most over/under-rated movies

[The Wrath]

Underrated

• Legends of the Fall: Awesome cinematography, great but simple storyline...back when Hollywood still made made movies about three brothers fighting for the same woman.
  
• Kingdom of Heaven: One of my favorite movies. I think this is the best historical epic that has been made since Braveheart revitalized the genre. Better even than Braveheart. Far better than Gladiator (which is also good), both done by Ridley Scott. It makes me sad that Gladiator won so many Oscars, while Kingdom of Heaven got a very lukewarm response. It took a lot of courage to make a movie about the Crusades, in this day and age, and I wish he had been recognized more for this achievement. Probably would have received more critical acclaim if the studio hadn't butchered it...watch the 3 and a half hour director's cut if you haven't yet seen it.
  
• Heat: This should have been a contender for Best Picture and Michael Mann, unequivocally, should have won best director. Here is a movie that takes you beyond the usual cops and robbers plot of a crime thriller and, instead, takes you deep into the mind of both the cop and the gangster. There is no moral equivocation of the two, but it leaves you with the impression that the lives of a career cop and a career criminal really have more in common than they have differences. The only difference lies in the moral choices they make, but the way they actually live is remarkably similar. Plus, nothing can beat a heart-to-heart conversation between Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino.
  

Overrated

• Fight Club: Completely nihilistic. Acting sucked too.
  
• The Boondock Saints: Acting is awful, with a plotline to match.
  
• Titanic: Are you fucking kidding me? Would someone please explain to me why this is considered one of the greatest movies ever made...it even made AFI's most recent list of the 100 greatest movies ever made. The acting is terrible and the script is even worse. This is a movie that isn't afraid to actually use the line "You must stay alive and have many babies." This is, without a doubt, the most overrated movie I have ever seen.
  
• Star Wars: Don't get me wrong...I love Star Wars, because the story is very entertaining and because it has become such a familiar part of our culture. But these movies are not well-made...at all. The acting is terrible and the script is even worse. Entertaining, yes...good art, hell no. I have never respected George Lucas as a filmmaker, and I think it's absurd that so many people think these movies are actually well-made. I think it is an indictment of the increasing shallowness of our culture that AFI actually lists the original Star Wars in the top 10 movies ever made. I will continue to love these movies (well, the original 3, anyway), but continue to think that they are examples of mediocre filmmaking.
  
• The Patriot: I have a great idea...since Braveheart was so successful and won so many awards, I'm gonna take the exact same movie, set it 400 years later, give it a script that sounds like it came from a Monty Python movie, and lace it with 20th century catchphrases. This movie sucked.
  

Edited May 25, 2008 by Moose

[Thales]

[*]Kingdom of Heaven: One of my favorite movies.

I agree. It was an exceptional movie, pitting independence of mind and judgment against blindly following religious authority.

I think this is the best historical epic that has been made since Braveheart revitalized the genre. Better even than Braveheart.

I'd give Braveheart the nod.

Far better than Gladiator (which is also good), both done by Ridley Scott.

Gladiator was better than either of the other two. "Rome is the light, everywhere else is darkness!"

An overrated movie: "The Incredibles" -- this was a good movie, but the way so many Objectivists gave it glowing praise, I expected better.

[EC]

I agree that The Boondock Saints was completely horrible. That kind of surprised me too because it was recommended to me by a girl whose opinion I really respected.

[D'kian]

[*]Star Wars: Don't get me wrong...I love Star Wars, because the story is very entertaining and because it has become such a familiar part of our culture. But these movies are not well-made...at all. The acting is terrible and the script is even worse.

The dialog is pretty bad. But as regards plotting and pacing, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course the characterization is shallow, but these are adventure movies. As for acting, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford do good work in most of the scenes they do together.

I have never respected George Lucas as a filmmaker,

Neither do I. the man has made atrocious movies, even before the SW prequels (biggest waste of a half-decent idea I've ever seen). But the original SW movie, the one released in 1977, was revolutionary in its use of visual effects. not only the quality and quantity of them, but the way they were integrated into the stories. for one thing, Lucas managed to do space battles convincingly (not realistically, though), and clear and easy enough to follow.

Sure the three originals could have been done better, at least once Lucas did the first one and convinced the studios such things were doable and capable of earning a profit. As for the prequels, I'd rather they'd stayed unmade.

[themadkat]

I don't understand why people here hate on Boondock Saints so much. I really enjoyed this movie and I'd be interested to know what people disliked so much about it. Of course the whole part where they supposedly felt they were inspired by God was rubbish, but that's just something of an Irish Catholic thing and I was willing to let that go.

Even though it was not a comedy, the humorous parts of the movie were priceless.

[EC]

I don't understand why people here hate on Boondock Saints so much. I really enjoyed this movie and I'd be interested to know what people disliked so much about it. Of course the whole part where they supposedly felt they were inspired by God was rubbish, but that's just something of an Irish Catholic thing and I was willing to let that go.

Even though it was not a comedy, the humorous parts of the movie were priceless.

I think I really didn't understand and/or like Willem(?) Defoe's character much nor did I care much for a bunch of crazy vigilentes defending their "hood".

[Qwertz]

Titanic is not my favorite movie, but I don't think it's as entirely overrated as you suggest. It is a very well-made melodrama. Where it falls down is in its ultimate view of love as sacrificial - a view it nevertheless only mostly accepts. Sure it isn't as good as it is often made out to be, but it is still very, very good. I will be happy to write an in-depth review, if you would care to see my full analysis.

~Q

[themadkat]

I think I really didn't understand and/or like Willem(?) Defoe's character much nor did I care much for a bunch of crazy vigilentes defending their "hood".

But the reason they were doing it was because the police were unwilling/unable to. There are, realistically, many neighborhoods in the US like that, where the police barely even come if 911 is called. Frankly, in a situation such as that, I would not at all think badly of the citizens if they took up arms to "clean up" their neighborhoods, especially the property owners. They specifically went after people who were unlikely to be punished by the "objective" legal system. On the other hand, the film shows that their choices were not without consequences (their severe injuries, the death of their friend). I, too, would applaud the efforts of those who dedicated themselves to taking out the trash if the legal system had shown its impotence.

[Dr. Radiaki]

Underrated

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang - Starring Robert Downey Jr. A little seen crime film that plays with conventions of the genre, with laughs throughout. Speaking of the humour, I usually loathe 'fourth-wall' jokes that hinge on a characters awareness of audience, but this one hits 'em out of the park. Way out. It also contains one of the best private detectives committed to celluloid, "Gay" Perry Van Shrike, played expertly by Val Kilmer.

The Magnificent Butcher - starring Sammo Hung. Cantonese w/ENG SUB. Simply put, the best kung-fu movie ever made. You have never seen a large man move so damn fast in your life. Brilliant fight scenes, a couple of jokes that actually work(a rare feat for the kung-fu genre outside of Jackie Chan), and a ridiculously over-the-top calligraphy battle. No, I will not elaborate further. See this film!

The Squid and the Whale - starring Laura Linney. A more somber film that the previous two, but not without it's own witty charm. We follow the dissolution of a family relationship, the husband, a formerly successful writer comes to resent his wife's burgeoning success in the publishing world. It is interesting to see how the allegiances of the children caught in this divorce change, along with their emotional states.

[universehead]

Fight Club: Completely nihilistic. Acting sucked too.

I couldn't disagree more. In fact I think it was Anit-nihilistic (if that's a correct way to put it.) I think it showed how nihilism (Tyler Durden) can seem like a great way to go for someone who doesn't have a good moral grounding for their life, the "easy way out" if you will (The Narrator, and the rest of the "fighters"). Fincher (and I'll say Palunuk as well) Did a great job of actually including us (the audience) to be apart of this fight club and in a way aloud us to rout for all of them. But you'll notice that as "The Narrator" becomes more morally self aware, starts changing, finds a grounding, etc.. he becomes completely disenfranchised with the Fight Club group (as 'I' the audience member did as well) and does all he can to stop it. When he finds out it's actually himself doing all this he "kills" that part of his mind without hesitation.

I just think it's great way to show that: When you get a bunch of dudes that have no self confidence, are bored with life, have no hope for anything, and are morally bankrupt, then any one that has just a teaspoon of any of those things, no matter how extreme and incredible, can be a lead them. (sorry for the run on sentence) My point is, it wasn't just a movie about how cool it is to not give a shit about anything. (Unless one is 14 years old)

Plus I just like movies where people beat each other's asses. Call me a nihilist.

And of course I'm mixing some of the movie themes with the book's, but they differ very little.

As for the acting? Maybe you just have a grudge against Brad Pit and Ed Norton. Certainly not Meat Loaf right?

Just note that it IS possible to be very good looking AND a good actor at the same time

Those guys must be doing something right eh?

[Miles White]

Most underrated movie of all time: The big lebowski. You can't beat the scene in the end where Walter bites the ear off of the nihilist. The writting is so simplistic it's ingenius, the way they make the characters repeat eachothers sentence (mostly containing the F word) is mind boggling how anyone could sit down and actually write a script like that. Not to mention the contrast between the welfare bum 'The Dude' and the vietnam veteren Walter playing off of eachother so well. Casting is perfect, acting is perfect, writting is perfect, wasn't a moment in that entire movie when I didn't have tears in my eyes from all the laughter.

[The Wrath]

The dialog is pretty bad. But as regards plotting and pacing, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course the characterization is shallow, but these are adventure movies. As for acting, Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford do good work in most of the scenes they do together.

To me, the dialogue is the part that makes it so poorly-made. George Lucas has some very bizzare ideas of what makes something romantic and no idea what the word "cheesy" means. Alec Guiness hated the movie so much that it was actually his idea to have Obi Wan Kenobi killed, so that he would only have to make brief appearances in the other two.

Neither do I. the man has made atrocious movies, even before the SW prequels (biggest waste of a half-decent idea I've ever seen). But the original SW movie, the one released in 1977, was revolutionary in its use of visual effects. not only the quality and quantity of them, but the way they were integrated into the stories. for one thing, Lucas managed to do space battles convincingly (not realistically, though), and clear and easy enough to follow.

My opinion of George Lucas is that he is an absolutely masterful storyteller, but that he lacks the ability to harness that natural talent in a visual form.

Titanic is not my favorite movie, but I don't think it's as entirely overrated as you suggest. It is a very well-made melodrama. Where it falls down is in its ultimate view of love as sacrificial - a view it nevertheless only mostly accepts. Sure it isn't as good as it is often made out to be, but it is still very, very good. I will be happy to write an in-depth review, if you would care to see my full analysis.

~Q

I think it was well-made in terms of production values. James Cameron certainly knows how to convincingly recreate the atmosphere that probably existed on the ship. And the storyline itself was one with great potential. I was 14 when I saw it, and can remember laughing out loud at some of the dialogue, however. Dialogue is, IMHO, the most important part of making a good movie. If the special effects suck, so what. If the script sucks, the movie sucks. I also find it very patronizing for movies to be entirely from a "flashback" perspective, when an old man/woman is just reminiscing. Show me the evenst as they happen. That's just a personal preference, but something that always annoys me.

Edited May 26, 2008 by Moose

[D'kian]

To me, the dialogue is the part that makes it so poorly-made.

I see how it can be.

George Lucas has some very bizzare ideas of what makes something romantic and no idea what the word "cheesy" means.

Maybe he likes it cheesy.

Alec Guiness hated the movie so much that it was actually his idea to have Obi Wan Kenobi killed, so that he would only have to make brief appearances in the other two.

Kenobi has the worst lines of any character in any of the six movies. He comes off either as 1) pretentious, 2) clueless, 3) a lesser kind of Captain Obvious ("You were supposed to lead the Jedi, not destroy them!")

As to the prequels, Lucas strayed from his area of expertise and it shows. His best movies, the original SW trilogy and Raiders of The Lost Ark, are simple adventure melodramas with shallow yet heroic characters. That he can do well enough. The prequels were part political thriller, part war movie, part romance, part tragedy. He knows nothing at all about any of that. Who was fighting whom? Why were the sides fighting for?

And it doesn't help that the Jedi act stupid when given the choice to do so. Let's put aside their blindness to having a powerful Sith rule over the Republic. In the end Yoda and kenobi have a chance to stop Palpatine. What do they do? They split up and go each after one target. Ridiculous! The emperor was the important one. Whether Anakin was more powerful is irrelevant; he had no plans, no goals, no definite ambitions. The emperor did. They had to kill Palpatine first, then they could tend to Anakin, if needed, at their leisure. But no, Lucas had to fabricate unnecessary conflict by having Kenobi go after his friend and student alone. Worse yet, he leaves Anakin alive after he's defeated. Why? Yoda at least lost to Palpatine. Kenobi simply acted irrationally (ah, but he retrieved Anakin's light sabre to give to Luke).

