Are there any patrician-tier films that are actually entertaining?

Are there any patrician-tier films that are actually entertaining?

I understand the artistic accomplishment but this shit just ain't enjoyable.

Once Upon A Time In The West

Still the best

Django Unchained unironically

i thought the seventh seal was going to be a stuck-up pretentious borefest but found it to be a pretty entertaining dark comedy

like the movie is actually pretty funny and interesting, if you weren't entertained maybe you just suck

99% of westerns are entertaining

Ex Machina, yes Ex Machina. The movie isn't just about sexbot slaves but it analyses and discuss deep philosophy like the natural sexual orientation of humans. It also talks about some good AI theory. Nathan is overall a based guy.

12 angry men
paris, texas
in the mood for love
spring breakers

I'm seconding the Spoiler

>>paris, texas
>entertaining

mat

They were too open with the ending, felt like discount Coen Bros.

Also, if I'd never seen it before I'd watch it just for Oscar Issac.

Citizen Kane and The Third Man are both very good.

that film is great visually but everything else is garbage. It's high school grade philosophy

Dirty Harry is actually really entertaining.

If you aren't entertained then you likely didn't get the movies. I'm guessing you're trying too hard to see 'beyond the mere image' and missing the actual movie that happens in front of your eyes. Alternatively, the old classics aren't all that good and you've fallen for the critical consensus meme.

>tfw ayylium gets instakilled right away
I was totally not expecting that to happen, it hit me pretty hard for some reason

>this shit just ain't enjoyable
You're kinda missing the point there. The fun in watching art films usually comes from using your brain to think.
If you wanna get into actually enjoying good-ass films you gotta ease yourself in, don't just jump to the high level shit.

Nothing by those mid twentieth-century European auteurs is entertaining in the traditional sense, they are films for people who enjoy feeling smart and nothing else.

If you want something both artistic and entertaining I recommend Mario Bava

Everything Kurosawa is cool as fuck. You start to realize where a lot of modern day style comes from in both film and anime.

>Watching films to be entertained
This is not the patrician way my friend

Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)
La Règle du jeu (Renoir, 1939)
Bronenosets Potyomkin (Eisenstein, 1925)
Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958)
Otto e mezzo (Fellini, 1963)
The Godfather (Coppola, 1972)
The Godfather Part II (Coppola, 1974)
La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (Dreyer, 1928)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick, 1968)
L'Avventura (Antonioni, 1960)
Ladri di biciclette (De Sica, 1948)
Tôkyô monogatari (Ozu, 1953)
Shichinin no samurai (Kurosawa, 1954)
The Searchers (Ford, 1956)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (Murnau, 1927)
City Lights (Chaplin, 1931)
L'Atalante (Vigo, 1934)
Singin' in the Rain (Donen & Kelly, 1952)
The General (Keaton & Bruckman, 1926)
Greed (von Stroheim, 1924)
La Grande illusion (Renoir, 1937)
The Gold Rush (Chaplin, 1925)
Ugetsu monogatari (Mizoguchi, 1953)
Rashômon (Kurosawa, 1950)
Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980)
Ivan Groznyy I (Eisenstein, 1944)
Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky zagovor (Eisenstein, 1946)
Pather Panchali (Ray, 1955)
The Magnificent Ambersons (Welles, 1942)
Andrey Rublyov (Tarkovsky, 1966)
Touch of Evil (Welles, 1958)
La Dolce vita (Fellini, 1960)
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (Griffith, 1916)
Jules et Jim (Truffaut, 1962)
Smultronstället (Bergman, 1957)
Lawrence of Arabia (Lean, 1962)
À bout de souffle (Godard, 1960)
The Third Man (Reed, 1949)
Les Enfants du paradis (Carné, 1945)
Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais, 1959)
Monsieur Verdoux (Chaplin, 1947)
Pierrot le fou (Godard, 1965)
Some Like it Hot (Wilder, 1959)
Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)
Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952)
Persona (Bergman, 1966)
Zerkalo (Tarkovsky, 1975)
La Strada (Fellini, 1954)
Fanny och Alexander (Bergman, 1982)

Fuck off nerd

Stalker
Solaris (197x)

films were breads and circuses for the masses from the very beginning. It's only intellectual snobs who started making pretentious drivel later on that made anyone think differently

Films should be entertainment, first and foremost. If I want to think I'll read a book

All of them you fucking autistic plebs!

the artistry is in how it uses imagery and metaphor to dig into your fucking soul to resonate with the quintessential essence of human experience.

Arthouse films aren't meant to be analysed. It's art not 'essay'.
It's meant to be FELT not THOUGHT.

It's not about
>muh longtake and passage of time

It's about the micro-gestures on the actor's face, the change in emotions of the character and how that's been influenced by the plot. it's about you and the filmmaker together taking an interest in other human beings and the fraternity of mankind.

except for battleship potemkin obvs. That sucked a cheetah's dick and swallowd.

>reading the paper jew

The filmmakers had to actively think in order to make the movies, though. They're products of thought. It's futile to try to deny this.

That's irrelevant. Process is not reception or reaction.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, UE of course.

Lol, just admit that it was 2deep4u

A film that sucks to watch is not a good film. There are films that can accomplish both simultaneously. Seventh Seal is not one of them.

I prefer post-patricianism myself.

All I felt while watching Citizen Kane was boredom. All I thought was "this is the most overrated movie ever".

Seventh Seal an absolute shit.

12 angry men, seven samurai... citizen kane?

To be honest I don't like Citizen Kane that much either. I do like that quip he makes about intending to lose a million dollars a year until he closes in 50 years time. And some of the camera shots are cool.
But congratulations, you weren't swayed by popular opinion into pretending to like something.

...

ZZZzzzz...

Le samurai and tokyo drifter are 2 pretty entertaining low level patrician films

come on, all of these were very entertaining.

is battle royale patrician?
was entertaining as fuck

>entertainment

Different folks bla bla. I get a hard on from things such as brilliant camera work, beautifully lit scenes, godlike acting, plotless films that rely solely on mood and atmosphere etc.

Stop disliking what I like, hater.

Not patrician

The members of the media and all of the big film groups that decide what a classic film is are of a different generation. You have to keep that in mind.

Someday the ones who grew up in the 90s will be the one running AFI or something like it, then suddenly completely different movies will be on those "all time great" lists.

Also you can have a film make it on a list for completely different reasons than another and just because it's there doesn't mean it's there for everyone. If you don't like fantasy and a fantasy movie is seen as much of classic as one of your favorite dramas, then yeah it's not going to make as much sense.

It's all real subjective anyway, don't let the troll usage of the word "objective" fool you.

Battle Royale is that weird one that gets plastered with "fedora sperglord! Topkek!!" when it's brought up, but to be honest it's about entitled little shits being shown the real world and about life not being fair.

Pretty anti-fedora really.

>it's about entitled little shits being shown the real world and about life not being fair.
what the fuck movie did you watch? because it wasnt bataru royaru

>It's all real subjective anyway, don't let the troll usage of the word "objective" fool you.
But... but.. how will I make up for my own insecurities if I can't attack people for liking different things to me.

But seriously, you've hit the nail on the head there.

Nice naughts.
and ur description of the plot has piqued my interest

That's not true at all. Saying that something "sucks to watch" is a matter of subjectivity. By that logic you could say that the films of let's say, Tarkovsky, Akerman, Bela Tarr, Victor Erice suck to watch because they're so slow, but provided you have patience, an open mind and the will to think about what you're watching, or at least try to understand what it's trying to make you feel, then you'll be able to understand and find enjoyment in movies that "suck to watch" for the mainstream movie goer.
Personally I'm not a huge fan of The Seventh Seal, but it is a masterpiece, and it's pretty enjoyable to watch.

A movie about a school full of kids who skip class and abuse their teacher because they dont care. They represent an entire generation of Japanese children who got to enjoy a economical and cultural boom in Japan and take it for granted because they know nothing about nuclear war.

So the last generation instead makes them all murder each other for sport and entertainment to be taught a lesson that not to long ago that things were fucked.

Not him but, when it comes to those kinds of filmmakers how much of the experience comes from the learning and formal understanding of the stylistic hallmarks and conventions of that style of film-making. And how much of it do you think is a matter of personal experience, in the film reflecting something in your own life or memory?

To use an analogy, you don't need to have heard Tango music to like the "vibe" of it, you don't need to have previous experience with hard core punk to vibe the energy of it. It's innate: how much do you think that is correlative to cinema?

I'd say that understanding what makes something good has the bigger role or importance of the 2. Of course, it doesn't have to be academic, but rather more about open-mindedness and the way one appreciates things in general, or art in this case. Someone who only watches action movies in theaters with their girlfriends is very likely to have an inherent bias against art films because they're not used to those kinds of experiences. I'm not talking about a "2smart4u" kind of philosophy here, though. I believe that almost anyone can get to appreciate those kinds of films as long as they're interested enough in the matter. That's why in my first post I said that if you'd like to get into this you should go easy at first. It wasn't patronizing, but rather advice to help change your view on the subject, because a lot of people tend to go into films with a "c'mon, impress me" kind of passive attitude, and that's a pity, since you can get much more even out of a mediocre film, if you actively invest yourself in it.
You have to "learn" how to value a good shot and understand why it's impressive, to respect originality even if it doesn't make a perfect film in the end, to accept unique ways of filmmaking even if it throws out the window everything you've known to be the correct way of doing something until then, and so on.
As for the argument about personal experiences, while it does usually leave a bigger impression on a personal level, I don't think relatability is innately a mark of quality. For example there's plenty of unlikable and despicable characters in films,books etc that are fully worthy of appreciation because of their complexity, impressive arcs, uniqueness and so on.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

holy shit

>Tarkovsky, Akerman, Bela Tarr, Victor Erice suck to watch because they're so slow
lol no.

Jesus Christ. They're full of beautiful, experimental directing most of the time. They are not slow nor do they suck.

If you think a film fucking sucks it fucking sucks and it is bad (in your opinion)

You are just a pussy to say something from Tarr to suck and are a beta

Seventh Seal was pretty dank journey, honestly reminded me of the Witcher at parts.

I watched Citizen Kane for the first time and it was amazing. The earlier scene are energetic and furious, full of life and the later parts are slow, tiresome (not saying I was bored, but the directing reflected these things extremely well) and there was lots of inpisred cinematography/directing and Welles was fucking amazing innit

>I watched Citizen Kane for the first time
few weeks ago*

forgot taht from the sentence

I'd consider a film that wont emotionally do anything to me a bad, failed film or a film that just wasn't in my wavelength.

La Dolce Vita is absolutely the pinacle of 'I tried arthouse and I gave up'...it's terrific, but apart from the beginning it is intended by Fellini as a chore to watch.
La Regle du Jeu...yeah, give a pleb suggestions for an entire movie that is a meta narrative.

You should probably read the posts you're going to reply to more carefully because I said the exact opposite of that. Of course they're great.
I was giving an example to the other user who talked about movies that "suck to watch". To many, a slow film means a bad film, and that's obviously a very dumb and wrong thing.
And yes, those directors do make slow movies, but that doesn't make them bad. In fact it works perfectly well with their subject matters and themes.

That's a pretty shallow way to look at things, but then again if you're happy with that, then it's okay. It's just that you could get more enjoyment out of movies if you were more open about it. Being overly cynical is terrible, because then you go into movies with a somewhat negative state of mind by default, and with the idea that the film has to "win you over", which of course detracts from the enjoyment you can get out of it.
Also see

Arthouse films are just not for you.

If you only watch stuff because it's entertaining, I'm sorry, you are simply dumb.

>That's a pretty shallow way to look at things
I am not a film historian or a film school student that has to deconstruct the film and mise-en-scene to nuts and bolts. If it simply doesn't cause anything emotional to me, I won't bother pretending to like it. I can say it is fine in technical level (8 1/2, LDV) but I wont pretend that I liked it.

And I'm extremely open about films. My statement doesn't make me narrow minded.

>win you over.
I literally do not think about things like these when I watch films. Best described, on first watch, I let the film 'wash over me'

This.

It's like all the humor went right over OPs pleb head. Shocker.

Meta commentary or no, Rules of the Game is one of the tightest, punchiest, most entertaining film ever. Everyone should see it

Meta commentary or no, Rules of the Game is one of the tightest, punchiest, most entertaining film ever. Everyone should see it

Yes, but what if they don't 'get it', can you even imagine what the experience is like?...to just see it as a movie?

How the hell is the Seventh Seal boring?

