Withnail and I. Lots of people that I admire love that film. I just remember turning to my companion half an hour in and saying, "Should I have laughed by now?"
I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey a couple of weeks ago for the first time at the cinema and my thoughts were that the film should be admired for what it did but watching it is more of an endurance than a joy and I would have had a far better time watching 2010.
"There Will Be Blood" I love every Paul Thomas Anderson film released before it, especially Magnolia. But I have never found myself liking There Will Be Blood. The Master is another such case. But I can watch that film any day just because of its hypnotic visual style and brilliant performances by actors, Joaquin Phoenix and late great Philip Seymour Hoffman. Sure, Daniel Day-Lewis is great in There Will Be Blood but unlike The Master, I couldn't watch that film more than once, no matter how good it might be.
I do really like There Will Be Blood but it is very often regarded as his magnum opus, PTA’s masterpiece when I much prefer The Master, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, PDL over There Will Be Blood even though I still think it’s great but don’t quite get that it’s PTA’s best
Alex Barron The Master is one of those movies where you just have to get lost in its hypnotic visuals and feel even if it doesn’t entirely 100% make sense, but the 70mm visuals make it one of the most gorgeous movies I’ve ever seen
I feel bad, sure PTA is great but I wasn’t particularly keen on the Master and Boogie Nights I just can’t stand, however there will be blood is a personal favourite of mine
Can I add an entire director's filmography to this list? All Steven Soderburgh's films leave me cold. All of them. I find them incredibly well-made with top-notch cinematography and acting performances, and at the same time I haven't seen a single Soderburgh movie that I actually felt anything for. I admire them; I respect them; I just don't feel emotionally engaged by them.
Silence of the Lambs......even before it was parodied to death (quite brilliantly by French & Saunders) Hopkins was comedy gold ! Evil and menacing ? No, just a bit strange and very funny.
The English Patient. It's pretty and big and epic, but the characters and their relationships are so hollow and uninteresting, which sucks since the romance _is the entire reason the story hapoens_.
Exactly the one I would choose. I went to see it with three other people all talking about it after at coffee--they loved it! Everyone was raving about it. It left me cold.
Trouble in Paradise. I don't think I've ever heard the word "perfect" used to describe a film more often than Ernst Lubitsch's 1932 comedy, so you can imagine my disappointment when I finally sat down and watched it. This is a film I do really want to like. The cast is great and there truly are splendid moments. I can't say I have any big problems with it but I've seen it twice now and I'm still just as "eh" about it.
Three Billboards. On several occasions I tried to understand the love people had for this film. As much as I appreciated the masterful acting, I never enjoyed the film and was left looking towards some of the more questionable story elements. A “day in the life of” was never satisfying because the later plot developed in a way that was unrealistic to the point of being meaningless for me.
Requiem For A Dream - It's just so grim... Hubert Selby Jnr's stories are supposed to be grim and just get grimmer and grimmer... but dear god I just can't take it...
I’m going to have to say Fellini’s Amarcord. I love everything about Fellini 8 and a 1/2 and before, but he reaches a point, and I feel like this is particularly true with Amarcord, that it becomes surreal to the point where I begin to check out. I recognize that it’s supposed to be great, but I was never that into it.
I have to say for me it's Linklater's Boyhood. It's a film that I'm not particularly fond of, I find the main character to be quite unlikable. However, I can admire the 12 year long commitment it took to make the film, and the sense it creates of watching a person grow right in front if your eyes.
"There Will Be Blood" and a lot of Daniel Day Lewis's oeuvre. I find him exhausting to watch and he really leeches the enjoyment of his films out of me.
jane campion is the only female director but not the only woman the have won the palme dor. adele exarchopolus and lea seydoux both won the awards as well
Barry Lyndon. There is a scene near the beginning involving a hidden ribbon which I think is one of the most romantic scenes I’ve ever seen, but the film as a whole feels cold and oddly detached from the main character. The cinematography and score are incredible though.
Director Jane Campion delivers A beautiful period film as the film iconic, unforgettable, very well acted, the film has one of the best scores in film history & is 1993’s best film. (99%) (5/5 stars) (positive)
We watched Kiarostami's Where is the Friend's Home? as part of a Realism course at Uni of Southampton. I had endless appreciation for it as a work of cinema but I don't think I could ever sit through it a second time. I feel better having seen it, but the thought of watching it again is far from appealing.
