I have a question: why was there a trend in the 60s and 70s to create endlessly long and hopelessly boring epics, which parade themselves as "classics"? I have a problem with this for a number of reasons, by mainly because I read about a "classic" film that I haven't seen and must see to become a truly better American and part of the human race, then I rent it, and then spend the next two and half (or more) hours wondering why I'm still sitting there.
Usually I reach a point where I am so sick of the movie, I end up fast forwarding to the end to see if the guy really does win the war, or escape from prison, or find his long-lost love. The other day I watched "Papillon" with Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen. (If you've never seen them in anything, they are usually very good actors.) To sum up: I wasted 2.5 hours waiting for something exciting to happen. Never was rewarded.
I was thinking about this a few weeks ago too when Jason was spending his Saturday night watching "Lawrence of Arabia" with some friends. He was completely bored....and if you've ever seen the movie, you know why. Every half hour or so I would get a call, and I'd ask what was happening, "Oh - they're still just running around the desert, chasing the Turks." Fun way to spend an evening.
Anyways - beware the "classic" film which masquerades as a too-long epic with basically no plot. They are a dangerous breed.
1 comment:
You remember having to watch Doctor Zhivago on one of those first visits we had after you'd moved to Ripon and I was 14, so you'd have been 12 and Anne was 10... Yeah, that was a fun movie for us!! LOL. Man, we were so lost. That must have been at least 4 hours we lost that night. (And you know, to this day, I have not watched that movie again. Or had any desire to watch it again either.)
Carrie~
PS. I ment to tell you a long time ago, thanks for putting back Kandinsky. Right on top too where I can't miss it every time I visit! : )
Post a Comment