Overrated Movies

[ktabes]

im sorry but scarface is really overrated, all the "rap" gansters out there on mtv cribs shouting out that scarface is the greatest movie of all time, and really a lot of people who dont know much about movies think scarface is the best movie ever made.

 

[Owen]

How can it be overrated? It tanked at the BO and no one on this site really, other than me, champions it. More accolades go for the book than the film.

I champion that movie, it's a brilliant satire. People look at it as a horror movie, it's not. It has elements of horror, but at it's heart it's a satire. it's hilarious.

And as far as calling movies made decades before you were born overrated, you certainly can. If you know film and it's history. It's your own opinion. A movie like Citizen Kane doesn't seem too spectacular by today's standards because Citizen Kane set so many of today's standards. Now Scarface is crap. That has no place in movie history. Though it has spawned a few catch phrases, and become an icon for ignorant youths. People talk about Scarface now adays yes. But we also talk about Hitler. It's not whether they talk about it or not but how they talk about it.

And there will be a few films talked about from this decade fifty years from now, we just have to wait and see which ones they are.

Pretty much every movie that wins "Best Picture" at the oscars is overrated cause the acadamy votes, and we all know how smart those actors are. oh and every star wars movie is overrated except Empire Strikes back.



I heard some of "The New World" is shot in 70mm
anyone one else hear that. I think that would make it 2.75 to 1 or something near that.....

 

[Hill Dawson Kane]

I heard some of "The New World" is shot in 70mm
anyone one else hear that. I think that would make it 2.75 to 1 or something near that.....

No, I didn't hear that. But it's prolly gunna be the sole film I'll see in theatres this, or any year in the forseeable future. Everyone knows I'm all against technical film, but I feel Malick does things ina very different, more natural way, especially since he uses nature like no one else. I'm a little afraid I won't like "TNW" cause its about that whole lame john smith/pocahontis thing and has colin farrell, but it least it has Christian Bale, the best actor of our generation so we'll wait and see. Maybe I'm just in shock that I wasn't expecting to see another Malick film for another 15 years

sorry for the sidebar

 

[Harris]

How can you even call a movie like Waking Life overrated at all?

A friend of mine summarized Waking Life better than any review I've read: "It sounds like a conversation Richard Linklater had with himself on the toilet." The movie didn't explore any new philosophical territory, and it broached no themes which I couldn't find in a book published 50 years ago. And I hate that stupid guy who keeps pushing his hair behind his ear. What an idiot.

Kyle said:
If you're into weird sci fi stuff though, check out SOLARIS (the one from the 70s, not the remake with George Clooney's ass...unless you're into that sorta thing

I'm into that sorta thing.

HDK said, in reference to American Psycho:
How can it be overrated? It tanked at the BO and no one on this site really, other than me, champions it. More accolades go for the book than the film.

I love American Psycho, and, if anything, it's a hugely underrated film. The book, however, is superior. Far superior. What I appreciate most about the film is that it works both as complimentary material to the book and as a well-constructed stand-alone piece (which is much more than can be said of LOTR).

 

[Dan Gross]

I guess I can see where you're coming from, Kyle, but I do see Waking Life in a different way that you do. For instance, I think the whole "talking heads" aspect isn't that big of a deal, because really, when you look at it, isn't that life? New people coming and going, and perhaps even ruminating on aspects of life along the way? This is a very real aspect of life, especially for the introverted, intellectual, or otherwise unusual types out there. Sure, maybe a movie would be more accessible and enjoyable if movie characters you had gotten to know were saying all this philosophy, but come on...you can find examples of this in pretty much almost every movie ever made. This movie is different from regular movies in almost every single conceivable way. It is a true rebel movie where no existential topic is too ambitious. With so many ideas for a movie to express, in what other ways CAN these ideas be expressed? And as merely an outlet for these ideas, perhaps Waking Life is a bit pointless, but come on, we know the world needs an infinetley accessible and surrealistic visual philosophy book such as this. Always have, and always will. Like it or not, these ideas will never die. And that's why I consider this movie a classic that is impossible to twopeat or duplicate.

P.S. I admit it is impossible to truly absorb all the dialogue spoken in this movie, and yeah, maybe in that sense it is a little too "talky", but it's not expected for audiences to absorb and understand all this dialogue...it's meant to plant temporary ideas and notions into one's head, and in that way, temporarily expand one's capacity of thought and understanding...just like one's dream state.

 

[Hill Dawson Kane]

I love American Psycho, and, if anything, it's a hugely underrated film. The book, however, is superior. Far superior. What I appreciate most about the film is that it works both as complimentary material to the book and as a well-constructed stand-alone piece (which is much more than can be said of LOTR).

