another "arty" story that was made into a film, "The Hours."

I didn't accept the protagonist's motivations or, indeed, the entire set-up. I thought the protagonist's story about witnessing the "rape" (which may not have been a rape at all) would have fallen to pieces long before anyone went to jail because of it. I know we are supposed to believe that the hero is jailed because he is a member of the lower classes, etc. But, the set-up didn't convince me.

Posted by: Alicia | February 20, 2008 3:40 PM

"I interviewed Wallace Shawn around that time, and boy, was he ever an unpleasant person" - Rod

I gather many of you know that Little Big Shawn Of The Living is *fils* to the *père* of legendary New Yorker editor William Shawn, the closing decade or so of whose tenure (1951-1985) at that cartoonist's Club Med was proverbial of its bloated, life-support state, prompting virtually every reviewer at National Review then, from little me

http://tinyurl.com/3dogtu

to Big Rick Brookhiser, to whack at its low-hanging, overripe fruit - even Mike Kinsley at TNR did a side-splitting spoof on the obsequious priestly hush enveloping "Mr. Shawn."

And in the Great Minds Think Alike (And So Do We) Dept., one of the guest bloggers this week over at Mandrew Sullyman's blog The Daily Kvish, one Peter Suderman, has within the hour just happened to have posted a smackdown on, of all things, Hal Ashby's cult classic Harold and Maude:

http://tinyurl.com/3djgtb

"The 70s produced an awful lot of great films -- as far as I'm concerned, the era between Bonnie and Clyde and Taxi Driver is cinema's best -- but Maude is a symbol of everything that's awful about the free-love hippie ethos of the era. It's unforgivably smug, crude, obvious, naive, and stylistically shallow -- and I say this as a near feverish booster of Wes Anderson."

Almost echoes Eric Idle on the paterfamilias of the awful Garibaldi Family: "He was rude, smelly, and distasteful - and I liked him very much."

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 20, 2008 3:45 PM

Maclin, I can see your point about 2001, but when you mentioned Clarke's mythos, it reminded me of a clear thought I had when I first saw 2001: I'd much rather have seen someone take a stab at Childhood's End, or even Tales from "The White Hart".

Speaking of Fellini, I give three thumbs down to Satyricon. Gah.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 20, 2008 3:50 PM

For the record, I had consumed no intoxicating or hallucinogenic substance whatsoever when I first saw 2001 in 1969, and nothing more than a little bourbon for subsequent viewings ca. 1985 and 2002.

I thought 2010 was pretty respectable for a sequel.

The two taken together are among the few, possibly the only, films to deal with artificial intelligence in a way that at least touches base with reality, instead of just arbitrarily putting a human consciousness into the machine.

Posted by: Maclin Horton | February 20, 2008 3:50 PM

"I know we are supposed to believe that the hero is jailed because he is a member of the lower classes, etc. But, the set-up didn't convince me."

Fair enough. But remember, we've got both the intercepted letter and an unreliable witness, in addition to the whole "class" thing. It's not a hill I wish to die on, though. ;-)

Posted by: Rob G | February 20, 2008 4:14 PM

And Alicia, you're right about MacAvoy -- should have gotten an Oscar nomination.

By the way, this is the first year where I've seen all five Best Picture nominees, and I can actually say that I liked 4 out of the 5. I hope the awards get spread around a bit!

Posted by: Rob G | February 20, 2008 4:17 PM

Babette's Feast. I had heard really great things about it...but after it was over, my husband and I sat there scratching our heads. We had the sense that it was supposed to be really deep and we missed something.

Posted by: Amy | February 20, 2008 4:38 PM

"I also had a hard time with There Will be Blood, ... I kept waiting for something to happen."

My problem with it exactly. No narrative arc whatsoever. As I mentioned to a friend, I don't mind long movies, and I don't mind slow movies. I don't even mind long, slow movies. What I don't like are long, slow, FLAT movies.

