overrated movies: old ones, independent ones, liberal-themed ones

Film critics are full of themselves. They think they can appreciate what the ordinary person can't. They are like the worst stereotype of the artsy liberal. It's like a subculture. I don't have to elaborate here. You get the picture.

I've watched many classics without prejudice. I like that some movies are historical, revolutionary or try to convey an important message. But I also enjoy Dumb and Dumber. So there's nothing to get out from Dumb and Dumber. No buried message that's enlightening or transcendental. Nothing you can put your finger on and think yourself wise. Pretentiousness.

Citizen Kane is not the best movie ever, whoever thinks so scores way too high on some revolutionary aspect of the movie. The ordinary person off the street wouldn't be able to make it 20 minutes in, but you can because you're so enlightened?

I think those who watch only chick flicks and other garbage are also dumb.
But at least there's something worthwhile there. These idiots relate to what's going on. It's never anything too deep but so what.

Just because the original Texas Chainsaw was revolutionary does not make it overall a better movie than the remake.

Some directors are also saints to some. Like Kubrick. I thought his galaxy movie was the most boring of all time.

automatically because a movie is independent, we give it extra points,
yes we ought to recognize that part, and keep it in mind, but no you don't get an extra point

that's like letting the handicapped people into the regular olympics and giving people points according to their abilities,

I find most old movies to be overrated. I don't like much before the 70's. Say what you will, that is just my opinion.

__________________
You are no Vader. You are just a child in a mask.

Way to stick it to those deceitful lefty crippled geriatrics.

Kubricks galaxy movie? I think you mean 2001: A Space Odessey which is a suburb film. But let me get it straight, people who appreciate classics are self indulged, people who don't try them are dumb, and then you're the only one who's got it right on. Seems legit.

__________________

hugs donniedarko

Donnie Darko

I see myself as a bit of a critic... but I review movies on this site simply for two reasons.
1. Because it's kinda fun to give my thoughts on a film.
2. To give a rounded outlook on the film for anyone who may not have seen it.

I don't think I'm better than anyone else because I can break a film down and analyse it's good and bad points.

Dumb And Dumber as an example, is simply just a film made for laughs. A film that is made for fans of laughing at something that really just, is.
It's called Escapism.

I agree, it's not the best film ever made... but I'd still rank it high. It's a well written, well photographed and beautifully acted film.

Also, I don't get this: Fans of Citizen Kane are only fans because of the revolutionary nature of the film and they get enlightened by the film... but you didn't get enlightenment from Dumb And Dumber so that makes the film Pretentious.

What's wrong with just wanting to escape? Yeah, chick flicks are among some of the worst films ever made... but like Dumb And Dumber, they're just non-threatening escapism, not really designed to be anything more or anything less. Even those that do try to give some kind of message, fail to do so, but still, why should every film be something more than just pure and simple fun?

Have you actually seen both of these?
The remake is a poor excuse for a film.
Only a handful of remakes actually top the original... I wouldn't call the original Chainsaw film Revolutionary... Original yes, but not revolutionary.


Have to agree on this one. 2001 was boring for me too... but hey, that's just my personal taste. It was interesting in its themes but yes, slow going.
I found A Clockwork Orange the same... interesting, but not my thing.

Still though, bookending directors is a bit pointless. Kubrick has made some absolute cracking films over the years, I'm a fan for sure... and some people have raised him, in thier minds to the heights of Saint.
Again though, it's personal taste rather than absolute truth.

Many independent films stand out for one reason and one reason alone.
They're Independent.
Some are pretty poor.

But many stand out due to being unrestricted by the confines of Hollywood and big studios that have rules... rules that say "keep it family oriented to get arses on seats and make us lots of money".

Independent films tend to give something different to the mainstream and stand apart because of it.

---

What I find funny, is that your arguments and comments are based soully around personal opinions.
Anyone who has a different opinion than yourself, is wrong.

__________________

the rodent is a good man!

the rodent, you may be the only person without a below-the-average IQ that has robocop has his favorite movie. it was a good movie tho. and i agree what most of what you said

169 matey...

I guess that means everything I do is gold.

whats 169 matey

You're on about IQ...

Lots of "people off the street" like Citizen Kane. It's a great freakin' movie. There are plenty of critically adored films that your average moviegoer would be bored to tears by, but I don't think that's one of them.

Being a film lover means, at least on some level, being able to appreciate the form beyond the transient entertainment value you get from it in the moment. And when you decide to do that, you end up appreciating some films that you don't find wildly entertaining. You end up admiring the way something was made and praising films for something other than their raw entertainment value, in the same way you might appreciate a symphony even if it doesn't make you want to dance the way dubstep would.