For me, it's both Annie Hall and Manhattan. There's lines from Annie Hall that stick with me and the cinematography from Manhattan is wonderful but despite both being around 90 minutes, they're largely humourless slogs for me. I see some of the charm poking through and I can just about understand why people like them but for me, they're nothing close to masterpieces
Breathless by Godard. Having seen this film a couple of times I have always appreciated what it did for cinema and how original it really was at the time. But for me it just falls flat in likeability and, please don't shoot me, I find it rather dull. Another such film for me is Easy Rider, a gamechanger that epitomised the counterculture probably better than any other film. The performances are incredible, as is the soundtrack, but as a whole it left me feeling pretty cold.
I watched Once Upon A Time In The West recently and it's technically great but I really couldn't get in to it. It's a bit long to many characters without clear motives for a lot of it. But I do love Leone's Dollar trilogy.
2001 is the ultimate example of this for me, but Blade Runner definitely fits into this category as well. I can see that it's a visually stunning adventure set in a perfectly realised and complex world, but it's just a little bit dull. As a piece of filmmaking craft, I admire it immensely, but it doesn't amaze and enthral in the way that it should.
Full Metal Jacket. Kubrick is a genius, I love much of his work (Barry Lyndon and Paths of Glory in particular), but FMJ has always sat uneasily with me. It is a masterwork of filmmaking craft, but it is also a tonal mess with three acts so blatantly separated that I'm borderline-offended by how hard it holds your hand, as a viewer. That said, Adam Baldwin's performance as "Animal Mother" is criminally underrated.
LOTR especially the third which I thought would never end! Also several Ingmar Bergman, including The Seventh Seal & Persona (I do love Fanny and Alexander, The Magician & Hour of the Wolf). Bicycle Thieves. The Coens O Brother. The Piano. And if we can include TV, The Night Manager.
The Godfather and The Godfather Part 2. This is perhaps because I didn't seem them until very recently. They've undoubtedly influenced a great deal of what I've seen over the years and maybe they just don't seem quite as ground breaking as they might have had I seen them 15 years ago. I just found them both to be rather ponderous.
Mine is, shock "horror" John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN - never got on with it at all. It's a horror masterpiece on every level with a stunning score and fantastic performance from Jamie Lee Curtis but to this day I've never took to it, hence my somewhat muted feelings towards the new version and the recent trailer.
Citizen Kane is probably the closest film I can think of that I admire without liking it because I found it boring, but its relevance in pop culture and its status as a revered cornerstone of cinema mires it in appreciable admiration.
I always thought 'Terminator 2: Judgement day' was just ok. Sure its effects were pretty good for the time and the main antagonist and protagonist are a Joy to watch, but I always felt it were too slow despite the good chase scenes. I have no idea why I seem to be the only one to feel this way about the movie. The theme is depressing to listen to and throughout the entire movie I just wanted Edward Furlong's character of John Connor to be thrown in a river. Oh, and James Cameron is a bit of a dick.
Luchino visconti’s the leopard, enjoyed senso his previous film, thought the battle scene in the leopard was well done, that the ball scene was beautifully shot and that most of the framing and cinematography were all excellent, but I’ve never been able to make my self get all the way through it again Like you said about the piano I admire the leopard, but I don’t like it
Dunkirk, Inception and the Dark Night Trilogy as although they are technically well made and acted you simply don't care for the characters. Nolan could learn a thing or two from Spielberg in that area.
Psycho As groundbreaking and tense as it is, I couldn't help but feel some of the plot points were somewhat contrived (particularly the ending where they explain Bates' psychological trauma so nonchalantly)
Full Metal Jacket - I didn't know it was essentially 2 stories, and the break in the film lost me. It just doesn't sit right with me. I wanted to love it too
I’m very much in the ‘don’t-get-the-fuss-about-2001’ camp. Although it is a film I will go back to every few years in the hope something finally clicks - as the the likes of The Big Lebowski & Taxi Driver did, having originally seen all three in my very early teens. Although 2001 is not for me, I still fully appreciate its quality, craft, general standing and so why many get THAT something out of it, which I fail to grasp. I’m sure there’s a few films in fairness, but in all honesty, I have never been a fan of Close Encounters of the Third Kind - any version. It does have a lot going for it: various great performances, some stunning visuals and effects, intriguing ideas, genuinely tense moments and the like. But as an overall package, I do find it a bit of tedious watch and struggle to understand the insanely high universal praise it receives, while still appreciating its place in cinematic history. Also before anyone says it - given the two films I have pointed out - I do like science fiction. There are films others have mentioned such as The English Patient and Shakespeare in Love - which I dislike while again appreciating certain aspects of both. But I don’t believe they count as, despite any and all initial praise, they’ve been reappraised over time, suffered from widespread backlash and surely no one considers either bonafide, all-time cinematic greats?
