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

[2099net]

aaaaaaah my ears and eyes!

I thought EDtv was beating a dead horse actually. Especially now 10 years later, Truman holds up while EDtv has lost al relevance. Everyone knows television networks exploit people for ratings. It's old news.

But every year something more rediculous happens on tv that reminds me that the concept of the Truman Show was far from rediculous. From "The Momen of Truth" and "The Golden Cage" to a woman giving birth in the Big Brother house. Where does it end?

By leaving things open for interpretation, I found the Truman Show much more interesting than EDtv.

but this is the rant thread, so to each his own.

EDtv though was not beating a dead horse. It was a projection of what would (and in the end more or less did) happen. True, EDtv is of its time and no doubt dated now though. But I think moments still stand out.

I don't see Truman as being about TV. I mean let's face it, the actual show of Truman must have been somewhat boring. I mean, look at the stunts they pull in Big Brother these days they're so desperate for ratings.

To me, the point of Truman is for the filmmakers to show a story about an everyday man battling for control of his own destiny after finding himself a plaything of the "gods". As I see it, it has more in common with ancient myths than Network TV. The similarities are hardly hidden.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Ya, Temple of Doom is overrated that why everyone hates it, right?

OMG Wuthering Heights and Gone With the Wind have adultery too I guess we should hate them! That begin said, Brokeback Mountain was hardly groundbreaking. Anyone who thought it was clearly forgot about Maurice (which has a very similar plot but an all around better movie), Beautiful Thing etc. This is also Hollywood's fault for forgetting about gays existing and pandering to homophobic audiences and playing it safe for the $$$ (but can you blame them?).

[PeterPanfan]

Some more films I find overrated:

Jaws - The shark is obviously a horribly made animatronic, it's safe to go five feet into the water! Seriously.

Twilight - Though this is more or less the fans forcing copies of the books/movie tickets onto people, I still find the book better, and the film bad.

Beauty and the Beast - It's FAR from my favorite Disney fan. I like it, but honestly don't see all of the appeal.

The Phantom of the Opera - It gets boring after ten viewings, "FANtoms"!

The Dark Knight - Just because Heath Ledger died does not mean this film is "legendary."

[xxhplinkxx]

Jaws - The shark is obviously a horribly made animatronic, it's safe to go five feet into the water! Seriously.

Ok, then you go back to 1975 and see if you can do better. Seriously.

[littlefuzzy]

I forgot about Wes Anderson and his pretentious films...

"Ohh, see what I did there with that dialogue? That was SOOO clever!"

[PeterPanfan]

Jaws - The shark is obviously a horribly made animatronic, it's safe to go five feet into the water! Seriously.

Ok, then you go back to 1975 and see if you can do better. Seriously.

How do you know I was referring to 1975? It's still relevent today. Seriously.

[xxhplinkxx]

Ok, then you go back to 1975 and see if you can do better. Seriously.

How do you know I was referring to 1975? It's still relevent today. Seriously.

1975 is when the film was made, and you're complaining about the "horribly made animatronics" without even taking into consideration the time period and that they didn't exactly have today's technologies available to them.

So, like I said, unless you can go back to then and do better...

Seriously.

[Goliath]

Goliath, just because you call a movie "overrated" doesn't mean you have to dislike it...

No need to roll your eyes at me.

Anyways, I just wanted to back up the folks who feel the Godfather movies are overrated, and I'll throw Scarface in there too. Honestly, I don't see the appeal of these kinds of movies. Not that they can't be good, but I don't know how people can come to love them soooo much or their despicable (and hardly in a likable way) characters.

Why do characters always have to be likable? That's my biggest complaint with people who trash movies in this thread so far. I'm not saying everybody does it, but I read a lot of complaints about films for not having 'likable characters'. Well, maybe that's the entire point of the film? If you only want likable characters, go watch the Care Bears Picknick or something like that...

Also, I think there are many likable characters in The Godfather films. Take Kay (Diane Keaton), for instance, Michael's girlfriend/wife. And Don Corleone himself is a likable character. And Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall). Just because they're gangsters doesn't mean that, in the world of these films, they can't be likable.

I even think *that* is one of the strong points of The Godfather films: that Coppolla was able to portray these mafia types in such a way that you could still care for them, even though you disapproved of what they did 'work related'...

[Disney's Divinity]

Seriously? Is this like, the 18th century? I mean, I know adultery is bad da da da da da, but if you're unable to sympathize with someone because they're doing something you disagree with, something's amiss. Fictional characters do stuff all the time I wouldn't do, and yet I can still sympathize with them. Look at Jean Valjean, Macbeth, Jay Gatsby, Hannibal Lecter, Gollum, Sam Spade, Batman, etc. I mean, if you're going to let that stand in the way, you're going to miss out on a lot.

