It was an enormously expensive film, but if you can take that bad taste out of your mouth, it's certainly a watchable film. Sure, you could feed a million African kids for a year on what it cost. I realize that I'm heartless, but where do you draw the line on what people should spend money on? I guess we should kill all "art" and give donations to the more-needy. It makes sense to me, but I doubt that you guys want to turn off the valve, and if you start deciding what can be heard/seen and what can't, based on some monetary scale, you're getting into Stalinville.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
First off, this movie wasn't overrated, it has been trashed and burned by both critics and audience members. It is can easily verified and documented that in terms of expense and income received that Waterworld is among the biggest flops of all time. If anything, one might say it's been underrated. When one looks closer at the storyline and the action as with The Postman (1997) that there is plenty of substance, decent acting, and action going on. In both movies, Kevin Costner, as is typically the case portrayals a rather realistic but flawed man, something that often doesn't get enough attention in today's fantasy, idealistic world of cinema. Even if both these movies aren't considered great, good, classic, they are both in my mind, decent, acceptable, and watchable movies both with in some cases more of a message and substantive ethical food for thought than many movies that have been produced.
Posts: 902 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Zodiac. It was as overrated as anything I can think of. I love other David Fincher movies, just not this one. Will someone explain to me what was great about it?
Posts: 474 | Location: kentucky | Registered: 02 October 2007
Pan's Labyrinth I get the impression that it's trying very hard to be very sad and moving and depressing and beautiful, but there's way too much violence and cruelty and gruesomeness. It only manages to be monotonous. It's like you can't know happiness without knowing pain. Works both ways.
"[...]To all of which, I admit, I had nothing to answer, for it was but the truth. So I refrained from launching into useless palavers and quibbling, and, immediately drawing the two pistols which I had in my belt, I fired them both, by way of argument, into the faces of this droll fellow and his accomplice, which spared me the necessity of speech and ended the quarrel in the best possible way." - Louis Adhémar Timothée Le Golif
Posts: 24 | Location: I'm in a band | Registered: 21 December 2007
Borgnefesse Slacker Posted 21 December 2007 09:11 PM Hide Post Pan's Labyrinth I get the impression that it's trying very hard to be very sad and moving and depressing and beautiful, but there's way too much violence and cruelty and gruesomeness. It only manages to be monotonous. It's like you can't know happiness without knowing pain. Works both ways.
It's been a while since I saw this movie, but it feels that your comments are close to my own. I was wondering when somebody would have a critical comment.
Posts: 902 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Riku_88 Participant Posted 22 December 2007 07:25 PM Hide Post Pan's Labyrinth isn't really overrated, and it deserves all the praise it got.
I had to look over my brief review of 2/4/07. I rated this movie seven out of ten stars. When someone says a movie's overrated it means there's plenty of people who felt overwise, making the case for it's less than stellar review much more difficult. I appears my problem with the movie that diminished the overall impact of the movie was perhaps that the movie didn't go far enough in taking the notion of fantasy and reality with a much more pronounced effort and working this aspect of the movie for an even more heightened impact (the movie could have been even better). And I noticed that there was one scene (it takes only one) that appeared to me rather "manipulative" obvious in its attempts to gain audience endearment - the banquet scene. In my opinion, it's not so much that the movie wasn't good, it was that there were nuances that prevented the movie from being fantastic.
Posts: 902 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
I think what you feel to be missing is in the film, right at the very beginning and ending. It makes all the "fantasy/reality" questions make complete sense.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Originally posted by *Termina*: Pan's Labyrinth isn't really overrated, and it deserves all the praise it got.
It's vastly overrated in Norway. Everyone loves it, both critics and vagabonds.
And reading the thread called Pan's Labyrinth, I do get the impression that the rest of the world loves it too.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Borgnefesse,
"[...]To all of which, I admit, I had nothing to answer, for it was but the truth. So I refrained from launching into useless palavers and quibbling, and, immediately drawing the two pistols which I had in my belt, I fired them both, by way of argument, into the faces of this droll fellow and his accomplice, which spared me the necessity of speech and ended the quarrel in the best possible way." - Louis Adhémar Timothée Le Golif
Posts: 24 | Location: I'm in a band | Registered: 21 December 2007
Now that my dreaded over-rated movie No Country for Old Men has won the 2007 Best Picture Oscar, I have no choice but to announce my opinion that No Country for Old Men (2007) is my pick for "Most overrated movie of all time." Because of so many technical and cinematic flaws that this moive contains and because of its apparent critical acclaim, the disparity in my mind is so great that this movie easily is my selection for most over-rated movie of all time. It's just so bewildering and frustrating how this movie can be so beloved by so many. Nobody has been able to explain, to my satisfaction, how most if any of the problems that this movie has can be so easily overlooked and justified so that this movie can be considered an excellent movie. Personally, it was only a decent, good movie at most.
Posts: 902 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
First off, Joanna Newsom's album is amazing. Pan's Labyrinth is extremely overrated crap. Mystic River is amazing and without flaw. Laura Linney's statement at the film's conclusion shakes one to the core.
Overrated? Try these. The Insider The Big Lebowski Crash Boys Don't Cry
"don't get sentimental...it always ends up drivel"
Posts: 101 | Location: Louisville, KY | Registered: 16 November 2007
Originally posted by tabuno: Now that my dreaded over-rated movie No Country for Old Men has won the 2007 Best Picture Oscar, I have no choice but to announce my opinion that No Country for Old Men (2007) is my pick for "Most overrated movie of all time." Because of so many technical and cinematic flaws that this moive contains and because of its apparent critical acclaim, the disparity in my mind is so great that this movie easily is my selection for most over-rated movie of all time. It's just so bewildering and frustrating how this movie can be so beloved by so many. Nobody has been able to explain, to my satisfaction, how most if any of the problems that this movie has can be so easily overlooked and justified so that this movie can be considered an excellent movie. Personally, it was only a decent, good movie at most.
^^^If you're basing this decision off of past Oscar winners, I don't know how you can say that No Country is more overrated than Titanic, especially since Titanic is still recognized as one of the greatest movies ever (by soccer moms and those completely oblivious to good filmmaking). Also Titanic is clearly the worse film of the two.
In any case, I think everyone's love for this movie will subside in time, and if you want my opinion, I think There Will Be Blood was a better film anyway.
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision, for another five years of lies"
Posts: 32 | Location: San Diego | Registered: 07 February 2008
'allo, 'allo, 'allo, what's all this silliness about Titanic being a bad film? Lovingly framed and photographed, edited with subtlety when needed and a sense of the epic when required; carefully paced and written with just the right amount of stock characterisation to involve the audience on what is very much an iconic tale of the modern era and not get tied up in details...I think Cameron did a smashing good mainstream piccie.
I'm not a 'soccer mom', in fact I teach film for what it's worth; I know my way around Film 101. Titanic is a well made object, no argument.
'for my purpose holds to sail beyond the sunset, and the baths of all the western stars, until I die.'
Posts: 2053 | Location: The ever silent spaces of the East | Registered: 12 February 2007
quote: Originally posted by tabuno: Now that my dreaded over-rated movie No Country for Old Men has won the 2007 Best Picture Oscar, I have no choice but to announce my opinion that No Country for Old Men (2007) is my pick for "Most overrated movie of all time." Because of so many technical and cinematic flaws that this moive contains and because of its apparent critical acclaim, the disparity in my mind is so great that this movie easily is my selection for most over-rated movie of all time. It's just so bewildering and frustrating how this movie can be so beloved by so many. Nobody has been able to explain, to my satisfaction, how most if any of the problems that this movie has can be so easily overlooked and justified so that this movie can be considered an excellent movie. Personally, it was only a decent, good movie at most.
^^^If you're basing this decision off of past Oscar winners, I don't know how you can say that No Country is more overrated than Titanic, especially since Titanic is still recognized as one of the greatest movies ever (by soccer moms and those completely oblivious to good filmmaking). Also Titanic is clearly the worse film of the two.
In any case, I think everyone's love for this movie will subside in time, and if you want my opinion, I think There Will Be Blood was a better film anyway.
I agree with you that There Will Be Blood was the better film because of its compelling script and fabulous performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, Best Actor Oscar winner, even though I still prefer Atonement which in some ways is reminiscent of Titanic (1997). As for Titanic being over-rated, its record status in history is pretty much assured for both its Oscar winning record of eleven wins tying Ben-Hur (1958) and its can't be ignored almost universal connection with the general public and its record breaking billion dollar box-office receipts. This epic movie, in my mind, could be thought of as over-rated, but as for most overrated, I would be hard-pressed to uncover the magnitude of the technical and cinematic flaws I found in No Country for Old Men. These two movies have too different starting points when comparing them to being overrated. No Country for Old Men is starting from a much more negative rating than Titanic.
Posts: 902 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
Originally posted by Ish: 'allo, 'allo, 'allo, what's all this silliness about Titanic being a bad film? Lovingly framed and photographed, edited with subtlety when needed and a sense of the epic when required; carefully paced and written with just the right amount of stock characterisation to involve the audience on what is very much an iconic tale of the modern era and not get tied up in details...I think Cameron did a smashing good mainstream piccie.
I'm not a 'soccer mom', in fact I teach film for what it's worth; I know my way around Film 101. Titanic is a well made object, no argument.
Maybe I was a little critical of Titanic, but when you match it up against another the other best Picture winner criticized (no country), I feel No Country is a better film that won about half the awards and didn't receive as wide acclaim from the general population as Titanic.
I still remember waiting over an hour to see Titanic, and people saying "really, you've only seen Titanic once? I've seen it 5x!" Irritating stuff, not too mention hearing "My heart will go on" multiple times every day. When a movie ties for most awards won ever, it probably should be one of the best films ever, which Titanic certainly is not.
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision, for another five years of lies"
Posts: 32 | Location: San Diego | Registered: 07 February 2008
fatties Participant Posted 02 March 2008 08:00 PM quote:
Originally posted by Ish: 'allo, 'allo, 'allo, what's all this silliness about Titanic being a bad film? Lovingly framed and photographed, edited with subtlety when needed and a sense of the epic when required; carefully paced and written with just the right amount of stock characterisation to involve the audience on what is very much an iconic tale of the modern era and not get tied up in details...I think Cameron did a smashing good mainstream piccie.
I'm not a 'soccer mom', in fact I teach film for what it's worth; I know my way around Film 101. Titanic is a well made object, no argument.
Maybe I was a little critical of Titanic, but when you match it up against another the other best Picture winner criticized (no country), I feel No Country is a better film that won about half the awards and didn't receive as wide acclaim from the general population as Titanic.
I still remember waiting over an hour to see Titanic, and people saying "really, you've only seen Titanic once? I've seen it 5x!" Irritating stuff, not too mention hearing "My heart will go on" multiple times every day. When a movie ties for most awards won ever, it probably should be one of the best films ever, which Titanic certainly is not.
I've been accused of going to see No Country for Old Men in order to look for film elements I didn't like and I did find them - a self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps. However, fatties, might also consider one's own "reactive" attitude towards those around you who were incredulous about your few visits to see Titanic and how you may have set yourself up in subsequent viewings having to discover for yourself, like I did, those experiences that you didn't like about Titanic in order to disguish oneself from the crowd mentality of the general public that year.
Posts: 902 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005
