Wind Will Carry Us: The Most Boring Movie EVER

The title says it all. I couldn't take this film. I rented one night with my parents. 30 minutes into it, I got up and walked off, bored out of my mind, there being no conflict AT ALL. I came back an hour later towards the end. My dad had gone to bed, put to sleep by boredom, and my mom was reading a magazine on the couch while it was going on. When the credits came up, neither of us knew what happened. And while we're on the topic of Middle-Eastern films, they all seem to be too subtle. I recently saw Kandahar , and found that there was no resolution in this one either.

The previous post is a reflection of the type of provincial, tiny-town xenophobia that often becomes the sole image the world has of Americans. I apologize on behalf of Americans for the hateful comments of those too lazy and spoiled to consider a different point of view, a different way of looking at life. The last sentence has no place in this forum. It is likely to generate inappropriate posts.

The comment has been editted.

Thank you for the prompt response and the overall excellence of filmwurld.

Sorry about that, folks. I guess I was caught in the moment and didn't see what I was writing. Thanks for editing it out.

the most boring movie i've seen in a long time is lord of the rings.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rocketrogerhood
the most boring movie i've seen in a long time is lord of the rings.

---

You won't get a lot of support. You find LOTR boring yet Woody Allen is your favorite filmmaker?
You and I could have some arguments Rocketman....(with all due respect)

Actually maybe it's honest and fair to call a movie "boring" rather than say "bad" or other negative term. To call a film "boring" is indicative of a viewer's degree of interest in a movie's subject and style. It says nothing about the film itself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Actually maybe it's honest and fair to call a movie "boring" rather than say "bad" or other negative term. To call a film "boring" is indicative of a viewer's degree of interest in a movie's subject and style. It says nothing about the film itself.

---

These is some truth to this. I typically don't like action movies, and LOTR was no exception to this tendency. The only thing more painful in these movies than the action was the dialogue. An adventure fan would likely not agree with me. It is my prediction that these films will not hold up well over time, much like Star Wars hasn't. Aside from my boyhood nostalgia, I don't care for Star Wars anymore.

Hey Johann,

I've heard all the complaints regarding the Woodman; I don't have some kind of blind affection for him. When he stinks, he stinks (jade scorpion, anybody?) However, when good he is amazing. Is Crimes and Misdemeanors not as brilliant (or better) a blend of comedy and drama as Stalag 17? Even his staunchest critics have to admit his successes are good.

It's easier to discuss movies if you realize that each person comes with a set of biases, predilections, and interests. I understand why many would find Eraserhead, Barry Lyndon and The Wind will Carry Us boring, even though I think they are masterpieces. Some people simply have more focused interest in a particular type of film. Most of us shy away from particular genres. As a kid I thought westerns were "old-fashioned". Now The Searchers and McCabe and Mrs. Miller are favorites, and Dead Man and Unforgiven made me best of the 90s list. I share your distaste for the bulk of Hollywood action films (and Hollywood in general, in my case) . But my eyes were engaged throughout LOTR and the camaraderie and chemistry of the cast is in ample evidence. I'm still not convinced the tale has enough contempo resonance and emotional catharsis but I remain open to the possibility.

Quote:

---

Hey Johann,

I've heard all the complaints regarding the Woodman; I don't have some kind of blind affection for him. When he stinks, he stinks (jade scorpion, anybody?) However, when good he is amazing. Is Crimes and Misdemeanors not as brilliant (or better) a blend of comedy and drama as Stalag 17? Even his staunchest critics have to admit his successes are good.

---

Even though I've only seen 3 Allen films I feel anyone who says Woody Allen is their favorite filmmaker does not suffer from "blind affection". That would be an impossibility.
Allen does have depth-but how deep is he? I admit I'm not qualified to say, but just from the three I saw, (particularly Aphrodite) I know that the "woodman" is very well versed in cinematic storytelling, and I sensed a twisted level of sarcasm that is aimed at someone but I don't know who.
This irritates me, because I am always an active participant in film dissemination, & Alllen's work seems to involve a lot of quasi-bourgeois hen-pecking that I have no interest in watching.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Johann



Even though I've only seen 3 Allen films I feel anyone who says Woody Allen is their favorite filmmaker does not suffer from "blind affection". That would be an impossibility.
Allen does have depth-but how deep is he? I admit I'm not qualified to say, but just from the three I saw, (particularly Aphrodite) I know that the "woodman" is very well versed in cinematic storytelling, and I sensed a twisted level of sarcasm that is aimed at someone but I don't know who.
This irritates me, because I am always an active participant in film dissemination, & Alllen's work seems to involve a lot of quasi-bourgeois hen-pecking that I have no interest in watching.

---

What are the three you saw?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by oscar jubis
Actually maybe it's honest and fair to call a movie "boring" rather than say "bad" or other negative term. To call a film "boring" is indicative of a viewer's degree of interest in a movie's subject and style. It says nothing about the film itself.

---

This is an interesting subject. I semi-agree with this, but the way I see it is this: I go to see a film to be entertained, hopefully in the form it's intending to be (unlike Plan 9, but that still rules). If a film is boring, I'm not entertained, so I think it's safe to say that a non-entertaining movie is "bad."

Intriguing. There actually might be a distinction to be made here. Some people like Westerns whereas other people like Comedy Romances. Can a good Western be boring? Or can a good comedy romance be boring?

Any good opera I might find boring because I can't identify with it and have problems relating to the singing and supertitles while watching a life production.

However, what about a really great, superb movie that captures my imagination and explodes or exudes off the screen inspiring and teasing my curiousity regardless of my personal interest, what can one say about such a film or motion picture - that it is spectacular and brilliant?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rocketrogerhood


I've heard all the complaints regarding the Woodman; I don't have some kind of blind affection for him. When he stinks, he stinks (jade scorpion, anybody?) However, when good he is amazing. Is Crimes and Misdemeanors not as brilliant (or better) a blend of comedy and drama as Stalag 17? Even his staunchest critics have to admit his successes are good.

---

Now I love 70s/80s Woody as much as anyone, but 90s/00s Woody is getting really tired, really fast. Bullets Over Broadway was the last Allen film I loved; Everyone Says I love You... was cute; Mighty Aphorodite was not bad; but then we're in these films that are totally derivative of (and inferior to) his earlier films. Sweet and Low Down, Zelig; Small Time Crooks, Take the Money and Run. Then we got a batch which he called "Drawer Films", as they were ideas he had in the 70s which he stuffed in the back of his desk drawer. I don't know what this new Something Else film is - but I don't even want to know. I chose to remeber Woody who gave us Annie Hall, Manhattan, and Crimes and Misdemeanors.