This page shows you the list charts. By default, the movies are ordered by how many times they have been marked as a favorite. However, you can also sort by other information, such as the total number of times it has been marked as a dislike.
Some of the best, and most obvious, advice to give anyone trying to get into cinema is to just be patient, and pay attention at all times. It is axiomatic for sure, but this advice is even more prevalent when considering slow, meandering cinema. It can be tempting to wander off and lose focus, but remaining diligent is what is going to provide the best understanding and enjoyment of the content over anything else.
The history of slow cinema runs the gauntlet of auteur legends such as Carl Theodor Dreyer, Ingmar Bergman, Chantal Akerman, Yasujiro Ozu, and Michelangelo Antonioni. Since the infamous boos and jeers directed towards the groundbreaking L’Avventura at Cannes, slow film has always seemed to have an uphill struggle to find a proper home. Now many filmmakers are applauded for such “relentless” pacing.
In fact, from an academic and historical point-of-view, slow film is entirely antithetical to classical style filmmaking. Old (and new) films are dominated by successive cutting, varying of shots/angles, and utilizing the Kuleshov effect to its fullest for easier plotting. Usually classic Hollywood films did this so the editor could cover up any mistakes or discrepancies.
Now it seems as if newer, mainstream films are vying for audience attention with as much visual stimuli as possible. However, many slow films like to have the mise-en-scène at such a minimum to where it seems as if nothing is happening. Some directors have a preference for keeping the camera at a long or medium-long shot to maintain verisimilitude, letting the scene play out in sequence.
There are many fantastic slow films, but these 20 films are emblematic of what the style/technique has to offer.