Overrated Movies - the first installment
Submitted by DaveMog on Tue, 02/20/2001 - 09:16
Tags:
- “Philadelphia” Anyone who ever considered this a breakthrough film about AIDS and discrimination of homosexuals was obviously watching something different from the formulaic courtroom drama that I saw. Tom Hanks is a great actor, but the famous scene in which his character acts out the emotion of an opera he listens to on a stereo is such a manipulative diatribe that it is nearly farcical, and certainly a waste of talent. Mary Steenbergen is at her very worst in this well-intentioned movie that, in avoiding true issues and true emotional range, turns out to be nothing more than hypocritical nonsense.
- “Amistad” Yet another formulaic courtroom drama that shies away from the very serious subject matter it is supposedly tackles. Huge waste of talent in this film, especially Morgan Freeman, whose character is essentially unessential, and Anthony Hopkins, whose big scene during which he argues the Amistad case before the Supreme Court is yet more emotionally-manipulating drivel. The opening scene of the Amistad insurrection is breathtakingly beautiful and compelling, but after that, when the endless court scenes take over, so does the boredom. And when boredom kicks in, how is one ever to feel disgusted with the atrocities of slavery and sympathize with its helpless, innocent victims? As an added bonus, this has one of the very worst endings of any movie I have ever seen – Spielberg run amok, unable to stop filming.
- “Titanic” James Cameron should learn a lesson from his very own script in this film. He obviously criticizes the pretentiousness of so-called high class society, and illustrates through Jack Dawson the beauty and happiness that comes out of a more humble and spontaneous attitude toward life. Or that love and a lust for living hold no economic and social bounds. Yet here is a film, the most expensive to produce to this date, and not even the special effects are good. The awful chroma-key shots somehow squeezed through the final edit, the characters’ breath isn’t seen unless they are talking, and the ship is sinking on what is very obviously a stage set. The detail of the ship is beautiful, but the broad strokes are seriously lacking. Big budget does not a better movie make.
- "Eyes Wide Shut” It is difficult for me to slam a film by a director whose work I admire so much, but I do so for good reason with this lesson in ennui. My main criticism of this film is that for some reason Kubrick decides to have Sydney Pollack’s character sit in his billiard room and proceed to explain the entire movie to Tom Cruise, and hence the audience. I can't stand movies that hold their audiences in such low regard, that treat them as if they are so mentally inept to be unable to understand plot, action, theme, subtext, etc. On the comedy side, later Mel Brooks movies are particularly egregious in this respect. For a director who has been so skillful with subtext in his films (2001, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus), this change in attitude, especially for his final film, is not a proper culmination of his distinguished ouerve.
- “The Matrix” Once Keanu Reeves’ character (and, thus, the audience) discovers the true reality of his existence, the movie is all downhill from there. Great look, great effects, but there is too much narration from Laurence Fishbourne. It is a bad sign when you have to get one of the characters to explain everything that is happening. What happened to figuring it out on your own? What happened to letting action and dialogue tell the story? The problem is that in giving Reeves so few lines (which is a good thing, mind you), someone had to get too many. Please stop explaining things to me.
- “A Simple Plan” This film has all the potential to be great, and I thought I would have enjoyed it. But Bill Paxton’s and Bridget Fonda’s awful performances in it bring the whole thing down like if Kevin Costner and Melanie Griffith had been cast. The story and execution are good – and Billie Bob “Jolie” Thornton is phenomenal (as good as in “Sling Blade,” probably better) – but the aforementioned actors are so thoroughly unconvincing that it makes you wonder who else was at the casting call. A real shame, this one.
- “Scent of a Woman” I love Pacino, but I hated this movie. Too long. Too Boring. Very calculated and full of cliché, this film plays the sympathy card with its lead character, and gives a otherwise well-deserved actor a pathetically gimmicky forum for an insta-Oscar (which he did win). Awful ending. I expected him to say the whole court was out of order again.
- “Star Trek IV: The Journey Home” Not all the even-numbered movies are good, as evidenced by this shameless attempt at an environmental theme. It is pretty funny, more than most of the Star Trek movies, but the incredible ridiculousness of the plot just completely overwhelms this one for me. A space probe that communicates with humpback whales?????
Author Comments:
I have recently deleted a snippet on Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, since I agree with Jim that it suffers from overhype and is not really overrated.
Excepting the Matrix, I agree with each film on your list. I may quibble with a few details, but why? Your aim is true, and most of these films deserved a hit or two.
I have a love / hate relationship with science fiction films. I hate the vast majority of them, and I only tend to like one every five years or so. That one I like, however, I tend to like quite a bit. The Matrix is the most recent one I enjoyed, perhaps the first since The City of Lost Children. The seamless integration of effects with the look and story of the film is a sterling example that other sci-fi films should learn from. The plot is not the greatest, but the film is indeed one continuous journey down the rabbit hole, and the film's storyline held together enough for me to enjoy it on that level.
