B**** Rant and Moan About Overrated Movies! (IYO of Course)

[slave2moonlight]

One of the things I learned about characterization is that no matter who the character is he or she must portray real flaws because the audience is flawed. Something like a nervous disposition, dumb attributes or even a highly unrealistic sense of accomplishment. Combine the flaws with the good qualities and you have a compelling character you can cheer for and even relate, even if that character happens to be Hitler.

I agree about flawed characters, they can be great. I like a lot of really flawed characters, but I also agree that they have to have some of those admirable qualities to make them, for lack of a better word, "likeable". It doesn't mean they have to be nice and sweet all the time, but I really don't get rooting for someone who is nothing but a cold, selfish, greedy killer, and the fact that they have family at home isn't really enough to me, even if they really love them, which a lot of these career criminal characters are kind of unclear about or simply don't... So, yeah, if they give them some likeable attributes, sure, but sometimes they don't give them enough to make it work against all the negative qualities. Another way to say it is this: I don't think any amount of likeable characteristics would make Hitler someone you could root for. For me at least, these so called "masterpieces" like Scarface just don't give me reason enough to root for them, and all the guys out there who idolize the character make me definitely consider it an overrated film, even if it IS entertaining to watch.

[And this is two people discussing/disagreeing. In my opinion, throwing out statements like, "If you only want likable characters, go watch the Care Bears Picknick or something like that..," is picking a fight.]

[Flanger-Hanger]

It wasn't until Brokeback that a gay film was something other than just a gay film. It was taken seriously by the cast and crew, it was shown as a drama and a love story as opposed to a joke. It was also accepted by the mainstream media, Hollywood, hell, the world, and the heterosexual community.

A Classy Merchant Ivory production with a 91% approval rating on rotten tomatoes, based on a novel written in 1914 and published in 1970 (because of it's controversial subject) filmed in 1987 and nominated for an Oscar in costume design and winner of 4 Venice Film Festival awards. It's also got a Criterion DVD (part of their Merchant Ivory Collection sub category).

Brendon and you should watch it. There's a reason I brought it up.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Oh, and I totally forgot about Victim (1961), but I haven't seen it yet. Hear it's really good.

[littlefuzzy]

I grew up watching films like Scream; A film that is much scarier *visually* with all the murder scenes.

Now there's a fine example of an overrated film! I didn't for a moment think this film was scary, in any way. It looked like one big joke to me. Actually, I even checked my dvd to see if I hadn;t accidentally poppoed in one of those godawful 'Scary Movie' films. But no, it really was 'Scream', and somehow it asked of its audience to take the dude with the white mask serious. When the first scene began, with the first muder, I thought it was meant ironically. Because I had read before that in the film, the characters know their horror classics, so thy never fall for the cliched traps in most horror films. So I thought: this is the ironic part. But then I found out we were supposed to take it seriously. But it was ridiculous! Truly, truly godawful, and it looked more like a part from 'Scary Movie'.

The Scream films, and the first one in particular, were satires of the Teen Horror genre... As for the Scary movie that you mentioned, it was actually a PARODY of the first Scream movie...

A parody of a satire, the mind boggles!

I enjoyed the first two Scary Movies, they were written by the Wayans brothers, and were rated 'R'. They parodied certain types of films in the horror genre (Teen Slasher/Scream for the first, and Haunted House movies for the second.) The next two saw the Wayans kicked out, and the films were limited to PG-13, for that all important tween audience. They threw in ALL SORTS of movies to parody, basically anything that came out at the box office in the past couple of years, even if it had nothing to do with horror.

[Disney's Divinity]

Because they're forced into a marriage with a woman! You have seen how one of the two gay man wounded up, didn't you? You'd think that is an environment in which you can be openly gay?

I could be wrong (I haven't watched the movie since its DVD release), but the men were married before they even met one another. The men didn't have to be openly gay, but if they couldn't live without each other they could easily have lived as "single" men.

Like I said: then you haven't understood the movie. Simple as that. The two main charachters are *extremely* cautious not to hurt anybody. To say they "don't give a damn" is a travesty. They are not doing the hurting, it's them who *get* hurt. How in earth did they create the hardships for themselves? You have seen the end, you have seen what was done to them, simply because they were gay. That's not really inviting to come out of the closet, now is it? And don't think for a moment that it would be any different in *this day and age*, in some parts of the world.

Obviously they weren't cautious enough--they didn't mind having sex with one another while leading their wives to believe they loved them. I'm sorry, but that's sick and can in no way be called "cautious not to hurt anybody." Just because society is unkind to gays, that's no excuse to hurt two women to create a facade of heterosexuality. Yes, that is selfish, and I can't possibly see it any other way because there honestly is no other way for me to see it.

