Overrated Movies - why do people like these so much?
Submitted by jenhowel on Tue, 02/20/2001 - 09:17
Tags:
- "Emma" - w. Gwyneth Paltrow. Love the book. Hate the movie.
- "Forrest Gump" - Message: Dumb people are better.
- "The Lion King" - Message: Monarchy is good.
- "The Little Mermaid" - Fully trashed my favorite childhood fairy tale.
- "Toy Story" - just wasn't amused.
- Anything with Tim Allen in it - The man grates on my nerves enormously.
- "Touch of Evil" - sure the filming's great, but why don't people just RUN AWAY from Orson Welles! He's really slow!
- "The Dreamlife of Angels" - critics are obsessed with this movie, that to me seems like a fairly unremarkable Gen-X movie only in French which fools us into thinking it's deeper than it is.
- "To Have and Have Not" - just finally watched this the other day and I was SO disappointed. Sure Lauren Bacall is hot and she and Bogart have chemistry, but please. There's like one good scene and listening to Bacall sing was painful.
- "Saving Private Ryan" - Battle scenes were very realistic. Great. What is the purpose of recreating gore on film? So young people will know "what it's like"? Viewing a film no matter how realistic will never show someone what it was like. And when you decide then to just tack on a plot that meanders and doesn't really have a message, why does that mean we all have to revere it as if the movie itself were a veteran?
- CITIZEN KANE - This will be a controversial one. But how can "The greatest movie ever made" NOT be overrated when naturally you or I may have a different opinion? Quite frankly though, it didn't affect my heart, mind or spirit. And what is the use of art if it doesn't do that?
- THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT - A good idea which would have been a great watch had I been under the illusion it was actually true. To be fair, I sat next to this nimrod in the theatre who kept complaining about how "low budget" it was. What a dufus.
- THE HOUSE OF MIRTH - This movie BLEW. I read the book; it's superb. The movie BLEW. Many critics thought it was outstanding and particularly praised the wooden theatrical performances. Man. What were they smoking?
- MEMENTO - A good movie, but c'mon, there's like a cult of people who think it's the best thing ever. It's a great concept with not a lot of heart behind it, which felt empty on the first viewing, and suffered more on the second.A clever movie, not a great one.
- A BEAUTIFUL MIND - Wonderful acting, some great moments, all wrapped up way too patly so as to assure it wouldn't be too difficult. Movies about schizophrenic mathematicians SHOULD be difficult.I will say, however, I was glad to see schizophrenia portrayed sympathetically, if disheartened that now people will think all schizophrenics can will themselves better.
- MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING - When people pour out of this film raving about how wonderful it is, I just want to yell "Have you never seen an independent film before? Have you only ever watched Hollywood blockbusters? Cause there's tons of movies out there just like this with as much heart and humor and better writing and acting to top it off?" I'm glad that everyone involved ended up with a blockbuster. But it's no "Monsoon Wedding", nor is it "The Wedding Banquet". Hopefully more of these will get a chance.
- "Chicago" - This movie was an empty husk. Sure, the husk was prettied up with lights and smoke and mirrors, but inside? Nothing. I was appalled that this movie was even nominated for best picture, let alone that it beat out such worthy competitors (particularly "The Pianist") for the prize. Some compared it to "Cabaret". But unlike "Cabaret", which showed the collapse of the decadent Weimar Republic in all its beauty and frivolity and commented successfully on how the artists ignored these changes and in some ways were complicit in their silence, "Chicago" shows only the shiny, selfish parade of decadence, without caring to say anything more. Sadly, in these times, that's about all people want. A mirror that holds up the least worthy aspects of ourselves, without thought, without comment, as long as the show can continue. To call "Chicago" a serious film is ridiculous.
- "Jeepers Creepers" - This movie was not that hyped as a general movie, but among horror fans I heard a lot of hype about this mediocre, ill-plotted, ridiculous special effected, gore-reliant picture. It was a B movie with decent actors.
