The Most Boring Films You've Seen Were...

West Side Story
2001: A Space odyssey
Out of Africa
Gangs of New York
Lord of the rings: The Two towers
Melancholia.

2001 A Space Odyssey.
I love sci-fi movies but this was just boring beyond belief.

I agree with you completely.

I like some of Stanley Kubrick's films but 2001 was a boring piece of crap.

A classic film my ass.

Most people have never seen 2001 in the cinema. I saw it when it came out, on a screen which seemed to me at the age of seven, to be the size of a football field. I didn't understand it, but I thought it was fantastic even at such a young age. It was a real spectacle.

I've watched it since then on TV, where you're pretty much forced to judge it on its storyline alone, and I quite agree - it sucks. But back in 1968 in a Newcastle cinema, it was amazing.

2001 A Space Odyssey.
I love sci-fi movies but this was just boring beyond belief.

I agree with you completely.

I like some of Stanley Kubrick's films but 2001 was a boring piece of crap.

A classic film my ass.

Most people have never seen 2001 in the cinema. I saw it when it came out, on a screen which seemed to me at the age of seven, to be the size of a football field. I didn't understand it, but I thought it was fantastic even at such a young age. It was a real spectacle.

I've watched it since then on TV, where you're pretty much forced to judge it on its storyline alone, and I quite agree - it sucks. But back in 1968 in a Newcastle cinema, it was amazing.

With all due respect, at the age of 7 most people think that most films they see at the cinema are awesome. It's a treat at that age, those early cinema experiences always stick in the memory, and exaggerated over time. How many times do we revisit a film we liked so much when we saw it as a kid only to realise it was a case of right time, right place and the film in reality is either crap or mediocre? I'm not sure a visit to the cinema to see 2001 at the age of 7 is therefore a reliable testimony as to a film's greatness.

That said, there is some truth there - the film does look great on a big screen. But I also think it is a clear case of style over substance. Yes it looks great, but is there really any meat or even meaning to it other than lushous cinematography?

My own opinion is no, but most of my colleagues would disagree with me and shoot me down, and say that Kubrick was a genius. I think he was self-publicising bore of a filmmaker, if I'm being honest. It will be interesting to see if his legacy keeps its prestigious place in the film cannon over the years. D W Griffith, who I mentioned earlier, was viewed very much as a prestigious director twenty years ago, but now, other than his part in the development of film, many of his films are seen to be dull, poorly paced and self-important - terms which I would suggest all describe Kubrick in the post-Dr Strangelove years.

I think the change towards Griffith (and hopefully Kubrick) is very much due to the way film studies and film scholarship is moving. It all started out by borrowing ideas, themes and methods from English Literature studies, which of course focuses on a select cannon of works. Not many Lit students would study Agatha Christie or Alistair McLean. But film is breaking away from the cannon and has been for a while. Now all film and tv is considered ripe for analysis - whether analysing the material itself, how audiences react to them, what they tell us about the time in which they were made, and so on. Bearing that in mind, the "classics" no longer dominate.

I personally approve of this move, partly I guess because my own area does not concentrate on classic movies in the traditional sense. Yes, mine are old films, but more likely B-movies than Gone With The Wind. But academia, criticism and scholarship still has a hell of a lot of snobbery around, and so no doubt the Kubricks of the world will still dominate the film lists for many years to come.

Lord Of The Rings films & the hobbit To long & boring.the royal tenenbaums the only movie i have ever walked out the cinema truly awful.seen many a poor movie on tv or dvd,but there is nothing worse than paying good money and looking forward to going to the cinema and you hate the movie.thankfully it does not happen to often.

That's kind of true, Colin. The truth is that Welles pretty much did what D W Griffith had done around three decades earlier. In 1910, the cut was known and used, as were long shots, close-ups, tracking shots, the use of the iris etc, and even to some degree parallel editing - what Griffith did was bring everything together and formed what I guess is best called "film grammar".

Welles did a similar thing with things like deep focus, using different camera angles (eg. filming an overpowering figure with a low camera facing upwards so that he is literally towering over you on film), showing the ceilings in rooms etc. This had all been done before, but Welles brought it altogether and managed to add meaning to it and coherence. But Kane is considered a work of genius for more than that - it is a very unconventional film with regards to narrative. We are used to films that play with chronology within the narrative now, but at the time Kane was made it was relatively new. Kane isn't just told in flashback, the flashbacks aren't even in order. I don't remember Kane specifically, but what I mean is a film starts in 1940, flashes back to 1920, back to 1940, and then back to 1910, so further back than the first flashback.

I like Kane very much, but I don't think it's an easy film to like unless you can wallow is Welles's playfulness with the camera and with cinema, and to some degrees you have to be familiar with how cinema works in order to appreciate that. There is a story, probably not true, that Welles had no idea what he was doing and so read books on the various shots and style of film and just used them all in Kane. He certainly is a bit like a kid with a room full of new toys and not quite knowing which one to play with first.

It has to be said that many people are put off Kane due to the relatively lengthy fake newsreel which kicks it off. By the time it finishes, many viewers have got bored and then never really get back into the film. I like the newsreel, but I think it probably goes on too long.

I love it. One of my favorite films ever, and no, I don't find this one boring. I just watched it on amazon instant video not long ago. Yes, it is very "recognized" as a great film, so a lot of people either hold that against it, or they expect "more," but don't know "what more" they expect, exactly. Sometimes such high-flying ambition fails, but in this film, it succeeds.

As for "most boring," that's very difficult, as the list is pretty endless: most of the films they used to "force" you to watch on the airlines (without choice) were boring - too long a list.

So: Harum Scarum. There you go.

rjm

The only thing Welles did that I consider outstanding was Something Evil (made in 1958). It was a good mix of directing, top notch casting, being filmed in B/W , and a great opening 5 minutes sequence that set the tone. Citizen Kane is as boring as sh.t. Tried watching it a few times and I just don't see what's so good about it.

Last edited by Robt on Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Most people have never seen 2001 in the cinema.
I saw it when it came out, on a screen which seemed to me at the age of seven, to be the size of a football field.
I didn't understand it, but I thought it was fantastic even at such a young age.
It was a real spectacle.

I've watched it since then on TV, where you're pretty much forced to judge it on its storyline alone, and I quite agree - it sucks.
But back in 1968 in a Newcastle cinema, it was amazing.

I thought it was pretty good, too !

When it was re-released in the UK, in the seventies, I took my two children [6 & 8] to see it & they were enthralled !

Lord Of The Rings for sure!

The Blairwitch Project was so boring and overrated as well. Brutal!!

That's kind of true, Colin. The truth is that Welles pretty much did what D W Griffith had done around three decades earlier. In 1910, the cut was known and used, as were long shots, close-ups, tracking shots, the use of the iris etc, and even to some degree parallel editing - what Griffith did was bring everything together and formed what I guess is best called "film grammar".

Welles did a similar thing with things like deep focus, using different camera angles (eg. filming an overpowering figure with a low camera facing upwards so that he is literally towering over you on film), showing the ceilings in rooms etc. This had all been done before, but Welles brought it altogether and managed to add meaning to it and coherence. But Kane is considered a work of genius for more than that - it is a very unconventional film with regards to narrative. We are used to films that play with chronology within the narrative now, but at the time Kane was made it was relatively new. Kane isn't just told in flashback, the flashbacks aren't even in order. I don't remember Kane specifically, but what I mean is a film starts in 1940, flashes back to 1920, back to 1940, and then back to 1910, so further back than the first flashback.

I like Kane very much, but I don't think it's an easy film to like unless you can wallow is Welles's playfulness with the camera and with cinema, and to some degrees you have to be familiar with how cinema works in order to appreciate that. There is a story, probably not true, that Welles had no idea what he was doing and so read books on the various shots and style of film and just used them all in Kane. He certainly is a bit like a kid with a room full of new toys and not quite knowing which one to play with first.

It has to be said that many people are put off Kane due to the relatively lengthy fake newsreel which kicks it off. By the time it finishes, many viewers have got bored and then never really get back into the film. I like the newsreel, but I think it probably goes on too long.

I love it. One of my favorite films ever, and no, I don't find this one boring. I just watched it on amazon instant video not long ago. Yes, it is very "recognized" as a great film, so a lot of people either hold that against it, or they expect "more," but don't know "what more" they expect, exactly. Sometimes such high-flying ambition fails, but in this film, it succeeds.

As for "most boring," that's very difficult, as the list is pretty endless: most of the films they used to "force" you to watch on the airlines (without choice) were boring - too long a list.

So: Harum Scarum. There you go.

rjm

If its One of your favorite films ever ! then why don't you own it on dvd

Boring films...my list : Titanic ( A night to remember 1958) is much better.
2001 (most guys seem to like this film. I found it boring. watched it only once.)
King Kong 1976
Don't look in the basement
2 Elvis films : Harum Scarum & Frankie and Johnny. I try to watch them...but can't get thru either of them!
Family Plot (Hitchcock's last film? not one of his best!)
The Lake House (thought i'd like this one, boy was I wrong!)
Hancock
The Beatles magical Mystery Tour ( my husband wanted me to watch this after I got him the remastered
version..glad it was only 55 minutes. However I did like the songs.)
Head the Monkees only film. I was getting hazy watching this one. and I liked the Monkees tv show
growing up!
I have many more, but this is it for now!

"Life Of Pi"

I never was so close to putting a pistol in my mouth.....

Boring films...my list : Titanic ( A night to remember 1958) is much better.
2001 (most guys seem to like this film. I found it boring. watched it only once.)
King Kong 1976
Don't look in the basement
2 Elvis films : Harum Scarum & Frankie and Johnny. I try to watch them...but can't get thru either of them!
Family Plot (Hitchcock's last film? not one of his best!)
The Lake House (thought i'd like this one, boy was I wrong!)
Hancock
The Beatles magical Mystery Tour ( my husband wanted me to watch this after I got him the remastered
version..glad it was only 55 minutes. However I did like the songs.)
Head the Monkees only film. I was getting hazy watching this one. and I liked the Monkees tv show
growing up!
I have many more, but this is it for now!

I like "Family Plot", but could certainly add the horrendous "Topaz" to the list!

Beast of the southern Wild. Boring as hell, and if that wasn't enough, the unsteady focus and weird angles gave me a headache. Can't believe that it's nominated for an oscar!

Lord Of The Rings films & the hobbit To long & boring.the royal tenenbaums the only movie i have ever walked out the cinema truly awful.seen many a poor movie on tv or dvd,but there is nothing worse than paying good money and looking forward to going to the cinema and you hate the movie.thankfully it does not happen to often.

It took me about four or five attempts to watch The Royal Tenenbaums, just too off beat for me and couldnt get into it...but...when I finaly did watch it through I have to say I loved it, reminds me of a Coen brothers type film, once I got into it I found it most rewarding.

Boring films...just about any horror movie from the last three decades. With very few exceptions.

Lord Of The Rings films & the hobbit To long & boring.the royal tenenbaums the only movie i have ever walked out the cinema truly awful.seen many a poor movie on tv or dvd,but there is nothing worse than paying good money and looking forward to going to the cinema and you hate the movie.thankfully it does not happen to often.

It took me about four or five attempts to watch The Royal Tenenbaums, just too off beat for me and couldnt get into it...but...when I finaly did watch it through I have to say I loved it, reminds me of a Coen brothers type film, once I got into it I found it most rewarding.

1 hour was enough for me ! but fair play to you, but i don't think i have ever sat though a movie i don't like more than once.

"Life Of Pi"

I never was so close to putting a pistol in my mouth.....

Really? What wasn't to like?

I can see where you're coming from Rocknroller, it is an aquired taste and did take some effort but finaly found some gold in there.

I watched Life of Pi tonight and found it a beautiful film. Stunning to look at and a simple but memorable story. An original from an industry running out of ideas.

CHARRO

"Life Of Pi"

I never was so close to putting a pistol in my mouth.....

Really? What wasn't to like?

I agree very well made movie !!!

Re: Life of Pi. I confess I haven't seen it, but I do have a problem with the over-use of CGI. I dont go to the cinema to watch something that looks like a computer game. Yes, obviously CGI has its uses, but it has robbed cinema of its honesty and integrity I think. It seems bizarre that 80 years ago (and less), if a scene required a thousand extras, then it would get a thousand extras. Now it gets a bit of computer work and, to my mind, it isn't the same. It's impressive what can be done, of course. But somewhere along the line the soul was ripped out.

That's kind of true, Colin. The truth is that Welles pretty much did what D W Griffith had done around three decades earlier. In 1910, the cut was known and used, as were long shots, close-ups, tracking shots, the use of the iris etc, and even to some degree parallel editing - what Griffith did was bring everything together and formed what I guess is best called "film grammar".

Welles did a similar thing with things like deep focus, using different camera angles (eg. filming an overpowering figure with a low camera facing upwards so that he is literally towering over you on film), showing the ceilings in rooms etc. This had all been done before, but Welles brought it altogether and managed to add meaning to it and coherence. But Kane is considered a work of genius for more than that - it is a very unconventional film with regards to narrative. We are used to films that play with chronology within the narrative now, but at the time Kane was made it was relatively new. Kane isn't just told in flashback, the flashbacks aren't even in order. I don't remember Kane specifically, but what I mean is a film starts in 1940, flashes back to 1920, back to 1940, and then back to 1910, so further back than the first flashback.

I like Kane very much, but I don't think it's an easy film to like unless you can wallow is Welles's playfulness with the camera and with cinema, and to some degrees you have to be familiar with how cinema works in order to appreciate that. There is a story, probably not true, that Welles had no idea what he was doing and so read books on the various shots and style of film and just used them all in Kane. He certainly is a bit like a kid with a room full of new toys and not quite knowing which one to play with first.

It has to be said that many people are put off Kane due to the relatively lengthy fake newsreel which kicks it off. By the time it finishes, many viewers have got bored and then never really get back into the film. I like the newsreel, but I think it probably goes on too long.

I love it. One of my favorite films ever, and no, I don't find this one boring. I just watched it on amazon instant video not long ago. Yes, it is very "recognized" as a great film, so a lot of people either hold that against it, or they expect "more," but don't know "what more" they expect, exactly. Sometimes such high-flying ambition fails, but in this film, it succeeds.

As for "most boring," that's very difficult, as the list is pretty endless: most of the films they used to "force" you to watch on the airlines (without choice) were boring - too long a list.

So: Harum Scarum. There you go.

rjm

If its One of your favorite films ever ! then why don't you own it on dvd

Good question, and good point. I have the VHS. And I've seen it so many times on television . . . but yeah, you're right.

rjm (as for 2001, it scared the crud out of me when I first saw it as a kid, in the theaters . . . really!)

The Beatles magical Mystery Tour ( my husband wanted me to watch this after I got him the remastered
version..glad it was only 55 minutes. However I did like the songs.)
Head the Monkees only film. I was getting hazy watching this one. and I liked the Monkees tv show
growing up!

I kind of agree on Magical Mystery Tour. It's SO avant garde that it does tend to become difficult to watch. The early scenes with Ringo and his Aunt are the best scenes, and there's some great music. But as a whole,it's pretty strange and not really very entertaining.

HEAD on the other hand - I LOVE that! Strange yes - but entertaining throughout. Far far removed from the TV series (although having said that, some of the later second series episodes were becoming weirder and weirder), that was its intention. But the boys all look terrific, the cast is great, the music just perfect and the direction first class.

And I have to say, the two Soundtrack Albums from these movies - well - I much prefer HEAD, which is a GREAT album and an experience in itself!

Any Adam Sandler movie.