"Classic" movies that are overrated?

Superman II.

I absolutely love Sarah Douglas as the sexy and intimidating Ursa character, but I find the rest of the film to be really shoddy and underwhelming. The Donner cut is slightly better but I've come to conclusion that the story just isn't very good. Richard Lester did a much better job on the unfairly maligned Superman III a few years later. Give me Lana Lang over Lois any day of the week! You can take your 5/10 rating and shove it up your arse, IMDB.

Pepsi Maxil wrote:Superman II.

I absolutely love Sarah Douglas as the sexy and intimidating Ursa character, but I find the rest of the film to be really shoddy and underwhelming. The Donner cut is slightly better but I've come to conclusion that the story just isn't very good. Richard Lester did a much better job on the unfairly maligned Superman III a few years later. Give me Lana Lang over Lois any day of the week! You can take your 5/10 rating and shove it up your arse, IMDB.

An unpopular opinion, but only the 1978 film matters to me and I don't really care for the sequels and remakes.

Also I always found The Godfather to be quite overrated.

I hate the term 'overrated', unless one can justify it by pointing out some bias in play for the majority opinion it's pure critical narcissism.

For modern films the easiest example are films with a political agenda, as rated by people with the same agenda.

For classic films this would be less of a factor and I can't think of any good examples of this cause in classic films, off the top of my head.

Nostalgia would likely be the main cause instead.

I'm tempted to call the original Star Wars films overrated both in the contemporary - in that the spectacle of the original, unseen at the time, distracted from the weaker aspects of the film - and retrospectively in that basically anyone into film has seen and loved the films during childhood for similar reasons.

I mainly say this in comparison to the prequels, when fans will significantly underrated them due to flaws that were entirely present in the originals.

Really, most 'great' classic films will have become at least marginally overrated because of the 'best films of all time' circlejerks.

Yet I only mean this in the sense that the 'true rating' is a more objective one based on the sum of its parts - only people's perception of art is very subjective. The only complaint I would make is people's habit of making declarations of quality in art rather than personal favour.

Scarface (1983). I think about halfway through it starts to descend into pure sound and fury, its lead character doesn't get any more interesting.... and then it just keeps on going......

Definitely The Shawshank Redemption. I’ve no idea what people see in it to justify IMDb declaring it the greatest film of all time.

Concerning the subjective argument- I think films can be broken down and dissected in terms of whether they function or not as films, and I think that one can absolutely apply an objective critique to art. To suggest otherwise is to indicate that art has no inherent value. However, I do agree that people tend to proclaim their own personal stances as objective fact, which does become irksome- take when someone declares a film to be objectively shit, only to then retort with ‘in my opinion’, suggestive of what is ultimately a subjective and personal take in spite of indicating otherwise previously. It does undermine genuine criticism, as mere rhetoric and platitudes can be perceived as true film criticism as a result. Hence why so many contemporary critics don’t discuss the films they review in genuine detail (see any review from TIME Magazine, etc), instead engaging in personal platitudes related to their own political views (see their review for The Last Jedi, where instead of discussing the film’s narrative construction and characterisation, they instead indulge in stating that the film “has something for everyone” based on its political leanings- a form of critique which is diluting true criticism). As Immanuel Kant acknowledges in ‘A Critique of Judgement’, one’s own take on art (or anything, considering humanity’s physical and mental confines) is indeed subjective generally speaking, but I’d say it’s best to try to be as objective as possible in order to make sure that one’s take on something has credibility from a rationalist and objective perspective (which Kant also acknowledges).

It’s why I tend to verify that something I like or dislike isn’t necessarily good or bad respectively. I prefer to separate objective and subjective takes on things, although a film’s objective qualities can influence one’s subjective appreciation (or lack thereof) of it- I try to be as objective as possible when writing genuine reviews (as with my Who reviews on this forum, though they can delve into subjectivity occasionally, and I try to avoid this when I can, and if not, will acknowledge that what is being said is subjective).

Either Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind. Both films feel so drawn out and could easily have a lot of scenes cut down or removed.
I do think that Shawshank Redemption isn't like the best movie like a lot of people see in it, but I can see why someone would love it, and respect the analysis videos on it. I just prefer One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (which has a similar structure to Shawshank, but I find One to be much more heartbreaking and beautiful).

