Most Overrated Movie and Why

[Ninjamedic]

Avatar is 150 years in the future and lays down science work....and doesn't explain. why? because plot holes come up!
the Avatars couldnt exist in actuality because the Navi may not share our chromosomes, genetic minerals, or even be carbon based, after all their planet...er MOON (thats right Pandora is a moon which brings up how it can constantly sustain a tropical climate and not freeze every other month.)also could they not do that with a dog? or another animal for science on earth?
the mountains...oh those mountains...even if it WAS superconductors, im not sure if they cause that.....ever....especially since they had FUCKING WATER FALLS!!!! and dont say "oh their was rain!" HOW MUCH FUCKING RAIN?!?! those mountain weren't THAT big! look, i love a good fantasy...but if its science based fiction set in a relatively near future...EXPLAIN!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[dex-dex]

The answer is 2012. But instead of ME explaining, I have a pinch-hitter for me. Take it away, Dara O'Briain!

now I really want to see 2012 just to piss myself laugh at lines like the neutrinos are mutating.

 

[DarthFennec]

Avatar. Visuals do not make a movie, characters and plot do. The characters in Avatar were almost zero dimensional, and the plot was lazier than I had ever thought possible. Right down to `unobtainium.' I know that's the technical term. That's why it's LAZY.

 

[Henkie36]

Dazed and Confused: It's only entertaining when you are of the directors age. Otherwise it's just ''ok''.

If you found Dazed and Confused unrelatable only because it took place at the end of the 70's, then I have to wonder if you've ever been to high school. This movie took place before I was born, and it's still one of my favorite Linklater films.

Is Saving Private Ryan then only worthwhile for members of the "greatest generation?" Are Alexander and Braveheart only for reincarnated ancient/mideval persons?

I didn't say it was bad or unrelatable. I just said I didn't think it was as good as the critics say it is. Atmosphere for the 70's: A+. Soundtrack? A+. There is more like this, and there isn't anything really wrong with this movie, but I just didn't find it to be as entertaining or hilarious as you think or other movie critcs. End of story.

 

[Ytinasni]

Inglorious Basterds. Tarantino has made nothing so far to show me he's as good as people say. The main thing I disliked about the movie was that it was advertised as a comedy and everyone said it was hilarious, and it was not funny at all. That and I don't like watching characters talk in languages I don't understand about a plot I stopped caring about 10 minutes in, all while reading subtitles.

Avatar is also up there. It's a gorgeous movie, but sometimes the plot just broke the fourth wall so hard. Examplse: unobtanium; predictable plot. I enjoyed watching it, but I don't think it's a phenomenon, and it's one of those movies I'll only watch once.

I loved Basterds, but it's not my favorite Tarantino film. The language/subs issue is a taste thing. It was well done. It's funny you should mention Basterds, because it relates to what you said about Avatar...

Warning: I'm going to be a huge nerd here and correct you. I hope this doesn't sound condescending. Fourth-wall breaking is a specific form of meta-fiction. It refers to, and only to, a character addressing the audience directly, as in the Bloodpool comics and the horrific (don't waste your time) Funny Games. Calling the sought-after material "unobtainium" isn't even really metafiction. Even if it weren't based on an engineering term, referring to something in this way isn't 4th wall breaking or metafiction. Metafiction is when a character addresses or acknowledges that he/she is a character. Stranger than Fiction is a fantastic example of this, as is Inglorious Basterds, specifically the very first scene, wherein the fantastic Christoph Waltz tells the farmer that he's exhausted all of his French and asks if he can finish the conversation in English. But Tarantino doesn't stop there - he didn't do it just for a dumb joke. He then uses that literary device to the story's end. The English is used to conceal from the Jews hiding under the floorboards that Col. Landa knows they are down there, and is about to kill them. It made the scene all the more gripping.

Two things struck me harder walking away from Inglorious Basterds than anything else: the first scene involving the title characters takes for ever but never ceases to be entertaining or stops serving the story, and proves that quite a bit of story can be pulled out of one scene, and the movie itself is a statement about the power of cinema. OK, and the standoff in the bar was one of the scariest things I've seen in a theater since the OD scene in Pulp Fiction.