Criterion fucked up English subtitles and now most non-Swedes miss dank jokes

What other noir films are good with beautiful cinematography? I watched I wake up screaming and while it's entertaining, I thought it had really great shots

Alternative list of entertaining, accessable arthouse:

Marketa Lazarová - František Vláčil
The Face of Another - Hiroshi Teshigahara
Don't Deliver Us from Evil - Joël Séria
Of Freaks and Men - Aleksey Balabanov
Die Nibelungen: Siegfried - Fritz Lang
Black God, White Devil - Glauber Rocha
Culloden - Peter Watkins
Satyricon - Federico Fellini
Blind Beast - Yasuzo Masumura

Why would you list a bunch of boring movies for someone looking for movies that aren't boring

Just by the fact that you're talking about film school students and the idea of pretending to like things I see you are in fact pretty biased about it. Anyone can be able to enjoy art films whether they're taught it in school or not. You just have to interested in it enough.
Also if you think you're open minded, then boy, you have no idea. Judging a movie based on certain preset criteria of your own, be it good action scenes, a good laugh or in your case, an emotional connection, is by itself a mark of narrow mindedness.

Again, I'm not telling you how to live your life. As long as you're content with it and don't want more, then it's fine. A lot of people just want to watch movies for fun, or they don't have time for fancy ass shit. I'm not gonna be an asshole and go against the majority. All I'm saying is that there's more to it, and if you think you're super unbiased and neutral about expectations and outcome, then you're wrong. But that's ok.

ITT

>Just by the fact that you're talking about film school students
Was posting that to say I don't find anything interesting in technical proficiency because my job is not to deconstruct them in my mind.

>the idea of pretending to like things
Was posting to say I am not pretentious.

>I see you are in fact pretty biased about it
Everyone is biased, where did I say aI am not biased?

>Judging a movie based on certain preset criteria of your own,
You judge if you should like a film based on if its in TSPDT list or S&S director list? That's pretentious.

>emotional connection is only a good laugh
strawman.

>. All I'm saying is that there's more to it
Sure if you are interested in technicalities or history. I am not.

>and if you think you're super unbiased and neutral about expectations and outcome, then you're wrong.
I never literally said this so this must mean you are projecting.

I don't agree with people calling others dumb just because they don't enjoy a certain kind of movie that deviates from standard movie narrative delivery in order to speak more genuinely to an audience. People who enjoy those movies have to actually like film and understand cinema is not limited to cookie-cutter Hollywood conventional packaging.
In the end though, shitting on something you don't like is a sign of complete childishness. You have to be pretty entitled to think some director has just made a movie with the sole purpose of pissing you off.

>Everyone is biased, where did I say aI am not biased?
>I never literally said this so this must mean you are projecting.

>"And I'm extremely open about films. My statement doesn't make me narrow minded."


>You judge if you should like a film based on if its in TSPDT list or S&S director list? That's pretentious.
I'll reword it then, because apparently you somehow got exactly the opposite of what I meant. ANY influence, whether from inside (like expectations or personal "sweet spots" for what makes a film enjoyable, such as an emotional reaction or attachment) or from the outside (like film critics, reviews, etc) means bias. Sure, not everyone can go in a movie blind, but they should learn to judge it fairly no matter what they heard beforehand, and preferably give it a chance and try to appreciate it even though it doesn't meett their personal criteria of an enjoyable movie. Because it might actually be good, and that way you'll lean to value more things, broaden your taste, and thus get more enjoyment out of movies in general.

>Sure if you are interested in technicalities or history. I am not.
That's perfectly understandable and okay. I don't even know why you're so into this discussion then, if you don't care about this kind of stuff.

>ANY influence, whether from inside (like expectations or personal "sweet spots" for what makes a film enjoyable, such as an emotional reaction or attachment) or from the outside (like film critics, reviews, etc) means bias
Where have I denied this? I fully admit I only care about films that do something to me on an emotional level you dimwit.

>preferably give it a chance and try to appreciate it even though it doesn't meett their personal criteria of an enjoyable movie
I can always give credit for technical skill but that doesn't make me like the film if it won't do anything on a deeper level to me.

>Why you are into this discussion
Because someone equated good film = 'think with ur brain' which is opposite of how I value films. It's like some mathematical equation to that poster which is pretty sad I find.
>The fun in watching art films usually comes from using your brain to think.

Patrician-tier films are entertaining. What they often are not, however, is exciting. Great art often takes a degree of patience which isn't required for conventional Hollywood films.

Why limit yourself to films that focus on emotion? Intellect is just as important.