Posted by: Rob G | February 20, 2008 4:49 PM

I would have to review a list of the supposedly great films, those making it into the canon, to comment more fully but the following come to mind:

1) 2001 A Space Odyssey. The movie was and boring. I saw it in the early 70s at a midnight showing and had a lot of fun sitting on the sidewalk outside the theatre smoking Sherman cigarettes (they're natural you know) and talking nonsense with all the other long hairs.

2) American Beauty. I did not care about any of the characters and found the movie smug, pretentious and way overrated.

3) Titanic. Mildly entertaining but hardly great, on par with The Poseidon Adventure or Towering Inferno from the 70s

This past year has overall been a good movie year, much better than anything the past 5 or so years. I liked all 5 of the Academy Award best picture nominees and, if I had a vote, would vote for No Country For Old Men.

Posted by: Ostrea | February 20, 2008 5:04 PM

Three classic movies I just don't get:

1) The Quiet Man: The plot is incomprehensible to me.

2) The Lion in Winter: Boring as heck.

3) The African Queen: I was willing to give it a chance until Bogart, covered in leeches, pulls a face and shouts, "This river is crazy! As crazy as I am!" After that, it was just laughable.

But I loved Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, and Citizen Kane, so take what I say with the requisite grain o' salt.

Posted by: Just Some Guy | February 20, 2008 5:26 PM

Citizen Kane

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I don't know if that's because I read the books beforehand, but I just wanted to take a nap—and I'm a fan of sci-fi and fantasy.

Chinatown.

Posted by: Other Jim | February 20, 2008 5:59 PM

I saw Kurosawa mentioned, but as a director who lives up to the hype. Sorry, but while Seven Samurai has its moments, it feels like it was left completely unedited. Most of the film seems to be taken up with sniveling and whining by the villagers, which makes them really unsympathetic. It is beautifully directed, however. Just not as good an overall film as advertised.

Posted by: Matt | February 20, 2008 6:11 PM

Thanks Maclin. I'll get them. My father-in-law rented The Passenger without knowing the director's reputation, and really liked it. Also, I've recently been to Zabriskie Point in Death Valley and mean to see that one, though I know it's not highly regarded.

Posted by: james | February 20, 2008 6:40 PM

"The whole 'dark side of suburbia' thing has been done to death" - Sarahndipity

You mean like:

"Plastics, Benjamin", or -

"See Mrs. Gray shes proud today because her roses are in bloom
Mr. Green he's so serene, hes got a T.V. in every room

Another Pleasant Valley Sunday (Sunday...)
Here in status symbol laaaand -
Mothers complain about how hard life is
And the kids just don't understand

Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul - and make it hard for me to see
My thoughts all seem to stray, to places far away
I need a change of scena-ree-hee...

OR -

And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you

Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

And the sign said anybody caught trespassing would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and yelled at the house, Hey! what gives you the right
To put up a fence to keep me out - or to keep mother nature in?
If God was here, he'd tell you to your face, man you're some kinda sinner [! - Ed.]

Here's what humorist Dave Barry had to say about all that in a December 1994 Reason magazine interview:

www.reason.com/news/show/32270.html

Reason: You write a lot about rock 'n' roll. From a philosophical standpoint, what's the worst rock 'n' roll song of all time?

Barry:: My nomination right off the top my head is a song that was a hit in the '70s--"Signs, signs, everywhere signs. blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind, do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs?" Basically a diatribe against property rights.

Reason: That was by The Five Man Electrical Band.

Barry:: It' s a real smug self-righteous punk kid saying nobody has the right to tell him what to do and how dare you put a sign up saying that I can't go on your property? Hey, kid! Stick this sign up your ass...

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 20, 2008 7:11 PM

Okay, I'll admit it, "Casablanca" (ducks) I love classic movies and my sister and I are both suckers for anything romantic, but when we finely sat down to watch it we weren't even left cold...just tepid. I really just don't see all those sparks that are supposedly between Bogart and Bacall - I still don't get why his character would be any competition for her husband. I know there was more to the movie than the romance, but still...
On the other hand, I absolutely LOVE "The Quiet Man". I guess there's no accounting for taste=)

Posted by: Beth | February 20, 2008 7:15 PM

Have to say I still like all of the layers of Citizen Kane.
The move away from Idealism. The shadow bio of William Randolph Hearst. The staging of shots. All Good.

Reverse Topic.
Other NOT overrated miniseries/ movies: Band of Brothers, The Notebook, Princess Bride, Rudy,It's a Wonderful Life, and of course Faith Rewarded: The Historic Season of the 2004 Boston Red Sox!

Posted by: Sheilagh | February 20, 2008 7:20 PM

"American Beauty" is just awful. "Crash", "Ordinary People", "Shakespeare in Love", "Titanic" are all awful. But my hatred festers for "Dances with Wolves", which has aged really badly. It beat out "Goodfellas" for Best Picture, which is a joke.

I think Edward Norton is a great actor, but "Fight Club" and "American History X" are for different reasons awful. "FC" is the gayest movie ever(there's only one woman in the whole thing, and the protagonist's alter ego is having sex with her).Do like Meatlaof's death scene, though. And "X"'s PC dinner scene made me want to kick in the TV screen. If you want to know why America hates Hollywood, watch this scene. basically Daddy's a filthy racist for even considering affirmative action might be wrong. Bad whitey!

"Blazing Saddles" is simply a guy movie, and it could not be made today. It still makes me laugh out loud.

"Saving Prviate Ryan" is a good movie. But as above, the imposition fo Sam Malone from behind the bar is jarring. Worse, they had radios in 1944; the whole premise is faulty. Once they started dropping troops all over Normandy, there was no need for radio silence. The Germans knew they were there; call'em up and send Ryan back.

The lack of love for "Raging Bull" and "Apocalypse Now" is suprising. Simply they are great movies. "Apcalypse Now Redux" though shows Coppola needed an editor, and it's a good thing the theatrical release wasn't loaded with the extra hour which added nothing.

Posted by: Bugg | February 20, 2008 8:06 PM

Someone referred to Pink Floyd above, which only brings up Pink Floyd: The Wall. Let me say that I am a HUGE Pink Floyd fan. Have every album, as well as all the Syd and Roger Waters solo stuff. The Wall album is great, but the movie is AWFUL. Horrible. Can't stand it. A lot of people love it, though. It's like, um, a criticism of society, man. Or something. Ugh! It might be great for stoned teenagers, but things that require intoxication to appreciate are NEVER worth the time (see Grateful Dead and Phish).

When I saw The Wall for the first time, my first thought was, "Did Roger Waters write the album knowing that there would be a film?"

Posted by: Zach | February 20, 2008 8:27 PM

Osvaldo, I completely forgot about The Dead Poets Society. I second that as a film which doesn't deserve its reputation. It was an okay movie, but very pretentious. Then there was the suicide at the end. Yeah, right, that's the only way for the kid to escape his theatre-hating father.

And if I were one of Robin Williams' colleagues at that prep school, I would have told him to lighten up a little.

Posted by: unrepentant beefeater | February 20, 2008 9:52 PM

Try as I might, I have never made it to the end of any of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I fall fast asleep every single time. (And we own the DVD set, so its not like I haven't tried to get through them.)

I admit, however, that I have never liked Tolkien's work though. At my junior high school, the Hobbit nerds were the only kids weaker and nerdier than myself.

I once read a brilliant essay about LOTR from a Catholic professor, that was damn near as long as one of the books. THAT was way more interesting than the subject he wrote about.

Posted by: fbc | February 20, 2008 10:54 PM

Oops! Of course, that's The Quiet Man.

