Most Overrated Movies Evar!! !

Post Reply New Topic

Probably not... I don't really know why I think he is overrated, I just don't like any of his films (even his good one). I could probably figure it out but I'd rather not bother with it.

touche

I think Free-Hinter has a valid point.

There's certainly a high cultural bias when it comes to rating films.

Sure, we regard these directors as geniuses and their works are undeniable classics but are they overrated?

That's kind of stupid though. I mean, you should never think about overrating and underrating on a social level. Because overrating and underrating isn't social. It's personal.


It's not like these movies come out of the womb artistic. It is us who percieve the movie as being good. It is us who rate the movie on being good or being.

To say that there's a high cultural bias when it comes to rating films is like saying that art has some innate worth, but it is culture that regards these movies at a certain level.



Now, if you were to say that most people haven't seen these movies, but take the critics word for it, and call them masterpieces. Then i would agree with you.


I haven't seen Citizen Kane. But i know that its supposed to be good . . . rosebud etc etc (though from what i heard, it does sound overrated ha)


But i mean David Fincher is one of the most powerful directors in the deconstructionist movement.

And Tarantino, though he knows nothing about making stories, is a powerful director in the metafiction movement, and i haven't seen anyone able to so-subtly involve metafiction, without you realizing you are apart of a metafiction project (I hate tarantino as a director, only because story movement is very important to me)

i honestly haven't seen bergman, i was just curious why he thought he was overrated. After looking him up on wikipedia though (and i am aware that i am citing wikipedia) it sounds like he influenced a lot of famous directors today.


But i think i digress. By putting overrating and underrating in terms of society, you are saying that art has innate value.

No, society overrates movies, it is absolutely true. To say this is not to say that movies have innate worth (which is itself probably not a discussion for this thread, again). Anybody with even a small amount of common sense would be too nervous (not the correct word I confess) to say that a film like "the Godfather" was a horrible film... or make a similar claim about a similar film. I would venture to say that many people who claim to like this film and others do so mainly because of the social pressure that is placed on them to do so. Or you could read that as an analogy... I don't mean it quite literally.

that's kinda what i meant but i didnt extrapolate upon it. I think to say that society overrates movies and to say a lot of people within society lie about movies they haven't seen are two different, albeit similar thesis statements. But i agree. There are plenty of people who havent seen citizen kane who have said its the most amazing movie in teh world.



I actually think this is a perfectly relevant conversation under an overrated thread and am glad we are having it.

Now, here's a follow up question. Out of the people who have seen citizen kane, should we put more merit into those have backgrounds in movie critiquing and movie making?

As I recall, Peter Griffin had the courage to dismiss The Godfather. I believe he said something like, "It insists upon itself."

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I don't think so. Experience in the field does not help "objective" judgement on it. That may not make sense...

I would say it depends.

If you like action films and you want to know if Citizen Kane is going to appeal to you, then ask friends who like action films and have seen Citizen Kane. That might give you a better idea of whether the film will work for you.

But if you want to get an opinion on the photographic style or the connection with W.R. Hearst etc, then it might be a good idea to talk to someone with specific knowledge on those subjects. Film criticis who have extensive knowledge of a subject can give you a more complex assessment of the film. They may draw conclusions that you disagree with, but they are likely to see more nuances within that film.

I think people who have worked in the field can provide a specific kind of information that someone who has not cannot. This information may be utterly useless to you or it may be valuable. It all depends on what you are looking for.

And now for an assessment of Citizen Kane from someone who has actually seen it: It's a good film. Why? Because it's pretty darned entertaining. The story moves along at a good pace, delivering plot points and character details just as you need them. It is beautifully shot for those who like something pretty to look at. The acting is solid and believeable even with the 70 years since it was made. The the basic point of the film is something that most people can relate to.

Is it the greatest film ever made? No film can ever live up to that sort of praise. In this sense, it is over rated, much to it's own detriment, but it is an astoundingly well made film, worth watching more than once.

No film can be everything to everyone. Every person can find films that many people like that simply have no meaning or value to them. This doesn't make the film bad or the person wrong. That's why the world is filled with many different artists. If one artist's work doesn't do it for you, look at another's. That doesn't make one artist bad and another good. It just means that they are addressing different issues and appealing to different interests.

It still think some films are over rated, but I think it is useful to know a bit of the history of criticism to see where films that appear good now, may in twenty or fifty years, look tired and dated. (It could be useful to look at the Han Van Meegeran [sic?] forgeries of Vermeer paintings to look at how contemporary critics might not see the flaws in a work that do not become obvious until half a century or more has passed.)

Well that is quite a pessimistic statement.

That's the crappy part about art (and this is starting to irrelevent) no matter how hard the artist tries he or she will always be unable to superimpose their art perfectly into the minds of others. It will always be imperfect. No film can ever be called the greatest film, because there are always going to be people who do not like it. Nobody can perfectly understand art. I think im just rambling now.

?

Maybe I can clarify my point.

There may be a film that you feel is one of the best things made. I may find absolutely nothing of value in it. I might see another film that I regard highly, but that you have no use for.

Is the film you like better than the film I like? Is the film I like better than the film you like? Because we are different people with different views on the world and with different interests, we will have different ideas of what is meaningful and valuable.

When I was young, I thought there was such a thing as "the greatest work of art" But the Mona Lisa does not affect me anywhere near as much as a particular painting by Franz Klein. Which is the better painting? Because of specific experiences I have had in life, I have interests that relate specifically to those experiences. I can look at a film by Michaelangelo Antonioni and see that it is well made and yet it has little affect on me. I may greatly enjoy "Paris, Texas" or "Brand Upon The Brain" and those films may do nothing for you. Because I like them are they "the greatest film ever made?" Because someone else doesn't are they worthless?

There is nothing pessimistic in saying that no work of art can ever be considered the greatest. In fact, the way I see it, it's actually rather optimistic. It means that art doesn't have to appeal to everyone. A film can do what it does for the people who like that sort of thing. And for those that don't, they can go find something that works for them. Art can be as diverse as the people who enjoy it.

When I was young, I thought art that didn't achieve absolute greatness was a failure. I put art on a pedestal, thinking it was something it could never be. I thought there were things that could be perfect. As I got older, I realized that perfect wasn't very interesting. "Perfect" tries to appeal to everyone... and fails miserably. What is interesting is a point of view that takes its own individual direction.

No work of art will ever be "the greatest" Shakespeare is often cited as one of the greatest writers, but some of his plays aren't so good. Rembrandt is fairly highly regarded. Have you ever looked at the way he painted hands? All we can ever hope for is to do good work. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is "the greatest" But some things can be awfully good.

Edit to make yet another clarification: The idea that one work of art stands above all others implies that all the other works are somehow lesser works. My feeling is that many works reach a high level and that it is impossible to assign to any one of them the label of "greatest" The result is that more works of art are to be considered great rather than a single one beating them all. I'm not interested in competing for a gold medal. I would rather join an intelligent conversation amongst peers.

Definately Ironman, I can't stand the Tony Stark character. I like some features of Kill Bill namely Uma Thurman and David Carradine (RIP).

I disrespectfully disagree (the "disrespectfully" part is meaningless, it is far too enjoyable to leave the dis- prefix on both words).

If others think that the greatest film is not the greatest, they are simply wrong. I can put this in different terms if necessary.

Amelie
Lost in Translation
anything by Tim Burton
Inception

Harry Potter
Lord of the Rings
Twlight
anything by Tim Burton (he could make a movie about poop and it would be insanley popular. What is it with people's obsession with Tim Burton? I heard he is AS but why are even NT's obsessed with him? No one obsesses over my work like that.)