Speaking of, go find a copy of that movie. Now. It'll change your view of Tarantino.

As far as taste goes, you just described every reason I think tarantino is an overrated director, he can direct great scenes but outside of the few setpiece moments in his films which are genuinely excellent, the rest of his films are boring, in pulp fiction the best parts are the "do you know what marcellus wallace looks like" and the od sequence. for basterds is was the opening, the bar, the end and when the chick meets the jew hunter again. all of the other parts were mediocre to me at best.


edit: on topic, aside from tarantino films, I'd have to say titanic, it was too long for a drama/romance movie. had they focused more on the actual people of the events and real stories it would have been better and possibly could have been longer without being boring.

 

[Jegsimmons]

Avatar is 150 years in the future and lays down science work....and doesn't explain. why? because plot holes come up!
the Avatars couldnt exist in actuality because the Navi may not share our chromosomes, genetic minerals, or even be carbon based, after all their planet...er MOON (thats right Pandora is a moon which brings up how it can constantly sustain a tropical climate and not freeze every other month.)also could they not do that with a dog? or another animal for science on earth?
the mountains...oh those mountains...even if it WAS superconductors, im not sure if they cause that.....ever....especially since they had FUCKING WATER FALLS!!!! and dont say "oh their was rain!" HOW MUCH FUCKING RAIN?!?! those mountain weren't THAT big! look, i love a good fantasy...but if its science based fiction set in a relatively near future...EXPLAIN!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

actually i more or less expected a clip of the Nostalgia Critic yelling EXPLAIN and going Nuclear.

 

[Casual Shinji]

- There's Something About Mary: I don't know how it's viewed these days, but back when it was first released it was treated as the shizzle of comedy.

Because it was. I loved 90's Farelly movies.

Dumb and Dumber was the only I really liked, after that it kinda went down the pot.

- Nolan's Batman movies: Superhero movies should not be uber-serious.

Tell that to Joel Schumacher

That's the other extreme.

- Nolan's Batman movies: Superhero movies should not be uber-serious.
.

You........ WHAT!? Superhero movies are supposed to be serious, Nolan't batman was in my opinion never THAT serious, if you want an uber serious superhero movie, watch defendor. Oh and Nolan's batman is considered that good because it's almost always compared to the worst batman movie ever, batman and robin.

Superhero movies should always be a teensy bit silly, over the top, or larger than life. And I missed all of that in Nolan's Batman movies. It's like everything needed to be played with a straight face, and there was no room for some theatrics.

The Dark Knight Joker didn't feel like the Joker, because he lacked playfulness and... well, jokes. You couldn't once laugh at his behaviour like with Jack Nicholson or Mark Hamill, who struck a perfect balance between seeming totally harmless and goofy one moment, and being a spine-chilling lunatic the next.

Nolan's Batman movies put way too much effort into grounding everything in reality. And if there's something I don't want my superhero movies be it's a movie that is completely grounded in reality.

 

[Ninjamedic]

actually i more or less expected a clip of the Nostalgia Critic yelling EXPLAIN and going Nuclear.

Dammit, I was going to post that! Ah well.

 

[Xavier323]

Gone With the Wind is the most overrated movie of all time.

300 is up there as well.

 

[Panda Mania]

My father adores Lawrence of Arabia . And a lot of other people consider it to be one of the greatest movies of all time. Personally, I'm willing to concede that:

-its visuals are sweepingly impressive; the cinematography is very appreciable
-the score is magnificent
-Peter O'Toole is a wonderful actor

but would definitely stop there, since I found it to be waaaaaaay too long (and any modern-day editor would cut it to pieces, in a good way), with much pointless dialogue and an aimless, exasperating main character and plot. 'Course, some like all that stuff. But I'll take a tightly-focused story any day over Lawrence of Arabia's meanderings.

The problem I have with this argument is that the film is based on a real dude, so they couldn't just up and cut out parts of his life. I love the movie, personally, and it's easily in my top 5. It gets extra points for being about the Great War.

I am noticing a trend here, though, and it's kinda' disturbing me: a lot of people are hating on classics because "they're too long." Now yeah I'll admit that 2001 drags at points, but so do all three Lord of the Rings movies. I still enjoy them. It seems like now-a-days if a movie is over 100 minutes people start shouting "It's too long! How can you expect me to keep a single train of thought that long?!" I'm, personally, sick and tired of how short movies have gotten. If you're going to spend $100+ million making a fucking movie then charge me $15, or whatever the fuck movie theaters are charging these days, then that movie had best be at least two goddamn hours long. 90 minutes isn't a feature length film; it's a fucking short film most likely made by college students for a class.

Hmm. *ponders* That's true, to become frustrated with the character is to become frustrated with the real Lawrence, who was himself larger-than-life. In fact, his two-sided-ness is what my dad likes about him; it's what makes him so interesting. I can see that point, but it just comes down to personal taste--I perceived it as a disturbing, near-pathological duality, while other see it as adding excellent character depth. *shrugs*

And your observations about length complaints are equally true. As I said, no modern-day editor would accept Lawrence's lingering, uncut shots (well, at least not for a mainstream flick). It's definitely a hallmark of days gone by, that sort of unhurried cinema. And I'll be the first to admit my impatience is born of cultivated tastes, courtesy of the action-centered films of today. However, I can still enjoy the old, slow classics...it's just that, in my opinion, Lawrence didn't offer up characters worthy of emotional investment. (But yes, it definitely gets bonus points for being about WWI--seriously, it's amazing how filmmakers just seem to gleefully skip to the grit of WWII... -_-)

Speaking of enjoyable long movies...De Mille's Ten Commandments . Now that I can watch for hours "Mmmoooosessss..."

 

[Victory2Assault]

I hate to break it to you, but 2001, Citizen Kane and the Godfather are all great films, and if you don't like them or have to have them explained, then you probably aren't qualified to give an opinion in the first place, though you certainly have a right to your opinion in general.

Absolute pretentiousness.

"I like these films and believe they carry fantastic messages. Anyone who does not like them either has poor taste or doesn't understand them".

What rot. Some people don't like them because they simply don't like them. It doesn't mean they don't understand film.

Some people do have poor taste in films.

What you mean by that is "some people don't like what I like in films".

People watch films for different things. Some people like to watch film to gain an understanding of culture and appreciate art and technical abiltiy. Some people like to watch films to relax, escape and be entertained.

The person who watches it on in the first way I described /=/ the smarter person. Nor does it equal the person with the best taste.

I do mean some people have bad taste in movies. I've sat and watched movies (Machete for example) and my friends thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I sat there dumbfounded because I wanted it to be a sweet action film, but it was a total mess. Granted I like some films that people don't (Godzilla movies), I still 99% of the time watch what my friends do. We have our differences in opinion, but generally we agree on films most of the time good or bad.

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

Avatar was flat our, worst movie I have seen in my life. Well maybe thrid, Grouchland was pretty bad, so was the hanaha montana movie and the justin beiber movie

 

[Whateveralot]

Idiocracy, mainly because I see so many people act like it's an intelligent eye opening film. It's not.

Never met anyone who even knew this movie. I watched it three times, though. I think it's a really funny film.

 

[funguy2121]

Inglorious Basterds. Tarantino has made nothing so far to show me he's as good as people say. The main thing I disliked about the movie was that it was advertised as a comedy and everyone said it was hilarious, and it was not funny at all. That and I don't like watching characters talk in languages I don't understand about a plot I stopped caring about 10 minutes in, all while reading subtitles.

Avatar is also up there. It's a gorgeous movie, but sometimes the plot just broke the fourth wall so hard. Examplse: unobtanium; predictable plot. I enjoyed watching it, but I don't think it's a phenomenon, and it's one of those movies I'll only watch once.

