Most Overrated Movie and Why

[funguy2121]

"Why does almost everyone seem to be offering critically acclaimed blockbusters from before they were born?"..."an unqualified 'it bored me' suggests that the movie offers something that has passed the speaker by."

Case in point:

Every James Cameron Movie

Hell, I could tell you why I don't like your hyperactive, immature pony show for little girls. Can you give me one reason why you thought that Terminator, Aliens, T2, The Abyss, True Lies, Titanic and Avatar (oh, and Piranha 2) were all overrated? Is it because you were born in 1998 and saw Transformers and Mimic first?

I didn't find them boring they were just not as amazing as everyone says they are, they are good films

If you were to name some of your favorite modern sci-fi and action films, I'd bet they are films that were dramatically influenced by Cameron, (early) Lucas and/or the Wachowskis. Aliens is to sci-fi horror what Die Hard is to the action film.

 

[mandaforever]

Avatar, no more needs to be said about that.

However, it's not aesthetically pleasing. Drawing a few pages worth of concept art for a creature is nothing compared to the work that goes into painstakingly rendering and animating a 3D model of it afterward.

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to demand that a film with such a gigantic visual effects budget should have some pretty damn amazing concept art to base it on. In Avatar, this is not the case. Every single alien element was just two or three basic objects thrown together, scaled up and painted bright, 'Windows default desktop background' colors.

:/

As a concept artist who knows about how things are usually done, I somewhat disagree with the first statement, since it usually takes one artist painstaking amounts of work that is trashed and then reworked along with extreme detail and texture and working anatomy to create a good piece of concept art, where modeling and rendering are split between multiple people to do because of the workload and the different skills each step takes.

I do agree with the second statement though....the concept art for Avatar was pretty unoriginal, and the colors and textures made me think that whoever invented these creatures was like "I'm just gonna throw a bunch of shapes into mudbox, and since we don't wanna do fur, I'm gonna make everything bright colors to distract from that and it will look badass"

 

[McMarbles]

I'm gonna say The Hudsucker Proxy. The whole thing feels like they were trying to create a classic '40s screwball comedy, but just comes off as overly affected.

Also, the remake of The Producers. The musical numbers seem to go on forever, plus it's just far too much time to spend with Matthew Broderick.

 

[Nightmare-Child]

Avatar get's my vote. It was pretty much Dune in the Rain Forrest.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

Citizen Kane. It wasn't entertaining at all.

I hate to agree. But this. The movie may have been something special back in those days. But nobody that I know that has seen it recently gets the big deal.

 

[McMarbles]

I am legend.....basically a very bad job of ripping off 28 days later.

You know that's a remake of an old Charlton Heston movie, which itself is a remake of another movie, which itself was adapted from a short story? If anything, 28 Days Later is the ripoff.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

"Why does almost everyone seem to be offering critically acclaimed blockbusters from before they were born?"

That is a valid point. And it does seem to happen a lot. However as much as I was unimpressed by Citizen Kane. On the other hand 12 Angry Men is my all time greatest film.

 

[mikeybuthge]

So... does everyone on this thread just not like movies or something?

 

[McMarbles]

3. The Dark Knight - For christs sake people, it's Batman! Not Hamlet! Lighten up for god's sake. You know if this movie was dark and nothing else that'd be fine but it dares to be faux-dark and boring too. I can accept anything but boredom, never have I cared less about the actions of characters than I have in this movie. Just a snooze from start to finish. The Joker sucked too.

The Joker was in that movie? I remember a greasy, unpleasant hobo in badly-applied clown makeup who kept taking time away from the villain that was actually interesting, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face.

 

[Pharsalus]

Godfather. Juno was just odd, why was Michael Cera even in it aside from generating preview buzz?. And Avatar was polished crap, Ferngully was a much better telling of the same story.

OMG! You Ninja'd my topic! Good job!

OT: AVATAR. That was utter bs. It might as well have been called James Cameron's Final Fantasy. Way too familiar. Creature design was a freaking copyright infringement. Na'avi= Ronso, etc. Story sucked and I've never even seen Dances with Wolves. Only people I know who like it are old and/or unimaginative. Rented it from Redbox for a buck. That was stupid of me. Best part of the film was the freaking tree.

Sidenote: Leona Lewis did the theme songs for both FFXIII and Avatar. Hm...

I for one am sick of people who use the dances with wolves/Pocahontas argument just because it's bandwagon.
Avatar sucks not because of unoriginality but because the plot completely falls apart when you realize that the "hero" causes every problem, the avatar program clearly doesn't work, and the "Bad guys" actually seem to have a point.
Humans use technology to survive so we need to use the planets resources, the Na'vi on the other hand were just born with the entire planet under their control, they didn't earn anything and don't follow any form of societal advancement, meaning they are destined to die out anyway. because they are an inert species.
So why does the movie seem stuck on the idea that the na'vi are a superior race?
That's why it's not a good movie. So please, everyone, make your own reasons instead of bandwagon.
at least it was pretty.

So your saying the mostly complete genocide of the Native Americans was justified in the name of progress? Humanity probably could have survived without the ridiculously named unobtanium, they just wouldn't have turned a profit, that's what made them bad. It's a shallow plot sure but they are morally in the red.

 

[Ninjamedic]

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

That guy is hilarious. Here's to Brit comics!

Sorry about this but, HE IS IRISH and yet he has become more british than the queen, depressing.

Why does almost everyone seem to be picking critically acclaimed blockbusters from before they were born and only offering "it bored me" as an explanation? "It bored me" is not an assessment of a movie. "It bored me" with no characterization of how/why the film bored you makes it apparent that the something the movie offers has passed him/her by.

I see that as either:
1: They're hating on something because its cool
2: the film was so boring or unimpressive there isn't really anything memorable in it.

 

[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.