Which director would you say gets more credit than they deserve?
I think Oliver Stone is overrated. I do enjoy some of his films: The Doors, Talk Radio, and especially JFK, but most of his stuff is just too overloaded.
I hate to say this, but I think that Alexander Payne is getting more recognition than he deserves. Don't get me wrong, I highly enjoy Election, and About Schmidt was good, but not great. Critics and what not are acting like he's this ingenious newcomer, when I think he's just slightly above average.
Soderbergh is SLIGHTLY overrated in my book. I like Soderbergh, too, but he has too many misses to account for.
I would say that as far as a director's work as a whole, Peter Jackson is SLIGHTLY overrated as well. Bad Taste and Dead Alive are funny for what they are, but Meet the Feebles flat-out sucks. Heavenly Creatures is good, but is not the masterpiece it's made out to be. The LOTR trilogy is excellent, but are not the greatest films of the new millenium, as far as I'm concerned.
Here are some more, some are slightly, some are not:
Michael Mann (slightly)
Francis Ford Coppola (slightly)
ANG LEE (DEFINITELY, I enjoy the Hulk and Crouching Tiger, but the Ice Storm is good for about two viewings, Sense and Sensibility is too over-dramatic, and Ride With the Devil is too uninteresting)
James Cameron (slightly)
Mel Brooks (he had three hilarious films, and has made one since.)
As far as underrated directors:
Tim Burton ( he gets SOME credit, but rarely for his movies, only his imagination)
David Lynch seems to be
Same with Wes Anderson, but for all I know they're not
PTA, simply because he needs to have as much recognition as Tarantino
Terry Gilliam
Gus Van Sant
Sam Raimi
If I think of some more, I'll surely post them
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04Mel Brooks (he had three hilarious films, and has made one since.)
Name them.
The Producers
Blazing Saddles
Young Frankenstein
Silent Movie wasn't very good
Spaceballs sucks
Life Stinks sucks
Robin Hood and Dracula were mediocre
History of the World Part 1 is the funny one he made since blazing saddles
Silent Movie is a great film, but fair enough. Just checking.
Hmmm... another "overrated" thingie, hugh?
Well, overrated:
Steven Spielberg
Tim Burton
Baz Luhrmann
James Cameron
Ed Burns
Guy Ritchie
And I'll agree with you on Oliver Stone.
There's no way Alexander Payne is overrated, though. He's sublime.
And I've found The Ice Storm to be a real keeper, better after the second (or twelfth) viewing.
Alexander Payne: not overrated. I'm not saying he's the second coming or anything, but his films are increbible, particularly Election. People don't make that big a fuss over him, do they? All his praise is well-deserved in my opinion.
Quote from: godardianHmmm... another "overrated" thingie, hugh?
Well, overrated:
Steven Spielberg
.
im curious why you think spielberg is overrated? my opinion on spielberg: out of every big studio director spending hundreds of millions of dollars, he is one of the few who continues to tell STORYS. after you sift through the charlies angles and bad boys, you have him still telling the stories he wants to tell and succeeding -- yes he makes a lot of money and is head of a "soul-less corporation responsable for the disintegration of art, but this is all for a reason. i feel film is about communicating -- i think a very direct gauge on ones ability of reaching "people" is box office numbers. he probably has the best track record in the world -- which shows his ability to connect,communicate and effect humanity. the jaded snobs may write it off as our world being full of ignorant idiots that make up the movie-going public, but really when it comes down to it the majority of the film snobs are the ones that lost their love of film and realize that they are pretty much failures. im just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous, uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.
If you guage "reaching people" as a measure of excellence, then Richard Donner, with the Lethal Weapon quadrilogy, is a major artist. That series made a billion dollars. When I think of Spielberg, "storyteller" is not the word that comes to mind, considering the fat on the narrative of Catch Me If You Can and the murky incomprehensiveness of Minority Report.
My problem with Spielberg is not that he is a popular filmmaker -- my problem with him is that his films suck. Jurassic Park made a billion, and it sucked. Empire of the Sun and Always bombed, and they both sucked. It has nothing to do with money.
the thing about Spielberg is...to put it correctly...he's a NATURAL BORN FILMMAKER. He's not one of my favorite's or anything, but you've gotta give credit where credit is due. How can you watch Minority Report and pretend that this guy doesn't have a talent for filmmaking? Look at fuckin' Jaws, that is the definition of natural filmmaking. He is very versital (sp?) too. I don't think he gets enough credit for that. I mean, look, he goes from a suspense film about a shark in the lake, to a sci-fi movie about aliens coming to Earth, to an adventure series concerning an archeologist, to a movie about slavery, to a movie about the Holocaust to a Peter Pan adaptation to a movie about dinosaurs to a war movie to a modern day pinnochio story to a futuristic film with precrime to a biopic about a 17 year old con artist. What more do you want?
Spielberg
Scorsese
Hitchcock
Kevin Smith
John Hughes
Orson Welles
Ridley Scott
Atom Egoyan
Ron Howard
Sam Mendes
I would actually say Oliver Stone is underrated just because of how much hostility he's endured.
Scorsese? really? hmmm.... odd choice, I'm gonna need some support.
Orson Welles....he MIGHT be, only because he's not the GREATEST just because he made Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, and the Magnificent Ambersons. I don't know if people realize he made a whole bunch of other films. In order to be the greatest, you would have to have a consistency in your films. He is good though.
Quote from: soixanteIf you guage "reaching people" as a measure of excellence, then Richard Donner, with the Lethal Weapon quadrilogy, is a major artist. That series made a billion dollars. When I think of Spielberg, "storyteller" is not the word that comes to mind, considering the fat on the narrative of Catch Me If You Can and the murky incomprehensiveness of Minority Report.
My problem with Spielberg is not that he is a popular filmmaker -- my problem with him is that his films suck. Jurassic Park made a billion, and it sucked. Empire of the Sun and Always bombed, and they both sucked. It has nothing to do with money.
concerning richard donner -- thats one idea,one success -- spielberg has had that size of success spaning an entire career, regardless of the genre. im by no means a spielberg fanatic, but one is ignorant if they dont recognize his acheivments. and again one saying that jurassic park "sucked" is far from a valid arguement. it did what it was trying to acheive: ignite the imagination and entertain -- its also considered one of the most groundbreaking films of this decade -- you cant go into every film expecting wild strawberries.
Quote from: soixante\ When I think of Spielberg, "storyteller" is not the word that comes to mind, considering the fat on the narrative of Catch Me If You Can and the murky incomprehensiveness of Minority Report.
i never saw screenwriter under his name. im talking about his ability as a director aka a visaul storyteller. if you deny his ability to capture the "world" and tone of a screenplay you need to take another look. and empire of the sun doesnt suck.
Kevin Smith and his pathetic Askewniverse.
Quote from: SqueoKevin Smith and his pathetic Askewniverse.
couldnt agree with you more.
I love Wild Strawberries!
Why can't anybody point out the fact that Schindler's List is almost, ALMOST in the same league as a Bergman film....
WAIT, no I take that back....scratch that. I don't want to over-rank that film. But still, you know the point I'm trying to make.
i love wild strawberries as well -- i was trying to make a point...
My overrated list is too long, but let me go on record to say Oliver Stone is underrated.
alot of really heated spielberg arguments have sprung up lately.....he is good, isn't he?
Quote from: cowboykurtisim just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous, uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.
Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.
I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium (he unfortunately has become the gold standard of cinema to most of those whose opinions and decisions get films made), and the perception of him as an artist and his work is very, very deceptive. It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.
He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." He's a bland, pedestrian thinker and creator (this is where I guess you could say that yes, I'm critical of his technique, which does nothing but level everything it touches into its most Hallmark-"poignant"/bombastic/grandstanding/"feel-good" element- his films are professional, proficient mediocrity) who has come to define for the vast majority of people what film is/should be, and I'm strongly opposed to that exactly and only because I feel his films are subpar, middlebrow mush devoid of inspiration or passion.
I don't require films to be "intellectual," you understand, but Spielberg, clearly dissatisfied with his talent for escapist, mindless entertainment, is desperate to be "respected" as an artist. And that's just death for his films, which I feel have progressively become so dull and soggy and mundane that I've pretty much written him off.
Rather than being an artist who knows the business (which all artists with any self-preserving instinct must), he's a businessman disguised as an artist. I basically think he's closed more minds than he's opened, and in more important/directly influential places than anyone else in film. I'm certainly not jealous of his success; I am much more jealous of the success of, say, a Todd Haynes or a Hal Hartley. I guess I consider "success" the place where both art and a living are made; by that standard, Spielberg is not really a success. Yet, he's treated as if he's the most astonishingly successful, cinematically brilliant mind ever. Hence my feeling that that he's incredibly overrated.
But hey, I fucking hated
Seabiscuit- very Spielbergian- too. If Gary Ross ever becomes "The King of Cinema" (really, Spielberg is "The King of Cinema" just like Michael Jackson was "The King of Pop"), I'll be just as outspoken about it, I can assure you. Right now, though, Gary Ross isn't overrated, because the applause for him isn't really all that deafening. Spielberg, on the other hand...
(And that's all I'm going to say about this here- there's a reason I never go the Spielberg item).
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanSpielberg
Scorsese
Hitchcock
Kevin Smith
John Hughes
Orson Welles
Ridley Scott
Atom Egoyan
Ron Howard
Sam Mendes
I would actually say Oliver Stone is underrated just because of how much hostility he's endured.
Oh, JB... not Atom Egoyan! And not Hitchcock!!!! And not WELLES!?!?!?!? Hughes, Smith, Scott, and Howard, I'm with you on... and Sam Mendes to a point, though I've really enjoyed both of his films (my world wasn't irrevocably rocked by them, though; here's where the true definition of "overrated" comes in).
You know who I think are kind of prone to being overrated, particularly on this board? Robert Altman and Jonathan Demme. Both have made very, very good films, but I feel both have some pretty glaring flaws and have made some pretty poor films, and I don't feel either are as fresh or radical as their most energetic proponents might have us believe... NOT saying I dislike them by any means, just that I'm not as convinced they're so extra-special and unique and important as many claim.
Scorsese... well, I suppose he is overrated in the way that he's singled out for so much praise. I mean, he's great and has made some of my most favorite films ever, but he's lauded in a way that nobody could actually live up to.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: cowboykurtisim just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous, uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.
Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.
I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium \It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.
He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." .
you answered my question -- your a mix between jealous and bitter.
Quote from: godardianYou know who I think are kind of prone to being overrated, particularly on this board? Robert Altman and Jonathan Demme. Both have made very, very good films, but I feel both have some pretty glaring flaws and have made some pretty poor films, and I don't feel either are as fresh or radical as their most energetic proponents might have us believe... NOT saying I dislike them by any means, just that I'm not as convinced they're so extra-special and unique and important as many claim.
I agree completely, especially for Altman. When watching Gosford Park, I couldn't help but feel everything in the movie was what I already expected to come from Robert Altman. On more recent movies where his style of storytelling isn't so apparent (Dr. T and Cookie's Fortune), I just felt the stories were quite lame.
burr steers
..ron howard is a great choice...
baz ...
fellini
.....i agree w/ payne...
oliver stone is badass
i agree with altman
Yes, Luhrmann is overrated. The only thing worth noting is that his films are totally unlike anybody else's, but he stands as proof that isn't always a good thing.
Fellini? IDK...
I agree with Godardian about how Spielberg has altered the minds of the common moviegoer into thinking that his movies are how movies should be, that is bothersome, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not his fault that his movies are treated that way. Maybe he just knows how to work the public, and still make the movies he wants to make. I know you say that he's commercial and makes safe films and what not, maybe those are the films he wants to make. For making the "safe" films that he makes, he sure knows how to pick them.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: godardianQuote from: cowboykurtisim just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous, uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.
Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.
I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium \It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.
He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." .
you answered my question -- your a mix between jealous and bitter.
:?:
By your standards, then, anyone dissatisfied with the way things are (and who are skeptical of the status quo-enforcing people who've made them that way) is dissatisfied because they're jealous or bitter, and in no way because they expect more of the vast possibilities cinema has to offer?
In other words, I don't resent Spielberg's box-office success- I resent that he's created a standard whereby that kind of success is the only kind, and we're told to go to a film because "it's the #1 movie in the country!" which tells us nothing about the film itself. "The most popular and crowd-pleasing of anything is the best of anything." That's the Spielbergian way! Absolutely nothing wrong with being popular or crowd-pleasing- I wish every great film could achieve both of those things- but something VERY wrong with having those things as your main criteria, which it seems obvious to me Spielberg does.
Don't oversimplify my position by claiming I feel that something is automatically superior because it's less popular, either, please. My opinions aren't simplistic. I've really thought it through. Spielberg is a bad filmmaker no matter how popular he is or how much money he makes, but the fact that he's so well-respected is grossly disproportionate and fairly ridiculous. That's my position on it.
I lied about not saying anything more on the subject here, though apparently. :(
Quote from: SqueoKevin Smith and his pathetic Askewniverse.
look kevin smith had some good shit. his later stuff is questionable but chasing amy was a classic with a great story. i hope your not jumping on the band wagon because of his PTA slightings. I'd have to disagree with the earlier comment about oliver stone. oliver stone is one of the last american directors with a critique on political agendas (not to mention most of his films are outstanding) and he should be encouraged to continue with his brand of fiction/nonfiction. he is only able to do this because of his body of work. a new filmmaker in this day and age doesn't have the ability to send out messages of overt discord. JFK is one of the greatest films of all time; top ten for sure. the craft is amazing and it pitted itself against the very nature of dogma. bully for him because it could never be done again, save michael moore. too much control now and political correctness is at its strongest moment in history.
my list,
Fincher (slightly)
Scorcese (big time, same film over and over)
Spike lee (until Bamboozled, that film and 25th hour are classics)
-sl-
urghhhhfuckgrrrrrr.... overration threads give me rashes in bad places.
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04
Spaceballs sucks
excuse me?
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: soixanteIf you guage "reaching people" as a measure of excellence, then Richard Donner, with the Lethal Weapon quadrilogy, is a major artist. That series made a billion dollars. When I think of Spielberg, "storyteller" is not the word that comes to mind, considering the fat on the narrative of Catch Me If You Can and the murky incomprehensiveness of Minority Report.
My problem with Spielberg is not that he is a popular filmmaker -- my problem with him is that his films suck. Jurassic Park made a billion, and it sucked. Empire of the Sun and Always bombed, and they both sucked. It has nothing to do with money.
concerning richard donner -- thats one idea,one success -- spielberg has had that size of success spaning an entire career, regardless of the genre. im by no means a spielberg fanatic, but one is ignorant if they dont recognize his acheivments. and again one saying that jurassic park "sucked" is far from a valid arguement. it did what it was trying to acheive: ignite the imagination and entertain -- its also considered one of the most groundbreaking films of this decade -- you cant go into every film expecting wild strawberries.
