Most overrated

[Perfume V]

I stole this idea from a thread on another board, but it's a good one, and always generates plenty of debate.

The Godfather
The Shawshank Redemption
The Godfather Part II
Schindler's List
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Casablanca
Citizen Kane
The Seven Samurai
Star Wars
Memento

These, according to the voters on IMDb.com, are the ten greatest films ever made. If you had to choose just one that you felt did not deserve its placing, which one would it be, and why?

[Ilker81x]

That's a tough one, partially because that list on IMDB always changes. If I had to choose one, it would be "Star Wars." I have a lot of love for the original trilogy, and I think that they were very well done, with some well-written dialogue (granted it ain't beauty and poetry, but it's some good writing), and some ground breaking special effects. However, whereas the other films have some sense of classical drama and high intelligence to them, "Star Wars" is really much closer to the average action film. It really is just a typical swordfighter story combined with a typical jetfighter story, with a lot of action. Sure romance developed by "The Empire Strikes Back," and that gave way to some intellectual drama (somewhat), but really whereas "Lord of the Rings" was a classical work of literary fantasy translated to screen, "Star Wars" was just a sci-fi action movie that had a good premise, a good script, and some good characters that led to a huge following. Sure that makes it good, but I would never count that as among the top ten best films of all time. That's just my opinion though, but I don't want to hear any "Star Wars" fanatics telling me to go screw myself or anything. I like "Star Wars" but not that much. I personally would never put it in the top ten.

[dave durbin]

It would have to be a tie between Memento & The Shawshank Redemption. While taking into effect that both are good films, when it comes down to it Memento is essentially nothing more than an average revenge tale filmed backwards -but it's word-of-mouth has turned it into 'brilliant' and 'mind-blowing' and all that bullshit- and Shawshank is a machismo pop soap opera filmed with the same rose tinted shades Steven Spielberg wore when he filmed The Color Purple. I did enjoy both of them at the time but they've been mysteriously put into this pantheon of "THE GREATEST MOVIES OF OUR TIME" for no other reason other than pop culture popularity. (I'm not saying I can account for Star Wars either; it's one of my childhood favorites but I would never put it in the top ten of all time.) You would have to make a pretty strong case for why these two would make the cut over Intolerance, Ran, The Rules of the Game, Nashville, Vertigo, Metropolis, Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, 8 1/2, L'Avventura, etc. -you know the drill. I think there's too damn many 'lists' and 'polls' anyway.

[Ilker81x]

Dave Durbin...I have to disagree with your take on "Memento." It may seem like the average revenge tale told backwards, but the idea of a man with a short-term memory problem is very original for a film, let alone the fact that to tell it backwards keeps the viewer guessing, as it does keep Guy Pearce's character. Everytime something happened to him, we'd see that thread and understand the one we saw previous, but it then just raises a new question. The one reason why I'd say it's disappointing, like M. Night Shaymalan's films, is that while they are good films and very enjoyable to watch, once we see the trick ending, the film loses its luster over time. Sure for awhile afterwards, you'll look for the clues that you missed, and you might feel good about spotting them later, thinking, "Oooooooh, now I see." But eventually you run out and it just becomes a good movie that you might watch maybe once every five years. That would be the reason I wouldn't put it on the top ten because you can only watch it so many times before it's not interesting anymore, BUT I can't say that it's an average revenge tale, because it's not. It has an original spin on it that makes it more than that and because of that I think it's better than "Star Wars" and would be more deserving of a top ten best films list. Of course, this is just my opinion.

As for "The Shawshank Redemption." I think that movie was a case of a typical story given a beautiful treatment. Plotwise, it's nothing new. Innocent man is sent to jail, he tries to deal with it the best way he knows how, and he eventually is either set free, proves himself innocent, or escapes. I think the reason it was a great movie as opposed to just a good movie with a mundane plot was that it told that mundane plot very well. It had a lot of good humor, and some touching moments where you could honestly feel for this man. We know he's innocent, but that's not going to help him, and he had to find a new way to help himself. It's nothing new, but it's beautifully done.

I'll also agree that there are too many lists and polls. Too true. One of the biggest problems is that film, like any other art form, is subjective and what constitutes a good film for one person might be another person's trash. I think David Fincher is a brilliant director, but my dad hates him. I think "Highlander" was one of the best films ever (European version especially), but most audiences and critics think it was shit that had a big enough cult following. I have made a pact with the world to agree to disagree...and it's hard for me because sometimes I feel a movie is so good that I can't understand why others don't see...and vice versa. I honestly think "Gladiator" was a piece of shit and that Russell Crowe should've won for "L.A. Confidential," and even more so for "A Beautiful Mind." I think Denzel deserved to be nominated for "Training Day" because it was a good performance, but I never would've given him the Oscar. This is just me...nobody has to agree with me.

That is the problem with movies...it becomes such a heated topic for people, and...I admit being guilty of it myself. But I'm also the first person to step back and say that we all have our views. Let them be, and try to talk intellectually about it. I think that's why top ten movie lists always change...you can't really say what are the top ten best movies of all time.

[pipsorcle]

If I were a critic, I wouldn't pick "Citizen Kane" to be the greatest film ever made. I admire the film greatly and it's a marvelous piece of work but every time I watch it, I'm left with an empty feeling in my stomach. It has nothing to do because the film is depressing or negative but I suppose it has to do with the film being very theatrical.

If I were to pick a film that would be the greatest, I don't know. I certainly think there are plenty of better films than "Citizen Kane," even political ones too. "Hearts and Minds," the Vietnam documentary comes to mind. Ok, it's a documentary but its still a profound piece of work.

I just don't want to be forced to believe "Citizen Kane" is the best film.

[Ilker81x]

I've only seen "Citizen Kane" once, and while I think it's definitely an important film and one of the best ever made, I would never think of calling it THE best. There are so many movies, and each have so many elements that work for them to make them good or bad. It's all opinion, and opinions are subjective. One person's good movie is another person's masterpiece. One person's piece of crap is another person's nightly enjoyment. Sure we all SAY "this is the best," or "that is the greatest ever," and stuff like that...but we're all human, we all have an opinion, and if you want to believe that "Split Second" is the greatest film of all time, that's your choice. I'll agree we shouldn't be forced into thinking "Citizen Kane" is the best...but...people are still trying to force me into believing that Russell Crowe's performance in "Gladiator" was better than in "A Beautiful Mind." They're not succeeding because I have my opinion and that's that.

*Note: Incidentally, "Split Second" was a 1992 Rutger Hauer film that had a super-low-budget, a mundane plot, a script so-bad-it's-ridiculous, and probably one of the best examples of the term "B-movie."*

[miseenscene]

Citizen Kane may not be the best of all time, but up til now possibly the most influential, as per film historians and critics. Most average moviegoers aren't as much fans of Kane as critics and directors tend to be. I like it, and I can see why it could be listed among the top 10 greatest all-time from a strictly academic standpoint -- few films that have come after it have been created absent of some kind of Kane influence. However, it's true that as a story it leaves something to be desired.

I've never seen The Seven Samurai, so I can't comment on it. However, my vote for the film I'd knock off the list is easily The Fellowship of the Ring. Both it and Memento (and even Shawshank and Schindler's) are a little new to be considered "best of all time" by anyone, and its placement on this list is testament to the power of the Star Wars-like internet fanbase these Tolkien films cultivate. If the IMDb list were comprised of votes made by movie lovers of all ages, rather than the 12-30 year-old age group it appeals to, we'd probably see a much different top 10. Still, The Fellowship, while a technical marvel, is really too new and too unremarkable (in my opinion) to qualify as one of the ten best films ever, when compared to other technical marvels and sweeping epics. It may earn its place in retrospect, over the next decade or more, but for now I'd bump it down about ten spaces.

Incidentally, if we're talking influence as a key ingredient of top 10 films (as in Citizen Kane), I think we may see Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Seven or Fight Club streak into the top ten over the coming years, as film historians start recognizing that modern films are more directly influenced by Fincher, Tarantino and Rodriguez (among others) than Welles.

[Ilker81x]

That's all I really have to say, miseenscene. Very Excellent Point. Very true.

[Perfume V]

Well said. Fight Club is an absolute watershed film for American cinema, and I would put money on its influence becoming more pronounced with time.

In case you're wondering what my choice for eviction would be, I'd say The Shawshank Redemption. I've had fans of the movie explain its appeal to me, and they all seem to use adjectives like "solid" or "well-crafted" that may be acceptable for describing pine furniture, but which I'd hardly use to describe my all-time favourite movie. Where's the fire? Where's the passion?

Some others I can't get behind, too. Kane is good but Touch of Evil is Orson Welles' masterpiece. Fellowship of the Ring is good too, but The Two Towers is better. And Star Wars is another one I just don't see anything outstanding in.

[oscar jubis]

Allow me to express my incredulity and horror upon running into some of the comments here. Fine films like Fight, Se7en, Pulp, Reservoir, 2 Towers being compared to the one film in history that introduced the most formal invention and creativity to cinema. Most of these films made my top 10 the year they were released, but ALL WORLD, TOP 10 EVER? Even if you completely ignore historical context , CITIZEN KANE is a film of such depth, it takes repeated viewings just to absorb all its psychological and sociological implications. Art appreciation is subjective but c'mon! Maybe if you had seen it on the big screen you'd appreciate it more. Then again whoever called this film "very theatrical" is definitely a lost cause. You'll probably continue to "be left with an empty feeling in your stomach EVERY time you watch it." For the rest of y'all, throw away your video games, turn off that MTV and start with the Silents.

