Most overrated

[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.