[D'kian]

As for Over/under rated movies:

Overrated: The Matrix. I confine myself to the first movie because that was all I saw. It's a very ordinary thriller with innovative visual effects and lousy acting, and a plot twist. It has also ruined, for a time, any good ideas on "virtual-reality" based stories (should any exist, that is). Worse, it's a shallow, teen movie that pretends to be something deep.

Underrated: Tron. Also an ordinary thriller with innovative visual effects and mediocre acting, and a plot twist. So why underrated? Because it's a visually beautiful movie. The bulk of it takes palce in a dark, imaginary world made up mostly of light. And it is a unique visual style that was never repeated. The sotry is secondary, the characters are secondary, and it doesn't pretend to be more than that. I wouldn't call it good, but it is beautiful.

[The Wrath]

I disagree strongly with your assessment of The Matrix. Apart from its revolutionary special effects, it is the first move I am aware of that actually integrates some rather deep philosophical issues into an entertaining plot. I don't think it "pretends" to be deep...the 2nd and 3rd certainly pretend to be deeper than they really are, but the first one goes just enough below the surface to get you asking some serious questions. If, like me, you were a teenager when you saw it, then you probably came away asking yourself questions about the nature of reality that you had never asked before. That movie did more to get my generation thinking about philosophical questions than any course at school could possibly have done. It made it "cool" to think about philosophy.

[EC]

I know the movie that's the most over-rated of all time-- Citizen Kane. It's like held up as the holy grail of movies, and the one time I tried to watch it I didn't make it more than half way before it totally annoyed me with its horrible premises and strange plot.

[D'kian]

I know the movie that's the most over-rated of all time-- Citizen Kane. It's like held up as the holy grail of movies, and the one time I tried to watch it I didn't make it more than half way before it totally annoyed me with its horrible premises and strange plot.

The plot's really bad. The characters, particularly Kane, are contemptible. The entire movie is ugly and disappointing. But on a technical level it is the highest expression of the directorial art that has ever been put on film. Welles was a genius for that. In its time it was innovative in the use of sound, camera angles (it's one of a few movies with very visible ceilings), focus planes (deep) and, believe it or not, special effects. The cinematography is not just first-rate, but what defines first-rate.

Traditionally movie credits end with the directors name, and that name appears by itself unless there are co-directors. In Kane the director's credit shares the screen with the cinematographer's credit. That's how inomprtant cinematography was for the movie.

If you're interested in the technical aspects of film, you shold watch it with Roger Ebert's commentary track. You'll learn a great deal in a short time.

[D'kian]

Apart from its revolutionary special effects, it is the first move I am aware of that actually integrates some rather deep philosophical issues into an entertaining plot.

Name these issues, please. Better yet, how are they addressed in the movie.

If, like me, you were a teenager when you saw it, then you probably came away asking yourself questions about the nature of reality that you had never asked before.

I wasn't, no. I saw nothing to make me question the nature of reality, either. What I saw was a plot twist: "Ah! None of it was real! They're living in a computer-generated fantasy world." In Trekkie terms, it was a holodeck episode, more or less. That's it. the twist was novel, I'll grant you, but, as is too often the case, revelaed prematurely by the advance publicity (ie, everyone knew the plot twist long before it happened in the movie).

[Scott_Connery]

I consider almost all movies made before 1970 or so over-rated. I know some people love the "classics" but I find them terribly boring and slow paced. They seem simplisitic in every way. I just don't think movie making as an art was refined enough to be called good until the 1970s or later.

This isn't to say that all movies made since then are good, just that almost everything made before then is bad. Dr. Strangelove is the only exception to that date that I have seen, and it was 1964.

[The Wrath]

Name these issues, please. Better yet, how are they addressed in the movie.

I wasn't, no. I saw nothing to make me question the nature of reality, either. What I saw was a plot twist: "Ah! None of it was real! They're living in a computer-generated fantasy world." In Trekkie terms, it was a holodeck episode, more or less. That's it. the twist was novel, I'll grant you, but, as is too often the case, revelaed prematurely by the advance publicity (ie, everyone knew the plot twist long before it happened in the movie).

How can you not see the issues? The issues involved are the most basic epistemological issues imagineable. It's all very Descartian. Whether or not you agree with Descartes philosophy is really irrelevant, because the fact is that the movie made it cool to discuss philosophical issues. If you weren't a teenager when this came out, then you probably won't understand what an impact it made on my generation's willingness to take philosophy seriously.