Author Comments:
These are movies that I'm just sick of hearing about. The ones that win Oscars which should have gone to better movies - I.E. the year "Forrest Gump" beat out "Pulp Fiction". The ones that people say are so great, but really just seem mediocre acceptable versions of more daring and exciting films.
And a few that were good, but hey, what's going on with the overhype?
I've basically been burnt out on Gwyneth Paltrow as well. I just don't see what the fuss is about (and I didn't like Emma either). However, I did like Sliding Doors. You might consider giving that one a try. As for Forrest Gump, I wouldn't say that it was the best movie ever, but I don't think it was saying that dumb people are better or worse. It was simply a well written story about an ordinary man living an extraordinary life.
I didn't think that much of "Sliding Doors" either. I thought the concept was interesting, but could have been executed so much better. I'm picky, aren't I?
As to the "Forrest Gump" thing... I guess what I'm trying to say is that the virtue of the character in that movie seems to be his cluelessness and simplicity in an era of confusion and political drama. Sort of saying that not being aware of the 60's and 70's serves you better. I don't know. It's worth a discussion, certainly.
I don't think it's rational to disregard all movies just because you don't like a particular actor--in your case, ALL Gwyneth Paltrow movies. That's as bad as saying you like all movies with Dustin Hoffman, and he's been in some stinkers (think "Sphere").
I also don't agree with comparing the quality of books with the quality of movies (Emma). Apples and oranges-each try to accomplish different things using completely different methods.
I do agree with your assessment that "Forrest Gump" is overrated. But I'll have to agree with the first commentator that it's message is not "dumb people are better".
Certainly the Oscars have a history of overlooking certain films, but was "Pulp Fiction" REALLY the best film that year?
Regarding generalizing an actor, I'd have to agree. Just because you find someone uniformly wooden doesn't mean a movie can't succeed in spite of him/her (heck, sometimes lightning strikes twice).
While I appreciate the "apples and oranges" sentiment, and agree with it to a limited extent, I do believe it is possible for a movie to unforgiveably butcher a book. I don't personally think this was the case with Emma, but that's probably material for another post.
Oscar talk . . . I actually liked all the nominees that year, but wouldn't say any of them were candidates for "greatest movie ever made". But still, a fairly uniform crop. I'd have to rank 'em like so (based entirely on the arbitrary scale, "the order in which I would rewatch them"):
I actually think Quiz Show might be the best of the bunch, but it has the least rewatchability.
And yes, Forrest Gump was overrated, but I do think it has suffered unfairly (as much as a "best picture" can suffer, anyway) at the hands of the zealous "over-sentimentality must die" camp.
I'm not generalizing really. These are the Gwyneth Paltrow movies I've seen: Shakespeare in Love, A Perfect Murder, Emma, Sliding Doors. I thought all of those were overrated. I have not seen "Hard Eight" but probably will though I don't consider it a Paltrow movie in the same sense. To me, a Gwyneth Paltrow movie is one in which she has a major role or is considered a selling point. As to the book to movie thing. There are MANY MANY MANY books to movies I love, including "A Room With A View", "Howards End", the "Pride and Prejudice" mini-series, "Persuasion", "Fight Club", "Out of Africa", the list goes on and on. I think in this case the adaptation sucked. Even if Pulp Fiction wasn't, Shawshank should've taken Forrest out. Isn't it like everyone's favorite film?
I certainly don't want you to feel like you are being challenged on every little point, but I have to jump in here for just a moment . . . Do you really love the adaptation of "Out of Africa," or do you love the movie? It seems to me that including "Out of Africa" on your "books to movies that I love" list proves pbrice's point that books and movies are apples and oranges and yadda yadda. Please, read the book again and then see the movie. It's an extraordinary book and a lovely movie, but I wouldn't call the movie an adaptation of the book--they are not even the same story. And I couldn't agree with you more on the whole Forrest Gump thing. Nice movie, but come on.
