List of overrated

[Mr_Vindictive]

Can I add Mel Gibson to the list?

The Passion was horrible as most of Mel's work has been lately.  He is extremely overrated and I have no idea why people freak out whenever a new film of his comes out.

[Eirik]

Agreed on Gibson and I would add Kevin Kostner.  I never thought Bull Durham, Field of Dreams or Dances With Wolves were worth the time it took to watch them, and yet that was where his great reputation was built.  Fittingly, he crashed hard in more recent years.  He is much like Mel Gibson in my opinion.  An okay actor who got over rated and began directing crap, both getting Oscars for overblown, preachy historical dramas of questionable intellectual merit.  Gibson's crap just hasn't been as spectacularly bad as Kostner's (though the final battle and wedding scenes in The Patriot belie this).

I disagree that Lucas is over-rated for this reason: he's taken his fair share of lumps for everything post Original Trilogy and Raiders.  I don't see people "over-rating" the new Star Wars stuff.  In fact, I see studio execs wincing as the third one nears release and I see land fills overflowing with plastic Jarjar Binks and Naboo fighters.  I also don't think Michael Moore is over-rated.  Most people see him and his movies for what they are.  He may be over-hyped, but not over-rated.

[Harry]

Good point about Moore.  And the sad thing is that makes those morons who do overrate him look really pathetic to everyone who see him and his movies for what they are.

[Dave Munger]

Tarantino reminds me of my hyperactive friend Johnny Hasset -

 http://www.geocities.com/dreamtownfilms

There, now people will see his site, it dosen't show up on google for some reason.

[jga5000]

agreed about M. Night, basically there's nothing to his movies except for his gimmicky endings, which aren't really that much of a big deal..well to me they're nothing incredible

Requiem for a Dream: I like it but it gets overrated for being the most distrubing film of all time by a lot of people for some reason. I found it just sad rather than disturbing.

Sofia Coppola just for Lost in Translation: Already ranked #140 for top 250 movies in imdb. The movie was nothing special but people think it's brilliant cause it was an indie film. Actually not much was done in the whole movie, it was too simple of a story. "Simplicity through beauty", maybe but I was expecting more other than flashy shots of Japan.

Metalcore: Not sure if you older people here know about it, but metalcore is the latest big thing with metal. All the kids that were nu-metal are now flocking to metalcore cause Killswitch Engage and Lamb of God got acceptance by MTV2's Heabanger's Ball program. Metalcore is actually pretty decent sometimes, but too many generic bands make me grow weary of the sound. And it's really more of the pre-packaing of the music for the conveniance of "shallow spoiled suburban kids trying to p**s of their parents" that I hate.

[trekgeezer]

I have to disagree about the Beatles, regardless of what you think about them, they changed the face of music at the time.  It 's a generational  thing, if you weren't there then , you don't realize the influence they had at the time.

[Ash]

jga5000 wrote:

> Requiem for a Dream: I like it but it gets overrated for being
> the most distrubing film of all time by a lot of people for
> some reason. I found it just sad rather than disturbing.

I agree with you about Requiem.
While technically well made, it did come off as just sad and left me feeling icky...which I assume was the film's purpose.


> Sofia Coppola just for Lost in Translation: Already ranked #140
> for top 250 movies in imdb. The movie was nothing special but
> people think it's brilliant cause it was an indie film.
> Actually not much was done in the whole movie, it was too
> simple of a story. "Simplicity through beauty", maybe but I was
> expecting more other than flashy shots of Japan.

I must respectfully disagree with you here.
I for one didn't care that it was an indie film, I would've liked it if it were a big studio production.  Either way it still would've been great.
You also stated that "not much was done in the whole movie".
No way!  There was a lot more going on there than you realize.
What's going on is in the minds. thoughts and conversations of the two main characters Bob Harris and Charlotte.
To quote Ebert in his review he says, "I loved the way Coppola and her actors negotiated the hazards of romance and comedy, taking what little they needed and depending for the rest on the truth of the characters."
So many films today are all about mindless action, super special FX  and hardly any character development.
Lost In Translation is a masterpiece of character development.

Maybe you were looking for action or hilarious comedy but obviously this is not an action picture and it is not a hilarious comedy.
It is something altogether different and in my opinion, transcends many films out there.

There are so many people that dislike this film...I am not one of them.

Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson give excellent performances in this film.
Go HERE to read Roger Ebert's dead-on review of this movie to get a much better idea of what I'm talking about.

Even better, go HERE to listen to Ebert and Roeper's thoughts on this movie.  
(select Lost In Translation from the list and click on the speaker icon...you must have Windows Media Player 9 to listen to it...if you don't have it, the audio will be all garbled and you'll need to click STOP and then click where it says, "Play MP3"  then you'll be able to hear it properly)

Lost in Translation is not overrated in my opinion.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
It's WAY underrated.



Post Edited (08-22-04 01:14)

[BlackAngel]

One actress who is starting to be overrated is Hallie Berry.  She  is still a good actress, and her emmy for her HBO movie about Dorothy Danage (I think) proves that.  But after she got the Oscar for, basically, playing a slut, and now that she did
Crapwoman, I don't think she's worth that much money.
-------------------------------------------------
Bulls**t!  I still can't hear you sound off like you gotta pair.

[Dean]

"yet everyone in america bows down to the guy and his new crap movies."

Really?  George Lucas seems to be one of the most hated directors out there.  He has done some great stuff, it's just what he has done to, for example, Star Wars I, II and probably III, which has inspired such fantastic hatred in many people.

I didn't think Requim for a Dream was overrated, especially since it is going for a pretty cheap price on DVD nowadays, it was disturbing at times, but generally just a bit icky, as previously said.  I do still think it is a great film.  If you want drug-induced distrurbing film, watch Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, one film which, in my opinion, is pretty underrated.

Lost in Translation was great, no two ways about it.  Despite the fact that not much happened, it engaged my attention the whole way through, and that's a pretty good effort.

[Eirik]

"I have to disagree about the Beatles, regardless of what you think about them, they changed the face of music at the time. It 's a generational thing, if you weren't there then , you don't realize the influence they had at the time."

Though I didn't come around until 1970, I don't disagree with what you say here... clearly they were a huge cultural influence.  But I think it is only because of their timing.  I think being removed from the hysteria allows me to see that the music wasn't all that.  It certainly wasn't on a par with the Who or the Stones, or other bands to come out of England later on.  The Beatles were just the first, a product of marketing.

[Mr_Vindictive]

Requiem is by far one of my favorite films.  

Darren Aronofsky has always blown me away with his films.  In this regard, I also feel that his breakout flick "Pi" is EXTREMELY underrated.

As for Lost In Translation, I was slightly disappointed in it.  

No Ash, I was not looking for an all out slapstick comedy nor an action flick.  I went into the film expecting a slow drama.  It ended up being a slow, boring drama.  Granted, the film was beautiful but damn it was pretty boring.

[Harry]

I agree with the beatles being overrated.  I'm a 70's boy, and they were okay then, but their first stuff is extremely overrated.  Lennon on his own was pretty impressive, but I can't stand Paul McCartny

[Bargle5]

Spoiler ahead for the upcoming Batman movie.




Dave Munger wrote:

>He finds out the Joker was the one who
> killed his parents, and he kills the Joker, thus guaranteeing
> that the sequels can't possibly work, because THE JOKER is
> dead! You can't have Batman without the Joker! Oh, but I guess
> killing a guy makes it all true to the original artist's dark
> vision .... so kill off a henchy you feeb!!! BTW, not knowing
> who killed his parents is basically what makes Bruce Wayne
> Batman, he has to take it out on personifications of the
> concepts of madness, crime, and evil.

That's one thing that always bugged me about that movie. In the original comic story, Bruce's parents were killed by small time thug Joe Chill. Chill never became a big criminal, he just remained a small timer.
Another over-rated thing is the movie Batmobiles. None have seemed as stylish as the 60's George Barris version to me. The styling has gotten worse with each new incarnation. The new one looks just awful IMO.

[Harry]

I agree...the George Barris version is by far superior.  I like the Begins version, it reminds me of the DKR batmobile.

[Dave Munger]

Those other bands came out of England LATER ON. Everything since the Beatles has been pretty much ripping them off. Rock would probably sound like Elvis to this day if it wasn't for them. Every time you hear a song with a long pause in the middle, trippy effects, or a guy who's just screaming yet somehow it sounds cool, you thank your lucky Beatles!