I never said I completely hated the characters (just like I could never completely hate a person)--just that it’s hard for me to be sympathetic for characters who are not sympathetic themselves. Who obviously don't give a damn about who they hurt as long as they feel satisfied in the moment. They obviously didn't deserve to die, but beyond that I think most of the hardships that happen they create for themselves. I can actually sympathize with many characters who do many horrible things, but it's hard for me to look past adultery. I've just always considered it the cruelest thing one human being can do to another.

OMG Wuthering Heights and Gone With the Wind have adultery too I guess we should hate them! That begin said, Brokeback Mountain was hardly groundbreaking. Anyone who thought it was clearly forgot about Maurice (which has a very similar plot but an all around better movie), Beautiful Thing etc. This is also Hollywood's fault for forgetting about gays existing and pandering to homophobic audiences and playing it safe for the $$$ (but can you blame them?).

I'm sorry that you disagree, but it’s hard to take the romance--which the film centers around--seriously when the lovers are treating their wives like shit. No, not every film that has adultery in it is bad (and I never said that--please, don't put words in my mouth), but when the movie focuses around an adulterous romance, it’s extremely hard for me to see the love. Like I said, Brokeback presents itself very well, only the story is a problem for me. It simply resorts to the traditional tragedy that the media resigns “gay romance” to. In fact, considering this film is often acclaimed as "the first mainstream gay movie,” it really just sets gay rights farther back by using characters who have no moral care for anyone but themselves (making homophobic audiences feel vindicated in believing that gays in general are selfish and immoral). Of course, the audience is really to blame for this perception, but the filmmakers obviously knew which audience they were catering to.

[PatrickvD]

EDtv though was not beating a dead horse. It was a projection of what would (and in the end more or less did) happen. True, EDtv is of its time and no doubt dated now though. But I think moments still stand out.

I don't see Truman as being about TV. I mean let's face it, the actual show of Truman must have been somewhat boring. I mean, look at the stunts they pull in Big Brother these days they're so desperate for ratings.

To me, the point of Truman is for the filmmakers to show a story about an everyday man battling for control of his own destiny after finding himself a plaything of the "gods". As I see it, it has more in common with ancient myths than Network TV. The similarities are hardly hidden.

I kinda do think The Truman Show is, in part, about television and visual media. Internet wasn't big back then. But look how people obsess about celebrities these days. If Beyonce falls of a stage it's all over tv instantly.

I'm pretty sure if hypothetically for some bizarre reason, an entire channel was dedicated to broadcasting Britney Spears live, (so people could watch her eat, sleep, "sing", give birth, flip channels, cut her toe nails or even attempt to Tivo an episode of Lost) it would get huge ratings. Of course the Truman gimmick is that he is unaware wich makes the film more filosophical, but people are willing to watch a lot of crap. Especially when it's pushing boundaries and invading the privacy of others. Ultimate escapism.

But when I think about it now you could be right, I guess it is more about us as a society and our weird obsessions than television. Maybe that also makes it hard to compare EDtv and the Truman Show, because they're films of a very different nature.

[Goliath]

*SOME* Quentin Tarantino - Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction. First of all, I'm not a big fan of the POV of the criminal, and the dialogue seems off (there ARE people who can communicate without using 15 cuss words to every 1 non-cuss word! )

That's what makes the films so great. The dialogues. Like the beginning of 'Reservoir Dogs', when the gangsters are discussing what the lyrics of 'Like a virgin' really mean. It's the total randomness that makes it funny. Also, it would be super dull had John Travolta and Sam Jackson used super correct language. Can you picture Jackson pointing a gun on someone's head and asking: "Do you speak English, sir?" No way! It has to be: "English, motherf*cker! Do you speak it?!"

Brokeback Mountain - haven't seen it, don't plan to. It's not my thing, and I've heard that if it weren't for the "Groundbreaking Gay Romance" part, it would just be a forgettable romance movie. For that matter, I wouldn't like it as a modern cowboy movie, either.

Dude, the whole point of the movie is to break away from standard romance. The gay romance *is* the plot. It takes place in the 1960's, and they're "cowboys"! Imagine being gay and living in that time in that profession and you have the plot of the movie. Therefore, it's a drama and not a 'cowboy movie'.

[xxhplinkxx]

without even taking into consideration the time period

Actually, that brings me to a very good point. You guys also need to think about the time of when films were released. Think about times when the world was slightly more innocent, think about the impact that certain films could have had on an audience.