As to the "Out of Africa" case, yes, that wasn't the best adaptation in that sense. But I didn't feel like the spirit of "Out of Africa" was interfered with in any way. Also it was trying to adapt more than that book. It was adapting Isaak Dinesen's life story as well, based on biographical and autobiographical accounts. It did that pretty well, and I didn't feel like the spirit of the storyteller was harmed. As to Emma. I don't know, maybe Austen didn't mean Emma to be an admirable character, but in the novel she came off as very clever, very witty and very independent, and in the movie she comes off as rather silly and childish. This disturbed me as I admired Emma above all the other Austen books. Also, the whole thing felt too "Storybook Gardens" for my tastes. Whereas other Austen adaptations stay true to the period in detail and feel "Persuasion" and "Pride and Prejudice" particularly, this one felt like a fairytale. I even prefer the other "Emma" adaptation made for A&E to this picture-perfect rendition. And, well, Paltrow just always manages to gum up my works.
Also more books to movies examples - "Prospero's Books" based on The Tempest by Shakespeare, "The Age of Innocence", "Eyes Wide Shut","Henry and June", "Ethan Frome" w. Patricia Arquette and Liam Neeson (a great film!), 1997's "Lolita" not Kubrick's. There's a lot to say about what makes a good book to film translation. One- the reason I like Lyne's Lolita and not Kubrick's has less to do with a play-by-play similarity to the plot than with the mood conveyed by both works. Lyne's Lolita preserves the perversity, tension, lust, darkness and lightness to perfection, while Kubrick makes the whole thing seem overly comic like some kind of slapstick film about pedophiles, which Nabokov's novel was NOT.
Also, I love "Bram Stoker's Dracula", even though it added events that were clearly not in the novel. To me it took what was beneath the surface (sexuality and lots of it) and brought it forth.
I guess to me what's important is that the mood of the novel be preserved first and foremost.
Secondly the integrity of the characters.
Thirdly the plot itself.
If the mood and characters are preserved the plot is not as important to me. Parts can be chopped and added. Anyway it's a lot harder to convey a mood than an action from one medium to another.
Finally, two spare moments strung together so that I can discuss this without rushing too much. And I've been looking forward to this discussion, as you've hit on three favorites of mine :-) . . .
Emma: If you're judging the movie independently of the book, I don't really see how it can merit hatred. But if you are just comparing to the book, I can't help, as I didn't read it. I am perhaps the worst English major ever. As for the movie itself, good character development and growth, engaging story (wouldn't expect anything less, given the source), quite funny (especially on repeat viewings - the more I see it, the more I catch), and it has Juliet Stevenson in it, who is marvelous.
Shakespeare in Love: It begins and ends with the script. Tom Stoppard is no slouch. Even had the-powers-that-be handed this script off to a bunch of hacks it would have made a decent movie. But since everyone involved aced it, the result was a wonderful piece of work. A thoroughly entertaining extended riff on scraps of history and fiction. How could you not love a movie with such a high Shakespeare-in-jokes/minute ratio? Heck, even without the in-jokes the whole thing was an extended homage to Shakespeare's plays without being too in-your-face about it (the gender stuff alone would have made Shakespeare proud). And they somehow, miraculously, resisted the urge to stick on a neat, tidy, happy ending. Here's the review I'm trying to write.
Toy Story: I'm going to have to assume your opinion was unduly influenced by your Tim Allen issues. I really can't think of a thing I'd change about this movie. Fine characters perfectly realized by the voice actors. Excellent toy nostalgia. Good villians. Good lessons ("play nice"). Wonderful "buddy film" chemistry between Woody and Buzz. Perfect vision of not only what it must be like to be a (boy's) toy, but what it is like to be a kid that knows exactly where you left your toys, and yet can't find them. Funny ("the claw!"). Touching (Buzz learning the truth, Woody coming to terms with his jealously). Great movie. Even if it didn't amuse you, it has so much more than mere amusement to offer.
As to Emma, I'm not saying it sucked, just that it's overrated and the other Austen adaptations far exceed it in all the qualities you mentioned. ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY the A&E Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. They took the most beloved Austen book and stayed absolutely true to it. And every performance is a treasure.
