Most Overrated Movies

One of the reasons I think that there is such a controversy about rating The Dark Knight Rises is the hype. Hype can both help and hurt a movie. It can lead to high box office numbers and good reviews, or a backlash, we've seen it with tons of movies, Christmas Story, The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Frozen, and most recently, Mad Max Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Sometimes, people have gone in with a set mind, that it will be great or that it will suck due to all the hype.

The Dark Knight Rises is the same way. It was following on the footsteps of the Dark Knight, one of the greatest comic book films ever made in many peoples opinions, it had a lot to live up to, so when people saw it and saw that it did have flaws, thus, destroying the hype, people either wanted to say it was the best movie ever or the worst movie ever. But eventually, even though some people have kept to their original opinions, lots of people seem to agree that it's a good movie that has a lot of flaws.

But that's just the way I view it.

I had fun with the movie, I wasn't disappointed by the hype so much as I was disappointed by the fact that it was a Nolan Batman movie and it turned out like THIS.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Yeah, same thing goes for the term "objectively" (ESPECIALLY in caps). Saying something is objectively better or worse is non-argument, simply because the whole matter in question is subjective. That's why there is no 'objectively' better movie, again, you either like one better or another one better.

No, there are objectively **** movies, so there can be objectively overrated movies.

Do you need to understand a film in order to appreciate it? Especially one meant to be surreal.

Because I don't.

I like surrealism. I just don't buy that Jackson Pollock crap.

There aren't. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. But believe what you want, I don't mind.

It doesn't take a internet snob to figure out otherwise either.

Consider the following:

In other words, YES, understanding it goes a long way.

You might as well expect me to "appreciate" what someone's saying in another language.

I can't even begin to explain why i love Eraserhead so much, because you are right i don't fully understand it but it isn't completely incomprehensible like you are making out, at least not compared to some other films i've watched. Anyway i posted this once to attempt to at least give an idea of why i love it so much. Take from it what you will.

"Love 8 1/2, yet I completely understand why people dislike it or Fellini in general. I think Mark said it perfectly when talking about Eraserhead (I think), something along the lines of "Lynch's most personal, but too personal for me". For whatever reason these are the ones that usually work the most for me, not sure why? Possibly because they seem neverending, in the end no one is going to experience as close of a connection to these types as the filmmaker, so maybe it feels rewarding chasing this experience? Weird perspective I know, but it's what i've thought ever since I read that, made me think and hopefully understand a bit better why Eraserhead and 8 1/2 are so rewatchable for me."

I don't understand the Icelandic language, but I find it absolutely beautiful and it entirely resonates with me. Again, I don't have to understand something to appreciate it. Maybe you do, but you're treating it as an objective rule that things have to make sense, and that's silly.

While I often disagree with Omni, he's right about Pollock. Absolute bollocks.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Nah, Pollock's great. Not sure how this is incapable of appealing to someone's senses, unless those senses are entirely dulled from a miserable life of cynicism.

Okay, it looks nice, but there is no real effort put into it.
If a toddler throws paint on a wall randomly, it's no considered art, it's a mess.

No effort? Are you serious? That painting is oozing with technique.

Oh yes, because flicking paint takes real technique.

I think it looks nice and all, it's the fact that a toddler could do the exact same thing and yet it sells for millions of dollars is what pisses me off.

Ahem.

__________________

We're entering really grey territory about what constitutes art anyway, but the fact is Pollock was a genuine artist with intent and purpose, and whether you believe it or not, yes, he put a lot of effort into his art. I'm not sure how that's not obvious just looking at his work, but I guess close-minded prejudices blind people from what is obvious.

If it's that easy - try it and post a pic of your masterpiece