[miseenscene]

The first time I saw Citizen Kane was on the big screen. I liked it. The first time I saw Pulp Fiction was on the big screen. I liked it, too. Which one has stayed with me longer? Pulp Fiction. Which one has directly influenced more filmmakers in the past ten years? Pulp Fiction, I'd wager. Citizen Kane deserves to be recognized for its achievement and influence, but other films capture the hearts, minds and excitement of other generations.

Saying new films can't be compared to the classics is like saying the ten best films ever made have already been made. Why bother making more?

And don't blame our collective underwhelming feeling in regard to Citizen Kane on Nintendo and MTV. I've got It's a Wonderful Life and La Dolce Vita at the top of my list, and I'm sure half the MTV generation would rather gouge their eyes out than watch The Sweet Hereafter, which I've seen twice -- on the big screen, in fact -- and love dearly. This is a forum for debate and sharing of opinions, sure. It may also be a valuable intro to films we haven't seen or heard of. But it's not a film history class, and suggesting that we need to unplug from the 2000s and start watching silent films before we can truly appreciate cinema cheapens not only our opinions but the modern films currently being produced, which are intended to be enjoyed on their own, without being filtered through historical context.

[Perfume V]

Riiiiight. I've just noticed that my posts here have pointed to a lack of appreciation of the classics and a love of big-budget braindead nonsense like Titus, Withnail and I, Touch of Evil, Night of the Hunter, La Dolce Vita, Dr. Strangelove and the works of Louis Feuillade.

OK, cheap shot. But there's a difference between a movie that has yet to show its full influence and stature and a movie that never will. I dare say when Kane came out, there were people rolling their eyes at this young tyro with the arrogance to suggest cinema could ever top L'Arrive d'un Train a la Ciotat. ;)

[Ilker81x]

Even Mozart was unappreciated in his time. Today we consider him a genius and an artist of a musician...in his time, he wasn't much more than another musician trying to hard to impress everybody.
That's probably how "Citizen Kane" was received initially. Look at it now, it's considered one of the greats. Movies take time to really earn their place in the pantheon of cinematic greatness. I think it's very important to know where movies came from and to watch older movies because a good 50% of the time, those movies achieve something that people today are still trying for. Sure the car chases in "The Fast and the Furious" and "Swordfish" and newbies like that are cool, and probably inspired off stuff done by other movies...but it was "The French Connection" that broke new ground with elaborate car chases. I think there does exist a certain lack of respect for cinema's roots and that people just look at today's stuff as the best. Without "2001: A Space Odyssey," sci-fi films would probably still be a B-movie genre. That movie, while confusing and unfortunately-now-outdated was the first sci-fi film to have a budget that wasn't laughable, to incorporate science fact with intelligent writing and intellectual philosophy beyond alien-shoot-'em-ups. Yet I know so many people who chide it for being stupid, boring, confusing, and outdated. That's not the point! It's STILL a marvel of its time, and the production value is so good, no amount of CGI could hope to improve it. Same for "Blade Runner." Flaws aside, it's still probably THE most influential sci-fi film ever...look at how many films came after that totally ripped off the atmosphere, the look, the overall cyberpunk genre that became popular after that movie. Look at how many sci-fi movies in the last few years have been based on books by the same author (Philip K. Dick), all asking the same questions: What is real? What is human? Etc...
My point is, the classics SHOULD be respected and while you can like newer films, you should at least have a sense of knowing where it came from. Otherwise, I don't think you can truly consider yourself a filmfan because you only see the films from one time.

[miseenscene]

I agree, technically. It helps to know where things have come from, and I'm of the only people I know who won't flee the room if something black and white comes on. But it still smacks of elitism to suggest that people who only watch modern films aren't "real film fans," or what have you. They may not appreciate the classics or have a broad frame of reference, but they're still fully able to appreciate a modern film on its own merit. One doesn't need to watch game film of Jim Brown running to be able to appreciate game film of Emmit Smith, for example. It helps, but it in no way diminishes Smith's skills or his fan's appreciation of them if they've never seen Brown, Gale Sayers, Walter Payton, etc.

I'm not defending the clueless wonders who think '80s films are "old" and won't watch Schindler's list because it isn't in color. I'm just tying together the fact that we don't need Citizen Kane hard-sold to us as the greatest film of all time in the same way that we don't need to oppress modern films as being of a lower caste simply because they came from something else. Everything comes from something else, but it's also a singular product of its own time, and should be judged as such. Likewise, revering Citizen Kane simply for its influence is equally pointless -- if it doesn't hold up under its own merit, it doesn't need to be in that particular person's top 10. It can be in yours; it doesn't need to be in mine, and doesn't make me a less educated or less credible film fan for thinking so.

[Johann]

If you look at most movies that are considered overrated you will find that they are just GOOD movies. People usually get all uppity because a film gets a lot of attention or hype. Both sides argue their cases really well but in all fairness both are usually right. It's all a matter of taste.

Duck Soup is a film that is always cited as a classic marx bros. film. I thought it sucked. Millions disagree with me.

With regards to Citizen Kane, either you get it or you don't. If you can't look at one frame and see genius stamped all over it, then you "need to go back to the woodshed" as Spike Lee says. Orson created a whole new language for cinema. End of story. All techniques for storytelling were given a fresh coat of paint by this PRODIGY. The fact that the film is a joy to watch is just a bonus.
Incredible. Kane is one film that hype cannot damage. ever.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann

With regards to Citizen Kane, either you get it or you don't. If you can't look at one frame and see genius stamped all over it, then you "need to go back to the woodshed" as Spike Lee says. Orson created a whole new language for cinema. End of story. All techniques for storytelling were given a fresh coat of paint by this PRODIGY.
Precisely, Johann. Moreover, the care Welles took to pick his cast and crew. For instance, Gregg Toland's experiments and revolutionary use of deep focus photography give unusual importance to mise-en-scene to direct the viewer's attention. Thus, the art director is challenged to think of stuff he's never had to think before, when part of the frame was out of focus and deemphasized. But technical innovation and creativity need to serve a higher purpose if this is to be great cinema. CITIZEN KANE
has much to say about how we got here as a civilization and as a nation, on a macro level, while being an intimate, minutely detailed portrayal of a man's search for meaning and consequence.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Perfume V
Fight Club is an absolute watershed film for American cinema, and I would put money on its influence becoming more pronounced with time.

Hey, I had fun watching it. Over the top, borderline ridiculous but entertaining nonetheless. I resisted being negative but ultimately found your comment too hyperbolic to leave unchallenged. Fincher dresses up mainstream masochism and macho posturing in designer grunge. Influential? The horror.

[Perfume V]

Macho posturing? The whole film was an attack on notions of masculinity. That's like saying Dr Strangelove is a war-mongering film. And yeah, it was exaggerated. Most comedies are.

I believe it will become influential, for exactly the same reasons people are citing for Citizen Kane. What Fincher did from a technical standpoint in that movie had only been hinted at in previous films. The shot behind the fridge, the camera move through the bullet-hole in the glass windscreen, the drop down from the skyscraper window to street level...

Why, when people appreciate the technical innovations in old movies, are they considered cinephiles when people who appreciate the technical innovations in modern ones are just fools being dazzled by eye candy?

[Ilker81x]

George Lucas once said, "A special effect is just a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." Granted Lucas has somewhat fallen by the wayside in his storytelling, but I still grant him credit for trying. But he's right, and I marvel a lot at the technical innovations in modern movies, with the extensive use of computer technology, different camera techniques, and whatever else they're coming up with. MY problem with a lot of movies that use these is that as stories, they are shallow and pointless. The movie has little substance beyond the visual effects. I think what defines a good movie is if the special effects enhance the movie instead of taking over. I don't like a movie that is all special effects and eye candy if the story couldn't move without it. "The Matrix" is a good example...nothing new when you take into account all the books by Philip K. Dick and anime like "Ghost in the Shell"). Nonetheless, it's a good story that made excellent use of these great special effects. It's easy to think that the movie is dependant on them (but then again, it's a movie about computer generated worlds, so maybe the argument is valid), but "The Matrix" was also a very good story, so the special effects were more than just eye candy...they enhanced the story. Same with "The Cell," which to me is only eye candy because of Jennifer Lopez. But otherwise, I think the visuals in that movie do well to help tell the story. They don't overtake the story so much as they are tools to enhance the idea of this what this man's criminal mind looks like.
I think it's a shame though that people can't appreciate movies like "Tron" and "The Last Starfighter" from the early '80's because without those films, we wouldn't be using computer technology the way we do in movies today. Sure they're obsolete and maybe even laughable by today's standards, but what those films accomplished paved the way for what James Cameron ultimately did in "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2."
In a nutshell, I think special effects are only eye candy if the story isn't any good. If there is a good story, then today's technical innovations should be used to improve rather than retract by taking over.

