Iconic Movies that Disappoint.

[anotherbob]

That's because you didn't read the book first and don't know all the double meaning and religious connotations In the movie. If you want to try a cult classic try boondocks saints. Bet you will watch it again. And again.

and someone mentioned a movie I felt highly disappointed in. I thought Boondock Saints was one of the worst movies I've seen. The Godfather was another one. I liked bits of it but felt like it overly fetishized the subject too much.

 

[Green Hill piper]

The violence is a unfortunate byproduct. The point is to remain strong against evil and have constant faith. Most people see it as a glorification of vigilantism but that is secondary to the message.

 

[Green Hill piper]

Sorry to sound preachy but I love symbolism, it fascinates me to try and find the hidden ( sometimes) message.

 

[crusader]

I must be a smooth brain as I love just about every movie and actor that's been mentioned.
I especially love the King universe.
My favorite book to film is, "The Body" = "Stand by Me". Even have the poster hung up in my media room.

I myself try not to watch a movie with a critics eye, just the question, am I enjoying the story.

 

[jbfrady]

Have you ever watched cult-status movies and been left wondered what all the fuss was about?

Last night I watched The Shining for the first time. How I've managed to miss this film all these years I've no idea, but it was on terrestrial TV and bigged up in the reviews as you'd expect so I settled down and gave it a go and I'm afraid to say I found the whole thing distinctly meh..

It's a pretty conventional isolation movie where the characters are trapped in a situation they can't escape and begin to turn on each other. But I found it completely devoid of dramatic tension. The scenario is more or less spelled out right at the beginning when the black guy who is the hotel chef explains to the kid what the "Shining" means and relates the tale of a previous caretaker who went mad at the hotel and massacred his family. That same character then vanishes from the narrative, only to reappear at the end to get murdered. You can see the story unfolding a mile off with no twists or surprises and the viewer feels no particular empathy with any one character, except possibly the poor wife, but she isn't driving the narrative.

There were lots of threads that were picked up and then dropped again. The chef who seems to know what is likely to happen but does nothing about it except to tell the kid a creepy story. The ghostly twins who keep popping up for no real purpose. The woman in the bath in room 237. The repeated maze scene. Jack's book consisting of a single endlessly repeating sentence the reason for which and his growing antipathy towards his family goes unexplored.

There were lots of arty motifs, like the repeated following shot of the kid driving round empty corridors in his pedal car, which added nothing to the story except to remind us that the place is deserted. I didn't find it in the least creepy or particularly atmospheric, just predictable.

The only tension came from Jack Nicholson's performance with his seamless slow-motion portrayal of developing madness.

Did I miss something here?
Anyone else similarly underwhelmed by a cult movie?

Agreed down the line. Stephen King hated that flick for a reason.

 

[Green Hill piper]

You must be a young fella.

 

[Gimlet]

I finally got around to watching the six LOTR movies. I want that time back.

I enjoyed the first one in the cinema when they were a novelty but they rapidly became twee and repetitive after that.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Is someone brave enough to define what an iconic movie is to him?

A number of mentions don't seem at all "iconic" to me, but, then diff folks, diff strokes.

 

[dcon]

I definitely agree with the “different strokes for different folks”. I just want to say, since multiple people are shitting on it, that , I believe Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made. For me, it is not even close

 

[Kobold]

Is someone brave enough to define what an iconic movie is to him?

A number of mentions don't seem at all "iconic" to me, but, then diff folks, diff strokes.

To me an iconic movie is a movie that is critically acclaimed and pretty much well regarded by most people. So much so that when you tell someone you haven’t seen that iconic movie they don’t believe you and plead with you to watch it as soon as you can.

 

[jpmcwjr]

That works! Thanks.

 

[warren]

For me, an "iconic" movie is one I can watch over the years, enjoy and, often it seemss, see or hear something I've missed over the years. Eyes perhaps. A facial reaction is another. Perhaps even, a nod to you all know who, a hand-crafted back ground.

Critics opinions are meaningless for me. It's all about my eyes, my perceptions. Other's views? Simply meaningless. I do movies simply for the entertainment. Directors', writers. and sometimes, actor/actress interpretations are of interest. But, East Coast and Hollywood critics? Meaningless! Useless in my opinion. My tastes in entertainment do not seem to much parallel any media critic

 

[jbfrady]

To me an iconic movie is a movie that is critically acclaimed and pretty much well regarded by most people. So much so that when you tell someone you haven’t seen that iconic movie they don’t believe you and plead with you to watch it as soon as you can.

I wholeheartedly endorse that definition. In my opinion...