Very well said

 

[Kyle Johnson]

I do udnerstand what you're saying, Dan. and I somewhat agree and am happy this film can talk of such subjects and maybe enlighten new minds....but what I ment to say that didnt really come out as I wanted (Harris mentioned it) was that these ideas have been known in books for a long time.....now as said before I have no gripe with books, but this is a film. I wouldnt have preferred down to earth characters saying the dialogue, I would of liked to see how this dialogue relates to their life. Experiences that make them come to such. Showing rather than telling.

Recently in the film class I attend dialogue was a subject of our study, Improvization, Scripted, and Documented (filming people talking, naturally) Well the instructor played lots of clips from films to give example of each, for the documented (it actually may have been improv, or the teacher wasnt sure what it was, I dont remember, its not important) but the clip he played was in a cab with a bum talking to driver. The driver asked "hows it going?" or whatever, and the bum took off talking. The realism in this scene was incredible, but its got boring and old....reason I felt this way was because the whole scene was just telling a story. The story was somewhat interesting, but the gripe I have with such scenes in movies is that all we're doing is seeing a person talk (I have nothing against people talking in films!!! here me out...) I find it more interesting to actually SEE the story, rather than hear it told. if it becomes excessive to where thats all that happens...I think the film has failed. there needs to be a balance, film is an opportunity to take those stories, thoughts, dreams, whatever and paint a picture. Talking is a huge part of it, but If thats the only thing driving the ideas its boring and old. example, if I was making a film about child molesters, I wouldnt spend the whole time sitting with the mom committee and cops talking about how sick the bastard is....I'd show situations involving the accused and let one decide for themself what to think. I know thats not the best example when comparing to a film like Waking Life, but thats where the challenge is. putting the philosophy into action, showing what you mean rather than just telling. The ebst scene in Waking Life I thought was the two guys at the table looking into eachother's eyes, and then the picture changes and the two characters turn into clouds. That was ****ing awesome and conveyed an emotion the guy was just talking about, only it was more interesting than listening to him drag on about bs.

 

[Hoeks]

What films from this decade will still be discussed and watched 50 years from now? Very few.

definitely the lord of the rings

 

[Bruce the moose]

Yeah LOTR is definitely one for the ages.

 

[laudy32]

Wondering which movies will be watched 50 years from now begs another thought.

There are so many movies that are great pieces of cinema that may be forgotten in the future, it's a sad thing that only one small group of movies will sum up an entire generation of movies. That also makes me think about the films made during the Golden Age of Hollywood, how so many qualtiy films were made but only a handful will stand out. It's sad because a film that was forgotten that is a masterpiece will be trumped by an overrated ok film that doesn't deserrve all the praise it got. Just a thought.

 

[paul]

50 Years from now? Well, what movies do I watch from 50+ years ago?

Vertigo. Citizen Kane. The Wizard of Oz. Seven Samurai. Yojimbo. Double Indemnity. Casablanca. The Trial.

I can't really think of movies today that match the quality of some of these classic films. Between Film Noir, Akira Kurosawa, and all of the other excellent stuff from that time, there is no modern day Akira Kurosawa, or a modern day Hitchcock, or a modern day Orson Welles.

Maybe in 50 years people will watch Se7en, Memento, Fight Club, The Terminator, Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish, Shawshank Redemption, City of God, Silence of the Lambs, Leon, and LA Confidential. (These aren't all movies I like, just movies that people generally like.)

I do just hope it ends up being movies like these, movies that are engrossing and well made as opposed to Twins, Detroit Rock City, Whole 9 Yards, Lawnmower Man, Freddy vs. Jason, Armageddon, Independence Day, etc.

 

[Bruce the moose]

Shawshank is a definite, That movie was so good.

 

[Harris]

I would like to say The Trial is overrated, but really very few people I know have seen it. Anyway, I think Welles was brilliant, but The Trial is garbage. Kafka would shoot himself if he could see it. Looks great, though.

 

[paul]

Yeah, the Trial is definitely a cinematography movie. That's my sole reason for watching it. Thats why I wrote 'Movies I watch', not 'movies we watch.'

 

[The Company]

The original Batman is overrated. That film sucks something awful.

Hey Harris (I think that quote was from Harris), are you referring to Burton's 1989 Batman or the 1966 gay-camp Batman? Cause Burton's kicked ass! And I don't think to many people rate the 66 version very highly.

On another note, I would like to take this time to declare my undying love for Saving Private Ryan (its copped a bit of critisicm in this thread.) It is awesome filmness.

I also agree that The Shawshank Redemption will be being watched by people 50 years from now. At least, I'll be watching it anyway. Unless I'm dead.

