Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Spot on.
And it not just that some people like them and others don't that makes them over rated but that they are voted in the top ten films of ALL TIME.
Spot on? @24 Red criticised the plot. And the fact that the baddies are bad. That's an issue of the Tolkien books FFS. Not the films. Now, if someone encountered the films without being a fan of the book, then I can understand a reaction like 24Red's . But it's not the films' fault.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Lord of the rings was written under the shadow of the Second World War, where there clearly was a good an evil, possibly for the first and last time in history. In that context, it's easy to see why it's so black and white. There's also people that switch sides, sometimes multiple times, smegol and Saruman are two. The Gandalf the white portrayal is a bit darker in the books, he's said to be basically a reincarnation of Saruman but Gandalf... if that makes sense. But it is a valid criticism of the books, which GRR Martin has said is the reason why in the song of ice and fire books there's no one that's clearly good and clearly evil.
The battle of pellinor fields is one of the best written battles in epic fantasy and is an absolute page turner.
It's also worth noting, especially the hobbit, are children's/young adults books.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Spot on.
And it not just that some people like them and others don't that makes them over rated but that they are voted in the top ten films of ALL TIME.
Spot on? @24 Red criticised the plot. And the fact that the baddies are bad. That's an issue of the Tolkien books FFS. Not the films. Now, if someone encountered the films without being a fan of the book, then I can understand a reaction like 24Red's . But it's not the films' fault.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Spot on.
And it not just that some people like them and others don't that makes them over rated but that they are voted in the top ten films of ALL TIME.
Spot on? @24 Red criticised the plot. And the fact that the baddies are bad. That's an issue of the Tolkien books FFS. Not the films. Now, if someone encountered the films without being a fan of the book, then I can understand a reaction like 24Red's . But it's not the films' fault.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.
That's OK, but millions of people adore the books (as I did), so it's not that surprising that they were highly rated films.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Spot on.
And it not just that some people like them and others don't that makes them over rated but that they are voted in the top ten films of ALL TIME.
Spot on? @24 Red criticised the plot. And the fact that the baddies are bad. That's an issue of the Tolkien books FFS. Not the films. Now, if someone encountered the films without being a fan of the book, then I can understand a reaction like 24Red's . But it's not the films' fault.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.
That's OK, but millions of people adore the books (as I did), so it's not that surprising that they were highly rated films.
Exactly. As the title says over rated films as nice special effects but poor plots
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Spot on.
And it not just that some people like them and others don't that makes them over rated but that they are voted in the top ten films of ALL TIME.
Spot on? @24 Red criticised the plot. And the fact that the baddies are bad. That's an issue of the Tolkien books FFS. Not the films. Now, if someone encountered the films without being a fan of the book, then I can understand a reaction like 24Red's . But it's not the films' fault.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.
That's OK, but millions of people adore the books (as I did), so it's not that surprising that they were highly rated films.
Exactly. As the title says over rated films as nice special effects but poor plots
To be fair, this is totally subjective. No point you two having an argument over the colour of shit.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Lord of the rings was written under the shadow of the Second World War, where there clearly was a good an evil, possibly for the first and last time in history. In that context, it's easy to see why it's so black and white. There's also people that switch sides, sometimes multiple times, smegol and Saruman are two. The Gandalf the white portrayal is a bit darker in the books, he's said to be basically a reincarnation of Saruman but Gandalf... if that makes sense. But it is a valid criticism of the books, which GRR Martin has said is the reason why in the song of ice and fire books there's no one that's clearly good and clearly evil.
The battle of pellinor fields is one of the best written battles in epic fantasy and is an absolute page turner.
It's also worth noting, especially the hobbit, are children's/young adults books.
Tolkien was a member of a group called The Inklings, as was a Prof. Hugo Dyson. When Tolkien was doing a reading of an early draft of LoTR, Dyson called out, "oh no, not another fucking elf!" Personally I quite like both the books and the films. But that might be because Mrs cafcfan has hairy feet and can go through hobbit doors without banging her head.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Spot on.
And it not just that some people like them and others don't that makes them over rated but that they are voted in the top ten films of ALL TIME.
Spot on? @24 Red criticised the plot. And the fact that the baddies are bad. That's an issue of the Tolkien books FFS. Not the films. Now, if someone encountered the films without being a fan of the book, then I can understand a reaction like 24Red's . But it's not the films' fault.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
The Hobbit films are awful, but there's a good fan edit that turns the 9 hours into 3, and it's very, very good (you have to forgive the odd plot inconsistency).
But I have to disagree on one small book not being enough to warrant three films. That's not the problem. Shawshank was a short story for instance. And LotR itself started out as a simple, single line. The source material is irrelevant if a worthy script can't be fashioned from it. Speed started as "what if a bus couldn't drop below 50mph?". Peter Jackson, for a variety of reasons, failed to do that but that's not to say it wasn't possible.
As for the general anti-Rings sentiment, there hasn't been a single convincing argument for why they're overrated. All I've seen is personal preference.
Pointless thread. I watch the films I want to. They might be overrated by some but I don't actually care.
No thread is pointless if it creates discussion, by definition. Whether or not you're bothered is irrelevant. It just means this discussion is pointless to you, which in turn makes your contribution pointless to the rest of us.
Another vote for the Tolkein stuff - films and books. I can take magic and fantasy stuff, I'm a big Michael Moorcock fan for example, but LoTR is so juvenile. You've got your goodies in handsome, noble or cute varieties. And you've got your baddies - you can tell they are bad because they are very ugly and have no characteristic other than being really, really bad. Where is the nuance? Where is the dramatic tension? Where, come to that, is the plot? Why are highly intelligent people apparently satisfied with this? Grrr.
Lord of the rings was written under the shadow of the Second World War, where there clearly was a good an evil, possibly for the first and last time in history. In that context, it's easy to see why it's so black and white. There's also people that switch sides, sometimes multiple times, smegol and Saruman are two. The Gandalf the white portrayal is a bit darker in the books, he's said to be basically a reincarnation of Saruman but Gandalf... if that makes sense. But it is a valid criticism of the books, which GRR Martin has said is the reason why in the song of ice and fire books there's no one that's clearly good and clearly evil.
The battle of pellinor fields is one of the best written battles in epic fantasy and is an absolute page turner.
It's also worth noting, especially the hobbit, are children's/young adults books.
Hate to be pedantic but LOTR was written by what Tolkien saw during the First World War.
During the Two Towers when Gollum is leading Frodo and Sam through the dead marshes (when Frodo is almost drowned by the dead) - that scene in the book is taken from the experiences of No Mans Land
Mark Kermode said There Will Be Blood "reinvents the language of cinema" - so I can happily claim that's an instance of a movie being overrated.
I love Paul Thomas Anderson and think Daniel day lewis' performance is incredible in this film but.. it wasn't completely and utterly amazing as people say it is
Mark Kermode said There Will Be Blood "reinvents the language of cinema" - so I can happily claim that's an instance of a movie being overrated.
I love Paul Thomas Anderson and think Daniel day lewis' performance is incredible in this film but.. it wasn't completely and utterly amazing as people say it is
Indeed. People at the time compared it, for some reason, to "no country for old men" which to me was the superior film.
Pulp Fiction. Tarantino at his pointless, self-indulgent worst. None of it matters or means anything, it's like a sketch show
...so you went into a film called "pulp fiction" and expected anything different?
It's like coming out of "snakes on a plane" and complaining it had too many scenes on a plane where there were snakes.
I got exactly what I expected; some nonsense mess. This thread is about overrated films, and Pulp Fiction is king of that; it's number 1 on Reddit's top 250 films, number 7 on imdb's top 250 etc and people describe it as one of the best films of all time. It's not even good pulp fiction.
Well said...I saw it at the cinema and by half way through half the audience had walked out...Me and the Mrs stayed as we were paying a babysitter, otherwise we would have done. When I asked the usherettes about it when we left she said that the same had been happening since it opened its screening.
Agree with you, Chips. Its the only film I can remember that I walked out of. I couldn't understand half the dialogue anyway, and realised I didn't want to.
Crikey be careful its the first time we have agreed on anything
Second time actually Chips, you were kind enough to rate my rant about the FAPL and the money, the other week.
I'll chuck in a gratuitous "Roland Out" so you can like this too :-)
Comments
I despise what Cameron did with his Titanic story.
Not sure Anchorman deserves to be on this list. It's a marmite film which splits an audience. Does anyone think it's a classic?
Pulp Fiction is a brilliant film.
I made sure to watch all three LoTR in the cinema, and I thought that visually they were the most staggering films I had ever seen. Some of the battle scenes were simply awesome.
That said, I have not bothered with The Hobbit, as they are clearly cynical money grabbers. The Hobbit book is a slim volume, far smaller than any one of the three LoTR trilogies. Making multiple films out of that is taking the piss.
The battle of pellinor fields is one of the best written battles in epic fantasy and is an absolute page turner.
It's also worth noting, especially the hobbit, are children's/young adults books.
A move we were told we should like because it was so artistic. When in fact it was twaddle and everyone refuses to admit it.
Personally I quite like both the books and the films. But that might be because Mrs cafcfan has hairy feet and can go through hobbit doors without banging her head.
But I have to disagree on one small book not being enough to warrant three films. That's not the problem. Shawshank was a short story for instance. And LotR itself started out as a simple, single line. The source material is irrelevant if a worthy script can't be fashioned from it. Speed started as "what if a bus couldn't drop below 50mph?". Peter Jackson, for a variety of reasons, failed to do that but that's not to say it wasn't possible.
As for the general anti-Rings sentiment, there hasn't been a single convincing argument for why they're overrated. All I've seen is personal preference.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Porky's are two that spring up from my youth.
During the Two Towers when Gollum is leading Frodo and Sam through the dead marshes (when Frodo is almost drowned by the dead) - that scene in the book is taken from the experiences of No Mans Land
Just shit, sprinkled with Tom Cruise's best performance of his career.