Most Overrated Movie Options

[*Kathleen*]

Okay. Just checking. I don't know. You make me feel so inferior.. and dumb. Which is your favorite of his?

[iheartjohn]

Scarface. Don't get me wrong, I like the movie, but it's most definately not the best movie of all time, as some put it.

[NoSex]

Okay. Just checking. I don't know. You make me feel so inferior.. and dumb. Which is your favorite of his?

Awwww, you're a knowledgable young lady. You shouldn't feel that way. I want to do film as a career. I want film to be a large part of my life. I have to go crazy on it.

My favorite Tarantino is Reservoir Dogs. Just below it, and I mean near neck to neck, is Jackie Brown. Follow it quite a ways down the line and you have Pulp Fiction. Then you have Vol. 2, and then Vol. 1. But, if I were to equate in other films that he didn't entirely direct, this list would look much different. Think, True Romance, and Natural Born Killers. Tarantino use to be my favorite director and his films tended to always make my top twenty list, nearly all of them. But, I really expanded my horizon, and I found a lot of other stuff that I find to be far more entertaining and far more clever. Right now, Pulp Fiction wouldn't even make a top 100 list for me.

[nyctophiliac]

WEDDING CRASHERS
it wasn't funny at all

[timeflies51]

"Brokeback Mountain". I'm sorry if some of you guys liked it, but I thought it was SOOOOO BOOORING. I really think it only got the hype because somebody was being daring by having them be gay. I'm sorry, but it bored me out of my mind. I have no idea why I watched the whole thing.

[technicolour]

Syriana. WTF was up with that movie? Seriously.

[*My Cinderella.*]

Scarface.

[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?

[*lolita kitty*]

Spiderman 1 & 2 are waaaay over rated. Both of them sucked.

[Nymphetamine]

POTC!

[smoke]

Why the hell are you so smug?
You just tried to say that Lord of the Rings is a classic, that it requires a lot of attention, and involves serious thinking. And, now, I'm the "ignorant dumb ass?"
I have my "panties all in a bunch." In? Huh? I think you give yourself too much credit, no panties were all in anything.
I was just making a point, a rather strong one I think.
I mean, look at your post. You were essentially implying that if someone didn't like Lord of the Rings or thought it was way overrated, they must be someone with a short attention span and also unable to "THINK". Note the emphasis on "think." This is a very strong kind of thinking, not the normal thinking everyone does each and every day. This is Lord of the Rings level thinking, not Titanic thinking.

Ahem, anyways. Your implications were wildly arrogant. Sure, you like Lord of the Rings, but to assume that people must have short attention spans and be incapable of simple thought processes if they don't like it...?!

I tried to add some meaningful commentary. The films really aren't that great. They don't have much to offer. You clearly thought they were big thinking films, "brilliant," and required some kind of attention span. I don't believe the trilogy merits any of those things. So, I made a refutation.

Dude, the fact was... you were way out of line to say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a classic, In any sense of the word. The movies suck. They're trash.

Lol, I'm not being smug at all. Actually, you're coming off as quite smug and I think quite a few people would agree with me. I just disagree with you, is that ok? Just take a chill pill. You don't have to get all defensive. We have opposing opinions. Get over it.

Excuse me. I didn't think anyone would pay enough attention to my post for it to be scrutinized over and over again. And they weren't wildly arrogant. That's the facts. Most people who watch movies want instant entertainment, not something they have to think about and follow the plot so carefully.

And I never said they were "big thinking" films. I only said there's a little more thought involved. And that's the truth. You know that as well as I do. The reason a lot of teens don't like LOTR is because of that. Teens want fast cars, guns, romance, and explosions. They don't want to follow a delightful story about a little hobbit. Please, man, spare me. You need to just calm down and quit making these ignorant accusations.

Now, somehow this refutation makes me look like a "dumb ass?" Maybe even an ignorant one? Whoa, buddy! You caught me red handed! I sure am an ignorant dumb ass! Especially when it comes to film! I don't know shit!

Wow, I ask you nicely not to do it again, and there you go again. Acting like an ignorant dumb ass. I only said you we're being a dumb ass about the "beloved Peter Jackson" claim. That's clearly the only thing. I already replied to that, so I suggest you read over it again without your superior attitude and realize that's what I was talking about. All in all, it was a pretty ignorant statement for you to assume I love Peter Jackson just because I love LOTR. And now you take that statement and try to make it look like I said you're a dumb ass because of your entire reply? Wow. I'm quite baffled by your thought process.

Dude, the fact was... you were way out of line to say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a classic, In any sense of the word. The movies suck. They're trash.

Well there you have it. You think I'm out of line, so it MUST be out of line. That's pretty arrogant, wouldn't you say? Many professionals would agree with me on my statement. I think you saying they "suck" and are "trash" is way out of line. That's just my opinion vs. yours. Please, quit trying to act all "high and mighty" and take some of your energy and focus it somewhere else. You really would be a nice person to argue with if you didn't have that arrogant, superior mentality. It seems to blind you as you've make some pretty radical assumptions.

And with that, I am through. This is quite pointless. I like LOTR, you don't. That's that. Peace out!

[NoSex]

So, I have an "arrogant and superier mentality" because I have a strong opinion, but your opinion is somehow not "arrogant?" I think you are confusing my tone. I'm not freaking out or anything. I'm just making a dialouge. You seem largely defensive, when I talk about the movie, you talk about me. I don't see how I'm the arrogant one because I have an opinion on a film, you guys are consistently attacking my character. Let's say we keep this to a discussion on the movie, huh?

And they weren't wildly arrogant. That's the facts. Most people who watch movies want instant entertainment, not something they have to think about and follow the plot so carefully.

Hmmm. Alright, I'll agree. People do want instant entertainment. They don't want to have to think and follow the plot carefully. And, that's why so many people love Lord of the Rings.

Look up the definition of ignorant. Most teens love Lord of the Rings, not the other way around. My "beloved Peter Jackson" statement was a bit more hyperbole than anything else, but whatever. If when you say "THINK" and mean "a little more thought involved," I can say "beloved" and mean "kinda liked."

Well there you have it. You think I'm out of line, so it MUST be out of line. That's pretty arrogant, wouldn't you say? Many professionals would agree with me on my statement. I think you saying they "suck" and are "trash" is way out of line. That's just my opinion vs. yours. Please, quit trying to act all "high and mighty" and take some of your energy and focus it somewhere else. You really would be a nice person to argue with if you didn't have that arrogant, superior mentality. It seems to blind you as you've make some pretty radical assumptions.

You aren't out of line simply because I think so. I mentioned exactly why you were out of line. It's a largely premature statement. Even if Lod of the Rings was a masterpiece of filmmaking, to call it a classic now would be premature and short sighted.

So, wait... "professionals" agree with you on your statements? I don't get why you have to keep bringing popular opinion up. I mean, it's meaningless in the first place, but inside a thread about overrated movies...? Come on.

I'm not acting "high and mighty" anymore than you are. I don't get how my opinions are arrogant, but yours aren't. You practically implied that people don't like Lord of the Rings because they don't have attention spans, and can't think. Then, when I charged that as arrogant, you said they were facts. This confuses me?

We disagree, sure. But, I still have yet to see you even attempt to defend your position, instead you have optioned to insult me. I gave my position rather clearly, you have yet to honestly respond to my original criticism of the movie.

You may come off as the nice guy, but all you are really doing is making fun of me instead of facing my criticism of a movie you enjoyed. Evan insulted me too, but at least he defended the flicks at the same time.