As to Shakespeare in Love, I liked it, but didn't love it. And it didn't merit a Best Picture award or Judi Dench's supporting actress by any means. Witticisms aside I found the story fairly unbelievable, the chemistry limited to they're both hot, so of course..., and the ending somewhat ludicrous. If ever a happy ending was called for! If they're so in love!?! Whatever. It just didn't do it for me. I'd much rather watch an adaptation of any of the Bard's own works.
Toy Story - saw it, was highly underwhelmed. Don't even think much of it as a kid's movie. Maybe it's because (a) I'm a girl and this whole movie felt very "boy" (b) I don't have toy nostalgia for the same toys. I played with Barbies, blocks, the bugs outside, but mostly my own imagination. (c) I didn't care about Buzz and Woody's relationship (d) I didn't care about much of anything.
Please don't think that this means I don't have any sentimental feelings or hate kids' movies. Neither is true. "It's a Wonderful Life" has made me cry, so has "The Color Purple". Others as well.
And as to kids' movies "Labyrinth" is one of my all-time favorites. I love "Goonies" and "The Dark Crystal" and "Willy Wonka", and "The Secret of Nimh". I even liked "A Bug's Life". I think "Beauty and the Beast" was great. But "Toy Story". Nothing. Feel nothing. Just some guys thinking they're funny and selling toys.
Hi jenhowel, I just rediscovered this conversation since I was looking for the Toy Story comments to incorporate into a list of mine. Even where we disagree, I can understand where you're coming from with your response here. And I just gave my wife the A&E Pride and Prejudice DVD, so we should be watching that soon. I'll be sure to post a review!
I agree with Jim completely on Toy Story. I also think it has a lot to offer; granted the toys are boy toys, the owner is a boy. Vicious Sid is highly sadistic, therefore the name Sid. I really believe the film captured what a toy's concerns would be: wanting to be played with and bonding with the community (other toys). The voices of the actors: Hanks, Allen, John Ratzenberg, Don Rickles. Mr. Potato Head, Speak and Spell, Slinky (dog), Etch a Sketch, Barrel of Monkeys, pull strings all represent major toy nostalgia. The great lines: "ages 3 and up", "cannibal toys", "the claw", "laser envy", Dinosaur throwing up, there's definitely many more. The great sequences: plastic soldier mission, revenge on Sid, the room changing from representing Woody to Buzz, the opening showing how Andy plays with them, and again, countless more. The creators of this film obviously put a lot of thought, energy, and creativity, in making possibly the best all around animated Disney; I really like Beauty & the Beast as well.
Forrest Gump is a good choice for your list, but I think that Aliens also deserves some recognition here. Although it's a good movie, it is certainly not great. It has way too many problems and flaws to be considered one of the all time great movies.
You're the second person to claim Aliens as overrated (I think lbangs was the other, and I think he might have also used the word "flawed", but I could be wrong). But so far you've both spoken in general terms. What are the specific problems/flaws you perceive?
One of the largest flaws that stands out is the ending, which is basically a retread of the original's ending. I'll say no more about that to avoid being a spoiler, but anybody who has seen both films knows what I mean. Also, Cameron's tin ear infects the script with troubled dialogue, especially where the space marines talk more like a 12 year old imagines a marine might talk like than how a true marine would talk. He also shoots himself a bit in the foot by creating an action film with many aliens. The mass amount of alien carnage quickly lowers the terror the original had established with simply one alien. I have no problem with it being an action film, but a bit more prudence may have kept the aliens even more frightening. Additionally, a few of the actions scenes could have been directed a bit better.
Still, I like the film. There are some nice action scenes, Cameron does know how to build up a story slowly, and I for one had no problem with the young girl and her relationship to Ripley. I still believe the first one is better, and I believe Aliens to be over-rated because it seems to appear on quite a few favorite-of-all-time lists (I haven't counted, but I seem to see it listed more than, say, Citizen Kane). IMO it is a good, not a great, film.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I really enjoyed the suspense of the first film, but in Aliens the exceeding amount of explosions and aliens and shoddy manner in which all the action was just jumbled together took away alot of the excitement and suspense. Another point(although very minor) that bothered me concerned a scene with the marines. The marines were situated inside a closed room, while they watched their tracking device which indicated that the aliens were several meters away. The marines fretted, not comprehending where the aliens could possibely be. Of course the aliens were not on the same floor. The sheer stupidity of the marines in that scene greatly bothered me. Also I hated the finale, with the "queen" alien. That was just ridiculous. Anyways, the greatest disappointment was the lack of suspense. It was still an enjoyable movie, just not as good as the first. Anyways, since this is a Cameron film, that gets me thinking. Do you want to see a horrible movie? I bet you do. Check out the Abyss, a terrible Cameron flick that will make you beg for the end(especially if you get the director's cut like me).
I admire the audacity of calling Citizen Kane overrated and I even agree that living with the greatrst movie ever made label only begs for for the overrated moiker but to say the movie did not affect your mind, heart or spirit is one bold statement. Of course, everyone has different reactions but I know my heart and mind is very much in use whenever I see this wonderful film.
Of course you lambaste Forrest Gump so all is forgiven. Even the silly things you say about Touch of Evil.
But Orson Welles IS really slow! That was all I could think of through the whole movie (well that and the fact that Charlton Heston is in no way Hispanic). It ruined all the suspense for me. And it pisses me off when women in movies are such absolute idiots.
Let's start with the Lion King, to say the message is simply that Monarchy is good is rather naive and shortsighted. The main message of the Lion King is to never forget who you are and where you came from, I can never turn my back on my family, the way I raised, who my people are, etc., I could try my whole life to and it would never happen. That is the true message of the Lion King, hence the fact that its one of the most beloved disney movies ever made, of course Disney makes politcally correct crap most of the time these days and The Lion King was the last attempt at breaking this mold and was wildy successful.
Saving Private Ryan- Barring the completely gimmick ridden story (which Spielburg is notorious for) the action alone set the bar for all war movies in terms of action/realism for future war movies. As for the whole purpose of recreating gore on film, again this is a rather odd argument, why put anything on film then? Why do young people need to see love? To know what its like? Until you fall in love you never know what its like so therefore why make any romance movies, or why make movies at all? Your right about the story, its plain stupid. But the action and the way the soldiers act in defending each other from danger is well worth watching, a great first 25 minute scene in the beach landing makes this movie worth watching by itself.
I'm totally with you on Saving Private Ryan! The first 30 minutes are genius, and worth the price of admission alone. Truth be told, I liked the rest of the story too.
However, I'd really didn't like The Lion King (yes, I'm one of the five people on the planet that didn't). I've been rewatching some of Disney's great "comeback" movies of the 90s with my daughter, and I'm really starting to wonder if those movies weren't elevated from "high mediocrity" to greatness by individual heroics alone. Beauty & the Beast is great on all levels, but without Ashman & Menken I'm thinking The Little Mermaid would have suffered greatly. So too would Aladdin, although less so because of Robin Williams' individual heroics. In The Lion King you can witness this effect first-hand. Some might call it the "Phil Collins Effect", but I'm gonna call it the "Howard Ashman Died Effect." It lacks the individual genius that elevated the previous movies, and I'd rank it the worst of the "comeback" movies, even if it raked in the most moolah.
PC Rant spoilerized. Read on only if you're prepared to have your anti-PC blood boil. :-) Also, I have daughters, so it really pisses me off that a whole friggin' pack of lionesses (the ones that do the actual hunting) sit around and mope under Scar's rather scrawny thumb, watch the jungle go to pot, and wait for deliverance from our hero. I've personally come to terms with that crap for the Disney movies of the 40s through 70s, and am starting to appreciate those movies for the genius they represent (particularly Snow White and Sleeping Beauty), but I expect better of my women now.
Heh. When I first saw your warning, I thought your post was about the battle between Macs and PCs. I was wondering why you posted it on this particular list...
YES!!!!! I just made the same point about the lionesses! That pissed me off so badly!
