Now, I can't say how much he wrote of Run Fatboy Run, but he didn't write How to Lose Friends and Alienate People at all. I doubt Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz would've been made were it not for Simon Pegg.bahumat42 said:
Overrated Movies - Which One Do You Hate the Most?
- Thread starter Dastardly
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd give it another watch if I was you, not to say you'll like it again but, film tastes tend to dramatically change from older to young. I'd give it another try... Then if you don't like it... Fair enough.Protocol95 said:
I had a similar experience with quite a lot of films I watch now. I used to think they were boring shit and such, when I got older... I had more of an understanding of them so I enjoyed them a whole lot more. Also, the films I loved as a kid... Rewatching them and I couldn't stand them.
Example: The Hunchback of Notre Dame... I thought it was awful as a kid... I didn't really understand it. Now as an adult... I love it.
On the opposite spectrum... I liked Mr Nanny as a kid.
Well I suppose Avatar a bit, can't imagine people actually trying to kill themselves because Pandora isn't a real place? I mean for one it seems like Pandora would be a pretty dangerous place to live anyway, it was a good movie but don't get the crazy following.
Inception too, it was good at the time but had no lasting impact at all, I'd forgotten it existed until someone mentioned it upstairs :S
And the Mad Max movies, I sat through them waiting for the amazingness everyone had told me about but I never got into it really, was quite slow and boring to be honest and I was constantly questioning what was going on, felt like I'd come in late and missed the whole intro?
Inception too, it was good at the time but had no lasting impact at all, I'd forgotten it existed until someone mentioned it upstairs :S
And the Mad Max movies, I sat through them waiting for the amazingness everyone had told me about but I never got into it really, was quite slow and boring to be honest and I was constantly questioning what was going on, felt like I'd come in late and missed the whole intro?
I can think of many. Most of them were shot in real locations. I don't deny that Pandora looks amazing, but I understand that is isn't real. I love the visceral feeling when you see films that were shot on location.DuplicateValue said:
Like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It was shot in new zealand, and it is beautiful. The shots of the mountains are absolutely gorgeous.
Man, I still can't shake the feeling that most of these movies that people didn't like still weren't ones that were overrated. I mean, The Butterfly Effect? I never heard any praise or distraction for that one. I forgot it existed until now. For something to be overrated people an/or critics have to adore it and praise how awesome it is. Anyway [/me being an asshole]
I did think of one film that a sizable number people did seem to rave about that I seriously hated and that would be Memento. Holy shit did I hate that film. About half way through, I thought to myself "Okay, I freaking get it! It's in reverse chronological order. The novelty wore off 20 minutes ago. Now just end, end, END DAMMIT!!!"
B. Nolan's Batman (both movies) are far superior to Burton's. The writing, characterization, and overall feel that these events could actually be taking place made them far more compelling. Not to mention that the casting was phenomenal by comparison with the like of Gary Oldman, Micheal Caine, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Liam Neeson, and even Christian Bale wasn't horrible. They were just better films. There I said It.
So if you actually read all that you can take down your flame shield from my response, at least.
I did think of one film that a sizable number people did seem to rave about that I seriously hated and that would be Memento. Holy shit did I hate that film. About half way through, I thought to myself "Okay, I freaking get it! It's in reverse chronological order. The novelty wore off 20 minutes ago. Now just end, end, END DAMMIT!!!"
The dudes were emerging. Tropic Thunder really was great. Better than most comedies I've seen of late. Honestly though, to say that an actor is undeserving of an award because the film is a comedy is somewhat bogus. Many actors have said that a good comedic role is harder to pull off than drama. Of course Waltz still totally deserved to win and Downey was even shocked by the nomination saying, "It's not like I flipped through the script and thought "It's Oscar time!"beniki said:
A. First off, Tim Burton's movies have become stale, and incredibly formulaic as of the last 5 to 7 years or so. Hmm, lemme see. I predict his film will star Johnny Depp, his wife, be scored by Danny Elfman, and have the same partially goth art style as all his other projects with pretty much no deviation at all. It will probably also take place in the Victorian era. Him getting credit for stuff he didn't do is also getting frustrating even though it's not his fault. Yes Burton did indeed write the story and characters for The Nightmare Before Christmas so it was mainly his idea, but he did not direct it, nor did he write the screenplay. Henry Selick, one of the best stop-motion animators in the industry, directed. Even worse was when Selick's latest film, Coraline, which could arguably be considered the best stop-motion movie ever made, was attributed to Tim Burton by many people, even though he had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Neil Gaiman was actually a little pissed about that one.Sovvolf said:
B. Nolan's Batman (both movies) are far superior to Burton's. The writing, characterization, and overall feel that these events could actually be taking place made them far more compelling. Not to mention that the casting was phenomenal by comparison with the like of Gary Oldman, Micheal Caine, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, Liam Neeson, and even Christian Bale wasn't horrible. They were just better films. There I said It.
So if you actually read all that you can take down your flame shield from my response, at least.
I going to get murdered in my sleep for this, but Citizen Kane.
It was an amazing film, but it wasn't the greatest film of all time for me.
It is a character study. A very interesting character study, but nothing but.
There is very little actual plot.
And what there is is based around the biggest plot hole in history.
Who heard Kane say "Rosebud?"
Just think about that.
It was an amazing film, but it wasn't the greatest film of all time for me.
It is a character study. A very interesting character study, but nothing but.
There is very little actual plot.
And what there is is based around the biggest plot hole in history.
Who heard Kane say "Rosebud?"
Just think about that.
Exactly how I feel, I did enjoy his earlier movies (as I pointed out) though these days... Well as you put... You can predict the movie in a snap. Both Depp and Carter are brilliant actors but I'm bored of them being in the same movie with the same director.TheMann said:
The problem that I'm seeing with Burton is that he seems to be a one trick pony. He's not all that original, most of his movies have been remakes or adaptations of other movies or books and his direction is average to subpar. I'd love to see him get back to his old roots maybe, make a film away from Depp and the rest with maybe an original screenplay.
Yes I noted that one, we had a big Burton fan in college back during media and every time I heard her give credit to Burton over Selick for Nightmare before Christmas and Coralline... I must have died a little. Its a shame that a talented man such as Selick should lose all his credit to Burton, I don't blame Burton for this of course... Not really his fault, mainly the marketing department and the fans.TheMann said:
They also stuck very close to the comics. Nolan had clearly read the comics and was definitely a fan. Burton wasn't, he hadn't read the comics before he did the film and wasn't really that interested in them. Which is why Batman is radically different in the those films from the comics.TheMann said:
Nolan clearly did. I mean, even the subtle smaller parts out of the comics, the burning money and dialogue taken directly from The Long Halloween. Batman being trained by Henry Ducard
Though he wasn't Raz in the books... He was in fact French, though Batman did part with him when he started to go too far with his crime fighting
Of course, my flame shield was mostly up for the who "Fuck you, you don't like Burton because you have a poor taste in movies" people.TheMann said:
Burn After Reading: Everyone I know thought it was a hilarious movie. I was confused by the story (and lack thereof), the acting was terrible, the writing was worse, and the humor was nonexistent.
LOTR: Fellowship of the ring: I KNOW it's all about the setup for the adventure. Yes, I KNOW it's all the exposition and explanation so all the cool stuff can happen later. I could watch the second half all day long. Moria was epic, the Balrog was well done, the fights were amazing, and any scene with the nazgul contained a well needed dose of suspense. But most of the first half puts me to sleep. I don't hate it per se, but the first half seems incredibly weak as compared to the later parts.
Transformers 2: I liked the first. It was a good take on a franchise, with decent modernizing, the characters had arcs, and the robot fights were suitably fun to watch. Also hearing all of the people who work in the company that owns Bonechrusher cheer when he comes on screen and sigh when he's a bad guy was hilarious. But Revenge of the Falling was terrible, the comedy was crap, the story was nonexistent, the robots took a backseat to the humans, (the first one was a boy and his car/giant robot. It was a robot movie. The cartoons had humans bonding to a robot.)and the action had a bad case of "LET'S ALL SHAKE THE CAMERA TO BE EDGY!"
OT: I know you heard this, but 300 was not a history movie. That's like saying the upcoming movie Sucker Punch is a serious look at insanity, or B.C. was an accurate depiction of prehistoric times. 300 was designed to be a graphic novel put in motion on the big screen. I LOVE the story of the battle of Thermopylae. It's a great tale of normal soldiers taking a stand for their people despite certain death. 300 is none of this. It's cinematic style is what sold it, not the historical relevance. Each flourish of the blood just FEELS like your watching a graphic novel. When I watch 300, I always watch the History channel documentary on the Spartans within a day. It's a great story, and they at least captured the feel of courage that the battle conveys. But it's not a history movie. The documentary is a history tale. I see why you don't like it on historical grounds. I respect that.
But come on, you have to admit that fight choreography was bad ass, and the visual flairs were amazing.
Oh, and welcome to the escapist.
