Most overrated films.
Comments
-
Team America, I turned it off before the end. Jokes were to easy.0
-
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.Henry Irving said:
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.PragueAddick said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Spot on.24 Red said: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.
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.
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.
0 -
Exactly. As the title says over rated films as nice special effects but poor plotsPragueAddick said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.PragueAddick said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Spot on.24 Red said: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.
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.
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.0 -
To be fair, this is totally subjective. No point you two having an argument over the colour of shit.Henry Irving said:
Exactly. As the title says over rated films as nice special effects but poor plotsPragueAddick said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Except they are films of the books so share them same flaws.PragueAddick said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Spot on.24 Red said: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.
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.
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.0 -
American Beauty.
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.1 -
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!"kentaddick said:
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.24 Red said: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.
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.
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.3 -
Pointless thread. I watch the films I want to. They might be overrated by some but I don't actually care.0
-
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).PragueAddick said:
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.Henry Irving said:
Spot on.24 Red said: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.
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.
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.
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.1 -
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.iainment said:Pointless thread. I watch the films I want to. They might be overrated by some but I don't actually care.
7 -
Not overrated because everyone thinks it's rubbish but why did they make Taken 3?
0 - Sponsored links:
-
I think it's a sublime piece of work. An average story executed to perfection. Don't think it's that arty, just really well crafted storytellingNapaAddick said:American Beauty.
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.0 -
££££agim said:Not overrated because everyone thinks it's rubbish but why did they make Taken 3?
0 -
The English Patient is slow and a bit overrated but is totally saved by Juliette Binoche's bum.6
-
Crap movies that have been saved by gratuitous nudity would be a great thread.Nadou said:The English Patient is slow and a bit overrated but is totally saved by Juliette Binoche's bum.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Porky's are two that spring up from my youth.
2 -
Or great movies that were made even greater by gratuitous nudity - I give you Trading Places0
-
Hate to be pedantic but LOTR was written by what Tolkien saw during the First World War.kentaddick said:
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.24 Red said: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.
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.
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 Land0 -
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.
0 -
@DaveMehmet is currently compiling an extensive list.Big William said:Or great movies that were made even greater by gratuitous nudity - I give you Trading Places
0 -
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 isJiMMy 85 said: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.
1 -
LOLiainment said:Pointless thread.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
titanic, surely not when Kate gets her thrupneys out.0
-
Indeed. People at the time compared it, for some reason, to "no country for old men" which to me was the superior film.kentaddick said:
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 isJiMMy 85 said: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.
0 -
Yes the fapl episode was disgraceful .PragueAddick said:
Second time actually Chips, you were kind enough to rate my rant about the FAPL and the money, the other week.Chippycafc said:
Crikey be careful its the first time we have agreed on anythingPragueAddick said:
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.Chippycafc said:
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.Garrymanilow said:
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.kentaddick said:
...so you went into a film called "pulp fiction" and expected anything different?Garrymanilow said:Pulp Fiction. Tarantino at his pointless, self-indulgent worst. None of it matters or means anything, it's like a sketch show
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'll chuck in a gratuitous "Roland Out" so you can like this too :-)0 -
Magnolia.
Just shit, sprinkled with Tom Cruise's best performance of his career.0