I consider almost all movies made before 1970 or so over-rated. I know some people love the "classics" but I find them terribly boring and slow paced. They seem simplisitic in every way. I just don't think movie making as an art was refined enough to be called good until the 1970s or later.

This isn't to say that all movies made since then are good, just that almost everything made before then is bad. Dr. Strangelove is the only exception to that date that I have seen, and it was 1964.

I don't see how you can say this. Movie-making has just changed as time has moved on. Modern audiences often think old movies to be boring because of how slow-paced they are, as you seem to do. I disagree though...I love movies that take a long time to tell a story. Some of my favorite movies are long movies that move very slow...Lawrence of Arabia comes to mind. I think it's a telling sign of our culture that most audiences are too impatient to sit through a movie that takes its time to tell a rich and involving story, and instead celebrates movies made by the likes of Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer, who rely on nothing but cheap thrills and action sequences.

[D'kian]

How can you not see the issues?

I ask again: what are they?

The issues involved are the most basic epistemological issues imagineable. It's all very Descartian.

I don't see that. There is no question as to what's real, once Laurence Fishbourne reveals the deception the lead character has been living under.

In fact, they missed a great stylistic option by making the look and feel of reality and fantasy to be the same. They shouldn't be. Consider the differences in "The Wizard of Oz," or "Pleasantville."

If you weren't a teenager when this came out, then you probably won't understand what an impact it made on my generation's willingness to take philosophy seriously.

No, but I do remember being a teenager. Some things can have a deep impact on one's life at that point. I did read Rand while in my teens, for example, and that impact was deep and lasting. But at that age fads are much more common. So, does your generation still discusses philosophy seriously?

Now, if that kind of effect was a consequence of the movie, that's good. but it doesn't make "The Matrix" a good movie, much less a great one, any more than Star Trek can be deemed good because it's inspired people to pursue careers in aerospace and engineering.

[D'kian]

I consider almost all movies made before 1970 or so over-rated. I know some people love the "classics" but I find them terribly boring and slow paced. They seem simplisitic in every way.

One thing is that movies were more regulated before the 70s. Not so much by the government, but by the studios themselves. That makes lots of older movies seem naive and innocent, almost blinkered in their outlook.

I just don't think movie making as an art was refined enough to be called good until the 1970s or later.

That's a stretch. It took time to develop the technique for cinema, as it takes time to develop techniques for other forms of art. But not that long.

I'm not an enthusiast of old movies, or mdoern movies, etiher, but I've seen some and I can tell you there are several good movies from before 1970. There are even some rather good silent movies (the dialog boxes do stay on-screen too long sometimes, though). I can't think of many right off the top of my head, but I do recommend "Casablanca," and, for technical reasons "Citizen Kane." If you like commedy, then just about anything by the Marx Brothers or anythign by Laurel and Hardy. And there's also "The Great Dictator" with Charles Chaplin.

I think people like their own time best, and prefer the products of their time to others. As regards movies, too, some people refuse to see anything in black and white at all, regardless of when it was produced. To me B&W over colro is a valid stylistic choice, and the use depends on the purpose. B&W can evoke certain moods more effectively than color. It also looks old, which can help in certain situations to establish the era where the film takes place.

[Tensorman]

As for Over/under rated movies:

Overrated: The Matrix. I confine myself to the first movie because that was all I saw. It's a very ordinary thriller with innovative visual effects and lousy acting, and a plot twist. It has also ruined, for a time, any good ideas on "virtual-reality" based stories (should any exist, that is). Worse, it's a shallow, teen movie that pretends to be something deep.

I agree wholeheartedly. A few weeks ago I saw the first movie for the first time (I haven't seen the other ones, and I don't intend to see them), and I found it a terribly bad movie, in fact it was so childish that it was laughable.

[Tensorman]

I prefer a good old movie which takes its time and has a good plot over most modern movies with all their silly chases and fights and special effects.

[fletch]

I consider almost all movies made before 1970 or so over-rated. I know some people love the "classics" but I find them terribly boring and slow paced.

I think I am largely with you on that with a couple of noteable exceptions. Any time they air one of those old Sherlock Holmes movies from the 30's and 40's with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce I'm right there watching them. They are black and white, grainy--just as you would expect the Holmes era to look. And once you see Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes, no one else can fill the role. Awesome.