Under/Over-rated Films

Majestic XII said:
Underated:

Donnie Darko
Spirited Away

Or really anything by Miyazaki. I personally liked Laputa: Castle in the Sky and Nausicaa: Valley of the Wind better than Spirited Away.
 
All the Lord of the Rings and all the Harry Potter films, cant stand them, they are the biggest over-rated pieces of crap ever.

Under rated: Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within. Ok, a little weak in terms of story but it had excellent CGI and voice acting.
 
Pogrom said:
Or really anything by Miyazaki. I personally liked Laputa: Castle in the Sky and Nausicaa: Valley of the Wind better than Spirited Away.

Agree, but then again... not everyone like Anime.

There was like 20 people in a cinema for 770 people when i watched the movie. Its a very nice movie to look at, but i would want something deeper. But still... the movie got an oscar if i remeber correctly.
 
Saving Private Ryan is overrated imo ....... not saying it's a bad flick, but the story is ridiculously cheesey and completely unblievable.

I agree that the Thin Red Line is underrated - it just doesn't appeal to the explosion junkies out there. Well shot and thought provoking.
 
Warbie said:
Saving Private Ryan is overrated imo ....... not saying it's a bad flick, but the story is ridiculously cheesey and completely unblievable.

I agree that the Thin Red Line is underrated - it just doesn't appeal to the explosion junkies out there. Well shot and thought provoking.
The reason I didn't like the thin red line was because the story is complete crap and the movie is so unrealistic.
 
Did anyone here see the movie "Bubba Ho-tep" ?? It's a great film that never recieved the the attention that it deserves....go rent it.
 
I think we can all agree that Saving Private Ryan was better then Shakespeare in Love.

PS I love SPR!
 
i'll second the 'thin red line' over 'saving pvt ryan' motion. imo, pvt ryan was a comic book, red line, while certainly not perfect, did a good job of being poetic and beautiful.

two movies immediately come to my mind as being overrated, both of them sucked, imo, and yet most critics bent over for them about as far as they could go, plus the general public liked them too.. two essential ingredients for overratedness (the third being that the movies sucked.. which these did):

american beauty
imo a paint-by-numbers effort. here's the recipe: make a bunch clichéd characters, make them as unrealistic and uninteresting/unlikeable as possible, but then put them in a boring situation and make them yell at eachother for two hours and then try and trick the audience into thinking there is something profound about the movie because the kid says "there's beauty in everything!!". finding this movie to be meaningful is like finding a prostitue to be sexy, imo. sell it to someone else.. ugh :x

minority report
a mildy-interesting premise that's blitzkreiged by your typical spielbergian messianic, fairy-tale view on humanity. and all the plot holes, overactting and over-blown special effects in this self-indulgent POS are supposed to be remidied by the achtypal speilbergian line like "this house is filled with so much love"??? are you kidding me? there's nothing better than a sappy ending so inane that even though you saw it coming you still simply cannot believe what you're watching. one of the few movies i don't generally admit to having paid to see.



... imo of course :)
 
underrated: independent/foreign films (run lola run..best film I've seen in years that north americans never saw).
Blade Runner (best science fiction movie of all time ...k maybe 2001 was a bit better)

overrated: every blockbuster summer movie since superman 2

Titanic, Independence day, The Rock, Lotr, ...anything by speilberg in the last 5 years. Any movie that has "best movie of the year, action packed" tag lines in their trailers
 
I liked The Rock, it was a good action movie with a good message, even though it was unrealistic as heck.
 
holy crap I forgot about Run Lola Run...

I've seen it, and yes, I am north American... Very good movie.
 
oh god I think I attempted to watch it 3 times...it was just so over the top. I cant for the life of me remember what it was about...and I remember the plot of almost every movie I've ever seen.
 
I'll personally strangle Celine dijon if I have to listen to her sing that stupid titanic song again..thank god there is no possibility of a sequel
 
Under Rated: Alien 3

Certainly no where near as good as the first two movies, but I just loved the setting and atmosphere -- the whole look and feel of the movie is what got me. There were a number of things wrong with the movie though:

- the special effects for the alien were just crap, even for 1992.
- you saw too much of the alien in some shots, but I guess the claustrophobic atmosphere helped keep things tense enough in these scenes
- Hicks and Newt died right at the beginning. I could really see them evolve into some sort of family unit with Ripley
- Having Ripley and Clemens get romantically involved, and then instantly killing him off. wtf?
- More focus should have been placed on individual characters

Otherwise, I enjoyed it. Fincher is a great director, he was just working with too many conflicting views on what the movie should have been.

Over Rated: Spider Man

I'm sorry, but this was just too cheesy for my tastes. It wasn't the universe created that didn't help; it was the fact that I never got drawn into it as much as other comic book movies. Not as bad as Batman Forever though, but no better than Dare Devil. Though for some reason, the trailer for the second one has got me very excited.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
i'll second the 'thin red line' over 'saving pvt ryan' motion. imo, pvt ryan was a comic book, red line, while certainly not perfect, did a good job of being poetic and beautiful.

I personally liked pvt ryan more than red line - pvt ryan was more bloody, realistic and grizzly in it's detail, but that's a matter of opinion.:)
 
brink's said:
I've never even heard of this Boondock Saints but because of all the positive feedback I will rent it tomorrow.

I think everyone agrees that that one guy from the movie looks like Gordon Freeman :). When you watch it you'll see which guy I'm talking about.
 
Oh yeah, overrated: LOTR
Don't get me wrong, they're pretty good movies, but seriously overrated, especially ROTK. Cliche as hell and the last half is just plain annoying with that little twat Frodo. Oh how I'd love to snap his neck.
The whole trilogy just strikes me as an excuse to make pretty battle scenes. And the battles are pretty predictable, one group is cornerend and has no way to get out and is basically doomed, and tatatata there comes the cavalry to rescue them!
The only major actors that were convincing to me were Gandalf and Aragorn and maybe Arwen (although Frodo is pretty good in convincing me that he's a c*nt and deserves the deathpenalty).
 
PvtRyan said:
Oh yeah, overrated: LOTR
Don't get me wrong, they're pretty good movies, but seriously overrated, especially ROTK. Cliche as hell and the last half is just plain annoying with that little twat Frodo. Oh how I'd love to snap his neck.
The whole trilogy just strikes me as an excuse to make pretty battle scenes. And the battles are pretty predictable, one group is cornerend and has no way to get out and is basically doomed, and tatatata there comes the cavalry to rescue them!
The only major actors that were convincing to me were Gandalf and Aragorn and maybe Arwen (although Frodo is pretty good in convincing me that he's a c*nt and deserves the deathpenalty).
predictability and clichéd-ness are not so bad as long as the movie is well-done. imo, the LOtR movies were pretty well-done, though i thought the first movie was heads and-shoulders above the rest. and i agree that RotK was more annoying than entertaining (the theatrical release at least.. hopefully the extended dvd release will be better).
 
Foxtrot said:
The reason I didn't like the thin red line was because the story is complete crap and the movie is so unrealistic.

In what ways? - personally I liked the story and found it perfectly believable :)

You can't honestly prefer the plot to Saving Private Ryan? That was just silly (good battles scenes though, which is why everyone really likes it)
 
PvtRyan said:
Oh yeah, overrated: LOTR
Don't get me wrong, they're pretty good movies, but seriously overrated, especially ROTK. Cliche as hell and the last half is just plain annoying with that little twat Frodo. Oh how I'd love to snap his neck.
The whole trilogy just strikes me as an excuse to make pretty battle scenes. And the battles are pretty predictable, one group is cornerend and has no way to get out and is basically doomed, and tatatata there comes the cavalry to rescue them!
The only major actors that were convincing to me were Gandalf and Aragorn and maybe Arwen (although Frodo is pretty good in convincing me that he's a c*nt and deserves the deathpenalty).
You didn't think Gollum did a good job?(I consider him a major actor if you consider Gandalf one and Arwen one)
 
Warbie said:
In what ways? - personally I liked the story and found it perfectly believable :)

You can't honestly prefer the plot to Saving Private Ryan? That was just silly (good battles scenes though, which is why everyone really likes it)
How was it silly? Stuff like that actually happened.
 
DreamThrall said:
holy crap I forgot about Run Lola Run...

I've seen it, and yes, I am north American... Very good movie.

Same. Good flick...weird with the cartoon sections...but I'll let that slide by.

Boondock Saints is a quality movie too. I have it on DVD but when I first watched it, I saw the NC-17 version on my computer. I'm kinda disappointed with a couple of the scenes that they toned down a ton. :(

Namely the shooting scene where they drop from the vents, that was originally a little longer and you actually saw the guys getting shot rather than them just falling down... The second one is when Rocco goes into Sal's place and blasts those two mobster guys. You see the first guy's brains hit the wall in slowmo and the second gets a bullet in the stomache and you see it blast through the bench seat he's sitting on...pretty cool.
 
Warbie said:
Pull the other one ;)

Sergeant Frederick "Fritz" Niland was a member of the 101st Airborne's 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, and was one of those that made the drop into Normandy on June 5/6, 1944. Niland's three brothers served in other units, Technical Sergeant Robert Niland with the 82nd Airborne Division (505th Parachute Infantry Regiment), Lieutenant Preston Niland with the 4th Infantry Division (22nd Infantry Regiment), and Technical Sergeant Edward Niland as a pilot in the Army Air Force. Much like the fictional Ryan, two of Niland's brothers, Robert and Preston, were killed on or after D-Day, and the third, Edward, was reported missing over Burma in the Pacific Theater on May 16, 1944.

Unlike Ryan, however, there was no need to send out a rescue mission to find Sergeant Niland, who was eventually contacted at his unit by a priest, Father Francis L. Sampson, who began the paperwork necessary to send Niland home. Niland remained with his unit for some time, but once the paperwork cleared he was forced to return to the States, where he served as an MP for the rest of the war. Fortunately for the Niland family, Edward Niland had not been killed, but had spent almost an entire year in a Japanese prisoner of war camp before being rescued by British forces.

The two deceased Niland brothers were buried at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial at Colleville-sur-Mer, France. Robert is buried in Plot F, Row 15, Grave 11, and Preston is buried in Plot F, Row 15, Grave 12.

Attempts to point out the "discrepancies" between the stories of Fritz Niland and James Ryan are often misguided, as Ryan is only based on Niland, and is not meant to be (or claimed to be) a completely accurate representation of him. The differences in the two stories seem to stem in part from the fact that the true story of Sergeant Niland and his brothers is often reported inaccurately. The character of Private James Ryan is a mixture of fact and fiction, with some of the fictional elements coming from the erroneous stories about the Niland brothers.

http://www.sproe.com/n/fritz-niland.html

On November 13th, 1942, the light cruiser USS Juneau (CL-52) was sunk by a Japanese torpedo during American efforts to resupply Marines holding the island of Guadalcanal. On board Juneau were five brothers; Albert Leo Sullivan, Francis Henry Sullivan, George Thomas Sullivan, Joseph Eugene Sullivan and Madison Abel Sullivan. Four of the brothers were killed in the initial explosion that sunk the lightly-armored Juneau, and the fifth, George, died later in the water. Rescue efforts were delayed because of the Japanese presence in the area, and only a few Juneau survivors were eventually recovered.

The brothers had insisted on serving together in spite of pre-existing Navy policies (Bureau of Naval Personnel Information Bulletin No. 304) designed to prevent the sudden loss of multiple family members at one time. Although the World War II era Navy attempted to prevent family members from serving together, this was never strongly enforced, and no regulations or legislation was ever passed preventing such assignments following the loss of the Sullivans.

Two Navy vessels have been named after the Sullivan brothers; the Fletcher class destroyer USS The Sullivans (DD-537) and the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG-68).

Reference to the Sullivan brothers is made in the War Department scene where General Marshall is informed of the deaths of three of the four Ryan brothers. The Sullivans were not the first group of brothers to have died at one time during wartime, but they became famous after their deaths, and are the most well-known case of multiple brothers being killed at one time in the U.S. military. Although the movie somewhat implies a change in policy or decision-making on the part of the military following the loss of the Sullivans, this is not in fact true. The plot of the movie, however, needs a reason for the Ryan brothers to have been split up, and the real-life loss of the Sullivans provides an event that justifies such an action.

http://www.sproe.com/s/sullivan-brothers.html

While not completely true, the film still had it's roots in reality.
 
I stand corrected *said the man in the orthopedic shoes*

(it's still a silly story imo tho :) )
 
It is better than most others, but compared to Band of Brothers is might be. Hell everything compared to Band of Brothers is silly.
 
and it just so happens it was created by the 2 most important people from SPR.
 
Foxtrot said:
You didn't think Gollum did a good job?(I consider him a major actor if you consider Gandalf one and Arwen one)

Yeah, Gollum too, although he got pretty annoying and predictable too.
I could so see that end coming with Gollum, that he wasn't dead (he died way too easy for a major character, that gave it away) and was coming back at the end for the ring, without reading the books. The ending is as cliche as a movie where a bomb counts down and gets defused at 0:00:01...
 
What did you like would happen, Frodo wouldn't destroy the ring? Gollum wouldn't die dramatically? These things go hand in hand with the story, everyone saw that stuff comin. Doesn't make the movie any worse.
 
:p I had to watch Ghandi for Wolrd History, that movie has earned so many awards... I myself thought it was boring. One thing I thought was great about the film though was the guy that took the role of Ghandi actually looked like Ghandi!
 
Underrated - Boondock Saints, Equilibrium, any drama/dark comedy with Robin Williams as an actor

Overrated - Probably any movie that grosses over $150 million.
 
ailevation said:
One thing I thought was great about the film though was the guy that took the role of Ghandi actually looked like Ghandi!
gandhi was played by ben knigsley, and yes, he did look quite similar.
 
Underrated - The Cable Guy. Carrey's best movie imo :)

Overrated - Clockwork Orange. Didn't do much for me, dealt with a interesting issue in a clumsey way. Violence for violences sake.
 
Back
Top