I loved Basterds, but it's not my favorite Tarantino film. The language/subs issue is a taste thing. It was well done. It's funny you should mention Basterds, because it relates to what you said about Avatar...

Warning: I'm going to be a huge nerd here and correct you. I hope this doesn't sound condescending. Fourth-wall breaking is a specific form of meta-fiction. It refers to, and only to, a character addressing the audience directly, as in the Bloodpool comics and the horrific (don't waste your time) Funny Games. Calling the sought-after material "unobtainium" isn't even really metafiction. Even if it weren't based on an engineering term, referring to something in this way isn't 4th wall breaking or metafiction. Metafiction is when a character addresses or acknowledges that he/she is a character. Stranger than Fiction is a fantastic example of this, as is Inglorious Basterds, specifically the very first scene, wherein the fantastic Christoph Waltz tells the farmer that he's exhausted all of his French and asks if he can finish the conversation in English. But Tarantino doesn't stop there - he didn't do it just for a dumb joke. He then uses that literary device to the story's end. The English is used to conceal from the Jews hiding under the floorboards that Col. Landa knows they are down there, and is about to kill them. It made the scene all the more gripping.

Two things struck me harder walking away from Inglorious Basterds than anything else: the first scene involving the title characters takes for ever but never ceases to be entertaining or stops serving the story, and proves that quite a bit of story can be pulled out of one scene, and the movie itself is a statement about the power of cinema. OK, and the standoff in the bar was one of the scariest things I've seen in a theater since the OD scene in Pulp Fiction.

Speaking of, go find a copy of that movie. Now. It'll change your view of Tarantino.

As far as taste goes, you just described every reason I think tarantino is an overrated director, he can direct great scenes but outside of the few setpiece moments in his films which are genuinely excellent, the rest of his films are boring, in pulp fiction the best parts are the "do you know what marcellus wallace looks like" and the od sequence. for basterds is was the opening, the bar, the end and when the chick meets the jew hunter again. all of the other parts were mediocre to me at best.


edit: on topic, aside from tarantino films, I'd have to say titanic, it was too long for a drama/romance movie. had they focused more on the actual people of the events and real stories it would have been better and possibly could have been longer without being boring.

What about the dance scene, the ending, Butch going back to save Marsellus, "Zed's dead, baby," and The Wolf?

 

[castlewise]

Citizen Kane. It wasn't entertaining at all.

Heh. I'm not sure "entertaining" is really the end goal of that movie.

OT: Harry potter (especially the last one). None of the movies make any sense to me, and I've read the books. Its like they took a selection of the most popular scenes, shot those, and then wrote a story to connect them together afterwards. There's no flow, character growth happens in jarring leaps when someone's "important scene" rolls around, and they really need to remove certain parts of the story entirely, or actually include them entirely, not this halfway stuff.

 

[Kinokohatake]

I hate to break it to you, but 2001, Citizen Kane and the Godfather are all great films, and if you don't like them or have to have them explained, then you probably aren't qualified to give an opinion in the first place, though you certainly have a right to your opinion in general.

Agree with me or you're stupid. Wow, I love opinion as fact.

OT though, Avatar to me is so bad it's disgusting. And I may be the only person who says the movie's special effects and visuals weren't all that great. Weavers avatar was absolutely hideous, and the scene where the love interest picked up Jake's human body was awful looking.

Other than that I can't think of another film that I dislike that is really popular.

 

[Auron225]

Mamma Mia. Mostly cause I hate Abba. But the plot was the biggest pile of shit I'd ever seen. Oh, and Epic Movie. It is my top hated film of all time imo, and wins the award for biggest disappointment since I'd been told that it was "absolutely hilarious"! 0.0 It physically hurt me.

Aside from that there aren't many I hate, just some I don't get really;

Donnie Darko (Did not understand anything about that film whatsoever)
Pulp Fiction (Interesting but not all that entertaining)

 

[huntywoo97]

Clockwork orange, the acting was cheesy and it was too boring