Luckily, Philadelphia's reputation seems to be fading a bit with time, and I don't recall Amistad being that warmly received to begin with. Perhaps there is hope.
Great list.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Consider me baited. :)
Philadelphia: Why doesn't it qualify as the breakthrough film about AIDS and discrimination against homosexuals? My memory is hazy at best, but even if it wasn't the first, wasn't it the first mainstream one? Also, you've reopened a Listology can of worms that wasn't satisfactorily resolved for me the last time it came up. Check out the Pleasantville discussion here. Aren't all movies emotionally manipulative? Why is it that only some movies get called on it? Sure, there's the "cheap imitation" vs. "the real thing" argument, but I've always found that a little thin.
I haven't seen either Amistad or Eyes Wide Shut, so I can't comment on them directly. However, part of the reason I haven't seen them is that the reviews were so mixed. Even so, maybe they are overrated, which really makes them bad news. :)
I liked Titanic quite a bit, but agree that it was overrated. My complaint is largely with the dialog, however.
The Matrix: see Titanic.
A Simple Plan: Regarding Paxton and Fonda, I think we were watching two different movies on this one. I thought they were both terrific. My only complaint with their characters would be the rapidity of their descents. But that's a script issue.
I liked Scent of a Woman, but I don't know if I can mount a credible defense in good conscience.
Last but not least, picking on any Star Trek movie for plot seems like reaching. :) But I'd agree that this one was particularly far-fetched. However, IV was by far the most character-driven of the bunch, and I enjoyed that. Also, of all the movies, I thought it best captured the feel of the TV episodes (I guess one take that point as a negative :).
I'll try to tackle a few of these points.
Philadelphia - I believe he is alluding to the fact that this 'breakthrough' film didn't really do much examining of AIDS or gay lifestyles. It did make a point about discrimination, but it hid behind this one, fairly safe issue, and avoided any truly confrontational glimpses into being gay or suffering from AIDS. Not that it had to do this to be a good film, but perhaps it needed to in order to be the 'breakthrough' it was hailed as.
As for emotional manipulation, a term I avoid, I believe most people sling this phrase about when the film is using questionable means to achieve an emotional reaction not earned through the story, characters, or other integral elements of the film. That darned swelling music omnipresent in most mainstream films is one of the reasons Hollywood has trouble making good dramas nowadays. The music cues people on how to feel instead of simply allowing them to feel it. This isn't as obtrusive in, say, an action film, but it can ruin attempts at realism or moving moments by either pointing out a film's artifice or over-loading an otherwise touching scene. Always using the term, 'emotional manipulation' as a negative term is perhaps a bit inprecise, but I do usually know what folks are getting at when they use the term.
I largely agree with your assessment of Titanic. The dialogue troubled me much more than some of the fake effects.
As for Simple Plan, that was one of those details I decided not to quibble over. I had some trouble with Paxton's performance, but my main trouble was with the script and direction. The direction, especially, was oddly overloaded with embarrassing attempts at visual symbolism that pulled several chuckles from me in the theater, which surely was not Rammi's intent. My agreeing with this film on the list was mostly agreeing that the film was indeed over-rated by many.
Ah well, there's a few comments. I must admit, I love these over-rated lists.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Excellent point regarding Philadelphia hiding behind the relatively safe issue of discrimination (which is probably also what Dave was getting at with his "avoiding true issues" comment).
And thanks for your comments on "emotional manipulation." Quite helpful to me. Although I do still have trouble drawing the line between acceptable nudges and not. Mostly my problem is that I figure for the cheap tricks to work, you have to already be drawn in. No amount of swelling music is going to bring a tear to my eye unless I already care about the character. And once caring about the character/story has happened, I find it very hard to distinguish between a cheap trick and and a powerful moment (and if I don't care, both are laughable, so it's obvious :). An example that leaps to mind from Platoon: When DaFoe's character is gunned down, many thought that a powerful scene. But the slow-motion riddling of his body, the swelling music - are those cheap tricks or powerful effects? I don't think one can make (I know I can't) a quanifiable judgement. I already cared about his character, and I didn't need those effects to be saddened by his death, but they did serve to increase the impact. So is that good or bad?
Anyway, I too love these "overrated" lists. I have to post something urging folks to create more. Speaking of which, when is installment two coming, Dave?
Your concerns are pretty much why I avoid the term. Either you are drawn in by what I dubbed the 'essential elements' and tend to be affected by the music, slow motion, et al., or you haven't been touched and find such effects terribly cheesy and / or manipulative. It's all manipulative, only some seems more obvious and desparate than others. I usually prefer to critique whatever weaknesses the film has that prevents me from being drawn in and then hammer away at the swelling music rather than simply label the film manipulative. I completely understand where you're coming from, and I tend to agree.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I have heard of, but not seen, a movie that really sounds like it tackles the AIDS issue in a very interesting way. The film's title is "Blue," and apparently the screen stays solid blue for 90 minutes while a man dying of AIDS talks about what it is like to be dying from such a disease. I do not know whether it also about being gay - the person narrating may not be gay - but the solid background is there to prevent misconceptions people have about the disease. Instead it goes directly to the humanity of the people who suffer from it, gay or not, and the fact that it is SUFFERING, and that it affects families and emotions in fundamental ways. A lot of homophobic people in this country discount gay people as being genetic mistakes, and lose the fact that AIDS, no matter how transmitted, is still a disease that kills people that do not deserve to die. Has anyone else heard of or seen this movie? I would love to see it and hear from those who may have seen it.
