GameBanshee Forums

I am sure we all have a fairly good grasp of literature, art, movies and music that we "should" enjoy, because they are classics, because all our friends tell us how great they are or because our culture in general hausse these things, fairly or unfairly. Still, we fail to see the point everybody else seems to appreciate, or we see it, but just don't like it. I have a long list of such items - I am sure you have too. Here are some of mine:

Leo Tolstoy: I know War and Peace is supposed to be a true masterpiece, and it certainly belongs to the world literature. I like many of Tolstoy's contemporaries, and I like the classic and modern Russian literature in general. Maybe I'm unfair and I was very young when I read him, but Tolstoy just bored me to tears. On the other hand, I read Dostoyevsky prior to Tolstoy, still I felt Crime and Punishment and Notes from the underground gave me much more than War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Not to mention the Kosacks! Gets my vote for most boring book I have ever read, together with Silmarillion!

One flew over the cuckoos nest: All my friends loved this movie, and constantly told me how great it was. I was not impressed at all - I rather had problems with staying awake. The topic is interesting, the setting is good - but ack! I found the characters shallow and stereotype, almost parodic. And the book wasn't much better. Less known, but much better on the same theme is IMO Birdie - and that's not particularly good either.

I never cared for Silence of the Lambs. I just don't like that kind of movie. Psycological thrillers or whatever you call them bore me. My ex forced me to watch it, and got disgusted at my lack of interest. I don't know what it is about it that I don't like, it just didn't hold my attention or interest.

I also seem to be the only person in my area who hats garth Brooks. I know he has sold tons of CD's, but I think his whole attitude, including his music, is self important to the point of arrogance.

The Matrix: I thought this was geniunely a boring movie. I just couldnt stop yawning during this box office bologna. I dont understand what people see in this movie. It was perfectly awful.

Any movie that Steve Martin is in: Yeesh. Steve Martin. I cant stand his humor. It is so bland. I think whatever he has been asociated with has simply ruined it. I dont like any film or any show he has ever been in. Im just glad I havent seen him in any movies recently.

Originally posted by Tybaltus
The Matrix: I thought this was geniunely a boring movie. I just couldnt stop yawning during this box office bologna. I dont understand what people see in this movie. It was perfectly awful.

I don't know, though, that Matrix is considered a "classic," as CE meant it. I've heard it referred to as "an action flick for computer geeks," and while that's a bit harsh, its popularity seems pretty limited. My opinions mirror yours. I found it a blatantly silly film with two-dimensional characters, laughable action sequences, and a plot shot full of holes.

Elliott's "Silas Marner" has to be *the* classic I've least understood over the years. I understand that the author is considered a Great and Deep writer, but Silas Marner is, IMO, superficial 19th century melodrama at its worst, with all the trite, hypocritical moralizing, too.

I usually get in trouple when I start saying that I dislike ei. Pulp Fiction and From Dusk to Dawn.
For some reason people seem to think (can only just remember these 2) these movies are special in some way.

I never found out why - they are just plain bad (imo )

As for books, I've never read anything I disliked or got bored with, cause then I wont finish the book (I know pretty fast if I like a book or not - a couple of chapters), but rather pick up another.

The Matrix struck me as a fairly blatant Ghost in the Shell ripoff.

Things I should like, but don't?

The TV show Friends, its cliched beyond belief, the stars are some of the most egoistic people what with constantly asking for raises. The lack of talent is shockingly evident yet it continues to rate strongly over here

Yeah, I forgot about "Friends" and "Seinfeld" I hate both shows-not funny, not addicting.

I also forgot to mension the movie Independance Day. Talk about a B-Movie. Geez this topped them all. There was absolutely no character devolopment, heck, there werent even characters to start with. Just people to play non-characters. Heres all that you need to know in Independance day: Aliens blow up stuff. Will Smith goes into a plane and saves the world. Woop-di-doo.....YAWN.

As far as books are concerned-Anything written by Faulkner. Hes just a plain bad author. Run on paragraphs and repeat plots, and a spiral story (Story is retold several times and the transition is so rough that you cant tell that the story is changing). These are classic No-no's in writing. How did this guy become one of the nation's "best" writers? Dont ask me.

But people, I agree with Fable (apart from I liked the Matrix ). The gleaming literati of the world do not expect you to like FRIENDS, Seinfeld, The Matrix or Independence Day. These are not classics and are not held in high regard by experts (none I know anyway)...what CE means is things which are believed by experts to be good, not things believed to be way cool by the kid out of Malcolm In The Middle.

The thing that I should like, but don't is *bumbaddah bah* The Mona Lisa. It's not that I actively dislike it, but the two times I have seen it I was not compelled to look for very long. I do not like much portraiture, and I was completely unmoved by it. Anyone know what's so great about that picture?

OK-If you want to know about paintings-then what about the Campbell's soup can painting? Whats the deal with that?

Shakespeare - I can't think of a single piece of work by Shakespeare that i rate, they always seem hackneyed and twee.

I do like the Scottish play in some places but generally it is a let down...maybe i am just not flowery enough

I mainly meant things which are considered classics by experts and society in general, but to broaden the scope, I also encourage people to post things that are popular and generally liked, that they specifically dislike are totally indifferent towards. Matrix is certainly not a classic movie and will never be, but it's OK to post about it since it is (for reasons that are totally beyond me) very popular in a broad, international audience.

Originally posted by frogus
The thing that I should like, but don't is *bumbaddah bah* The Mona Lisa. It's not that I actively dislike it, but the two times I have seen it I was not compelled to look for very long. I do not like much portraiture, and I was completely unmoved by it. Anyone know what's so great about that picture?

I unfortunately can't add a lot here, since the Louvre has been closed all of the 6-7 times I've been to Paris. You would think it is never open. It has been closed for fire, burglary, water leakage and I don't know what, so I haven't seem Mona Lisa other than on reproductions, and it has not impressed me then. Her enigmatic smile and that we don't know who the lady is, are probably two reasons for the vast popularity of this painting.

More things I should like but do not:

John Steinbeck - One of the finest US authors, by many regarded as the finest. He writes about social, political and humanitarian issues, and is famous for his deep and moving portraits of the human nature. Of mice and men left me totally cold, I thought the characters were exaggregated and parodic like in a cartoon or children's tale. Grapes of wrath, an epic yet deeply personal novel, with all the ingredients I should like, left me so indifferent so today, I hardly remember the story and absolutely not the persons in it.

Marcel Proust - Remembrance of things past is one of the great novels of the 20th century. It is not only an historical document of a specific era in European history, is is also supposed to have a very interesting gallery of people and more important (to me personally): Proust's exploration of the inner world of the individual and his use of inner dialogue, was groundbreaking for the contemporary novel and introduced principally new elements and styles in modern writing. Perhaps I should have liked it more if I hadn't fallen in sleep constantly...it was a pain to read it - not only is it frustratingly boring, it is long too!

Henri Matisse - I like a lot of the European art from this period. Matisse was the father of the fauvist movement, meaning "the wild animals/beasts". The fauvism, like dadaism, was a brief movement but left a deep imprint on modern art. It was creative, innovative, and strongly expressed. It paved the way for many other modern forms of art which I like. Still, I not a bit moved by Matisse's great paintings. The only stuff I've seen that I like a little, are small sketches and "pre-studies" to larger pieces.

A few more classics that I simply don't like, no matter how important I'm told they are:

Andy Warhol. I have this queasy feeling that whenever I look at a display of Warhol art that I'm only observing the triumph of PR and BS. It's all about wowing the artworld's intelligentsia, and appealing to 'em with catch phrases they love. I'm told Warhol and his movement are catching the temper of the times; I'm desperately hoping he hasn't, because his simple photos-rendered-in-funny-colored-paintings, much of it linked to cheesy, self-obsessed, self-important pop idols, just devalues humanity, IMO.

Johann Sebsastian Bach. Old JSB is a favorite among knowledgeable critics, and has been for more than a hundred years. Whenever one of my editors offers me an album of Bach to review, I turn it down. Although there are a few Bach works I genuinely love, most of it sounds to me like note-spinning for the sake of technique. It's didactic music, devoid of anything else.

Shakespeare's slapstick and puns. IMO, the Three Stooges were more creative when it comes to slapstick than the Elizabethans (and I don't like the Stooges), and Shakespeare was one of the worst. His low class comics get together, make stupid jokes, hit one another on the head, etc. Ditto, Elizabethan puns. Lord Rochester, responding in a letter to a friend, once wrote that "Petrarch deserved his Lauro [laurels] more than his Laura [muse he wrote to]. And that bit of wretched quibble would be accounted great wit if word of it got back to London." Hell, Shakespeare would have used it in three plays.

Anything by Joseph Conrad. People tell me this is some great writer, and his stuff is great, but I don't see it. While I enjoyed Apocalypse Now, I absolutely hated Heart of Darkness. I found the book to be dry, and repeitive, and seemed to just go on and on. On top of that, the racism and biggorty present in the book(s) where just horribly.

While I enjoyed Apocalypse Now, I absolutely hated Heart of Darkness. I found the book to be dry, and repeitive, and seemed to just go on and on. On top of that, the racism and biggorty present in the book(s) where just horribly.

Hmmmm. I know exactly what you mean. Apocolypse Now! Is on of my 5 favorite movies. When I read Heart of Darkness, I was just confused. It is really a difficult book to get into. I started to like the book when it was just about over, but it wasnt one of my favorites. I could have taken it or left it. But I think the way it was written made it confusing. LONG paragraphs and unidentified narrators made this book one of the harder books to read. I was just glad that it was a short book. It was also the last book I read in high school.

Picasso's Guernica, and all the rest of cubism. They all just look like stuff put randomly together and rationalized afterwards.

And Salvatore. I just don't see what everyone sees in his writing.

I have to admit, Salvatore's writing doesn't do much for me either. It isn't really well-written at all, is as cliched as, well, lots of similar fantasy, and there loads of spelling and grammatical errors, which annoys me in books.

I have to say, I enjoyed Heart of Darkness, though. Along with Macbeth, the only Shakespeare I've enjoyed reading, it was my favourite book from my English Lit. classes. I also liked Apocalypse Now, though it was markedly different in style to Heart of Darkness.

I think Warhol's alright. The only thing I object to is that you can look at his work for a second and then leave. There is artistic substance, but very little. Also, every single one of his paintings (and other artworks) conveys the same message. He has no range...he's a one trick painter.

Exceptions: The Silver baloons are crap, and there is one of his paintings which I really liked. It's a (apparently not very popular) portrait of a man called Joseph Beuys, done in red paint and diamond dust. Here it is (found with google image)

As for Shakespeare...I would have put him down too. He is the most overrated writer there ever was. I bet that most people would be hard pressed to name four playwrites (present company excluded of course), and yet Shakespeare is probably the third (or so) most famous man ever ever...He is not that good. However, I like his plays, and especially his poetry so I'll stop my *****ing.

Lots of things

Kafka for one.

I worked my way through 'The Trial' and 'The Castle' but it was blood sweat and tears - never again - probably.

Modern art especially modern painting and sculpture. Some people walk around galleries uhing and ahing and discussing the pieces while I see nothing - possibly the experimental brain surgery is to blame.

The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann

Looking at it intellecually I can see how this is a great achievement, the way he explores rationality, liberalism, engagement with the world etc... there are hundreds of pages of carefully worked dialogue about the soul of European civilisation

But to read it....

MY GOD is it boring, caffeine all round after 5 pages.