• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

'The 10 Most Overrated Films of All Time'

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PSYCHOHYZACK

Member
Delta Assault said:
Fair enough. 2001 is the only Kubrick movie I've seen.
Click to expand...

2001 was also the first Kubrick film I ever saw and I remember wanting to kill myself at how long the shot was of the astronaut floating through the air when HAL attacks him. Then I watched his other films and understood that you either submit to his style and pace or you can go kick rocks that I started to really appreciate him. They grow quite a bit on repeat viewings once you know what you're in for. Once I understood what kind of director he was I realized that the actors might as well be props.
 
R

Romars202129

Member
Delta Assault said:
Fair enough. 2001 is the only Kubrick movie I've seen.
Click to expand...

I feel like Clockwork Orange and Apocalypse Now are required viewing material for anyone that considers themselves a film buff... even considering they didn't enjoy 2001. I'd try them, the pacing is faster and the characterization much stronger.
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
Romars202129 said:
I feel like Clockwork Orange and Apocalypse Now are required viewing material for anyone that considers themselves a film buff... even considering they didn't enjoy 2001. I'd try them, the pacing is faster and the characterization much stronger.
Click to expand...

That...isnt Kubrick
 
R

Romars202129

Member
HK-47 said:
That...isnt Kubrick
Click to expand...

Right, I was confusing it with Full Metal Jacket. Excuse the brainfart.

And to add the point, The Shining is awesome too... didn't realize that was a Kubrick...
I think it's even better than the book, which I just finished a couple weeks ago. Because Kubrick goes for something Stephen King clearly shied away from, plot wise.
 
M

marrec

Banned
munchie64 said:
Yes but the problem is that overrated can easily be used as an insult. Saying that the masses are stupid or sheep or pretentious for thinking something is good while a single person disagrees.
Click to expand...

I try not to use it as such, but with 2001 I really can't think of a better adjective. It's technically a masterpiece of effects and cinematography, while being bogged down by a weaponized version of Kubrick's film editing.

I understand that there are many ravenous fans of this film that believe it's the only Sci-Fi masterpiece, so I understand how it could be taken as a insult.

PSYCHOHYZACK said:
While I love 2001, I will agree that its pretty unyielding in its pace, but at least it's pretty upfront with you about it as literally the first five minutes is just a black screen with ominous music playing (this is even before the actual title card), so I feel its first scene puts me in the correct mindset about the pace of the movie but I could see it not working for everyone. As for HAL being the only interesting character in the third act, I always thought that was the point. Each segment has some entity evoling inot a higher form and in the third act thats HAL, so it made sence to be that he was more interesting and "human" than the actual humans.
Click to expand...

Yep, I totally get that, but that leaves the audience with the dissonance of having to feel empathy for a psychopathic disembodied voice while feeling nothing when Dave's astronaut buddy bites the dust.

Kubrick probably wanted his audience to feel uncomfortable with the idea of relating with a computer though... either way, HAL is the most interesting regardless of act. Even the normal (mostly) humans in Act 2 are cardboard cutouts when we should have had some reason to care about them and what they were doing.

That's a very minor complaint for me however, compared to the pacing and languishing style.

Romars202129 said:
I'm not sure I'm 'better' than you, but I'm nearly positive my film tastes are.
Click to expand...

Romars202129 said:
I feel like Clockwork Orange and Apocalypse Now are required viewing material for anyone that considers themselves a film buff... even considering they didn't enjoy 2001. I'd try them, the pacing is faster and the characterization much stronger.
Click to expand...

Tastes are one thing, but general knowledge?

Romars202129 said:
Right, I was confusing it with Full Metal Jacket. Excuse the brainfart.

And to add the point, The Shining is awesome too... didn't realize that was a Kubrick...
I think it's even better than the book, which I just finished a couple weeks ago. Because Kubrick goes for something Stephen King clearly shied away from, plot wise.
Click to expand...

Brainfart excused.

Also, The Shining is my favorite Kubrick film, in spite of all it's flaws.
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
marrec said:
Clockwork Orange is definitively his worst film. All the problems I have with 2001 are mirrored in ACO but with the added detriment of the awful script and some really badly framed scenes.

I would agree that 2001 is a 'truly artistic' sci-fi film but I would not want other filmmakers to try and make another one. The wonder of science and space is limited by Kubrick's vision. When I think of art and science and fiction being mixed together perfectly, I think of Cosmos (the original). Kubrick's version of space and the future is one of stark boredom and advancements catalyzed by strange and god-like forces, whereas Sagan's version of space and the future are optimistic and very much anthropomorphic.

Maybe it's a tonal difference that I can't agree with.
Click to expand...

What makes you think an encounter with other intelligent life would be at all anthropomorphic and not strange as hell? Or that 2001 isnt optimistic?

Anthropomorphism is one of the biggest problems with sci fi.
 
M

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
The best inclusion on that list is Amarcord, which is a truly empty film. Most people probably don't have an opinion on it because they haven't heard of it, let alone seen it, and I'd encourage them to keep it that way.
 
M

marrec

Banned
HK-47 said:
What makes you think an encounter with other intelligent life would be at all anthropomorphic? Or that 2001 isnt optimistic?
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned, specifically, with the alien encounter. I'm concerned with the non-anthropomorphic advancement of human society. Kubrick and Clarke clearly have a certain disdain for what humanity has done with technology, on the surface, but it seems under that they are marking human advancement through alien intervention which also gives a pessimistic view of human ingenuity.

2001's optimism comes in the form of a spiritual encounter with alien life, not in the idea of humanities expansion throughout the solar system via scientific advancement.
 
P

PSYCHOHYZACK

Member
marrec said:
Kubrick probably wanted his audience to feel uncomfortable with the idea of relating with a computer though... either way, HAL is the most interesting regardless of act. Even the normal (mostly) humans in Act 2 are cardboard cutouts when we should have had some reason to care about them and what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Once I figured out that Kubrick didn't give a fuck about his human characters, I realized that I didn't have to either and that wasn't what I should be focusing on. As I said in an earlier post, the characters might as well be part of the set.

As for the pacing, I can understand that. Either it works for you or it doesn't.

I'm not concerned, specifically, with the alien encounter. I'm concerned with the non-anthropomorphic advancement of human society. Kubrick and Clarke clearly have a certain disdain for what humanity has done with technology, on the surface, but it seems under that they are marking human advancement through alien intervention which also gives a pessimistic view of human ingenuity.

2001's optimism comes in the form of a spiritual encounter with alien life, not in the idea of humanities expansion throughout the solar system via scientific advancement.
Click to expand...

Really? I found the film deeply pessimistic. Every time we encounter the monolith, killing and violence ensues. There's no doubt in my mind that that space baby at the end wouldn't be any different.
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
marrec said:
I'm not concerned, specifically, with the alien encounter. I'm concerned with the non-anthropomorphic advancement of human society. Kubrick and Clarke clearly have a certain disdain for what humanity has done with technology, on the surface, but it seems under that they are marking human advancement through alien intervention which also gives a pessimistic view of human ingenuity.

2001's optimism comes in the form of a spiritual encounter with alien life, not in the idea of humanities expansion throughout the solar system via scientific advancement.
Click to expand...

A human advanced in either way would be closer to the star child then we are. And so what if they have a pessimistic view of humans? There is a lot to be pessimistic about. Much of our sci fi is pessimistic or ambivalent about us and technology.
 
O

OldKentuckyShark

Member
Of the 3 movies on the list that I've seen, I disagree with two of them. I personally loved inception, and it is by no means an average, mediocre film. I also fail to see how the Departed is overrated.
Slumdog millionare I kinda agree with. It's still a good movie, but I do think it's a little overrated.
 
S

Sojgat

Member
When everyone up and down the land goes gaga for Howard Beale's "mad as hell" speech, the movie wants to score its big coup in a very obvious satirical way by resorting to dim-bulb crowd behaviour, without realising how floridly condescending its message is. Over time, it has only seemed more hectoring, and also more ineffectual – there’s a lot more to hold against TV networks these days than just a bit of amoral ratings-grabbing.
Click to expand...

tumblr_inline_moxbjo0mGN1qz4rgp.gif
 
M

munchie64

Member
marrec said:
I try not to use it as such, but with 2001 I really can't think of a better adjective. It's technically a masterpiece of effects and cinematography, while being bogged down by a weaponized version of Kubrick's film editing.

I understand that there are many ravenous fans of this film that believe it's the only Sci-Fi masterpiece, so I understand how it could be taken as a insult.
Click to expand...
It's cool I wasn't necessarily trying to implicate you as using it as an insult. I just sometimes get overly mad at things like this article using it as such, which I think is the biggest problem of the whole thing, rather than its choices.
 
D

Delta Assault

Member
PSYCHOHYZACK said:
2001 was also the first Kubrick film I ever saw and I remember wanting to kill myself at how long the shot was of the astronaut floating through the air when HAL attacks him. Then I watched his other films and understood that you either submit to his style and pace or you can go kick rocks that I started to really appreciate him. They grow quite a bit on repeat viewings once you know what you're in for. Once I understood what kind of director he was I realized that the actors might as well be props.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just... I believe in assessing movies on a first viewing. I think that's the correct way to judge a movie, even if they may be enjoyed more on repeat viewings. This is because when you think about it, movies used to just be shown in theaters for a limited amount of time, before leaving and never returning. Back in the old days, there were no TV reruns or VHS or DVD or streaming services, so people would usually get to watch a movie once in the theater before they left forever. So that first viewing is paramount, and if a movie doesn't grab you there, then I do believe it has failed.

And the funny thing is, I actually really love the novelization of 2001 by Arthur C Clarke. I'm a big scifi buff, so Clarke's stuff was what I latched onto at an early age. And the 2001 story in that novel is really epic and interesting and grand. It deals with these huge cosmic ideas that you rarely think about because they span the length of human existence and I really love it. It's partly why I enjoy Contact so much, because that's another movie that deals with those same concepts.

I just think that Kubrick took that story and tortured the life out of it, to the point where it's almost unwatchable.
 
S

strobogo

Banned
No way is Network overrated. The rest of the list is whatever, but that is the one that sticks out as what the fuck are you talking about, guy.
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
Gonna have to disagree about Slumdog. Their analysis of the film is pretty shallow and vapid, honestly. "OMG it's about a quiz show" misses the entire concept of the fucking film. The quiz show as simply the centerpiece that brings all of these other things together and is otherwise immaterial. It could have been anything, so long as it offers a reason to recall all of these memories of events that form the story.

If they wanted to add an Oscar-winner, they could have gone with Crash, Avatar, Zero Dark Thirty.
 
K

Kriken

Member
I fully expected this to be a list comprised of movies from the 50s and 60s with arguments like "It hasn't aged well, therefore it sucks" I've only seen Inception and I'll agree that while I love it, it is a bit overrated at this point

SpinDasher said:
Where are all the Hitchcock films?
Click to expand...

I honestly thought you were being serious for a second
 
S

Spinluck

Member
ridley182 said:
Vertigo > Rear Window :p

But Rear Window > Psycho, which I don't like as much as the book.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that opinion.

For me personally, Rear Window gets better with rewatch. Especially after you've watched a multitude of shit films.

Vertigo is up there though, I love my psych thrillers. (Lol Inception)
 
P

PSYCHOHYZACK

Member
Romars202129 said:
It's not wrong, the answer to not enjoying a film isn't to watch it until you like it.
I'd say it's more about how you go into that first viewing, you have to tear down all your expectations and go in with an open mind. Only right way to do it.
Click to expand...

I agree. In the second viewing I understood what I was in for more than anything. I feel like for a lot of movies expectations account for a lot. It also doesn't hurt that I first say 2001 when I was 12, and it was so unlike anything that I had ever seen that I didn't know what to make of it.

Yeah, I just... I believe in assessing movies on a first viewing. I think that's the correct way to judge a movie, even if they may be enjoyed more on repeat viewings. This is because when you think about it, movies used to just be shown in theaters for a limited amount of time, before leaving and never returning. Back in the old days, there were no TV reruns or VHS or DVD or streaming services, so people would usually get to watch a movie once in the theater before they left forever. So that first viewing is paramount, and if a movie doesn't grab you there, then I do believe it has failed.
Click to expand...

Home video existed before I was even born. I really don't feel the need to artificially judge it by some 1950s standard that has no real relation to my time.
 
CharminUltra

CharminUltra

Member
Romars202129 said:
It's not wrong, the answer to not enjoying a film isn't to watch it until you like it.
Click to expand...
Judging or dismissing movies based on a single viewing is exponentially more absurd, any way you slice it, considering that people can change their mindset or mood over time, or that a film could actually be designed with multiple viewings in mind, etc.

Truly a stupefying and narrowminded idea.

Romars202129 said:
I'd say it's more about how you go into that first viewing, you have to tear down all your expectations and go in with an open mind. Only right way to do it.
Click to expand...
Somehow I am skeptical of this claim. I'm not sure I believe you hold ultimate answer to the eternal question of "How to watch a movie the right way?" Just a hunch.
 
S

Sol..

I am Wayne Brady.
Inception is definitely one of those movies where you watch it the first time and you are like this is some deep shit. Then you watch it again and you are like this shit is pretty fucking stupid, why did I like this three days ago?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Call him Sir Christopher Nolan after he receives he's knighthood
20
950
22:22:22 replied
Gareth Edwards set to direct new Jurassic World movie, screenplay by David Koepp
33
1K
RagnarokIV replied
The Holdovers : one of 2023's best films
26
3K
mitch1971 replied
Legendary director, William Friedkin has passed away.
36
2K
Chuck Berry replied
'Parasite' star Lee Sun-kyun commits suicide amid marijuana scandal
2
89
6K
John Marston replied
Top Bottom