What is the most overrated movie of all time?

What is the most overrated movie of all time?

Pulp Fiction's a good choice.

Shawshank Redemption and the Godfather movies too.

The Dark Knight. Wouldn't have a tenth of its praise if not for the untimely death of Heath Ledger.

The Searchers

By comparing quality to praise, basically any nolan film

Seriously, 2001, but this is already baiting: the thread.

I can see why some people might find 2001 boring since that's the usual complaint for it but I think it gets the right amount of praise. Its effects still hold up and it was made before the moon landing. And of course the cinematography is also great.

Forrest Gump.

Either The Godfather or Citizen Kane. Both great films, and both extremely overrated.

nah

Toy Story 2

It's fun, but not "100% favorable reviews, Certified Fresh" fun.

Also Ratatouille and The Incredibles are the best Pixar films.

he didnt say boring, he said overrated. 2001 is the most overrated film of all time by a longshot

You have to have a reason for something to be overrated and it being "boring" is the one I hear the most so I was just throwing that out there. I'd love to hear his opinion though.

naaaa

not rated nearly enough

it literally is the exactly how our future in space will look and feel like

t. nasa engineer

it's every entry level film enthusiasts favorite film.

> 2001: A Space Odyssey
Jesus christ Cred Forums. You give the worst advice.
I just started watching this and its fucking shit.

>5 minutes of music and no image
>suddenly space planets and shit
>back on earth
>african monkeys start chimping out
>ancestor of ken rockwell and lain gazes at sunset and thinks 1/60, f/4, velvia 50
>12 foot tall tv remote falls from heaven

Fuck this. And fuck you.


--

But really though, what's with people saying 2001 is overrated? It sets out to be a sci-fi art piece, and is a sci-fi art piece. It's a movie made in 1968. Why do people think it's going to be Forbidden Planet or Star Wars?

That's like saying Ansel Adams is overrated because every hack photog knows him.

Did you even a Wall-E?

It's entry level because it's been critiqued and studied for almost 50 years. Maybe some people only like it for brownie points but it's a legitimately good movie that is very significant in the world of film and is extremely well made.

the room

takes too much from Idiocracy.

There is nothing overrated about The Godfather.

Find a flaw.

It has too many scenes.

i agree. i also think it fits the criteria of being highly overrated even if its a great film

its a flick black rappers enjoy

As I said, it's a great film.
It's also extremely overrated.
This doesn't mean it has any obvious flaws. It's just not as great as people make it out to be, that's all.

...

Since there seems to be some confusion on the matter: let's be clear.

"Overrated" just means that a movie is good, but popular opinion has turned it into an unassailable gem that no movie will ever be superior to.

Pic very much related. Good luck making a Heart of Darkness adaptation that ever gets as much praise.

>changed how films are made and spawned the blockbuster movie

If you'd posted Empire I'd agree, but the '77 movie did actually earn its reputation.

Original user here who can't see Kubrick's massive, throbbing, circumcised genius when it's shoved in my pleb face.

Here's the biggest problem: Incoherent and incohesive plot.
>muh plot
Sorry, what's about to happen is the most compelling aspect for me in about every film, and for that, I have to know what's happened previous and what's currently happening, and what's happening has to be connected to what happened before. 2001 failed to hard at this.

So it's a bunch of monkeys that are supposed to represent the slab giving reason or whatever to them, (I think, it's not like there's any clarity to this movie), This scene has aged like milk left out in the sun, but was so bad, even people then should have found it embarrassing.

The slab inexplicably appears at the moon, of course, no real narrative transition from the embarrassing money scene. At this point, it dawns on the audience that they shouldn't bother paying attention to anything that's happening because the movie is almost disconnected as an anthology film, but none of the stories have any purpose.

Again, anther transition with no narrative connection. Now, we've gotten past all the filler to a story that's actually coherent. This is what made 2001 great and has clearly made it such an ironic film. But of course, it's still 2001, so nothing makes sense, and no reason of any sort is given as to why Hal malfunctions. It has nothing to do with the slab at all. It's a completely disconnected event.

wait

its not Scarface?

Then that's over. There's at some point an incredibly overlong LSD trip that starts and stops when the director felt like it. I wonder how Kubrick decided it should be about five minutes. It's not like it's depicting any important action or event that could plausibly or realistically last that long. It's the lowest possible form of cinematography; ooh pretty colors. Really, this is what appeal to literal infants and we're expected to stare at it and derive meaning. I'm sure he spent just as much time perfectly creating to right combination of colors and shapes, which can really be appreciated by the audience.

And then we have the climax, which so immensely humbles me in its inscrutability to my puny mind that I won't even bother analyzing it. I'll just assume that it alone is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement and genius in every way because I understand none of it. Even assuming this, unfortunately, (or fortunately), it's very shot and can't make up for the rest of the movie, which all things considered, I would consider good.

I would really like to hear something try to justify that acid trip or why I was supposed to have any emotional response to it except boredom.

>So it's a bunch of monkeys that are supposed to represent the slab giving reason or whatever to them, (I think, it's not like there's any clarity to this movie), This scene has aged like milk left out in the sun, but was so bad, even people then should have found it embarrassing.
Monolith pushes evolution forward in that it teaches the apes how to use tools. This is the first step in going from ape to modern man, and then you get that jump cut (or I think there's another word for that specific type of cut) to the future showing what learning to use tools ultimately led up to.

>The slab inexplicably appears at the moon, of course, no real narrative transition from the embarrassing money scene
Could be the same monolith (since there's a theory that the moon was formed from debris from something hitting Earth) but I think the more common interpretation is that it's another monolith put there by the alien race that would be triggered once humanity went from being stupid apes to actually being able to go to the moon. This signal is sent to Jupiter (or Saturn, one is in the movie the other is in the book), which is why the next part of the movie is them going there. They do explain this in the movie, you must have missed it.

>But of course, it's still 2001, so nothing makes sense, and no reason of any sort is given as to why Hal malfunctions. It has nothing to do with the slab at all. It's a completely disconnected event.
Yeah, it's not related to the monoliths or aliens. I haven't watched the movie in a while so maybe I'm wrong about this but I think HAL "malfunctions" because he doesn't have faith in the humans on the ship to complete the mission.

>Then that's over. There's at some point an incredibly overlong LSD trip that starts and stops when the director felt like it. I wonder how Kubrick decided it should be about five minutes. It's not like it's depicting any important action or event that could plausibly or realistically last that long. It's the lowest possible form of cinematography; ooh pretty colors. Really, this is what appeal to literal infants and we're expected to stare at it and derive meaning. I'm sure he spent just as much time perfectly creating to right combination of colors and shapes, which can really be appreciated by the audience.
The book describes this better but the movie is already 2.5 hours long. Basically it's the guy being transported across the universe and being shown various alien races and basically being given the knowledge of the universe. Considering the movie was made in 1968, even with how good the effects are I don't think doing this literally would have been possible in the movie.

>And then we have the climax, which so immensely humbles me in its inscrutability to my puny mind that I won't even bother analyzing it. I'll just assume that it alone is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement and genius in every way because I understand none of it. Even assuming this, unfortunately, (or fortunately), it's very shot and can't make up for the rest of the movie, which all things considered, I would consider good.
The climax ties in with the transition from apes to space in that the guy is elevated to a higher life form upon death.

You should read the book, it goes into more detail because it's a book. Kubrick didn't portray everything the same in the movie because this wouldn't be possible and he chose visuals over a detailed story. Both the book and the movie were made at the same time and each portrays the story in a way that best fits its medium.

The one problem I have with the movie is that the "My God, it's full of stars" quote isn't in it.

name one movie better than either of those three movies

minutes of music and no image
>>suddenly space planets and shit
>>back on earth
>>african monkeys start chimping out
>>ancestor of ken rockwell and lain gazes at sunset and thinks 1/60, f/4, velvia 50
foot tall tv remote falls from heaven

hahaha

objectively The Dark Knight

...

