Overrated films that people seem to think are a great but really are not

Oranage2

The commitments - yes I said, never got the hype.

quickbeam

I LOVE The Blues Brothers. Great music, and plenty of belly laughs even after repeat viewings. So judge me!

is_that_so

Oranage2 wrote: »

The commitments - yes I said, never got the hype.

It's very 1980s Dublin, grim and not much to look forward to but like The Blues Brothers really great music!

H3llR4iser

Avatar all the way. Stupid plot, idiotic characters, unlikeable "good characters" except maybe for someone with a "cat people" fetish, and unbelievably imbecilic motivations - like some said, big hero screws human race to tap some alien ass.

Only time I've ever actually dozed off briefly in the cinema - and I've been made to watch unspeakable heaps of burning rubbish like Twilight.

I mean, even the names - seriously, the planet is named "Pandora"? And the substance "Unobtanium"? I was expecting for McGuffin to pop up as well, but it didn't. No reason or plot point is given - what's this "substance" used for? You know...it is just something shiny that humans like and value, or is it the base for a population-saving drug or maybe a booster for a famine ending crop? It makes a MASSIVE difference.

And even the acclaimed "visuals"...looked slightly better than pre-rendered cutscenes from videogames - which is the minimum you should expect, given the budget. I guess all the people going "aaaahh oooohhh" had never seen a game.

arcticmonkeys

glasso wrote: »

agreed.

Loved "Midsommar" though.

But some people seem to be vice-versa on these two movies.

Im with you, loved Midsommar but thought Hereditary was just about decent... not a bad movie by any means, I just think my expectations where too high walking into it.

Rothko

Deleted User wrote: »

White people steal black people's music and wear sunglasses indoors. Agreed - music is fantastic though.

Oh, please :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

Oranage2 wrote: »

The commitments - yes I said, never got the hype.

Ah here! I learnt to curse properly because of that film. Plus, Imelda Quirke was a ride!

odyssey06

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ah here! I learnt to curse properly because of that film. Plus, Imelda Quirke was a ride!

It's "Ride, Sally Ride" not "Roy-ed Sal-lee Roy-ed".

Very entertaining film have watched it couple of times and have the soundtrack on heavy rotation for a while.
It's not just rated here.

Such it's not a masterpiece but American film critic Roger Ebert gave it three stars out of four:
"a loud, rollicking, comic extravaganza about a rock band from the poorest precincts of North Dublin that decides to play soul music."

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-commitments-1991

Church on Tuesday

The Birds.

I like Hitchcock but The Birds is quite possibly the most overrated film of all time.

Also, Casino and Raging Bull did nothing for me and I love Scorsese/de Niro.

Odhinn

"Tenet" - left me cold for some reason. Not "i WANT MY MONEY BACK" bad, but certainly not seeing why it got praise that it did.

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

The Birds.

I like Hitchcock but The Birds is quite possibly the most overrated film of all time.

Also, Casino and Raging Bull did nothing for me and I love Scorsese/de Niro.

Casino was decent.

Raging Bull is very over-rated. Very. Seemed interminably long when I watched it.

tommyombomb

Too many pages to read but assume Anchorman has already been mentioned. It has some funny bits but nowhere near the hype

faffingaround

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A Few Good Men.

Watched it recently and apart from the iconic "you can't handle the truth" scene, the rest of it is quite dull. And I think Nicholson and Cruise are among my favourite actors but. Maybe in the 90's I would have loved it.

Bit harsh bear! If anything it’s underrated! Not in the top 250 movies on IMD. Didn’t win an Oscar and Roger Ebert was far from glowing. I don’t think I have ever heard it in a conversation for favorite movies.

Think the acting is sensational and the cast is top class. Say what you want about Tom Cruise but his performance in this is brilliant.

whisky_galore

Hangdogroad wrote: »

Repped on the Guard. I thought it had an interesting concept and Brendan Gleeson puts in a great performance but it went down a very cartoonish route. In fact I think MacDonagh is hugely overated in general with his cartoon sub-Guy Ritchie gangsters and tiresome racial politics shoehorned into every film.

Haven't seen YO film.

YO is only alright, only mildly amusing. How they thought they could flog a series out of it, god knows.

Had expected more from the Guard, but yes, cartoonish paddywhackery, like a badly written Fr Ted episode without a laugh track or many laughs.

limnam

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's "Ride, Sally Ride" not "Roy-ed Sal-lee Roy-ed".

Very entertaining film have watched it couple of times and have the soundtrack on heavy rotation for a while.
It's not just rated here.

Such it's not a masterpiece but American film critic Roger Ebert gave it three stars out of four:
"a loud, rollicking, comic extravaganza about a rock band from the poorest precincts of North Dublin that decides to play soul music."

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-commitments-1991

He gave Scarface 4 stars.

odyssey06

limnam wrote: »

He gave Scarface 4 stars.

IMDB gives it 8.3 from 700,000 votes so he's not alone.

His zero star reviews are hilarious I think there's a book of them

gormdubhgorm

All the Star Wars ones after the first three -
Phantom Menace awful script. Natalie Portman was like a talking plank - zero charisma.
Had a talking donkey in it or something.

Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones - another plank appears Hayden Christensen - zero charisma again.


Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith - same stuff with a bit better action but the bar was set low.

I got to honest to me Star Wars is a very slow moving, pretentious Star Trek.

Capt'n Midnight

quickbeam wrote: »

I LOVE The Blues Brothers. Great music, and plenty of belly laughs even after repeat viewings. So judge me!

Apparently some musicians have cameos in it. Or so I'm told.