In regards to subjectivity vs objectivity, I find that I do try to respect opinions when people are looking at things subjectively. For example, I didn't enjoy Captain Marvel (not because of feminism politics, but I just find it to be a bland fucking movie). But I respected CinemaWins for trying to find positive aspects (and to be fair, there were a few things that made me consider my views about the movie), so kudos to him.
Another example is a show that I adore, subjectively: Steven Universe. It's in my top 5 favourite shows of all time, but objectively, there are flaws with it. Inconsistent animation, wonky pacing, and some character arcs are either forgotten about or awfully rushed. But what it gets right, it happens to be some of my favourite television since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so subjectively l can overlook most of these flaws. I believe that in this current era of criticism, people tend to never separate subjectivity from objectivity and often treat their opinions as factual, both the over positives and detractors are equally as bad in this factor. I won't go out of my way to insult people who do like NewWho, it has its audience, and it's ultimately a show that's not for me anymore.

As an aside, this film is probably too modern to be considered an established classic, but does anyone else here find Mad Max: Fury Road to be an abject pile of shite? It’s generally praised as an action genre defining modern classic, though I could nary find a redeeming quality within it.

I suppose The Breakfast Club in many ways. There are so many better John Hughes movies out there like Home Alone, Weird Science and Some Kind of Wonderful. I never really liked the ending of the film either. Bender is pretty cool, though.

Bernard Marx wrote:As an aside, this film is probably too modern to be considered an established classic, but does anyone else here find Mad Max: Fury Road to be an abject pile of shite? It’s generally praised as an action genre defining modern classic, though I could nary find a redeeming quality within it.

I've not seen it, mainly because I thought the trailer looked shit. Everybody raved over it, but I still thought the trailer looked shit... and fuck Tom Hardy too.

iank wrote:

Bernard Marx wrote:As an aside, this film is probably too modern to be considered an established classic, but does anyone else here find Mad Max: Fury Road to be an abject pile of shite? It’s generally praised as an action genre defining modern classic, though I could nary find a redeeming quality within it.

I've not seen it, mainly because I thought the trailer looked shit. Everybody raved over it, but I still thought the trailer looked shit... and fuck Tom Hardy too.

Hardy is very overrated. He seems to specialise in speaking in a unintelligibly camp voice in almost every role he plays, and he’s dreadful in Fury Road as well. I honestly couldn’t find a single quality about the film I thought worked- the script is an unchallenging dumbed down mess that amounts to fuck all by the end, the acting is largely appalling (featuring people glowering and looking vaguely pissed off and constipated throughout, especially in Hardy’s case), and the dialogue complete shite.

There’s a scene towards the middle where Theron’s character suddenly starts discussing her ‘Redemption’. Firstly, why would you discuss your redemption in such an overt way without any subtext (who the fuck talks like that? It reminded me of the shitehouse dialogue in Attack of the Clones where Anakin goes on about Padme being in “my very soul, tormenting me”), and the film presumes that such an exchange is deep, profound and thought-provoking signalled by the music, completely misjudged when following a moronic scene featuring a guitar blazing fire with people screaming their fucking heads off to idiotic rave music with editing that makes Michael Bay’s films look decidedly restrained (and with no indication of such a redemptive arc being there in the first place). Oh- and the rest of the film consists of people grunting their heads off to shit music accompanied with loud explosions with no point. So much for this film’s aspirations to profundity.

97% on Rotten Tomatoes. Fuck me.

On the subject of Mad Max Fury Road, I think that it was largely praised for its use of practical effects, which I do think were effective and captivating to look at, but the rest of the package doesn't feel as great honestly, although Charlize Theron does pull a great performance. I'm not fond of the Mad Max series anyway, so I found Fury Road pretty disposable anyway.

For me, Mad Max: Fury Road was the real first ugly omen of a man-hating, feminist takeover of popular movie franchises to turn them into hateful propaganda.

I honestly felt like taking a cold shower after that film.

Tanmann wrote:For me, Mad Max: Fury Road was the real first ugly omen of a man-hating, feminist takeover of popular movie franchises to turn them into hateful propaganda.

I honestly felt like taking a cold shower after that film.

Thinking about it, you’re probably right, given how shallow and caricatured all the female characters are in it, and how sidelined Max himself is. Although that wasn’t the main issue I had with it at the time- I just found it to be a fucking stupid film which featured nought but embarrassing moments. I still don’t see why so many rave about it.

I think the misandry hit me when toward the end they discovered the all-female tribe, who are just as mercenary and survivalist as the male biker gangs, and just as prone to use traps and plunder to lure in prey by using their compassion against them.... and yet they were somehow treated as the morally superior gang for no other reason than that they're women.

I think I'll continue to happily avoid it.

Jaws.


Jaws: the Revenge > Jaws.


Sorry not sorry. If they digitally insert Mario Van Peebles into the original film I'll watch it again. Until then I'll stick with the 1987 sequel

I don't even recall the story in Fury Road, you were supposed to be watching the cars and the action - right?

I didn't think there was much else to it.