Most Overrated Movie |
Most Overrated Movie |
*Kathleen* |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Guest ![]() |
What would you say would be the most overrated movie ever?
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() in the reverb chamber. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 ![]() |
![]() ![]() Sure, you can disagree all you want. But, why? The old trilogy was an epic of technological advancements in film. For that reason, and near that reason alone, it became quite the phenomena. The plot was unoriginal, and covered little ground. Characters were enjoyable, but were hurt by a lack of development, bad direction, no real performances, and some terrible written dialouge. To say the least, it was cheesy. And, for being an Action/Adventure Sci-fi epic, it never really thrilled me. In fact, I always prefered the comedic side of the trilogy. Still Harrison Ford is the only thing I will revisit the original trilogy for. That's it. Han Solo is a bad ass. I would say that the original trilogy is way overrated. But, that's because it has a certain charm to it. It isn't really that fantastic of a film, but even I would overrate it. I would give it higher marks just because of its enormous cult status and charm. However, I would never pay the same respects to the shit box of aborted fetuses that was the new trilogy. These new films were a disgusting mess. Totally lacking in the charm that was present in the original trilogy. Worse characters, worse direction, over acting. I felt ill leaving the theater they were so bad. But, people still praised them. Left, right, up, and down. The problem is, we aren't playing the same game here. When the original trilogy was made it was a huge step forward in technological advancements. The effects were awe inspiting in 1977. It amazed audiences all around the world. It was also a lower budget, per-hollywood-god production. The new trilogy losses the charm, and does worse what the original could barely do in the realm of sophisticated story telling. The film is pedestrian and simple, because of this it can reach a wide audience. That's why it is such a successful franchise, and also why it is such an overrated series of films. But, as I had said before, if it wasn't for the new trilogy, Star Wars would have never made this list. So, thank George Lucas for being a money grabbing little-talent douche bag. I just had to. I like to see the rant again. I couldn't agree more haha. It's [Lord of the Rings] a classic. I guess it doesn't appeal to the short attention span of todays teens. And the fact that you actually have to THINK to understand and put it all together. It's a brilliant trilogy. Lord of the Rings...? A classic? Are you out of your f**king mind. It's hollywood bullshit. Far far far from a classic, my friend. It hasn't even been given the test of time yet. To call it a classic, either way, is still premature. Not to mention, I have a huge attention span. I watch, and enjoy, plently of true classic epics (We're talking David Lean circa 1960's). I have a deep love within me for many a slow-burning horror film. Attention is not an issue. But, in all honesty, there isn't anything really to pay attention to in this trilogy, let alone anything worth attention. Also, I can't really recall any amount of serious brain work for this one. In fact, it's a pretty uniform dumb-downed-big-time-hollywood-super-pedestrian-work. It has very little depth. It works in very defined moral lines. Its characters are amazingly under developed (almost to an insulting degree) for such a long trilogy. The special effects are bombastic. In all honesty, the film has little to nothing to offer. It appeals to simpletons, and that is why so many people adore it. That is why it is highly reguarded, and for near the same reasons that Star Wars has become an overrated work, Lord of the Rings is very much overrated. It doesn't take much thinking. It isn't very complex, smart, or progressive. And, in the end, it offers really nothing new to film, nor does it really do any kind of impressive job in its retro-rehasing. It's boring because it has nothing to offer, not because it is long. Want to watcha movie where you have "THINK?" Try an Ingmar Bergman film, or if that isn't enough for you, try putting together the biographical masterpiece that is Naked Lunch. [Note: Before your beloved Peter Jackson started smoking Hollywood cock, he made interesting, honest, and awesome movies. Try Heavenly Creatures, Bad Taste, and Dead Alive. Yeah, same Jackson. Whole other passion.] |
|
|
![]() ![]() |