Don't get me wrong, it's a great movie and everything, but almost everybody feels it to be in the top 3 movies of all time. I don't understand, there are PLENTY of movies I liked better than Casablanca.

Does anybody else feel this way?

You are right. It is a great movie but not one of the top ten let alone top three. Definitely in the top 50.

IMO, "liking" as in entertainment-wise shouldn't come into play. Casablanca is an excellent, complex story of love and putting other affairs before it, which wasn't common in average romance movies. There's nothing negative I can say about it.

About Schmidt can be very boring at times, very little of it is made to entertain, and its one of the best films of the last half decade.

I can fully see how people can think it is one of the best ever, and I rate it among that list too. I don't have my top ten worked out, but I know it would have to be in my top 20.

How can a movie be great if it's excruciatingly boring?

My problem with Casablanca is its corniness. The lines are too overly dramatic and the acting is too old fashioned and too pre-Brando for me.

You wanna talk about an underrated movie, how about To Kill a Mockingbird? It had as much symbolism in it as Citizen Kane and was waaaaaaaaay better than Casablanca IMO.

Who said movies have to be about entertainment? I view film as an art. "Five Easy Pieces" is a true film about running from life, and only a handful of scenes will entertain you. This is why I loathe most mainstream moviegoers at my school, everything has to be funny or explosive.

I feel the same way, but there are many classic movies that are very entertaining.

Such as the Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Shawshank Redmption etc...

To Kill a Mockingbird is great, but the book is VERY superior. Citizen Kane is FAR ahead of it. I don't think you are giving it enough credit. Citizen Kane was DECADES ahead of its time and has much more depth.

PS: Can you stop double-posting? Its annoying to reply to two posts in a row.

I feel the same way, but there are many classic movies that are very entertaining.

Such as the Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Shawshank Redmption etc... [/b][/quote]Of course there are, but they don't HAVE to be entertaining, can't movies just portray life? Can't they just show truth or value without having to fire guns or whatever?

I feel the same way, but there are many classic movies that are very entertaining.

Such as the Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Shawshank Redmption etc... [/b][/quote]Of course there are, but they don't HAVE to be entertaining, can't movies just portray life? Can't they just show truth or value without having to fire guns or whatever? [/b][/quote]I understand where you're coming from, and I respect your opinion. I just disagree with it, and I'm sure I'll be in the minority here in doing so.

I know a movie is great when I can watch it multiple times and STILL get chills from certain parts.

Well, I'm relatively young, and I think age has something to do with whether or not you like Casablanca. My father, for example, first saw it in his teenage years (when it first came out) and he fell in love with the movie. He claims he even cried.

Casablanca didn't have the same effect for me. I guess I understand that this sort of movie was not common back then, and so was very sensational when it came out. But I don't judge movies on how good they were in their time. I'm not going to give it any more credit just because it was one of the first of its kind. Casablanca came off as one of the sappiest, most rushed movies I had ever seen, despite what people told me. Overall, it wasn't very impressive. Then again, I'm not really a fan of those older movies. I tend to think that the acting in them is very rigid and unpassionate.

I think people sometimes overrate classics because they are just that--classics. And classics seem to automatically mean greatness. Although there are indeed many classic movies that are great, not all of them are.

And of course, if you grew up around the time it was first made, it could evoke certain feelings of nostalgia that could bias your opinion of it. It certainly seems like this is the case with my father, who only has memories of how much he adored the movie. His praise for it is why I watched it in the first place. When I stated how disappointed I was, he shrugged and said, 'I don't know. I always remembered it as being much better.'

DonVitoCorleone summed it up for me:

Are you kidding? The lines were not corny at all. Perhaps it was the music that amplified the dialogue.

I feel like these are all excuses with no backing. Rushed? How is it rushed? If this was remade today scenes would be on the cutting room floor, not added.

IMO, that is very close-minded. Not liking them is one thing, but denying their merit is another level.

Even that is not completely true.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960915/REVIEWS08/401010308/1023

I fully agree with Ebert on this film.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

"Is it just me, or is Casablanca ridiculously overrated?"

I believe my choice of avatar answers that for me.

I'm not sure I understand. If I don't like a movie, why would I give it any merit? Why would I praise a movie's excellence if I didn't enjoy it? A movie's 'merit' varies from person to person. You obviously think highly of Casablanca--I don't.

I'm simply saying that I'm not going to watch a movie, and then despite my not being entertained by it, claim that it was good anyway because it was an unprecedented movie and because it was highly acclaimed when it came out. To me, that would be close-minded. I'm trying to be unbiased, disregarding what everyone says about Casablanca and considering it as I would any other movie, no matter when it was made. I'm judging this movie solely on the basis of whether or not I liked it. A movie's value relies on its impact on the viewer, doesn't it?


Well, I don't really see how I could debate you on that matter--if I did, the argument would be endless. You think my statement on classics often times being overrated is false, and you agree with Roger Ebert and his glowing review for Casablanca. *shrug* I'm just putting my two cents in on this thread, because I too don't think Casablanca is one of the greatest movies ever made, as it is claimed to be by many. But to each his own.

Let me give you an example, I didn't enjoy watching The Passion being it a very gory film and even depressing at times, but I still rate it highly because it has merit.

About Schmidt is an overall unentertaining film because of the subject matter, aside some humorous parts. I rate it ****, not because I was entertained, because the film is a brilliant portrayal of the depression that exists in retiring and evaluating one's life and feeling insignificant.

Grumpy Old Men is one of the most entertaining movies for me, but I don't rate it as a great movie, I think its just an average comedy.

Five Easy Pieces is also a film that wasn't made for entertainment, but its an excellent film about life.
------------
How is going beyond entertainment close-minded? I feel when you simply limit it to just that then that's close-minded, because that's what it is, limiting. I can understand watching movies for just entertainment, however I get furious seeing a great film being denied merit because someone doesn't find it entertaining enough, especially one that has great dialogue and acting like Casablanca, especially from Bogart, Lorre, and Rains.

And I think movies should be rated based on their impact. If a movie is the first to use reverse narratives, THAT is creative, right? After 20 years if many other films use it, that is NOT creative, get it?

Bronenosets Potyomkin/Battleship Potemkin (1925) is a sixty-minute piece of overblown propaganda. A silent film with a muddled narrative, despite innovative montage editing. I've seen it once, and I don't think I'd watch it any time soon, but I do regard it as one of the best films ever made.

Why?

Because of its cinematic significance and, at the time, social importance. Its importance and influence on cinema is immeasurable.

If I want ultra-realistic acting, I don't watch Casablanca (1941), I watch Kes (1969). If I want to see cinema par excellence, in that it is the finest example of Hollywood at its most collaboratory perfect, I watch Casablanca, not Kes. Humphrey Bogart's acting is nothing short of dated these days, but he's still the most charismatically cool American actor to have lived, and he remains unequalled in that department.

If you want nothing but post-Brando, fair enough, you're never going to enjoy this. But my taste in films is an omnivorous one; I can fully enjoy a film for its technical and social merits at the time of its original release. I think great film analysis comes through the ability to empathise with a film and its scenario.

Film isn't just solely a means of entertainment. If it was, then why go to all the trouble of investing millions in production design etc? It is, I think, supposed to be as entertaining as it is an art form, and Casablanca happens to hit home on both accounts.

If you weren't thrilled by its genuine romance, threat, suspense and all things American, then fair enough, nobody can make you. But to say it's overrated without any kind of conviction is a little tedious.

And in saying "without any kind of conviction" I mean certain references to the film's "corniness" and the "rigid, unpassionate" acting therein.

On a side note, I found To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) too ambitious and overlong, saved by great acting.

Mick

SC, this thread is an INFAMIA! Maybe Geoff should dump this one when he "cleans up" the boards!


Don Cardi

Casablanca is in my top five.

Amazing film.

So FREAKING amazing.

I love it.

The Doc

As Michael Corleone would say, "Saseetch his own".

Casablanca is the epitome of Hollywood entertainment. Anyone who finds this film boring either is being too critical or has an extremely low attention span (to be honest, the weak arguments against it here are leading me towards the latter of the two). Bogart's performance is amazing; perhaps a little dated, but obviously an influence on Brando, Dean, and the next generation of American actors. Bergman is timeless in everything she does, so anyone criticizing her performance in the film as "old-fashioned" does not have a good argument. Of course there's an array of supporting characters that take up a significant bit of screen-time, but none of them ever have a chance to "act," much less act badly (or old-fashioned).

The story has been copied a million times since, but that doesn't hurt Casablanca as much as it does the rip-offs; their screenplays are never as good as the original's was (though to say this film was completely original would be a lie). I don't see how the lines are "corny" or "sappy." For instance, the film contains many moments of wit:

Rick: Your cash is good at the bar.
Banker: What? Do you know who I am?
Rick: I do. You're lucky the bar's open to you.

Captain Renault: Rick, there are many exit visas sold in this café, but we know that you've never sold one. That is the reason we permit you to remain open.
Rick: Oh? I thought it was because I let you win at roulette.
Captain Renault: That is another reason.

Captain Renault: This is the end of the chase.
Rick: Twenty thousand francs says it isn't.
Captain Renault: Is that a serious offer?
Rick: I just paid out twenty. I'd like to get it back.
Captain Renault: Make it ten. I'm only a poor corrupt official.

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

Captain Renault: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
Rick: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
Captain Renault: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
Rick: I was misinformed.

Major Strasser: What is your nationality?
Rick: I'm a drunkard.
Captain Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.

But, I'm assuming the "corny" moments are the romantic ones. Though I'm not sure if this is even a romantic film, per se. It is much more about sacrafice:

Rick: And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid.

I guess "here's looking at you, kid, could be interpreted as "sappy," but that's only because everybody hears it about 50 million times before they see it in the correct context.

As for "rushed," that contradicts "boring," I think. Boring, in most contexts, is usually brougt upon by a lack of events that fascinate. If the film is rushed, too much is going on, and one isn't bored. But I don't think the film is either. The film certainly isn't rushed, because it takes so long to build up. We don't find out about Rick's past until about 30-45 minutes into the film. We don't even see Rick for about 5-10 minutes into the film. So there's no way that this film is rushed. As for boring, something is always going on, which usually means the film cannot be boring. This film is drowning in its own wit, suspense, and romance.

Casablanca has suprising depth, but what makes it, perhaps, the most popular film of all time is the entertainment, the mixing of genres, and the influence. That's what certainly makes it a masterpiece and what I consider to be a better film than The Godfather (I hope I don't wake up with a horse's head in my bed tommorow!!!).

Thug

Not me.

Good morning!

Nothing personal, though, but, I believe, It's obvious.

I think it is the best romance movie ever made.

Is it just me, or is Casablanca ridiculously overrated?

.... my god, you're kidding....... right?


.. thats my FAVORITE line..