well the film theory was only part of the degree. It was very varied. As much as I though I'd love to write about films I watched, it became quite tedious. In fact after the three years, you tended to watch all films and apply theory to them instead of actually enjoying them as a film. I actually stopped watching films for many years and don't watch that many now.
I think this is a fault many critics fall into, seeing so many films that they start to celebrate the "unusual" rather than the enjoyable and worrying about the ratio of the picture, the grain of the film and whether it is film of digital
Little Miss Sunshine:
A nice, perfectly serviceable movie that you might watch on a lazy Sunday to while away a couple of hours. Worthy of the widespread acclaim it received, and oscar nominations to boot?! Hell no.
Lost In Translation:
I just didn't get it at all.
Gravity:
No real story, just great special effects.
Gravity stinks. The technical errors are massive, especially for a film that tried to make out they spent ages getting things right. I can forgive errors in films (like the wrong gravity effect in The Martian) when it isn't a main focus but Gravity was supposed to be about making things accurate.
I think this is a fault many critics fall into, seeing so many films that they start to celebrate the "unusual" rather than the enjoyable and worrying about the ratio of the picture, the grain of the film and whether it is film of digital
I have some sympathy for this approach, though, and although a critic may be able describe the cinematography and how and why it's being used, the layman will at least be able to perceive what the director and cinematographer are trying to do. Even if you don't care about aspect ratio, you'll feel the open space in Hateful 8 (filmed at a wider than normal ratio), or the height in Avengers Assemble (filmed in 16:9, narrower than most films), and you'll perceive the difference watching The Hobbit in 48fps rather than the normal 24fps. The critic's job is to understand why these things matter and what difference they make to the viewing experience.
A film is much more than just a story acted out, and although there's been a lot of fuss made about TV overtaking movies in terms of quality, if you see movies as being something more than just a narrative arc, TV still has a lot of catching up to do in terms of cinematography and visual style.
Frozen: I think it gets unfairly praised for being the "first" to do things that other Disney movies did do first - even recent ones (Lilo and Stitch had the sister bond, Brave had a female protagonist with no love interest, etc.) It is also praised for being somehow better or more feminist than other princess movies by giving a message that it's unwise to marry someone you have only just met. Well, that would be fine ... if Anna didn't then end up with Kristoff, whom she's only just met.
Pitch Perfect: It's funny, but basically just a standard romcom; I can't see anything that makes it exceptional. Also dislike seeing it held up against Ghostbusters to argue that "all-female casts are great if it's an ORIGINAL story". They're really not comparable. Pitch Perfect is a "chick flick"; it's based around characters, stories and themes that audiences are comfortable classing as something "for women" (female friendships, romances, etc.) Ghostbusters was not.
Yeah, I agree about Frozen. Couldn't see why that got the hype that it did. It's okay - but I didn't think it was that memorable - apart from "Let it go!" - the song.
I recently did a re-watch of "The Crying Game" - and as films go that I think is overrated. It was the surprise sleeper hit of 1992 in the US - and got Oscar nominations and one Oscar as well for its screenplay. I think that was more down to the Miramax campaign by Harvey and co. Put aside the famous "twist"(which I sadly knew about before I watched the film), whilst I can appreciate that it's trying to do something different - it's sort of an adult drama about forbidden love - and there are some decent performances in it(Stephen Rea is very good - I can understand the Oscar nomination there, Jaye Davison as well and Miranda Richardson) - it just didn't seem as good as it was made out by a lot of people to be. I did find Forest Whittaker miscast - and I also fault that the dream sequences were a bit pretentious. I liked Neil Jordan's "Mona Lisa" - which has a similar sort of atmosphere(mixing fantasy with adult drama) - a lot better.
Frozen: I think it gets unfairly praised for being the "first" to do things that other Disney movies did do first - even recent ones (Lilo and Stitch had the sister bond, Brave had a female protagonist with no love interest, etc.) It is also praised for being somehow better or more feminist than other princess movies by giving a message that it's unwise to marry someone you have only just met. Well, that would be fine ... if Anna didn't then end up with Kristoff, whom she's only just met.
Pitch Perfect: It's funny, but basically just a standard romcom; I can't see anything that makes it exceptional. Also dislike seeing it held up against Ghostbusters to argue that "all-female casts are great if it's an ORIGINAL story". They're really not comparable. Pitch Perfect is a "chick flick"; it's based around characters, stories and themes that audiences are comfortable classing as something "for women" (female friendships, romances, etc.) Ghostbusters was not.
To be fair - Pitch Perfect only rates as 7.2 on IMDB (so basically above average).
Frozen is 7.6 - which for IMDB mean decents but not spectacular. For comparison, Inside Out is 8.3
People shouldn't mistake 'popular' with 'highly rated'.
Crash from 2006. It was self indulgent and did very little to present the realities of racial tension in the United States. Moreover, it scratched the surface and gave snippets of of the various of racism such as street prejudice and institutional racism. It would be better to concentrate on one example and explore it in more depth.
American Beauty. It presented something that has already done in relation to the dysfunctions of white middle class lives in suburbia. The family, particularly the mother and father really should sit down and discuss their personal problems like adults and deal with their issues like mature adults.
Crash from 2006. It was self indulgent and did very little to present the realities of racial tension in the United States. Moreover, it scratched the surface and gave snippets of of the various of racism such as street prejudice and institutional racism. It would be better to concentrate on one example and explore it in more depth.
American Beauty. It presented something that has already done in relation to the dysfunctions of white middle class lives in suburbia. The family, particularly the mother and father really should sit down and discuss their personal problems like adults and deal with their issues like mature adults.
I used to love American Beauty when I was 17/18 but now can't stand it. I just oozes pretentiousness to the point of being cringey.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial:
Although I do see the merit and can watch it, I never really enjoyed it that much as a child. Watching it years later and it still didn't click the way other landmark films and best picture nominees do. Probably just me...
The Silence of the Lambs:
Made with class psychological thriller that doesn't gel at all because Foster's admittingly great and realitic performance is mixed with Hopkin's horror performance. Even without that issue I found it a bit 'meh' compared to its reputation.
Avatar:
Interesting in bits and pieces. Groundbreaking special effects too. Generally it left me cold and was possibly an hour too long considering the flatness of everything else. Felt like Cameron was trying to force an epic rather than have it develop organically.
Lost in Translation:
It might have had excellent performances and might have even been funny. I'm not sure because it just bored me to the point I don't even want to rewatch it.
I used to love American Beauty when I was 17/18 but now can't stand it. I just oozes pretentiousness to the point of being cringey.
I agree with you. I went to see it with Dad and step mother for his birthday. I really enjoyed it at the time. In fairness, some of the technical aspects of the film such as the screenplay and camera angles are very good. But when I watched it again, the characterisation of the main protagonists are highly irritating and derive no empathy. The narrative itself is very simplistic as well.
I look back and think to myself it is just a husband and wife both going through a mid life crisis.
Gravity stinks. The technical errors are massive, especially for a film that tried to make out they spent ages getting things right. I can forgive errors in films (like the wrong gravity effect in The Martian) when it isn't a main focus but Gravity was supposed to be about making things accurate.
The phrase 'It's only a movie' comes into play here.
I think claims of technical accuracy are exaggerated in such movies, and hyped up by the publicists to sell the movie. They take the 'realism' concept and buff that up into something that it isn't.
Because no film can nor will ever be 100% technically accurate. It's a movie, a story is being told (no matter how slight) and certain things need to happen to move that story along. There will be conceits, stretches of the imagination and almost certainly some artistic licence will be taken.
Essentially, the film 'looked' accurate and realistic, and I think that was the intention. It's a big budget, mainstream movie designed to appeal as many people as possible. It was not made to be shown to a bunch of NASA scientists and physicists.
if it was 100% technically accurate it would be a documentary, and not an entertaining movie.
