Most overrated movies thread

[duke of new york]

Inspired by the "favorite movies" thread, I present the "most overrated movies" thread. I saw so many films repeated over and over in there that are pretty mediocre by my standards, and those same films are so beloved by people I know that I get incredibly sick of them.

So, without further ado, here is my list:



Inception: A good movie that I enjoyed at the time I watched it. It's pretty creative, but it didn't and doesn't blow my mind like it seems to with everyone else. A solid action flick with some reasonably creative ideas, nothing more.

The 300: I thought it was stupid, but I tend to dislike any comic book-ish movie or pure action movies without good plot or dialogue.

Batman Begins/The Dark Knight: It's just Batman. I never understood what was so great about Batman. Then again, I never understood what was so great about superheroes in general, and I have never liked superhero movies.

V for Vendetta: Anyone who thought this was bold or innovative as a social commentary needs to read more. There was nothing here that dozens of dystopian novels and films hadn't covered before, and the titular character was just tacky. 1984 for an audience too juvenile for 1984. I guess it doesn't help that I also hate Natalie Portman.

Anything by Quentin Tarantino: Pretentious, self-indulgent dialogue. Relies heavily on gore and violence for shock value. Even QT himself just looks and talks like an asshole.

Anything by David Lynch: If nobody can figure out what your film is about, then you failed. If there is no actual meaning to figure out, it's just masturbation.

Avatar: Hackneyed plot, awful script, weak acting. The whole thing was just a vehicle to sell some fancy CGI.

Transformers: Why the fuck does anyone over 10 years old even like this?



Discuss.

 

[nanook]

it's funny. all the movies you list are especially appealing to introverted perception. and naturally not to TiPe. i trust that TiPe are your functions, because your avatar is einstein.

i (having a preference for introverted perception) would list most of the movies you like, as being overrated. like any italian mafia movie - i think you have mentioned one of those in another thread. why would i enjoy a movie about money making machos without imagination? shoot them already.

what do you think about "apocalypse now"? this movie is like middle ground, it has both Pe features (military stuff) and reflection on ethics of war (Ji) and Pi features (mysticism gone wrong) and cult-group-think (Je).

"eyes wide shut" is also middle ground. objective world stuff (conspiracy, politics), but it's also subjectively relating to it all.

i agree that "transformers" sucks, but i think everybody knows this. it's for <13 year old kids.

 

[nanook]

there is a ton of popular movies i don't care for (teen movies, sex in the city style movies), but the only positive movie-reception that made me roll my eyes was that of "the green mile".

i get scared of people, when they take sides against supposedly sadistic but mostly weak willed jerks, like that one guy played by Doug Hutchison, and applaud to a simple-minded-child-like-saint. it stinks like both regular conformist black and white shadow morals, plus pre-trans fallacy, both of which is usually very harmful in this world. (incompetent people are often better at portraying "the innocent child", then they get voted into power, where they get in the way of competent people.)

people talk like they have learned something wise from this movie? what would that be? certainly not, that there is no free will and no one can get out of his skin/karma and therefore the sadist and the silly saint are the same.

 

[nanook]

Inception, for example, is about reincarnation. that is the movement of perception and identity, through transcendence and birth, ascent and descent, that's very much appealing to introverted perception, because this is the most important movement to the subject, and introverted perception focusses on the processes it can relate to subjectively. very few movies deal with this spiritual perspective on life. i call this genre bardo-logik.

i don't care for the action, or whatever "ideas" the movie may feature, although i love the scene with the folding buildings in paris, because it reminds me a lot of a salvia divinorum trip.

it sort of sounds as if you haven't really experienced the main attraction of the movie, if you reduce it to an idea/concept.
i think the movie is more popular, than it is understood.
i disliked the explanations for the movie, that i have read, because none of them understood, that all of the movie is a dream, because life is but a dream, and that's the point of the movie.

discerning which of the layers of the movie is worldly/phsysical is completely irrelevant to the movie. the interesting thing is, that the personal karma of the characters is animating every level and therefore all the levels are as real as any character.

all the details of the plot are entirely irrelevant to the movie's awesomeness. there is a movie that takes it's audience on a collective spiritual trip. any one who allows himself to be excited by the move is ready to pop. they should have sold some entheogens on the way out of the cinema. a movie is good, when it does good things to collective self-awareness.

some movies that have some (not necessarily a lot) bardo-logic elements:

fight club, the machinist, spider, stay, the abandoned, the jacket, the experiment, the fountain, barton fink, after.life, stalker, samsara, kundun, persona, antichrist, inception, vanilla sky, Mr. nobody, shutter island, birth, enter the void, dead ringers, fear X, spider, the million dollar hotel, the tree of life, powder, jade warrior, melancholia, source code, womb, lost highway

 

[snafupants]

Inception, for example, is about reincarnation. that is the movement of perception and identity, through transcendence and birth, ascent and descent, that's very much appealing to introverted perception, because this is the most important movement to the subject, and introverted perception focusses on the processes it can relate to subjectively. very few movies deal with this spiritual perspective on life. i call this genre bardo-logik.

i don't care for the action, or whatever "ideas" the movie may feature, although i love the scene with the folding buildings in paris, because it reminds me a lot of a salvia divinorum trip.

it sort of sounds as if you haven't really experienced the main attraction of the movie, if you reduce it to an idea/concept.
i think the movie is more popular, than it is understood.
i disliked the explanations for the movie, that i have read, because none of them understood, that all of the movie is a dream, because life is but a dream, and that's the point of the movie.

discerning which of the layers of the movie is worldly/phsysical is completely irrelevant to the movie. the interesting thing is, that the personal karma of the characters is animating every level and therefore all the levels are as real as any character.