[miseenscene]

Indeed. I thought what Fincher did in "Panic Room," concerning the moving through the house and literally through the floors was impressive. Over-the-top? Possibly. But so was deep focus, back in the day. Couldn't Welles have told the story without Deep Focus? Probably, but he wanted to use the effect. Could Fincher have told "Fight Club" or "Panic Room" without the visual effects? Probably, but he wanted to use them. The difference is not that deep focus was integral to the story; it was a convenient invention that became the norm.

If Fincher, "The Matrix," etc., give us film tricks that end up being used in every mainstream film over the next twenty years, they won't be considered "eye candy" any longer. History is written by the winners.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Perfume V
Macho posturing? The whole film was an attack on notions of masculinity. That's like saying Dr Strangelove is a war-mongering film.
I suggest we should give credit to others when we borrow specific ideas and examples from them. Michael Wilmington would appreciate it.


What Fincher did from a technical standpoint in that movie had only been hinted at in previous films.

What passes for creativity and innovation in western cinema nowadays is very often borrowed from Asian filmmakers. Their work is poorly distributed and marketed. I am particularly impressed with taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-Hsien's meta-narratives, Wong Kar-Wai's brilliant editing and Australian Chris Doyle's fluid and expressive camera movement. There are many others. Mr. Fincher seems particularly enamored of Hong Kong cinema which is fine. I enjoy his films, to a point. Now, I'll borrow some ideas:

"The most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since Death Wish. It is macho porn." R. Ebert

"What's most troubling about this witless mishmash of infantile philosophizing and violence is the increasing realization that it actually thinks it's saying something of significance" K.Turan(LA Times)

"Consumer society gets the blame for male malaise but there is no missing the misogyny at the heart of the piece" Detroit News

"A dazzling entertainment that wants us to luxuriate in violence " Sight and Sound

Maybe we are better off with films like "Panic Room", a game of hide 'n' seek with no hypocritical pretensions, just borrowed techno wizardry.

[stevetseitz]

On that list I would have to say "Memento" or "The Shawshank Redemption".

I liked 'Memento", it had quality performances in it and a nice gimmick. The film is directed and executed crisply and impressively.

I always thought "Forrest Gump" was overrated and that "The Shawshank Redemption" should have won best picture that year. However, just putting "The Shawshank Redemption" on that list makes it a prime candidate for most overrated.

[tabuno]

I have to agree with Ilker81x that to simplify Memento as a fancy gimmick and a film made in reverse is to grossly overlook the immense editing work and careful script design that must have gone into this twisting, intriguing storytelling. I'm surprised that some movie afcionados apparently glanced over this in the same blase manner that they complain about in the movies they don't like.

[oscar jubis]

If god told me: "oscar, you can enjoy any film in the list except one. You pick it. If you ever watch a minute of it, you will burn in hell for eternity.
I would pick Star Wars. Now, do I want to find fault with it or dismiss it? NO.

[tabuno]

From a science fiction perspective, Star Wars (1977) really doesn't generate a lot of new ground, replacing the old epic movies of the Roman Empire with a translated version into outer space and special effects. What Star Wars did do was to bring to the masses the popularity of science fiction that they could relate to in terms of war battles, exciting action thrillers, and new adventures that audiences hadn't seen before. Logan's Run (1976), The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976), Zardoz (1974), Fantastic Planet (animated, 1973), A Clockwork Orange (1971), Andromeda Strain (1971), and particularly 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Planet of the Apes (1968), Barabella (1967), Fahrenheit 451 (1966), Fantastic Voyage (1966) were the new crop of hard core sci fi movies that came into vogue after the horror/monster flicks of the 50s. But after 2001, Star Wars made sci fi popular, a blockbuster option, opening up doors to respectable science fiction movies with big budgets. Later to come were Superman (1978), Alien (1979), Star Trek - The Motion Picture (1979), Blade Runner (1982), E.T. (1982), and The Terminator (1984). So while Star Wars didn't break much new ground and is over-rated as a science fiction movie, it broke the glass ceiling that 2001 had cracked to enable science fiction genre to become a serious and legitimate film industry.

[Ilker81x]

Well said tabuno, well said.

"Star Wars" does deserve that credit of making sci-fi movies adventurous, and as a result a blockbuster option for filmmakers. I think "2001: A Space Odyssey" did open the door for sci-fi to become a serious genre with better budgets and production quality, but I also think that movie, and later "Blade Runner" paved the way for philosophy in sci-fi as well, showing it to not just be all space and futurism and adventure, but something to truly THINK about. "2001..." while outdated today in 2003, I think is still a very possible future...we already have space stations and shuttles going back and forth in Earth orbit. We just haven't really gone back to the moon, either from lack of interest or lack of resources (most likely both). Now we're thinking about Mars. Who's to say that next we won't be trying Jupiter? Like George Orwell before them, Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick undershot a little, but look at the state of our political affairs. Orwell's not too far off when you think about it...as such, I think Clarke and Kubrick had a very probably vision for the state of our exploration into space. "Blade Runner" also beckoned the age old question of what it means to be human and whether or not we could make machines to be more human than human (BTW, for those who haven't read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I highly recommend it...it's different from the movie in many ways, and even has an element of satire, but it's an excellent read). True we haven't really been approaching that stage of making human-like androids with artificial intelligence (at least not to my knowledge), but with the advent of cloning and these new A.I. engines they're making for video games and films (like the one they used for the battles in "Lord of the Rings"), one does begin to wonder if it will become a valid concern in the next twenty years. Again, author Philip K. Dick undershot a little in the book ("Do Androids..." was originally set in 1992 before being later changed to 2019 in new editions of the book to fit the movie), and Ridley Scott had the movie in 2019...but looking at that city of L.A. in "Blade Runner," it doesn't look too far off from the hyper-industrialized state of today's modern cities.
Do I think "Star Wars" is overrated? Yes. Combine the Roman Empire, with the Knight in Shining Armor, with a Samurai story...set in space, and you get "Star Wars." I do understand its appeal and its importance in making sci-fi a genre to make money on, but I think "Blade Runner" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" are the movies that gave sci-fi the seriousness it deserves.

[miseenscene]

To Oscar: I appreciate your impassioned defense of Citizen Kane and your academic dismissal of Fight Club, though I reserve my right to disagree. However, I get the impression that I could search the web for quotes listing Citizen Kane as overrated and Fight Club as a legitimate masterwork and your opinion would be swayed just as little as mine is. Besides, criticizing Fight Club for being misogynist at heart is a little ironic, given that the hero spends most of his time beating up other men (and himself), and in the end finds redemption in a woman. Sounds like Rocky to me.

Oh, and if you're interested in quoting others, as you've pointed out with Perfume V, feel free to do it with me, too.

[Ilker81x]

I like "Fight Club," but I didn't think it a masterpiece as almost everybody I know thought it was. I read the book and thought it was a well-written exploration into a man's descent into a different kind of insanity, one brought on by insomnia and the need to find out what his life is about. I think the movie captured the essence of the book very well, and I think David Fincher showed how good a director he is...sure he's done that before with "Se7en" and "The Game," but "Fight Club" was a good movie that showed that he knows what he's doing. I haven't seen "Panic Room" yet, but I hear it's good.

My problem with "Fight Club" is NOT the misogyny or the idea of solving problems through violence. Personally, I find that entertaining...not because I am male, but because it satisfies that innate desire I think all humans have to at least once "destroy something beautiful." I could go into the philosophy of that a little more, but I don't want to bore people. I think everybody, no matter how tree-hugging or how "normal" you consider yourselves, has some primal urge hidden deep within to indulge in a little violence...that's what action movies satisfy, and "Fight Club" satisfied that while also providing some good points on finding your place in life (albeit they seemed dressed up and pretentious with all the fighting going on).

My problem with "Fight Club" is that I too have gone through bouts of insomnia and narcolepsy and boredom at work and with my life in general...yet I didn't go crazy and conjure up some adonis-like companion who would inevitably take over my psyche. Maybe it's because I'm not a schizophrenic...to my knowledge anyway...hehe...but as interesting as it was, as entertaining as it was, I couldn't take it too seriously either because it was a good concept in written form, and while it's a well-made movie, it just didn't strike me as anything tangible. It's the same problem I have with "Crash." Good book, great concept, but seeing it on film is totally unbelievable because it's too difficult to think that there are people that warped and so far gone that they'd indulge in near-death auto-erotic sexual ecstasy like that.

I could be wrong...maybe there are people like that, but...in my group of friends, I've seen a LOT of fucked up people...and even they were far more normal than the people in "Crash" or "Fight Club." I do marvel at "Fight Club"'s technical merits, and I think it's a great movie, one that I can watch when I need to quiet my rage...but a masterpiece? Maybe time will change that, but I don't think so. That's just me though.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by miseenscene
To Oscar: I get the impression that I could search the web for quotes listing Citizen Kane as overrated and Fight Club as a legitimate masterwork and your opinion would be swayed just as little as mine is.
My intention is primarily to present others an alternative point of view, when I have a significant diagreement with the one presented. My contention remains that: FC is a good film I enjoyed twice; it appears technically innovative to those with only casual interest in Asian cinema, and that I want technological advancements to be subservient to a higher purpose or vision. If you are open-minded and give honest consideration to an alien point of view, that would be icing on the cake.


