Never Saw That Classic Movie

Many years ago, my then-girlfriend confided in passing that the reference being made by the jokey character name "Charles Pfister Krane" from the Laverne & Shirley episode “Citizen Krane” had sailed right over her head because she had never seen Citizen Kane

Like any proper film snob, I was taken aback.

Of course, we had to watch it right away. And like many people who arrive at the film’s doorstep later in the game, having already heard it spoken of in hushed tones and with divine reverence, she came away from it saying something along the lines of well, ok, that was good.

But imagine! Someone who claims to love movies…that hasn’t seen KANE!

There may be no mystery as to where I’m going, but as someone who also claims to love movies, and someone who has seen thousands upon thousands of them in my lifetime so far, I really had no business being so shocked. There are quite a few movies designated “classic” that have managed to escape my attention all the way up ‘til now.

Let’s get the Magilla Gorilla of confessions out of the way straight up:

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, and Peter Pan

All the way through? Not a one. My Walt Disney feature-length cartoon watching got started with Beauty and the Beast (in the theater), and by that time I was a full-fledged adult. And then I followed through with a good many of them, all the way through to the Pixar era and beyond. What can I say? I grew up more with Dirty Harry than with Disney. Well, that’s not exactly putting it correctly. It’s better to say that to me, cartoons were all about superheroes, wascally wabbits, deth-picable ducks, and The Flintstones. Otherwise, I wasn’t much interested.

I have no concrete explanation for what failed to lure me to the Mouse House in any significant way—perhaps I tried a Mickey cartoon once, failed to respond, and bailed on the whole Wonderful World of it entirely. But it’s true. Not a single one of those have I yet seen from start to finish. You could name almost any Disney film pre-Beauty, cartoon or live-action, and the response would likely be the same. I have seen Fantasia—terrific.

I saw the Roberto Benigni version of Pinocchio. Like every other person who set eyes upon it, I was horrified.

John Wayne Movies

That just saves more time, because I’ve seen The Searchers, and, uh…well, I’ve seen The Searchers.

The Western was never at the top of my list of favorite genres, and probably because neither of my parents were real Wayne fans, these movies were never on the television. I do love Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. I think I may have shed actual tears of joy when Unforgiven cleaned up with so many Academy Awards, so I guess it just depends. (Maybe too much Clint Eastwood is somehow my answer for every one of these categories?)

Oh, wait, I just remembered. I saw Stagecoach, too.

All About Eve

Does Showgirls count?

Bette will always be Baby Jane to me. But I recognize the deep shame I bring upon myself having neglected this renowned movie, having spent a considerable amount of time both on and backstage.

Rebecca

Oh, God, mother!

You know, the only Hitchcock movie to win Best Picture, too. Now I do feel like hiding my head. I am pretty confident with this admission only because, having seen most of the rest of Hitch’s greats, this is one I try to recall and just can’t, so even if somehow I had seen it, I may as well say I haven’t.

Let the Right One In

As a horror junkie, I felt I needed to include something in that category, and this recent (and very well-received) release already deemed a classic fits the bill. This is one of those films that simply slips by time and again based on certain circumstances. I missed its theatrical run; I got spooked by the whole subtitles controversy and wanted to wait until it was re-issued with the “correct” translation; and this was one of those cases where sometimes, you just want the hype to die down a little so you can look at it with objectivity…not that that’s always the ideal thing.

And finally...

The Philadelphia Story

Could I actually be kicked out of the city for admitting it? Does it help if I say I have seen every Rocky picture numerous times, not to mention Trading Places, Philadelphia, 12 Monkeys, and every $%#!#$ M. Night Shyamalan movie? I love Stewart and Grant. Hepburn’s appeal for me is very conditional on the movie. The African Queen, thumbs sky high. Little Women? Not so much.

(Only because I prefer the Winona reboot, uh, remake, of all three versions. And yes: I have read the book.)

It’s simply too painful to go on, so just accept this confession for what it is—a tour that each one of us must take at some point in our movie-watching lives, a journey of self-discovery where we undertake to figure out how in the world we missed this or that, and then, more importantly, whether or not we’re going to make time in our busy lives to add those particular works to our own personal canon.

After all, there are also a great many Repeat Viewings to be done, which is another mild struggle the cinephile faces when two (or more) hours are suddenly at your disposal. For, every time one chooses to revisit a beloved picture you’ve already seen, that’s one more new experience that has just fallen away from view, perhaps forever.

Just the other week, I excitedly pushed my DVD of the Charles Bronson classic The Mechanic into the hands of a friend who had to admit he’d somehow never had the pleasure of grooving on one of Old Stone Face’s most monumentally entertaining screen appearances.

How dare he.

 
Click Here to get MovieFanFare delivered to your inbox!

Share It!

Leave a Reply

  • chris

    There are many classics I still haven't seen(I'm 50), but I do make the effort. With younger viewers these days, even profess cinephiles, don't expect them to try. I even ran into a local "Intro to Film" course being taught where the instructor uses newer movies(10 years or younger) to teach the class.
    How can he do it? Does he want to be hip? Does he want people to show up? A lot of kids won't care what he's showing because normally these Intro to Film courses are an easy liberal arts requirement filler.
    HE DOESN'T EVEN SHOW CITIZEN KANE?!
    Imagine someone teaching an Intro to Lit course and using the Twilight novels and the best of James Patterson.

  • Blair Kramer.

    George: I've seen most of the films you mention in your article. The majority are every bit as great as they're supposed to be. Some are certainly over rated. (Fr'instance: Since CITIZEN KANE is a fairly pretentious and somewhat overwrought character study, it's hardly, as many critics insist, the "greatest film ever made." However, CASABLANCA, a straightforward and decidedly unpretentious romantic drama, receives short shrift from many critics. I remember one review that called it "the best bad movie ever made!" If you ask me, that kind of misplaced cynicism is worse than merely juvenile. It's downright stupid! Anyway, I believe that one could convincingly argue that CASABLANCA is actually the best movie ever made. And now that I've said it, get ready for the indignant Emails in support of THE GODFATHER and/or THE GODFATHER II. However, there's a huge problem with those two films. They deal strictly with the ugliness of the human soul and completely ignore the fact that many souls are quite beautiful. Besides, movies aren't supposed to depress the viewer. They're meant to entertain.). Anyway, I try not to miss any truly significant or important film. And neither should you, George. You just HAVE to sit down and watch Disney's PINOCCHIO. Once you get past the roto-scoped Blue Fairy, it's the greatest animated film ever made. A genuine masterpiece in every respect. Trust me on this. You'll love it.

  • Rita

    I love to watch a good movie and 2 of my favorite are Bringing Up Baby is a 1938 screwball classic which stars Cary Grant as a paleontologist, who is as petrified as the bones he studies and Katharine Hepburn is a silly society gal trying to loosen him up, by using the help from a leopard, who is named Baby.
    National Velvet is made in 1944 and is a Classic family movie about a young girl, Velvet, determination to wint the Grand National Steeplechase race on her very loved horse. The movie has 12 yr. old Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Ronney, Angela Lansbury. After the movie was completed they gave the horse to Elizabeth because she was the only one that had been able to handle the animal. Liz was also physical hurt for the first time in this movie.

  • Dave Manning

    On this one, everybody needs to lighten up and get the point. No matter how devoted a fan you are, the truth is that there are so many great movies that it is just not possible to see them all. Besides that simple fact, because tastes vary so much, conflict is inevitable about what is or isn't great. I've been a loyal fan of the Duke all my life, but there are a lot of his early movies I just haven't seen or don't like. Shocking as it may seem, Stagecoach is one of those I dislike. I've watched it twice, and that's enough, thanks, no more. Face it fellow movie freaks, some movies just don't work for us all.

  • Charlie Ray

    To Dave Manning: How can ANYONE dislike Stagecoach? Wow -- that's probably my favorite John Wayne film. It's at least in the top 3.

    To George Allen: Everyone has classics that they've missed -- but you have some serious catching up to do. Many of the films you mention are among the best ever made.

    My own confession: I've never seen a full length Charlie Chaplin film! The Gold Rush is on my Netflix list right now.