Actually, Richard Donner has directed many hits, going back to 1976 with The Omen, then Superman in 1978.
I disagree that Jurassic Park did what it was trying to achieve -- it didn't ignite my imagination, and it didn't entertain me. That's in the eye of the beholder. It's considered a groundbreaking film simply for technical reasons. When I think of Spielberg, I think of special effects movies. He makes a disproportionate amount of sci-fi movies, which is the most adolescent genre.
It comes down to a director's sensibilities -- I feel that Spielberg's sensibility is prosaic and dull, and that he gears his films to the lowest common denominator in the audience.
Also, could you imagine a serious director like Roman Polanski following up an Oscar-winning movie about the Holocaust with a CGI dinosaur movie? The bottom line is, I can't imagine a serious artistic director (like Scorsese or Altman) making a stupid dinosaur movie.
Don't bring Baz and Smith into this discussion :P
Actually, I also think that the main compliment we can make Baz Luhrmann is that his movies are unlike any others. The thing is... I like them 8)
As for Kevin Smith, well... With all due respect, I'd rather not talk much about him on a message board that originated from an old PTA board. I will always think of Chasing Amy as a trully amazing film.
Quote from: godardianOh, JB... not Atom Egoyan! And not Hitchcock!!!! And not WELLES!?!?!?!?
I don't think they're not good directors... they're just overrated. I also can't make a personal connection with any of the directors I listed.
I think Federico Fellini is overrated, but I still think he is a genius. I just think he only made a few films that were complete. Most of his films have good qualities along with many bad qualities. The same could be said for Orson Welles, as well.
Scorsese is not overrated.
brad:
You're excused...
Af all the people who have been mentioned here, hardly anyone is really overrated.
Richard Donner IS an accomplished artist, who works within a genre and does it well. The Lethal Weapon movies are exactly what they want to be: fun. Those movies depend on the on screen chemistry of their actors and they have it.
Spielberg is, I'm starting to see, underrated. Too many "film" people dismiss him unfairly.
It is simple minded to say he has altered th eindustry and it's responsible for the "sports" mentality that plagues american and world society this days on every aspect of our lives: from the money we earn, the awards we receive, the popularity we have on our circle of friends, the music that is more listened to. Blaming him for that is bullshit, that behaviour is throughout all society these days, not only movies, and it¿s not his fault that his films, which are very personal for him, make a lot of money cause they are accesible and well made.
Oliver Stone overrated?!?!?!? Are you people fucking kidding me?? Could any of you take out the amazing performances he has repetadly taken from his actors in almost every single one of his movies?? Would you dare to make an 80 million film about Richard nixon and turn it into a greek/american citizen kenian tragedy??? I mean would you even have the balls to work with the enormous casts of tremendous actors he manages with ease???
No one here says Bergman is overrated (he isn't of course), but I suspect that's only because of a general perception that he is just not that well known and recognized by the general public. The general publici doesn't have to give a shit about movies if they don't want to, and they can choose. They are better filmmakers than Spielberg and Oliver Stone, but just because those filmmakers are not that recognized by audiences doesn't mean the others are overrated. I bet if some of us were discussing barroque music with someone who actually knows about it and we tell him our preferences on that genre, then he would think we're a bunch of ignorants. Or maybe he would be cool and understand that there are people for every tastes.
A lot of bashing here towards filmmakers and actors seem to come only from a close minded perception of what film should be, and seem to be overlooking the work, effort, heart and visible results that these people have with their art.
I think I read somewhere that Welles is overrated, which is a load of crap. He changed cinema!!!! One great movie is enough...all the names here...I'm just amazed, it's like when Diane Keaton is bashing everyone from Bergman to Tarkovski in Manhattan and Woody Allen can't just believe it...Altman??? Hitchcock??? Overrated???
The great thibg about movies and any arts is the variety, the range of forms that the medium can take...I love movies cause they offer me all these different perspectives, all these styles: Spelberg, Kubrick, Allen, Lee, Bergman, Fellini, Passolini, Scorsese, Tarantino, Altman, Hitchcock, Stone, Haynes,Pta, Moretti, Jeunet, Kurosawa, Coppola, Oshima, Tarkovski, Kusturica, all these people, and a lot more are terrific cause they are honest artists and they make everything from the heart. They can fail sometimes but we can always be sure thay do it with respect for our minds and perceptions and intelligence. And the failure and success is in the eyes of the individual viewer, in the end...
I mean there are plenty of filmmakers out there who are doiung it really only for the money and who are really just playing around doing crap: where the fuck is MCG in the overrated list????
sorry about any spelling mistakes here....
great post
end of thread, topic, and discussion.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: godardianQuote from: cowboykurtisim just curious are you jealous of his success? are you critical of his technique? do you disregard his choices of subject? i truly feel anyone who discounts spielberg as a great directors is embittered,jealous, uninformed, or one of the group who herald guys like richard kelly and harmonie korrin and brillaint cinema masterminds.
Well, I appreciate the opportunity to do a little false-binary-busting here; I am none of the above.
I think Spielberg sets the bar low for himself and therefore the medium \It's all spin, inflated acclaim and empty award-grubbing; he's got the Stamp of Approval from everyone in showbiz. It seems to have overridden people's faculties; I can't think of any other filmmaker so unnecessarily coddled and endeared to so many, with so little of any actual importance or even relevance in his work.
He more than anyone else is responsible for the horse-race climate of modern film, for box office numbers being the only measure of a film's "success." .
you answered my question -- your a mix between jealous and bitter.
:?:
By your standards, then, anyone dissatisfied with the way things are (and who are skeptical of the status quo-enforcing people who've made them that way) is dissatisfied because they're jealous or bitter, and in no way because they expect more of the vast possibilities cinema has to offer?
(
Again you've solidified my judgement -- you havent once adressed the movies he makes -- rather the climate you feel he has created as a business man. if your spiteful because JAWS created the blockbuster, which in affect has pushed smaller films out of the picture, i do not feel Spielberg should be held responsible. if you understood the way this industry works, you'd understand that the audience is in control -- in effect, your bitterness should be directed towards the uneducated people of this country. they make a decision to pay 10 bucks for a specific product -- out of the buckets of garbage that the studios produce, speilbergs films actually hold merit. if you tell me why you dont like his films, id be singing a different tune, but all you've given me is angst ridden whining about the current state of cinema, who spielberg, in your mind, is responsible for. i assure you if a film like 21 grams made 100 million opening weekedn, those are the films they would be making. they give the people what they want, its how its always been. the industry hasnt gone down the shitter, the people of this country have....a great man once said " no one has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of america".
Saving Private Ryan made me laugh with its stupid flag waving crying bullshit that bookmarked the film. Plus, Berg neatly divides his characters into either good or bad. No room for human depth in a Berg film.
I think we can all agree that the ending of Hook was lame.
His constant pushing of the kid characters in Jurassic Park just created such annoyance.
His version of Lost World drained all intelligence that the novel had, in favor of cheap thrills that were cheap to be sure, but not thrilling.
Minority Report: all the so called "dark" stuff, soooo light. Even when he has a dystopia, shows a slum building, and has people screwing, it seems light, fluffy, and fake. Plus the neat wrap up ending (even if it's a dream) undermines any serious topic he might have broached.
E.T. - I haven't seen for years, but when I was a kid I was A. bored, B. didn't give a shit if the alien died or not -- and it's supposed to be a movie for kids!!!
I'm glad people dig his films, and get something out of them. I don't, and hence I find him very overrated. Especially when, to the common person, he is the yardstick of what a "good director" should be (as godardian was getting at).