 

[paul]

Hey, there was nothing gay about Adam West and Burt Ward. They were just friends in little clothes.

The Tim Burton version was cool, stylish, and fun... but it wasn't Batman. It was a Tim Burton movie. He changed things around a little bit too much. I'd always thought Jack Nicholson was wrong for the Joker. Don't get me wrong, he did a good job because he does with any role, but the Joker was psychotic. Jack Nicholson doesn't strike me as being psychotic in Batman, especially not after seeing the Shining. I've always liked it, but it wasn't faithful to anything. Joker didn't kill Bruce's parents. Batman never used guns, because he was against them. Anyone brings their creativity to the table when they direct a movie, but Burton changed too much. Sam Raimi would've done a much better job. I love Tim Burton 1000 times more than I love Sam Raimi too, but Burton was the wrong guy to direct Batman. I definitely would agree that his Batman was over rated, fun to a degree, but definitely given way much more credit than it deserves. I still watch it for a kick, because compared to it's sequels, it rocks.

Batman Begins is a movie I felt was amazing though. I liked Burton's a lot more before I saw Batman Begins, but then I realized how excellent it could've been. Christian Bale can make the crappiest of movies, like Reign of Fire, captivating to watch. He brings an energy that even Michael Keaton can't match.

You might disagree with the above statement, and I'll accept that. I'm not going to tell you why you should like Batman Begins better than Burton's Batman. I'm just giving my .02.

(back on topic.)

Shawshank is an excellent movie. It is a classic for the ages. Aside from that and a few others, they don't make 'em like they used to. :-/

 

[Harris]

paul said:
The Tim Burton version was cool, stylish, and fun... but it wasn't Batman. It was a Tim Burton movie. He changed things around a little bit too much.

Word.

Sam Raimi would've done a much better job.

You know, I never considered this, but I think you're right. Well, hmm... if I could base this judgment on the accomplishment of Darkman alone and ignore the lackluster Spiderman, then I would think you were right. Darkman rules.

Several months ago, I wrote a review of the Batman Begins screenplay (I read it before the movie release), in which I contrast the different Batmans (from 1989 and beyond) and their respective directors. It's here, if anyone's interested.

 

[paul]

Yeah, I meant back when Sam Raimi actually gave half a damn to produce a good movie, whether it was action, horror, or whatever. I didn't like either of the Spiderman movies. Darkman though, that's quite a movie. I had remembered reading somewhere that he wanted to direct Batman, but he wasn't a big enough name and it was given to Tim Burton. Thats why he developed Darkman. He'd only directed Evil Dead, Evil Dead II, and Crimewave at that point, so the studio didn't want to give him a huge flick like Batman. Burton had already done Beetlejuice and PeeWee's Big Adventure, so he had big budget experience under his belt. It's a shame really. I would've loved to see what a Raimi directed Dark Knight film could've been like. Instead I'm stuck with the ever sub-par Spiderman.

I love the part in your link about Darkman btw. Good assessment over all, but the Darkman part was great.

Speaking of overrated movies... Superman. The first one was ok, but people hype it up a lot more than it really deserves credit for, because it's a relatively crappy movie. It seems so generic and bland.

Also... Spiderman. Daredevil. The Punisher. Hell, a majority of the Marvel movies are hyped to no end and they don't really deliver. They all seem to lack any sort of depth. Especially Fantastic Four! X-Men was in the same boat. The only movie to come out of Marvel that I've enjoyed was X2. They need to start producing quality movies.

 

[Harris]

I had remembered reading somewhere that he [Raimi] wanted to direct Batman, but he wasn't a big enough name and it was given to Tim Burton. Thats why he developed Darkman.

Interesting. I had no idea. It still confounds me that some studio exec must have said, "Let's see - Burton did Beetlejuice... and PeeWee... yep, this guy is perfect to direct Batman."

And, Paul, I wholly agree about every movie you listed there (though I never actually saw the Punisher, with good cause). I did like Superman, though I admit it's flawed and now dated. What irks me most right now in the world of comic-to-cinema is that Bryan Singer dropped X-men 3 to helm the new Superman, and now the third X-installment has been handed off to BRETT RATNER. Why? Why? Why?

 

[Harris]

Wait. There is one redeeming aspect of X-men 3 which will surely draw me to the theater: Kelsey Grammer is playing Beast. I do hope he hosts his own radio program and engages in amusing intellectual quibbles with his brother Beast Niles and his maid Beast Daphne, all the while deflecting seasoned criticism from his live-in Beast Father.

"Beast Frasier, you have double-booked us at the opera house."
"Oh, what an exigency!"

I only pray that he's still bald under all that blue make-up.