I actually saw it on the screen in a Sunday afternoon and again on DVD on a Sunday afternoon and I didn't think he took too much time wrapping it up. Now maybe starting the film at 9:00 PM and after a few glasses of wine I might flake out on it. It's a very serious film and just wouldn't have the impact on a small screen. It think that is a big factor with many films. Malick uses the wide screen to the antithesis of the medium. Pan-and-scan the images with second-rate sound and it can be virtually lost. The same thing happens with "2001" -- it's not designed nor meant to be viewed shrunk down in scale. We've gone over that point time-and-again but I can't help feeling that some don't get it. They perhaps rent a DVD for viewing after dinner and on a small screen TV with two tinny speakers (or maybe one?), and expecting it to hold their interest. Malick may not be communicating with them but to make matters work, they are viewing and listening to the cinematic work of art under poor circumstances.
Chai Tea wrote:This is an older movie, but "Reds"
I went to see it when it came out in 1981, and sat there with with my girlfriend, and we just about died of boredom.
I know it was in 1981 because it was on TV a couple nights ago.
I thought, maybe I just didn't understand it back then.
I watched for 5 minutes and wanted to slit my wrists.
I remember too...it had such great reviews. Yes, boring, boring, boring.
"Reds" was marred by those infernal interviews with famous people who knew that real characters depicted in the film. As far as the story of the Russian Revolution, I like the film and don't find it boring. It's a fascinating cross-section of history that prompted me to read the book "Ten Days That Shook the World" on whose author John Reed the biographical "Reds" was about. I think it might be those who are just plain bored by history who don't like these films.
I thought 'Reds' was one of Warren Beatty's better efforts. I agree, LW -- the people who didn't like it tend to be people who don't care for historically accurate films.
Not so much, not caring about historically accurate films, but not much caring for Warren Beatty.
'The Hulk'...man that was soooo boring that I kept nodding off.
reds
Light Wizard and Merry Andrew - - - - -
Reds was a fabulous movie and anything but boring. Just a little long -
Sglass
I can't quite process not liking Warren Beatty, therefore his movie was boring.
As I stated, the interviews were overdone and interrupted the flow of the epic narrative. I found the build up to Reed's actual involvement with the revolution and the shots of what happened (the depiction of Lenin, though brief, was inspired). It was one of the few historical films that stuck to the record. Reed was indeed a fascinating man and if anyone on these boards could claim the complexity and accomplishments of his life, I'd be astonished.
Lightwizard,
Good point earlier about seeing movies on a tv screen. I saw "2001" in 1967 when it just opened. At the time, the theater where I saw it showed it in "Cinerama". It was my most unforgettable movie experience.
I also saws a re-release on the newly installed Cinerama screen at the Hollywood Cinedome. Also saw "Deliverance" and "Fantasia" adapted to wide screen there. What an experience!
In "2001," the opening shots of the primeval desert were breathtaking and the final abstract trip through the universe amazing.
As far as "The Thin Red Line," the scale of the big screen reveals the individual characters against the lush jungle background as lost in a human dilemma that is profound and sorrowful.
Lightwizard we should reserve good cinema for the good cinema threads. This thread is about mind-numbing boringness such as the 1975 Stanley Kubrick sleeper (literally) "Barry Lyndon". I guess even geniuses suck once in a while. "Eyes Wide Shut" has already been mentioned.
Sometimes people respond to why they thought a boring movie was actually good. I liked "Barry Lyndon" because it was like watching classic literature come to life. The long presentation covered the entire story. Some movies, on the other hand, seem like a "Readers Digest" version.
"Barry Lyndon" is gorgeous to watch and the original Thackery novel is sprawling and epic which could easily bore a reader who want's all action in their novels. Paulene Kael did call the movie a "moving coffee table book," and I didn't buy Ryan O'Neal in the lead role for the most part. I don't believe the movie "sucks" and it also must be seen on a big screen (it was originally Super Panavision). The confrontation between Barry and his Son was the highlight of the film. Just the scenes that were filmed with only candlelight (due to a new lense partly invented by Kubrick and for which he won his only Oscar) are worth watching the fillm. It was just on hi def TV on INHD and it is still sumptuous and involving if one can give it the time.
"Eyes Wide Shut" I didn' t appreciate until I saw it for the third time. Again, Tom Cruise didn't convince me he was a doctor but that's because of personality identification. On the third viewing, I deciphered the nuances of Kubrick's storytelling and rather like the movie now. The atmosphere of the film has depth and substance. It's also one not to try and watch when one is sleepy or under the influence.
All that state, I can understand why some would be bored with those two films as well as being bored by "2001." Kubrick made movies with messages and that is normally the bane of a successful film. He never had a genuine blockbuster except that "2001" after many theatrical re-releases has achieved very good commercial status.
Actually, one has to define boring. Is the movie boring or am I boring?
The boringest movies are acted out by George Clooney. Everytime I see him in a movie I will think the move as being extremely dull, because George is so dull. To name the boringest movie ever seen by me, I would say without a doubt the series of OCEANS 11/12. The cast consisted of so many A grade moviestars, most of which have already had their time and are due for retirement out of the film industry very very soon. The plot was so simple and lacked so much originality it made me scorn.
Lost in Translation, Hotel New Hampshire[/color]
Oh ****, I forgot to add that Bill Murray movie, Broken Flowers. OH MY GOD WHAT A PIECE OF ****.
I have to agree that "Eyes Wide Shut" was high on the list of most boring movies. I watched the first 45 minutes or so and turned it off.
I also struggled with "The English Patient". I've seen it a couple times and it was boring both times.
If it was boring the first time why see it again?
I don't live alone. Others sometimes get to choose. I have the choice of joining them in watching their choice or not. Sometimes, in the interest of family harmony, I watch something I wouldn't otherwise choose. Most often I come here and leave the movie watching to others.
I thought 'Virgin Suicides' was pretty and moody and utterly boring. I don't mind 'Lost in Translation' so much, but I was living in Tokyo at the time, and I'm sure that altered my perception somewhat.
I once had to watch the film, 'Matewan' for a class. Has anyone seen it? I literally fell asleep. So slow. So silent. Such a good nap.
