Acclaimed movies you're intimidated to watch

Are there any movies which have been praised by many and you may even be interested in yourself, but there's something that's held you back from watching them sooner?

For me the biggest one is Sátántangó. I'm going to be perfectly honest, I can't pretend to be interested in it. It's not just the runtime, but the type of film it seems to be as well. A whole movie filled with slow scenes encompassed in long takes? This is sending off huge alarm bells.

Now to be fair, I can take a liking to films that do this. I like what I've seen of Tarkovsky's work, especially Stalker and Mirror. Even with Tarkovsky though he just about gets close to the edge sometimes like with Andrei Rublev where I highly commend a scene's artistic value but also don't have the patience of a saint. (I liked that movie too for the record)

I would probably feel less scared if it had gotten mixed reviews, so I wouldn't feel like an oddball in case I don't "get" it.

In second place is Shoah. Now this movie I actually want to see for reasons other than obligation. World War II and the Holocaust have been covered many times, but this seems like a fascinating and involving coverage of it. The runtime is still a hindrance however, since I often like to see things in one sitting which wouldn't be an easy accomplishment here. Some day though...

And finally, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. This is actually the closest to being watched. They're not quite as ridiculously long (even the director's cuts) and I've definitely seen a few that range between 3-4 hours (I loved Cleopatra). I'd also obviously see one at a time instead of all three at once. The only problem is that I'm not who you could call a fantasy fanatic, so the overwhelmingly glowing reputation they have makes me have to approach them a bit carefully. Just expect some solid pictures and if I'm lucky they end up being something more.

__________________

Anything over 3 hours long. It becomes a massive time sink that for my ADHD addled brain becomes hard to handle. It’s been a major reason why I have avoided Bela Tarr and Lav Diaz so far.
That said, I can do it. I just need a day set aside for it.
I plan to watch La Roue this weekend, and that’s 7 hours long.

I put off watching Jeanne Dielmann for a long time, but mostly because I knew I would want to watch that one all in one interrupted sitting, and it's not always easy to find 4 consecutive hours in any day to devote to movie watching.


There are a few movies that I technically 'want' to see, that I probably won't because of the nature of the some of the content in them. Deep Throat (knowing of Linda Lovelace's recollections of filming this, um, no), Men Behind the Sun (I stay away from most animal cruelty in films, and this one sounds particularly egregious), August Underground series (I think I've outgrown wanting to test my limits with violence in film, and this sounds like it is just exclusively that)

This is great, but I think I only saw the four hour version. And it felt long as ****.

I may take short intermissions like breaks to avoid that. I’ve been looking forward to watching it for awhile.

Good idea for a thread, this should be interesting.

For me: there's no films I can think of that 'intimidate' me from watching them. Though I'm not sure how intimidating is being used here? I do have films I won't watch but I wouldn't say I'm intimidated by them. I'll explain:

Sátántangó at over 7 hours doesn't grab me. I'm sure it's good but so are 10,000 other movies. For me it's a matter of time usage vs interest in subject matter.

Tarkovsky's Mirror, I find his films amazing but challenging. I would like to see Mirror someday. I don't want to watch Andrei Rublev because of the animal cruelty. Though that's not me being intimated by it, it's me objecting to it.

Shoah, would fall in the category for me of very interested but daunted by the runtime. So I guess daunted=intimidated? Though I do hope to watch it.

Do you mean Cleopatra (1963)?

Personally:

Andrei Rublev, I know it's a huge classic, but I tend to not love Tarkovsky and it's super long

Fanny and Alexander, I kind of like Bergman, but for a reason I always push back watching this absolute classic. Probably the biggest film I've never seen.

Most John Cassavetes films, I watched 2 of his films didn't like them so I think I don't understand the appeal

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

I broke up Shoah and Satantango into a few viewings when I watched them and this made it easier to finish them. I've done the same for a couple other super long films, like Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks and Berlin Alexanderplatz (it's technically a mini series though).

While it would be great to watch all of Satantango and Shoah in one go, to be completely overwhelmed by both of them (the insanely comprehensive largeness of one, the ridiculously intimate and observant nature of the the other), it wasn't going to happen. I think I broke both up into at least three viewings. Shoah, actually, probably more than three.


I think watching Shoah all in one go might literally kill you though. So maybe it was for the best.

As an aside, Stalker and Andrei Rublev are both 10/10 films for me. Jeanne Dielman and The Mirror aren't far behind.

Yes. Elizabeth Taylor is bedazzling in this movie. Not only giving you a good insight to why people were so swept away by Cleopatra's aura and beauty, but shows such raw emotion in her performance it tears your guts out. By far one of the best actors of all time.

Shoah is another one, yes. Forgot about that one. Been on my watch list since 2007 and I still haven’t gotten around to it.

Someday, I’ll start going through all of these much longer films.

Agree with all that...and I was thinking about rewatching it. Though I don't recall the story being told in three parts? I thought it was told in two?

No, no, no, you misread my post entirely

Cleopatra was built into a post about Lord Of The Rings, although I can see how the confusion was created.

This would've been clearer, not that it matters
And the reason I thought that you might believe Cleopatra was in three parts is, it was originally planned to be released that way.

I haven't seen this either (partially for the reasons you cite, partially because I heard it isn't very good), but Gerard Damiano's career merits further exploration. I'm guessing you've heard of The Devil in Miss Jones, starring Georgina Spelvin, probably the best actress in the genre, and I would also recommend For Richer For Poorer, which I think has an even better peformance from her. Vinegar Syndrome put out Skin Flicks (a more downbeat Boogie Nights or Day For Night, although the climax is pretty unpleasant), Memories Within Miss Aggie (a somewhat Bergman inspired psychological horror), Throat: 12 Years After (more episodic but still stylish and well acted), and Let My Puppets Come (haven't seen it yet, but there's no way it isn't worth watching with that premise).

And yes, they are all pornos, but out of all the dirty movie auteurs whose work I've seen, Damiano was best able to find a way to make serious drama work within the context of the genre.

Salo. It just seems like even though dark, it will just go too over the top, from what I hear, to the point of exploitation, so I have been hesitant to see it.

Deliverance, Midnight Express and Salo. I expect them to be kinda tough to watch.

__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !

Haven't seen "Salo," but the first two are rather mainstream movies. I dunno, it's harder for me to sit through Transformers and youth-lit movies. Deliverance is worth it for Dueling Banjos. Midnight Express is worth it for Georgio Moroder. And that's before we get to the really good (insert inappropriate comment here).