Besides, criticizing Fight Club for being misogynist at heart is a little ironic, given that the hero spends most of his time beating up other men (and himself)

You don't mean that violence and self-injurious behavior cannot coexist with hatred of women, right? I will grant you that my charge of misogyny may indicate a particular sensitivity of mine. Now, miseenscene, consider for instance how the film does little to dispel one of many "Tyler-isms" such as the feminization of men being the result of a generation of men being raised by women. IF the film intended to be a critique of machismo or male privilege, the message sailed past its target audience.


[QUOTE]Oh, and if you're interested in quoting others, as you've pointed out with Perfume V, feel free to do it with me, too.
I think that providing a sample of the critical response can stimulate debate. I often, but not always, agree with the quotes I provide. My problem with Perfume V's post was that he used the same 49 year-old movie as illustration that critic M. Wilmington used in his published review, without giving Wilmington credit.

By the way: I share your enthusiasm for The Sweet Hereafter. It is perhaps my fave film about a topic dear to me: fatherhood.
Question from one "raised" on punk rock(and Verdi): What makes SLC Punk one of your favorites?

[stevetseitz]

To dismiss Star Wars as a rehashing of old Roman Empire epics completely false. Lucas credited Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress" as a major inpsiration and watching it we see it parallels a decaying feudal society rather than a roman empire. Lucas has expressed a desire was to create a new mythology. Dropping the viewer into that universe with only bare bones expository text was sheer genius. With the budget he had, Lucas succeeded in creating a universe that sparked the imagination of millions.

I don't think anyone is dismissing "Memento" as just a gimmick, but clever does not always mean great. On a list of great films, "Memento" sticks out as being overrated.

"Fight Club" was vastly overrated but not on the original list.

[Ilker81x]

Nothing. Nothing is original these days. There's original treatments, and that seems to be the guage of what we seem to be considering originality anymore. I think "Memento" was a very good movie taht had a classic revenge story given an original twist by the fact that the main character had a short-term memory problem. That also leads into telling the story in reverse, which may not be original in itself, but for the purposes of the movie, lends itself quite well because what seems cut-and-dry will turn out not to be when you find out how he got there. That's an original idea.
But let's look at the fact that most movies out right now (and for the last few years) have been remakes. Already a sign of lack-of-originality. And then we have blockbuster rollercoaster rides like "Independence Day," which was the biggest piece of trash I'd ever seen...wasn't it called "War of the Worlds" in the '50's? Or am I imagining things? Same with "Signs." I'm a fan of that movie, but I don't claim it to be original at all. And then there are movies we THINK are original, but aren't, like "Simone." The Al Pacino movie about a computer-generated model or pop star or whatever (I didn't see it, but I read a plot summary...which probably doesn't qualify an opinion, but from what I've read I think I can say something). Is it just me, or was that idea employed by the Japanese in several anime films? Same with "The Matrix." Basically any number of "Blade Runner" rip-offs and anime films like "Ghost in the Shell" were made into that movie...BUT it combined the intelligence of those movies with the gunplay and martial arts wizardry of Hong-Kong action flicks. That's original...somewhat.
The point is, I stopped looking for originality a long time ago. I don't base a movie's power on these things. I think if a movie does a good job of employing these different influences, then it's worthwhile. "Star Wars" is overrated, but it does a good job of employing the different influences from empirical history and samurai/knight culture. "The Matrix" I think is overrated, but it does a good job of blending intelligence with action, which not many live-action movies do these days. "Memento" may be overrated, but its concept is still far better than the average film-noir rehash being put out today. "Fight Club" may be overrated, but it had a point...maybe one that didn't work on screen, but that's why I think it's important to read the book a movie is based on...but that's another post, hehe.

[Johann]

The Royal Tenenbaums was a film I found to be completely original.
I also don't look for originality in films nowadays. The "die has been cast" as they say. if a film is truly original, then I am usually levitating in my seat. Although American Beauty is not entirely original, I had a huge grin on my face while watching it. Same thing with the Canadian film American Psycho with the incredible Christian Bale.

[Ilker81x]

Yes, "American Psycho" and "American Beauty" were great. Easily two of my favorite movies. Again, not original, but still exceedingly good. As for "The Royal Tannenbaums," I swear I'm the only person in the world who didn't find it funny. Which proves that originality is NOT always a good thing. It's probably just not my kind of humor, but I didn't like that movie too much. Sorry. *shrug* :/

[Perfume V]

I'm sorry, I'm lost. Who is this Michael Wilmington who I'm apparently quoting from? I've never heard of the man in my life.

Incidentally, Ebert's review was in itself hypocritical. After spending a lot of time talking about the offensive fascist nature of Fight Club, he then turned around and said he could see it was an attack on fascism, but his review was motivated by concern for others. That's us, folks - the feeble-minded underclass who apparently can't appreciate irony or intelligence in films.

If I want an opinion, I'll go to a critic. If, on the other hand, I want thinly-veiled class prejudice under the guise of altruism, I'll go to a censor.

[miseenscene]

As for "The Royal Tannenbaums," I swear I'm the only person in the world who didn't find it funny. Which proves that originality is NOT always a good thing.

Ilker81x, I'm not too sure about the actual logic of your argument there. ;) I'd say originality is always a good thing, because while Royal may not appeal to everyone, it does appeal to some, and those some might never have found the film if it wasn't allowed to be made because it was "too original." Originality might not always produce something to everyone's taste, so the product might not always be a good thing, but I'll argue on behalf of originality every day.

Now someone will remind me that David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino are unoriginal hacks who cobble all their ideas together from other films and I'll be stuck tending Orson Welles's grave again... :)

[Ilker81x]

Okay, miseenscene, I'll grant you that. I guess what I should have said was that originality is not universally good. I thought it was original, but a piece of crap. But you're right that a lot of people loved it, so...the originality of that movie is good for them, not for me.
On the other hand, I could say that originality IS good, but the result isn't always. I always try to look for originality in a movie, and I think it's a good thing, but the result is not always good; sometimes the result of originality is people leaving the theater about to throw up. It's an original idea for a movie to have a serial killer who is impalling women like Vlad Tepes did in the 15th century...is it necessarily a good thing? The idea is. The result...the audience wretches and pukes (unless you're like me, painting pictures like that all the time anyway, hehe). So...yes, miseenscene, I'll agree now that originality is good in itself. But, sometimes an original idea is not one that works for everybody...so it can't really be THAT good.

[stevetseitz]

my favorite Wes Anderson/Owen Wilson piece is still "Bottle Rocket" which I liked slightly more than "Rushmore" which I liked slightly more than "The Royal Tenenbaums". I thought the first one really came from the heart and was about them while the later films were perhaps more ambitious but less authentic.

I thought "Spirited Away" was as close to original as it gets in modern cinema. Childhood elements in it were reminiscent of "Wizard of Oz" and "Alice in Wonderland" but it had it's own unique flavor.

[Johann]

i gotta see "Bottle Rocket". Scorsese says it was one of the ten best of the nineties. I'll get on that pronto.

Films I think are overrated:

The Shawshank Redemption- a beautiful film, but c'mon- one viewing was enough. Same for Darabont's "The Green Mile". It was great. Some films you only have to see once. These two apply. I would recommend these two to anybody, but HIGHLY overrated.

Fight Club- another beautiful film, (especially the acting) but shit, there are TOO many people who hail this flick as the end-all be-all. Expand your viewing horizons before declaring this film as the greatest thing since the DVD format. I will debate any punk who feels that FC is better than say, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Step up to the plate if you want a smackdown. Forget about replying if you grew up playing video games.

Saving Private Ryan- I loved the opening 25 mins. and then I was forced to sit in a Buick Regal with the windows up until the final 25 mins. I don't want my money back, but Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was the best film of 1998. Hands down. sorry sir stevie

and off the top of my head,

The Matrix. yes, everyone and their dog has this DVD and loved it. But I tell you what, if these next two suck after all the preparations & hype, I'll be first to sound off that I'm PISSED.
*just a correlation*:
George Lucas said that the Star Wars Saga is his "Canterbury Tales" & how the new films couldn't live up to the hype, and doom on anyone who doesn't like it. well, George, considering the fact that you'd still be splicing behind Coppola if it weren't for fan support & the success of "Graffiti", you OWE it to the fans to deliver films that live up to the hype. And my friend (I call you that because we share the same birthday) YOU COULD LIVE UP TO THE HYPE. Given the TINY bits of genius you've bestowed on us with The Phantom Menace ( I hate typing those words) & Attack of the Clones, you CAN live up.

the makers of the Matrix trilogy should take advice from fans and "Raise the bar" to quote those sick producers of American Idol.

sorry if I seem to be ranting....I don't mean to.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Perfume V
I'm sorry, I'm lost. Who is this Michael Wilmington who I'm apparently quoting from? I've never heard of the man in my life.
Incidentally, Ebert's review was in itself hypocritical. After spending a lot of time talking about the offensive fascist nature of Fight Club, he then turned around and said he could see it was an attack on fascism, but his review was motivated by concern for others.

"Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audiences will like the behavior but not the argument. They buy the tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other"

Roger Ebert


...that "is a bit like describing Dr. Strangelove as an incitement to nuclear war"

Michael Wilmington
Chicago Trubune

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Ilker81x
And then we have blockbuster rollercoaster rides like "Independence Day," which was the biggest piece of trash I'd ever seen...
ID is in the American tradition of film-as-spectacle. It was an incredible, unimaginable sight to watch the White House blow up. The scene seemed eerily prescient after 9/11. Nowadays some of us are so angry at our executive branch that the scene may serve an altogether different purpose.


"Memento" may be overrated, but its concept is still far better than the average film-noir rehash being put out today.
Indeed. There wasn't anything gimmicky about the "concept"(the way the narrative was structured) because it effectively put the viewer in the same predicament (having to make sense of things with limited info) as the protagonist.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
sorry if I seem to be ranting....I don't mean to.
Sometimes rants make sense. Bravo Johann.

[miseenscene]

I grew up playing video games, so I may not have a leg to stand on when it comes to this board, but I'll say this: Fight Club = decent movie. Not great, not even one of my hundred favorite because it's so nihilistic. Yes, Citizen Kane would rank higher than Fight Club if I ended up ranking movies someday. No, I haven't seen 2001 yet, so I can't make the comparison (and yes, I do consider myself a film fan though I haven't seen 2001). But Fight Club is, at least, a decent film that explores a topic which incites discussion among audiences, as well as featuring some good performances and directorial flourishes. The same cannot be said of, say...

Independence Day? Oscar, surely you jest in defending this film in the same thread as Citizen Kane. Egad, I'm shaken...

Side note: anyone else notice how, if we were debating sports or politics or music, people would likely share their opinions and perhaps argue, but ultimately shake the whole experience off, whereas when we argue film, it gets the blood boiling hotter than nearly any other topic I can think of. Possibly only less incendiary than politics or religion, such is the proof of the power of film.

Oh, and on the subject of overrated, I have to bring out the ghost of last year's Minority Report as being a whole lot of flash and a clever concept rolled into a little tiny ball of logic and then crushed with some bad CGI, senseless plot twists and bad characterization. Though Samantha Morton did a better job than she needed to, given the circumstances.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by miseenscene
But Fight Club is, at least, a decent film that explores a topic which incites discussion among audiences, as well as featuring some good performances and directorial flourishes. The same cannot be said of, say...Independence Day? Oscar, surely you jest in defending this film in the same thread as Citizen Kane. Egad, I'm shaken...
Non, mon ami. I'm refering specifically to the White House scene, that even those who didn't see the movie watched on TV, and how it has meant 3 different things to me over the years. Actually I do prefer ID to say...MiB 2. My 9 y.o. had to accept blame for insisting we see it.
I agree with this take on Fight Club.

when we argue film, it gets the blood boiling hotter than nearly any other topic I can think of, such is the proof of the power of film.
A civil tone has been maintained though...


I have to bring out the ghost of last year's Minority Report as being a whole lot of flash and a clever concept rolled into a little tiny ball of logic and then crushed with some bad CGI, senseless plot twists and bad characterization.
...it is quite difficult to achieve.

[Perfume V]

Does anyone else think that if Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can had been directed by anyone other than Spielberg, there wouldn't be such a fuss over them being snubbed for Oscars? Regardless of their respective merits and flaws, I feel sure that had they been the work of anyone else, the academy would have damned them as popcorn movies and not even considered them for the meagre awards they are up for.

Staying on the subject, Saving Private Ryan always felt like two movies smashed into one to me. The opening 25 minutes seem to be stressing the horror of war, then the rest of the movie seems to be about the honour of war. Taken as separate pieces, maybe I'd enjoy both of these films, but merged into one I found them muddled and indigestible.

[Ilker81x]

Steven Spielberg is a humanist. For this I respect him, because for the sake of a happy ending, he is willing to sacrifice artistic integrity (I'm not talking about technical artistry...he's always ahead of his game with visual effects and technical wizardry...I'm talking about artistic stories and meaningful philosophical questions, which admittedly are sometimes not pleasant). Some might view this as a curse, and I will not argue because I'm one of those people who feel "A.I." would have been a better movie if it ended with David praying to the Blue Fairy (a.k.a.: Where Stanley Kubrick would have ended the movie). But at the same time, I respect what he tried to do, to give us something that could make us feel good. Not a lot of directors do that, and even I with my cinematic bloodlust and love for the nihilistic and dystopian can respect Spielberg for trying to up the ante of humanism.

I haven't seen "Minority Report" yet, but from what I've heard, I don't think I'd really want to see it. Ever since "Blade Runner," nobody has ever successfully translated a Philip K. Dick book or story into a movie. "Total Recall" did somewhat, but it was buried in a blaze of gunplay, special effects, bloodsquibs, and Arnold's muscles. "Screamers" did somewhat, but the fact that it was a Canadian production (not a very big budget one either) hurt the film. "Imposter" didn't get too much recognition (I'm referring to the recent movie with Gary Sinise, not the Tony Curtis movie that "Catch Me If You Can" remade). Plus, I think Spielberg's humanism, while respectable, would undermine the Philip K. Dick-ian philosophies of "what is real?" I'm sure Spielberg made a good movie, but being a fan of Philip K. Dick, I wouldn't want to see it for fear that it won't work. "Blade Runner" worked in asking the same questions the book did and achieving the same atmosphere. Sure there were many differences, but the tone of the book was maintained, and "Blade Runner" was faithful to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" where it really counted.

There is an abundance of good movies coming out. Many are overrated, but I think this is because the great movies really achieve greatness over time. We might look back on "Fight Club" and consider it a better movie in ten years than we consider it now. We may not. One can never be sure because movies are always changing. Actors, directors, music, technology, techniques, all are constantly changing, and in a few years, thousands upon thousands of movies will be producing the same effect on us that "Fight Club" did for us in this time, and that "Citizen Kane" did in its time. The movies that we will consider great will be the ones that stand the test of time, the ones we can still watch and find something worthy of mention. Sure "2001: A Space Odyssey" is outdated now, but its questions on the nature of the universe and humanity's place in the universe are still sound. The year may be wrong, but the idea is not. In 1995, "Strange Days" came out, claiming we would be using Virtual Reality memories as drugs. Sure it's something Philip K. Dick and William Gibson had been writing about for years, and sure we didn't have it in 1999 like in that movie, but movies are about the realm of possibilities. We may not have that kind of thing in four years ('95 to '99), but we may still have it someday, and then those problems will become a factor (addiction to memories, using them and peddling them as drugs). Today, I STILL think "Strange Days" is a good movie, and one with some valid concerns. That probably doesn't mean it's great, but I think it does mean that it's something that it's worth watching even today.

So what are the great movies of today? Perhaps we'll know in twenty or thirty years.

[Ilker81x]

I think another reason that movies are overrated today is because many of the movies that are coming out are very good, but nothing close to what we would consider in the "great" movie category. You know? There are plenty of movies that deserve a lot of merit for technical achievement, good acting, good music, etc...but not a lot that reach that level of raising the standards of movie making in EVERY aspect. "Star Wars," like "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" later, raised the bar for visual effects. But were they known for their acting? Not really. "The Matrix" did the same thing, with some decent acting, but did the story reach some new level of excellence. No, it was nothing that hadn't been done by William Gibson or plenty of Japanese anime flicks before it. "2001: A Space Odyssey" raised the abr for visual effects, philosophical storytelling, and the use of music...so the acting was not particularly noteworthy (not that it was bad, just sparse)...but it deserves a higher level of stature than "Star Wars" because it pushed the envelope in more areas than "Star Wars" did.

On the other hand, movies are made for entertainment. It could be argued that if a movie is being philosophical, it's missing the point because the audience is supposed to be entertained and having fun. "Star Wars" made sci-fi a blockbuster genre, worthy of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for tickets and merchandising. "2001" made sci-fi a genre worthy of bigger budgets, but was it entertaining? Not in the sense of having fun...it entertained the "thinking" audience, but not the way a movie about wars and swordfights entertain.

With this argument, how can we really say what is "great?" Greatness is measured individually, and what one person considers the greatest movie of all time might be another person's utter piece of trash. I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but I do think it's necessary to point out that there will never be an agreement on this subject. I think "Citizen Kane" is one of THE top ten greatest movies of all time...maybe not #1, but definitely up there. I also think "2001" and "Amadeus" should be counted up there. Others will tell me that "2001" wasn't so great because it was boring and confusing...that's okay. They don't consider greatness the way I do.

Nobody is right or wrong here, and I think we do tend to get heated up about movie discussions because movies are a very passionate medium. People feel very strongly about the movies they like, just like the feel about the songs they like or the paintings they like...those things give us a feeling like nothing else, and we feel an innate need to defend them because they are special to us. I think we have kep thtings civil, and that's great because it shows everybody's intelligence.

And I do keep saying this, but I thank everybody because these forums are ever so much fun for me to discuss with all of you, and it's so enjoyable to have good conversation. Thanks all.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Ilker81x
Steven Spielberg is a humanist. For this I respect him, because for the sake of a happy ending, he is willing to sacrifice artistic integrity
How does a happy ending or a director giving us "something to make us feel good" relate to humanism? We may have different definitions.