[sub]Oh crap, I wrote A LOT[/sub]
LOTR: Fellowship of the ring: I KNOW it's all about the setup for the adventure. Yes, I KNOW it's all the exposition and explanation so all the cool stuff can happen later. I could watch the second half all day long. Moria was epic, the Balrog was well done, the fights were amazing, and any scene with the nazgul contained a well needed dose of suspense. But most of the first half puts me to sleep. I don't hate it per se, but the first half seems incredibly weak as compared to the later parts.
Transformers 2: I liked the first. It was a good take on a franchise, with decent modernizing, the characters had arcs, and the robot fights were suitably fun to watch. Also hearing all of the people who work in the company that owns Bonechrusher cheer when he comes on screen and sigh when he's a bad guy was hilarious. But Revenge of the Falling was terrible, the comedy was crap, the story was nonexistent, the robots took a backseat to the humans, (the first one was a boy and his car/giant robot. It was a robot movie. The cartoons had humans bonding to a robot.)and the action had a bad case of "LET'S ALL SHAKE THE CAMERA TO BE EDGY!"
First off: Awesome avatar. I believe that's scorch? Or at least Boss?RC1138 said:
OT: I know you heard this, but 300 was not a history movie. That's like saying the upcoming movie Sucker Punch is a serious look at insanity, or B.C. was an accurate depiction of prehistoric times. 300 was designed to be a graphic novel put in motion on the big screen. I LOVE the story of the battle of Thermopylae. It's a great tale of normal soldiers taking a stand for their people despite certain death. 300 is none of this. It's cinematic style is what sold it, not the historical relevance. Each flourish of the blood just FEELS like your watching a graphic novel. When I watch 300, I always watch the History channel documentary on the Spartans within a day. It's a great story, and they at least captured the feel of courage that the battle conveys. But it's not a history movie. The documentary is a history tale. I see why you don't like it on historical grounds. I respect that.
But come on, you have to admit that fight choreography was bad ass, and the visual flairs were amazing.
Oh, and welcome to the escapist.
[sub]Oh crap, I wrote A LOT[/sub]
Oh, trust me. I didn't feel sorry for him as a victim of the technique. I felt sorry for him losing his family. To me, you should be able to count on your family to stay behind you and support you, even if they don't agree with what you're doing. And what I mean by supporting you in this case is that even though they don't approve of the behavior that landed Alex in prison, now that he was reformed they should have welcomed him back and helped him stay reformed rather than kicking him out. He needed that kind of support, regardless of whether or not he took part in some "technique", and not even his family would help him with that, even after he proved that the technique worked and that at least his behavior was truly reformed. Without that support, he was left with nothing, and that's the only sympathy I ever felt for him in the entire movie.Fraught said:
Scarface. It did poorly when it first came out in the 80's and only seemed to gain popularity when Rappers started citing it as inspiration. And with the release of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.
This. I grinned once at the end, I felt absolutely sick for most of the rest of it.wizzerd229 said:
Especially the taser sequence. As if cops needed THAT depiction yet again.
I am yet to se Fight Club but wasn't Pulp Fiction meant to be overstylised? That was one of the reasons that I liked it.FargoDog said:
OT: The Godfather. I haven't watched parts 2 or 3 so maybe I am not in the right place to make a proper judgement, like if you said you didn't like Lord of The Rings because you thought that The Fellowship of The Ring was slow.
I found The Godfather too long and drawn out. It wasn't a bad movie, I just didn't think that it was an absolute masterpiece. If Underbelly was cut together to make a movie you would get The Godfather.
Also this. When I watched it I sat there bored out of my brains thinking "when does this get good". I couldn't watch the whole thing and there has only ever been one other movie that I couldn't watch from start to finish in one go, it was Napoleon Dynamite.The Hero Killer said:
Hee hee. I think you will enjoy this clip on youtube. It makes me smile:Snotnarok said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoSJKQmloVg
As regards the title, it's mentioned in the book but the main idea is that by brainwashing a man to be moral you destroy his fundamental humanity and reduce him to an automaton - as empty and pointless as a piece of fake fruit. Yes, "it's explained in the book" is the #1 excuse for lazy screenwriting but in this case the title's significance isn't really important to the meaning of the story. I never really bought into the sentiment myself and certainly not in the context of that story, but that's what the title means.misterprickly said:
...and yes, beating someone to death with a mechanized orange would be awesome.
The whole idea of a mechanized orange is awesome - that's one of the many problems with that particular metaphor.
I think you're in the clear my friend. I was much less generous in my comments on Kane and I haven't received a single death threat so far.Not G. Ivingname said:
Kind of. What it really means is that a person feels something has undeserved praise. If somebody finds something only meh or good when the majority of the population thinks it is great would be a case of it being overrated.Wabblefish said: