Most Overrated Movie Options

[*Kathleen*]

What would you say would be the most overrated movie ever?

[WTFwasIthinking]

Spiderman, Matrix (YES ALL OF 'EM), Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Independence Day, and hundreds of other movies but I can't think of any right now

I think the Ring was hot whether or not it was scary though

[AngryBaby]

Spiderman, Matrix (YES ALL OF 'EM), Titanic, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Independence Day, and hundreds of other movies but I can't think of any right now

I think the Ring was hot whether or not it was scary though

you dissed all those movies, yet you like the RING? you just killed all your credibility lol.

I couldn't agree more haha. It's 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.

I know it's been mentioned, but Titanic was so ridiculous. Ok, I liked the movie but it isn't OMFG LIKE THebEsT mOvIe EVAR!!!!!1!3 People went insane over that movie when it was in theatres.

could this guy be more right? its almost creepy.

I just had to. I like to see the rant again.
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.]

well, it musta won 16 academy awards for a reason. its either i believe an academy. or a teenager that likes movies nobody ever heard of.

[NoSex]

well, it musta won 16 academy awards for a reason. its either i believe an academy. or a teenager that likes movies nobody ever heard of.

It won 17 Oscars for several reasons; reasons including, but not limited to, the reality that the academy sucks, and the trilogy is grossly overrated. That it won a bunch of awards really doesn't prove anything other than the fact that it is highly reguarded within the academy on several technical aspects. That it is highly reguarded is kind of a prerequisite to the series being overrated. So, no problem here mentioning how many awards it has and how many people adore it so much.

However, to suggest that since it is popular, and has been rated highly, must mean that it is good film is absurd. That implication is only that much more absurd when you are in a thread which is discussing the issue of movies being overrated. We can't just talk about the ratings themselves, we have to put them into context. Do they make sense? Should this movie be so well reguarded? Why or why not? I believe I put forth a meaningful post in that sense. Your post, on the other hand, much like the Lord of the Ring trilogy itself, has hardly any value, if any, and is near meaningless.

Not to mention, this isn't about believing popular opinion, an academy, or some "teenager that likes movies nobody ever heard of." Let's not be a f**king automaton. Figure it out for yourself. Why or why don't you like a specific movie, and why or why not do you think it is overrated? Let's not take the critics word for it, let's use our own heads for once.

[AngryBaby]

It won 17 Oscars for several reasons; reasons including, but not limited to, the reality that the academy sucks, and the trilogy is grossly overrated. That it won a bunch of awards really doesn't prove anything other than the fact that it is highly reguarded within the academy on several technical aspects. That it is highly reguarded is kind of a prerequisite to the series being overrated. So, no problem here mentioning how many awards it has and how many people adore it so much.

However, to suggest that since it is popular, and has been rated highly, must mean that it is good film is absurd. That implication is only that much more absurd when you are in a thread which is discussing the issue of movies being overrated. We can't just talk about the ratings themselves, we have to put them into context. Do they make sense? Should this movie be so well reguarded? Why or why not? I believe I put forth a meaningful post in that sense. Your post, on the other hand, much like the Lord of the Ring trilogy itself, has hardly any value, if any, and is near meaningless.

Not to mention, this isn't about believing popular opinion, an academy, or some "teenager that likes movies nobody ever heard of." Let's not be a f**king automaton. Figure it out for yourself. Why or why don't you like a specific movie, and why or why not do you think it is overrated? Let's not take the critics word for it, let's use our own heads for once.

i actually made that statement to give you some insight of what you come off as to some people when you basically put your opinion above others on what a good movie is. part of the point was that, do you even realize, that you are calling a whole academy of movie critics "sucky" and you sir, are indeed correct, at all times? which is the reason why i made the "teenage kid" comment. so that statement i made wasnt exactly about how lord of rings was a better film because of its popularity, im not that stupid. it actually had alittle more behind it than that.
i definately think you would have more rebuttle on the films you try to recomend to people all the time....if only people knew what the hell they were. but for example, i'll name a movie off that you like that i actually have heard of, jackie brown, ive seen jackie brown. but in comparison to lord of the rings, i enjoyed the rings alot more =/. so in my personal opinion, your credibility was already shot.

now i think what Brenden meant towards the "thinking more" thing about lotr. most people, that dont like LOTR, would actually prefer movies like, for example "the Ring" or "Harry Potter"
so in comparison to those movies, which is a more in-depth, intelligent film? lord of the rings? or Harry Potter?

now in my personal opinion, lord of the rings were excellent films. it wasnt uber complex or anything. but that certainly isnt the basis of what makes a good film. but it certainly wasnt for "simpletons". ill give you some films for simpletons, if you want to know some. it was a great adventure film, tons of interesting things going on,and interesting situations. you can nit-pick at all the little technicalities of a film such as "the characters werent developed enough" (especially when that can be easily dismissed as your own opinion again) but as far as im concerned, i loved the characters, except for frodo, frodo was a bitch. but anyway, how many films are there where you actually remember all the characters names freshly almost 4 years later? Gollum was one of the most memorable characters i know. but i guess he wasnt developed enough either huh? personaly i think it was excellent how they executed his internal conflict between smeigal and gollum by having him talking to himself. but do it in a way to where you actually believe there is two seperate people conversing.
but blah now i digress. thats my two cents

[NoSex]

i actually made that statement to give you some insight of what you come off as to some people when you basically put your opinion above others on what a good movie is. part of the point was that, do you even realize, that you are calling a whole academy of movie critics "sucky" and you sir, are indeed correct, at all times?

I believe that I am quite a bit more knowledgeable when it comes to film and cinema than the average individual, especially in comparison to my peers. I spend time learning and studying the art. I am also active in serious critical analysis.

It was never my intention, nor do I believe that it appeared that I was implying, that I am always correct. That would be a terrible mistake. However, I do believe it is meaningful, to a degree, to believe in your evaluation of specific aesthetic points, and or practical arts. Belief in those evaluations should only be amplified by a relevant level of knowledge and understanding of the medium.

What use would it be to assume that my opinion is equal to each and every other opinion if I am to hold it? Not to mention, my opinion is not the same as many others', and as a result, could not possibly be equal to each and every other opinion. I hold it for very specific reasons which I have articulated and can elaborate upon. Of course these propositions can never be of objective truth value, as this is a subjective matter, but it simply is not meaningful to be submissive and weak in one's opinion, given that said opinion is enforced and held.

If we want to have a decent discussion, I should believe thaty my opinion is a good one, just as you believe yours is.

Oh, and to add... the Academy is actually majorly occupired by actors, not "critics."
Members are also not required to even see the films which are nominated before they vote. So, it's really not that serious of an Academy.

which is the reason why i made the "teenage kid" comment. so that statement i made wasnt exactly about how lord of rings was a better film because of its popularity, im not that stupid. it actually had alittle more behind it than that.

Whether or not it was about popularity, the statement is still a fallacious and meaningless argument. If you want to refute my proposition, focus on my argument. Don't focus on my status as a "teenage kid." Or else, you're just fighting an ad hominem.

i definately think you would have more rebuttle on the films you try to recomend to people all the time....if only people knew what the hell they were. but for example, i'll name a movie off that you like that i actually have heard of, jackie brown, ive seen jackie brown. but in comparison to lord of the rings, i enjoyed the rings alot more =/. so in my personal opinion, your credibility was already shot.

I welcome a "rebuttle" on my films.
I would also be rather confident in having meaningful discussions on the matter.
It isn't as if I havn't changed my view on many a film over the years. People have helped to convince me, with meaningful argumentation, that certain films I once reguarded, were actually not as great as I had once imagined. It isn't an impossible conception.

I don't see how that you did not enjoy Jackie Brown hurts my "credibility." Now you seem to be a bit hypocritical. On one hand you are saying that I come off as if I believe that my opinions are always correct. But, on another hand, you are saying that my "credibility" is "shot" by the fact that I enjoyed a certain film more than you did yourself. So, are you saying that if I have divergent taste that my credibility is hurt? Doesn't that proposition assume that your opinion is of greater value (more correct) than my own?

now i think what Brenden meant towards the "thinking more" thing about lotr. most people, that dont like LOTR, would actually prefer movies like, for example "the Ring" or "Harry Potter"
so in comparison to those movies, which is a more in-depth, intelligent film? lord of the rings? or Harry Potter?

You're making some rather odd sweeping generalizations. But, what I think is most curious is the comparisons you are making between films like Lord of the Rings, The Ring, and Harry Potter. As far as I can tell, these films take just about the same level of thought: Just about none whatsoever. None of those movies are that in-depth, or intelligent. They are all pretty standard, rather simple flicks.

now in my personal opinion, lord of the rings were excellent films. it wasnt uber complex or anything. but that certainly isnt the basis of what makes a good film. but it certainly wasnt for "simpletons". ill give you some films for simpletons, if you want to know some.

You have definately highlighted some interesting aspects of the series. But, the issue I have is that an interesting concept sometimes fails when executed in a shallow manner. The series does not, to my observation, really do any kind of in-depth examination of the human experience or any of the themes or events found on screen. In fact, a large majority of the movie revolves around CGI action sequences (Not to say that these are inherently bad, but to spend three films on them...) punctuated by lame buddy style dialouge and cliche. Beyond its execution, the films sit on very simple cliched themes (I mean, look at the villains. They're bad, we get it). For this reason, mainly, it is a highly regarded film by many different people and, as a result has become rather overrated.

But, I'm interested now. What films are for simpletons, and what is, exactly, the difference between those movies and the Lord of the Rings trilogy?