The Exorcist, for example. I don't really think of it as anything special, but that's because I grew up watching films like Scream; A film that is much scarier *visually* with all the murder scenes. So for me to look at a film like The Exorcist, I can watch it without flinching. But then I also think... back then, in 1973, that was their Scream. My friends mom is absolutely terrified of that film; she still can't watch it today, she was so scared of it. Why? Because she still holds the memories that terrified her as a kid/early teen.

Another film that I've seen thrown around this thread is Brokeback Mountain. Now, while I do like the movie, it's not on my "Top 5" list or anything. BUT! As a gay man, I can appreciate it for what it is and understand why it is embraced the way it is. Actually, I was just talking about this with Brendan the other night... Up until Brokeback, most gay films were nothing but a joke. Most of them are just cheesy and often use the same stereotypes that have been put upon the gay community. And most of those films, though some are tolerable (not good, tolerable), they were mostly, in a way, "underground" films that pretty much only the gay community knew of.

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. So, while it isn't my favorite film of all time, I can understand what it means to gay people and even straight people that have possibly been in similar situations. It showed the world that gay men can be more than just a bunch of flaming queens.

So before you decide to bash a film as "overrated" think first about the time and the type of people that watched it and what it meant to, not only them, but what it meant to the world and the kind of impact it had upon it.


Seriously.

[Goliath]

Agreed on Brokeback Mountain. That was such a horrible movie. It presented itself well, but it's storyline was in no way "groundbreaking" for gay romance (especially the lovers were also adulterors...how can you honestly feel that sorry for them?).

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 never said I completely hated the characters (just like I could never completely hate a person)--just that it’s hard for me to be sympathetic for characters who are not sympathetic themselves. Who obviously don't give a damn about who they hurt as long as they feel satisfied in the moment. They obviously didn't deserve to die, but beyond that I think most of the hardships that happen they create for themselves. I can actually sympathize with many characters who do many horrible things, but it's hard for me to look past adultery. I've just always considered it the cruelest thing one human being can do to another.

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.

I'm sorry that you disagree, but it’s hard to take the romance--which the film centers around--seriously when the lovers are treating their wives like shit.

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.

No, not every film that has adultery in it is bad (and I never said that--please, don't put words in my mouth), but when the movie focuses around an adulterous romance, it’s extremely hard for me to see the love.

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.

Like I said, Brokeback presents itself very well, only the story is a problem for me. It simply resorts to the traditional tragedy that the media resigns “gay romance” to. In fact, considering this film is often acclaimed as "the first mainstream gay movie,” it really just sets gay rights farther back by using characters who have no moral care for anyone but themselves (making homophobic audiences feel vindicated in believing that gays in general are selfish and immoral). Of course, the audience is really to blame for this perception, but the filmmakers obviously knew which audience they were catering to.

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.

[Goliath]

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'.

[PeterPanfan]

without even taking into consideration the time period

Yes, but the point I was trying to get across is that more people now than before have a fear of oceans/water because of Jaws. It isn't quite realistic that a HUGE shark is going to attack you when you're barely in the ocean, or stalk you for half a decade.

The Exorcist, for example. I don't really think of it as anything special, but that's because I grew up watching films like Scream; A film that is much scarier *visually* with all the murder scenes. So for me to look at a film like The Exorcist, I can watch it without flinching. But then I also think... back then, in 1973, that was their Scream. My friends mom is absolutely terrified of that film; she still can't watch it today, she was so scared of it. Why? Because she still holds the memories that terrified her as a kid/early teen.

That isn't necessarily true. Other factors determine whether a film is scary than the time period it was made. Things like how many horror films a person has been exposed to, how they react to horror films, etc. I find The Excorsist frightening, and I've seen a lot of horror movies.

So before you decide to bash a film as "overrated" think first about the time and the type of people that watched it and what it meant to, not only them, but what it meant to the world and the kind of impact it had upon it..

A lot of people's opinions are based on their thoughts after watching the movie. You don't always have to take into consideration of how it was made, the time period it was made, etc. Just because a person from the twenty-first century dislikes a movie from the thirties doesn't mean that they are just randonly bashing it. They may have seen a LOT of movies from around that time, and have a lot to compare it to, and therefore, see it as overrated or bad.


Seriously.

[slave2moonlight]

Why do characters always have to be likable? That's my biggest complaint with people who trash movies in this thread so far. I'm not saying everybody does it, but I read a lot of complaints about films for not having 'likable characters'. Well, maybe that's the entire point of the film? If you only want likable characters, go watch the Care Bears Picknick or something like that...