  • http://www.moviesunlimited.com George D. Allen

    Charlie,I recommend you begin catching up with some Charlie (Chaplin) by starting out with City Lights and then move on to The Great Dictator, my own two favorites. Modern Times is surely a close third in my estimation--just don't start your Chaplin-watching experience with A Countess from Hong Kong and you'll be fine.

  • Doug

    After retiring 2 years ago, I became a TCM junkie.
    I was born in the early 1950's, and like a lot of my peers grew up on television, not film. The first film I ever saw in a theater was Disney's One hundred and One Dalmations and, needless to say, I am still a Disney animation lover, and even watched the Wonderful World of Disney on Sunday nights in the 60's.
    After going to the theaters in the mid 60's, seeing such films as The Sound of Music, Born Free, Goldfinger, Mary Poppins, etc on the big screen I fell in love with film, and oddly enough,
    my love for film has carried over into all genres,
    everything from a Hitchcock film, i.e., Shadow of a Doubt, North by Northwest, to silent films (The General, etc.) to Jean Arthur, Clark Gable, film noir, musicals, and so forth..
    Now I'm catching up on all the classic films that came before my time, actually watching them with my mother who saw them in the theater back in the 30's and 40's.
    It just makes me wonder what people 300 years from now are going to think of it all.

  • Doug

    Oops, 'Dalmatians', not Dalmations. lol

  • Cathy Rec

    I have found myself laughing at so many inside jokes - references to classic movies - that no one else is getting in new movies. Without knowledge of the classices, you just can't get the jokes, like your girlfriend's lack of knowledge of Citizen Cane. I found at least 6 references to classic films in Johnny Depps' latest, "Rango." I was the only one who saw them, but when I pointed them out to the younger crowd - they all decided to go find and watch the films I mentioned. I won't tell you what they were, here. I don't want to spoil it for real classic film buffs!

  • danny

    When I see new movies with my nephews, who refuse to watch old movies, the references to classic films go right over their heads. When I bring it up, they have no idea what I'm talking about. To me, the references are half the fun of watching films like Rango.

  • nbrawdy

    I enjoy movies from all ages and a TCM junkie, too. But, I have never watched 'Gone With The Wind'. A former coworker jumped all over me for that, but, of course I could only say: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.".

  • Anne

    Yes, George:

    Please see Pinocchio, Peter Pan, and Alice in Wonderland. The others you can skip. Although you might like to see Bambi for the background art, done by a well-known Asian-American artist - Tyrus Wong - who worked for Disney for many years.

    All About Eve should be seen, if only to put into context the oft-quoted line "Fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a bumpy ride!". Forget Rebecca - it's annoying.

    I have seen very few John Wayne movies because I never liked him much. The same with (oh horrors - can I admit it?) Cary Grant. To each his own.

  • Ed

    nbrawdy, I would give "Gone With the Wind" a go if you have the chance. It's beautifully made and very well acted (I have to say it's one of my favourite films).

    Of course the main problem is so many classics and so little time to watch them! "GWTW" is a case in point - it's so jolly long!

  • David Kling

    I can't count the mumber of times I've walked around get togethers, acting like I had my nose lifted by a golf pro....toward people w/ shall we say a lack of knowledge re: classic films. Then again, I can't count the number of times I've never sat through or surfed over movies like "Splendor in the Grass, "An Affair to Remember", or "Butterfield 8". Current or classic, I realized it all boils down to personal preference of a story that interests you or doesn't. I'll take "Red Badge of Courage" over "The Red Shoes" anyday.

  • fred buschbaum

    The big problem is the term "CLASSIC", I'm 72, and I've seen endless films in all genres. Yes, there are a few "Duke" films I don't rewatch. Yes, There are no Cary Grant films I don't rewatch. As to "Bogy", from gangster to We're no Angels, I'll watch them every chance I get. So many others, puzzle me, since nobody else has seen or just doesn't like what I like. "Where's Papa" as example. Another puzzle is folk who won't watch black and white films??? I think when you get past all the new special effects and beautiful colors, you see into the actors and directors souls. Now, I'm going to watch my favorite western where the indians win. "AVATAR".

  • Judy

    Taste in films and in movie stars is a funny thing, probably similar to the kind of people who attract you as friends and lovers. I never liked westerns, nor John Wayne as a leading man (except "The Quiet Man" is a notable favorite) but when I finally saw "The Searchers," and even "Stagecoach," I found both films and the star bearable to watch, even interesting. The rest of his film work, no way. The recent "True Grit" is far superior to the original, I'd even call it beautiful art and the stars are so much better.
    Can't stand almost any of Orson Wells' movies, in particular, "Citizen Kane"; can watch "The Magnificent Ambersons," though, probably because of Joseph Cotten. Never could warm up to Humphrey Bogart at all (no appeal IMHO) and couldn't believe someone as beautiful as Ingrid would fall for that guy. I have watched "Casablanca" and "The Maltese Falcon" only because of rest of the cast--I think the plots are ridiculous.

    This past Oscar season really surprised me with about 5 films who were contenders that I thought were really good and recommended to others to see. That's something I haven't been able to do for years...films from the Hollywood studio system do it for me. I just saw "Mary, Mary" a few weeks ago on TCM, with Barry Nelson and Debbie Reynolds, and I laughed out loud often; Debbie and Barry were just great. What an enjoyable film that I was barely aware of, never mind never got around to seeing. So even when someone like me, who has seen so many old films, can find a gem now and then, I know there's hope to find some others because there are plenty of movies in the various studios' vaults.

  • Butch Knouse

    I haven't seen several classic films just because I already know how they end, so what's the point?

  • Susan

    To nbrawdy: Please take the time to watch Gone With the Wind (and read the Pulitzer Prize winning novel celebrating it's 75th anniversary this year). One of the best gifts I ever gave my husband was introducing him to this magnificent epic which he had never viewed before. Now when I use quotes from the movie they don't fly right over his head...but, I haven't succeeded in getting him to view the great Disney films yet.

  • Anonymous.

    Hey Judy...

    The TRUE GRIT re-make is better than the original? Really?! Jeff Bridges is better than John Wayne?! OK, the supporting cast was better. After all, Glenn Campbell wasn't much of an actor. And whatever became of Kim Darby? But I gotta tell ya, after all is said and done, John Wayne is the one and only GENUINE Rooster Cogburn! THERE IS NO OTHER! Like it or not, good though he may have been in the part, Jeff Bridges is nothing but an impostor! A poser! A phony baloney! That's 'cuz John Wayne's version of Rooster Cogburn is much more likable. For this reason, the original John Wayne film is a great deal more entertaining than the re-make. I'm sorry Judy, but this is the first time you ever gave me reason to cuss ya...

  • masterofoneinchpunch

    Every movie fan pretty much no matter who they are are going to have holes in their cinematic acumen. Of course it does help to define classic as well. It doesn't help when your friends goad you into watching films you know are not "classics" but are among their favorites. Many times they might be good films, but they are definitely not classics. For example I took care of the embarrasment (among my older friends) of not seeing Clint Eastwood's first directoral film PLAY MISTY FOR ME. I wouldn't consider it a classic, but I'm glad I finally watched it.

    If you use listsofbests it would be easy to find what you haven't watched :D . I use it with the same name I use here. I think using They Shoot Picture Don't They list of 1000 is a good way to see what classics you have not seen.

    On John Wayne: oh there are so many must watches with him in it (regardless of what you think of him as an actor). Of course it helps that many times he was directed by John Ford (and Howard Hawks). Many critics such as myself tend to find love for FORT APACHE, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, RIO GRANDE, THE QUIET MAN, RIO BRAVO, RED RIVER, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE as well as the two George mentioned. He also is in many good films (yes his early 1930s movies are not always good :D ).

    On Charlie Chaplin: probably not best to start with either the Keystone or Essanay films as well. I do think the Mutual shorts are as good a place to start as City Lights or Modern Times or The Gold Rush.

    Of course I will have to confess my important non-watches: I still have not seen a film from Satyajit Ray or Erich von Stroheim (though many of their films are not R1 or they are OOP), THE PALM BEACH STORY, ROSEMARY'S BABY, SOLARIS (Tarkovsky), CINEMA PARADISO, LAST TANGO IN PARIS, THE BLUE ANGEL, NINOTCHKA, THE KING OF COMEDY (very embarrased by this one) and of course many more though I've taken care of the latest AFI 100 list and most of the AFI list movies.

    Well I'm going to have to add The Mechanic to films I need to watch. I've seen bits and pieces but never the whole thing. I haven't seen Roberto Benigni version of Pinocchio, but you don't seem to give that a good mark so I'll skip it for now :D .

  • Mike Oldfield

    Maybe it's a generational thing but I far prefer the Disney animated films of the 1940's and 1950's to any of the modern stuff. The fact that the digital animation of today give the figures more dimension and shadows does not impress me at all. Furthermore, the ultra-fast action, zap zooms and other gimmicks cause the average viewer to miss a lot of what is happening on the screen. There was a special magic plus a heart and soul to the older Disney films. Only the TOY STORY films have come close to that. I would consider PINOCCHIO and FANTASIA to be among the finest films ever made.

  • Marion Michael Morrison.

    Now that I think of it... When Charles Portis wrote his novel called TRUE GRIT, he said that he fashioned the character of Rooster Cogburn entirely after John Wayne. Which means that Mr. Wayne was the ONLY actor who could possibly play the drunk lawman. And of course, John Wayne was well aware of this. As I understand it, he tried to buy the rights to the book before Hal B. Wallis outbid him. But that was OK. Wallis had no intention of hiring anyone other than Wayne for the lead. We all know what happened. John Wayne won the only Oscar of his career for TRUE GRIT. And I don't care what anyone says. That particular Oscar was certainly well deserved.

  • BadGnx2

    Yes, Mr. Allen, I gotta agree. There are MANY films out there left to discover and see. But the beauty is when you FINALLY find them. And the connection can be so enjoyable....so uplifting...so profound. Time and money ALONE can stop ANYONE from getting in their minimum daily adult requirement of movie watching.
    Thank god for cable TV and film festivals. Especially cable, for cable brings us TCM!!! And TCM brings us the TCM Film Festival- the mecca for TRUE MOVIE LOVERS!!

    And BOTH versions of "True Grit" are very good films. The difference is that the first one is more tailored to the talents of Wayne, while the second one is a more darker, somber film. And Jeff Bridges is a very good Rooster Cogburn also. Both films are DIFFERENT takes on the same piece and in regards to which one is better lies to the viewer.

    To Blair Kramer - You REALLY THINK "Casablanca" is the best movie ever made???? And the statement that "MOVIES AREN'T MEANT TO DEPRESS, ONLY TO ENTERTAIN".
    Hmmmmmm.....ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! ARE YOU NUTS????
    "Casablanca" is a very good film although it suffers from RACIAL STEREOTYPES. And those other minor characters known as NAZIS might not seem so warm and fuzzy to some people either. Some people also might think THOSE THINGS ALONE, ARE VERY DEPRESSING. "Casablanca" was a period film set against a VERY DEPRESSING time in this world.
    And YES, BOTH "Godfather" movies are superior to "Casablanca", both in scope, script and artistry. "Casablanca's" stature has grown thanks to many repeated viewings on TV.

    And Judy.....you don't like any Bogart or Wayne or Orson Welles movies. And the BEST YOU CAN COME UP TO REPLACE ALL OF THAT ARTISTRY AND HISTORY IS A MINOR FILM WITH DEBBIE REYNOLDS AND BARRY NELSON????? Are you kidding me??? ARE YOU NUTS???

    I think that SOMEONE should do a "Clockwork Orange" on both Blair and Judy and STRAP THEM BOTH DOWN, FORCE OPEN THEIR EYELIDS AND MAKE THEM WATCH SOME REAL MOVIES OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!

  • http://www.moviesunlimited.com George D. Allen

    Oh, play nice now, my droogs. BadGnx2, your shoom is making me all spoogy! I might have some shilarny your bezoomy chepooka might razdrez the other lewdies who visit here, but I know you’re really in it for a good smeck. (Consult your Nadsat dictionary for the translation) I'd love to reply to all, but in brief:

    Judy: Talk about what attracts you to people: I will never forget how my partner-for-life and I made one of our first great connections, when I was talking about a brilliant documentary on the abuse of the mentally ill, and she looked me straight and the eyes and just came out with: "Oh, you mean Titicut Follies?" WOW. Ah, love at first sight...

    masterofoneinchpunch: Well if I had the power to choose from among your never-seen-classics, I'd be loading up The King of Comedy in your DVD player first up! Not only does it contain what I think might be Jerry Lewis' most hilarious (and uncharacteristic) performance, it is a genuinely cringe-inducing performance from DeNiro (in a good way).

    Blair K: I love Casablanca, too. I dunno about movies being "only" for entertainment, though. I'm just film-snobby enough to want not just that, but sometimes something "more"--or better maybe to say something "other," because pure entertainment isn't inferior or superior to flicks with more artistic "ambitions," I say--and sometimes that involves illuminating ugliness (See: Von Trier, Lars.).

    Now BadGnx2, let's have no more creeching about prying people's eyeballs open. I'd love to referee the ongoing debate over John Wayne, but I can't really say I have a horse in that fight.

  • Blair Kramer.

    BadGnx2 (and anyone else who might care),

    I grew up in a decidely urban environment where my family and I were victimized twelve ways from Sunday. Besides the physical assaults and subsequent broken bones (one of which was my jaw), our apartments were burlarized and cars stolen. I thank God for my education and current suburban existence. The reason I am baring my soul in this manner is to let you know that I am more than perfectly aware of those people who have ugly, evil souls. My beef about THE GODFATHER films is very simple: Those critics who rave about them have never seen true evil. Certainly not up close. I have. In my view, The GODFATHER films tell an entirely unecessary story. Everyone with a brain knows that gangsters are violent socio-paths. But we're supposed to care about the characters in the GODFATHER. Well, I don't care. I don't care who they love. I don't care that they have families like normal people. As far as I'm concerned, let every expletive deleted criminal in the real world rot in Hell! To my mind, the movie that should have been made, that STILL should be made, is the one that looks into the reasons why J. Edgar Hoover didn't aggressively pursue organized crime. Yes indeed. I fully believe that the movies which are worth watching are those films that genuinely entertain. If I wish to get depressed, I don't have to watch a film that glorifies crime and criminals. I can simply visit the grave of my murdered sister.

    (By the way: CASABLANCA may be of its time, but the romance is the heart of the film. Also, I never thought that there was overt racism in it. As far as I can remember, Rick always treated his pianist respectfully.)

  • Jim Jordan

    I agree with Blair Kramer regarding "The Godfather" and though I watched it once, can't rationalize the appeal. The same goes for "Goodfellas", of which I only saw the beginning through Joe Pesci's first scene at the bar. I knew guys like that, and don't need to see them glorified.

    Though a friend of mine is in one scene in "Raging Bull", I haven't seen that, or "Taxi Driver", either. I'm neither a De Niro nor a Scorcese fan.

    I've seen substantially all of the available Hitchcock movies (yes, including ones like "Strauss' Great Waltz"). Rebecca is not a "Classic Hitchcock" movie. It is a great "Daphne Du Maurier" film. (The difference may be subtle to some, but Hitch did need to make a living as well as create art. He did do justice to the material though.)

    The two Hitchcock movies I like least of the approximately 50 I have seen are "Psycho" and "The Birds". I would go with "North by Northwest", "Confession", "Saboteur", "Rope", "Lifeboat", "Spellbound" ... I could go on. (I also stayed in the "Townsend" residence in Glen Cove once).

    But, yes, I have never seen "Gone with the Wind", and frankly, don't wish to.

  • karlene

    oh really!!?? of all the movies made from excellent books, GWTW is the only one I would really recommend. usually when they make a movie from a popular book, I just read the book and skip the movie, they are usually that wrong. (now, I have to say, even though the Bourne Identity book and movie pretty much only share the title and main characters names I do like both)

  • http://www.moviesunlimited.com George D. Allen

    BlairK, I assume you'll be eager to check out Eastwood's upcoming Hoover biopic "J. Edgar" to see how he shakes out the story.

    On how watching movies with certain subject matters that relate to one's real life (or choosing not to watch them, as the case may be), I can certainly identify with that impulse, having had situations in my own life (some quite recently) that made viewing certain movies about certain things simply off-limits, at least for the time being. All people are quite reasonably funny that way, I would say. I can completely understand why, for example, some folks tied directly to the awful events of 9-11 wouldn't have the slightest interest in ever viewing Paul Greengrass' film United 93, which I found immensely well-done if very upsetting, and picked as my "#1" movie the year of its release. What would they possibly "get" from the film that they didn't already understand? Not a more intimate perspective, naturally. There's encouraging people to have a broad perspective when it comes to appreciating movies, and then there's a line of judgment that's unwise to cross (which can also be somewhat unfair to use as an attack against someone who appreciates the movie(s) in question). If nothing else, this is one more proof of how powerful the film-watching experience can be, and how strongly well-made movies can act as extensions of our own personal narratives.

    On the somewhat lighter side, your comments about The Godfather reminded me of the opening sentence of a very good book from years back called "Joey: Autobiography of a Mafia Hit Man," which was: "F**k 'The Godfather.'" That was Joey's blunt way of leading the reader into a very insightful deconstruction of the film as an effective Hollywood entertainment but, in fact, pure fantasy when it came to portraying the realities of the actual mob.

  • Blair Kramer.

    Hi George,

    I have to say that I really don't much care what a hitman, film critic, or anyone else thinks of the "Godfather" films. As movies go, I know they're brilliantly made. But how do they make you feel as you watch them? Do they make you uneasy? Do they make you squirm? Is that kind of emotional reaction the thing that supposedly makes them "the best movies ever made?" My view is quite different. In the real world, normal people would never associate with gangsters or street criminals. We would rather have nothing to do with them. And if we encounter someone we believe to be a criminal, we immediately whip out our cell phone and dial 9-1-1. At the very least, that's what we certainly SHOULD do. Now... Since I want absolutely nothing to do with criminals, why in the name of God would I watch a film that focuses on such dregs for 3 bleeping hours? Real or not. True or not. I don't want to know them. Not even in a fictional sense. This isn't to say that I don't watch films that deal with crime and/or criminals at all. But those films involve people who are trying to do the right thing. Eventually, peace prevails. Many years ago a film called "Dog Day Afternoon" presented the supposed true story of a bank robber in a decidedly sympathetic light. The critics went ga-ga over it. It was considered a great examination of the psychology of an extremely desperate man. To me, it's a film about a loony toony who belongs behind bars for the rest of his valueless life! I don't want to know him! If it's all the same to you, I'll stick to films that truly entertain.

  • Judy

    I actually fell asleep in my seat while viewing "A Clockwork Orange" in the movie theater...giggle.

    As I stated from the outset, taste is a funny thing...no need to go NUTS about it. That's what's wrong with this country today, you have a different opinion in a forum that invites opinions, and SOME PEOPLE can't stand it to the point they have to CAPITALIZE their comments...I can live with other people's opinions being different...oh where's the tolerance, where's that something called diversity? ;o)

  • masterofoneinchpunch

    "Well if I had the power to choose from among your never-seen-classics, I'd be loading up The King of Comedy in your DVD player first up! Not only does it contain what I think might be Jerry Lewis' most hilarious (and uncharacteristic) performance, it is a genuinely cringe-inducing performance from DeNiro (in a good way)." -- George

    I felt just like when I watched Scorsese's AFTER HOURS last year that I should have watched KING OF COMEDY (not the Stephen Chow film) much earlier. A brilliant and quite as you say cringe worthy through most of the film, almost to the point of "the film is hard to take."

    I always love coincidence in film watching. What I mean is that I watched first this weekend THE PATSY (which I also loved) with Jerry Lewis in which he is called sarcastically THE KING OF COMEDY. Then I watched JERRY MAGUIRE then I watched KING OF COMEDY. Enough of the Jerries for awhile.

