Ah, fresh meat for the grinder
What you fail to realize is that film, and the world for that matter, did not being the moment you were born. Most critics are fairly older than you are, there's a certain nostalgia and value that go along with these films that you are not privy too. Also what you fail to realize most classics, at least according to the AFI list, also take into account the impact it's had on film, not just as how well it stands today. For example Citizen Kane employed a number of cinematic techiques that are conisidered standard today, that back then were not such as coated lenses. Also another bit you seem not privy to is that acting is an art and like all art it goes through phrases. In the beginning of film it was overly dramatic and was based on facial expressions, most obviously due to the fact that the first films were silent films. After that period in the early part of the talkies, films were very dramatic much resembling it's theater counter-part, as well as films going through a period of showing a more idealized household and situations, as time goes on, and we shift to the now, it becomes more "real"(and I use this term hesitantly since it a very misleading term" and less dramatic. Who knows where acting as an art will go in the next 20-30 years, and what the kids of tommorrow will say of our films. Also another point to bring up is that you grew up with film and that many of the things you take for granted could not be done some time ago. For example, let's take the quick cut, of someone being in one place and then cutting to them being at another place, we're so use to film, that we immediately realize they must have walked from one place to another. But the original film-makers would have to show all this action so people will understand what's happening, people would not have been able to process a film with the amount of cuts they have today, this has been a hundred year process. So please keep this in mind when judging these "older" films. Also keep
Again, you been spoiled by video games and MTV, that your mind can barely sit still to take in the wonderful imagery and tension that John Frankenheimer is setting up. The original Manchurian Canidate is about fear, control, and paranoia, how does one convey those properly outside of making a slow film since these are slow-acting things? Personally I think the brainwashing scenes are perhaps some of hte coolest scenes committed to celluloids, especially with the old ladies
First off you have to enjoy satire to appriciate this film as well as understand the context of the film, if you know nothing of the cold war, then you'll not find this funny, how could you? As for dragging, my god it's such a funny and awesome film, every bit leads to a bigger bit and eventually the end. I'm going chalk this up to your ignorance on the subject.
Again your ignorance on the subject, go to my first response...
The film is hollow as can be however if you can't see the significance of the first hollywood special effects bonaza, then you got bigger problems. Also did it ever occur to you that King Kong isn't shakespeare? People see king Kong to see a big ape, not to sit through 3 hours of pretencious story telling.
I think your just an ignorant little kid who knows nothing about film
However, if you are just 14 or 15 years old then that's fine before highschool or mayber earlier I don't remember I use to hate anything made before the 80s for those exact same reasons. Eventually and hopefully, you'll grow up and realize why these films are good. However that doesn't mean you have to like them, on the contrary everyone has there opinion. I personally agree King Kong (1933) has a terrible story and is ridiculously hollow but that's the point. I also can't get into Taxi Driver, however I Can see why it's considered a great film. There comes a time when I wish people would realize just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's bad, it's just not your cup of tea.
?