Good iconics: Shawshank, Forest Gump, Braveheart, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Bad iconics: The Exorcist, A Quiet Place, any comic book flick post-Dark Knight, Pan's Labyrinth

 

[Gimlet]

Kings books rarely mean what they mean at face value. As a constant reader I have found that he has a Very close relationship between good and bad, spirituality, morality

In my honest opinion the book is always better than the movie. A movie is just someone else's visual interpretation of the story and often times will leave the essence of the story behind for the pursuit of entertainment. I have never seen a king movie that did the book justice except for the new IT and even then a lot was lost in translation. Also on that note Peter Jackson blew my imagination away with the trilogy. But again, art is subjective so I believe that we can enjoy using our imagination first, forming our own individual concepts on what the characters look like or what the setting looks like and then look at someone else's and a lot of the times I have found that it allows you to reread the text and enjoy it more . Again just me. Also I have found that older movies have a much slower pace than this crap they are making today and rely on story and acting instead of fast paced scenes and flashing light special effects. Unfortunately people born from 2000 up are bored quickly because the brains are rotted from the Internet.

I love a good ghost film. Not Hollywood monster/vampire/boogie man slasher films which I find ludicrous, invariably like something out of a comic strip, but properly creepy supernatural films where less is more. The Blair Witch Project being a case in point.
A credible and genuinely unsettling ghost story must be one of the most difficult genres to write well and equally difficult to film. My current favourite ghost film is probably the 2012 remake of The Woman in Black. That was taken from Susan Hill's 1980's novella and I would consider her a children's writer but the film takes it beyond the realm of children's fiction while staying faithful to the original story line.

If anything, the film ramps up the tension to higher levels than the book, the key to it being that the main character has no idea what he is getting himself into and the film manages to impart the same sense of dawning dread in the viewer despite the fact that we know more than the character does because it's a film and we've read the back story. Suspension of disbelief handled adroitly. And the way they treat the phantom and recreate the oppressive atmosphere inside the old house is exemplary. The jump-scares are predictable (though highly effective..) but altogether it's a genuinely and extremely creepy watch while remaining a slightly tongue-in-cheek period romp at the same time.

I could fill a page with failed ghost films that are just risible but, for that reason, few of them would count as iconic. I think some of the best ghost films are Japanese, maybe because culturally the Japanese take the supernatural very seriously. The Grudge is a good one.

 

[Buckeyestime]

I guess they may qualify for modern iconic (if that is not a contradiction), but I just don‘t get the attraction to Pulp Fiction or The Fight Club. My college age sons both enjoy them, but the movies kind of bore me.

Now Shawshank Redemption, Rocky, Forest Gump, I can watch over and over.

 

[Gimlet]

Is someone brave enough to define what an iconic movie is to him?

A number of mentions don't seem at all "iconic" to me, but, then diff folks, diff strokes.

That's just it. Iconic status is derived from reputation and critical acclaim. It's iconic because other people, namely critics who set themselves up as authorities, say it is and the rest of us are supposed to agree. When we don't we get Emperor's new clothes syndrome.

 

[SBC]

Is someone brave enough to define what an iconic movie is to him?

A number of mentions don't seem at all "iconic" to me, but, then diff folks, diff strokes.

I suppose that "iconic" originally meant worthy of the veneration which a religious icon is worthy of. Not all religious images meet the criteria for official sanctioned veneration -- those that do are icons.

But one of the things that sets an official religious icon apart from other religious art is that it is known by the masses. Not just by a private individual or two. A high proportion of the icons in, just for instance, Eastern Orthodoxy (I'm not EO myself), are prints of the same icon. The icons you know in your parish are the icons you'll find in any other parish (mostly).

I think that this is much closer to the point of what we mean by "iconic": the thing's function as a locus of broad communal cohesion.

An "iconic" film is one which so many people know (whether or not they like it) that it can serve as a bit of cultural currency. You can quote a line from it, and others will know the reference. You can communicate with others in your society by means of that film.

If I'm right about this, then I don't guess it much matters whether or not it's actually a good film, or whether or not you like it -- I just matters whether it is widely (and maybe deeply) known enough to help create an "us."

 

[warren]

"Iconic" is a subjective word. What do you feel is worthy of "veneration?" All sorts of individuals, associations, critics and such make lists of "iconic" movies, books, music and etc. If you buy into someone's list ... Well, your choice. But, it stills boils down to what you choose to venerate. Or, you can simply accept the subjective reasoning of someone you respect select your icons. Or, as many do, someone they have knowledge of does the "heavy" lifting, which makes it easy.

I decide what is iconic in my little world be it pistols, movies, automobiles, pipes and etc. and "screw" the rest of the world.

 

[Alejo R.]

I usually say: you're lazier than Rocky's brother-in-law. and everyone understands it because the movie is iconic.

 

[telescopes]

I watched Casablanca in a bar in Casablanca called Rick's Cafe that looked exactly like the movie set.