Drive! A film starring actors I love and a fantastic premise (as well as one of the most iconic jackets in cinema, right behind Lucifer Rising), but it just seemed quite dull and the themes didn’t quite hit. I went in wanting to love it and I certainly admire it, but the main thing I remember from it is the soundtrack
Shakespeare in Love - I know I'm supposed to like it, but I don't know why. Also Citizen Kane, I admire everything about Orson Welles and his performance, but I need several expressos to even get through the first half!
+Kiss My Art I do know it won Best Picture but I thought it was considered a "Why did it win?" situation. Didn't know it won SEVEN, and I certainly never hear anyone talking about that film.
PauLtus B no it didn’t win best picture, but remains top of most greatest movie lists, certainly American film. The opening montage is a bit ropey but after that the film excels on a number of levels but I understand it might not hook some people
The Dark Knight. It's a great film and everything, but it's too grounded and dour for my tastes. I like my Batman fiction a little more fantastical/heightened. Though it's not that surprising when I consider that I'm not big on any of Nolan's films really, except The Prestige. And even then I haven't watched it since it came out in the cinema.
Citizen Kane. Great? Of course. A masterpiece? To be sure. But I don't believe it's a film that's LOVED. I think that it's more admired and respected than truly loved in a way that a film like The Sound of Music, for example, is.
Mulholland Drive. I'm sure it's doing something great, it's certainly original, well performed, well shot, ambitious. Have I ever really *enjoyed* any of the 4 or 5 attempts I've had at enjoying it? Not really.
I agree. I like so many other movies of Lynch that I think are so much better. Anyone can see it's very well made, maybe even haunting at times, but why does this get so much appraisal?
The Revenant - I suffered as much as Leonardo DiCaprio’s character trying to survive to the end of that film, even with the breathtaking scenery. I don’t think I could bring myself to physically sit through it again. LOTR/The Hobbit leaves me absolutely cold. I was forced to read the Hobbit in school and found it boring then and unbearable to sit through multiple drawn out films off. Watching the first LOTR film is the first and only time I’ve fallen asleep in a cinema (and I used to work in one during my very hungover student days)
I absolutely do not like Frances Ha, which in some circles could make me lose my *indie cred*. And it is kind of funny because I ADORE Mistress America.
Star Wars - all of them. Nothing really wrong with them as films but I was always for more cerebral sci fi like Blade Runner or Solaris rather than big popcorn space operas.
Watchmen. I know Mark won't agree but I admire the style, the costumes, sound design, I really admire it. But I don't like it. It's too long, drawn out and unengaging but I do love the aesthetic quality
La La Land. Emma Stone (who I don't normally like) is wonderful in it. It has a great, warm atmosphere and yet...it left me cold. I was SO disappointed. I'm usually a fan of Ryan Gosling, but not this time. I couldn't buy his character, his cars or his love of the music and that wretched club.
I've recently watched both the conversation from Coppola and the conformist from Bertolucci and clearly both have something going on that I don't get but for me they were far too oppressive and nervy for any enjoyment to be extracted from them
Three in particular come to mind (funny enough all three are Best Picture winners) 1. Gone with the Wind- It's marvelous Technicolor feast for the eyes. I couldn't not stand the characters long enough for 90 minutes, let alone nearly four hours. I feel little sympathy for the Southerners losing the war in the film and I hate that it wants to glorify the South and go "Look at how wonderful we were and look at how brave our men were fighting to keep our slaver-I-I-I mean state's rights". 2. West Side Story- Wonderfully filmed, good songs, culturally important. The problem I have is really more to do with the Romeo and Juliet aspect of the story. I have never cared for the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet. I understand it's a highly important work of the English language, but damn it, I hate it. I don't care for most adaptations or reworkings of the tale either, although there's a few exceptions, West Side Story isn't one of them for me. 3. Gladiator- Ridley Scott can film a turd in a toilet and it'll look good. Gladiator feels so fucking generic and unlike the latter two films mentioned, I don't understand how it won Best Picture.
It's not quite the question you asked, but I know "objectively" (inasmuch as film criticism can be objective) that Guardians of the Galaxy 1 is a better film then Volume 2. Far better pacing, stronger jokes, more consistent character, tighter script generally... but I will always watch 2 over 1 because it just hits me so much more emotionally.
