Most overrated

**Ilker81x** · 03-06-2003, 09:00 AM

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** · 03-06-2003, 11:58 AM

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** · 03-06-2003, 12:39 PM

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** · 03-06-2003, 01:03 PM

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** · 03-06-2003, 02:42 PM

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** · 03-06-2003, 03:02 PM

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** · 03-06-2003, 03:38 PM

...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** · 03-06-2003, 03:53 PM

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** · 03-06-2003, 07:45 PM

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** · 03-06-2003, 10:50 PM

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** · 03-07-2003, 02:06 AM

"Genius."

**stevetseitz** · 03-07-2003, 02:40 AM

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** · 03-07-2003, 08:38 AM

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** · 03-07-2003, 12:00 PM

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** · 03-07-2003, 12:18 PM

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.