My golden rule when watching movies is never listen to the hype, and certainly never believe it. If you go in expecting something and you don't get it, you will surely be disappointed.
Who says its the greatest movie of all time though?
Without wanting to get into the pros and cons of the film, so purely to answer your question; it's at number 4 on the IMDb top rated movies list...not that that's an authoritative source, but presumably the answer to your question is: the people whose votes got it to that position.
Without wanting to get into the pros and cons of the film, so purely to answer your question; it's at number 4 on the IMDb top rated movies list...so presumably the answe to your question is: the people whose votes got it to that position.
Well that's pretty meaningless, and I personally never take any notice of either reviews or ratings on that site.
It's common knowledge that such entries are manipulated and falsified by rabid fans of certain movies and genres...they hype their favourite movies and get people to write false reviews and vote, both positive and negative.
And if you need convincing, just take a look at the comments section...there are some serious loons on that site.
Well that's pretty meaningless, and I personally never take any notice of either reviews or ratings on that site.
It's common knowledge that such entries are manipulated and falsified by rabid fans of certain movies and genres...they hype their favourite movies and get people to write false reviews and vote, both positive and negative.
And if you need convincing, just take a look at the comments section...there are some serious loons on that site.
This is all irrelevant. You asked a specific question, you have your answer. No one is saying you have to agree with their opinion.
This is all irrelevant. You asked a specific question, you have your answer. No one is saying to have to agree with their opinion.
Indeed I do, but it's not a good answer, in my humble opinion of course.
Members of the public, including a large proportion of nutters, giving their opinion on a website does not in anyway equate to the conclusion its 'one of the best movies of all time'.
Not wishing to get into a spat about this, just giving my opinion and reasoning on your comment, that's all.
Well that's pretty meaningless, and I personally never take any notice of either reviews or ratings on that site.
It's common knowledge that such entries are manipulated and falsified by rabid fans of certain movies and genres...they hype their favourite movies and get people to write false reviews and vote, both positive and negative.
And if you need convincing, just take a look at the comments section...there are some serious loons on that site.
For current films perhaps. For a film that is now over 8 years old it's very unlikely to still have people doing that and, like you say, there are a lot of people who counterbalance the ratings at the lower end of the scale as well.
As for the film itself, a lot of people were saying at the time of its release that it was not only one of the best superhero films ever but also one of the best films ever. A view that does still get repeated whenever there is a rundown of top 20 superhero films or the like on Channel 4/5.
Personal opinion is that it isn't even the best film in it's own series let alone of all time.
As for other overrated films, I would humbly suggest the first two Spider-Man films, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction and The Silence of the Lambs.
Indeed I do, but it's not a good answer, in my humble opinion of course.
Members of the public, including a large proportion of nutters, giving their opinion on a website does not in anyway equate to the conclusion its 'one of the best movies of all time'.
Not wishing to get into a spat about this, just giving my opinion and reasoning on your comment, that's all.
The Dark Knight was ranked the 15th greatest film in history on Empire's list of the "500 Greatest Movies of All Time," based upon the weighted votes of 10,000 readers, 150 film directors, and 50 key film critics.
Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker was also ranked number three on Empire's 2008 list of the "100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time."
In June 2010, the Joker was ranked number five on Entertainment Weekly's "100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years".
Paste magazine named it one of the 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009), ranking it at number 6
The Dark Knight was included in American Cinematographer's "Best-Shot Film of 1998-2008" list.
In March 2011, the film was voted by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 1Xtra listeners as their eight favorite film of all time.
On the March 22, 2011 television special Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time, The Dark Knight was voted the second best film while the Joker, as portrayed by Ledger, was voted the third greatest film character.
In 2012, Total Film ranked The Dark Knight as the sixth most accomplished film of the past 15 years, writing that "Christopher Nolan's psycho-operatic crime drama was its decade's most exciting blockbuster – and its most challenging."
In 2014, Time Out polled several film critics, directors, actors and stunt actors to list their top action films.
In 2014, The Dark Knight was ranked the 3rd greatest film ever made on Empire's list of "The 301 Greatest Movies Of All Time" as voted by the magazine's readers.
The film was also included and ranked 57th on Hollywood's 100 Favorite Films, a list compiled by The Hollywood Reporter, surveying "Studio chiefs, Oscar winners and TV royalty".
The Dark Knight ranked 96th on BBC's "100 Greatest American Films" list, voted on by film critics from around the world.
It was also ranked the 23rd best film of the 21st century by 177 film critics, polled by BBC in 2016.
Re the various comments about "Frozen" I am assuming that non of the posters who posted about Frozen are children therefore I am not surprised that they do not like it or think it is overated. From a personal point of view, all I can say is that my 3yrs old granddaughter absolutely loves it and sings all the songs almost every day. Perhaps that after all, was the target audience ?
The Dark Knight was ranked the 15th greatest film in history on Empire's list of the "500 Greatest Movies of All Time," based upon the weighted votes of 10,000 readers, 150 film directors, and 50 key film critics.
Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker was also ranked number three on Empire's 2008 list of the "100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time."
In June 2010, the Joker was ranked number five on Entertainment Weekly's "100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years".
Paste magazine named it one of the 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009), ranking it at number 6
The Dark Knight was included in American Cinematographer's "Best-Shot Film of 1998-2008" list.
In March 2011, the film was voted by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 1Xtra listeners as their eight favorite film of all time.
On the March 22, 2011 television special Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time, The Dark Knight was voted the second best film while the Joker, as portrayed by Ledger, was voted the third greatest film character.
In 2012, Total Film ranked The Dark Knight as the sixth most accomplished film of the past 15 years, writing that "Christopher Nolan's psycho-operatic crime drama was its decade's most exciting blockbuster – and its most challenging."
In 2014, Time Out polled several film critics, directors, actors and stunt actors to list their top action films.
In 2014, The Dark Knight was ranked the 3rd greatest film ever made on Empire's list of "The 301 Greatest Movies Of All Time" as voted by the magazine's readers.
The film was also included and ranked 57th on Hollywood's 100 Favorite Films, a list compiled by The Hollywood Reporter, surveying "Studio chiefs, Oscar winners and TV royalty".
The Dark Knight ranked 96th on BBC's "100 Greatest American Films" list, voted on by film critics from around the world.
It was also ranked the 23rd best film of the 21st century by 177 film critics, polled by BBC in 2016.
There's really only one poll worth the bother - the Sight & Sound/BFI top 250. The last was in 2012 and TDK wasn't listed. They only do it once a decade, so you'll have to wait till 2022 to see if it's become worthy of inclusion.
The phrase 'It's only a movie' comes into play here.
I think claims of technical accuracy are exaggerated in such movies, and hyped up by the publicists to sell the movie. They take the 'realism' concept and buff that up into something that it isn't.
Because no film can nor will ever be 100% technically accurate. It's a movie, a story is being told (no matter how slight) and certain things need to happen to move that story along. There will be conceits, stretches of the imagination and almost certainly some artistic licence will be taken.
Essentially, the film 'looked' accurate and realistic, and I think that was the intention. It's a big budget, mainstream movie designed to appeal as many people as possible. It was not made to be shown to a bunch of NASA scientists and physicists.
if it was 100% technically accurate it would be a documentary, and not an entertaining movie.
My golden rule when watching movies is never listen to the hype, and certainly never believe it. If you go in expecting something and you don't get it, you will surely be disappointed.
I get all that but they spent a lot of time 'getting stuff right' like the background stars then ruined it by some really basic errors that are unforgivable in a film that paid such attention to detail (or claimed to)
Comments
I think this is a fault many critics fall into, seeing so many films that they start to celebrate the "unusual" rather than the enjoyable and worrying about the ratio of the picture, the grain of the film and whether it is film of digital
Gravity stinks. The technical errors are massive, especially for a film that tried to make out they spent ages getting things right. I can forgive errors in films (like the wrong gravity effect in The Martian) when it isn't a main focus but Gravity was supposed to be about making things accurate.
I have some sympathy for this approach, though, and although a critic may be able describe the cinematography and how and why it's being used, the layman will at least be able to perceive what the director and cinematographer are trying to do. Even if you don't care about aspect ratio, you'll feel the open space in Hateful 8 (filmed at a wider than normal ratio), or the height in Avengers Assemble (filmed in 16:9, narrower than most films), and you'll perceive the difference watching The Hobbit in 48fps rather than the normal 24fps. The critic's job is to understand why these things matter and what difference they make to the viewing experience.
A film is much more than just a story acted out, and although there's been a lot of fuss made about TV overtaking movies in terms of quality, if you see movies as being something more than just a narrative arc, TV still has a lot of catching up to do in terms of cinematography and visual style.
Pitch Perfect: It's funny, but basically just a standard romcom; I can't see anything that makes it exceptional. Also dislike seeing it held up against Ghostbusters to argue that "all-female casts are great if it's an ORIGINAL story". They're really not comparable. Pitch Perfect is a "chick flick"; it's based around characters, stories and themes that audiences are comfortable classing as something "for women" (female friendships, romances, etc.) Ghostbusters was not.
I recently did a re-watch of "The Crying Game" - and as films go that I think is overrated. It was the surprise sleeper hit of 1992 in the US - and got Oscar nominations and one Oscar as well for its screenplay. I think that was more down to the Miramax campaign by Harvey and co. Put aside the famous "twist"(which I sadly knew about before I watched the film), whilst I can appreciate that it's trying to do something different - it's sort of an adult drama about forbidden love - and there are some decent performances in it(Stephen Rea is very good - I can understand the Oscar nomination there, Jaye Davison as well and Miranda Richardson) - it just didn't seem as good as it was made out by a lot of people to be. I did find Forest Whittaker miscast - and I also fault that the dream sequences were a bit pretentious. I liked Neil Jordan's "Mona Lisa" - which has a similar sort of atmosphere(mixing fantasy with adult drama) - a lot better.
To be fair - Pitch Perfect only rates as 7.2 on IMDB (so basically above average).
Frozen is 7.6 - which for IMDB mean decents but not spectacular. For comparison, Inside Out is 8.3
People shouldn't mistake 'popular' with 'highly rated'.
It's not even the best Batman movie, let alone one of the greatest movies of all time.
It looked nice and was acted well but the plot was just run of the mill fare that genre tv were doing so much better.
American Beauty. It presented something that has already done in relation to the dysfunctions of white middle class lives in suburbia. The family, particularly the mother and father really should sit down and discuss their personal problems like adults and deal with their issues like mature adults.
I used to love American Beauty when I was 17/18 but now can't stand it. I just oozes pretentiousness to the point of being cringey.
Although I do see the merit and can watch it, I never really enjoyed it that much as a child. Watching it years later and it still didn't click the way other landmark films and best picture nominees do. Probably just me...
The Silence of the Lambs:
Made with class psychological thriller that doesn't gel at all because Foster's admittingly great and realitic performance is mixed with Hopkin's horror performance. Even without that issue I found it a bit 'meh' compared to its reputation.
Avatar:
Interesting in bits and pieces. Groundbreaking special effects too. Generally it left me cold and was possibly an hour too long considering the flatness of everything else. Felt like Cameron was trying to force an epic rather than have it develop organically.
Lost in Translation:
It might have had excellent performances and might have even been funny. I'm not sure because it just bored me to the point I don't even want to rewatch it.
I agree with you. I went to see it with Dad and step mother for his birthday. I really enjoyed it at the time. In fairness, some of the technical aspects of the film such as the screenplay and camera angles are very good. But when I watched it again, the characterisation of the main protagonists are highly irritating and derive no empathy. The narrative itself is very simplistic as well.
I look back and think to myself it is just a husband and wife both going through a mid life crisis.
Who says its the greatest movie of all time though?
The phrase 'It's only a movie' comes into play here.
I think claims of technical accuracy are exaggerated in such movies, and hyped up by the publicists to sell the movie. They take the 'realism' concept and buff that up into something that it isn't.
Because no film can nor will ever be 100% technically accurate. It's a movie, a story is being told (no matter how slight) and certain things need to happen to move that story along. There will be conceits, stretches of the imagination and almost certainly some artistic licence will be taken.
Essentially, the film 'looked' accurate and realistic, and I think that was the intention. It's a big budget, mainstream movie designed to appeal as many people as possible. It was not made to be shown to a bunch of NASA scientists and physicists.
if it was 100% technically accurate it would be a documentary, and not an entertaining movie.
My golden rule when watching movies is never listen to the hype, and certainly never believe it. If you go in expecting something and you don't get it, you will surely be disappointed.
Well that's pretty meaningless, and I personally never take any notice of either reviews or ratings on that site.
It's common knowledge that such entries are manipulated and falsified by rabid fans of certain movies and genres...they hype their favourite movies and get people to write false reviews and vote, both positive and negative.
And if you need convincing, just take a look at the comments section...there are some serious loons on that site.
Indeed I do, but it's not a good answer, in my humble opinion of course.
Members of the public, including a large proportion of nutters, giving their opinion on a website does not in anyway equate to the conclusion its 'one of the best movies of all time'.
Not wishing to get into a spat about this, just giving my opinion and reasoning on your comment, that's all.
For current films perhaps. For a film that is now over 8 years old it's very unlikely to still have people doing that and, like you say, there are a lot of people who counterbalance the ratings at the lower end of the scale as well.
As for the film itself, a lot of people were saying at the time of its release that it was not only one of the best superhero films ever but also one of the best films ever. A view that does still get repeated whenever there is a rundown of top 20 superhero films or the like on Channel 4/5.
Personal opinion is that it isn't even the best film in it's own series let alone of all time.
As for other overrated films, I would humbly suggest the first two Spider-Man films, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction and The Silence of the Lambs.
The Dark Knight was ranked the 15th greatest film in history on Empire's list of the "500 Greatest Movies of All Time," based upon the weighted votes of 10,000 readers, 150 film directors, and 50 key film critics.
Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker was also ranked number three on Empire's 2008 list of the "100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time."
In June 2010, the Joker was ranked number five on Entertainment Weekly's "100 Greatest Characters of the Last 20 Years".
Paste magazine named it one of the 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009), ranking it at number 6
The Dark Knight was included in American Cinematographer's "Best-Shot Film of 1998-2008" list.
In March 2011, the film was voted by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 1Xtra listeners as their eight favorite film of all time.
On the March 22, 2011 television special Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time, The Dark Knight was voted the second best film while the Joker, as portrayed by Ledger, was voted the third greatest film character.
In 2012, Total Film ranked The Dark Knight as the sixth most accomplished film of the past 15 years, writing that "Christopher Nolan's psycho-operatic crime drama was its decade's most exciting blockbuster – and its most challenging."
In 2014, Time Out polled several film critics, directors, actors and stunt actors to list their top action films.
In 2014, The Dark Knight was ranked the 3rd greatest film ever made on Empire's list of "The 301 Greatest Movies Of All Time" as voted by the magazine's readers.
The film was also included and ranked 57th on Hollywood's 100 Favorite Films, a list compiled by The Hollywood Reporter, surveying "Studio chiefs, Oscar winners and TV royalty".
The Dark Knight ranked 96th on BBC's "100 Greatest American Films" list, voted on by film critics from around the world.
It was also ranked the 23rd best film of the 21st century by 177 film critics, polled by BBC in 2016.
A good film but never understood why it so consistently gets voted best movie of all time.
Titanic.
A love story? If your a woman. If your a man it's a horror story, we all die😱
I get all that but they spent a lot of time 'getting stuff right' like the background stars then ruined it by some really basic errors that are unforgivable in a film that paid such attention to detail (or claimed to)