So here's the deal, which films that are loved by many do you hate?

Lets all keep it civil and agree to be classy about it


So my List:
Donnie Darko (emo-tastic! *groan*)
Platoon (just really piss poor, I'm all around not a fan of Olver Stone)
Scarface (Oh how I loathe this movie)
Vertigo (Overwraught and contrived)
Anchorman (Will Farrell as Will Farrell is awful)
Napoleon Dynamite (just so... painful)

That's it for now might change

Titanic. Titanic piece of shit, hands down.

Windtalkers
Dodgeball
Anything with Halle Berry...ugh, how I abhor her...
Transformers
All the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies, well, except Goldeneye.
Catwoman
Epic Movie
Elektra
Daredevil
Grandma's Boy
Aeon Flux
Date Movie
Ultraviolet
EVERY SINGLE Jennifer Lopez movie...they're all number 2 on my top "Movie Hater List"
Beerfest
Old School
Meet the Spartans
All three Resident Evils - Click Here for my review.
Hitman

The movie I loathe more than Halle Berry and Jennifer Lopez's films put together:
Jackass

That made me chuckle ... maybe cause I love Donnie Darko and can't for the life of me see what's emo about it (except if anything that isn't happy is emo).

My list:

-Transformers. One Big Plothole.
-The American Pie series. I actually fall asleep when watching them.
-The Scary Movie series. See above.
-The Fantastic Four... I know, it was never rated that high in the first place, but even that's too high.
-Children of Men. I dunno... after all the exstatic reviews I expected... more. Still liked it, just didn't love it.
-The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I won't go into why . Suffice to say they're good films, but... no, won't go into it.
-Pirates of the Carribean 'trilogy'. Good fun, but oh so brainless and, indeed, overrated.
-The Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions. Part one was brilliant. It should've stopped there.

Definitely has to be Sin City for me. So many people were raving about a moviethat was very boring. The black&white with one colored bit gimmick was nice for a few minutes but got old really fast. I gave up halfway through the movie at first. A few days later I decided to watch the rest after all, but it didn't get any better. I don't see why people think it's so good. (And no, one pretty girl doesn't make a movie great, it takes more than that.)

People, let's make sure these are overrated movies and not just movies and not just movies you don't like. Sure, Catwoman was awful, but we all know and agree.

Fifth Element - A science fiction movie that should've been released straight to video. How Milla Jovovich gets work I will never know. She's not even incredibly hot, which is the only thing that could possibly balance out her "acting." I don't wanna hear "bada-boom" repeated for five minutes, thanks.

Moulin Rouge! - Movie musicals need to die. Unfortunately for mankind, it doesn't look like that's going to happen. The phrase that sums up Moulin Rouge!: the epileptic's nightmare. Choppy editting is not a substitute for crappy action.

Chicago - I like to call this Moulin Rouge! 2! 'Cause let's face it, without Moulin Rouge! we'd have been saved from this crap. And, like almost all sequels, Chicago sucked far worse than the first. To prove this, I need only bring up one, though not the only, piece of evidence: Richard Gere sings.

Serenity - Am I the only one in the world that isn't impressed by Joss Whedon's snappy dialogue? There's only one interesting character in this movie and its not Mal or anyone that you're supposed to care about. I know this because when the pilot, whatever his name is, is shot through the chest, I laughed uncontrolably for maybe five minutes. Let's just hope nobody does something stupid and greenlights a sequel.

Black Hawk Down - I've heard numerous times that this movie accurately depicts war. Wow. That's wonderful. Maybe then someone can explain why it's still a terrible movie. Other than the offensive nature of the Somalians dying en masse without any attention paid to them and when Americans die its a five minute slow motion shot, this movie lacks characters and is full of cardboard cutouts.

300 - Other than the fact that this one of the more atrocious abuses of history to come out of Hollywood, 300 is a lesson in homoerotica and pedophilia. The first one I have no problem with as long as you sell you sell it as such. Brokeback Moutain was a great film, but I knew what I was walking into. The second refers to the creepy underage oracle dance scene. I liked looking at fourteen year old girls when I was fourteen!

Forrest Gump - This is how this movie was sold to the studio: "Movie producer: 'I've got this script. It's about a retard who is involved in historical events, lucks up, and creepily stalks a girl his entire life.' Studio exec: 'Okay, stop right there. You had me at retard. Who is popular with the kids nowadays? Tom Hanks?" And, that's all the thought process that went into this movie.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show - For the life of me, I don't get it. Why do people like this shitty excuse for a movie? It's not entertaining. It's not interesting. It's not even funny. And, yet, you get freakishly obsessed fans that dress up as their favorite characters.

Titanic - Probably the least deserving best picture winner ever. My brother still insists Titanic deserves the Oscar. Even when I bring up Boogie Nights, which is one of his favorite movies ever, or Good Will Hunting or L.A. Confidential, he sides with Titanic. A teen drama on a historical boat is not what you need for a good movie. And, how do we know it was a teen drama? The thousands of teenage girls that saw the movie multiple times for Leo, who is a total dreamboat. It's like the iceberg sunk a torrid affair and not a ship.

Batman Begins - Fanboys love this movie like Christians love Jesus. Both are overrrated. Batman Begins suffers from a total lack of inspiration. The manifestation of this is the dialogue, which is atrocious. Watch the movie again. Note every line that is repeated. You'll find somewhere around thirteen. It's laziness disguised as clever script writing. The worst of which is "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me." I've never gagged so hard in a movie theatre, and I saw Gigli. Let's not forget Nolan's lazy directing and utter inability to keep the camera still for five seconds.

12 Monkeys - I'm having trouble putting this on my list simply 'cause I'm not sure enough people like this movie for it to be overrated. Then again, The fans do like it hard enough to push it over the edge. This is one of those wierd movie that fans love because "it's different than everything else." Different isn't always good. Look at The Rocky Horror Picture Show. This movie isn't art. It's not a classic. It's just a par for the course science fiction movie.

Fight Club - A movie that offers plenty of answers, but no solutions. "You are not your fucking khakis." That's good to know; so I'm supposed to be a revolutionary? Men love this movie, and I mean love, because they want to be angry, too. Which is all well and good, but it doesn't mean this movie should be as liked as it is. You watch it once, say "Hmm, that's interesting," and never watch it again.

Fight Club - I'd even go so far to say that Arthur Dent was being generous. To me it's an hour and a half of nonsensical-yet-supposedly-meaningful philosophy ended with a ridiculously obscure climax. I've heard people rave about the ending of this film because it was unexpected and shocking.... when in fact, what they probably mean is that it has no sensible context compared to the previous events.

Donnie Darko - I have to admit, and this will probably cause many people to disregard my opinion as uninformed, but I didn't get it. DD, to me, rapidly goes from a slow paced, quite dull coming-of-age tale and ending with something bizarre about time travel. To be fair, Patrick Swayze at least gives an entertaining performance and shows off his sense of humour

Braveheart - Lost me at the introduction: "English historians will call me a liar..." ...And then goes on to pull random events and complete fallacies out of it's butt in order to give Mel Gibson another chance to have a bash at the English.

A History of Violence - The first half hour of this film could easily be condensed into about 10 minutes and absolutely nothing would be lost. Except, y'know, for the sense of complete and utter boredom that made me turn it off and read the novel instead.

Brokeback Mountain - Let's face it, there are NO Gay actors in Hollywood and there have NEVER been any Gay characters in a film before. To have something as groundbreaking and original as homosexuality in a movie... why not give it 2 Best Movie Oscars? </sarcasm>



I don't think they count - you can't overrate something that you knew would be dire even before you saw it, can you?

Damn, Remind me never to watch movies with Dent

Anyway on topic:
for me the absolute #1:
Children of Men, critics loved it, and I heard loads of good things about it, but I still fail to see why its a good movie. The plot was mediocre, acting well I've seen worse and I've seen better. Maybe I just didn't get it.

Serenity: I agree with Dent on this one, why do people like this movie?

Æon Flux: Im not sure this is popular enough to be bashed, but what a load of crap!

I know these are fairly recent, but I have a tendency to forget movies I dont really like

With regard to some of my loved movies: S
in City was great because it was beautiful filmed, while still had a bunch of silly cartoon-action scenes.
Batman begins is great because it IS Batman! It's supposed to be cheesy damnit, it's supposed to have stereotypic bad guys!!
Black Hawk down is a great actionflick, if you watch it cos you have been told its a good realistic war movie then yeah sure you may be dissapointed, but it was never spun that way for me, I loved the cinemagraphics and the soundtrack even the plot was decent, and I dont really care if it would have gone down that way or another way IRL.
Fight Club, one of the best book adaptations I have seen. Yeah sure the ending was cheesy, and it would have been better if he had REALLY shot himself as in the book, but its hollywood, condoning suicide isn't really hip.
[/rant]

I've heard this argument a lot and it kind of annoys me. This movie never intended, nor said it was historically accurate. In fact it did the complete opposite and pointed out that it was a "tale" told by a solider to motivate the troops. They were very clear about that. If you have a problem with it otherwise then fine. but there's no reason to hate a film just because it's historically inaccurate. One of the greatest films of all time is historically inaccurate, Amadeus. Let's look at some other Best picture winners... Braveheart? Forrest Gump? Gladiator? A Beautiful Mind? The Godfather? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? all historically inaccurate.


Did I read a different book? I don't remember him killing himself. I remember the jagged smile and the building not blowing up because that was the one thing he never got down right in the boy scouts.
I also liked this movie, I wont go as far as say "love" but I did really enjoy it. And it has less to do with the fight scenes and more to do with all the interesting little job stuffs they did. I also thing the message was simpler, There are a lot of people who define themselves by what they own or they have no direction in life so they do what they think they or others tell them they are supposed to do. The message was more to just be yourself regardless. It's not so deep or philosophical. Of course people said the same about the Matrix having such debth, People do read into things more then they should.

300 - I don't see why people raved about this movie. I mean...the fight scenes were cool and all, but other than that it was a borefest.

12 Monkeys - This movie seriously put me to sleep. I mean...literally, I konked out.

I thought the line about the cardboard cut-outs from Black Hawk Down was amusing, because those were the actual characters and personalities of the people who were involved in the event just go read the book and its pretty easy to understand. As for the en masse death of the Somalis, Its a little hard to show and linger over every death when you have miniguns attached to helicopters mowing down enemy combatants. BTW, Somali casualties were some where in excess of 5000.

Serenity-I feel like this was really enjoyable if you loved the series. I really enjoyed the movie and love that type of interaction with characters. For me it seems to have a ring of truth to it.

Fifth element- I have really only considered it a cult classic and therefore hard to be overrated. I always enjoyed it as good campy sci-fi fun.

Edited because of some bad writing

First, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was based on the book by Ken Kesey, not on historical accounts. The same is true of the Godfather. Second, Braveheart, as Illu stated, abuses history as well, which annoys people like me. Third, Forrest Gump I already stated is a bad movie. Fourth, A Beautiful Mind also should've been on my overrated list. Fifth, Gladiator is actually a quite accurate film. Commodus did fight as a gladiator and Roman culture and Marcus Aurelius were captured perfectly. Last, just because a movie won best picture doesn't mean it's good.

Yeah, yeah. I've heard that soldier's story argument before. It's a wonder then that this soldier so vastly distorted Spartan culture and custom. It's a wonder that he'd tell a story about his king going on about freedom when that's the last thing Spartans cared about. He even managed to get the story and speaker of "then we will fight in the shade" wrong. He's really crappy storyteller if you ask me. And, there's the entire sections spent at the oracle or with queen, which the soldier had no involvment in.


Oh, I'm not suggesting they aren't the real people actually involved. I'm telling you it was badly directed and poorly written, hence these real people being turned into cardboard cutouts. The book is not a companion to the movie. The two are the same. Nor was the movie made with the hopes or intent of making everyone read the book. It's just a bad movie. A perspective shot from a helicopter is different an on ground shot. Also, the difficulties of shooting do not take away from the offensive nature of Ridley's work.

300 was based on a graphic novel, not historical accounts. The soilder did not have to be involved with the queen or oracle or the story of when the king was a child because he was making them up.

Yet Marcus Aurelius's son was not captured perfectly in the slightest. And I would disagree with you on how accurately Marcus Aurelius was "captured" in the film. And who the hell would Maximus be?

So you like to pick and choose which parts you decide are historically accurate enough to make a film good or not?

The graphic novel is based on historical accounts and even the makers of the movie admitted to purposely distorting Spartan fighting techniques to make them "look cool." They went to Spartan history, looked at it, and said "meh, let's cherry pick what we want." This is shown in their inclusions of of the agoge, or Spartan boot camp, which wasn't in the graphic novel, nor were numerous things in the movie. They based it on the graphic novel and used Spartan history to dress this movie up. Even when they used Spartan history they got it wrong. Elephants? Really? A Spartan who has never seen an elephant in his life is going to invent one perfectly for his "story?"


So, he's lying the entire time? None of it is true? The queen never did anything she did. The oracle never made a prophecy, even though the historical account said she did. Were there even three hundred Spartans? It could all just be a story, right? I don't know why I'm adressing this line of reasoning; it leads no where. We know the movie makers purposely distorted the facts. We know Frank Miller either purposely distorted the facts or had a sixth grade understanding of Spartan history.


Maximus was a friend pulled from Marcus Aurelius's Meditations. Commodus was captured quite well including his hate for his father's policies and lifestyle and his utter ruthlessness. Marcus Aurelius was captured as the wise, stoic emperor concerned with his state of hiis life, which is exactly what he was.

If a movie manages to keep a culture intact and goes all reasonable lengths to accurately portray the characvter of the people involved in the events concerned, then it is accurate enough for me.

And One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest wasn't based on the problems in the assylums in the 70's? And All the way movies like Platoon and Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket were all based on real wars but none of those people existed.


That was in the garphic novel.

The Spartan did see the elephants.


It's not "lieing"... he was "story telling". The movie was a tale.. a story. A fable. Frank Miller probably read more history books on the Spartans then you or I will. If you've ever looked up this history he actually encourages people to go out and read historically accurate books (ones he read) on the Spartans and the war. His idea was that he would take this king and his guards and create this exaggerated fable around it. God forbid someone has an imagination. It's no different then what was done with Amadeus, or Forrest Gump, or any story about Wyatt Erp. You have this real person lets create this story around it.


If that's so then Maximus was very losely based on him. Regardless it is innacurate. Why is one innacuracy ok and not the other?

King Leonidas' personality from everything I've seen and read was pretty accurate and he did indeed die at the pass so that his people would have time to prepare. Seems like they captured his personality as well if not better then Gladiator captured Commodu's then.


You hated Black Hawk down but that was based on the soilders accounts of the events and the people, region and city were captured as well as good be. Forest Gump certainly did that. So why hate those so much?

No, the agoge was not in the graphic novel.


So, what's true and what's not true? You seemed to suggest all the things that couldn't have happened, like elephants managing to get into Thermopylae, werethe fanciful parts of this Spartans story to rouse the men.


And, as Alan Moore is quoted on wikipedia: "There was just one particular line in it where one of the Spartan soldiers—I'll remind you, this is Spartans that we're talking about—one of them was talking disparagingly about the Athenians, and said, ‘Those boy-lovers.' You know, I mean, read a book, Frank. The Spartans were famous for something other than holding the bridge at Thermopylae, they were quite famous for actually enforcing man-boy love amongst the ranks as a way of military bonding. That specific example probably says more about Frank's grasp of history than it does about his grasp of homosexuality, so I'm not impugning his moral situation there. I'm not saying it was homophobic; just wasn't very well researched." So, no, I don't buy his historical expertise for a minute. Fables are great when they're from the culture they're about. No thanks, Frank, I can get my fables from the Spartans themselves. And, here's another thing that makes their stories better: they accurately portray the Spartan culture.

Did I say I had a problem with Leonidas?


No, no, no. I hated Black Hawk Down because it was a bad movie. I don't have the knowledge to quibble with its accuracy. Whereas, 300 I hated it because it was a terrible movie and historically innacurrate.

Erm gah, I always forget that he wakes up at the hospital. Though there is theories that he IS dead and believes he has gone to heaven Nm me and my lousy memory

ps. I forgot to add Gladiator to my list of overrate movies, the only thing that movie did for me was to finally replace my vhs copy of Ben-Hur with the DVD

I was talking specifically about the Spartans training. Though that is minor.

I'm claiming that it doesn't matter what is true and what isn't'. I'm claiming that it's very clear that the story is supposed to be an egagerated tale. In every day life people egagerate normal stories, "The fish was THIIIIIIIS big". I'm saying you aren't supposed to learn about Spartan history from this story. People shouldn't look to learn about a culture or history from movies. As an example, Fargo says "Based on a true story" in the begining. The bro's admitted years ago that it wasn't based on anything close to a true story. I'm saying you're supposed to look at 300 as a fable even though it involves a real person or places.

As for Alan Moore... I'm' not going to base Frank Miller's knowledge on Spartan's or anything else on someone else's quote. I took that quote about homoe sexuals as an idiotic sterotyping comment by a soldier. Something you also see and hear in every day life. One person or culture insulting another when they do the same is common place.



I only dislike the shakey camera scenes in it. I've really grown to dislike those. I know they intention but I just think it gets annoying.

Ummm... The agoge was mentioned in the graphic novel Dent, in roughly the same capacity as it served in the movie. I also believe that the man in the movie who said the shade line was Dienekes, the one who actually "said" it. Ultimately, the core beliefs of the Spartan cultural particularly the desire for a "glorious" death were covered and described and acted upon. Yes, the focus was primarily freedom, but it was still there. Personally, I think the 300 while entertaining is overrated due to lack of story, the whole movie being one long drawn out battle.

I'm still curious about what you found so offensive about the way Black Hawk Down was shot. I just don't understand when you say the movie was poorly written. Most of those lines, the sentiments, the actions were effectively lifted right out of the book and therefore right out of the records and tapes the US gov't has regarding the event. In effect, it is almost as true to life as any Hollywood movie has ever been. If you listen to the commentary tracks from the soldiers on the DVD they effectively say this, with some minor changes. Et al. Sgt Eversmann is actually a composite of Eversmann and his commanding officer due to some storytelling concerns. What lines, tones, scenes do you have a problem with? If it is because of the way in which the events were told regarding the American Casualties vs the Somali casualties I can understand to some degree the issue, but I still don't consider that to cause the movie to be awful.

As for Donnie Darko being emo-tastic, The movie, IMHO, wallows in its sense of self-pity and "I hate my life"-ness. The only scenes I truly enjoyed was where Donnie got into arguments with authority figures of the silliness of the thing Patrick Swayze pushed. Outside of that the movie languishes due to pacing and focus.

Damn.

Just... damn.

I don't think I'll ever watch a movie with Dent either. Some of my favorite flicks are on his list.

No. It wasn't even mentioned in the graphic novel. Whereas in the movie the agoge was actually mentioned and depicted as the training of children by pitting them against other children. Where two do coincide is Leonidas's ridiculous walk through the wild.

No, that was Stelios bothin the graphic novel and movie.

Yeah, the primary focus was on freedom, which is insane. The Spartans valued freedom in no way. In fact their entire society depended upon a perminent slave class, which goes unmentioned or even depicted in 300. They didn't look at Athenian democracy and say "let's defend that." The didn't care about freedom. What they did care about was playing your role in society. Hence the queen saying "come back with your shield or upon it." Spartan women said this to their men because the phalanx was Spartan power. The phalanx was so crucial that it was better to die holding your shield definding your comrades than to lose it in battle. Did we see this is 300? No. We saw the Spartans break ranks whenever it suited them. The more I think about it, the more this movie pisses me off.


The characters lack any sort of real depth, which is the fault of the writing and ultimately the directing. Again, I can't comment on its accuracy. I can comment on the fact Ridley Scott directed the movie poorly, as he has come to do in his later movies. He uses the same cliche techniques again and again. The script itself just presented the "characters" as simple five second snap shots of who they were. No real development, no real reason to care about them. I'm sure the book goes into depth about what kind of people they were/are or where came/come from, but movies don't have that luxery and so we are left we these brief, uninteresting shots at this one moment in time. What I find offensive is there is no regard to the death of any Somali. They are just mowed down like grass. Whereas when an American dies, time might as well have stopped.

Do you like ANY movies Arthur?

Ok, I understand where you are coming from now.
I do agree that the characters as a whole aren't terribly well developed but I attributed that mainly to there being so many characters. I honestly think they did the best they could do given the time constraints and the number of different characters that had to be covered. I would also say that you do need to think about these characters and events as snapshots that occur over the course of about 18 hrs. Very few people develop, in real life, over the course of 18 hrs.
As for the Somalis and their deaths you have to look at sheer numbers, 19 Americans died versus the thousands of Somalis. While this by does not mean that I care more about Americans or that the Somalis are worth less, You need to observe the medium and points of view. The same reason the Americans were so poorly developed is the same reason you can't cover it. Add in the fact that the Storytellers and Audience are most likely American and DEFINITELY Western, it would be amiss to bog the film down too much with these things that most people watching would probably not care about. They did try to include some picture of Somali loss in the film see The son shooting the father, The family cowering in the house, and the woman who picks up the gun and get shot.

I will say that one of the most painful scenes to watch for me to watch is in Black Hawk Down. This scene is where the soldier has been shot in the leg and is bleeding out through his femoral artery. The desperation on the faces of all of the remaining members is truly remarkable and heartbreaking, particularly that of the medic's.

arthur, you do realize that 14 year old dancing around like they were in 300 is actually inaccurate due to them wearing clothes... So did you want to see more or less flesh? I mean your worried about accuracy right?

And the meaning behind the comment "Those Boy-lovers" actually comes from the fact that a boy is not the same as we see it today. Boy means young male under the age of consent, but to spartans you were not a man unless you did various things or held a specific status. Also the intamacy between men in sparta and athens is quite different...When you became a student to a sophist/philosopher part of what was expected was sex, while in sparta sex between men was obviously more of a domination than an act of love.

As far as what actually happened according to my knowledge of the true story, there only a few places that were inaccurate story wise. Visually there is tons of inaccuracies, but that is Miller's style and intention.

Another thing you forget is this... This story is told to you by a person trying to rouse his troops who was there and only knows part of the truth of what happened in a comic intentionally meant to skew the facts based on history that isn't completely accurate due to it's age from a 2nd hand account of all that happened and that was purposely skewed as well. So there is plenty of reason for inaccuracy.

As far as most of the lists I think most of the films aren't over rated as much as simply you don't like them for most everyone's response... Over rated doesn't mean that it's a bad movie, but rather that it doesn't deserve as much praise as it does or it doesn't deserve praise in that category. Firefly for example isn't over rated. I hate the film and most people do too. The only time you hear anyone say anything really good about it are die hard fans and advertising...that means it's not over rated, at least not in the common populace. 300 is like wise not overrated as never said it had a good story, was accurate, or anything like that. The thing 300 built on was the visual style which is awesome to say the least and as such is not over or under rated.

Over rated films for me include, Star Wars, LotR, Titanic, SAW, and Halloween.

I like plenty of movies. I've held back from defending movies I like that've been mentioned in this thread. Also, look at the top ten favorites thread.

Thank you, Endros, for seeing my point.

I'm talking about her being a fourteen year old, or at least looking like a fourteen year old. Not only is that creepy, but again, soon after the establishment of the oracle the practice of using young virgins was done away with post the rape of an oracle.

No, Miller says the line was meant to depict Spartan hypocrisy and the utter hate for Athenians. Also, let's be clear, very few Athenians ever became the students of philosophers. Most were not even allowed to vote. Whereas, every Spartan boy, age seven at least, in the agoge was paired with a mentor of sorts. Sex between boy and mentor was expected.

Actually, I addressed this specifically. Wayc brought this argument up as soon as I made my comment.


What are you talking about? I can't talk about 300 or Serenity without someone saying the loved them. This forum is full of people who love both movies. So, yeah, overrated.

No problem, just as long as you see mine too

Indeed.

I actually don't see Dent's point. He's upset at inaccuracies in one movie but ok with inaccuracies in another. In 300's case, arguing inaccuracies is even somewhat silly considering how inaccurate most of the data from that time period, or at least this battle and war is. Aurthur Dent seems willing to accept that a story can be exaggerated but only if it's from a different source (like Gladiator). The fact that it was a spartan soldier telling the story seems to make the exaggeration and story telling unacceptable. In reference to the kings "Leonidas's ridiculous walk through the wild", Frank Miller has Leonidas tell the story teller what an exaggerator he is after he's done. He does this to point out that the story teller takes many liberties in all this stories.

In the end, Aurthur Dent is unhappy with historical inaccuracies in a movie/story were only the name of the king, and the fact there was a battle was supposed to be the only thing based on any sort of truth. Damn the man for making up a story based loosely on someone real.

First, the point Endros was seeing was about Black Hawk Down and had nothing to do with historical accuracy.

Second, Herodotus does provide us with a somewhat poor account of Thermopylae. However, there are certain things we know for a fact, like elephants, rhinos, and bombs were not used by Persians. We know quite a lot about the Spartans and the Persians. In fact, if you want fables, read Herodotus; he tells a far better story.

Third, the difference between Gladiator and 300, at least most notably, is that Gladiator tells the story of fictitious events in history. 300 tells the story of actual events. Besides that, Gladiator accurately captures Roman culture (they even went so far as to find the closest descendent to the now extinct species of dog for Maximus) and people.

Fourth, yes, if a Spartan storyteller sucks this bad representing his own culture, I find it unnacceptable. Your argument seems to be that this guy lies about everything that's factually wrong. That's convenient.

You know what: I'm gonna write a story loosely based on World War II. The Nazis will be shown as unicorns and the allies will be Care Bears that shot lasers out of their eyes. And, the Jews won't even be mentioned. It's all okay though, 'cause I'll just have a guy telling the story. That way it'll be called a fable.

Arthur,

Have you ever read Frank Miller? Because he doesn't write comics with historical accuracy in mind. In terms of bringing a comic book onto the big screen, 300 was an insane success. From the short bladed swords on the immortals to the colour scheme to the cheesy dialogue to the whaked off historical interpretation, it was dead-on. I would love to see a director make the same effort to the Miller -Sienkiewicz story boards of Elektra Assasin.


http://www.wordsandpictures.org/Elektra/art30.html




Back on topic,


Mostest overated pieces of poop?

Titanic --- 6 hours of White Trash Dreams. Last James Cameron poop for me ever.
L.A. Confidential -- Shitty dialogue. Crappy acting. A horrible adaptation of a "meh" novel. Oscars all around!
Dune --- That movie is so long that it comes with a Butler to change the tapes during viewings. David Lynch's wooden dialogue delivery should not be used for sci-fi.


EDIT: 300 was a fable and should not be viewed any differently.

Your worried about the persians having elephants but ignore the fact that the Persians are also all freakish monster looking types?

the 14 year old girl is accurate...in fact they were prolly younger as well.

The spartans aren't hypocrits in any sense of the word... In fact without knowledge of the era you wouldn't even know that athens has anything to do with the story. You can't show hypocracy without anyone knowing all the references... I think it's just idle chatter and is meant to be idle chatter without any meaning. That's just my opinion. They would say something like that most likely so it was part of character not part of some meaning.

And arthur the reason i bring up that argument is because it goes through something like 8 different sources and is double and triple exaggerated and it's supposed to be. Most of those inaccuracies you're complaining about can be explained with that.

Also... most of the basics of the story is right.
Persians were on their way to Greece and Athens wanted to put up a united front. Knowing that if Sparta fought they'd get a lot more support they sent word to Sparta, but the kings decided not to break tradition so they said to just wait. Leonidas went to the Oracle distraught and she told him, or rather what he interpretted as what she told him was that for Sparta to live one of the Kings must die. He took this to heart and decided to take his personal guard to defend the pass. Along the way they gathered other soldiers and they held the pass for a while until someone informed the Persians about a route around them. Luckily, they heard about this and sent most of the troops back and was going to only have the Spartans remain, but about 1000 other soldiers stayed with them to hold the line. Some argue that Leonidas did this to protect Sparta, fulfilling the prophecy while others attribute it to his training or his beliefs. After the Persians get through the pass the event in Sparta has past and the other city-states have all rallied with 2 thoughts in their mind, much like our remember the alamo, they had remember Thermopylae, and they also thought if 300 Spartans can kill so many Persians there is no telling what Greece combined could do to Persia. This war consisted of 2 land battles and 2 sea battles that were excellently handled. The battle you see the guy talking to his soldiers in the field is actually the second/final battle of this war.

So...the only real inaccuracy in the story is the 1000 soldiers that stayed behind weren't in the movie. Dialog and Visuals were all pretty much made up though to tell a better tale because quite frankly without the visuals the movie would be shyt and accurate visuals would just be lame.

Oh btw Thermopylea is perhaps the most world changing event in the western world, perhaps the world. If Persia would have succeeded the world would have been vastly different.

But yeah, like i said I'm not saying it's the greatest movie out there, in fact watching it more than once or twice is boring for me, but it does deserve the praise it gets as good movie that has great directing and great stylized visuals which is shockingly what the comic and the movie were both going for...not an accurate telling, not great dialog, not even great story. They set forth to make great visuals. They made great visuals. They are praised for great visuals. That is not being over rated...that is being recognized for what they did.

You didn't get a hard-on for Lucy Liu's second best role?

If you did, I certainly could not complain about the inaccuracies because you would have made that apparent from the get go.

The fact is.. you could very well tell the story of WWII from a Nazi soldier's' perspective and cast the Jews as villains and monsters. Because that would be the standard you are setting from the beginning of the film.

Crash
Transformers
Lord of the Rings (didn't hate it, but it isn't as flawless as some make it out to be)
Walk the Line
Shrek
Star Wars ANH
Napoleon Dynamite
300

Shit like Titanic, while overrated at the time, has been pretty much forgotten. Nobody really talks about it except for its box office and saying things like the Oscar was a mistake.

Yeah, Napolean Dynamite suffered from everyone saying it's the greatest comedy in years, when really it was just an okay movie that didn't need to be quoted every second of every day.

Gotta disagree with you there. It was only funny during one part, ONE. The part where the farmer shoots the cow in front of the bus full of children.

As for Transformers, Speedy. I never expected it to be a good film, just something fun to watch. Which it was... in spades, Plot Holes and all. I gotta say this too, I love Optimus.

Hmmm, what dictates an overrated movie. Hopefully not one man loving a movie opposed to one not. Or millions loving a movie and a thousand not. I love movies, even if they suck. I'll wonder why someone can like a movie so much that I do not, then I'll catch myself watching the same movie when I want something to watch. Or maybe deep down they liked the movie, but in a valiant effort to non-conform and to make their opinion heard they have to be whiny little bitches. This goes for politics too. Guess I'll conform to non-conform and be a whiny little bitch.

300(-Lack of plot and lots of any depth, minus the hole the persian messenger got kicked in. Not lack of: Boobies, action and gore. Too many people call this a great movie. It sold too much. I thought it kicked ass, makes me want to be a Spartan, kill some fuckers, and see lots of boobies. Overrated, partially my fault too.)

Boondock Saints( nothing too great here, the hype hit a couple years late, but too many people thought it was one of the greatest movies of all time. I love the movie, want to be a badass vigilante and ache for a cigarette everytime they light up. Again, I'm a major contributor to the overratedness of this movie too.)

Any movie ever made from a comic book. (They all sucked, I loved them but too many fanboys bitch at why they weren't close to the comics yet get so damned excited when the next one comes out. When will the ever understand the structure of a movie and why they have the potential to be blockbuster hits. And it sure as hell isn't from the guy that spent that last of his paycheck on comics, magic cards, and pizza hut. ya fat sac of fat. I love these movies to death. Can even watch them multiple times. Only thing that makes them overrated is I have to listen to people praise and then bitch about them.)

I'll find some more later, I get to clock out early today. This should keep ranting and raving going, oh and by the way, if anyone writes this long, I'm just warning you now, the rebuttle better be short and sweet b/c I'm too lazy to read this much.
Peace, love, and sodomy.
-shane

The way we have been working this thread, Sweet, is that the most overrated by critics and/or popular opinion.

I assume you mean the superhero comic book addaptations? Because movies like Ghost World were based on comic books as well and that's a really good movie.

Ugh I forgot about this one, I can't stand that movie. So corny and ham fisted and flat out ridiculous. People who praise this movie confuse me so much. It's clearly one of those instances where the writer is using their story to masturbate.

I understand, I still enjoy it every once and a while. That's my main problem with Scarface.

So now that we know what everyone thinks about Overrated movies, What about underrated/unappreciated movies?

I think that deserves its own thread.

Some more movies that I thought were overrated...

Pirates of the Caribbean series - Started out as a fun and entertaining family film, and slowly got more and more bizarre, culminating in some of the biggest plot-holes and miscast roles that I can remember in the last few years. Yes, I realise that a 10 year old (who the films were allegedly aimed at) won't notice these things, but I do and it's a shame that the makers didn't take enough pride in their work to fix them for the sake of fixing them.

Clerks - And, by extension, Dogma. Now, I'm aware of Clerks' singularly original media (shot very cheaply and as part of an accompaniment to a lecture on the failings of modern society) but as movies.... Meeehh..... Slow, dull, awkward dialogue and ridiculous repetition of jokes that weren't funny in the first place. Then again, I never thought of Jay and Silent Bob as likable, let alone entertaining characters, so basing a franchise off of them would never have worked for me anyway.

Anything by Quentin Tarantino - One. Trick. Pony. Yes, alright, you like to see people kill other people in bizarre and pointless ways. We get it now, so can we please have something that ISN'T straight from a 13 year old sociopath's wet dream?

If anyone is struggling for ideas, here's a list of the 1,000 Best Movies Ever Made. How's that for some controversy?

Sociopaths are awesome.

Spaceballs - Seems to be one of the favorites when it comes to comdey spoofing the sci-fi favorites. I just really can't get into it at all, everything is just way to over or under done, I'm not really sure what to say about it, other then I think it is totally overrated, and I have given it plenty of chances through my life time to like it just a tad.


Spiderman Trilogy- I can't take Toby Maquire playing Peter Parker, the acting out of him and Kristen Dunst is just terrible. I'm sure a lot of people enjoyed these movies, but to me the best parts were the candid parts that had Bruce Campbell in them interacting with Peter Parker.

300 - didn't like this adaptation at all. 300 Spartans is helluva better and it's very old (that said I generally hate old movies).

Pirates of the Caribbean - sure the first one was pretty good, but the other two were just recycling the same jokes over and over again, didn't find them enjoyable at all.

Borat - the guy made a really awesome show and should've just stopped at that. IMHO he just did a pretty poor parody of all of his previous jokes in this movie.

Pulp Fiction... I can't stand that movie and when people ask me about movies, they ALWAYS seem to ask me if I have seen that one. I say yes and that I thought it was dumb and I get told that I am 'so wrong'. *rolls eyes*

The Departed. I like the original Chinese movies better. As far as I'm concerned, Infernal Affairs is infinitely better.

And that is all I can think of right now...

It's not Chinese. Its from Hong Kong. Two completely different film histories and styles

I can't believe I forgot this one:

Kingdom of Heaven - Oh my god, what a shitty movie. Let's start with Ridley Scott, who has only one way to shoot a battle scene: start the beginning of the battle, some close shots of people fighting, go to slow motion shots, cue music that makes everyone realize the horrors of war. Thanks, Ridley, for suckering me into watching a mediocre Gladiator. And, somehow Bloom escaped rebuke for his hamfisted acting. Or, maybe people are so used to it now that it goes without mentioning. Beyond that, the major flaw of this movie is that when you reach the halfway point, there's absolutely no conflict. Oh, and the movie is not believable. Some peasant blacksmith goes to Jerusalem and becomes a military genius?

Is it really that well regarded to be considered overrated or is it just bad? I saw it and thought it was entirely unremarkable, but I don't remember reading any overly positive reviews.