• buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      As with everything, it all depends on what you find boring.

      There’s no action in Citizen Kane. There’s a small mystery who’s answer you may have seen in other media without knowing. Mostly it is a biography about a fictional character, complete with interviews with friends and enemies of said character (the titular Kane). You only actually get to see and know the character through flashbacks.

      It should be noted that the character is actually based partly on a real person.

      • redhorsejacket@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        For what it is worth, I found it thrilling as a snot nosed teen who watched it in class for some reason or another. It suffers a little from its reputation as “the greatest film ever made”, but, it remains a very good character drama. Interest in the history of film and filmmaking will also go a long way towards making the movie compelling.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Harry Potter 6 for me. I could not get through this movie. I tried it about 5 times so far. Same with the book. I tried reading it at least 10 times including listening to it as an audiobook.

    It’s just insufferable.

    (And don’t worry, Rowling-haters, I of course pirated it except of the copy of the book that I got when I was a kid)

  • trslim@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Blade Runner for me. Great themes, great plot, great visuals and music, horrendously boring and plodding. 2049 was better imo.

    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Wrong opinion. You can definitely enjoy 2049 more, but the better film is the first. I enjoy 2049 much more often, it is a very palatable movie that appeals to a greater, higher volume selling, family-friendlier audience than the original. It’s the lager vs a craft beer between the two, though.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    You should watch 2001 A space Odyssey it is exactly like this.

    It is a historical documentary set in the early days of AI and Space Travel before SpaceX and ChatGPT, it’s kinda neet to see how far we’ve came in such a short time though.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    18 hours ago

    If you are a user of any mind altering substances, or have any interest in starting, it might be worth giving the movie or show another try in that state. Assuming your chosen goodies leave you coherent and able to form memories, lol.

    And it’s not just to put you in a good mood, though that certainly helps. Maybe it’s just the spicy neurons in my case, but being high can qualitatively change the experience of how I relate to characters. (not extreme like empathy on / empathy off, sometimes things might just land different)

    • It’s easier to read the subtext and make connections, catch Easter eggs, etc. Although sometimes your brain is just making shit up.

      I got super stoned before I watched RoboCop 2 a few months ago, which I hadn’t seen before. Holy shit the satire is deeply baked into every scene. I was laughing more than I have in years.

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    ‘The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford’ was this for me.

  • sachamato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    2001 a space odisey or most of Tarkovsky films (even though I love the concept and I do consider them as groundbreaking for their time)… I can’t stand them. I tried.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    If you don’t care for it, don’t let people make you watch it.
    No one (sane) will go “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!” .

    You don’t “have to” value any kind of art. If you don’t, you don’t. That said, it might be worth trying at least once, you never know if you find something that stays with you.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!”

      So you’ve never been dragged to Swan Lake?

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I personally would probably enjoy it. At least the Ballet part. And i always carry ear buds, so the terrible opera style singing can be dealt with.

    • Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think that most of Art needs a bit oft commitment to be consumed and understood, you cannot expect to immediately understand a piece oft Art just because you can see colour and hear sound. It boils down to education, as you need to learn most things in manageable steps. What im saying is: if someone offers to show you something they like, they are likely a good resource to guide you through the experience.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        More likely than the average Joe but guiding, like teaching or storytelling, is a distinct skill. Lots of people are totally blind to their own biases and the hypothetical 4 hour opera without context would definitely make me doubt their advice.

  • brown567@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I feel like a lot of these films are important because they did something first. The problem is that it doesn’t mean that film did it best.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      And then there’s movies like Dr Strangelove, where I had no idea that old movies could be that entertaining still. Though it has been at least a decade since I watched it, I bet it still stands, even if it invented the iconic “ride a nuke like a cowboy” image.

      Also the whole Soviets built a doomsday device but didn’t tell the world about it, which reality copied (eventually they told the world).

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I mean it isn’t an automated doomsday device, just some generals in a bunker who could send the command if moscow vanishes, the same way the US president can via the Nuclear Football.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          As I recall, it was a combo of automated and manual and they went public with the info because they lost knowledge of how it all worked.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve always talked about The Rolling Stones like this. I respect what they did, but I was born when rock had really gone beyond it. The Beatles too for the most part. Even a lot of '80s punk. I wanted faster, heavier, more technical. All the old stuff just felt basic to me, but I know it’s a matter of perspective.

      • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        The Stones could write one hell of a catchy, riff, hook, and chorus tho. Their sloppy musicianship (im being generous) is part of their charm.

        Im sure they invented a sound as much as any of the other groups that get credited with that nonsense.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, these guys were inventing the sound of rock. I think they’re fantastic musicians. But Rush and Pink Floyd stand out more to me as timeless art.

        • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Those artists arrived much later than the invention of rock. It was invented by Chuck Berry and other black artists in the US during the 50s.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            51 minutes ago

            I didn’t think my point needed a “history of music” lesson attached. The rock bands of the 60s were taking the experiments of swing and blues musicians from the decade prior and refining them into the aggressive, over-driven and distorted arrangements. Not “rock & roll”.

    • NannerBanner@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      I believe there’s a copypasta/good comment floating around out there from the reddit days that details everything that has been referenced about the godfather films, and so, if you watch many movies that are popular or considered good, you’ve already seen almost everything that stands out in the godfather films. Throw in the great many improvements in cameras, acting methods/filming techniques, and the ‘drift’ that means one generation prefers certain tropes/themes/scenes/actions over others, and of course an older film is going to be less entertaining for us.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s also written for a different time. Shakespeare is the classic example for this problem, where his plots are timeless and his plays are so Elizabethan that they famously bore teenagers forced to read them, yet simultaneously will be adapted into very popular media somewhat regularly.

        • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’ve been saying since I was in highschool that Shakespeare should probably be an elective in college, except for maybe Julius Caesar in AP Literature classes. It’s just so far out of date and the teachers aren’t allowed to explain what any of the slang means so it’s just… soulless. If they were able to explain how filthy it is, the kids would probably enjoy it more.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            My senior year high school English teacher was allowed to explain the dirty jokes and we loved it. I think it’s a disservice not to do just that. Yes, it can be boring as hell at times, especially when read, but he’s the most foundational author in the English language, and understanding that and why should be part of a high school education. It’s just that you actually have to do it right.

            My teacher began the year telling us that we were 17 or 18 years old and he was going to speak to us like adults and expected us to behave as adults in turn. From there when literature touched on adult subjects like sex and drugs we actually addressed it, including the poem Kublai Kahn which was one of the first poems I actually really liked as a young person. These topics are major parts of literature and culture and I’m frustrated that people seem to think 17 year olds should be shielded from them even if that means that people who only engage in free education don’t get that literature education.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah, My kids/teens don’t have the patience for anything old.

          We were used to watching the storyteller unfold the tablecloth, neatly set out the plates, polish all the silverware, light the candles, place the napkins, and even the chairs in anticipation, then clap while they covered the whole meal. We were thrilled to notice how that fork being slightly off snowballed into a murder scene. Nothing exciting happened in the first half of anything while they setup the story.

          You have about 5-10 minutes these days to cast the first hook or they’ll be asking to watch some short form videos.

          • MBech@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’m fairly sure that just boils down to taste. I’m not here to watch an hour of foreplay through subtle clues, red herrings, and artistic masturbation. Give me some plot and get on with it.

  • FatVegan@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Ugh, lord of the rings. I tried watching it alone, with friends, with a girlfriend… Nope, just boring