Critically acclaimed films that you didn't enjoy

Is there not an argument as well that some films are critically acclaimed because they are?

Badly put, I know, but it does seem films by certain directors (Fellini springs immediately to mind) are acclaimed purely because their name is on the credits & to hell with what the film is actually like...

Call me cynical, but another way for a director to get critical acclaim is for the film to be in a foreign language (ie not English), be "gritty", contain long scenes of introspection (gazing into the distance and/or sitting at a kitchen table smoking a cigarette will get you points, too) or even better, be silent...

...Yes, Michel Hazanavicius, I'm talking about you!

The Artist!

Sorry, but this was total and utter pants!

in my humble opinion, of course

I hated all of this stuff the first time I watched them. Today I'd consider them among the best movies ever made.

__________________

For me it was the exact opposite. I used to love Jaws, but the last few times I've watched it have lessened my appreciation. It's a good movie, but hardly a masterpiece.For me this film is another case of "love the soundtrack, hate the movie."

Bite your tongue.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Spielberg films in general receive more praise than they deserve.

It was everywhere I read or heard about it...

That's not the same as "acclaimed", though.

Oh, and Jaws is a masterpiece... Idiot.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

No, it is not. I cannot say I didn't enjoy it, but it's not even the best of Spielberg, not to mention the best of all time.

Bladerunner: I wouldn't say "I didn't enjoy it" but I don't think it should be considered one of the greatest sci-fis ever. I've seen the "normal" cut on TV and the director's cut, or one of the director's cuts on DVD. The former is a muddled movie which isn't sure if it is going for high drama or something more blockbuster-ish, the latter tried to be more self indulgent and comes across as too pretentious, still stuck in that semi-blockbuster mode.

Raging Bull: I actually really liked this movie and think it some cases it can be viewed as a masterpiece but I've always had a gripe with the fight scenes. Critics bang on about how "realistic" they are but as a long time boxing fan I wonder if these critics have ever watched a fight in their lives. The fight scenes are far too contrived and Holywoodenised (just making up words) and in some cases plain inaccurate. The Fighter and Ali both have better boxing choreography in my opinion.

Jaws: A lot of you have mentioned this already and it's the same for me. Jaws isn't that great, may be because I saw it some twenty years after it's release and was more used to bigger and better special effects. I also found the acting in places to be just plain atrocious.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden DragonL In all honesty, I was plain bored.

Casino: Marked a period in which Scorsese seemed to struggle with his own legacy, looking to catch lightning like he did with Goodfellas.

Vertigo: Voted as the best movie ever, makes me laugh. Boring at the worst of times and barely passable at the best.

Jaws is more suspenseful than 90% of movies released in the past three decades.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

99.99% and funnier than 99.99% but there's no satisfying everyone. Atrocious acting?!?

I never watched Jaws. Some day I will.

Maybe it's one of those movies that hasn't aged well and you had to be there at the time to fully appreciate it. I'll say the same for movies like Vertigo, Spartacus and so on, all movie formulas which have been improved upon.

You seem to have a hang-up witn older movies.

Well, you're a slightly bigger fan than me, Mark.

In all seriousness, I think the three main players in Jaws were terrific, and in fact their performances deserve much more credit than they get. They make the story believably human and relatable, with the personality conflicts and gradual revelations of what makes them tick.

But they go mostly unnoticed because they seem so ordinary in contrast to the shark and suspenseful plot devices. You gotta go back for multiple repeat viewings to truly appreciate how fantastic those characters are, and how much they ground the story.

No, you're just a poor judge of what makes a movie great.

I think the phrase "hasn't aged well" is overused. It's sometimes just another way of saying you didn't have the right expectations for the movie; that you tried to watch it through modern eyes and compared it modern movies. I enjoy older films in a different way but just as much as newer ones.

Of course, there are movies I think truly haven't aged well, Tod Browning's Dracula being an example I recently experienced.

I don't know about Spartacus (haven't seen it yet), but I think you completely miss the point of films like Jaws and Vertigo if you call them dated, because they are models of timelessness.
It's the atmosphere (music, locations, characters, building of emotions like fear, suspense or obsession) that makes these movies masterpieces. There's nothing dated about that and the "movie formulas" have certainly not improved for that matter.

I think "hasn't aged well" should only really apply to CGI/SFX (or 'trick photography' if you're really, really old) or a film that was of the moment. It's not really a comment on the quality of the film or the enjoyment.

Not in this case, but I think "hasn't aged well" often means, "I was a lot younger."

Maybe Jaws 7 with ultra super deluxe graphics set in the year 2099 will be more appealing.