+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 112

Thread: Overrated movies...

  1. #71
    They're so cute! brenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    354
    I'm totally with all of you on Forrest Gump. I thought it was terrible.
    I disagree on Moulin Rouge, though. I loved that movie.
    Now for one of my own..... will somebody PLEASE tell me what the heck everyone was raving about in regards to FARGO???!?? That has got to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
    It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time!

  2. #72
    FORT Newbie elf_girl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    25
    The Matrix. I hated that movie. Maybe I'm not just into that kind of science fiction. I even saw the shorter, TV-14 version.

    Now Mr. Deeds (Adam Sandler remake) was by no means critically acclaimed or overly-popular, but my friend and some other people I knew started quoting it all the time and talking about how funny it was, so I watched it. I wanted to like it, I really wanted to think it was funny, but it was pathetic. One of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. Not one laugh.

  3. #73
    Premium Member dagwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    salt lake city ut
    Age
    43
    Posts
    19,109
    Ok, I am going to admit to liking Titanic and Forrest Gump.

    As for overrated....Austin Powers. I absolutely hated this movie and refuse to see the sequels.
    He who laughs last thinks slowest

    #oldmanbeatdown - Donny BB16

  4. #74
    Don't Panic senrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    4,165
    One that I never got the fuss over.... Pretty woman. can someone please tell me why this is such a 'great' movie?
    "The purpose of the new capitalism is to shoot the wounded." ~ Andy Grove, Chairman, Intel Corporation

  5. #75
    It ain't easy being green Wayner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    But being blue is more work.
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,952
    "Shakespeare in Love"
    THIRTEEN Oscar nominations? Wins Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan"? Judy Dench winning best supporting actress for - what - three minutes of screen time. Ridiculous.

  6. #76
    Premium Member dagwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    salt lake city ut
    Age
    43
    Posts
    19,109
    Quote Originally Posted by senrik
    One that I never got the fuss over.... Pretty woman. can someone please tell me why this is such a 'great' movie?


    I hadn't thought of that movie, not that great in my opinion. In fact, I can't stand Julia Roberts either.
    He who laughs last thinks slowest

    #oldmanbeatdown - Donny BB16

  7. #77
    FORT Fogey nausicaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Oz
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayner
    "Shakespeare in Love"
    THIRTEEN Oscar nominations? Wins Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan"? Judy Dench winning best supporting actress for - what - three minutes of screen time. Ridiculous.
    I agree w/ you, Wayner. "Shakespeare in Love" will show its age in 20 years or so, while "Saving Private Ryan" - a technically superior and stylistically innovative film - should fare better.

    But "Shakespeare in Love" was so charming, and Gweyneth really knows her way around Shakespeare's verse. I think Dame Judi Dench totally deserved her Oscar, though. It's not the amount of screen time that counts, but how she uses it.

    To people who don't like older films such as "Citizen Kane" and "Lawrence of Arabia" - you must go see them in the theatre. Trust me - it makes a difference. There films were originally made for cinematic-viewing: seeing them on the telly is just a poor translation.

    There are some *gorgeous* shots and sequences in "Citizen Kane", for example, that perfectly captures the play of light and shadows, the grandiosity of W.F. Kane's life and the decay of his dreams - you might not be blown-away by them on the telly, but you'll at least be startled by them when they flicker on big screen - that *magnitude*, y'know...it makes the images "echo" everywhere. Plus, "Citizen Kane" is a groundbreaking film, narratively innovative (the fragmented storyline - i.e. the newsreels, the flashbacks) and when you watch it you should keep in mind that Welles directed this in the 40s, when he was in his 20s.

    "Lawrence of Arabia" MUST be seen on the big screen. The vast emptiness of the desert...its desolation. If you don't watch it on the big screen, you won't be able to fully appreciate the breadth and the gorgeousness of its cinematography.

    The golden age of cinema is already past. IMO, it ended by the late 80s. But, I am a pessimist.

  8. #78
    FORT Fan
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by nausicaa
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayner
    "Shakespeare in Love"
    THIRTEEN Oscar nominations? Wins Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan"? Judy Dench winning best supporting actress for - what - three minutes of screen time. Ridiculous.
    I agree w/ you, Wayner. "Shakespeare in Love" will show its age in 20 years or so, while "Saving Private Ryan" - a technically superior and stylistically innovative film - should fare better.
    I disagree but I don't have much to say that will convince you to change your mind, except that Saving Private Ryan's story didn't hold me as much as Shakespeare's. The battles were great, but as the movie went on they seemed to have less and less impact, and that felt backwards. I liked Ryan quite a bit, but I'll still call it overrated.

    I question whether Judi Dench deserved her Oscar, but I don't know of someone else who was more worthy that year. (I never saw the performances of the other women nominated)
    Tugboats and arson. That's all I ever get from you guys.

  9. #79
    FORT Fogey nausicaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Oz
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,238
    Hmm... I can't remember, either, kchamber. I'm sure there were other deserving performances in the Best Supporting Actress Category, and mostly likely several of them had meatier roles than Judi Dench. But to me - I found the fact that Dench left such an impression in a mere 8 minutes to be a feat in itself. Furthermore, I think the Academy might have been compensating for her loss in the Best Actress category with "Mrs. Brown" the previous year.

    I agree w/ you that "Saving Private Ryan" petered out towards the end. And I think Spielberg really watered down what could have potentially been a very complex movie; instead, he settled for the saccharine "do-it-for-Mama" sentiment. I expected more and somehow came away with less.

    However, I tried to see it from another angle. Film is not just about style, but also about technology. And IMO, there's no arguing that Spielberg broke new ground in both categories - somewhat, at least. "Shakespeare in Love" is a raucous, witty piece of work carefully put together, w/ fine details and tight structure. But - it's also a less ambitious film, which tries to accomplish less, and IMO, it operates within the confines of established conventions. It's easier to accept and love "Shakespeare in Love", just like it had been easier to love "Oliver!" and "The Lion in Winter" (a mature, complex film) than "2001: A Space Odyssey" back in 1968.

    Many of you are probably going to say now that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a yawn and overrated...etc. IMO, it may have its flaws, but it also has (or had, at least) DARING and VISION. That's why it has had a greater influence on contemporary cinema that either "Oliver!" and "TLiW". Not because they are less worthy films, but because they are less groundbreaking ones.

    ...

    *Of course, 20 years down the road, "Saving Private Ryan" might be collecting dust in the trashbin, and officially acknowledged as the worst film to ever win an Oscar for Best Director. Spielberg's rep could go down the drain the same way Sir Walter Scott's did (did you know Sir Scott was considered to be the equal of Shakespeare, in his time? )

  10. #80
    FORT Fan
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    197
    Spielberg's rep could go down the drain the same way Sir Walter Scott's did (did you know Sir Scott was considered to be the equal of Shakespeare, in his time? )
    Who's Sir Walter Scott?

    Saving Private Ryan seemed to start a Spielberg trend of letting watered-down endings weaken otherwise good or great films. The end of A.I. is an example most people agree on. I just finished watching Minority Report, which didn't have a bad ending but I think more of a down ending, or at least a less idealistic one, could have made the movie something special. Maybe this trend started earlier, but I'm just noticed it recently. (Some folks say Schindler's list had a sappy ending, but I found it moving.)

    I can agree with nausicaa that Ryan was more groundbreaking than Shakespeare, but that shouldn't detract from Shakespeare's accomplishments. Shakespeare was funny, romantic, and moving the year it came out and it will still be funny, romantic, and moving years from now. It's hard to predict what films will be the most influential, so the Academy tends to support the conventional over the original, as long it's still good. Consider 1999, when The Green Mile was nominated over more influential, ambititious, and just plain better movies like The Matrix and Fight Club.

    The problem in the long run with movies that break new ground is that they get imitated so much that people often forget what movie started the revolution.
    Furthermore, I think the Academy might have been compensating for her loss in the Best Actress category with "Mrs. Brown" the previous year.
    I hate it when things like that happen. According to my totally reliable sources in the Academy (a friend of a relative of a friend i think ) some Oscar voters didn't support Fellowship of the Ring and Two Towers for Best Picture because they're "saving" the LOTR Oscar win for Return of the King.

    Whoops! I'm supposed to be talking about overrated movies. Let's see, what movie did I bash this post...Ah! The Green Mile is an overrated piece of trash.
    Tugboats and arson. That's all I ever get from you guys.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.