First from the land of critically hyped snore fests comes Lost in Translation. A movie that was the crowning of Sophia Coppola as the next great filmmaker. The movie was a tremendous bore that made little use of the great Bill Murray. Coppola's follow up the almost as bad Marie Antionette proved that Sophia will never be anything close to Francis Ford.

I never read a single Harry Potter book so I could care less when the first movie finally made it onto the screens. The hype surrounding it made me think I was missing something until I saw the first movie. It was terrible, something I could not see following for more then one movie let alone seven movies. Thank god it was successful because they only got better with age I'm now a big fan of the movies and I'm going to read the books finally but that first one was by far the worst start to any franchise.

^^
Sorry, I loved LOST IN TRANSLATION, but I agree all of the credit going to Coppola was a bit much.

And I've only seen the first POTTER, which I thought was thunderous bore, and I won't watch another. (I read the first book and thought it was vastly overrated, too.)

The SPIDER-MAN flicks are all vastly overrated.

I completely agree that "Harry Potter" is very overrated. My wife was a fan of the first few books & so I had to go to the first three movies with her. The endings to ALL 3 were cop-outs! Why are the villains so feared if they can be defeated so easily? Let me see if I can remember how the first 3 ended,
The first one: Harry only has to touch the bad guy in order to defeat him. Um, okay.
The second: He stabs a book to defeat this bad guy, who (I think) is the same villain from the first movie. Suuuuuure.
The third: After spending the entire movie thinking Gary Oldman is the bad guy, it turns out it's the rat. Whatever.
How is that a good story?

The first three harry potter books are truly children's novels.
I love the series but am not a big fan of the first two. kind of dull to me. also really never liked the movies that much at all.

nice quote monkey.

I'm happy to report that I enjoyed both Lost in Translation (2003) and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001).

"Translation" was remarkable in the way it became an travel experience, the way it captured the feelings of a foreigner in Japan. It's important to remember that in Japan, sometimes it's the no-space, no-time, non-existence that is important instead of the action and drama that Americans seem to thrive on. Boring? Perhaps to a good number of people. But to someone who is fascinated with differences in culture and wants to experience Japan and how someone like Bill Murray interacts with it was fascinating. I'm glad the movie didn't descend into the traditional fantasy romance but kept it real.

"Potter's" movie was difficult at first, particularly as it was impossible to capture the British humor found the source material (the book). But what was fun about the first movie as is usually the case was the novelty of magic in the first place, the discovery, the innocent mistakes and the entertaining fun naivete of the age and times. While not on my most favorite list, I can't agree that it was really overrated. Looking over the general critics ratings, it appears that got it about right.

Mystic River.

Harry Potter movies are ok, and Translation was amazing for me save for the last 30 minutes. But Mystic River... oh god what was that hype all about. Most pretentious/boring crap I ever watched, even the "twist ending" I bet has been done before. The only reason so many critics love the movie is the CAST that is IT. If they were a bunch of no names no one would think it anything special.

Now that you mention it, I had the same reaction to MYSTIC RIVER after finally getting around to seeing it. I was disappointed.

I'll jump on the Mystic River bandwagon. I thought it was an alright movie, and I liked Clint's direction, but the last 20 minutes were utterly asinine.

I'll one-up you guys on Mystic River and say that Clint Eastwood is an overrated director in general. He gets a lot of credit, especially from actors, for his laid back style on the set and famously shooting scenes in one or two takes. But, I never get the feeling I'm watching anything special when I watch Clint's films. The movies that have done well on the award circuit, I just get the feeling he lucked out on getting a good script. After all, this is the same guy who directed Space Cowboys.

I can buy the overrated tag a bit, but I still need a list of other "overrated" and "underrated" directors to put your opinion into perspective. I actually believe Eastwood's best direction was in last year's Letters From Iwo Jima, and he didn't even speak the same language as his cast! Considering that, I found it to be miraculous.

My favorite Eastwood-directed movie is The Outlaw Josey Wales, where he had to take over from the fired screenwriter/director Philip Kaufman (The Wanderers, The Right Stuff). It's the closest Clint came to pulling off a classic western. I find Unforgiven to be an excellent film, but it does sort of cry out its self-importance once or twice. On the other hand, Eastwood's followup to Unforgiven, the more minor-key A Perfect World, works pretty well as a "father/son" road flick and may have Kevin Costner's best performance, at least this side of Bull Durham.

As far as Mystic River, I find it a mildly-passable film which is about 45 minutes too long. If it were made with Cagney in the 1930s, it wouldn't have been over 90 minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I can buy the overrated tag a bit, but I still need a list of other "overrated" and "underrated" directors to put your opinion into perspective. I actually believe Eastwood's best direction was in last year's Letters From Iwo Jima, and he didn't even speak the same language as his cast! Considering that, I found it to be miraculous.