This whole thread makes me wonder if any of you even like movies?
Quote from: Alexandro
Spielberg is, I'm starting to see, underrated. Too many "film" people dismiss him unfairly.
It is simple minded to say he has altered th eindustry and it's responsible for the "sports" mentality that plagues american and world society this days on every aspect of our lives: from the money we earn, the awards we receive, the popularity we have on our circle of friends, the music that is more listened to. Blaming him for that is bullshit, that behaviour is throughout all society these days, not only movies, and it¿s not his fault that his films, which are very personal for him, make a lot of money cause they are accesible and well made.
A lot of bashing here towards filmmakers and actors seem to come only from a close minded perception of what film should be, and seem to be overlooking the work, effort, heart and visible results that these people have with their art.
The great thibg about movies and any arts is the variety, the range of forms that the medium can take...I love movies cause they offer me all these different perspectives, all these styles: Spelberg, Kubrick, Allen, Lee, Bergman, Fellini, Passolini, Scorsese, Tarantino, Altman, Hitchcock, Stone, Haynes,Pta, Moretti, Jeunet, Kurosawa, Coppola, Oshima, Tarkovski, Kusturica, all these people, and a lot more are terrific cause they are honest artists and they make everything from the heart. They can fail sometimes but we can always be sure thay do it with respect for our minds and perceptions and intelligence. And the failure and success is in the eyes of the individual viewer, in the end...
I mean there are plenty of filmmakers out there who are doiung it really only for the money and who are really just playing around doing crap: where the fuck is MCG in the overrated list????
I really appreciate your passion for film and respect your point of view, but:
I have a very hard time believing Spielberg's films are personal in any way. I'm astonished that people time and time again grossly misconstrue what I'm saying as "That Spielberg, his films make too much money. I hate him because of that"
I have to stress again and again that that's not it at all. Even if he is only symptomatic of a cultural tendency to boil things down to the lowest common denominator and just go with the flow of supposed public opinion and marketing trends, he is still film's biggest symptom of that. Even if my guesses at why his films are bad are inaccurate, I still find them to be mediocre films. For whatever reason, he has a remarkably shallow sensibility that I don't like; I find his films gloppy and soft-headed. It's not because I think I'm better than him or better than people who like him; when I'm sitting there in the dark and looking at the screen, I dislike what I see for the reasons I mentioned.
What really rubs salt in this wound is the way he is hailed, not just at the box office, but by nearly EVERYONE. There are so few voices of dissent on Spielberg that it's shocking. Certainly, Oliver Stone- as overrated as I find him to be- has a body of work of more cinematic ingenuity and inspiration than Spielberg's, but Stone has legions of detractors (me among them quite often). Where are those claiming the emperor has no clothes when it come to Spielberg?
To me, Spielberg's films and their canonization represents
the embrace and valuation of the mediocre, and I just refuse to accept it. If having even the barest aesthetic standards or a strong opinion makes me an elitist, then so be it. I care too much about the medium to just accept whatever is merely popular or merely acclaimed.
You can't count Spielberg as a huge cultural influence on one hand and discount the fact that he's had a huge influence on the way films are made/marketed/seen on the other. I do blame him for that. There are others, but the others tend to be seen for what they are; Spielberg, as a master thinker in terms of personal image, demographics, and marketing, has been able to fool the public into thinking he's some kind of heartfelt genius, which he certainly is not.
Maybe it's just seeing the cup as half full, but I think the fact that people like McG aren't being mentioned here is a good thing; that would just be too easy and simplistic. "Overrated" means they have to be rated in the first place. I mean, plenty of people despise McG and his ilk, or Joel Schumacher, or Adrian Lyne. When we're talking about the "overrated," we're talking about people who have a lot of widespread respect and are considered "great filmmakers" by people with informed opinions, and why we disagree with that general conventional wisdom.
That leads me to an agreement with cBrad, though; these discussions tend not to be very productive. "Who's overrated" is kind of an antagonistic question, not to mention tired. There are so many of those kinds of threads around, it's pretty amazing that anyone finds the need for a new one.
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Again you've solidified my judgement -- you havent once adressed the movies he makes -- rather the climate you feel he has created as a business man. if your spiteful because JAWS created the blockbuster, which in affect has pushed smaller films out of the picture, i do not feel Spielberg should be held responsible. if you understood the way this industry works, you'd understand that the audience is in control -- in effect, your bitterness should be directed towards the uneducated people of this country. they make a decision to pay 10 bucks for a specific product -- out of the buckets of garbage that the studios produce, speilbergs films actually hold merit. if you tell me why you dont like his films, id be singing a different tune, but all you've given me is angst ridden whining about the current state of cinema, who spielberg, in your mind, is responsible for. i assure you if a film like 21 grams made 100 million opening weekedn, those are the films they would be making. they give the people what they want, its how its always been. the industry hasnt gone down the shitter, the people of this country have....a great man once said " no one has gone broke underestimating the intelligence of america".
Those who exploit others who are uneducated or passively uncritical for their own gain are complicit and act in bad faith. Too many of Spielberg's films- particularly the "great," "serious" ones- feel to me like acts of bad faith.
I've addressed the films themselves numerous times; the sentimentality is cheap and gross, the perception of life and people complacent and dull, and the execution transparently manipulative to the point of being laughable. Hey, he's just doing what seems to work on people- but they're bad films. People call them good films. People call them GREAT films. The hills come alive with the sound of laudation for Spielberg. Spielberg is considered the foremost American director. All that = way, way overrated.
Quote from: MacGuffinThis whole thread makes me wonder if any of you even like movies?
I LOVE movies, but it's probably because of that that I'm so damn picky. Liking movies doesn't mean never disagreeing with a perception of greatness, does it? It sucks to have your own beloved directors/films slagged off, but I find that kind of thing can actually give me a renewed surge of (protective) love for them.
godardian, edit. seriously.
Godardian, I respect your point of view too...
But I don't think Spielberg is the one to blaim here. And I don't think he's simplistic when it comes to his dramatic movies (with the exception of Saving Private Ryan, which is a very annoying movie cause it could have been a masterpiece...yes, that american flag at the end and a lot of other cheesy moments turn it into a joke, but Tom Hanks performance is a truly great one of underplaying, and the first 20 minutes are, simply put, spectacular from a filmmaker's point of view).
You're right about McG,he's a zero to the left. Maybe it's just me but I'm having a hard time thinking about someone who is respected and that I consider overrated, cause I really have a lot of respect for anyone who is clearly honest about their art. Maybe the only one I can come up now is Guy Ritchie, since his movies tend to be about absolutely nothing and rely only on "coolness" and trying too hard.
Spielberg makes personal films. He keeps relying on the same themes over and over, he cares about the stuff he talks about. WWII is clearly importan for him, father son relationships too...but well, some people don't like it, but that doesn't mean he's mediocre, I mean please, open your eyes...
What bothers me the most is the amount of people named here as overrated...These supposedly harsh criticisism s of everyone's work reminds me of myself back when I was a teenager and went trough my "i hate spielberg and i'm really though" phase...now i'm more in love with everything, I don't know, maybe because I'm an actor and since I started this acting thing I tend to appreciate movies more...I don't know...maybe I'm soft, but I enjoy movies more now, so...
Quote from: AlexandroGodardian, I respect your point of view too...
But I don't think Spielberg is the one to blaim here....
Spielberg makes personal films. He keeps relying on the same themes over and over, he cares about the stuff he talks about. WWII is clearly importan for him, father son relationships too...but well, some people don't like it, but that doesn't mean he's mediocre, I mean please, open your eyes...
