Maybe not redundant but definitely not in the running for the best films ever (which some claim it is, and why I think it's overrated). It is old ! FACT, and despite how revolutionary it was 40 years ago, it's just not that good today, which is why, in my opinion, it's overrated.
I actually just got done watching the original trilogy again last week because Hampton Court Palace were doing an open screening of all 3 films, and I have to say, they hold up a hell of a lot better than I was expecting them to.
Yes, A New Hope has a couple of questionable "effects", but in truth I actually find that the practical effects present throughout the original trilogy hold up a lot better than the various CGI effects used in the prequel trilogy (and the amazingly jarring CGI effects George Lucas shoe-horned into the DVD copies of the original trilogy).
I mean fair enough you think it's over-rated, can't really argue that as it's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I just wanted to say of all the mid 70s/early 80s movies, that the 3 Star Wars movies are actually (imo) amongst the 3 best looking to this day, whilst the years have not been so kind to many others of that era - particularly in the sci-fi genre that was more demanding with effects.
Young people will watch whatever is forced upon them by their parents. If their parents grew up with the original trilogy, then I bet that father son bonding time is watching Star Wars.
But show some "not influenced" kids the Star Wars Trilogy, and a few more trilogy's like Lord of the Rings, The dark Knight, even Transformers, and let them pick their favourites and I bet it won't be Star Wars. (But we'll never get to run this experiment so we'll never know)
I know plenty people who aren't SW fans but whose kids are into it in a big way. Nothing's been forced on them. They've seen all other blockbusters and franchises but they still love the SW OT. And just look at SW events, plenty kids there all enthused, by their own will. It's perfectly fine for you to think it's overrated, but as mentioned before, your reasons just don't hold up.
Plots are pedestrian, performances unremarkable, suspence and drama rely too heavily on music and sound affects. Over time their short comings are now all too obvious.
I always find movie buffs have a "it must be good it's Hitchcock" type of attitude (a bit like English teachers at school "It's Shakespeare it's good." Why? "Because it's Shakespeare!").
I've never really been impressed by his movies for all the reasons you give, plus his use of very poor special effects which, even taking into account the technology available at the time, were very obvious. He did have some good effects - the plane crash in Foreign Correspondent and the track-zoom in Vertigo but they are outnumbered by the obvious model shots, painted backdrops etc.
I always find movie buffs have a "it must be good it's Hitchcock" type of attitude (a bit like English teachers at school "It's Shakespeare it's good." Why? "Because it's Shakespeare!").
Really? As with other cultural giants, their reputation comes from the best of their work, which as always isn't everything. Hitchcock was a very prolific film-maker, and there was a fair bit of mediocrity in there (Family Plot anyone?), but when you consider his best I'd say he warrants the praise.
I am not sure that people understand this thread. 'The Godfather is a great film but', for goodness sake.
To be fair the comment was "The Godfather. It's not a bad movie by any means but it's way too long."
It's more frustrating when people call a film boring. Fine, you were bored, and that's not much fun. But that doesn't mean it's an overrated film, just that it's not your cup of tea.
Gravity: an hour and a half of Sandra bullock swinging around in the dark doing her sex scream. What anyone found interesting or entertaining is beyond me.
In terms of how hyped and beloved it was at the time, Oscar noms etc then it has to be Titanic for me.
I say this as someone who loved it when it was released (was only a young teen at the time, in my defence!). Repeat viewings as an adult have led me to discover that it is, in fact, a huge pile of shit.
Plots are pedestrian, performances unremarkable, suspence and drama rely too heavily on music and sound affects. Over time their short comings are now all too obvious.
The plots are only pedestrian because theyve been copied so many times.....
If I had to point at just one in particular it would probably be Schindler's List. It's the alleged holocaust film that makes the holocaust seem not that bad. Giving in to one of his worst tendencies, Spielberg once again sugar's the pill and we get film that's nothing like as hard-hitting as it could've been (and maybe should've been).
For an overrated concept - deconstructions. Fine if you want to be flattered, but many have little more to offer than that.
If I had to point at just one in particular it would probably be Schindler's List. It's the alleged holocaust film that makes the holocaust seem not that bad. Giving in to one of his worst tendencies, Spielberg once again sugar's the pill and we get film that's nothing like as hard-hitting as it could've been (and maybe should've been).
For an overrated concept - deconstructions. Fine if you want to be flattered, but many have little more to offer than that.
I dressed up as the girl in the red coat from SL for Halloween
On Facebook today, there was an ad for Suicide Squad, and a comment under it was that it was overrated ...... Surely a film that got rated that badly could never be described as overrated. Some people really don't get the term.
On Facebook today, there was an ad for Suicide Squad, and a comment under it was that it was overrated ...... Surely a film that got rated that badly could never be described as overrated. Some people really don't get the term.
Depends where you're looking. If you go on social media many fanboys are trying to convince you its the bees knee.
Fargo. Could never understand what all the fuss was about with this film. Siskel and Ebert raved about it - and it got put into Ebert's Great Movies Book. 5 stars from Empire magazine as well. Robert Altman said it was last great US film ever made during his lifetime.
Not actually based on a real life story - just a little in-joke from the Coens. I think some of the characters are stereotypes - and don't get the whole thing with the Marge character. It's also got a strange tone to it - I know it's meant to have dark comedy elements - but it seems to jokey and knowing for its own good.
It really did leave me perplexed as to what was good about it. Funnily enough, I like some of the Coens other works(Miller's Crossing is great and I think overlooked in their canon).
Interstellar. A very long, very slow film that seems to consist of a lot of special effects and Matthew McConaughey mumbling and Anne Hathaway whispering unintelligible dialogue.
It's ironic that my favourite Nolan movie is Insomnia as this one is a sure-fire cure.
a +1 for Interstellar, about half way through we were just wishing it to be over. One of those times when you hear all the critics raving and people writing into Kermode and Mayo saying what a great movie it is and you're thinking "No it's not"
2001 is well overrated I watched this and found it really boring and often really like sci fi films.
I have to agree. I've watched this a number of times and found it tedious and boring. I know people then say 'you have to understand the movie' and I'm all for thought provoking films but I don't expect a film to be classified as good because I went away and read some post rationalisation that told me it was good.
a +1 for Interstellar, about half way through we were just wishing it to be over. One of those times when you hear all the critics raving and people writing into Kermode and Mayo saying what a great movie it is and you're thinking "No it's not"
+2. The film was just fundamentally flawed. I couldn't get over the fact that the human race had just given up. We can't find a cure or a resolution, that's it, we're screwed. And then the whole Michael Caine lying, what? Was that just for dramatic tension? Pretty visuals and some well constructed action scenes but it was a poor and non awe inspiring. Check out Contact if you want a quality sci fi film.
12 Years a Slave. I'm sorry but it was just really poor. Long endless stares into the sun, some whipping porn and slaves being treated like crap. It genuinely was nothing more than that. Oh and let's not forget Brad Pitt white knighting it because he was one of the producers.
Classic example of the subject matter making a film teflon and critic proof.
Airplane. There are some genuinely funny bits in it, but a lot of it-perhaps the majority-is really stupid, juvenile, crude, lowest-common-denominator stuff,
Comments
I actually just got done watching the original trilogy again last week because Hampton Court Palace were doing an open screening of all 3 films, and I have to say, they hold up a hell of a lot better than I was expecting them to.
Yes, A New Hope has a couple of questionable "effects", but in truth I actually find that the practical effects present throughout the original trilogy hold up a lot better than the various CGI effects used in the prequel trilogy (and the amazingly jarring CGI effects George Lucas shoe-horned into the DVD copies of the original trilogy).
I mean fair enough you think it's over-rated, can't really argue that as it's your opinion and you're entitled to it, I just wanted to say of all the mid 70s/early 80s movies, that the 3 Star Wars movies are actually (imo) amongst the 3 best looking to this day, whilst the years have not been so kind to many others of that era - particularly in the sci-fi genre that was more demanding with effects.
I always find movie buffs have a "it must be good it's Hitchcock" type of attitude (a bit like English teachers at school "It's Shakespeare it's good." Why? "Because it's Shakespeare!").
I've never really been impressed by his movies for all the reasons you give, plus his use of very poor special effects which, even taking into account the technology available at the time, were very obvious. He did have some good effects - the plane crash in Foreign Correspondent and the track-zoom in Vertigo but they are outnumbered by the obvious model shots, painted backdrops etc.
Same with the Star Trek movies, most of them with the exception of Wrath of Khan are utter cack.
To be fair the comment was "The Godfather. It's not a bad movie by any means but it's way too long."
It's more frustrating when people call a film boring. Fine, you were bored, and that's not much fun. But that doesn't mean it's an overrated film, just that it's not your cup of tea.
I say this as someone who loved it when it was released (was only a young teen at the time, in my defence!). Repeat viewings as an adult have led me to discover that it is, in fact, a huge pile of shit.
The plots are only pedestrian because theyve been copied so many times.....
For an overrated concept - deconstructions. Fine if you want to be flattered, but many have little more to offer than that.
I dressed up as the girl in the red coat from SL for Halloween
Depends where you're looking. If you go on social media many fanboys are trying to convince you its the bees knee.
Not actually based on a real life story - just a little in-joke from the Coens. I think some of the characters are stereotypes - and don't get the whole thing with the Marge character. It's also got a strange tone to it - I know it's meant to have dark comedy elements - but it seems to jokey and knowing for its own good.
It really did leave me perplexed as to what was good about it. Funnily enough, I like some of the Coens other works(Miller's Crossing is great and I think overlooked in their canon).
a +1 for Interstellar, about half way through we were just wishing it to be over. One of those times when you hear all the critics raving and people writing into Kermode and Mayo saying what a great movie it is and you're thinking "No it's not"
The story of a 30-something dance teacher who uses his position in a camp to suduce and have sex with an underage girl.
And it has some of the ropiest plot and dialogue ever....
I have to agree. I've watched this a number of times and found it tedious and boring. I know people then say 'you have to understand the movie' and I'm all for thought provoking films but I don't expect a film to be classified as good because I went away and read some post rationalisation that told me it was good.
+2. The film was just fundamentally flawed. I couldn't get over the fact that the human race had just given up. We can't find a cure or a resolution, that's it, we're screwed. And then the whole Michael Caine lying, what? Was that just for dramatic tension? Pretty visuals and some well constructed action scenes but it was a poor and non awe inspiring. Check out Contact if you want a quality sci fi film.
Classic example of the subject matter making a film teflon and critic proof.