No, they don't. They take good care of them, they hold together a family even if that means they can't be with the person they love, because society condemns it. To say they're treating their wives like shit is mind-blowingly narrow-minded.

Despite the fact that they commit adultery? You mean they care for their family, but see no harm in disrespecting their wives, who love them by the way, by pretending to love them and having sex with others at the same time? To me, they did treat their wives like shit and that's simply obvious. It's not narrow-minded at all; I'm at an end to understand how anyone could see it as anything but. I can't forgive the harm they did to their wives because "society was homophobic." So, because society is cruel to them, it suddenly becomes okay for them to be equally cruel to two women they've drawn into marriages?

That's because you can't see past the adultry. The love is between one man and another man. The fact that they *have to* cheat on their wives doesn't diminish this love one bit.

It does to me. Because they obviously cared for their wives as well, it just leaves the mind to wonder that, if they treat the wives they "love" this badly, they obviously can't care anymore for each other. And don't be so ridiculously idiotic as to insinuate that they *had to* do anything.

Well, you're not helping either. If this film would indeed set gay rights farther back, the blame lies on people like you. After all, if a film is about a heterosexual couple that commits adultry, you would never say a thing like: "it makes audiences feel vindicated that heterosexual people in general are selfish and immoral". No need to point at others. Take a long deep look in the mirror first.

Except heterosexual couples aren't stereotyped and demonized (and, yes, I do believe heterosexual adultery is just as bad--I never said otherwise, though you don't feel bothered by ignoring my posts completely to make your point). It's the same as women's rights in the beginning. I've read some women say they followed the rules fully and completely [in the workplace] because they knew that if they screwed up, people wouldn't just condemn them for their mistakes, but instead condemn their entire gender. The fact that Brokeback caters to a homophobic audience while at the same time furthering stereotypical ideas of selfish, "gay" behavior is more than enough reason for me to call the film "overrated." It does nothing to honestly portray a real, undeniably loving romance between two individuals of the same sex and instead gives us two men, who one could question whether they are even completely homosexual in the first place (furthering the idea that homosexuality is "learned"), who selfishly love one another at the expense of others involved. The film is good on its own because no doubt there were men in this situation, but as an "acclaimed mainstream gay love story" it completely fails (making it overrated because it doesn't deserve that praise, imo).

[Flanger-Hanger]

I could be wrong (I haven't watched the movie since its DVD release), but the men were married before they even met one another. The men didn't have to be openly gay, but if they couldn't live without each other they could easily have lived as "single" men.

I suggest you give the film a second viewing as they a) are not married before they meet b) one gets a divorce if that makes you feel better and c) they discuss the idea of begin "single" and Ennis' rejection of the idea is one of the major points of conflict in the film and the reason for all the sadness and regret he feels at the end after Jack has died.

Your second point is also extremely flawed as you ca only seem to look at it from a modern perspective. I guess you knew what it was like to be gay in 1960s Wyomming.

[Disney's Divinity]

Yes, it's nice to know that at least one of them was polite enough to divorce, though I'm still wondering why they got married in the first place if they hadn't any intention to end their relationship?

Your second point is also extremely flawed as you ca only seem to look at it from a modern perspective. I guess you knew what it was like to be gay in 1960s Wyomming.

I'd really like to know what basis you've formed that opinion on. I'm sorry, but having a "hard life" is no excuse for adultery. It's just selfish thinking, and I don't feel the need to explain myself any further because 1.) I don't have to and 2.) I don't want to turn this thread, which I'm sure other people would like to post in, into a Brokeback debate.

Thanks.

[SpringHeelJack]

BrendAn and you should watch it. There's a reason I brought it up.

Oh, don't patronize me, sonny Jim! I've been bein' a homosexual since you were... I dunno, two or something, maybe?

Anyhow, I've seen "Maurice". I have a roommate who loves gay movies (especially gay English schoolboy movies) and I've seen it through her.

[Lazario]

The Truman Show is incredibly overrated.

Perhaps its just me, but I find it terribly boring. It thinks its profound, full of biting social commentary. It thinks its clever by having metaphorical links to classic ancient Greek and Roman mythologies. It thinks its ho-ho funny by calling the "everyday man" Truman and his director (God if you like) Christoph (you know, like Christ?) but its not. And the actual logic of creating and filming such a show is pure fantasy.

And yet, EDtv which game out at a similar time, and was a much better take on the whole concept was slammed and ignored. This is a film which actually did have relevant commentary to make on TV at the time, about celebrity culture, about making ordinary people people celebrities simply by them being on TV, the consequences of such actions, and the Network TV's indifference to how they screw up people's lives simply to chase revenue and ratings... and the film actually had a proper ending too.