Can people disappear up their own rear end doing this? Absolutely. But that's an argument for moderation, not an argument against analyzing the form. Don't let the people who lose that perspective poison the entire well of critical analysis. If you can derive pleasure from the execution of something itself, why wouldn't you want to? It's just another place to find enjoyment.

Here's a kicker; I have yet to see Citizen Kane, or even Casablanca for that matter.

Also, I've never felt that 2001: A Space Odyssey was ever slow or boring, even when I first watched it back when I was in my mid-teens. I always felt that it flowed perfectly and at a perfect pace. 2001 was probably my first serious favorite movie back in the day. Oh the memories.

Here are some quick (more recent) movies that I find overrated, and everyone I know looks at me incredulously when I mention I'm not really a huge fan...

Forrest Gump (I honestly hate this movie)
The Shawshank Redemption
Memento
Se7en
The Machinist
American Psycho
The Dark Knight Rises
Warrior (I literally do not understand the love for this movie)
American History X
The Prestige (this movies sucks)
Inception (I guess this can kind of go either way, because there are the people who know it's crap, but then there are the people who are like AMGIT'SSOGREAT)

If you couldn't guess, I'm not a huge fan of mister Christopher Nolan.

How are you defining a "chick flick" anyway? Is it romantic comedies? What?

If so, yeah most romantic comedies are nothing more than light entertainment, but some of them can and do go a little deeper. Take a look at something like Safety Not Guaranteed which is just as much about feeling alienated and lost as it is about finding love.

I can't talk about Citizen Kane personally, as I have not yet seen it, but I do know that it is highly regarded by a lot of average people, including many MoFos, and if you were to talk to them you'll find that many of them also enjoy movies that have no value beyond entertainment.

__________________

Why generalize all film critics, whether they're casual or professional, into one stereotype?

...... are you saying any movie with a subtle message, that doesn't smash you over the head again and again with the message, is pretentious? ...

Don't think there's such a thing as the best movie ever... different groups of people may agree on certain movies as "the best", but that's their assessment... I don't interpret lists like Sight & Sound or AFI Top 100 as if they think their picks are gospel that everyone has to accept... I take it as that group's viewpoint. Which can be insightful and doesn't have to be adhered to strictly like some kind of law.

I think Citizen Kane is a good movie. But that doesn't make me more wise than someone who thinks otherwise.

I think Woody Allen nailed it on the head in Midnight In Paris when he pointed out how everybody looks to their past with nostalgia, regardless of objective value. So, someone in the 21st century will think the 20th century was the best, the 20th thinks the 19th is the best, etc.
I believe film critics look at film with that same deluded sense of nostalgia where they see older movies through rose-colored glasses and rate them higher than they deserve. That's why there are a lot of movies considered to be "great" that received mixed or poor reviews at the time they were released. Also, that's why any top movies ever list like AFI, Sight & Sound, etc are heavily biased in favor of old movies as if good movies stopped being made after 1970.

Are they actually biased in favor of old movies? 40 of the AFI's Top 100 films were made since 1970. Assuming a normal distribution of quality, that's actually a slightly higher number than you'd expect, given that the list was updated in 2007 and it covers 91 years.

I think the reason it may seem like they favor old films is that, by the very nature of the terms, only a small number of the total films ever made will qualify as modern. So something from the 1940s gets mentally lumped under "old" along with films from the 50s and 60s.

Anyway, the fact that a lot of ostensibly great films got middling reviews when they were released doesn't tell us anything, because sometimes the exact opposite happens; films win Oscars and then are quickly forgotten. And decades later we marvel that such-and-such was so well-regarded at the time.

that doesn't mean there weren't great movies made in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc, though

Totally. The funny thing is that nostalgia is a recurring theme in Allen's work (the best example of which being Manhattan, perhaps) and he's especially guilty of considering times passed superior to the present moment. It makes me wonder if Midnight in Paris was sort of a concession on his part, as if he were owning up to lamenting the present with the feeble dreams of reclaiming past glories.

Some of these old, classic films are just so far behind technically and visually that it is hard to still consider them among the best of all time. There are a few examples of "primitive" films that are so good in so many different ways that we look past the technological disadvantages that may have improved the production.

Another thing to remember is that most critics don't have any business acting as authorities on film because they never made any and if they had, they almost always sucked. That is why I generally consider the collective opinions of directors above critics and historians because they are the only ones who truly understand the craft. I am not saying critics shouldn't share their opinions, but I think they should all know their role and the lack of legitimate knowledge they possess. To me, it's like Skip Bayless commentating a football game when he's never played a down in his life.

__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!