all the details of the plot are entirely irrelevant to the movie's awesomeness. there is a movie that takes it's audience on a collective spiritual trip. any one who allows himself to be excited by the move is ready to pop. they should have sold some entheogens on the way out of the cinema. a movie is good, when it does good things to collective self-awareness.

some movies that have some (not necessarily a lot) bardo-logic elements:

fight club, the machinist, spider, stay, the abandoned, the jacket, the experiment, the fountain, barton fink, after.life, stalker, samsara, kundun, persona, antichrist, inception, vanilla sky, Mr. nobody, shutter island, birth, enter the void, dead ringers, fear X, spider, the million dollar hotel, the tree of life, powder, jade warrior, melancholia, source code, womb, lost highway

Wonderful post. That's a rather eclectic grab bag of films, but I concede that they share something.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Elsewhere, I posted about movies I despised, as a means of turning a thread on its head that was about petered out anyway.

I was intrigued one day when my ENTP best friend and I watched a movie and had completely different reactions to it. As I questioned him about his take on the film, I realized that we were focusing on different aspects of it, and ignoring other parts. It is not unlike young love: you see the qualities you like about someone, and whitewash, ignore, or rationalize the flaws. Everyone has had the experience of watching a friend date someone whose appeal is not understood by anyone else. This set me on the challenging exercise of trying to understand the popularity of movies whose appeal is otherwise baffling to me.

I believe a thing that characterizes popular movies--and perhaps any popular art--is that there are multiple qualities that will appeal to a cross section of the populace. Taking Inception as an example, there are some people who will see it as an action film, some who will see it as a meditation on the nature of consciousness and reality, some who have an association of Leo DiCaprio as being a dashing romantic figure, and some who are just knocked out by the spectacle of buildings folding up on each other. Perhaps for most folks it is a combination of two or more. If it is weak in any one of these qualities, the movie would not be so popular.

Also, never underestimate the power of nostalgia. The things we hold a fondness for as children tend to stay with us as emotional anchors even when our logical adult minds would rather dismiss them. Batman holds appeal to people who read comic books as children, before the logical faculties and skepticism were honed. It is not absurd to a child that a guy would dress up like a flying rodent to fight crime; and the excitement and emotional charge one had as a child reading about Batman tends to crowd out adult logic. If you didn't read comic books, then no emotional analogue exists for it, so if it doesn't appeal to you as a straight action movie or whatever, then its appeal makes no sense. Since I read Batman as a child, but didn't play with Transformers, the former is more appealing to me than the latter.

I also notice that some people develop curious "filters" for some types of movies, particularly regarding actors. My grandmother would go see any Harrison Ford movie regardless of whether it was a romance flick, or action adventure, or science fiction. Conversely, I have a friend that will not watch Tom Cruise or John Travolta films because of her paranoia toward Scientology.

 

[Jennywocky]

There seems to be some movies that just about everyone disses, movies that almost everyone loves, and then in the middle there are movies that some people find very meaningful and others think are waaaaay overrated.

For example, from the OP, I think 300 and V for Vendetta were overrated / sucked; but some of the other movies criticized I personally found meaningful even if think they were overhyped. (Same thing with Tarantino... I don't like the way some people are so into him they'd probably **** him off, but at the same time, despite his excesses, I love his movies and think he's a real talent.)

 

[Jennywocky]

I was intrigued one day when my ENTP best friend and I watched a movie and had completely different reactions to it. As I questioned him about his take on the film, I realized that we were focusing on different aspects of it, and ignoring other parts. It is not unlike young love: you see the qualities you like about someone, and whitewash, ignore, or rationalize the flaws. Everyone has had the experience of watching a friend date someone whose appeal is not understood by anyone else. This set me on the challenging exercise of trying to understand the popularity of movies whose appeal is otherwise baffling to me.

It's a good exercise, and I believe you've hit on something here. Basically, people have both preferences and perspectives, and things that are meaningful to one are not meaningful to another.

For example, I think overall Matrix 3 had some real problems; but for me, personally, the story of Neo slowly being stripped away of everything he loves and believed in... then finally having nothing left except his power, which also ends up being futile, leaving him with NOTHING whatsoever... well, it is the "winter" of the Matrix triology, it is the decline towards death that we all must face. So Neo chooses to "let go" in both the Zen as well as the literal sense, and let himself be expunged... it's all he had left to do. At the time in my life when I saw that movie, I was undergoing a very similar process, being stripped away of everything I valued of my life, and finally had to let my old life go so that I could become someone new, being entirely reborn. It was a very lonely time in my life, and that scene where Neo is at the bottom of the crater thinking he had finally done something right, then looking up and seeing nothing but blank-expressioned Smiths looking down at him and realizing that even victory had been denied him... well, that is the loneliest feeling in the world. It always brings tears to my eyes.

But to someone else without that backstory, the movie could likely suck / be overrated.

(and dare I toss Titanic out there now, with the 3D release on the horizon?)

I found Inception to be a really good movie that was unfortunately touted even beyond itself to become the next "water cooler" thing... which unfortunately is a turnoff. But a lot of that movie was still cathartic for me.

For a movie I thought was not a really good movie but that I could enjoy on its own level regardless of any hype was the first GI Joe: Rise of Cobra movie. Just god-awful hilariously campy but I could enjoy it anyway.

 

[duke of new york]

it's funny. all the movies you list are especially appealing to introverted perception. and naturally not to TiPe. i trust that TiPe are your functions, because your avatar is einstein.

i (having a preference for introverted perception) would list most of the movies you like, as being overrated. like any italian mafia movie - i think you have mentioned one of those in another thread. why would i enjoy a movie about money making machos without imagination? shoot them already.

what do you think about "apocalypse now"? this movie is like middle ground, it has both Pe features (military stuff) and reflection on ethics of war (Ji) and Pi features (mysticism gone wrong) and cult-group-think (Je).

"eyes wide shut" is also middle ground. objective world stuff (conspiracy, politics), but it's also subjectively relating to it all.

i agree that "transformers" sucks, but i think everybody knows this. it's for <13 year old kids.

I mainly like The Godfather because of the depth of the characters and their relationships, and also the political intrigue. I believe you've mentioned before that that sort of thing doesn't appeal to you, in the thread about Game of Thrones, so it makes sense that you wouldn't really like Godfather.

I like Apocalypse Now. It was a little slow moving (especially the extended version), but it's so dark and brooding...I love that kind of stuff. If you want to boil it down to the four elements you described, I think I can most appreciate the reflection on war.

I like films that create a powerful, enveloping mood, especially a dark one. Good settings and soundtracks are important. Apocalypse Now and The Godfather fall into this category. Another one that I commented on earlier is There Will Be Blood.

Eyes Wide Shut was just porn.

I mentioned Transformers because it is very popular among a lot of young adults I know who have no business enjoying movies like that.

 

[eagor]

to op

i pretty much agree, v for vendetta is for people who don't read and want to be "intellectuals" and avatar was smurfs meets Pocahontas with giant-ism,

although i didn't like the new batman movies the old ones were pretty good and the comics were fantastic (up until bruce wayne died)

 

[ObliviousGenius]

@Peripheral Visionary I agree with everything you said bro. Yet, some people still need movie critics and reviews to prejudge the movie before it's seen. Personally I don't just look to see if other viewers liked the film, but which qualities of the movie I know will appeal to me such as plot or any film with an esoteric aspect to it.

I just saw The Hunger Games today and even though I've only watched it through once and I've never read the books I was very unimpressed by it. It didn't have much content to me. I also don't know whether to call it a drama, a love story, or an action film because the film just seems to "dabble" in each area. This movie was WAY over-hyped IMO and really lacking in a lot of areas.

 

[snafupants]

I mainly like The Godfather because of the depth of the characters and their relationships, and also the political intrigue. I believe you've mentioned before that that sort of thing doesn't appeal to you, in the thread about Game of Thrones, so it makes sense that you wouldn't really like Godfather.

I like Apocalypse Now. It was a little slow moving (especially the extended version), but it's so dark and brooding...I love that kind of stuff. If you want to boil it down to the four elements you described, I think I can most appreciate the reflection on war.

I like films that create a powerful, enveloping mood, especially a dark one. Good settings and soundtracks are important. Apocalypse Now and The Godfather fall into this category. Another one that I commented on earlier is There Will Be Blood.

Eyes Wide Shut was just porn.

I mentioned Transformers because it is very popular among a lot of young adults I know who have no business enjoying movies like that.

You would probably enjoy Cronenberg and Lynch in that case.

In all fairness the film was based on an Austrian novella. I happen to agree with you though.

Eyes Wide Shut was a terribly shoddy film for Kubrick to leave on.

 

[Jennywocky]

I just saw The Hunger Games today and even though I've only watched it through once and I've never read the books I was very unimpressed by it. It didn't have much content to me. I also don't know whether to call it a drama, a love story, or an action film because the film just seems to "dabble" in each area. This movie was WAY over-hyped IMO and really lacking in a lot of areas.

I read the book, and was mostly disappointed in the movie. I've see far worse book adaptations for the screen (so in that sense it wasn't bad), and it was fairly well cast; but I felt it was very flat compared to the source material. It focused on capturing plot details of the source material but didn't have enough time to do those things justice; it really should have focused on key points in more depth and let other things go, to acquire some drama... either that or REALLY push the boundaries in how it addresses the subject matter. We're talking about the 1% culture killing kids in order to put rebellious districts in their place, after all.

I agree, it was overhyped. Then again, like I said, it was a book adaptation with decent casting that didn't entirely suck like normal, and the book series itself is a cultural phenom right now.

 

[duke of new york]

You would probably enjoy Cronenberg and Lynch in that case.

I think the only Cronenberg film I've seen is The Fly, which is excellent. If I wanted to try a taste of some of his other work, what would you suggest?

I can appreciate the mood of Lynch's films, but as I said, they are just too abstract for me. Abstract can be good, but I need something real anchored underneath, if you know what I mean. I just don't find the Lynch films I've seen to be worthwhile.

 

[Puffy]

^ I'd recommend Videodrome or Naked Lunch of Cronenberg's. I've seen a lot of his films and they were the stand outs for me, at least.

Hmm. Lynch. Tough one. I really love his films, I've seen most of them now, Blue Velvet probably ranks among my favourite films, and the only thing I didn't enjoy so far was the second series of the TV series Twin Peaks.

I admit he can be a bit pretentious though. When I read him say that no one has ever interpreted Eraserhead as he has I could almost see the smug clouding my laptop monitor.
But at the same time I'm not sure if you're criticism necessarily holds, @duke of new york . He openly professes to making surrealist films, and one of the main points of surrealism is that there is no objective message or interpretation. In our society it's really difficult to get people to actively engage with films as they encourage passive viewing, I think having popular filmmakers like Lynch around is important in trying to get people to engage.

I agree that his brand of popular intelligent films can lead to a lot of hype though. It's the same thing with Christopher Nolan to my mind, except with him it's more "intelligent topics for dummies", if that makes sense.

@nanook : could you expand on a definition of bardo-logik? I think I saw some of the elements you speak about in Inception. I think Stalker requires a category of it's own there. Tarkovsky <3

 

[Puffy]

I think the thing with Inception that annoyed me, and the Dark Knight to, I guess, is how it seemed necessary for them to clothe an "intelligent film" in an action films clothing to get attention. I think of a film like Stalker that is absolutely brilliant and feel sad that it could never be popular due to it's slow pacing and lack of action.

If Nolan's films bridge people onto better things then I think his films have served a great purpose, but as standalone films I could never hold them up as among the best.

 

[Jennywocky]

If Nolan's films bridge people onto better things then I think his films have served a great purpose, but as standalone films I could never hold them up as among the best.

I guess we'll have to differ. His movies are among my favorites and more consistently among the movies I'll rewatch every six months or so than 95% of the other directors out there. (Although I like The Prestige the most, out of all of his work.)

Again, probably the qualifications for "good/meaningful" movie are differing between individuals here.

I haven't seen Stalker, but now I feel compelled to look for it. I watch a lot of movies.

I saw Blue Velvet back in college and don't remember much of it, but I'd like to rewatch it: The feeling/ambiance of that picture and that crazy image of the candle flame guttering in the wind has stuck with me for over two decades, after just one viewing.

 

[Puffy]

@Jennywocky : Yeah, sorry, I thought that was probably a bit of a bigoted thing to say just after pressing enter. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say.

I've enjoyed his films, Memento and Prestige more so than Inception, I think (Their were some cool bits in Inception, I really liked the scene where he was on the balcony with his old wife, among others. I just wished they hadn't gone down the action film route, I found it distracting, but as you say that's personal aesthetic.) Batman is Batman and I think The Dark Knight is probably one of the best superhero films so far.

Would it be a really hipster thing of me to say if it's the hype I don't like? I'm a big fan of film, I watch a lot as well, but it's a really rare thing that I find people who explore it as much as I do. Generally people who celebrate Nolan, that I've met, have not seen many films but I guess that's more a reflection on mainstream audiences than the filmmaker. I'm projecting because I need film company, basically.

Stalker is on youtube as far as I'm aware @Jennywocky . (:

 

[Puffy]

@Jennywocky : I'm not sure why I tagged you twice, sorry, but there I go again.

 

[RaBind]

The hangover was shit and I suppose the hangover 2 is even shitter. There are many movies that really suck nowadays, I would rather watch a good movie made 20 years ago than the crap of today.

 

[Jennywocky]

I've enjoyed his films, Memento and Prestige more so than Inception, I think (Their were some cool bits in Inception, I really liked the scene where he was on the balcony with his old wife, among others. I just wished they hadn't gone down the action film route, I found it distracting, but as you say that's personal aesthetic.) Batman is Batman and I think The Dark Knight is probably one of the best superhero films so far.

I would say the same, having seen many of them (and the ones I didn't see were because they sucked... like, do I REALLY need to watch Catwoman with Halle Berry?) My INTP kid says the same; he's a big Nolan fan.

Would it be a really hipster thing of me to say if it's the hype I don't like? I'm a big fan of film, I watch a lot as well, but it's a really rare thing that I find people who explore it as much as I do. Generally people who celebrate Nolan, that I've met, have not seen many films but I guess that's more a reflection on mainstream audiences than the filmmaker. I'm projecting because I need film company, basically.

I'm the same way. If something becomes faddish, I feel an inclination to bail even if I like it. There are some things I enjoyed in Titanic and Avatar, for example; but because of the large flaws in those movies + the public gush over them, I'm loathe to publicly admit anything. I was kind of amazed at how Inception become a public darling, considering much of the populace just doesn't seem to think in abstraction that intently about anything...

I like action pics, to be honest (I still have a soft spot in my heart for Ronin and even Predator, ha ha); but my favorite parts of Inception were more about the relationships between the characters, the backstories, and the parallel catharsis of Cobb and young Fischer. The philosophical nature of the dream world was also interesting. The whole setup of Cobb trying to save Mal and in essence ensuring that she'd be forever damned, and the emotional devastation to so many following in wake of that is pretty intense. (My favorite shot is when she's glaring up at them as they escape from the dream hotel room in the elevator... what a look, it's chilling. And the train track scene just leaves me speechless.)

Stalker is on youtube as far as I'm aware . (:

Cool beans!

The hangover was shit and I suppose the hangover 2 is even shitter. There are many movies that really suck nowadays, I would rather watch a good movie made 20 years ago than the crap of today.

I'd like to watch more old movies, although the 'suspense flicks' are laughable to me. (I tried to watch North by Northwest and was bored to tears.) But at least stuff dating to the 70's seems to have more modern sensibilities. I also really liked THe Philadelphia Story, from YEARS ago; there were certain conventions in the acting that were maintained, but I was surprised at how smart the interaction among the leads was... and finally understood why people really liked Jimmy Stewart.

 

[pjoa09]

While watching V for Vendetta all I could think about was " Show your burnt face ! C'mon ! " and " Blow that fucking building up! ".

Dark Knight was awesome though. I mean I can't get myself to hate it. The Joker was such a strong character. A true wholehearted crook. I mean, he loved what he was doing. Plus, I am a bit of a pyrofanatic.

 

[Jennywocky]

Dark Knight was awesome though. I mean I can't get myself to hate it. The Joker was such a strong character. A true wholehearted crook. I mean, he loved what he was doing. Plus, I am a bit of a pyrofanatic.

I thought it was really nice to finally see a villain who was explicitly amoral (rather than immoral/evil) and treated consistently as such in a script. It also didn't try to specific/explain his behavior (like as what happened in that one Hannibal Lecter picture, uggh); the Joker offers a few scenarios as to why his face looks as it does, and we never really do find out what narrative (either those or another) are correct. The narrative itself is what mattered, not the veracity of it... again, reinforcing the amoral/postmodern mindset. That hasn't really been done before in a comic book movie, at least not to such detail and not so well. Ambiguity prevailed, just like it does IRL.

 

[Words]

it's funny. all the movies you list are especially appealing to introverted perception.

I can definitely see how The Dark Knight or, really, most of Christopher Nolan's films are Ni-heavy, and some Ti. First time I [barely] saw it, it looked monotonous and it bored me. Then I tried giving it a second try and my mind started to keep treating every scene as a sort of "multi-facet jigsaw puzzle." I ripped the scenes apart and re-arranged them to get a better more interesting picture. An example is the first scene. I "ripped" it via questions. Why are there clowned people everywhere? Why are they robbing this bank? Is Joker here? Which is Joker? Why did that guy just kill his group member? Who is told to kill who? Why? Then answers: Clown people with guns, probably related to Joker. Robbing the bank? Money? Joker is interested in money..? The guy killing the other guy.. and that earlier quote where one of the members mentioned something along the lines of "It's us vs. Joker", as a distraction. Pretty strange and difficult to rob a bank while killing your own members but I guess it works if you really want the money all to yourself.

Yeah, it's cool to figure out things for yourself[especially before the outcome] and Dark Knight, I think, made use of vague details that was up to you to interpret.

 

[Jennywocky]

Pretty strange and difficult to rob a bank while killing your own members but I guess it works if you really want the money all to yourself.

He seemed pretty impersonal about the whole thing.... almost as much as thinking anyone who would agree to shooting a fellow team member deserves what he gets anyway. No loyalty, amorality wins out, any typical semblance of group rules is tossed out the window. He might have just wanted to see if they'd actually do it.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

But to someone else without that backstory, the movie could likely suck / be overrated.

That movie did suck for me Jenny, but you have given me a reason to go back and revisit Matrix Revolutions in light of the perspective you've offered.

i pretty much agree, v for vendetta is for people who don't read and want to be "intellectuals" and avatar was smurfs meets Pocahontas with giant-ism,

I agree that V for Vendetta is a flawed film, but nobody seems to give it credit for audaciousness. It was released at the height of the Bush/Blair Administration and the campaign of endless war for endless peace. That takes some major chuzpah. Also, I haven't seen anyone comment on the film as compared to the original Alan Moore graphic novel. It was written decades prior and the story needed to be dragged into the 21st century. Moore, of course, has disavowed the film.

Yet, some people still need movie critics and reviews to prejudge the movie before it's seen.

I absolutely agree. Movies are getting expensive to watch, and we need that division of labor. Unfortunately, I don't think most reviewers cater to the perspectives of NT types.

Would it be a really hipster thing of me to say if it's the hype I don't like?

I have repeatedly had the experience of watching a film that I knew absolutely nothing about and really liking it, then later realizing that if I seen the previews I wouldn't have wanted to see it or would have been expecting something else. So no, not hipster at all--just smart.

I think the thing with Inception that annoyed me, and the Dark Knight to, I guess, is how it seemed necessary for them to clothe an "intelligent film" in an action films clothing to get attention.

At heart, movie making is a commercial venture. It exists to make money. The best way to make money in cinema is to make films that appeal to people on multiple levels. (I find it pleasurably subversive that folks will show up for an action film and get a little enlightened against their will.) You could also go with the Woody Allen method of developing a cult following and budget your films so low that they'll turn a profit even without a major promotional campaign. But even Allen's films--while short on action--have slapstick and romance and fantasy in the mix.

I'm the same way. If something becomes faddish, I feel an inclination to bail even if I like it.

Star Wars fans have ruined Star Wars and forced many to go underground. I will only watch those movies by myself in the dark with the doors locked and the shades drawn.

 

[Jennywocky]

That movie did suck for me Jenny, but you have given me a reason to go back and revisit Matrix Revolutions in light of the perspective you've offered.

Don't hate me if you still hate it, lol!

I just watched it last night again. Take this as an analogy for the series:

matrix 1 = birth / Spring / awareness of self (Neo is born and comes into awareness of his identity)
matrix 2 = fullness of life / Summer / experience of one's full power (Neo is at the height of his power but there are hints of decline scattered through the movie -- "See? He is just a man" + the entire ending with Trinity and the discussion with the Architect.... "There is nothing you can do to stop it, she is GOING to die, you can't change it.")
matrix 3 = decline / Winter / loss of one's faculties and assets (loss of ship, loss of friends, loss of power, loss of eyesight, loss of love, and finally inability to do the one thing he thought he could do when all else failed... but he wins by accepting his own decline/ending)

There are a LOT of lines in that last movie that refer to the inevitability of decline and death, etc, and having to accept it as a fact of life and letting yourself move on. There's a reason for it being called Revolutions, which is that it's the tail of a cycle, and ends with the promise of the seasonal cycle starting anew.

. Also, I haven't seen anyone comment on the film as compared to the original Alan Moore graphic novel. It was written decades prior and the story needed to be dragged into the 21st century. Moore, of course, has disavowed the film.

I like the book (1985 or so?) much better, my tagline for months was a quote from the book; but the kind of facist cold-war system and rebellion in the book is different than the Americanized-style of teeange rebellion against the system appearing in the movie 20-25 years later. The book also did not focus on fancy fights and knives. I'm afraid I haven't written any real commentary about the facism being fought in the book because I don't really understand it since I'm American and my experience has been colored... I never grew up in quite that environment.

The movie did manage to catch the most important scene in the book correctly (the letter from the woman in Room #4, Evey's hair cutting, etc.), so that helped, but the rest was just meh conventional... even shoving in one more gay man who is abused by the system as a centerpiece. Not that it's wrong (gays have typically been among the marginalized of any facist system), but just it's a cookie-cutter plot device nowadays.

I did not like how V was humanized in the movie because I thought it made him weaker, not stronger. We've had enough tortured dark heroes, and the scenes were not well-written. The strength of V in the book is that he loved Evey... but not really as a love interest but almost like a father loves a daughter, a mentor loves his student... or someone who is about to pass the torch on his life's work loves his successor. I think making it a romantic thing once again is a typical form of American trivialization of larger and deeper themes... gaack. V was far more fascinating as this "symbol" of rebellion, and he not only machinated the entire end of the current regime and brought it tumbling down, but he treated himself similarly and did not overstay his own purpose. ("rex mortuus est, vivat rex.") I love the reread, once you know what V was up to, because you can see the hints and seeds of it in various places in the books, and his grooming of Evey... especially when he shows her "his will" (which is a wonderful pun).

Anyway, he was all about purpose and meaning, not necessarily humanity. That was Evey's job. It was kind of banal to reduce all that to some guy having the hots for some much younger girl. Barf.

Star Wars fans have ruined Star Wars and forced many to go underground. I will only watch those movies by myself in the dark with the doors locked and the shades drawn.

I am not ashamed of Star Wars and ESB, but the others? gaaack. I admit to only watching the lightsaber scenes with Maul in TPM and the Anakin/Kenobi showdown in RotS.

 

[Jedi]

I saw the original planet of the apes the other day. If I am correct the entire movie he thought he was on an alien planet even though there were trees, lakes, horses, humans, and apes. Then at the end the sudden realization after seeing the statue of liberty that he is on earth. Regarded as one of the best sci fi movies of all time but I wasn't impressed.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Pretty strange and difficult to rob a bank while killing your own members but I guess it works if you really want the money all to yourself.

He seemed pretty impersonal about the whole thing.... almost as much as thinking anyone who would agree to shooting a fellow team member deserves what he gets anyway. No loyalty, amorality wins out, any typical semblance of group rules is tossed out the window. He might have just wanted to see if they'd actually do it.

One of the recurring and enduring themes of Batman/Joker is the dichotomy of Order and Chaos. Batman represents Order--he is self-made (despite his inherited wealth) and rigidly self-disciplined and self-controlled and prosecutes his one man crusade in resolute fashion. The Joker is his diametric opposite: He commits crimes, but his purpose has nothing to do with the "understandable" goal of getting rich or taking the easy way. His goal is to create disorder, to unsettle the world, to shatter people's concepts of safety and sense.

Thus Batman seeks to impose order on a world full of chaos--like the random killings of his parents. The Joker seeks to tear down an orderly world and remake it in his own image--random, violent, senseless, and chaotic.

Now Chris Nolan has gotten a lot of credit for bringing this theme to his movie, but the concept has been worked on, worked over and distilled through 70 years of the characters' history.

 

[Jennywocky]

...Now Chris Nolan has gotten a lot of credit for bringing this theme to his movie, but the concept has been worked on, worked over and distilled through 70 years of the characters' history.

All true, but it sucks that it took a campy TV series and 6 movies for it to actually become expressed. Directors and writers get to focus on the elements of the characters they find worthwhile, when mining source material. For some reason, none of the other directors cared about this interpretation.

 

[Words]

One of the recurring and enduring themes of Batman/Joker is the dichotomy of Order and Chaos. Batman represents Order--he is self-made (despite his inherited wealth) and rigidly self-disciplined and self-controlled and prosecutes his one man crusade in resolute fashion. The Joker is his diametric opposite: He commits crimes, but his purpose has nothing to do with the "understandable" goal of getting rich or taking the easy way. His goal is to create disorder, to unsettle the world, to shatter people's concepts of safety and sense.

Thus Batman seeks to impose order on a world full of chaos--like the random killings of his parents. The Joker seeks to tear down an orderly world and remake it in his own image--random, violent, senseless, and chaotic.

Now Chris Nolan has gotten a lot of credit for bringing this theme to his movie, but the concept has been worked on, worked over and distilled through 70 years of the characters' history.

I sense a contradiction. Joker for all his supposed "randomness" is ideology-driven and he clearly carefully planned his schemes in the dark knight...clearly.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The Hangover.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

All true, but it sucks that it took a campy TV series and 6 movies for it to actually become expressed. Directors and writers get to focus on the elements of the characters they find worthwhile, when mining source material. For some reason, none of the other directors cared about this interpretation.

That is true, and kudos for Nolan for that. The campy TV series was born out of the bland 50's version of the comic book, which was watered down through the influence of Fredric Wertham, a psychiatrist that started a campaign for comic book censorship. The publishers shifted away from the dark, ultra-violent vision that Bob Kane originally had. When Tim Burton was chosen to direct the first big budget film, the specter of the TV show still haunted the diminutive imaginations of the studio bosses.

BTW, thank you Jenny for the perspectives of both Revolutions and V.

I sense a contradiction. Joker for all his supposed "randomness" is ideology-driven and he clearly carefully planned his schemes in the dark knight...clearly.

What you call a contradiction, I would call irony. On the flip side, Batman chooses to be a vigilante, i.e., someone who takes the law into his own hands, outside the established structure of checks and balances. If everyone chose to do this, it would indeed be chaos. With that in mind, does the jigsaw puzzle get more jigsawsier?

I saw the original planet of the apes the other day. If I am correct the entire movie he thought he was on an alien planet even though there were trees, lakes, horses, humans, and apes. Then at the end the sudden realization after seeing the statue of liberty that he is on earth. Regarded as one of the best sci fi movies of all time but I wasn't impressed.

Missed this the first go around. Sorry you didn't care for it Jedi. Some thoughts that might soften it for you: Since Taylor was on a deep space mission, assuming that he was on a world with parallel development would have been applying Occum's Razor. Also, the movie came out in 1968 on the heels of Star Trek, which assumed parallel development in virtually every episode--for better or for worse.

The script for PotA went through many revisions, but the ending and structure were pretty much the idea of Rod Serling, the creator and host of the Twilight Zone. One of Serling's most consistent themes is racism and prejudice. The picture is a classic not for its gee-whiz science fiction elements, but because of its dark commentary on racism and dogma--themes that really hit home in the late 60's, and for Serling's iconic scene with the Statue of Liberty. It reflected his own pessimism about the human race.

 

[snafupants]

I would augment your list with Pan's Labyrinth, 127 Hours and The Graduate.

 

[duke of new york]

I would augment your list with Pan's Labyrinth, 127 Hours and The Graduate.

I quite like Pan's Labyrinth, mainly just for the Pale Man scene.

And get all this Batman bullshit outta here! Batman is for children!

Seriously, though--to those of you who like Batman or other superhero movies: is it just nostalgia, or is there something about them that appeals to you as an adult? They all just seem like kids' movies to me, including Batman. Superhero verses supervillian; good verses evil--it's so simplified and boring. Batman and the Joker in The Dark Knight didn't make that formula any more interesting. Batman's still the good guy, and the Joker's still the bad guy. Neither one has a realistic character.

It makes sense if it is nostalgia-related, because when I was a kid, the modern superhero movie craze hadn't hit yet, and the only superhero movies were the old ones like the original Supermans and the Tim Burton Batmans, and the awful 90s Batmans. None of that stuff appealed to me, and I was never into comic books, either, so I just never got into superheroes. I guess I did watch Power Rangers when I was really young, but maybe that just instilled in me the attitude that superheroes are cheesy and stupid.

 

[Moocow]

Agreed with the OP for the most part, especially about Tarantino. Inception was disappointing because it was just an action movie in the end.

David Lynch.. I've only really seen Eraserhead, and I loved it, but I have a fine-tuned taste in weirdness that Eraserhead hit on the mark. It's basically a nightmare. It captures so many elements of the kind of tension and confusion that makes up a nightmare.

 

[Words]

Seriously, though--to those of you who like Batman or other superhero movies: is it just nostalgia, or is there something about them that appeals to you as an adult? They all just seem like kids' movies to me, including Batman. Superhero verses supervillian; good verses evil--it's so simplified and boring. Batman and the Joker in The Dark Knight didn't make that formula any more interesting. Batman's still the good guy, and the Joker's still the bad guy. Neither one has a realistic character.

yes, the Dark Knight makes you think or rather, rewards your initiative in thinking. this has more to do with the details. In regards to the characters, I think it's interesting to look at them from a real-world POV. Joker and Batman are quite similar in a way, and Joker mentioned this himself. They're weirdos that don't fit in with society's norms, especially the legal and moral concept of society.

"Kids' Movies"? well certainly, several superhero movies are "kids' movies", but as "female" is to "individual", "Superhero Movie" is to "Movie." It's not about the genre, it's about the movie. [and perhaps to a lesser extent, the director.]

 

[duke of new york]

yes, the Dark Knight makes you think or rather, rewards your initiative in thinking. this has more to do with the details. In regards to the characters, I think it's interesting to look at them from a real-world POV. Joker and Batman are quite similar in a way, and Joker mentioned this himself. They're weirdos that don't fit in with society's norms, especially the legal and moral concept of society.

"Kids' Movies"? well certainly, several superhero movies are "kids' movies", but as "female" is to "individual", "Superhero Movie" is to "Movie." It's not about the genre, it's about the movie. [and perhaps to a lesser extent, the director.]

I agree with you in principle, but I just find the concept of a guy dressing up in a costume to fight criminals and over-the-top, one-dimensional villains to be rather juvenile. Nolan's Batman movies are significantly more mature than any other superhero flicks I know of, but they are still based on the same worn-out, childish concept. That's just my opinion, though. I don't have a problem with those of you who like Batman or superheroes; I'm just curious about what it is you like about them.

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree with you in principle, but I just find the concept of a guy dressing up in a costume to fight criminals and over-the-top, one-dimensional villains to be rather juvenile. Nolan's Batman movies are significantly more mature than any other superhero flicks I know of, but they are still based on the same worn-out, childish concept. That's just my opinion, though. I don't have a problem with those of you who like Batman or superheroes; I'm just curious about what it is you like about them.

I tend to prefer superhero movies where people don't dress up like superheroes. I think costumes are generally kind of goofy.

I can make an allowance in Batman's favor, the more "pragmatic" his costume gets, since he has no actual powers and needs just about anything to enable the odds in his favor. If his outfit is consisting of body armor, and if it throws his enemies off their game by having a spooky costume, and the cape helps him by being flame-retardant and masking exactly where he is, well, fine then.

Someone like Superman, where the costume serves no real purpose except for advertising his presence? Well, not so much.

In any case, I enjoy movies like Push where street clothes are in -- or even the Captain America outfit in the middle of that movie -- much better.

 

[Words]

I agree with you in principle, but I just find the concept of a guy dressing up in a costume to fight criminals and over-the-top, one-dimensional villains to be rather juvenile. Nolan's Batman movies are significantly more mature than any other superhero flicks I know of, but they are still based on the same worn-out, childish concept.

What is "juvenile"? What is "childish"? How is wearing a costume juvenile and childish? What makes something childish and juvenile?

Because I sense relativity.

 

[duke of new york]

What is "juvenile"? What is "childish"? How is wearing a costume juvenile and childish? What makes something childish and juvenile?

Because I sense relativity.

It is relative. I think I made it quite clear that I was talking about my subjective opinion. This thread is about people's opinions about movies; everything in it is relative.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Shifting gears away from Batman, and getting back to the OP question...

I mentioned this in another post, but I find The Searchers to be an appalling movie. John Wayne's niece is captured by Indians and he goes looking for her, but it takes him years and his intent shifts from rescuing her to killing her, because he figures by now she's been indianized. Jeffrey Hunter's character is goofy. Yet this movie always turns up on "Best of.." lists.

Citizen Kane usually tops such lists. And while it is interesting to watch, it is not really a "sit down and enjoy it" kind of film. It's technical prowess gets in the way of the art.

Every single Tom Cruise movie except Collateral. I won't count cameo appearances like in Tropic Thunder or Goldmember.

 

[Dapper Dan]

My personal philosophy is that the more effort you put into movie-watching, the less enjoyment you get out of it. This applies to a lot of things, actually.

So, that being said, I actually enjoyed a lot of the films in the OP. Inception was pleasing to me on multiple levels (har har). 300 is worth the watch for the action elements alone. The latest batman movies took an IP that was notoriously one-dimensional and gave it real-world characters and plot elements. (Someone will do this with pokemon eventually, and they'll make a fortune.)

I guess if I had to pick an overrated movie, it would be Top Gun. People seem to like it, and I can't figure out why. The dialog sucks, the story blows, the characters are dicks, and the music is balls. Essentially, Top Gun is a 90's Hollywood blowjob.

 

[eagor]

My personal philosophy is that the more effort you put into movie-watching, the less enjoyment you get out of it. This applies to a lot of things, actually.

that's how i watched machete, the movie is great if you just turn off your brain and turn on your penis

 

[duke of new york]

Essentially, Top Gun is a 90's Hollywood blowjob.

A 90s Hollywood gay blowjob, you mean. I don't have any problems with homosexuality, but that movie is extraordinarily gay. It's just funny to me that the people who like it tend to be the macho, manly, homophobic types, and they don't even realize how unbelievably gay Top Gun is.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

A 90s Hollywood gay blowjob, you mean. I don't have any problems with homosexuality, but that movie is extraordinarily gay. It's just funny to me that the people who like it tend to be the macho, manly, homophobic types, and they don't even realize how unbelievably gay Top Gun is.

haha, I detect fixation.

 

[Dapper Dan]

A 90s Hollywood gay blowjob, you mean. I don't have any problems with homosexuality, but that movie is extraordinarily gay. It's just funny to me that the people who like it tend to be the macho, manly, homophobic types, and they don't even realize how unbelievably gay Top Gun is.

I'm not even really puzzled about that, since that's how most macho-manly things tend to be. Chest-bumps, butt-slaps and all that.

I just do not understand why anyone would willingly subject themselves to the experience that is Top Gun. At first I thought it might be kind of like the Star Wars X-mas special where you just forget how bad it is. But these people insist that they enjoy the film RIGHT AFTER they watch it. I just... I don't...

sigh

Why?

 

[perkins]

Star Wars 1-3: I had a hard time watching the trilogy. (No, you like Star Wars, you have to watch it!). Anakin Skywalker was portrayed as a whiney bitch.

LoTR: Thought it was ok. Nothing to *fist pump* about.

Pirates of the Carribean: Gay.

Harry Potter: Meh.

Twilight Saga: 100+ year old vampires banging high school girls. What an ingenious concept. Bravo.

The Hunger Games: Considering how excited people are to see this, it probobaly sucks. Undecided if I will watch it when it comes out on DVD.

 

[duke of new york]

Star Wars 1-3: I had a hard time watching the trilogy. (No, you like Star Wars, you have to watch it!). Anakin Skywalker was portrayed as a whiney bitch.

LoTR: Thought it was ok. Nothing to *fist pump* about.

Pirates of the Carribean: Gay.

Harry Potter: Meh.

Twilight Saga: 100+ year old vampires banging high school girls. What an ingenious concept. Bravo.

The Hunger Games: Considering how excited people are to see this, it probobaly sucks. Undecided if I will watch it when it comes out on DVD.

Not that I disagree with you, but I think the Star Wars prequels and Twilight are generally recognized (by people with taste) to be shit, so I wouldn't consider them "overrated." Pirates of the Caribbean, yes. Lord of the Rings--I think it's hard to argue that they weren't extraordinarily well done, possibly the best book-to-film adaptation of all time, but I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, so I don't really care about them now that I've seen them at least once. The Harry Potters were reasonably well-done too, in my opinion, but they don't quite do the books justice (I think the LotR films actually do), and at the end of the day, they're pretty much just cheesy kid flicks. I don't have a problem with them, but definitely overrated.

 

[Jennywocky]

heh, I actually hated movies 2&3 of the Tolkien adaptations -- Jackson just doesn't know how to use insinuation and subtlety and allusion, whereas a lot of Tolkien's mythos needed that -- and I liked the Harry Potter adaptations more (well, at least #3, #6, and #7AB).

I'm a big Tolkien fan since I was ten, but I was SO sick of hearing about the movies and all the commericialization and hype. They deserved some production awards, true, and the scope was insane enough that some project management awards were deserved as well; but there were better movies that came out at the same time.

The Hunger Games movie didn't really live up to the book, it was kind of flat. I was amazed at the hype, although it was nothing like the Harry Potter hype.

A 90s Hollywood gay blowjob, you mean. I don't have any problems with homosexuality, but that movie is extraordinarily gay. It's just funny to me that the people who like it tend to be the macho, manly, homophobic types, and they don't even realize how unbelievably gay Top Gun is.

...I'm still laughing. (Memories of Val Kilmer with his fluffed-back hair spring to mind, from the purely cosmetic angle. "Take my breath awwaaaaaay....aayy ayyyy.... ayyy ayy...."))