I'm not saying Clint's never made a good movie, but I'm skeptical as to what his contributions as a director actually are. His filmography as a whole is pretty inconsistent. His movies range from great to stuff most directors wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. And after 30 films, I don't think I'd recognize any of them as a "Clint Eastwood Film". Most great directors are able to put their stamp on a film -- for instance, I know a Scorsese or Hitchcock film when I see it. Clint? I'm afraid not.

If Eastwood is the director, you can pretty much be sure that everything you see and hear in the final film is there by his choice. He's obviously very hands on in all his musical scores and in the editing room. I'll agree that Eastwood seems more drawn to his projects by the script's themes than by any strong unifyiing visual sense he can give them, but there are potent images all over the films I earlier mentioned, and since I don't think they're accidents, I'm pretty sure that Eastwood isn't a hack.

Scorsese and Hitchcock are pretty easy to identify, but I believe they each made some turds along the way, no matter how "auteurish" they may have been. I'll let you guess which films I mean before I start a brouhaha.

By the way, I'm happy that we are discussing film more often.

I just remembered an EXTREMELY OVERRATED movie... "TITANIC"!!!! It made gazillions & the story was just the same old love story that's been told a hundred times. I saw it for free & still felt robbed because of all the excitement that surrounded it! The best part was when the ship sank, not only did it look fantastic, it signaled that the end was near!

i'm not going to explain the reasons for my pick, as i had a long message typed out and i accidentally closed the window, and i'm not redoing it, but i will still reveal my pick for most overrated film: donnie darko.

boondock saints

quote:

The movie was a tremendous bore that made little use of the great Bill Murray. Coppola's follow up the almost as bad Marie Antionette proved that Sophia will never be anything close to Francis Ford.

She doesn't have to be her dad. She's a visual genius by herself.

quote:

First from the land of critically hyped snore fests comes Lost in Translation.

You're not the first to think this way. I remain miles away from this bandwagon, though.

quote:

"Translation" was remarkable in the way it became an travel experience, the way it captured the feelings of a foreigner in Japan. It's important to remember that in Japan, sometimes it's the no-space, no-time, non-existence that is important instead of the action and drama that Americans seem to thrive on. Boring? Perhaps to a good number of people. But to someone who is fascinated with differences in culture and wants to experience Japan and how someone like Bill Murray interacts with it was fascinating. I'm glad the movie didn't descend into the traditional fantasy romance but kept it real.

The subtle differences he has with his wife are also only communicated over a phone. His separation from his own family is just as evident as the vast sea that separates him from home. He finds a faint and necessarily temporary connection with an unlikely woman in a foreign land. I liked the development of that relationship. They both found solace in a mutual disconnectedness with their significant others. I observed that most of the people who didn't like it also said they didn't get it. It's simple enough not to notice themes and scrutinize them. Film is supposed to be an artistic medium to communicate something, anything, to the masses. In short, I agree with you.

quote:

drbanality Slacker
Posted 31 July 2007 03:21 AM

quote:

The subtle differences he has with his wife are also only communicated over a phone. His separation from his own family is just as evident as the vast sea that separates him from home. He finds a faint and necessarily temporary connection with an unlikely woman in a foreign land. I liked the development of that relationship. They both found solace in a mutual disconnectedness with their significant others. I observed that most of the people who didn't like it also said they didn't get it. It's simple enough not to notice themes and scrutinize them. Film is supposed to be an artistic medium to communicate something, anything, to the masses. In short, I agree with you.

WOW! I forgot about the telephone call and the disconnectedness. My how time flies. But thanks for the recollection. It made me remember just how good the movie was.

Lost in Translation always seem to be a lightening rod for "I hated it" or "I loved it." I suspect that many of those in the "hated it" camp have never traveled outside of the US--you know, to places where "Foreign" films are made ("Foreign" being a Metacritic genre). I like two things about Lost: it realistically captures the disorientation of waking up 10 or time zones away from home and, amazingly, like in real life, the old guy doesn't get the young girl!

quote:

MrMark
Posted 18 August 2007 06:18 PM

Lost in Translation always seem to be a lightening rod for "I hated it" or "I loved it." I suspect that many of those in the "hated it" camp have never traveled outside of the US--you know, to places where "Foreign" films are made ("Foreign" being a Metacritic genre). I like two things about Lost: it realistically captures the disorientation of waking up 10 or time zones away from home and, amazingly, like in real life, the old guy doesn't get the young girl!

I just have to wake up two time zones away and I'm disoriented. It's nice to experience in the movies sometimes that the guy doesn't get the young girl so one doesn't have to leave the theater with all those jealous and irritable feelings of "why not me?"

Here's a few more big time disappointments:

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"
"Waterworld" (barf)
"Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" (what a dud!)
almost any James Bond movie, unfortunately
"Dick Tracy"

I confess that I really liked "Titanic"...