Some "classic" movies are known more for he performances of the actors, like in "Taxi Driver" than they are known for an appealing story. Sometimes is is a "calssic" for its photography or directing.

My pet peve for movies is that I hate it when they callo Stanley Kubrik a "genius". When ti comes to sunnign vidual images, he probably surpasses almsot any other director, but in almost everyone one of his movies those stunning visualimages are nto tied together in a flowign story line. Great photos, but lousy story telling.

Anyway, my point is that in order to appreciate a "classic" movie, you first need to fidn otu wha thte movie was known as a "classic" for.

"The Piano" I despised the entire premise and the actions of the self-absorbed asshole leads. Entire theme of the movie, IMO, was "nice guys finish last" and since I consider myself a nice gal......

The ten commandments, my beloved mother bases her religious point of veiw from that movie. As a ten year old kid eating fudge bars,it was great! Now it makes me want to puke. Roots is a great story and has a mindful account of the atrocities that happened, but the television series totally blows!...

That's you. But in Fairness... I love the effort that takes to produce a movie classic or not. I do not judge an old generation movie because was not made for future comsumption. Movies are made for a specific audience in place and time. It will never be the movie maker fault if I don't get the movie. Today I don't see the facination on comix heroes. To me always been pulp fiction. But I recognize the labour of love in any movie maker.

I'd have to say trainspotting, I'm not sure if it's a classic, but at the time it was incredibly over hyped.