I may have to watch it again to see if I can spot them


Yer man going "boom boom boom boom" wasn't that a bit repetitive ?

fly_agaric

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Avatar all the way. Stupid plot, idiotic characters, unlikeable "good characters" except maybe for someone with a "cat people" fetish, and unbelievably imbecilic motivations - like some said, big hero screws human race to tap some alien ass.

Only time I've ever actually dozed off briefly in the cinema - and I've been made to watch unspeakable heaps of burning rubbish like Twilight.

I mean, even the names - seriously, the planet is named "Pandora"? And the substance "Unobtanium"? I was expecting for McGuffin to pop up as well, but it didn't. No reason or plot point is given - what's this "substance" used for? You know...it is just something shiny that humans like and value, or is it the base for a population-saving drug or maybe a booster for a famine ending crop? It makes a MASSIVE difference.

And even the acclaimed "visuals"...looked slightly better than pre-rendered cutscenes from videogames - which is the minimum you should expect, given the budget. I guess all the people going "aaaahh oooohhh" had never seen a game.

Going to support Avatar a bit...it has gotten a few mentions as overrated (maybe that is fair in terms of the heaps of praise it got and all the awards it won).
The plot is simple, nothing special about script or acting either.

I do think the Avatar visuals / CGI were extremely good at the time (unsure how it stands up now). Especially in 3D. I remember seeing it when it came out and you did feel like you were on the alien world with the characters at times. Think it is really the only 3D film I ever watched where not viewing it in that format actually loses something (any others it was purely a gimmick).

I thought there was a handwaving explanation that the special mineral is basically required for Earth's/humanity's energy needs and industrial society (so analogous to fossil fuels perhaps)...but perhaps I misremember.

As for the protagonist's betrayal of humanity, in fairness to him it is quite clear by the end of the film that human society/the advanced economy which humanity had created was quite rotten to the core and on the way down anyway.

It was unsustainable and we were just dragging "Pandora" down in our own death-spiral. So he saved the aliens + their whole planet from destruction & doomed us to a reckoning with the failure of our economic model a bit faster perhaps. Seems the moral choice even if it makes him a turncoat.:pac:

Capt'n Midnight

odyssey06 wrote: »

IMDB gives it 8.3 from 700,000 votes so he's not alone.

His zero star reviews are hilarious I think there's a book of them

Freddy Got Fingered
"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as barrels.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RogerEbertMostHatedFilmList

https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/eberts-most-hated

odyssey06

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I got to honest to me Star Wars is a very slow moving, pretentious Star Trek.

Compared to Star Trek... The Motion Picture?

gormdubhgorm

odyssey06 wrote: »

Compared to Star Trek... The Motion Picture?

Well yeah all of them (except that Picard series) Star Trek seems to have a bit of humour about it not taking itself seriously like the one with the Whale . After the first three Star Wars all the humour seemed forced or painting by numbers.

Edit I suppose you had a point I forgot that God Star Trek stuff in the motion picture. Fairly bad and dragged a bit

radiata

quickbeam wrote: »

I LOVE The Blues Brothers. Great music, and plenty of belly laughs even after repeat viewings. So judge me!

I love it too. The best car chase destruction scene, and yes the music is great with James Brown, Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles making appearances

quickbeam

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Apparently some musicians have cameos in it. Or so I'm told.

I may have to watch it again to see if I can spot them

Yer man going "boom boom boom boom" wasn't that a bit repetitive ?

Oh yeah, they're "blink and you'll miss them", so keep your eyes peeled next time and see how many you can spot

Not just some famous musicians either.

Capt'n Midnight

fly_agaric wrote: »

Going to support Avatar a bit...it has gotten a few mentions as overrated (maybe that is fair in terms of heaps of praise it got and all the awards it won)

I do think the Avatar visuals / CGI were extremely good at the time (unsure how it stands up now). Especially in 3D. I remember seeing it when it came out and you did feel like you were on the alien world with the characters at times. Think it is really the only 3D film I ever watched where not viewing it in that format actually loses something (any others it was purely a gimmick).

There are a lot of good movies that don't need CGI.

Yes I'd agree the 3D was good. I saw the trailer for Alice In Wonderland or whatever it was called and it totally looked like FLAT 2D characters placed at different distances.

Avatar cost $2,438 per second.

I'd rather watch El Mariachi again. Total Cost of Getting the Film in Can: $2,975 (without developing) and $2,329.00 of that was for the rolls of film.

Alejandro68

The Jack Reacher films. Maybe it is because I find Tom Cruise an annoying actor.

littlevillage

Lirange wrote: »

American Beauty
The Irishman
Notebook
Lost in Translation

Strongly disagree regarding

American Beauty
Lost in Translation

Think they are both brilliant films.

Haven't watched the other two, soo can't comment.

Capt'n Midnight

radiata wrote: »

I love it too. The best car chase destruction scene,

Have you seen Mad Max or Mad Max 2 ?


Grant Page drives a car through a caravan in Mad Max, 1979. NFSA title: 763283

Capt'n Midnight

YFlyer wrote: »

Pearl Harbour. Or people thought like me and it was boring as feck?

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pearl-harbor-2001

"Pearl Harbor" is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle. Its centerpiece is 40 minutes of redundant special effects, surrounded by a love story of stunning banality. The film has been directed without grace, vision, or originality, and although you may walk out quoting lines of dialog, it will not be because you admire them.

Oh and the special effects suck. Completely wrong ships.

There's actual footage of the Doolittle Raid and the take off was way scarier then the movie.


Just watch Tora! Tora! Tora! instead.
The Japanese segments were done by the Japanese hence the different music.

littlevillage

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Ladybird . Pure S***e

1000% agree. If Saoirse Ronan wasn't Irish, nobody here would have even heard of it