I don't focus on films that focus on emotion.
I just said I don't really care about films that don't do anything to me emotionally, make me feel things. How could I guess this beforehand? It's just something I feel during the film, obviously.

It's a great movie, and you should go back to re-watching your Transformers collection.

czech comedy is patrician

>I'd consider a film that wont emotionally do anything to me a bad, failed film or a film that just wasn't in my wavelength.
> but that doesn't make me like the film if it won't do anything on a deeper level to me.
>And I'm extremely open about films. My statement doesn't make me narrow minded.
See, that doesn't really add up. You contradict yourself.

As for the thing I said about "using your brain to think", I stand by it. While I like it when I connect with films on an emotional level, there's even more satisfaction in movies that make you think, not necessarily about complex stuff, but also the meaning of certain things within the movie, a message or feeling that the director is trying to convey through specific images, hidden subtexts, references and so on. You're missing on a lot if you just watch movies so passively. It's not about analyzing cryptic symbols or using "all dat vast film theory knowledge" and pretentiously nitpicking every frame for hidden meaning. It's just fun.
And nobody said you can't analyze simple, straight-forward mainstream movies too. Even if you're watching stuff like Alien, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, or whatever, you can still ask yourself questions, and think about it. "What's that character's motivation?, Did the character change over the course of the movie?, Why was that scene that way?" etc. It doesn't have to be just a story that the screen is telling you, while you just sit and absorb it thoughtlessly.

There is nothing contradicting in those statements as I really can't fucking guess how one will react to given film. Afterwards, what is left with me from film, is how I feel emotionally after it.

and where on earth did I say to turn off your brain? I just had issue with some user thinking films are mathematical equation to be solved.

I let Tarkovsky put it better since I have obviously reached the limits of my language if you still don't understand how I gauge films after I've seen them.

>“My objective is to create my own world and these images which we create mean nothing more than the images which they are. We have forgotten how to relate emotionally to art: we treat it like editors, searching in it for that which the artist has supposedly hidden. It is actually much simpler than that, otherwise art would have no meaning. You have to be a child—incidentally children understand my pictures very well, and I haven’t met a serious critic who could stand knee-high to those children. We think that art demands special knowledge; we demand some higher meaning from an author, but the work must act directly on our hearts or it has no meaning at all.”

> I had the greatest difficulty in explaining to people that there is no hidden, coded meaning in the film, nothing beyond the desire to tell the truth. Often my assurances provoked incredulity and even disappointment. Some people evidently wanted more: they needed arcane symbols, secret meanings. They were not accustomed to the poetics of the cinema image. And I was disappointed in my turn. Such was the reaction of the opposition party in the audience; as for my own colleagues, they launched a bitter attack on me, accusing me of immodesty, of wanting to make a film about myself.

I literally fell asleep watching it and had to continue watching the next day, and I didn't enjoy any of it really.

a clockwork orange

me like you
marketa is vlacil's best by a lot

Once Upon a Time sucks desu
Prefer all his other films to it, it's just not good

lady from shanghai
this gun for hire
the concrete jungle
mildred pierce
the killers
the killing
out of the past
double indemnity

>lady from shanghai
What was her fucking problem?

...

I can't feel

>no L'Ascension du Chevalier Noir

>It's a OP tries to defend his shit taste episode

beats me, i thought she was really nice at first but she's no different than any other femme fatale. no one in film noir really loves each other

LOL

she was a woman

Holy shit did you miss my point. It's like you didn't even read anything I wrote. I never even attacked your opinions, apart from when you keep saying you're open about films, yet you insist on watching them all the same way, because that's literally a contradiction. I even said a bunch of times that it's all fine as long as you're fine with it. I'm not even going to bother reiterating what I said about film appreciation, cause you obviously don't care enough to read it properly.

And of course Tarkovsky didn't use symbols to convey meaning, but only in emotionally associative ways. But you can't really apply that to every director out there. You can't watch Zerkalo the same way you watch Valerie and Her Week of Wonders or Inland Empire, even though they're similarly structured. I mean, you could, but you should adapt with the style, or at least the way the director meant for them to be watched and "felt".
Also it's been just me with all the long ass-posts.

>mfw this pixeleted imagery of Welles' character in Lady from Shanghai
I came.

I really think this movie has some of Welles' best writing, like not overtly hard boiled dialogue but still just absolutely crushing stuff