Truman sucks.

I love The Truman Show. I could much easier believe someone as insane as Jim Carrey doing all the crazy things he does in TS than I could believe McConaughey in EdTV. Besides, let's be honest- Truman is much better than most of Carrey's freakshows. It's smarter and more subtle than the Ace Ventura films, Dumb and Dumber, and I liked it much better than any of his Suess films.

Halloween

Good posting. I myself was about to mention how overrated all Horror-Remakes are. And all of Rob Zombie's films as well. Why he ever remade a masterpiece like Carpenter's 1978 film is beyond me.

Hostel, Haute Tension, Saw, and sequels - Torture Porn. Haute Tension was interesting the first time around.

I thought Haute Tension is one of the worst horror movies I've seen in a long time. But then again, almost all new, young horror directors of the last 7 or so years have been sharing the same brain. Alexandre Aja is a terrible director. Remaking Wes Craven's excellent The Hills Have Eyes is downright heresy! And Mirrors was crap. Haute Tension was lame, the characters weren't interesting, I didn't find it intense, and it was homophobic too! Clearly the director thinks lesbians can be sleazy and hot, or murder people. But can't be smart, strong characters.

Pixar - I like ALL Pixar films. That being said, Finding Nemo is the WORST of all Pixar films, probably followed fairly closely by Cars. The rest are grouped more towards the top.

Sorry, I'm overruling you here. That is an incorrect statement.

Nemo actually had some character and wasn't just awful, irritating one-liners. Cars was a lot of noise and awful one-liners. Nemo had personality. Not to mention it was merely cashing-in on Disney's Love Bug legacy. Cars was nothing more than parading stupid celebrity voices. Seriously- Larry the Cable Guy?!!! Have you seen his movies? Owen Wilson only appears in movies to show off - in Meet the Parents he played a pretentious jackass, in Zoolander he played himself (a talentless "face of the month"), Wedding Crashers, the Shanghai movies, I-Spy - he does the same thing in every single movie. Cheech Marin playing a silly character - wow, what a shocker! He's going through the motions too. Nemo made you care about the characters and went beyond stupid one-liners. It started out a little silly, but even then- it's a gorgeous movie. The animation is just better than Cars.

Now there's a fine example of an overrated film! I didn't for a moment think this film was scary, in any way. It looked like one big joke to me. Actually, I even checked my dvd to see if I hadn;t accidentally poppoed in one of those godawful 'Scary Movie' films. But no, it really was 'Scream', and somehow it asked of its audience to take the dude with the white mask serious. When the first scene began, with the first muder, I thought it was meant ironically. Because I had read before that in the film, the characters know their horror classics, so thy never fall for the cliched traps in most horror films. So I thought: this is the ironic part. But then I found out we were supposed to take it seriously. But it was ridiculous! Truly, truly godawful, and it looked more like a part from 'Scary Movie'.

The Scream films, and the first one in particular, were satires of the Teen Horror genre...

How so?

Do you think just because a few characters mock the genre, while in-character of course, that means the writer is satirzing the genre?

This is a common misconception among people who saw Scream and assumed that it was insulting the horror genre. It's not.

[Goliath]

The Scream films, and the first one in particular, were satires of the Teen Horror genre...

Oh, I know that. Yet, within the satire, the movie asked of its audience to take the story of the white masked dude slaughtering teens seriously. And that was simply out of the question to me.

Another way to say it is this: I don't think any amount of likeable characteristics would make Hitler someone you could root for. For me at least, these so called "masterpieces" like Scarface just don't give me reason enough to root for them, and all the guys out there who idolize the character make me definitely consider it an overrated film, even if it IS entertaining to watch.

One thing I would want to add (if you still want to read my thoughts on the subject): I don't think the filmmakers want the audience to root for people like Tony Montana ('Scarface') or Michael Corleone ('The Godfather'). Tony Montana is ultimately portrayed as a loser. In the end, he has lost everything to his coke-addiction. In my opinion, that is a condemnation of his way of life. Coppola has said that one of the reasons he did 'The Godfather Part II', was because he was shocked to see so many people in the audience rooting for Michael Corleone at the end of Part I. He had meant the final act of Part I as a condemnation of Michael, yet not everybody picked up on that, and that's one of the reasons he made Michael even less likeable in Part II.

[And this is two people discussing/disagreeing. In my opinion, throwing out statements like, "If you only want likable characters, go watch the Care Bears Picknick or something like that..," is picking a fight.]

Then you and me obviously have a very different definition of 'picking a fight'. Throwing in some hyperbolic rethoric, like the line you are mentioning, to me, is a way to spice up a discussion. It is not meant to insult anybody, or to 'pick a fight'. So we see differently on this issue. As fas as I'm concerned, I was not picking a fight with anyone. I think that seeing a line like "go watch the Care Bears Picknick or something like that..," as a way to pick a fight is simply overreacting.

[Goliath]

I could be wrong (I haven't watched the movie since its DVD release), but the men were married before they even met one another. The men didn't have to be openly gay, but if they couldn't live without each other they could easily have lived as "single" men.

Whether or not the men were already married to a woman before they first met is besides the point. The point is society drives homosexual men (and women) into heterosexual marriages against their will. Ever heard of 'peer pressure' or 'expectations of society'? You pretend like those pressures either don't exist or aren't a big deal. I would think for homosexual people it *is* a big deal. Society teaches them from a very young age that homosexual behavior is wrong, and a heterosexual marriage is the norm. So if they want to be accepted by society, they better damn well be in a heterosexual marriage. And remember, this film takes place in the 1960's, and they're 'cowboys'. So no, in that environment, they couldn't simply be 'single men', especially because 'single men' was often used as a euphemism for 'gay'.

Obviously they weren't cautious enough--they didn't mind having sex with one another while leading their wives to believe they loved them. I'm sorry, but that's sick and can in no way be called "cautious not to hurt anybody." Just because society is unkind to gays, that's no excuse to hurt two women to create a facade of heterosexuality. Yes, that is selfish, and I can't possibly see it any other way because there honestly is no other way for me to see it.

There is no other way for you to see it, because you don't try. You have already made up your mind, from a very traditional/conservative point of view. Somehow, to you it is mutually exclusive for the gay characters to have a relationship while at the same time loving their wives. The film tries to make clear it's not mutually exclusive. Obviously, they are not in love with their wives, but that doesn't mean they don't love them. (Like I can love a lady friend of mine, yet not being *in* love with her.) The film doesn't give the impression the gay men don't care about their wives. Instead, it gives the impression they do. They try to make their wives happy, even if it goes completly against their own feelings. I call that sacrifice. And there's nothing selfish about pursuing your true love in the meantime.

Despite the fact that they commit adultery? You mean they care for their family, but see no harm in disrespecting their wives, who love them by the way, by pretending to love them and having sex with others at the same time? To me, they did treat their wives like shit and that's simply obvious. It's not narrow-minded at all;

I'm sorry, but yes, it is narrow-minded. Look what you wrote: "they did treat their wives like shit and that's simply obvious". You keep repeating that, despite the fact that is not the way the film presents the gay characters to the audience. You can't see past the adultry in a marriage they were *forced into*. Yes, I find that narrow-minded. And if that insults anyone or makes anyone think I'm 'picking a fight', that's too bad. I'm just pointing out factual inaccuracies here.

I'm at an end to understand how anyone could see it as anything but. I can't forgive the harm they did to their wives because "society was homophobic." So, because society is cruel to them, it suddenly becomes okay for them to be equally cruel to two women they've drawn into marriages?

First of all they aren't "equally cruel" to their wives. Second: yes, they had to. Maybe you don't know any gay people, maybe you don't know the history of violence -both fysically and mentally- towards gays, but it is like it is. And that's mainly what the film is about. The film communicates to its audience that we as a society must stop forcing gay people to behave like heterosexuals, because it hurts a lot of people. I believe you are concerned with the fate of their wives, and I believe that concern is sincere and it is justified. I'm not saying you shouldn't care for their wives. Because the film also clearly portrays the hurting on their part. All I'm sayin is *the film* lays the blame not on the two men, but on society.

It does to me. Because they obviously cared for their wives as well, it just leaves the mind to wonder that, if they treat the wives they "love" this badly, they obviously can't care anymore for each other. And don't be so ridiculously idiotic as to insinuate that they *had to* do anything.

I've already written at lenght about your last remark, so about the love: they did love their wives, they just weren't *in* love with them, but they were in love with each other. Is that concept really so hard to grasp?

The fact that Brokeback caters to a homophobic audience while at the same time furthering stereotypical ideas of selfish, "gay" behavior is more than enough reason for me to call the film "overrated." It does nothing to honestly portray a real, undeniably loving romance between two individuals of the same sex and instead gives us two men, who one could question whether they are even completely homosexual in the first place (furthering the idea that homosexuality is "learned"), who selfishly love one another at the expense of others involved.

The film doesn't really cater to a homophobic audience. A homophobic audience wouldn't even go to see the film in the first place. So there's no money in catering it to them. And again, I don't think the gays in the film are portrayed as 'selfish'. That's only your perception. That's why I said you should like at yourself first instead of pointing to the filmmakers. The film obviously communicates the dilemma of being forced into a heterosexual marriage when in fact you are gay, and the pain that causes to all the people involved. That is not a setback for gays at all. That's an honest portrayal of what has happened and is still happening all over the world, because of society's attitudes toward gays. You, on the other hand, see the film as only having selfish gay characters and you fault them for hurting their wives. So the setback really doesn't occur through the film itself, but through your own reaction, and your own reaction says a lot about your thoughts on the subject.

I don't think it's honest to point at other people ("homophobic audience", the filmmakers) if you have issues with the dilemma presented in the film.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Oh, don't patronize me, sonny Jim! I've been bein' a homosexual since you were... I dunno, two or something, maybe?

OK I just watched On Golden Pond yesterday and I can't help but hear Norman's voice when I read this. Anyway, ya old coot, I'm glad you've seen it. I'll be sure to watch Victim (first read about it in my Politics text book, imagine that) and then share my views on that whenever I get around to it.

[xxhplinkxx]

I have a roommate who loves gay movies (especially gay English schoolboy movies) and I've seen it through her.

You saw it through her?! o_0

Either she's really transparent, or you've got amazing vision.

[Just Myself]

The smart assery levels have hit an all time high with that one, Chris.

Another overrated film - Titanic. Good movie? Definitely. Great movie? Possibly. One of the best ever made? No, unfortunately. It's dreadfully long and every time I watch it, I can't help but feel that the romance has this soap opera-ey, cheesiness to it, all that "I'd die without you" nonsense (no offence to soap opera's, Scaps ). I was hoping that The Dark Knight would beat it at the domestic box office, just so we could have a new movie that will be viewed as overrated in a decade or so.

Cheers,
JM

[TheSequelOfDisney]

I was hoping that The Dark Knight would beat it at the domestic box office, just so we could have a new movie that will be viewed as overrated in a decade or so.

Sorry to say, but that movie was overrated the day it came out.

[SpringHeelJack]

I have a roommate who loves gay movies (especially gay English schoolboy movies) and I've seen it through her.

You saw it through her?! o_0

Either she's really transparent, or you've got amazing vision.

No, she really is that pale. Every time she stands in front of the TV, we're all like "Hey, coppertop, you make a better door than a wi- oh."

[BelleGirl]

Some movies I think are overrated:


Chocolat I believe it got an Oscar nomination for Best movie, but to me it was laboured and ultimately fake.


Peter Pan -shock! horror! - Sorry guys, I think it's just a lightweight. And captain Hook is such a pathetic villain!

By the way, I agree with Goliath's comment on Brokeback Mountain. Even though it was 'not good' what the gay lovers did, they were practicallly forced to do as they did by the circumstances. The only other option for them would be not to see each other ever again. In that case we would have no story. Either way, I never got the impression that BB wanted to tell that it's o.k. to commit adultery. Just to show a reality of life.

[Disney's Divinity]

First of all they aren't "equally cruel" to their wives. Second: yes, they had to.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree and that's where your fundamental disagreement with me lies. If I were to believe that they are excusable for their acts because of the hatred, homophobic and conformist mindset of society, then noone could ever possibly be to blame for anything. They chose to initiate the marriages themselves, and they were to blame for hurting their wives. I can't blame their own acts, regardless of what motivated them, on anyone but them, because then we'd have to pretend that they don't have free will. Yes, living a "single" life, without the knowledge of a gay lifestyle, would've likely brought shame in and of itself, but how is creating loveless marriages and then hurting those involved (and treating them as nothing more than pawns to make others believe they're straight) any better?

Maybe you don't know any gay people, maybe you don't know the history of violence -both fysically and mentally- towards gays, but it is like it is. And that's mainly what the film is about.

I find this hilarious--considering I'm gay myself.

[Goliath]

Maybe you don't know any gay people, maybe you don't know the history of violence -both fysically and mentally- towards gays, but it is like it is. And that's mainly what the film is about.

I find this hilarious--considering I'm gay myself.

I didn't and could not have known that. Anyway, your reactions let me to believe that is was possible you don't know any gay people. My assumption thus came from comments you yourself made. So maybe your comments can come off as equally hilarious as well.

It's obvious we're not going to agree on 'Brokeback Mountain'. Nor is there any use in repeating my arguments again, since I've already given them. We shall have to agree to disagree.

[xxhplinkxx]

Mmm... Jake Gyllenhaal. My Jakey-poo is so damn hot. I will marry that man one day.



Shut up, a girl can dream!