"Beauty and the Beast" is my favorite Disney film, in large part because the heroine is smart and brave, and doesn't feel the need to take off most of her clothes.
Wow, Jim, the site has gotten very active in my absence, and I really dig the new features. Good on you!, as they say in Australia!
- Jen
Thanks Jen! Beauty & the Beast is easily my favorite Disney, and was my favorite animated movie, but it was recently knocked off by Grave of the Fireflies (the two may oscillate in the 1/2 spots over the coming years). Spirited Away is way up there too, if you haven't seen that one yet. Nice to see you back here!
I can understand your points, but I can't feel them, if you know what I mean. "The Lion King", to me, clearly glorified the monarchy. That's point A. Scar, who is the villain of the piece, has a very good point - why should this scrappy little lion who "just can't wait to be king" be the king when Scar is superior in intelligence? Granted, Scar is wrong to cause his brother's death, but the whole system of monarchy is so arbitrary. It was shocking to me that an American movie would glorify the monarchical system.
Secondly, the movie is so goddamn sexist. In the actual lion kingdom the females do all the hunting and actual action, but in this movie we're led to believe that a bunch of female lions would be cowed by three lousy hyenas. Yeah, right. The male lions would be taking a nap. But Disney isn't exactly up there on the forefront of feminism.
Finally, about those hyenas. Disney pooh-poohed the comment that it seemed racist that the hyenas all had "ethnic" voices, but hey... wait a second, they do. All exaggeratedly so, too. James Earl Jones did play the King, so that softens the blow a bit, but Jones has always sounded sort of upper class and godlike, whereas the hyenas all have "street" voices. So at the very least, the movie reeked of classism to me.
Yeah, the whole movie was just so fraught with "wrongness" to me, that no good could come of it. Perhaps the most Republican Disney movie ever made.
Ah, and I forgot about "Ryan". But as to "Why put anything on film then?" I think gore on film can be instructive and artful. "A Clockwork Orange" is a good example of this. But when there is no compelling story, no context, it's just gore. I didn't even find it entertaining, and at least a slasher flick entertains. I think that Spielberg failed, and was heartily surprised that others disagreed. I felt not like I was watching a battle sequence, but that I was watching Spielberg showing me a battle sequence. I also think that war, violence, and the glorificantion of battle in this film (yes World War II was a noble war as wars go, but why glorify battle at all?) was fairly simplistic. "A Thin Red LIne" was a much more compelling and complex war film that came out the same year. I'm sorry it never got its due.
In many ways, though, our differences are probably philosophical and political as opposed to cultural. So we will probably just have to agree to disagree!
- Jen
"... in this movie we're led to believe that a bunch of female lions would be cowed by three lousy hyenas. Yeah, right. The male lions would be taking a nap."
Well, I haven't seen the 'Lion King' but I believe if you watch the National Geographic documentary 'Lions and Hyenas: Eternal Enemies', you'll see just how wrong these comments are. Plus it's the best nature film ever - the only one that makes me both cry and jump out of my chair cheering.
tdunnie
The point I was making was more that the female lions wouldn't be uniquely cowed by the hyenas, since in "The Lion King" one male lion is all that's needed to end the hyena's reign, even though there are many more female lions.
It wasn't a commentary on lions' abilities to cow hyenas in general, of which I know little.
What I learned from the documentary I mentioned:
A. Female lions can be cowed by hyenas - apart from male lions, hyenas are about the only thing that *can* cow a lioness.
B. It only takes one male lion to send the hyenas running. The size and strength difference between male and female lions explains this.
C. Neither lions nor hyenas can talk :)
So apart from point C, it sounds like a realistic depiction of the natural history of lions and hyenas.
tdunnie
Well, perhaps Disney is not as evil as I thought. However, I still hate the movie, for other reasons. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if lions or hyenas tallk after their own fashion, however. Though I doubt they waste time singing songs about being king of the jungle, or some such nonsense!
Oh sure, disabuse me of a long-held misconception! :-) I've have to check that documentary out (if I can find it to rent somewhere).