Posted by: Kirk | February 20, 2008 10:56 PM

Yes, Kirk, I think we can all agree on at least one thing: there was and ever will we only ONE "Quite" man:

http://scurvyann.blogspot.com/2007/09/world-of-commander-mcbragg.html

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 20, 2008 11:22 PM

Whoops, make that "ever will BE": proofread much, SL?

Que sera, sera...

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 20, 2008 11:27 PM

Fun thread. I don't have time to go into the agreements/disagreements. However, one comment caught my eye and made me LOL. In West Side Story, the comment that gang member don't do ballet. U, they do...IN A MUSICAL. That would be like watching Oklahoma and saying, "people in Oklahoma don't act that way". I'm not defending the movie itself or how it has aged, it just seemed like a weird and funny criticism.

One I have heard mentioned that I think is godawful damn boring is Deliverance. If it wasn't for the hillbilly sodomy thing no one would ever watch that piece of crap.

Posted by: Matthew from Alaska | February 21, 2008 12:07 AM

I just hated "No Country For Old Men." Really found it painful to sit through. Cringed every time Javier Bardem showed up on screen. Perhaps that was intentional on the very skilled directors' part. But I was glad it was over and I could get out of the theater.

Posted by: trotsky | February 21, 2008 1:25 AM

Oh, but a great movie I don't get? Casino. WHAT do people see in that? It goes from really bad to "floater" status as soon as that Joe Pesci starts with the voiceover. Oh yeah, and Goodfellas too; what crapola.

Another really great movie overlooked...

The Red Violin with Samual L. Jackson.

Posted by: Max Schadenfreude | February 21, 2008 4:21 AM

'I just hated "No Country For Old Men." Really found it painful to sit through. Cringed every time Javier Bardem showed up on screen. Perhaps that was intentional on the very skilled directors' part. But I was glad it was over and I could get out of the theater.'

My recommendation: see it again. The first time it's all about the tension, suspense, and the violence, which is quite harrowing. Second time around, without that tension, you pay more attention to the characters and the dialogue, and it becomes more obvious what a fine film it really is.

Posted by: Rob G | February 21, 2008 7:30 AM

Oh come on. Rod's original question had to do with movies in the "canon," great movies that people didn't get. There is no one alive who believes Battlefield Earth belongs in the canon, except maybe Tom Cruise.

Posted by: oh come on | February 21, 2008 8:48 AM

Well, I like Rules of the Game. But I think part of the problem is that once a movie is canonized it gets taken far too seriously. Rules of the Game is inherently frothy and therefore hard to appreciate if you come at it as a serious movie you have an obligation to watch. Try it one more time, Rod, with more or better champagne.

PS--also make sure you have the Criterion DVD. The videotape version of Rules most people saw in college and that most public libraries owned until a couple of years ago is so murky it adds a whole nother level of difficulty.

Posted by: Cindy | February 21, 2008 9:03 AM

To add to what Zach said about "The Quiet Man," it's the story of a burned-out boxer who has become afraid of fighting, who is healed when he returns to the "old country" -- healed by traditional values and by the innate wisdom of Maureen O'Hara's character, and Victor McLaglen's character. I particularly liked the way that McLaglen's character heals with his fists!

It's a wonderful story that I can see again and again. The theme to me is that it is important to fight for what you believe in and to fight for yourself. Just like O'Hara's character stubbornly insists on getting her whole dowry...

Posted by: Alicia | February 21, 2008 9:33 AM

But that's the way things are, Just Some Guy. Sometimes you need to beat your wife with a stick to make your point. Pulling her by the hair doesn't always work.

Posted by: afd | February 21, 2008 10:01 AM

I don't get Philadelphia Story. I've seen it listed as one of the top 10 movies of all time. What do people see in it? Even if you can put aside the ethical vacuum in which the characters operate, it isn't a compelling love story.

Posted by: Aileen | February 21, 2008 11:21 AM

I just saw The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Incredibly slow. The final three-way "duel" was supposed to build tension, but it was just 10 minutes of face shot, face shot, shot of gun, face, gun, eyes, face,.... Great soundtrach though.

