Overrated Movies

[Uxbridge]

Here's a few that come to mind:

1) Napoleon Dynamite (it would have been great if everyone would shut up about it)

2) Lost in Translation (same)

3) Saving Private Ryan (schoolboy fantasy, and surprisingly had some major factual errors)

4) Braveheart (Well made, but it reduced medieval politics to good v. evil, really immature and lazy view of history and humanity)

5) Kill Bill 1 & 2 (Go to hell, Tarantino)

6) Passion of the Christ (Snuff. Exaggerated, pointless snuff)

That's about it for now.

 

[wenceslao]

scarface without a doubt.

 

[cobra_commander]

Brokeback Mountain was pretty overrated, I thought.

 

[Harris]

Uxbridge said:

Braveheart (Well made, but it reduced medieval politics to good v. evil, really immature and lazy view of history and humanity)

True in regard to Wallace and Longshanks, but Robert the Bruce and father de Brus were both politically minded, willing to sacrifice honor for the greater good and everything. Of course, this is all thrown out the window in the end, and the politics are still very simplified, so you're mostly right, though I have trouble admitting is because I freakin' love Braveheart.

I'm sure House of Sand and Fog isn't on everyone's Top 10 list, but I heard great things about it, and I thought it was total sh*t.

 

[KtoI]

Originally posted by cobra_commander:
Brokeback Mountain was pretty overrated, I thought.

but..but..brokeback mountain was hot..well Jake was and it was very "artistic"..it was lovely landscaping piece

 

[laudy32]

Brokeback also had almost no story going for it. That's why many short stories don't adapt well to film because there is not enough content for a 2 hour movie.

This was a movie I just didn't get why critics loved it so much. They all just seem to jump on the bandwagon when one critic gives a movie like this a good review and they all want to do the PC thing and say nice things about it.

 

[Kurt Wagner]

Originally posted by laudy32:
Brokeback also had almost no story going for it. That's why many short stories don't adapt well to film because there is not enough content for a 2 hour movie.

I don't know if most people agree with this, but I definitely do not. I think short stories are great for adaptations because the stories are heavily plot oriented, which work well for movies.
Unlike novels which have more characterization and story, it's much more difficult to adapt into a movie while keeping everythign that makes the novel so great. With short stories, there is more creative room for the filmmakers to add to the story in terms of character, themes, and story... especially when the movie is based on a collection of short stories.

As for Brokeback Mountain, I cannot comment specifically about this adaptation since I have not read the short story. But I would agree that the story did seem a bit dull.

 

[laudy32]

I'm not saying that a short story adaptation equals a bad film, I am saying that many of the attempts to create a film out of a short story have not been that great. But I know there have been some great adaptations of short stories, like a lot of Stephen King's short stories have made good movies.

 

[Uxbridge]

True in regard to Wallace and Longshanks, but Robert the Bruce and father de Brus were both politically minded, willing to sacrifice honor for the greater good and everything. Of course, this is all thrown out the window in the end, and the politics are still very simplified, so you're mostly right, though I have trouble admitting is because I freakin' love Braveheart.

Quite actually, almost 99% of the things that happened in the movie are made up, or twisted to the point that they are virtually made up. Not to mention they made a dangerous, pillaging upstart the hero (Wallace) and made the actual freedom fighter of the age (Robert the Bruce) a betrayer.

It's well made, and a good film, but it borders on socially irresponsible since so many people watched it and thought it was true. This film also had influence in Anglo-Scottish feelings and politics at the time of its release, which is very bad.

But on the subject at hand, Brokeback Mountain; I do think it would disappoint someone looking for controversy. But as far as the actual movie goes, I think it's a good movie in general and it definitely evokes feelings from the viewer. It had good locations, it played out well, and it brought you in.

 

[cobra_commander]

Originally posted by Uxbridge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">True in regard to Wallace and Longshanks, but Robert the Bruce and father de Brus were both politically minded, willing to sacrifice honor for the greater good and everything. Of course, this is all thrown out the window in the end, and the politics are still very simplified, so you're mostly right, though I have trouble admitting is because I freakin' love Braveheart.

Quite actually, almost 99% of the things that happened in the movie are made up, or twisted to the point that they are virtually made up. Not to mention they made a dangerous, pillaging upstart the hero (Wallace) and made the actual freedom fighter of the age (Robert the Bruce) a betrayer.

It's well made, and a good film, but it borders on socially irresponsible since so many people watched it and thought it was true. This film also had influence in Anglo-Scottish feelings and politics at the time of its release, which is very bad.

But on the subject at hand, Brokeback Mountain; I do think it would disappoint someone looking for controversy. But as far as the actual movie goes, I think it's a good movie in general and it definitely evokes feelings from the viewer. It had good locations, it played out well, and it brought you in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can agree with most of that, in that I thought it was a good movie. However, I think a movie can still be good but overrated at the same time. I knew several people (on both sides of the fence) who thought it was the best movie ever made in years, apparently. And I just wasn't feeling that when I left the theater (I think my words were "It woulda been better on the small screen.")I just didn't think it deserved all the hype it was getting from critics and audiences alike.

As for Braveheart, I liked/enjoyed the movie, but I've always thought the real story about Robert the Bruce (which I read about post-Braveheart) would've been even better/cooler.

 

[Harris]

Uxbridge said:
Not to mention they made a dangerous, pillaging upstart the hero (Wallace) and made the actual freedom fighter of the age (Robert the Bruce) a betrayer.

Upstart, yes, but before his death Wallace became the equivalent of general of the Scottish army. Plus, Robert the Bruce shifted his allegiance back and forth, and he was known to be a pissy pants.

It's well made, and a good film, but it borders on socially irresponsible since so many people watched it and thought it was true.

Socially irresponsible? I'm not sure about that either. How many people are even convinced by what they see on the news anymore?

This film also had influence in Anglo-Scottish feelings and politics at the time of its release, which is very bad.

What are you, the Queen? The SNP doubled its representation in Parliament after this. And anyway, it's disputed whether the film had a significant impact on actual politics. Did you ever wonder at the fact that Australia became a sovereign nation only a year after the release of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome?