Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

20 Most Overrated Films of All Time

1678911

Posts

  • Romero ZombieRomero Zombie Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Browsed through the thread and didn't see it in the top 20…but I wanted to add Saw to the list. The problem for this movie, suffered the same fate that most other movies suffer and that is the "this is the best horror movie ever!"

    Lets start off by saying that I am a huge horror movie fan. I didn't see this in theatres…mostly because my wife is an anti-horror movie fan and I waited until it came out to rent. I sat through and watched it, and just found the whole thing to be pretty gimmicky. There were some good parts…and it was a decent flick all in all. But best horror movie ever? I think not.

    Romero Zombie on
    steam_sig.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2006
    Browsed through the thread and didn't see it in the top 20…but I wanted to add Saw to the list. The problem for this movie, suffered the same fate that most other movies suffer and that is the "this is the best horror movie ever!"

    Did anybody actually say that, though? I don't recall a lot of hype for it. I heard mixed reviews, some saying it was pretty good, some saying it was pretty dumb. Now Blair Witch - that was an overrated movie. And I say that having loved it.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Eight RooksEight Rooks Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Zsetrek wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Zsetrek wrote:
    Sideways wasn't asking you to root for its characters - it was trying to get you emotionally invested in their self-destructive tendancies, so that when he overcomes them at the end, you're happy. It worked for me. The movie was totally aware that the main character was a loser. That was the entire point - him growing up.

    Sideways was a character study, and if you don't relate to the characters then it doesn't work. I think everyone can recognise that selfish shitbag tendency, but if you can't (don't have aspects of it in yourself/can't recognize it in other people) you won't enjoy the film.

    I still classify "becoming emotionally invested in them" as "rooting for them". I couldn't become emotionally invested in these guys, because I was never given a reason to give two shits about them. If you meet a guy in a fast food place at you, and he's a dick, and he's rude to you, and then he fucks up your order, and when you bring it up he tells you to piss off, do you become emotionally invested in his flaws? No, you think to yourself what a fucking prick he is, and go on your merry way.

    This film was like two hours of watching the register biscuit at Mickey D's be a fuckwad. By the time the redemption came at the end, you didn't much care, because you already had it established in your mind that the guy could just fuck right the hell off. The film had numerous chances to give us a reason to empathize, and it it never took any of them. It just assumed that we'd empathize with the guy because he was the main character, and you're supposed to empathize with the main character, because that's how movies work.

    I guess I'm just more of a forgiving character than you :P

    Evidently Jeffe is perfect. Either that or, when he discovers any evidence he himself has behaved like a self-centred, manchild shitbag, he scourges himself with birch branches until he's driven the demons out and won't speak of it even after years of intensive therapy. :P

    tl;dr - I loved Sideways, thought the film gave me plenty of chances to empathise with the two leads, liked the ambivalence/lack of saccharine about the redemption and generally thought it was an excellent film, if rather too long. I can think of countless films I loved where I empathised with the main cast far, far less. Still, maybe that's because I'm 30 and terrified I'm dead set on the road to failure, I dunno. From what I remember Jeffe's younger than me, happily married and has a wonderful kid, so obviously he's less than tolerant of people who can't get their shit together to the same degree. :P

    Eight Rooks on
    <AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.

    Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Wait someone said Fight Club *pukes on them*

    Prohass on
  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    Fuck Sideways. Fuck it... well, sideways.

    That is all.

    I haven't seen it, but fuck everybody who started drinking Merlot because of that movie. I was drinking Merlot as soon as I was old enough to appreciate wine. I was an OG*, dawg.

    * - oenophile gangsta

    Typically, I watch Oscar winners with the knowledge that they won't be nearly as good as all the buzz, because they never are. (In fact, my official list consists of every movie to ever win an Oscar for Best Picture or Best Screenplay.) However, Sideways was actually bad. It failed completely as a comedy - it just wasn't funny, even in a subtle, "heh, this is sort of amusing" way. It failed at making you give a shit about any characters, it failed at making you care what happened next. It failed at everything. I love Paul Giomatti, but even he couldn't save that load of crap.

    Sideways was supposed to be a comedy? I thought it was a really good drama, you know, which would mean it has some funny bits, but I just sort of thought Sideways was this kind of . . . adult movie...about adults being very . . . I don't know, adult.

    It was good film-making, though, and Giomatti was great in it. That part where he's walking along before he goes in to hit on the girl, and you can just tell he's rehearsing what he'll say to her in his head, but he's not actually saying it out loud? That was good acting. Also, the guy in sideways hates merlot and it wasn't that people started drinking merlot - it was that they stopped.

    Also, Fight Club is one of the best movies about going crazy ever made.

    JohnnyCache on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Also, the guy in sideways hates merlot and it wasn't that people started drinking merlot - it was that they stopped.

    Okay, then it was Pinot.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • etoychestetoychest Registered User
    edited December 2006
    As a huge Gene Kelly geek, I'm a little upset that An American in Paris is on there. It's not NEARLY as good as Singin', but it's still tremendously entertaining.

    etoychest on
  • edited December 2006
    Certainly a lot of the people I know think that 2001 is a very boring film. The middle third is entertaining but the first and last thirds are pretty snore inducing.

    bongi on
  • MentholMenthol Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Menthol wrote:
    I can't take any movie seriously that has "American" as the first word of the title. American Pie, American Beauty, American Psycho...

    Maybe I don't like the fact that said movies make Americans look like a bunch of perverted dumbasses; which we probably are, but still. :?

    American Psycho is great though.

    It was mildly amusing.

    Did you see the "sequel"?

    [spoiler:eb93842a9d]The brunette from that 70s show + William Shatner = Not a good thing. D=[/spoiler:eb93842a9d]

    Menthol on
    sigbz8.jpg
    You're not L33T enough for IDI/RN FTP!
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    What fucking redemption?

    The shitheel finally runs back to the girl who was always way too good for his sorry despicable ass anyway, and she welcomes him. What redemption?

    That's exactly my problem with this movie. People think there's a redemption. If there had been one, cool. But there wasn't. He was a worthless turdfart douchebag fuckstick asshole cockmunching cumwad from start to finish, and I was clearly supposed to love him and cheer for him, for no reason other than he was the main character, and like supposedly he had a less than perfect father or something. No thanks.

    Yar on
  • lesserbeinglesserbeing Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    That's exactly my problem with this movie. People think there's a redemption. If there had been one, cool. But there wasn't. He was a worthless turdfart douchebag fuckstick asshole cockmunching cumwad from start to finish, and I was clearly supposed to love him and cheer for him, for no reason other than he was the main character, and like supposedly he had a less than perfect father or something. No thanks.

    Hmmm does your head glow? Cause if it does I want to paint a picture of you.

    Also if something is overrated does it mean I have to hate it while everyone else likes it? or can I like a movie but just not like how the general public sees it. For example, I found the film Hero to be a pretty decent film, nice to look at, interesting thesis, and good execution of story but for some reason I can't get into a meaningful discussion about it. Since there are few people willing to talk about it to me and without commenting on how great the cinematography was and then stop there I feel the movie was "overrated". But I still enjoy watching it from time to time.

    lesserbeing on
  • No Cars GoNo Cars Go Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Seven Samurai

    It's good. But it's so fucking long.

    No Cars Go on
  • DreamerdownDreamerdown Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Sideways is amazing, most people I know didn't even see it so I don't know how could ever qualify as being over-rated.

    Dreamerdown on
    bigifre1vy.jpg

    Not all vampires suck blood.
    Not all of them die for love.
  • No Cars GoNo Cars Go Registered User
    edited December 2006
    It would have won Film 2005 Film of the Year award in the UK if Browncoats didn't vote for Serenity en mass. Film <Year> is the main film review show in the UK, shown on the BBC, with the film of the year being voted for by viewers.

    No Cars Go on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Sideways is amazing, most people I know didn't even see it so I don't know how could ever qualify as being over-rated.
    Most people I know haven't seen Citizen Kane but that doesn't mean Citizen Kane isn't overrated.

    Couscous on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    That's exactly my problem with this movie. People think there's a redemption. If there had been one, cool. But there wasn't. He was a worthless turdfart douchebag fuckstick asshole cockmunching cumwad from start to finish, and I was clearly supposed to love him and cheer for him, for no reason other than he was the main character, and like supposedly he had a less than perfect father or something. No thanks.

    Hmmm does your head glow? Cause if it does I want to paint a picture of you.

    Also if something is overrated does it mean I have to hate it while everyone else likes it? or can I like a movie but just not like how the general public sees it. For example, I found the film Hero to be a pretty decent film, nice to look at, interesting thesis, and good execution of story but for some reason I can't get into a meaningful discussion about it. Since there are few people willing to talk about it to me and without commenting on how great the cinematography was and then stop there I feel the movie was "overrated". But I still enjoy watching it from time to time.

    No, you're allowed to like things that are overrated :) The problem is more when people that don't really like it/understand it/haven't seen it say it's great.

    Something that springs to mind is Pi by Aronofsky. I refuse to believe that many people understand it at all, or even like it. But because of Requiem and wanting to seem hip and cool a lot of people put it down is a great film.

    Rook on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai

    Take pop Japanophilia, mix in one-dimensional notions of what it means to be a Mafia thug or a samurai, some strained misinterpretations of out-of-context quotes from Hagakure, a whole bunch of unlikeable characters, and a few pointless "look how literate I am!" references to Rashomon and you have Ghost Dog.

    I get it. It's about old ways and the people who practice them going obsolete. It's not exactly subtle. "Everything around us seems to be changing, huh, Louie?" Gee, thanks for pointing out your message every 15 minutes, I might have missed it the first (and second, and third, and fourth) times...

    Of course, this constant harping on the moral of the fable seems artificial in and of itself. The purpose of this movie doesn't seem to go any deeper than "Gangsters are cool. Samurai are cool. Therefore, samurai gangsters must be twice as cool!" I hear Jim Jarmusch's next project is about a ninja pirate.

    And the characters... maybe we need to send around a memo reminding screenwriters that stoics are only interesting when their stoicism betrays an inner conflict (see Capeio, Brutus). Forest Whittaker, normally one of the most charismatic actors in Hollywood, is as constrained in his wooden role as his ponch is in his suit. And his enemies are the most bumbling, idiotic wiseguys ever to run a disorganized crime syndicate.

    I will say this much: at least the soundtrack was awesome.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2006
    No Cars Go wrote:
    Seven Samurai

    It's good. But it's so fucking long.

    Half-hour per Samurai is how I like to describe it.

    Still, it's a magnificent movie, and I think the deliberate pacing is one of its charms. This sort of thing tends to be frustrating to modern audiences, I agree, though I don't think it really detracts from my appreciation of the film.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    The Thing. I dunno, was super dissapointed, and the start of the movie is so promising and well done. It just fizzles into bad acting and stupid plot twists.

    Prohass on
  • METAzraeLMETAzraeL Registered User
    edited December 2006
    redx wrote:
    METAzraeL wrote:
    It just shows how overrated these "ain't it cool" movies are in general that they are highly regarded even by the guy complaining about them. Army of Darkness is pretty good, but at the top of the list of movies I'm tired of hearing about. See also Fight Club.

    Yeeeeees, everybody loves those movies. They're fine, definitely enjoyable, but c'mon, let's stop talking about them already.

    honestly, when was the last time Fight Club came up in a discussion about something other than it being overated?

    Like, they have stopped talking about it. It was pretty popular in the theater, so most people saw it at about the same time.

    Now, shit like darko... it wouldn't be so bad if everyone had seen it at about the same time, but people keep seeing it for the first time and are fucking amazed and feel the need to bring it up.

    Maybe it's more like everybody I know always talks about how good these movies are.

    Hm, I just remembered that I heard so much simpering praise for Blade Runner before I saw it, and it ended up being insanely pedestrian compared to what I imagined it was.

    METAzraeL on

    dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
    sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
  • NoomNoom Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Fantasia isn't overrated, you just aren't supposed to watch that shit sober in any shape or form.

    Noom on
    sig.gif
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited December 2006
    Noom wrote:
    Fantasia isn't overrated, you just aren't supposed to watch that shit sober in any shape or form.

    Oh my god, I finally get it.

    So that's what that movie's for.

    real_pochacco on
  • mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2006
    Noom wrote:
    Fantasia isn't overrated, you just aren't supposed to watch that shit sober in any shape or form.

    Oh my god, I finally get it.

    So that's what that movie's for.

    That, and so the repressed Disney animators can communicate as many coded messages to the viewer as possible

    mcc on
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Menthol wrote:
    Menthol wrote:
    I can't take any movie seriously that has "American" as the first word of the title. American Pie, American Beauty, American Psycho...

    Maybe I don't like the fact that said movies make Americans look like a bunch of perverted dumbasses; which we probably are, but still. :?

    American Psycho is great though.

    It was mildly amusing.

    Did you see the "sequel"?

    [spoiler:56c2080386]The brunette from that 70s show + William Shatner = Not a good thing. D=[/spoiler:56c2080386]

    mildly amusing yeah, but it wasn't a comedy so I don't really count that as a review.

    and the second one sucked. It's like they just took the name because it was already known... except it wasn't all that known. so weird a move to make.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Fight Club: yet again, a movie where the book was better.



    Too bad the book was kinda lame as well.


    Also, as much as I love Truffaut, I think The 400 Blows is a tad overrated, especially when compared with flicks like Shoot the Piano Player, Stolen Kisses, and Jules and Jim.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Fight Club has been overquoted and overplayed but it was an excellent film

    nexuscrawler on
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Fight Club has been overquoted and overplayed but it was an excellent film

    :^:

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
  • ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yar wrote:
    I was clearly supposed to love him and cheer for him, for no reason other than he was the main character, and like supposedly he had a less than perfect father or something. No thanks.

    Not really. I liked the film well enough, and I certainly didn’t love him, or even really like him. I merely identified with aspects of him, and was sufficiently engaged.

    Look, people don't want to go the cinema for a Indiana Jones style matinee movies where we can throw popcorn, jump around, cheer and clap all the time. Those movies are cool, but sometimes people like to go to films that aren't as simple as white hats vs. black hats - films that present them with complex characters who have arcs that weren't ripped from the pages of "The Hero's Journey".

    You didn't have to like the main character (and, as I said, if you actively hated him like you seem to, the film won't work), you just had to engage with him and his situation. I engaged with that dude because I recognized aspects of his personality - not good ones (although he did have good aspects - getting his friend's wallet back), but self-destructive ones. His redemption did come, when he drank his expensive wine in the McDonalds. It was understated - he didn't have a "Lordy, I been an ass!" revelation, but it worked in the context of the story. It seemed true-to life.

    It's kinda stupid to expect all films to have a main character that you morally root for - a hero. You certainly don't expect books to. Films, and books, are both about stories and how they effect characters - I think that the story of Sideways effected the main character of that film sufficiently for his arc to be satisfying.

    In any case, it seems a little bit stupid to be hatin' on the Sideways dude when there are heroes we’re honest-to-god supposed to root for (and not just identify with), and morally support, in movies like Bad Boys 2.

    Zsetrek on
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Snazel wrote:
    I can't believe people put 'Wizard of Oz' and on their all-time overated list. Jesus, it was the first movie to have color for Christ sake

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • 777777 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Snazel wrote:
    I can't believe people put 'Wizard of Oz' and on their all-time overated list. Jesus, it was the first movie to have color for Christ sake

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    Just because it has color dosen't make it a good movie. If I take a pink shit, It would (most likley) smell the same. It would be a first in history, just not a great accomplishment.

    777 on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2007
    Poldy wrote:
    Fight Club: yet again, a movie where the book was better.



    Too bad the book was kinda lame as well.
    You've got it backwards. The movie was much much better than the book. Pahluniuk can't write for shit, but the movie was pretty well done.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • 777777 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    Irond Will wrote:
    Poldy wrote:
    Fight Club: yet again, a movie where the book was better.



    Too bad the book was kinda lame as well.
    You've got it backwards. The movie was much much better than the book. Pahluniuk can't write for shit, but the movie was pretty well done.

    I lik Pahluniuk's writing, I just think that only Finchner could bring it to life like he did. Thats why I fear the movie version of Survivor.

    777 on
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited January 2007
    I liked one book he wrote, "Lullaby." I also liked "Survivor," to an extent, although it was pretty ridiculous.

    real_pochacco on
  • 777777 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    I liked one book he wrote, "Lullaby." I also liked "Survivor," to an extent, although it was pretty ridiculous.

    I like the rediculous way it's exicuted, because even as out there as it was, it kept a nice tone.

    777 on
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited January 2007
    777 wrote:
    I liked one book he wrote, "Lullaby." I also liked "Survivor," to an extent, although it was pretty ridiculous.

    I like the rediculous way it's executed, because even as out there as it was, it kept a nice tone.

    Yeah, but the whole "she can predict the future because she has dreams where she sees everything that has and will ever happen" was just totally unnecessary.

    real_pochacco on
  • 777777 Registered User
    edited January 2007
    777 wrote:
    I liked one book he wrote, "Lullaby." I also liked "Survivor," to an extent, although it was pretty ridiculous.

    I like the rediculous way it's executed, because even as out there as it was, it kept a nice tone.

    Yeah, but the whole "she can predict the future because she has dreams where she sees everything that has and will ever happen" was just totally unnecessary.

    I liked her, but yea, her powers could have been nerfed a bit to keep it serious.

    777 on
  • real_pochaccoreal_pochacco Registered User
    edited January 2007
    777 wrote:
    777 wrote:
    I liked one book he wrote, "Lullaby." I also liked "Survivor," to an extent, although it was pretty ridiculous.

    I like the rediculous way it's executed, because even as out there as it was, it kept a nice tone.

    Yeah, but the whole "she can predict the future because she has dreams where she sees everything that has and will ever happen" was just totally unnecessary.

    I liked her, but yea, her powers could have been nerfed a bit to keep it serious.

    I liked the basic concept but when it got to the point where she was able to predict exactly what was going to happen to everyone I thought it was pretty stupid.

    real_pochacco on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    IRT Fight Club:

    Strangely enough, I thought that the homosexual overtones in the book diluted the message. In the movie, he was basically Walter Mitty (fuck, he was even a projectionist in both the occupational and Freudian senses) who ends up consumed by his own id. In the book, he's all that and also a closet case. Sexual repression drives both characters, but when Jack is heterosexual, his sexual repression is caused by his own timidness around women whereas when Jack is a latent homosexual it's because he can't admit his desire for men. I thought that the character wanting something, but not having the balls to go after it, works a lot better for him than wanting something, but not being able to admit it.

    However, I prefer the ending where

    [spoiler:58ebb004dd]Marla leaves forever and never comes back, and Tyler tells God to go piss off.[/spoiler:58ebb004dd]

    I like the movie a lot more. I rather liked the book, it didn't rock my world or anything but I enjoyed it (you have to admit there are some great quotes). I just think Fincher was able to evoke the feeling of a man in the middle of a nervous breakdown a lot more potently than the source material.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I haven't read the book but the movie would have been a lot better if the protagonist was a repressed homosexual. It would have fit more perfectly together with the male chauvinism. All Fincher does with it is try to pass it off as a sort of religion which just isn't enough. It's a big reason why people skip a beat when watching the movie and feel he's trying to advocate it.

    Hoz on
  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited January 2007
    I loved Palahniuk until I read Diary. Now going back, I only really like Fight Club and Choke... maybe survivor. I think Choke is awesome though.

    I think the movie was very well done. It captures all the necessities of the book without Palahniuk's droning, repetitious style. It makes it rewatchable, where as I hardly count any of his books as rereadable, no matter how good I think any of them are.

    Variable on
    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
Sign In or Register to comment.