Also, I think there are many likable characters in The Godfather films. Take Kay (Diane Keaton), for instance, Michael's girlfriend/wife. And Don Corleone himself is a likable character. And Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall). Just because they're gangsters doesn't mean that, in the world of these films, they can't be likable.

I even think *that* is one of the strong points of The Godfather films: that Coppolla was able to portray these mafia types in such a way that you could still care for them, even though you disapproved of what they did 'work related'...

I'm going to have to give you the eye-roll too, Goliath, because I lost my interest in having discussions with you some time back. Personally, if I don't like someone, I don't "care for them". If you have a problem with that, too bad. What really irks me is how many people seem to look up to/admire these criminal characters, most of which don't strike me as having all that much depth. Not that they aren't realistic depictions. People like that usually do have a limited range of emotions. Angry, proud, spiteful... not much else... And I'm sure you'll cite examples that you feel contradict that, but those few scenes where these characters show a glimpse of more admirable emotions are just not enough for me. They are scum and I don't really care about their life-stories. As for the downtrodden women who cling to them, I have little sympathy for women like that either.

[Goliath]

I'm going to have to give you the eye-roll too, Goliath, because I lost my interest in having discussions with you some time back.

What? We don't agree on one topic and suddenly you "lost your interest in having discussions with me"? Do people have to agree with you all the time to hold your interest?

Personally, if I don't like someone, I don't "care for them". If you have a problem with that, too bad.

Who said I have a problem with that? I, like many other people in this thread, am debating the reasons given for thinking a film is 'overrated'. Why do you have to be so hostile about it?

What really irks me is how many people seem to look up to/admire these criminal characters, most of which don't strike me as having all that much depth. Not that they aren't realistic depictions. People like that usually do have a limited range of emotions. Angry, proud, spiteful... not much else... And I'm sure you'll cite examples that you feel contradict that, but those few scenes where these characters show a glimpse of more admirable emotions are just not enough for me. They are scum and I don't really care about their life-stories. As for the downtrodden women who cling to them, I have little sympathy for women like that either.

What irks me, is that people write off cinematic masterpieces because they're too narrow-minded to engage in an opposite point of view.

[slave2moonlight]

What? We don't agree on one topic and suddenly you "lost your interest in having discussions with me"? Do people have to agree with you all the time to hold your interest?

You well know it's not about agreeing or disagreeing. I've seen how you work, and you like to "pick fights", even if you make it start out innocently enough. This would not be a first time for us, and I've seen you doing the same thing to other people here.

[Goliath]

You well know it's not about agreeing or disagreeing. I've seen how you work, and you like to "pick fights", even if you make it start out innocently enough. This would not be a first time for us, and I've seen you doing the same thing to other people here.

Big fat lie. You're personally attacking me, and then you accuse *me* of 'picking a fight'? Here's a newsflash for you: two people disagreeing is *not* the same as fighting.

[pap64]

Regarding the likable character discussion (I didn't read through it all) its a very complex subject. As a would be writer I sometimes wonder what makes a character beloved. Is it the looks? The attitude? The personification of an idea? It takes a lot of things for a character to be enjoyed by many.

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.

Back in 2006 me and my best friend saw the first season of Dennis Leary's "Rescue Me" on DVD. At first, we enjoyed it as we saw this mad, really flawed firefighter face every day challenges as a father, man and rescue hero. Despite his insanity and violent tendencies we still felt for him because deep down he was a really good one, one dedicated to his job, much moreso than anyone gives him credit for.

The problem with the series was that EVERYONE was just as flawed, if not worse, than him. Nearly every firefighter had serious social and emotional issues, as well as the rest of the supporting cast. The wife was a bitch, the daughter an emotional teenager bitch, his best friend was severely traumatized by 9/11, a latino firefighter was s sex junky that had relationships with a drug addict, his girlfriend was a fat woman with anorexia so on and so forth...

The series tried to be realistic and gritty by implanting real issues onto its character, something fine in itself. But when every character had severe issues it made it hard to care for them or even root for them since they came off as bad people, even if they were rescue heroes that worked hard.

So a writer must strike a balance when creating a character. Give him flaws, but balance it out by putting him among other characters unique to him. Don't make him or her perfect either. If you achieve the balance you will have a likable character, even if he or she happens to be the antagonist of the whole thing.

Likable characters are very important because they are the audience's guide to the world and the story portrayed on screen. Heck, even the scenery can be a character in itself, especially if its used to carry the story forward.

So long story short, good characters are important, VERY important in any storytelling medium. Don't underestimate this.