What bothers me the most is the amount of people named here as overrated...These supposedly harsh criticisism s of everyone's work reminds me of myself back when I was a teenager and went trough my "i hate spielberg and i'm really though" phase...now i'm more in love with everything, I don't know, maybe because I'm an actor and since I started this acting thing I tend to appreciate movies more...I don't know...maybe I'm soft, but I enjoy movies more now, so...
On this I can agree with you: It always takes a tremendous effort for a large group of people to make a feature film whether it turns out well or not, and I appreciate that effort. My criticisms may seem harsh, but let me reassure you that when I say a film is bad or I don't like a director, I'm saying, "They tried and failed" or "their approach creates untoward effects for the medium," not "They never should've tried" or "they're purest evil."
If Spielberg's films are, indeed, personal, then I guess the cause for the lack of passion may be that he's using his ability to create a world on film to reassure himself...? I guess what I'm saying is: I see what's there in his films as very, very bland. Whether it's bland for professional reasons (which I strongly suspect) or bland for personal reasons is secondary, though of great interest to me.
I do try not to inflict my preconceived notions onto a film. I look at what's there, I experience it, keep my eyes and ears open to as much as possible, have my intial ("gut") reaction, and then I work backwards from there as to why I loved/hated/was indifferent to a film.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: MacGuffinThis whole thread makes me wonder if any of you even like movies?
I LOVE movies, but it's probably because of that that I'm so damn picky. Liking movies doesn't mean never disagreeing with a perception of greatness, does it? It sucks to have your own beloved directors/films slagged off, but I find that kind of thing can actually give me a renewed surge of (protective) love for them.
out of sincere curiosity -- are you a single 40 year old film theory professor at a small liberal arts university?
Quote from: godardian
If Spielberg's films are, indeed, personal, then I guess the cause for the lack of passion may be that he's using his ability to create a world on film to reassure himself...? I don't go for that.
.
ever conisder that you can not relate to his passion? disinterest does not mean mediocrity.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: godardianQuote from: MacGuffinThis whole thread makes me wonder if any of you even like movies?
I LOVE movies, but it's probably because of that that I'm so damn picky. Liking movies doesn't mean never disagreeing with a perception of greatness, does it? It sucks to have your own beloved directors/films slagged off, but I find that kind of thing can actually give me a renewed surge of (protective) love for them.
out of sincere curiosity -- are you a single 40 year old film theory professor at a small liberal arts university?
Pfft! I
wish! :wink:
That doesn't seem like a very sincere or curious question, though, really. It seems more like you meant it as an insult, or to imply that the person you described would somehow be invalidated in this discussion (which is dead wrong- someone who spends all their time thinking/writing about film, as I would love to, would almost always have much to contribute to any discussion on the subject).
But no, I am none of those things (see the "admins abuse" thread for my lack of singleness and why kotte can't have me).
I used to love Spielberg. I loved Sugarland Express, Jaws, Close Encounters and Raiders of the Lost Ark. I used to love George Lucas as well -- THX 1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars. Without a doubt, both of these guys are great filmmakers. But something happened in the 80's.
When I watched Return of the Jedi, I was appalled -- surely this can't be the same "George Lucas" who did Star Wars and Empire? When I watched Temple of Doom, I couldn't believe my eyes. I loved Raiders, saw it 10 times -- but what the heck was this? I've never been so disappointed by a film in my life. Sadly, Spielberg hasn't recovered from this debacle. I hated Color Purple even more.
Spielberg in the 80's suffered from the twin poles of ham-fisted extravagance and gooey sentimentality. The action scenes in Temple and Last Crusade and Jurassic are certainly extravagant, but they lack the freshness and creativity of Jaws and Raiders. His attempts at serious drama were laughable -- overly sentimental, with John Williams' bombastic music to make everything obvious.
And then there's Hook, which shows that having a large budget and huge production values doesn't guarantee a good film. It strains harder for laughs than any "comedy" I've ever seen, and then gets all gooey and sentimental. This film is virtually unwatchable. The king of cheap sentiment directs the unbearable Robin Williams, and the result is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
I guess the word that comes to mind with Spielberg is "cheesy." His films are like McDonalds -- I prefer gourmet cuisine. If that makes me a snob, so be it. What's wrong with being a snob?
Quote from: SqueoKevin Smith and his pathetic Askewniverse.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
Soixante:
Lucas didn't direct Jedi nor did he direct Empire. He did write the screenplays, though.
You could say that Whit Stillman, Larry Clark, and Michael Bay are as influential to me as Paul Thomas Anderson and David Gordon Green in the way that I don't want my films to be ANYTHING like theirs. I literally am going to make an effort to do this. I'll even rewatch some of their films just so I can avoid any potential similarities between my films and theirs, seriously. They might not be considered GENIUSES but as long as they have fans other than their fucking moms and dads, I'll consider them overrated. They suck dick at what they do. Not only do I consider them overrated filmmakers but I consider them flat out BAD filmmakers.
See, they are the only three I really HATE, don't accuse me of disliking movies...I think their hurting cinema, that's what I think....they're choking the life out of it in a big big way, they're fucking digging a grave for it. I don't like the films Ron Howard and The Wachowski Bros and Brett Ratner and Guy Ritchie have made (and probably all the ones they will make in the future) but I won't target them here. I don't think they're GREAT filmmakers but I don't think that what they're doing is half as dangerous and awful as Stillman, Clark, and Bay are doing. They're really doing something horrible, it scares me, really it does. Not just the quality of their films but the style as well, the way in which it is shot, the stories they're trying to tell, the way their films are written....it all scares the hell out of me. If they're the future of cinema, then I'll kill myself. Clark is obsessed with photographing girls 10-15 years younger than his little buddy Korine, Stillman just can't get over the pure HILARITY of stuffy white people, and Bay's stuck on explosions and shit....tell me when any of these things become cool and we can have fun.
I actually really like Whit Stillman. The others, I can see how one could be turned off by them. But why so much hate for Whit Stillman? I mean, any reason I can think of for hating Whit Stillman (the unnatural dialogue, the carefully enclosed urbane-wittiness of it all, the literary quality) would also have to be applied to Woody Allen. Not that I think Whit is as great as Woody has been, mind you, but I think he came awfully close with Metropolitan, and I really enjoyed the other two, as well.
I'm still waiting for a Metropolitan DVD release. MacG?
I just want to get this out into the open:
Godardian, you are a very persuasive arguer. You have well thoughtout arguments and you always support your position. Many times, you could say that your posts are on the verge of enlightening. That is very admirable and I have much respect for you, no matter what your opinion is.
Quote from: godardianI actually really like Whit Stillman. The others, I can see how one could be turned off by them. But why so much hate for Whit Stillman? I mean, any reason I can think of for hating Whit Stillman (the unnatural dialogue, the carefully enclosed urbane-wittiness of it all, the literary quality) would also have to be applied to Woody Allen. Not that I think Whit is as great as Woody has been, mind you, but I think he came awfully close with Metropolitan, and I really enjoyed the other two, as well.
I'm still waiting for a Metropolitan DVD release. MacG?
Like I said, he refuses to look outside the world of rich white people....he's even more close minded than Kevin Smith, who I respect in a way because he doesn't take himself HALF as seriously as Stillman does. He doesn't even work well within this little world that he loves so much for some reason. His vision is flat and so incredibly boring on its own....when it's set next to something of a more exciting filmmaker (like PTA or DGG), it's fucking PATHETIC how little he has done....not only has he made no effort to work in a more diverse area - he hasn't even capitalized on being familiar with this setting and these types of characters like PTA has done with the Valley or like Scorsese (or Woody Allen) has done with New York. His characters talk....that's all they do...they talk and talk and talk and talk about the same thing in every movie - sex....and it's all laden with BIG words that are just so sarcastic and AWESOME!
And yea, his dialogue sucks horribly. It's unfunny, boring, and condescendingly upper class....
WHITE GUY: Mexican girls tend to be really promiscuous.
OTHER WHITE GUY: You're such a prig.
WHITE GUY: No, I wasn't using "promiscuous" pejoratively. It's just a fact. They have completely different attitudes toward sex.
OTHER WHITE GUY: Well, I wasn't using "prig" pejoratively.
Hahahahha! Yes, now that's what I call dialogue! Good job Whit! You go get those Mexican girls bud! Damn non-whites!
(shortly after typing all this, I found that Stillman has a spanish wife - this made me laugh harder than either of the two films of his I've seen have, it's just too ironic)
i kinda like him too...........now i feel bad for it lol
Quote from: ewardi kinda like him too...........now i feel bad for it lol
What? Why? No no no, don't feel bad if you like him. Nobody should ever feel bad for what they like unless their like a pedophile or something man. Really though, I don't think you should give mine or anybody's opinion that kind of power cause it's up to what you like. I'm no expert, trust me on that. But this is what I think and I do have reasoning for it which godardian asked me to talk about. He probably won't change his mind after he reads my reply and that's alright...neither should you. I was just giving him the respect to respond to his question. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I just know what I think, that's all. I'll feel bad if I ever make anybody dislike something they once liked. I shouldn't have that power. I'm 17 years old.
I guess I see Stillman's view of his cozy little milieu as gently satirical. Certainly, he shares with Woody Allen the almost total exclusion of minorities from his films, but that comes with their territories. You could say their territories are dubious for this exclusion, but you can't necessarily say they're being dishonest in any way. Trying to level it out could easily lead to tokenism and falseness.
Also, I don't he's any sort of classist. His films tend to have people of different classes experiencing/talking about that issue in a way that I really don't find condescending or one-sided.
Anyways, I kinda like him. His films are innocuous, but they're not dumb. All the negative things said about Whit Stillman could be said about Woody Allen or David Mamet- they have their tiny (read: exclusive) little row to hoe, and they hoe it well. It's apparently not their aim to put the whole world into their films, which is fine if the films are good, which more often than not they are.
P.S. Pretty much the main reason I like Chasing Amy is that it has a large share of extremely Stillmanesque dialectical-discussion dialogue. When I said "unnatural dialogue," I didn't mean it as a criticism. :) Though it is often used as a criticism when discussing these filmmakers.
guy ritchie
brett ratner
roger avery
george lucus (old & new)
and
bryan fuckin' singer (i really hate him! fucki' overrated hack!!)
Quote from: ebeamanQuote from: ewardi kinda like him too...........now i feel bad for it lol
What? Why? No no no, don't feel bad if you like him. Nobody should ever feel bad for what they like unless their like a pedophile or something man. Really though, I don't think you should give mine or anybody's opinion that kind of power cause it's up to what you like. I'm no expert, trust me on that. But this is what I think and I do have reasoning for it which godardian asked me to talk about. He probably won't change his mind after he reads my reply and that's alright...neither should you. I was just giving him the respect to respond to his question. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. I just know what I think, that's all. I'll feel bad if I ever make anybody dislike something they once liked. I shouldn't have that power. I'm 17 years old.
lol no, im just kidding around, dont worry about it. if i like him, i like him. altho, i do see ur reasoning as to not liking him. ahh i like him but not that much lol I dont know what I'm saying.......
Quote from: rudieobbryan fuckin' singer (i really hate him! fucki' overrated hack!!)
How could I forget!? Oh my god, I loathe "The Usual Suspects" as much as I loathe "Armageddon". Horrible horrible filmmaking!
Quote from: ebeamanQuote from: rudieobbryan fuckin' singer (i really hate him! fucki' overrated hack!!)
How could I forget!? Oh my god, I loathe "The Usual Suspects" as much as I loathe "Armageddon". Horrible horrible filmmaking!
You guys... you... bah... The Usual Suspects is great, although I don't think his other movies are really that great (that goes specially for the X-Men series).
Cameron Crowe
Kevin Smith
Roger Avary
George Lucas
Danny Boyle
Ridley Scott
Peter Weir
Wachowski Bros.
Milos Forman
Now, I do like some movies from some of these guys, but some have that one good movie and the rest is shit.
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaumQuote from: ebeamanQuote from: rudieobbryan fuckin' singer (i really hate him! fucki' overrated hack!!)
How could I forget!? Oh my god, I loathe "The Usual Suspects" as much as I loathe "Armageddon". Horrible horrible filmmaking!
You guys... you... bah... The Usual Suspects is great, although I don't think his other movies are really that great (that goes specially for the X-Men series).
I hope people won't start saying that it must be "hip" to hate Usual Suspects now, that pisses me off. Of course now somebody's going to say since I'm outright saying that it annoys me. It really does because it's such a lie. I hate the movie because it's a super smug, manipulative, ugly, unlikable film. That's why I hate it. I don't hate it cause it's popular.
Not to stir the shit, but Godardian, beautiful posts regarding the Spielberg issue: you put words to all my feelings about him. Secondly, you no like Usual Suspects? Awwww! Come on, you must have at least enjoyed the twist? I dunno, maybe not. Also, someone said Cameron Crowe, and they also said they enjoyed some of his films, I hope hope hope Almost Famous (Esp. the Untitled director's cut) is among these.
As far as overrated: the Swede responsible for Spun. Blech. I thought Arronofsky had already pushed the limit of style vs. substance far enough.
As long as you don't agree wholly with Roger Ebert's review...that's by far one of his worst, least thought out, and dumbest reviews ever. He basically says he didn't like it because he didn't get it.
And Almost Famous is the only Crowe film I like.
Quote from: RaikusQuote from: SqueoKevin Smith and his pathetic Askewniverse.
Couldn't disagree with you more.
Raikus, you know I couldn't agree with you more.
Over-Rated
Stanley Kubrick
George Lucas
Darren Aronofsky
John Hughes
Roman Polanski
this thread should hook up with Not So Classic Classics. aka, Who Hates the Best Movies.
Quote from: Pthis thread should hook up with Not So Classic Classics. aka, Who Hates the Best Movies.
no shit.
Quote from: Gamblor du JourAs long as you don't agree wholly with Roger Ebert's review...that's by far one of his worst, least thought out, and dumbest reviews ever. He basically says he didn't like it because he didn't get it.
And Almost Famous is the only Crowe film I like.
jerry maguire? say anything? come on man...
can't we have threads about movies we love so so so so so much??!! it's christmas.
Quote from: ©brad
Quote from: Gamblor du JourAs long as you don't agree wholly with Roger Ebert's review...that's by far one of his worst, least thought out, and dumbest reviews ever. He basically says he didn't like it because he didn't get it.
And Almost Famous is the only Crowe film I like.
jerry maguire? say anything? come on man...
can't we have threads about movies we love so so so so so much??!! it's christmas.
Jerry Maguire was a movie settled way short, it was built on those two one-liners near the end (You complete me...you had me at hello, Christ what soap opera crap) and the Show me the money line. There were good parts, but the rest just proved that Crowe is a whore and a cheap writer.
Say Anything could've been ok, it was quieter than Maguire and more heartfelt, but wtf was with the prison storyline? It just seemed really weird, and I didn't really connect with Cusack.
And I'll create a Why I Love Movies thread for you so we can be more positive about movies.
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04As far as underrated directors:
Tim Burton ( he gets SOME credit, but rarely for his movies, only his imagination)
David Lynch seems to be
Same with Wes Anderson, but for all I know they're not
PTA, simply because he needs to have as much recognition as Tarantino
Terry Gilliam
Gus Van Sant
Sam Raimi
I couldn't agree with you more.
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04The Producers
Blazing Saddles
Young Frankenstein
I totally agree.
Quote from: the same guySilent Movie wasn't very good
Spaceballs sucks
Life Stinks sucks
Robin Hood and Dracula were mediocre
History of the World Part 1 is the funny one he made since blazing saddles
How did Spaceballs, Robin Hood, or Dracula suck? And to think...I once agreed with you.
Quote from: ebeamanQuote from: RoyalTenenbaumQuote from: ebeamanQuote from: rudieobbryan fuckin' singer (i really hate him! fucki' overrated hack!!)
How could I forget!? Oh my god, I loathe "The Usual Suspects" as much as I loathe "Armageddon". Horrible horrible filmmaking!
You guys... you... bah... The Usual Suspects is great, although I don't think his other movies are really that great (that goes specially for the X-Men series).
I hope people won't start saying that it must be "hip" to hate Usual Suspects now, that pisses me off. Of course now somebody's going to say since I'm outright saying that it annoys me. It really does because it's such a lie. I hate the movie because it's a super smug, manipulative, ugly, unlikable film. That's why I hate it. I don't hate it cause it's popular.
nope, i've always hate THE USUAL SUSPECTS ever since i first saw it. bad, bad, bad movie. i call it "the most overrated film of the 90s"!!!
Hmm, I just got through watching Usual Suspects, I'm sure it's been asked before, but what's wrong with it?
Quote from: Gamblor du JourHmm, I just got through watching Usual Suspects, I'm sure it's been asked before, but what's wrong with it?
Nothing.
Quote from: rudieobTHE USUAL SUSPECTS - i call it "the most overrated film of the 90s"!!!
I agree. When people tell me they love Usual Suspects for its original storytelling, I ask the inevitable: "Oh, so have you seen Rashomon?"
"Rasha-whut?"
Quote from: CinephileWhen people tell me they love Usual Suspects for its original storytelling, I ask the inevitable: "Oh, so have you seen Rashomon?"
"Rasha-whut?"
I don't see the connection. How did "Usual Suspects" have multiple POV's? It was told in flashbacks only by Verbal Kint.
Thomas Edison -- Electrocuting an Elephant was not that great, and it's very short.
Edwin S. Porter -- Great Train Robbery is overrated.
D.W. Griffith -- think Birth of a Nation is a classic? Try sitting through it.
God is so overrated.
Quote from: PGod is so overrated.
Probaby even more than Bryan Singer
Quote from: RoyalTenenbaumQuote from: PGod is so overrated.
Probaby even more than Bryan Singer
usual suspects rocks. i don't understand u ppl sometimes. who said it was cool to hate cool movies? it ain't. and how is brian singer overrated? i bet 8 out of 10 ppl u ask wouldn't even know who he was.
Quote from: ©bradQuote from: RoyalTenenbaumQuote from: PGod is so overrated.
Probaby even more than Bryan Singer
usual suspects rocks. i don't understand u ppl sometimes. who said it was cool to hate cool movies? it ain't. and how is brian singer overrated? i bet 8 out of 10 ppl u ask wouldn't even know who he was.
i love US too. i saw it in like 9th grade and it knocked my socks off. it helped open the door, like so many others, to my obsessive movie-dom. just because i hadnt seen rashomon when i was 14 doesnt mean i was an idiot.
I've yet to hear a good argument as to why the Usual Supsects is bad.
Richard Linklater...I'm only basing this off of Waking Life (the movie I can say I hate as much as I inversely love taffy...and I'm a man who loves his taffy...)
Quote from: Gamblor du JourI've yet to hear a good argument as to why the Usual Supsects is bad.
If you wanna wade through four pages and try to find one:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1134
Quote from: MacGuffinI don't see the connection. How did "Usual Suspects" have multiple POV's? It was told in flashbacks only by Verbal Kint.
Oh, there's a connection between Rashomon and the Usual Suspects alright, and it's not multiple POV's... Maybe you need to see them again?
Quote from: CinephileOh, there's a connection between Rashomon and the Usual Suspects alright, and it's not multiple POV's... Maybe you need to see them again?
:yabbse-huh:
Maybe someone can save me 4 hours and tell me, 'cause I'm thinking about the obvious storytelling device.
Mac, thanks for the link.
Cinephile, you're right, I forgot about the part with the ghost in Usual Supsects :lol:
Yeah, now I'm intrigued too. IMO, US was a decent flick. Let's put it this way, I enjoyed it more than Rashomon
*hush falls over the crowd*
oh, and I second Linklater. I hated Dazed And Confused, and the parts of Slacker I saw licked balls. However, Tape was pretty good in the sense of directing actors and structuring story, but again, looked fucking terrible (he shot it on video, a handicam or something, I think --- blah!!)
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: Gamblor du JourI've yet to hear a good argument as to why the Usual Supsects is bad.
If you wanna wade through four pages and try to find one:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1134
It's funny, I read every single post, and not one argument seemed good enough to hate the movie as much as some do. Some said the ending was contrived, others said the acting was bad, but you know what? I just don't see it, so I guess this is just one of those things. I'm hearing why people don't like it, but I just can't understand it. Oh well, their loss, at least I get to enjoy it.
Where's GT when you need him...
Anyway, Usual Suspects was influenced by Rashomon in that it had flashbacks that contradicted reality.
From a personal standpoint, there really wasn't much of a payoff in the end for me. When I first watched it 8 years ago, I thought that it was kind of cool and I hadn't been introduced to Kurosawa yet so I based my feelings on US and US alone. I don't know what Mod's talking about with not being an idiot at 14 for not seeing Rashomon. I never implied there was any idiocy in not having access to films like that. But there is still a degree of ignorance that everybody has until they become more educated with films on a grander scale.
Again, after a while, the film became so insignificant in its payoff that I find the entire film to be very overrated.
I can agree that it's become overrated, but that still doesn't make it a bad film, imo.
Kinda like Casablanca is overrated, but I still love it. But let me choose between it or The Third Man, and I'll take the latter every time.
Quote from: CinephileAnyway, Usual Suspects was influenced by Rashomon in that it had flashbacks that contradicted reality.
Okay, I can see that, but while "Rashomon" had variations on the 'truth' with no clear resolution; "Suspects" is all essentially a lie and is resolved. Now, I'm not saying this all makes "Suspects" original, but I don't think it's a blatant rip-off of "Rashomon's" storytelling that I thought you were getting at like, say, the recent film "Basic".
QUIT CALLING ME AN IDIOT!!! i've seen rashomon now, okay? sheesh. :roll:
That previous comment I made about Oliver Stone being overrated can now be disbarred...
I had the privelage of re-evaluating Nixon, U-Turn, and Natural Born Killers, and I fell in love with his films all over again.
Now, I would have to concur that he is underrated.
I still feel that Wall Street and Heaven and Earth are overrated, and that Any Given Sunday isn't that good, but other than that, he has nothing but quality. I guess I've been blinded by that fact for awhile. Also, which I'm sure played a big part in this, I used to hang out with somebody whose brother hated Oliver Stone and would always nag me about how much he sucks and stuff. I guess I gave him a second chance after listening to a plethora of down-grading remarks.
