Most overrated

[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...