Caddyshack is NOT FUNNY!

Posted by: chris | February 21, 2008 3:19 PM

Once Upon a Time in the West: Bronson, Fonda revenge, proves pain in the neck after seeing land baron the (s)train of being railroaded. Leone, Dude, all Tinseltown, riding on sounds tony, found a feather at ASCAP and called him Morricone. La Cardinale makes it a spaghetti chestern.

Once Upon a Time in America: Sergio Leone meets Irving Howe as vice Jewish boys and goys mob up their spills with quicker fixer-uppers and visit their sins on their sons.

Posted by: Scott Lahti | February 21, 2008 9:16 PM

I don't know if knowing Clarke helps that much with 2001. My dead had a whole collection of SF paperbacks, including Clarke, when the movie came out. He didn't get it or like it.

I saw it as a kid and was confused by it. After reading "Childhood's End", "City and the Stars", "Fountains of Paradise", and some of his stories I did get a bit of a feel for it. However I still didn't really get it or like it. Clarke is an old-school science fiction writer so even when he gets mystical there's some element of explanation or at least some attempt at understanding. 2001 to Clarke is maybe like if you did an adaptation of a Flannery O'Connor story, but replaced all the dialogue with trombone sounds. (So in the parts where characters should talk you hear "wonk wonk waah waah" instead, like how the adults sounded in Peanuts cartoons.) That might be technically interesting on some level, might even give you a slight O'Connor feel, but it wouldn't exactly be involving.

Also I liked Citizen Kane very much. It might be overrated, but it's a pretty good story with interesting characters. I also liked what I saw of "The Sorrow and the Pity", which is odd as I usually don't like French films. I'm not sure what a person needs to "get" about it. It's a bunch of French people telling their stories of WWII. If there was some overarching metaphor or complicated point that you were supposed to get, well I kind of doubt I did. I liked it anyway.

Today I watched "The Sweet Hereafter" because I'd heard so much about it. I think I would've been better off taking a nap. There wasn't exactly anything wrong with it though. Sarah Polley (Socialist activist who played a spirited rich girl on "Road to Avonlea) was pretty good I suppose. It just didn't seem to be saying anything I found too compelling and said it rather slow at that.

It seems like there were movies I didn't really get, but kind of enjoyed for some reason. I'm blanking on a good example though. Maybe Wenders "Until the End of the World", but I'm not sure if I really liked it.

Posted by: Thomas R | February 23, 2008 4:40 AM

"Citizen Kane" doesn't seem all that remarkable today because most of its innovations became widely-imitated cinematic conventions and subsequently, visual cliches to later audiences. Deconstructing cinematic conventions, meanwhile, is the source of much of the mirth in great film comedies. At the time of its original release "Blazing Saddles" probably was the funniest movie ever made for this very reason. Mel Brooks' use of vulgarity in "Blazing Saddles" has subsequently lost much of its edge because straightforward vulgarity became a comedic convention. One can't imagine an adult audience nowadays being reduced to hysterics when a prim schoomarm simply refers to the governor as an "a--hole." (I remember, back in the early 1970s, it had just that effect). One suspects that the hilariously profane wordplay of "Superbad" (which brilliantly subverts stock cinematic conventions of vulgarity itself) will be entirely lost on some future audience. They'll either be offended, or they won't see what the fuss was about.

Posted by: La Dolce Vita | March 1, 2008 12:38 PM

I agree about Monster's Ball. I sincerely wish I could have the minutes of my life back that I wasted on that movie. The main characters were selfish and mistreated the people that they should have been protecting most. I could not possibly make myself care about them, what happened to them, or them finding happiness or peace together.

By the way, worst book: Ethan Frome. Who on earth tries to commit suicide via sled?

Posted by: Spitfire | April 23, 2008 8:25 PM