I also borrowed Oliver Stone's America from my friend, and if whoever reads this hasn't seen that, I strongly recommend you to try your best to find a copy and watch it. It's an hour long interview with Oliver, and it reveals all sorts of meanings and themes of his work. He's a very smart man. That assisted in my re-evaluation of his work. I'm glad I did it, too. It was well worth it.
michael bay
Since when ws Michael Bay ever considered good enough to be overrated? As far as I know no one likes him to begin with...not in a way to where he can be considered 'overrated', anyway.
I remember reading in an interview in the portuguese PREMIERE when Pearl Harbour came out that he was considered an auteur by many people. Well, I just didn't get it then and I don't think I get it now, but it makes this overrating valid. The man who did Armageddon or Pearl Harbour is neither an author nor anything else for that matter. He's just a money waster.
Quote from: Chest RockwellSince when ws Michael Bay ever considered good enough to be overrated?
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5319
Quote from: j_scott_stroup04
Spaceballs sucks
Spaceballs is fucking great!
Overrated I'd have to say Kubrick is overrated for me. For sure 2001 is the most overrated movie of all time.
Quote from: El ScorchozOverrated I'd have to say Kubrick is overrated for me. For sure 2001 is the most overrated movie of all time.
I thinks it's safe to say that "you just made a fucking war on yourself that you can't afford"
Quote from: ElPandaRoyalQuote from: El ScorchozOverrated I'd have to say Kubrick is overrated for me. For sure 2001 is the most overrated movie of all time.
I thinks it's safe to say that "you just made a fucking war on yourself that you can't afford"
Nope, there is no war. Just straight up truth. I think Kubrick is like a safety blanket for a lot of newcomers to cinema. He's the one guy a lot of people say to seem like they're in the loop or something. Too many people won't challenge Kubrick and I think that's bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, the man has made some awesome movies. Clockwork and The Killing are my personal favorites and I actually like most of his other films.
But 2001 in particular is just one film I won't go along with. I have a strong suspicion 90% of the people who claim they like it, truly don't. I just think it's easy to read a bunch of reviews and articles on why the movie is great and then claim that you saw the same qualities in it. It's an easy movie to claim to like because most mainstream audiences don't, and it's no secret film buffs love liking films that are said to be challenging.
Sometimes you can just tell a person is lying when they say, "well, I don't love it, but I can appreciate it". Yeah right. Bullshit I say, he/she has read one too many film books. I don't doubt there are people out there who actually like it, but they are in a tiny tiny minority, and let me guess, I'll probably meet them all here right? Bullshit.
Why doesn't someone else just come out and say it's overrated too. I bet you want to.
PS- Mr. Welles is overrated too , but we'll save that for another day.
Ray Carney, is that you?
LOL I hate Ray Carney.
Why?
He'd jizz his pants over what you just posted. :wink:
i think what u mean is "overpraised".
Quote from: El ScorchozBut 2001 in particular is just one film I won't go along with. I have a strong suspicion 90% of the people who claim they like it, truly don't. I just think it's easy to read a bunch of reviews and articles on why the movie is great and then claim that you saw the same qualities in it. It's an easy movie to claim to like because most mainstream audiences don't, and it's no secret film buffs love liking films that are said to be challenging.
that's bullshit. that's like P's argument that said the only reason people liked kill bill was b/c quentin made it. such crap. i watch 2001 all the time. do i do it so i can tell all my non-existent cool film friends that i watched it? no. i watch it b/c i enjoy it. same reason i saw kill bill 2 three times and kill bill 1 about 20. the movies give me enjoyment. if there are people out there who really dislike those movies and just like them b/c other people do, good for them, they're just afraid. but to say 90% of the people who say they like the film really hate it is just idiocy. you don't have to like the movie, i don't think any less of you for not liking it. i love it and could watch it 500 more times before getting sick of it.
Quote from: bonanzatazQuote from: El ScorchozBut 2001 in particular is just one film I won't go along with. I have a strong suspicion 90% of the people who claim they like it, truly don't. I just think it's easy to read a bunch of reviews and articles on why the movie is great and then claim that you saw the same qualities in it. It's an easy movie to claim to like because most mainstream audiences don't, and it's no secret film buffs love liking films that are said to be challenging.
that's bullshit. that's like P's argument that said the only reason people liked kill bill was b/c quentin made it. such crap. i watch 2001 all the time. do i do it so i can tell all my non-existent cool film friends that i watched it? no. i watch it b/c i enjoy it. same reason i saw kill bill 2 three times and kill bill 1 about 20. the movies give me enjoyment. if there are people out there who really dislike those movies and just like them b/c other people do, good for them, they're just afraid. but to say 90% of the people who say they like the film really hate it is just idiocy. you don't have to like the movie, i don't think any less of you for not liking it. i love it and could watch it 500 more times before getting sick of it.
I don't think you can compare the two. Kill Bill is fun and entertaining at the very least. 2001 just sucks.
Quote from: SoNowThenWhy?
He'd jizz his pants over what you just posted. :wink:
Is Ray Carney the guy who just likes avant garde, no plot kind of movies?
Well, I guess, Kinda. He loves Cassavetes. And that's about it. Though he talks about some guy named Mark Rappaport all the time, too.
I was just reading some of his stuff today. Basically he rags on Kubrick and Welles, and says LA Confidential and Pulp Fiction are pieces of shit. Kinda funny, but damn do I disagree.
You may argue that 2001 is pretentious, overbearing, confused, even boring... but if you're not in the least bit awed at Kurick's control of framing and pace, then you have no soul, imo. Carney dismisses pure form as being kitschy, therefore he refuses to admire it in any director -- it would seem anyway... I guess avant-garde cheapo productions are just as much a form as anything...
Quote from: El ScorchozI don't think you can compare the two. Kill Bill is fun and entertaining at the very least. 2001 just sucks.
not my point. you're arguing that i don't really like 2001, i only think i do b/c everybody else does, but i don't need you to tell me what i like or don't like. thank you.
Quote from: El Scorchoz. 2001 just sucks.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chasingthefrog.com%2FClassicPosters%2FKubrick%2F2001-1.jpg&hash=1b73686223d662c4c870f4652e5ee8ba222bea9d)
...sorry for the large pic but 2001, besides being my fav. kubrick film, also has the most kick ass pipmed out poster ever...
el scorchoz, just b/c you don t like this film doesn t mean it 'sucks'....
Shrek (is an overrated director)
EDIT: Thanks
shrek is an overrated director?
Sorry.
Thanks
What the hell???
:lol:
what did Shrek direct?
2001 is the greatest motion picture of the 20th Century. Period. It was the apex.
It singularly advanced the medium on just about every level, aesthetically, conceptually and technically. It bridged the ground between avant gard and mainstream success. And its story and ideas, in terms of seriously attempting to deal with man's evolution and his place within the universe, are larger than any other film.
This was IT.
Quote from: El Duderinowhat did Shrek direct?
Quote from: Julius OrangeSorry.
Thanks
Quote from: mutinyco2001 is the greatest motion picture of the 20th Century. Period. It was the apex.
It singularly advanced the medium on just about every level, aesthetically, conceptually and technically. It bridged the ground between avant gard and mainstream success. And its story and ideas, in terms of seriously attempting to deal with man's evolution and his place within the universe, are larger than any other film.
This was IT.
but you must only be saying that b/c everybody else says it. chances are, you're not REALLY one of the 10% of people that ACTUALLY like it.