Overrated and disappointing films

The Dark Knight. Superhero stuff isn't my thing but I really enjoyed Begins. I thought TDK was a mess.

Jerry McGuire. after 45 minutes or so I couldn't take Cruises hammy acting and went for a brandy.

I've probably seen the full film but not in one sitting if that makes sense.

If it was good I'd make a point of watching it from start to finish.

You can't force someone to watch a film in one sitting if they don't like it.

This thread is about films people find over-rated, and yes several posters gave up on films half way through, which is their right.

He's right thou, it's an overlong, repetitive & very boring.

Just on Citizen Kane.

How a movie is made does not make it a good movie. I shouldn't have to watch a making of documentary to "get it"

Bit of a pretentious Ulysses vibe off the idea.

"Insert any acclaimed movie from last 80 years here".

State that it's total rubbish without any logic or reasoning.

Leave thread and feel edgy and hard.

So Speilberg never makes any great films apart from 2 which for some reason don't count? Bizarre logic.

Also, he was robbed of an Oscar for ET for the very much over rated Gandhi.

Can we make a note that people should at least watch the entire movie they've selected for this thread? Geez.

They do count, that's why I mentioned them 🤷‍♂️

He's way over rated though, he's not terrible but it's laughable some people consider him the greatest director ever.

ET is total garbage.

He has a a very distinct and far reaching filmography with a lot of range. I think he deserves a lot of credit.

Your comment on ET is just ludicrous and makes your post hard to take serious.

That happened back in the first few pages.

Also covered at the time was the fact you can believe Shawshank is both very good and also overrated. Overrated does not mean bad.

@lumphammer2

Maverick, the character, is loosely based on a F-4 pilot, IIRC, and Mitchell's father served in Vietnam with his CO. But other than that Vietnam isn't really part of the movie in any solid way. I suppose one could say it's a hangover from the American defeat in some manner, but it's not as overt as something like the atrocious 'Rambo', which was just Regan era trash where the US gets to "right the wrongs" of its past. However, the enemies in 'Top Gun' were just nebulous "bad guys", flying fake MiGs (actually F-5 Tiger's), with no real commitment from the movie as to who they were. Not that it mattered, mind you. They could have been fighting the Empire from 'Star Wars' and it wouldn't have made any difference.

There's really only one truly great Indiana Jones movie and that's the first one. I think Temple of Doom is very good and I have fond memories of seeing it with my mum. I also liked the fact that it wasn't just a complete rehash of the first movie, which sequels often are. This is also where Last Crusade falls down for me. Dragging out the Germans again and going after another religious relic just felt like the producers had run out of ideas and were dipping back into the past movie to try and drag something up for the more limited audience member who just wanted to see Raiders again. Where Last Crusade is great, and I'm sure nearly everyone will agree on this, is in the dynamic between Jones and his father. But without that, it's a very poor film indeed. Take Connery out of the picture and the third Indy movie wouldn't be half as well received as it was/is.

As for "horror elements", it's always been odd to me that people elevate Temple of Doom in that regard, when I consider Raiders to be far more given over to horrific imagery. Images that are flat out NSFW. Marion's bit with the dead rotting bodies in the Well of Souls is straight up terror and people's faces melt off their skulls in the end in an effect that wouldn't be out of place in any number of horror films. There's absolutely nothing that horrific in the second movie. There's actually more scary imagery in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' than there is in quite a few genuine horror movies that I've watched. But for some reason, Temple of Doom struck a chord, More than likely that chord was with parents who probably hadn't even seen the first film and they made enough noise get Spielberg and Lucas to reconsider their bent on the third instalment. And, as everyone knows, enough noise was made to get the MPAA to design the PG-13 rating. But it wasn't just 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' that was a catalyst for that. 'Gremlins' was a PG movie as well and I think that caused more uproar. 'Ghostbusters', too, was a PG. Both movies were released a month after the Indy movie.

One thing I will say about 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' is that it's, in the most part, in keeping with the other movies in the original trilogy. Whereas, the ill conceived fourth movie and the latest entry feel like their foreign ripoffs. Hopefully, it's the last we see of Indiana Jones, because it's a series that should have begun and ended in the 1980's. That lightening in a bottle is never going to be reproduced ever again. Maybe the producers will get that reality this time due to it's relatively poor box office and just let Indy die.

Ah relax.

I know it's TV but I just wasted finally getting to the end of the bullsht Twin Peaks season 3

Jesus and I thought The Shining comment was bad, Twin Peaks season 3 was incredible!

Ah you just have to be into avant-garde arty farty David Lynch type stuff really to appreciate Twin Peaks fully (which I wholeheartedly am)

If you're not then yeah I could see how it wouldn't appeal to most folks.

Ok. To conclude - You're still not sure if you have seen all of The Wolf of Wall Street.

Requiem for a Dream is one I never got the praise for.

But I'm probably biased as I could add almost anything Leto has ever done in any artform to that list. Can't understand how the man has a career.

That was a very undeserved Oscar, he was barely in the film. I think also McConaghy should not have won that year, DiCaprio in Wolf of Wall Street was much better.