Anyway, that is a movie about AIDS, it sounds like. Not the Hollywood Schlock that is "Philadelphia."
The director is Derek Jarman, and he was gay. He died from AIDS in 1994. Blue was released in 1993 and is constantly confused with an installment of the Three Colors trilogy.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Have you seen it?
No, like yourself, I have only heard about it. I'll have to catch it sometime when I'm in the mood to stare at a blue screen for an hour or two. ;)
On a light note, I can imagine a confused customer wondering if the sequel, White, would be simply a white screen the entire movie!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I am quite impressed with your breadth of knowledge. It is too bad you have not included a personal statement about yourself so we can find out who you are.
Thanks! I haven't included any personal information because I do not wish to bore everyone to tears. Perhaps I'll add some information soon; surely at least age and gender wouldn't hurt!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I have a thought/comment on the emotional manipulation thread running through here, and just wondered about some opinions. I had to write a paper once on Psycho and I remember that, for me, the use of music by Hitchcock, especially whenever the characters were moving through the house, really established the mood and the suspense of the movie. Without the music, I don't know if the movie would have had nearly the same impact for me. I understand not liking the use of swelling music to "force" the audience to feel some emotion, but how does that differ from Hitchcock's use of it in Psycho to generate suspense?
I'm just curious as to what people feel here.
This is why I used the definitions I did. No doubt, the music plays a dramatic role in the maddeningly suspenseful Psycho; however, Hitchcock also made sure he didn't rely solely on the music to generate any thrills. He spent nearly an hour following Janet, slowly allowing the sense of eerie dread to develop to the extremely effective shower scene. Other scenes are also built up with elements that the music compliments but does not substitute for.
Interestingly, Hitchcock seems to have considered using no music during the shower scene, and the DVD for Psycho includes the sequence sans music. It is still very chilling, although I prefer the film's use of music in the scene.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Thanks for your input, L. Bangs. After reading your post and nadine's post below as well, I think I understand better what people are saying when they say the music was used too heavy handedly or was too noticable.
Well-
#1 I guess I agree with everyone-- movies are meant to be emotionally manipulative. I've directed a lot of live theatre, and one actually has to think a lot about how to get the reaction you want out of the audience. -- and I've used a lot of music to do it. BUT, the movies we seem to criticize for being emotionally manipulative are those ones where we can percieve that we're being manipulated, and that makes us feel used and like we are being intellectually underestimated
#2 Philedelphia probably was one of the first "mainstream" gay film, but it had little to do with being gay and everything to do with being discriminated against. In that, it is to me very similar to Lillian Hellman's The Children's Hour, in which two spinster school teachers lose their livlihood and really their whole lives after being accused of being lesbians. Again, this movie is really about something other than lesbianism, it is about the power of lies. I think that a great breakthrough would have been for such a mainstream actor as Tom Hanks to play a gay love scene, but it was too soon.
3.I think I'm the only person who enjoyed Titanic. I didn't see it in the theatre because it was so popular I felt sure it was awful. I saw it a few months ago expecting the worst, and liked it. Their are some horrible parts, but all in all I found it much better than I expected it to be. I guess if your expecting horrible, OK seems pretty good.
Also good points (see my response to lbangs above). And you're not alone in liking Titanic. I liked it AND think it was overrated. :)
I had the advantage of seeing The Phantom Menace well after it had been savaged by every critic and his/her grandmother. Based on the lambasting it took, I'd have to put in on an underrated list rather than an overrated one ("over-anticipated" certainly, but I don't see how it's possible for this one to be overrated). Sure, it was the worst of the four, but it wasn't nearly as bad as everybody said (or maybe my expectations had been so thoroughly battered that I cut it too much slack). I hated Jar Jar too, but I would have loved him at seven (my age when A New Hope came out). I think this movie suffered critically because it was just a big set up for what is to come (and because of Jar Jar).
And I must say your disenchantment with the rest of the movie must have colored your perception of light saber duel, which was excellent. One of the best action scenes in any of the series.
An interesting issue is raised here. A person's perception of a movie is affected by the hype surrounding it. So, the two ways to enjoy a movie that is over-hyped or over-rated, is to see it opening night, without having seen many (or any) ads, or to wait until enough people complain about it that you expect the worst. I saw Titanic opening night, having avoided the ads like the plague. I was very impressed, but am completely tired of it now because of all the talk surrounding it. I will be happy if I never hear the title again. However, for 3 hours I was entertained and unmuddied by public opinion.