    What will be George's first missed classic film that he will watch?

    On a side note this topic is also a chapter callled "The Age of Ignorance" by Nev Pierce in the book "10 Bad Dates with De Niro" which I recommend highly for film fans -- the book not the chapter. Pierce takes too much pride in only seeing one Ingmar Bergman movie and no Akira Kurosawa films. How can you not see at least one, I mean five Kurosawa films?

  • Anonymous.

    The problem with foreign films is cultural. Pretentious American film critics deliberately ignore the fact that movies such as Kurosawa's SEVEN SAMURAI is decidedly removed from the history, language and culture of the United States of America (in fact, I don't for a second believe that American film critics actually prefer, or even like, those mind numbing foreign films. Logic tells me that they prefer to be entertained every bit as much as any other American. And everyone knows that the most entertaining films are made in America. American film critics typically rave about foreign films merely because they don't want anyone to think they're uncultured hicks!). I know that snobs would insist that a good movie is always relevant no matter the nation of it's origin. And that may well be true. But let's face it. THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN remains much more popular with an American audience than does THE SEVEN SAMURAI. And yes, it's also more popular with me. Which is not to say that I don't appreciate classic foreign films. But what is a Japanese samurai film, even a great one directed by Akira Kurosawa, compared to an action packed, rip-roarin' Western such as THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN? Especially to a guy born in the American mid-West? A guy Like me?

  • http://www.moviesunlimited.com George D. Allen

    masterofoneinchpunch, I have been eyeing that "10 Bad Dates with DeNiro" book for quite some time! So glad you got to enjoy King of Comedy. I'm thinking I might go with "All About Eve" first, I'm not sure. But maybe it's time for another confession you'll appreciate: I picked up "The Boxer's Omen" some time ago, and it sits and sits begging for me to make the time for it(which I will). Though I have a free movie ticket about to expire in mere days, so a theatrical screening may have to come first...

    Meanwhile, Anonymous' dismissal of "The Seven Samurai" I just can't relate to. I've watched that movie many, many, many times, and find it to be a greater film with each repeat viewing. But to each his own. I would however take issue with his final point about a movie involving samurai swords being less relatable than a movie involving six-shooters. Not that he's alone or objectively incorrect in that view--the tendency to modernize Shakespeare's physical settings & costumes in order to make the stories more "accessible" make his point better than anything. And sometimes that sort of thing works brilliantly (see: "Titus," or Baz Luhrmann's R & J) -- but, of course, great movies set in any time or place and told in any spoken language move the viewer past and through their time & place particulars (what they call the "given circumstances" in the theater world) and to the appreciation of its broader human concerns. Meaning, "The Seven Samurai" isn't just a movie about seven samurai, it's about war, poverty, honor, friendship, courage, and so on.

    As to excellent film tomes, I was just in Boston/Brookline (@ a trip to the Coolidge Corner Theater) and picked up a great-looking book about The Brothers Quay.

  • masterofoneinchpunch

    George: when you finish reading the book on Brothers Quay tell me what you think of it and whether it is worth picking up.

    Currently I'm reading "Minding Movies" by David Bordwell & Kirstin Thompson which just came out. I am also reading the second version (in pdf form) of Planet Hong Kong also by David Bordwell. Both I highly recommend (I've read the first version of PHK already, but enjoying the second version which has some errors fixed and some additional chapters catching up with HK cinema)

  • James Joseph

    Why is this man even reviewing films?! He has no concept of anything preceding what he grew up with. W.C. Fields was dead before I was even born, but I had the cinema sensibility to go back and discover his genius. His casual dismissal of Laurel & Hardy is criminal and as for his list of 'classics he's never seen' -- I would ashamed to admit it, particularly if I were attempting to offer myself as someone who was qualified to even speak casually of movies. He is endemic of why our (his) generation has become part of the 'great wasteland' of television. Movies Unlimited needs to get someone better to evaluate films. Exile Mr. Allen to the era of post-Jaws or Star Wars. He's not qualified to comment on anything before that (or even those 1970's classics).

  • Pingback: Is W.C. Fields Still Funny? | MovieFanFare

Read More Posts From…