"A.I." would have been a better movie if it ended with David praying to the Blue Fairy (a.k.a.: Where Stanley Kubrick would have ended the movie).
I was curious about divergent opinions by the auteurs on a best ending but failed to find any data. I see parallels between A.I.'s ending and 2001's. Care to share your sources or is it simply based on your experience watching his films. If so, care to expound a bit.



I haven't seen "Minority Report" yet, but from what I've heard, I don't think I'd really want to see it. I'm sure Spielberg made a good movie, but being a fan of Philip K. Dick, I wouldn't want to see it for fear that it won't work.
Are you more of a lit or Dick fan than a cinema fan?

[Johann]

2001 is a film that people need to see more than once. That's the problem with most movie watchers-they only see films once and then they pigeonhole their opinion of it. Robert Altman has complained about talking to people who said the saw say, Short Cuts. What they mean to say is that they saw the film ONCE. How would you feel if someone dismissed your labour of love as "eh, it was ok" or "that was overrated"? Look a little more closely at what the director was trying to do and maybe you'll appreciate it more.
With regards to 2001, I think Spielberg said it best:

"2001: A Space Odyssey was a step beyond rational. It was all very ordered-maybe his most ordered film until the very end. He let you see that all of this order was leading to something you could not comprehend but was experiential: it was illustrating emotionally what the next evolutionary step was going to be-and you can't do that rationally".

[Ilker81x]

My definition of humanism is not necessarily to feel good, but something that expands our consciousness and our way of thinking. Maybe what I said was misleading because what I meant to say was that while bringing up philosophical viewpoints in movies is a good way to get people to think more, it's not always good when a majority of those things are seen in a negative light.

Take for instance "Blade Runner" (this is my favorite movie of all time in case nobody noticed, hehe). The original ending (with the lifted footage from Kubrick's "The Shining") had Harrison Ford and Sean Young escaping together into this beautiful landscape, a total opposite to the urban wasteland we just spent two hours experiencing. Both of them are smiling and Harrison's point of "I didn't know how long we had together...who does?" has a note of positivity to it because it was about life in general We all have an end date, so the point is to live it up while it's there, to enjoy life and take from it every second you can. That was the point of Rutger Hauer's operatic little cat-and-mouse with Ford in the movie's climax. On the other hand, the director's version cuts this out to when Ford and young step into the elevator with Edward James Olmos' words, "It's too bad she won't live...but then again who does?" heard on the soundtrack. The same point, still positive (because he left the origami but didn't kill Sean Young as was his job), but slightly less "happy" because we dont' see them running off together, we don't see them smiling, and there is that lingering question of that possibility that Ford being is a replicant also (the origami being a unicorn relating to the dream sequence Ford had earlier in the director's cut).

My father LOVES the original ending more than the director's cut because it made him feel better about life and the point of the movie. To him it was more humanistic because he didn't walk away questioning everything. He walked away saying, "Yes, it's a good affirmation of life and taking the time that we have." When he and I saw the director's cut, he said to me, "That's horrible...too bad she dies, but we all do, so what does it matter?" Maybe it's just the wording, but words are important in movies. That's my definition of humanism, if it makes you think. It's just that in Spielberg's sense of humanism, he wants to help people feel good about thinking. He's not a nihilist. Not that "Blade Runner" was particularly nihilist, but it was a bit cynical in its view of the future. But cynicism sells, and that's where I respect Spielberg because he's not cynical in his movies...he tries to bring an air of optimism.

As for the ending to "A.I.," I'm curious what parallels you see between that ending and "2001"'s ending. Besides the obvious I mean. To me, the end of "2001" had man coming to a journey's end, and beginning a new one. The monolith was a catalyst for man to begin his journey into enlightenment and higher thinking. Four million years later, man has reached the stars, has conquered his own creations (Hal), and now is ready for the next step, again to be instigated by the monolith. He ends one step, and begins a new one as the starchild. In "A.I." I could understand the sense of journey's end and the alien angle...but whereas when David's journey ends, it ends...he's found what he wants, and he'll spend eternity in bliss lying next to a dead clone of his mommy. There's no sense of continuance for me there. The starchild gave a sense that this was only one stage in man's evolution and that more was yet to come (hence more books by Clarke). "A.I." just...stops. So the parallel is there, but I think Kubrick would not have been so sweet in his ending, and might have been a little more open ended, hence leaving it where David perpetually prays to the statue. I read somewhere that Kubrick's original scripct ended it there, but I can't remember where, and since it fell in line with the rest of his movies I didn't question it much more after I read that. I should look for it again, but my view is based primarily on what I've seen of his work.

I'm not more a fan of one or the other. I love both cinema and literature, and I make it a point to see as many movies as I read as many books. I've read about six or seven of Dick's books, and quite a few of his short stories, and I intend to read more. I read from a variety of authors and time periods and genres, and I've read quite a few books. One thing is for sure, I do consider myself very much a Philip K. Dick fan. I'm a fan of literature and I'm a fan of movies, and I do understand that since they are two completely different mediums, there will always be differences because a book ending doesn't work on film. A scene works better in a movie than in a book, etc...all those differences, and I don't mind them, as long as the two correlate to each other in ways that make sense. "Gettysburg" was an almost word-for-word transcription of "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara, while "Blade Runner" is a completely different set of events and circumstances (almost). "Crash" was very faithful, but for me it was more intriguing in written form and more boring in visual form. I can't say I'm more a fan of one or the other...I love both film and literature.

[miseenscene]

I agree that most films benefit from repeated viewings. So do books and music, I'd wager, though music has the added benefit of being experienced while doing something else (driving, for example). Film and books require full attention from a viewer/reader, and most people don't give their full attention to anything these days.

However, with so many films to see and books to read, I admit I have trouble finding time to watch a film more than once when I can see something I haven't seen instead. A film has to give me reason to believe it's worth seeing again for me to make time for it -- if it's a worldwide classic and I can't stand it the first time around, I'd rather see something new than try to tackle a film that may be fruitless for me twice.

Then again, I despised The Matrix the first time I saw it, and have been able to appreciate it more over repeated viewings inflicted upon me by DVD-owning roommates. Of course, a film one initially likes can reveal its flaws over repeated viewings as well.

I had an English professor in college who couldn't understand why people would watch a film more than once. "You already saw it once. Why would you watch it again?" A film must be pretty impressive to stick in the minds of Average Filmgoers like that.

[pipsorcle]

It's a good way of explaining and giving proof as to why you believe your opinion is valid. Now if someone were to explain to me that The Matrix was overrated, whether I liked the film or not, I'd be more interested in hearing a step-by-step analysis than a simple few word statement, "it's overrated" or "it sucks." Now for many people, it's really tough to explain why they feel the way they do about a film but ultimately, there's no real good discussion if you don't go in depth. Why talk about a film if all you're going to say can be just one or two words? Repeated viewings help gather up evidence of scenes which you didn't quite remember the first time seeing the film.

For me, I feel that if people have praised a film way too much and that I didn't quite feel as emotional or as enthusiastic about it as they have, I'd probably want to see it again just to be curious. Who knows? Maybe I might just like the film better the second time around.

[stevetseitz]

...was probably overrated, but it's still an amazing film. I have watched snippets of it with a few guys I met who do the WWII reenactments and the attention to detail and realism of the scenes are unrivaled. Myself? I'll watch "The Longest Day" any day because the story encompasses more of the invasion and the cast is truly stellar.

[Ilker81x]

I agree. Seeing a movie more than once gives a person credibility to actually talk about it and give a valid reason for their opinion of it beyond simply saying "it sucks." But then again, it also has to do with the type of person seeing that movie. Some people can see a movie over and over and NEVER like it. Not just because it doesn't always happen (I can see "Crash" a million times and never really like it enough to call it a good movie), but because that person can't like that kind of movie. My dad will NEVER like "Natural Born Killers" because he hates gratuitous violence (even if, and sometimes especially if it's used for satire), and he hates foul language. He'll never like "Goodfellas" or "Casino" because he doesn't see the necessity for such language and violence. It's not that he has a weak stomach, but in his mind, foul language and excessive violence are primitive, and he'd like to think that people can rise above that. On the other hand, I didn't like "Chinatown" when I first saw it. I watched it again a year later, and I liked it a little more...and then a little more...and then a little more. It depends on the movie and the person. Appreciation develops over time with the person.

The comment made by miseenscene about music having the benefit of being experienced while "doing" something. That's a potential benefit, but I'm a musician in my spare time and both I and many of my friends (who are not musicians) do nothing but listen to music. I think music DOES need repeated listens to be truly appreciated because the sound production of music is becoming so much more complex and technical. Sounds you didn't hear the first time will appear the second time, sounds are more pronounced on one set of speakers than on another, sometimes the lyrics need time to understand. I can tell you, almost ALL of my favorite albums and bands are ones I hated at first. I didn't understand the appeal of Depeche Mode when I first heard of them ('97's "Ultra" album). I picked it up, didn't really like it at first...six years later, I'm still listening to it and I have more albums by them. Same with Emperor, Circle of Dust, Recoil, etc. If you're referring to mainstream music, then yes normally you don't need to pay too much attention to appreciate it. BUT mainstream music is made to be popular...that's why it's called mainstream, it's easily available and accessible (in terms of people's ability to get into it). But music that is made for the sake of the music should be appreciated like movies and art and given full attention. Incidentally, I think John Williams is seeeeeriously overrated today.

[stevetseitz]

Williams is notorious for "borrowing" musical phrases, motifs and melodies from old classical and jazz sources. This is not to say that he is not an extraordinarily talented musician, composer, arranger and conductor. Great artists often pay homage to older masters. This gets bask to the "is anything original" thread.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Ilker81x
My definition of humanism is not necessarily to feel good, but something that expands our consciousness and our way of thinking. That's my definition of humanism, if it makes you think. It's just that in Spielberg's sense of humanism, he wants to help people feel good about thinking. I respect Spielberg because he's not cynical in his movies...he tries to bring an air of optimism.
I think optimism is the word that fits your comment. As for humanism, it's a way of thinking I subscribe to and holds that man can reach his potential and live morally and ethically without recourse to supernaturalism (including religion). A humanist may or may not actually believe in God. But a humanist would always be more interested in trying to figure out how to stop humans from dying of hunger and malnutrition than how many virgins await in paradise. If you get my drift.


As for the ending to "A.I.," I'm curious what parallels you see between that ending and "2001"'s ending. Besides the obvious I mean. To me, the end of "2001" had man coming to a journey's end, and beginning a new one. The monolith was a catalyst for man to begin his journey into enlightenment and higher thinking. Four million years later, man has reached the stars, now is ready for the next step, again to be instigated by the monolith. He ends one step, and begins a new one as the starchild. In "A.I." when David's journey ends, it ends...So the parallel is there, but I think Kubrick would not have been so sweet in his ending, and might have been a little more open ended, hence leaving it where David perpetually prays to the statue. I should look for it again, but my view is based primarily on what I've seen of his work.
Fair enough. Yours is a cogent argument. Parallels: I view the Blue Fairy and the monolith slabs as projections from the minds of David and Bowman, respectively. Both fairy and slab reappear in the rooms where David meets sweet death and Bowman is tragically reborn as Starchild at the end of A.I and 2001, respectively.

[tabuno]

"Genius."

[stevetseitz]

Humanism is "human-centric" thought or attitudes. Personally, I think it's very limiting as a philosophy. Edward Kenyon Fulkerson noted that "Humanism, which on the one hand exalted man and attributed to him unlimited powers, and on the other hand saw nothing in him but a limited dependent creature, knowing nothing of spiritual freedom, could have no other end than in taking away man’s likeness to the divine and subjecting him to natural necessity."

It's odd that you say "a humanist would always be more interested in trying to figure out how to stop humans from dying of hunger and malnutrition than how many virgins await in paradise." The end political result of humanism, Communism, led to some of the largest losses of human life in history. Stalin was responsible for at minimum the death of 20 million and Mao had his hand in several million as well.

Communism was an expression of atheistic humanism. As it worked itself out historically, communism became many things: a form of revolutionary politics, an economic model, a method of social control. Socially, economically, indeed humanistically, communism was a catastrophic failure.

[Ilker81x]

Well, first of all tabuno...thanks for that flattering and very untrue comment. I think a lot...sometimes too much, and sometimes a little too much about movies (as opposed to other problems that are more tangible and meaningful in everday life). But movies are a big part of my life, and I enjoy talking about them and thinking about them. If my views make me a genius in your eyes, than once again...thanks very much. :) If I may ask...what exactly was it that made you say that?

stevetseitz...good point on John Williams. I think every modern film score composer does this though because it is very much the way classical music is made in the first place, and I think film score composers are the last of a dying breed of classical musicians. There aren't very many classical musicians anymore...usually they will be soloists who are performing old classics, and maybe occasionally a few compositions of their own. The ones who actually write full classical symphonies, operas, sonatas, concertos, etc...almost all of them are doing it for a film. Also, good point on humanism. I admit to using that word a little haphazardly, and I think oscar jubis was right that optimism was the word that best describes what I was talking about.

I don't really agree with his parallel of the blue fairy and the monolith though. First of all, I think it could be easy to make that association since both characters are named David, but David in "A.I." was seeking out the blue fairy...this could easily be attributed to a search for God, that one intangible being that could accopmlish the impossible, the one thing that could give you what you want. It's easy to see that parallel in the monolith since they were also pretty Godly in their overseeing the creation of man and the transformation of Bowman in to the starchild (why did you say tragically? I didn't see anything tragic about it). But I think whereas David was deliberately searching for the blue fairy, Bowman's search was more towards humanity's journey into the unknown.

Also, David in "A.I." didn't really meet sweet death...I didn't see it as death so much as an eternal sleep. Sure that's what death could be called, but his was a happy moment of rapture, finally attaining the thing he loved most. Bowman...was transformed...he didn't WANT it, but it was something that had to happen. It was a journey of exploration for Bowman that came to a strange junction in which his human life ended and he proceeded on a new journey as a new being.

Plus, while both the blue fairy and the monolith are tangible shapes for an otherwise intangible presence, the blue fairy was more representative of an idea, whereas I think in "2001" (both film and books) there IS some kind of tangible intelligence that exists in some realm beyond human perception (the books clearly show them to be an actual alien species as opposed to an allusion to God which I think the film attempts to represent in some way).

[miseenscene]

Depends on what your take on humanism really is... Communism was humanistic but in the interest of furthering the power of the elite and crushing the spirits of the proletariat. Socialism, if it could ever be pulled off properly (i.e., no one benefitting at the expense of others, but rather everyone's work benefitting everyone else equally), might be an ideal expression of humanism...

How this got involved in the Overrated Film thread is pretty impressive...

[Ilker81x]

miseenscene...good point. But that's stream of consciousness for ya. I think it's inevitable that in starting to talk about which movies different people consider overrated, there's bound to be some segue into discussing WHY we think that way, and that eventually leads to other factors, so...yes it's impressive, but I'm not surprised. As for Socialism...I think it's like all other governments...its intention sounds good in theory, but in practice? I'm still debating whether or not we really live in a democracy, but I don't want to talk about politics in s movie forum. I know I'd lose, hehe.

[stevetseitz]

>>Communism was humanistic but in the interest of furthering the power of the elite and crushing the spirits of the proletariat. Socialism, if it could ever be pulled off properly (i.e., no one benefitting at the expense of others, but rather everyone's work benefitting everyone else equally), might be an ideal expression of humanism...<<

I doubt any of the revolutionaries in the Soviet Union or China went into the revolution with the idea of furthering the power of the elite and crushing the spirits of the proletariat. After all, that would be a hard sell platform. It always starts with noble and generous ideals, it's in the PRACTICE that these forms of humanism end up hurting so many. Hilaire Belloc explained that "the effect of Socialist doctrine on Capitalist society is to produce a thirdd thing different from either of it's two begetters-to wit, the Servile State."

My favorite Adam Smith quote is "The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."

[miseenscene]

All systems made by man are flawed, government included. But socialism done right is the closest thing I can think of to a mutually beneficial system for all involved. It does rely on the responsibility of the individual, though, so it's a dicey proposition. I'd say we don't live in a democracy if our un-elected president is forging ahead with a war that numerous constituents don't want. I don't trust our government -- or any government, for that matter -- when it comes to doing what's right for its people; they all seem predicated on doing what's right for the ruling class. Explain to me how all we're allowed to do in this country is elect millionaires. Even Nader is a millionaire, and he's part of the Green Party...

And that's all I have to say about that. On with the overrated, before this thread descends to an episode of Crossfire. :)

[Ilker81x]

And that's all I have to say about that. On with the overrated, before this thread descends to an episode of Crossfire. :)

miseenscene...good idea, except that I do sometimes wonder which is better: Ebert and Roper, or Crossfire? Hehe.

Somebody made a point earlier that people seem to get pretty boiled up when talking about movies (was it you, miseenscene?). There is a dilemma with people taking their views to almost politics heights when it comes to movies. A person's taste in movies is often dictated by their personal beliefs, which does fall in line with politics. But that's enough of that...

To get things back on the overrated topic...does anybody else here think that "Scarface" is a severely overrated movie? Beyond it's quotability, I personally think it's a terrible movie that did very little to keep me interested in it beyond certain scenes. I think the performances are very good, it's got a good cast, and I have a lot of respect for Oliver Stone, but is that man capable of writing anything that doesn't have some kind of foul-languaged commentary on the state of our society? Sure on ecould argue that's part of his style, just as symbolism and metaphor amidst '50's Americana is part of David Lynch's style. But am I the only person who thinks that there's a level of pretense and gratuity in "Scarface?"

In the "making of" documentary on the DVD, Brian DePalma defends the violence, even going so far as to say it was "Hitchcockian" in that you didn't see the chainsaw go through the person's head. Maybe not, but there was still a LOT of blood coming out of his head before the shot changed. To me, that's not particularly Hitchcockian...it seems that Hitchcock would have panned the camera away even earlier, and maybe even show less of the scene because a lot of it was just not necessary. If you ask me, DePalma was holding a high opinion of himself.

Anybody have any thoughts on this or on "Scarface" in general?

[miseenscene]

Yeah, that was me...

I've never seen "Scarface," either -- I could start a whole thread of Classic Films I've Never Seen -- but I will say that with its new reputation as the favorite film of the gangsta rap crowd, that alone sort of makes it less credible in my eyes. I've never really trusted the taste of people who sport bandanas and bling-bling nonstop.

De Palma strikes me as a film school guy who never really devised his own style, just polluted the style of directors he emulated from college.

[Ilker81x]

"Scarface" I think has been emulated by the gangstah rap crowd for the wrong reasons. In "New Jack City," Wesley Snipes' character watches "Scarface" at least three times in the course of that movie, and in the end "New Jack City" ended up being a hip-hop version of it, just with more cops involved.

I do admire what you said,
I've never really trusted the taste of people who sport bandanas and bling-bling nonstop.

I hate to say things like that because I believe people are entitled to their tastes or music and culture, but I do have to agree and I have a genuine distaste for it. I don't understand any culture that praises a shallow and sometimes violent lifestyle. I can respect Ice-T because he raps about it from a very grounded point-of-view without pretense and obviously from an educated standpoint. My problem is the people who emulated him and started glorifying the things he was trying to warn about. I could go on about it, but I won't 'cuz I'm straying from the film topic.

Suffice to say, I think an excellent movie to watch about the subject is "Colors." It's being shown quite a lot on digital cable movie channels lately, but I never get tired of it. I think it's not only a well-made cop-movie, but an excellent view into gangstah culture.

Oliver Stone and Brian DePalma have made statements that "Scarface" is meant to be the ultimate anti-drug campaign because in the end Tony Montana gets fucked up by his own empire and his own ego, and ends up getting killed. It's a good idea in theory, except that the movie has been emulated by people who saw only the money and the power and the women. They skip the ending. Like in "New Jack City," someone said to Snipes' character, "You'll be a little more careful than Tony Montana was though, huh?" That's the WRONG point of the movie. It's not about being careful with drugs and money and power, it's about not getting into them in the first place because you'll end up the same way. But the movie did spend more time glorifying the rise to the top and spending only the last hour of three on the downfall...if the downfall was extended a little more, maybe that would've been seen more as the point...but then I think after the commercial failure of "Once Upon a Time in America," nobody wanted anymore "Godfather"-sized crime epics at the time, so...maybe "Scarface" should've been shortened by half. Leave the last hour, cut the first two by half, maybe more...maybe then the point of Tony's downfall would've been better seen.

But oh well, I think it's enough that I think "Scarface" is really only good for quotes and little else. I mean, who can forget a classic line like, "Say hello to my little friend!" :)

[stevetseitz]

>>I'd say we don't live in a democracy if our un-elected president is forging ahead with a war that numerous constituents don't want.<<

Actually, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. We live under the rule of law. Systems of law like the electoral college determine who wins our presidential elections. You may not like the current administration, I may have not liked the last administration, but the President is the President.

In our free society we can debate the merits of the President's national security decisions, whether it's President Clinton bombing Kosovo (with no U.N. resolution) to remove Milosevic from power and prevent genocide or President Bush mobilizing the military to remove Saddam Hussein from power and prevent genocide.

I'll leave the war debate to the political boards...suffice it to say there are plenty of arguments both for it and against it.

[oscar jubis]

stevetseitz, I provided the textbook definition of humanism after the word was used to mean something else. You proceeded to equate humanism with communism and preach about its evils. A few posts later, we return to a film related topic (Scarface). You return with "probably shouldn't go here but..." and totally out of left field draw a parallel between Clinton's and Bush's actions guaranteed to stir up political debate. You introduce a brand new political topic, give your opinion and then say: "I'll leave the war debate to the political boards". I won't give a political opinion unless directly related to a piece of cinema.

De Palma's Scarface is an inferior remake of the classic Howard Hawks' SCARFACE released in 1932, a film that even the youngish voters at ImDB rate higher. The film was attacked by civic groups at the time for its depiction of violence. Its release was postponed for two years. Paul Muni's performance as Tony Camonte is considered his best. The remake features Mr. De Palma's visual flair and ...camp (coupla outrageous lines, hysterical perfs). It takes the story from Italian Chicago to Cuban Miami. Problem is, if you know Cuban Miami, you know immediately, and receive constant reminders that Stone and Pacino do not. Soon as Pacino opens his mouth all verisimilitude is lost. All you think about is this actor you've admired giving a lazy, cartoonish performance based on an accent (even mannerisms) that doesn't exist, not here. If De Palma had John Sayles write the script and Andy Garcia or Steve Bauer cast as Tony, this film would be much better.

[stevetseitz]

Here is the original quote I responded to:

>>"But a humanist would always be more interested in trying to figure out how to stop humans from dying of hunger and malnutrition than how many virgins await in paradise."<<

This isn't a textbook definition by any means. This implies that humanism or the inevitable results of humanism are compassionate. I was simply pointing out the historical innaccuracy of the statement.

My comment on the current political situation was sparked by miseenscene's post :

>>"I'd say we don't live in a democracy if our un-elected president is forging ahead with a war that numerous constituents don't want.<<

Maybe you missed that section of the post. Anyhoo, if someone brings something up it is not inappropriate to address it and then move on....as I did.

[wpqx]

imdb sucks, and their top 10 is proof.
1. 9.0 Godfather, The (1972) 99,737
2. 8.9 Shawshank Redemption, The (1994) 122,908
3. 8.9 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003) 70,034
4. 8.8 Godfather: Part II, The (1974) 58,964
5. 8.8 Shichinin no samurai (1954) 25,310
6. 8.7 Schindler's List (1993) 83,541
7. 8.7 Casablanca (1942) 56,613
8. 8.7 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) 90,707
9. 8.7 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) 132,840
10. 8.7 Star Wars (1977)

That is there current top ten. Notice how all the LOTR films are in the list, but where is Citizen Kane? Any list that doesn't have Citizen Kane, provided it is not specific to exclude it, is worthless and worthy of being thrown in a fire. This is what happens when idiots who know nothing about film are given a chance to vote about it. There are whole bunch of lousy movies on their list that should have no business being in any "informed" viewers list. I liked the Shawshank Redemption as well, but it is the epitome of a film that people who know nothing about film love. By the way it is impossible to break through a piece of ductile iron with a rock, I don't care how big that shit is. That's a flaw that only a plumber could tell you about.
I also must object to Seven Samurai. It is a great film, and worth a top 100 no doubt, but it is hardly the best foreign film, let alone the only one in the top ten. It seems to be the only foreign film people have seen. Anyways I'm wondering why the toilet paper of the internet is bothering me. Let's hope our people here a little more informed than that. As for the overrated category, let's take the Lord of the Rings down a notch. I love Peter Jackson, and I thought the films were well made, particularly the Two Towers, but are you fucking high, top ten of all time? The more films I watch the more I dislike Shawshank Redemption as well. Anyways, whatever I said has probably been echoed before so, have fun and maybe this thread can revive.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks for reviving the thread, wpqx. I preface by stating that just about every title below is worth-seeing. We are not discussing "bad" movies in this thread but overrated ones. wpqx brings up for examination the IMDb voters; IMDb being a website known to the general public, whose interest in cinema is more limited and less intense than most contributors to specialized sites like filmwurld. Additionally, young people, males, and Americans seem to be "over-represented".

I've come-up with a list of movies that seem to me over-rated by that demographic: Young males, mostly from English speaking nations, with a moderate interest in movies. These movies tend to be well-crafted, entertaining, emotionally and philosophically unambiguious, and primarily concerned with storytelling. Thematically speaking, these films tend celebrate/exploit violence (many actually "kick ass"!) or to present violent intervention as heroic.
I will not include The Godfather, because the sequel provides the appropriate counterpoint and moral weight. Besides, I believe they should be considered two halves of one movie. I will exclude Natural Born Killers because I am myself seduced by Stone's flashy display of technique, even if used to belabor a single idea. I qualify my inclusion of Pulp Fiction by stating its in my top 10 of '94 because of the playful structure and delicious script, but #16 movie of all time!? I am disappointed it's not Ikiru, The Searchers or Rashomon up there instead of Kurosawa's samurai western but hey, it's still A.K. In private, I have derisively refered to these films as "dude movies" but I don't wish to imply they are not enjoyable and recommedable. Just overrated and often, morally reprehensible to me.

The Matrix, Fight Club, De Palma's Scarface, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, City of God, Kill Bill, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Leon the Professional, The Good,the Bad and the Ugly, Pulp Fiction and Braveheart.

I'm not implying either that females would pick better films, unless you consider Amelie, The Princess Bride and Pirates of the Caribbean the pinnacle of cinematic achievement.

In case that doesn't generate posts filled with passionate outrage...

Our Academy voters are known to over-rate an altogether different type of movie. These voters are older, more female and with certifiably "middle brow" proclivities. I'm talking about bland, well-meaning, take-no-chances Oscar winners like Driving Miss Daisy, Dances with Wolves, Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind...