Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
You mean by the reincarnation of Martian Leader?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man
Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
|
| |
| Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004 | |
|
Participant
|
I know that I'm going to get roasted for this, but "The Godfather" just about put me to sleep. WAY overrated.
"Well I tried didn't I Goddammit? At least I did that." - R.P. McMurphy
|
| |
| Posts: 49 | Location: Calgary | Registered: 14 April 2008 | |
|
Enthusiast
|
I agree with the initial post on "Lost in Translation". The only things Lost proved were that there can be too many loaded silences in a film, and that Scarlett Johanssen isn't a strong enough actress to truly carry a film. Requiem for a Dream is overrated among most people I know. It's an above average film, but not deserving of all the greatness that's been heaped on it. Ellen Burstyn (I think she was the main character's mother) was the best part of that film, hands down. I could care less for the performances of Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly.
riiiight.
|
| |
|
Guru
|
quote: typewriter Enthusiast
Posted 25 April 2008 05:16 PM
I agree with the initial post on "Lost in Translation". The only things Lost proved were that there can be too many loaded silences in a film, and that Scarlett Johanssen isn't a strong enough actress to truly carry a film.
It feels nice to me to be able to get back to commenting on a movie like Lost In Translation (2003) that at the moment is on the my top 25 movie list of all time. Some of what I really enjoyed about this movie was the "many loaded silences," that in many ways actually reflects reality more than the constant chatter and dialogue we often seen on the screen. It takes a great director and performance to be able to pull off what for many audience members is a terrible experience - silence on the screen. The American public in particular is so used to noise, music, and action that rarely can they stand pure cinematic visual drama on the screen. Most of use spend a lot of time alone and quiet, just allowing the world to be experienced. If we can't, it's possible that there is an emptiness inside of us that requires that we constantly be bombarded with external stimuli. Bill Murray's performance for me was superb in his quiet facial emotions emoting sufficient to tell the story without words. The entire cultural intermixing and fusion was dramatically depicted in an immersion of sights and sounds that brought me into the movie where I could understand and feel what was going on. It was mesmerizing and exciting to experience the movie and the cultural nuances as well as Bill Murray's reaction to it as a counterpoint. For me, Lost is Translation set a standard in film-making that I compare many dramatic films against. |
| |
| Posts: 919 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Slacker
|
no contest and I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one yet. the most overrated movie ever is.......
ET
|
| |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by mickdavis:
no contest and I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one yet. the most overrated movie ever is.......
ET
That's funny! I was workin' on my house with the father-in-law yesterday and he said the same thing!  It was actually a kind of an out-of-nowhere statement, too.  I guess he mighta spotted my Furby E.T. sitting above my DVDs next to the storybook LP narrated by Michael Jackson. What? They were gifts from my mom, okay?! There aren't any batteries in the Furby and I don't even own a record player! Oh, leemmeealone! 
"I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!"
|
| |
| Posts: 2464 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007 | |
|
Jedi
|
No way. I watched most of E.T. last week and I still cried at the end.
-----------------------
It's been emotional.
|
| |
| Posts: 3128 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005 | |
|
Apprentice Guru
|
Talking about messing with a movie some almost treat as sacred, but "Pulp Fiction", OVERALL was weak. The characters were interesting, and particular scenes were fascninating. Still, the film was good but not great; certainly not as great as the critics judged it.
Boy, you got to carry that weight a long time!
|
| |
| Posts: 396 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 14 October 2005 | |
|
Know-It-All
|
quote: I know that I'm going to get roasted for this, but "The Godfather" just about put me to sleep. WAY overrated.
I couldn't disagree with this more. I'll admit, the opening wedding scenes are probably too long, but as far as "film as art" goes, The Godfather is probably as close as it gets. Of course, I'm assuming everyone else feels this way too, hence the lack of response to Edgy Oh, and I totally agree with Mystic River (anything more than a two hour Law and Order with good actors? No!), Pan's Labyrinth (everything I'd heard, seen, read [including critic reviews] about the movie suggested a fantasy - oh! JKLOL, it's a war movie with brief, brief fantasy elements. Which would have been ok, except the story was not compelling in the least), and No Country for Old Men (good film, except there seems to be about ten minutes missing towards the end there... you know something that would bring the film together? No? Ok, never mind). That felt good... 
"The only thing hotter than this hot tub is you two ladies."
|
| |
| Posts: 194 | Location: Tucson | Registered: 10 December 2007 | |
|
Apprentice Guru
|
quote: I couldn't disagree with this more. I'll admit, the opening wedding scenes are probably too long, but as far as "film as art" goes, The Godfather is probably as close as it gets.
2001 is more about art than having a coherent storyline, which the Godfather has plenty of. I can't think of anything else that comes close...unless they let me make the next Aliens vs Predator film |
| |
| Posts: 521 | Location: kentucky | Registered: 02 October 2007 | |
|
Enthusiast
|
While it is probably not the most overrated movie of all time, I think "There will be blood" is ridiculously overrated. I saw it and almost fell asleep waiting for the blood. And yes I understand what the title really means but lets be honest this movie SUCKS. HARD. Unless you just love watching absolutely nothing happen for three hours then I don't understand how you could like this movie. As for whoever said "No Country For Old Men" is overrated a couple pages back, how so? You said there were tons of problems with the movie but didn't mention a single one. That movie was WAY better than "There will be blood". And I don't remember who said that the Big Lebowski is overrated but that is just pure nonsense. Anyway, anyone agree that "blood" sucks nuts?
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
|
| |
| Posts: 94 | Location: Boulder, CO | Registered: 18 July 2007 | |
|
Slacker First Class
|
A History of Violence was perhaps the worst and most preposterous film I've ever seen. The sex-scenes were so absurd that I actually laughed out loud in the middle of the theatre. The movie just failed miserably in everything it was trying to achieve.
And somehow it got incredible reviews. Go figure.
O-VER-RATED
|
| |
|
Know-It-All
|
quote: Originally posted by harrisonOWNSmccartney:
While it is probably not the most overrated movie of all time, I think "There will be blood" is ridiculously overrated. I saw it and almost fell asleep waiting for the blood. And yes I understand what the title really means but lets be honest this movie SUCKS. HARD. Unless you just love watching absolutely nothing happen for three hours then I don't understand how you could like this movie. As for whoever said "No Country For Old Men" is overrated a couple pages back, how so? You said there were tons of problems with the movie but didn't mention a single one. That movie was WAY better than "There will be blood". And I don't remember who said that the Big Lebowski is overrated but that is just pure nonsense. Anyway, anyone agree that "blood" sucks nuts?
Hypocrite, when someone says No Country for Old Men sucks you ask for reasons, when you say why a movie sucks you simply respond that you were waiting for blood, which is hardly the focus of the film.
_____________
"Wired editor Chris Anderson has raised the stakes by claiming that the modern wealth of data renders the entire scientific method obsolete. Like finding your wife rubbing butter onto a naked clown shaving your dog, there's just so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to begin."
|
| |
|
Guru
|
quote: harrisonOWNSmccartney Enthusiast
Posted 27 June 2008 01:24 PM
While it is probably not the most overrated movie of all time, I think "There will be blood" is ridiculously overrated. I saw it and almost fell asleep waiting for the blood. And yes I understand what the title really means but lets be honest this movie SUCKS. HARD. Unless you just love watching absolutely nothing happen for three hours then I don't understand how you could like this movie. As for whoever said "No Country For Old Men" is overrated a couple pages back, how so? You said there were tons of problems with the movie but didn't mention a single one. That movie was WAY better than "There will be blood". And I don't remember who said that the Big Lebowski is overrated but that is just pure nonsense. Anyway, anyone agree that "blood" sucks nuts?
Just my topic!!! I've had long, long discussions on No Country for Old Men that very few have been willing or able to specifically offer substantive counters to my complaints of this "over-rated" movie. And as for There Will Be Blood you raise a rather sly argument about this movie as being boring...because in one sentence you easily through back to us the supposed burden of proof to demonstrate why your statement is valid. Well let me see if I can at least begin a dialogue on this topic if one is willing but first I'm going to have to recover some of my earlier problems with No Country for Old Men. (I shutter what Mark R will do to me for allowing myself to bring all this stuff back up.) Posted January 23, 2008 under 2007 Oscar Nominations. quote:
(1) A number of scenes with who is about to dispense his random sense of justice with a victim is oftentimes prematurely cut away when the actual tension and emotional climax is about to occur. While some critics may feel this is some sort of great director's script device, I feel it's too lazy. One of the most interesting characteristics of this character is his approach to deciding the fate of his victims and yet the audience usually doesn't get to experience fully his approach - many times the audience does not know whether a character lives or dies...leaving a dead space, making for unfinished business - Javier Bardem character knows what happens and probably a number of the other main characters but the audience doesn't get to know. Life is unfair? Well, this is a movie and the directors have the power to make this movie fair to watch.
(2) Javier and Jones characters never really get to interact much and in fact Jones character is the weakest of the main characters. Particularly at the end, Jone's dialogue while apparently important, requires more contemplation than the audience is offered - a one time through. Jones character also doesn't seem that much different from other characters he has portrayed before, just less emotional, worn down, and unfortunately less interesting. In the end, he just sort of fades away.
(3) Brolin's character also is not helped by the director's choice to have him talking to himself in attempting to track down the remaining individual with the money, his explanation of his tracking skills appeared too convenient a device, his talking was artificially inserted into the movie so the audience would understand why he was going where he was going. Brolin's background comes out in bits and pieces and its difficult to know what abilities Brolin has. The cat and mouse game is off-balance. Neither Brolin nor Javier seem to have that really great skill. The movie seems to move more on the basis of luck and fortune (like the flip of the coin in the movie) than anything else.
(4) Even Woody Harrelson's eventual outcome is so ludicrous in that I found it unbelieveable and almost a fatal flaw in the movie. Woody is supposed to be able to protect people from Javier? Why not just hire a retired CIA or FBI or ATF or Tommy Lee Jones for that matter. Ever find a case full of money by just looking at the right place? Perhaps, but just not in this movie.
(5) The exploding a car was more for show than quality movie-making. This was not consistent with Javier's character, there were much more subtle cinematic ways of accomplishing the same thing.
(6) Several other annoying movie problems included the predictable beginning and the outcome of the law enforecment officer; the way the dead bodies were strewn about in the shoot out scene were artificially positioned about in symmetrical ways.
(7) Javier Bardem's character wasn't really that convincing to me, he didn't really seem to be all that intelligent nor really capable of doing all that he did, much of what happened to him appeared to be luck and how he survived prior to this movie to even be in this movie as a character is beyond me. He ought to have been killed by now. His appeal seems to be the oddity, the unusual bland and non-character, anti-character that he portrayed. There really didn't seem much for him to do on screen but follow the script.
As for There Will Be Blood, you set up a difficult premise to comment on - a movie is boring. One response would be say that I never found much of anything in this powerful, emotionally driven, and intensely character-driven 158 minute movie boring. This movie focuses on greed, on power, on ruthlessly...a clash of personalities between two men, an universal theme that underlies most movies. Well let's see where and how this beginning shot goes over. |
| |
| Posts: 919 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Guru
|
quote: TotalTrash Slacker First Class
Posted 27 June 2008 02:52 PM
A History of Violence was perhaps the worst and most preposterous film I've ever seen. The sex-scenes were so absurd that I actually laughed out loud in the middle of the theatre. The movie just failed miserably in everything it was trying to achieve.
And somehow it got incredible reviews. Go figure.
Another interesting observation on another movie that has been well received. I could easily use the awards argument when it comes to responding to the statement that, "The movie just failed miserably in everything it was trying to achieve." by simply saying that the two Oscar nominations, 23 movie awards and 31 other nominations probably would suggest over-wise - it achieved this rewards in reality and aren't just some imaginary fantasy. However, such an argument would be unfair because I too have had problems with No Country for Old Men and well as for awards, I better not humiliate myself. The performances in this movie and the script created a strong clash between a person whose past life was riddled violence and who just wants to be a normal person with a rather fantastic sex life. The script avoids the usual stereotypical conflict between good and evil of other movies. Interestingly enough, the sex scenes between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello are some of the most raw and powerful theatrical sexual scenes around. I cared for the main character, I found his relationship with his wife something I cared about and then the evil threat to there lives and the discovery of deceit are themes that actually play out in many marriages but on a much less intense level. [However, I just looked up my previous commentary on this movie, October 5, 2005, and I must grant you there are some weaknesses in with this movie - William Hurt's performance, under-developed son's character, but overall such weaknesses didn't overshadow the larger more significant power of this movie]. |
| |
| Posts: 919 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Enthusiast
|
Thats true i didnt offer any reasons other than the movie being boring. I think Paul Dano is just not a very convincing actor and his part is so over the top in this movie that it doesn't seem realistic that so many people would blindly follow his church. Another is the score. It builds and builds and there is absolutely no climax whatsoever. It's like the scene in a horror movie where they build the tension but it turns out to be nothing, except for its like that the entire film. I do admit though, I just wasnt entertained and am not entertained by most movies that win awards. So maybe for a certain audience it is not overrated in the slightest, but I did not enjoy. As for "No Country" I don't particularly like the last half hour or so, but I think the first hour is unbelievable.
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
|
| |
| Posts: 94 | Location: Boulder, CO | Registered: 18 July 2007 | |
|
Guru
|
quote: harrisonOWNSmccartney Enthusiast
Posted 27 June 2008 10:38 PM
Thats true i didnt offer any reasons other than the movie being boring. I think Paul Dano is just not a very convincing actor and his part is so over the top in this movie that it doesn't seem realistic that so many people would blindly follow his church. Another is the score. It builds and builds and there is absolutely no climax whatsoever. It's like the scene in a horror movie where they build the tension but it turns out to be nothing, except for its like that the entire film. I do admit though, I just wasnt entertained and am not entertained by most movies that win awards. So maybe for a certain audience it is not overrated in the slightest, but I did not enjoy. As for "No Country" I don't particularly like the last half hour or so, but I think the first hour is unbelievable.
It's really nice to hear from somebody who has something to say. While I'm not sure I agree with you about Paul Dano, at least not yet, I can understand your reaction to his performance and its exaggerated style typical of those preacher caricatures often seen on television and in the movies. As for the score, I usually don't pay too much attention to them as most scores are ideally background that support what's going on in the movie. It's only when there's a discordance then it becomes a problem. The best example I've come across lately is watching the old classic Ladyhawke (1985) that used a seventies sound track that one heard on television police series instead of a medieval fantasy film. So I can't really comment on your observation because I frankly didn't notice. For me, it's interesting, There Will Be Blood because I deliberately went into this movie wanting not to like it and I made an effort to observe things I didn't like about the movie. I did come across some technical or plot weaknesses, but overall, it was Daniel Day-Lewis performance that kept me riveted to the screen. |
| |
| Posts: 919 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Slacker First Class
|
"King Kong" was overrated, because it was basically the director's cut version. They could have taken out about 45 minutes and it would have been a better movie.
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
