Overrated Movies - Which One Do You Hate the Most?

[JourneyThroughHell]

And it wasn't even that good-looking.

I'm not a fanboy in any way - I thought it was good, but nothing special - but I'll have to call you up on this one.
It's one of the prettiest films I've ever seen.

Can you think of any movie that was better looking?

Sure... Inception (and I didn't even like it that much); The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (for the cinematography); The Island, any movie with snow.

How was it "pretty" exactly? I can get the same level of "prettyness" by watching Discovery.

I can't really see why you would "call me on that", seeing how beauty is subjective. But, here's your explanation - it was just a jungle with some alien life. Boo-hoo.

Yes, the fight scenes looked gorgeous and some of the technology shown was fun. But, otherwise, just a jungle with some floaty things.

 

[Duffeknol]

The Godfather movies. There is absolutely nothing fun or good about any of them. Even the soundtrack is horrible.

Also The Return of the King. Absolutely everything about that movie is wrong. I loved the other 2 LOTR movies, but ROTK is so horrid I could write an entire essay about it. I might, one day.

 

[redisforever]

I can't watch the Lord of The Rings, I just get so bored...

 

[katsabas]

Mmmmhm. I am not gonna go with what people have posted so far cause I liked both The Dark Knight (people's opinion is their opinion and THEIR opinion alone, even if they ARE a minority on whether or not Ledger was a good Joker-I thought he was incredible) and Avatar (even if it was just Pocahontas with aliens, it was a fun way to spend the afternoon and a movie I would re-watch).

For me, No Country For Old Men. I didn't hate the film, I just think there was some kind of 'something' that it was trying to get across that I didn't get. I do not know, it was bland, the chars apart from Anton were boring and...I didn't find anything truly interesting.

And what's bizarre, I liked both Burn After Reading and The Big Lebowski.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Also didn't like Heath Ledger.

You will. One day. I hope. I really do hope.

You know he only got rewarded for it cause he kinda died, right?

Well, I have to disagree with you there. I watch that film, I look at him and I believe he's insane.

Besides, if you're talking about rewards, I think many less worthy people have gotten a lot more than Heath Ledger got, and they weren't even dead.

OT: I don't think all that much of any of The Godfather movies, or 2001 A Space Odyssey. I've tried, I really have, but I can't stay awake through any of them.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

300

I was a military history major at West Point so yeah, that movie offended me on an intellectual level like no other.

you do know it was based on a... wait for it... comic book? it's not like it was directly based on the actual battle of Thermopylae. it was intentionally stylized, like pretty much everything Frank Miller has ever done.

-snip- Blockbusters and superhero movies specifically don't usually get rewards for acting. I won't say more. I won't argue.

well, you kinda have a point there. but you're also missing the point. the fact is, he flat out deserved that Oscar, because he f***ing nailed a role that most people couldn't even understand. but, since it was in a superhero/sci-fi/fantasy genre, it typically would have had no chance of winning, despite its worthiness. so, yeah, you're partially right. if he hadn't died, he probably wouldn't have won the Oscar, and that would have been a real shame.

A Clockwork Orange. Yeah, Kubrik's good at things. Yeah, there's a lot going on in this one. Yeah, it's got some edge to it. But no, liking this movie doesn't make you deep. And it's not a damned masterpiece.

I really think people just pretend to like it so much so that everyone will then assume they "get it," and they'll never actually have to demonstrate that they do, in fact, get it. It's like someone constantly overstating a qualification so that no one will ever ask them to show the documentation.

i actually agree with this one. and the funny thing is, i actually like this movie a lot. however, i think that part of the reason i find the movie overrated is nerd-elitism. i read the book (the unabridged version, to boot) long before i saw the movie. and the fact is, most of the things that made the book brilliant were missed by the movie, particularly the final chapter, which was excised from the movie and most american editions of the book.

also, i would have to add, as my own contribution to this list: every James Cameron movie in history, *including* the Terminator movies. i dunno why, but i never enjoyed them at all, despite being a fan of both sci-fi and action movies with lots of explosions. basically, to me James Cameron = Michael Bay with delusions of relevance.

i would also add every stoner comedy, ever. if you have to be high to appreciate the movie, it's the pot that's good, not the movie.

 

[wizzerd229]

The Hangover, "Comedy of the Year?" fuck off it is horrid,

 

[DuplicateValue]

And it wasn't even that good-looking.

I'm not a fanboy in any way - I thought it was good, but nothing special - but I'll have to call you up on this one.
It's one of the prettiest films I've ever seen.

Can you think of any movie that was better looking?

Sure... Inception (and I didn't even like it that much); The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (for the cinematography); The Island, any movie with snow.

How was it "pretty" exactly? I can get the same level of "prettyness" by watching Discovery.

I can't really see why you would "call me on that", seeing how beauty is subjective. But, here's your explanation - it was just a jungle with some alien life. Boo-hoo.

Yes, the fight scenes looked gorgeous and some of the technology shown was fun. But, otherwise, just a jungle with some floaty things.

I'm not talking about cinematography here (though if you were, my mistake) - that's all to do with the techniques used in filming. It's the skill of the crew, not the natural beauty of the setting itself.

Sorry, I'm finding this hard to explain. It's like... Avatar's world is pretty no matter how you look at it, because they designed it to look beautiful. It's nothing to do with camera angles and lighting.

The world and it's inhabitants all look great (due to extremely impressive CGI and such). Imagine you're not watching the movie - imagine you're actually standing in it - would you be more impressed with Pandora, or wherever The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is set?

It's like how Hero would have looked pretty even if the techniques they used in filming were crap - because the people and places were already beautiful to begin with.
Although I agree with you on the snow thing - snow is naturally pretty, and so a movie set in a snowy place will be too.

I hope I'm making sense, though it's likely I'm not.

 

[RC1138]

you do know it was based on a... wait for it... comic book? it's not like it was directly based on the actual battle of Thermopylae. it was intentionally stylized, like pretty much everything Frank Miller has ever done.

I hate cop out arguments. At it's core, it was based on true events and cultures, and given the attention it garnered, when I mention I went to West Point and took military history that movie, Black Hawk Down, and 50/50 on either Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Only one of those 4 is roughly historically accurate (yet all are purported to be). Drives a guy like me nuts...

 

[Berserker119]

All of mine have been said already, so I'm just going to go ahead and say my #5 pick.

Transformers. I mean, really. Just why?

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

you do know it was based on a... wait for it... comic book? it's not like it was directly based on the actual battle of Thermopylae. it was intentionally stylized, like pretty much everything Frank Miller has ever done.

I hate cop out arguments. At it's core, it was based on true events and cultures, and given the attention it garnered, when I mention I went to West Point and took military history that movie, Black Hawk Down, and 50/50 on either Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Only one of those 4 is roughly historically accurate (yet all are purported to be). Drives a guy like me nuts...

the thing is, i've never heard anyone claim 300 was historically accurate. that movie is purely eye candy, as was the comic book.

 

[spartan1077]

Scott Pilgrim. I would explain, but I've done it enough times already.

[sub][sub][sub][sub]Flame shield on[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Moosh50]

Also didn't like Heath Ledger.

You will. One day. I hope. I really do hope.

You know he only got rewarded for it cause he kinda died, right?

Please, don't go there mate.
I'm begging you.
To each his own opinion, and I'll respect yours.
But you could say that to some folks, and I am not joking, they would hit you for that.
People can get super offended by those kind of comments.

Doesn't that tell you something about Ledger's fans? You insult their lord and savior and lacking any good arguments themselves they resolt to violence?

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I'm not talking about cinematography here (though if you were, my mistake) - that's all to do with the techniques used in filming. It's the skill of the crew, not the natural beauty of the setting itself.

Sorry, I'm finding this hard to explain. It's like... Avatar's world is pretty no matter how you look at it, because they designed it to look beautiful. It's nothing to do with camera angles and lighting.

The world and it's inhabitants all look great (due to extremely impressive CGI and such). Imagine you're not watching the movie - imagine you're actually standing in it - would you be more impressed with Pandora, or wherever The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is set?

It's like how Hero would have looked pretty even if the techniques they used in filming were crap - because the people and places were already beautiful to begin with.
Although I agree with you on the snow thing - snow is naturally pretty, and so a movie set in a snowy place will be too.

I hope I'm making sense, though it's likely I'm not.

You are making sense, but I still disagree.

Of course I would be more impressed with Pandora... but that's because it's something I haven't seen before. Once that's gone, it's just an extremely green jungle with glowing trees.

I think the Wild West is far more beautiful than that.

Alright, I'll give you that - Avatar is good-looking. But it's not THAT good-looking. For most people, its looks sold the film. I can't understand that.

It also has to do with suspending your disbelief, which is something I couldn't do.

When it showed heights, I didn't feel it was any high. When it showed the jungle, I didn't think it ever could be real.

It's not the reason why I hate that movie - like I said, were it a good action film or a great fantasty movie, I would love it.

But I think it sucked and the world didn't help.

 

[Moosh50]

The Dark Knight.

I just can't take Christian Bale seriously as Batman. The costume looks too bulky and his voice growling voice makse it sound like he's trying super hard to be Batman, whereas he should, you know, not try to be Batman but BE Batman.

Also, Heath Ledger was overrated as the Joker. He was good, real good, but I just can't shake the feeling that the only reason he won the oscar was because of his untimely death.

 

[Delusibeta]

*mandatory mention of every Twilight film goes here*

 

[Guy32]

Fight club

The Godfather

These, and also Donnie Darko. Fight Club was good, but only an average good. The Godfather because as much as try to like Italian mob movies, all the characters look too similar for me. Donnie Darko was a decent way to kill time, but I didn't find it very deep at all.

I hate all the "You probably just didn't understand it" responses. Apparently, via the commentary, the director thought his movie was very straight foreword, which would mean that it was unintentionally deep if at all. That may not bother some people, but I tend not to find movies where the director can't properly convey his/her thoughts to be very good.

 

[NeutralDrow]

you do know it was based on a... wait for it... comic book? it's not like it was directly based on the actual battle of Thermopylae. it was intentionally stylized, like pretty much everything Frank Miller has ever done.

I hate cop out arguments. At it's core, it was based on true events and cultures, and given the attention it garnered, when I mention I went to West Point and took military history that movie, Black Hawk Down, and 50/50 on either Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Only one of those 4 is roughly historically accurate (yet all are purported to be). Drives a guy like me nuts...

Who on earth purports 300 to be historically accurate? Even the movie itself doesn't treat itself like history.

I'd blame whoever your teacher was. Sure, it's one thing to complain about how they didn't fight in phalanx formation longer than thirty seconds, but when the movie is an in-universe propaganda piece told by a guy who wasn't even at the fight in question, who saw fit to include war rhinos and circus freaks among the opposing forces...it's a little disingenuous to accuse it of misleading you about its historical content.

 

[RC1138]

the thing is, i've never heard anyone claim 300 was historically accurate. that movie is purely eye candy, as was the comic book.

You've never had to speak to a history classroom filled with 10th graders I assume. Dear God I wanted to strangle the man who made 300.