>First point
Think I got all that, though there's still no narrative connection to the second scene. Unless it was supposed to suggest how far men has come from monkeys by creating this moon colony, but that's pretty weak.

>but I think the more common interpretation is that it's another monolith put there by the alien race that would be triggered once humanity went from being stupid apes to actually being able to go to the moon.
So that was their mentality? I'm glad to see some sense there, but the film never reveals any thought process or consciousness behind these aliens makingt these bold gestures of trying to establish contact, so it's not really important or interesting. It's more like something to think about long after you've watched the movie and assumed there must have been some connection between the scenes, even if it's this weak. Though without a face to these creatures, it's hard to care.

>This signal is sent to Jupiter (or Saturn, one is in the movie the other is in the book), which is why the next part of the movie is them going there.
I probably didn't, but forgot, though realistically, user, this is still a pretty weak connection. The meat and potatoes of this movies is the trip to Jupiter, which is why its central plot has little to do with anything about the slab. Somebody like Nolan would have added sophomoric philosophical dialogue, but having nothing connecting the conflict of the central plot, (avoiding being murdered by Hal), to what should be the important aspect of contacting intelligent life, is just lazy. You can divine all you want about Kubrick's genius, but a better storyteller would have connected the two, instead of back and front-ending this story with something profound, but ultimately completely unsatisfying.

> I haven't watched the movie in a while so maybe I'm wrong about this but I think HAL "malfunctions" because he doesn't have faith in the humans on the ship to complete the mission.
This is the kike's dishonesty, trying to tie the plot's together when they are oh so separate. Why did Hal think that? How did Hal get this knowledge? Who programmed him with these ideas? Either it has nothing to do with the important theme of contacting life, or Hal was given a reason and it's actually quite terrible. Pretty much every other plot about AI's revolting it more plausible than Kubrick's. Why not just make a movie about a robot malfunctioning and actually give him a compelling reason for it and not have all the other shit? I guess that would have made it a coherent science fiction film which would have pleased the moronic rubes in the audience, and Kubrick clearly doesn't care about that.

Manbaby spotted.

I didn't even see it I just know it's not deserving of fresh on rottentomatoes. I watched bridesmaids expecting it to be funny and it was terrible.

Yes you two

Most of Chris Nolan's movies are overrated. The plots are always hackneyed and he spoon feeds you everything. Literally Plebbit-tier

Let's see what else

Finding Nemo is a pile of shit. More overrated even than most Pixar movies are.

And any movie in the "lone survivor" genre, i.e. Castaway, 127 Hours, and Life of Pi. Into the trash with those.

>Basically it's the guy being transported across the universe and being shown various alien races and basically being given the knowledge of the universe.
If Kubrick weren't so young when he wrote this, I would seriously consider the possibility that he were senile. This is the mentality behind these people. Just include elements from a source that might make perfect sense somewhere else, but would be incoherent otherwise. The arrogance is suffocating. Why could he have possibly thought that this reproduce the essence of the scene in the movie? It's would be totally mystifying to anybody who wasn't already familiar with the book, and even then it would be more like a crude symbol for what happened in the book, not actually showing it. If any other director made a scene that only made sense to people who read the book, they would be savaged. Pretentious toffs probably praise him for putting something so unintelligible.

>Considering the movie was made in 1968, even with how good the effects are I don't think doing this literally would have been possible in the movie.
Perhaps they should have considered not doing it? I understand the temptation, but they should have concluded, "Even the best representation we could possibly make of this fairly simple concept in the book will confuse everybody in the audience who didn't read the book, and just bore anybody who isn't pretentious and enjoys being confused. We better not put it."

Or consider it wasn't a true AI , but was just the best AI we could achieve at that point. more importantly than that the whole point of that act is to show that even after our tools that we champion fail us, human beings always find a way. You can endlessly tear apart the logical inconsistencies of a 50 year old movie based on our current knowledge, but don't miss the fucking point

Yeah, movie is more focused on the visuals and cinematography than explaining the story at every chance. But it is more coherent than you seem to think it is, it's just not always surface level and thoroughly explained.

The movie starts before humans exist with a bunch of apes fighting each other. A foreign entity (the monolith) appears on Earth and pushes the apes' evolution forward by teaching them to use tools. The movie then transitions to how far humanity has come from that era, and they've gotten so far that they find a monolith on the moon which has been programmed to send a signal to Jupiter if humanity reaches it. The humans pick up on this signal and send a ship to go check out Jupiter, where the signal went. On the mission the AI goes rogue (and in the book it says that the ship was damaged and leaking oxygen) and the last survivor enters a portal revolving around Jupiter where he's transported across the universe to a habitat created for him by aliens where he is pushed forward in evolution another time.

The book and movie are parts of the whole. They were designed together and use their respective mediums as best they can. The movie isn't incoherent but it isn't as focused on the storytelling aspect as the book is because film is a visual medium.

Sure, lets not experiment. Let's just play it safe and never do anything interesting ever because we're not sure it'll actually work out well. Especially because some guy 50 years later thinks an amazingly well made piece of art doesn't focus on what he thinks is more important.

>Shakespeare is overrated because he's entry-level literature
>Bach is overrated because he's entry-level classical music

Great argument, buddy

Now that I've revisited a lot of Michael Mann, I see where Nolan gets his habit of sometimes shoehorning a bit of philosophy into his action films. Except Mann does it masterfully whereas with Nolan it's trite.

birdman

>The climax ties in with the transition from apes to space in that the guy is elevated to a higher life form upon death.
Honestly, I was so numb with boredom and simultaneous contempt for the pretentiousness of it all that I didn't put much thought into it, but I don't think this would have occurred to me. I was probably thinking along something the lines of, "So is he looking at himself? Is this a metaphor? Did the aliens rent out this apartment for him? How did they know apartments looked like on Earth? Did they do this all for him? Do their apartments happen to look like this?" You know, mundane questions that shows my myopia from a pleb who tries to understand a film before he feels it, or more like understand what the fuck is going on first. Clearly, I am a shortsighted troglodyte who can't immediately realize when a on-screen events have lost any connection to reality and just a metaphor of something to be analyzed. But I have to simultaneously appreciate the ingenious cinematography of things that aren't really happening in the strict sense.

"and he chose visuals over a detailed story"
It's a good thing I'm on Cred Forums which has conclusively determined that visuals are the most important element of film, and things like story are just accidental. It's not really important if you know what's going on, just consider whether it looks pretty or not. Truly an enlightened perspective and a enlightened vision by vision director Stanley Kubrick.

Easily The Thing
Its a generic horror flick but since it doesn't specify details its turned into a fucking Dark Souls tier mess of 'lore' its not even suspenceful for a huge portion of the film people are fucking tied down and by the time everyone is separed you know they are going to die anyway. It doesn't even stand alone as a film it has a canon graphic novel and a fucking shovelware videogame

you're fifteen years past the deadline and you aren't even close poindexter

Sometimes I just want to slap him, u no?
The wormhole effect in Interstellar was fantastic though

You're still forgetting that the movie and book were made together. The book went for the in depth storytelling and the movie went lighter on the story and instead pushed the cinematography. I imagine they're supposed to both be experienced.

the wormhole, black hole, water planet, and tesseract were all breathtaking and unforgettable visuals

Vertigo, by critics.

Let's watch people fight a world ending pathogen tooth and nail only to watch the winners sip a beer together as they inevitably freeze to death. Oh! The black dude was actually an alien and the other guy has a flamethrower ready to torch him, we have some cool secret resolution!

Idk about a tenth of its praise. But its overrated as absolute fuck.

The camera circling the actors during every dramatic scene. Its like babbies first cinematography

No he drinks petrol :^) really makes u think

I have literally never heard someone say or read on the internet "2001 is my favorite film"

>inb4 someone responds with "2001 is my favorite film"

>but was just the best AI we could achieve at that point.
I guess if I make shit up and do the writer's job for him, I could make some pretty shallow films incredibly deep and compelling by assuming things about the world that weren't explained or even indicated. I might as well not even read books because that's thinking of writing, which is clearly a lesser art to visuals. I can't make up Kubrick's incredible visuals, so if the movie completely fails as a story, that's okay because story isn't important, just how good it looks.

>more importantly than that the whole point of that act is to show that even after our tools that we champion fail us, human beings always find a way.
I guess, but that would be the theme of any survival movie. The excellence of this segment is to show a survival story in space, the terror of an cold, yet unpredictable conscious that is supposed to help you gradually begin to turn on you without any apparent reason, and without any chance of escaping. See, it's actually a very understandable and compelling scenario which made this movie.

But it made too much sense. Kubrick should have just shown the pretty lights for the entirety of two hours and forty-one minutes because that;s truly what people watch it for.

>You can endlessly tear apart the logical inconsistencies of a 50 year old
I don't think I was doing that. I think I was attacking more the mentality behind making it so incomprehensible. There was masterful movie here, or dare I say merely great, or merely good, that was covered with pretentiousness nonsense. Unless of course, you've read the book, and Kubrick was clearly right to punish us for not reading it by having this film be so baffling except to those who did.

>The godfather is overrated

t. Cred Forums-plebs & bigger plebs

It actually is one of my favorites. It's by far my favorite sci-fi movie at least.

to be one of your favorites it just has to be in the top 50% of movies you've watched

It did those things. But thats not why people remember/like it and that doesn't mean it isn't overrated.

Star wars is literally a shit. Star Wars is basically an SFX version of Citizen Kane

>I might as well not even read books because that's thinking of writing, which is clearly a lesser art to visuals
Nobody said this. I said that the book and movie went in different directions because of the difference in mediums. I do like the movie more than the book but I wouldn't say books are a lesser art form than movies, but they are different. Trying to accurately adapt a book to film is pretty difficult if not impossible so why not take advantage of film's ability to do visuals?

King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation of the Shining either. The Shining is more story heavy than 2001 but it still isn't a perfect adaptation of the source material (though 2001 isn't an adaptation anyway) and I imagine part of that is because Kubrick wanted to make something that would work well with film rather than trying to fruitlessly transplant a book to a movie.

If 2001 isn't in the top 50% of movies you've seen I want your patrician life.

>The movie then transitions to how far humanity has come from that era, and they've gotten so far that they find a monolith on the moon which has been programmed to send a signal to Jupiter if humanity reaches it.
This would be more effective if there were a cause and effect relationship seen here, (and a flying bone forming into a spaceship or whatever doesn't cut it). Otherwise, it might just seem like the plausible point for use humans at that point. 2001 seemed rather far away and the future was limitless. Conceptually, I understand that if the monolith created human evolution, it indirectly created human advancement up until that point, but as a person living today, it's more like just what humans of today could accomplish, and something that somebody in 1968 might have believed even more.

>On the mission the AI goes rogue (and in the book it says that the ship was damaged and leaking oxygen)
I don't particular care for such a weak reason for malfunction, but it doesn't bother me that much. It could have worked, and I definitely enjoyed this segment because I mostly had a good idea what was going on and had something to care about.

>the last survivor enters a portal revolving around Jupiter where he's transported across the universe to a habitat created for him by aliens where he is pushed forward in evolution another time.
Reminds me of an early TNG episode. I'm sure plenty of people have pointed out how influential this movie was on Science Fiction series, but I think less have pointed out that they actually tried to make them comprehensible to people instead of deliberately vague.

>The movie isn't incoherent
I would say you would have to struggle to try to figure out why there was a monolith on the moon at the beginning, actually be willing to enjoy yourself during the trip to Jupiter, and shut it off when that part's over because you just saw everything decent in the movie.

>because film is a visual medium.
It's amazing how this immense challenge of film being a visual medium hasn't stopped a couple of director or so actually making good stories that are completely completely comprehensible to audiences, while having amazing visuals. But I guess they were made for the stupid cows who like to stuff popcorn in their face, and if a film doesn't confuse at least half its audience, it's not an work of art because the common man can't be trusted except to like everything beneath art.

>Let's just play it safe and never do anything interesting ever because we're not sure it'll actually work out well.
Holy shit, you were doing so well! Come on, you can do better than this.]! Innovation or deviation isn't license to flout common sense and basic standards. This is a segment that could have been seen to be a bad idea in concept, and storyboard, and filming, and finally editing. It's still just looking at colors for around five minutes, and no innovation or pursuit of the interesting can justify this. Having an isolated vessel floating through space as a machine makes passive attempts to kill you is a good idea. Watching colors on a screen for five minutes not. Sometimes, ideas are so bad that no matter how groundbreaking or interesting they are, they'e still bad and show a lack of judgment. I content that this is one of those ideas.

Shawshank is fucking amazing you mong.

Interstellar and I like Nolan

I honestly just think you were too caught up in thinking "this is pretentious" to pay attention to the movie.

Also you keep making stupid passive aggressive insults implying that I'm saying you're stupid or that confusing people is the point. The movie is not incomprehensible. It does a lot more abstraction than the book, yeah, and you're not likely to understand every little bit of the movie on a first watch but its priorities do seem to be different from yours. That doesn't make it "pretentious" though and I hate that fucking word because people just use it to label anything they don't like.

The movie is a companion piece to the book that portrays the story in a way that pulls on the strengths of the medium and doesn't step on the toes of the book.

>I imagine they're supposed to both be experienced.
That's not really a fair expectation. Maybe if they offered refunds to people who didn't know what was going on because they didn't read the book, or they warned people before hand. Maybe. It's a requirement that we've clearly passed in movies based or inspired by a separate property, or something like this where fairly important details are better explained in the book. It wouldn't be fair if I watched a movie and couldn't tell if it were bad or not unless I read the accompany book.

After all that, I wouldn't say this movie is shitty, but hot shitty would a movie have to get before I can say no book could possibly make this movie good?

>The camera circling the actors during every dramatic scene. Its like babbies first cinematography
This might not mean much to you, but the cinematography was an immense improvement from Batman Begins.

I love the spoon feeding meme. Sure every piece of the world isn't spelled out, it's a piece that requires your own input to be enjoyed. Go ahead and watch gravity again because it's clearly exactly what you already want in a "space film"

Are people actually getting ass mad that someone is using the visual parts of a visual medium?

The thing about art films or films that are experimental is that the visuals tell the story better than... well, everything else that you would usually use to tell a story.

I watched 2001 for the first time yesterday and although I did find it slow, it did make sense and the little touches make the film for me.

>3 minutes of breathing is actually about how man is a fish out of water in space

It's a fucking AUDIO-visual medium.

How do you decide something is overrated?

Most of the people in this thread are saying these movies are good or even great but still overrated. But what's the difference between a movie seeing more praise than you think it deserves, and you just being a negative little cunt that just wants to be different?

You can say a great movie has flaws and doesn't deserve 5 stars out of 5, but if you ask the reviewer who gave it 5/5, in all likelihood they saw some flaws too but they still felt it deserved 5/5.

Maybe you think another movie is better, but if you ask the reviewers, maybe not all of them have seen that other movie, or they weren't thinking of it

Basically you're all disgusting hipsters and I hate you guys so fucking much

Only acceptable answers of movies that are actually shit but still get praised to hell and back.

Oh yeah. 2001 also does pretty cool things with audio as well. Like I said, the breathing part is pretty good.

>you just being a negative little cunt that just wants to be different
me actually having taste and having seen movies outside the INDB top 100

Obviously, I was being facetious and trying to take to the episode the absurdity I see in speculating why Hal malfunctioned. It's not my job as the viewer to speculate that far. I won't say it's something that's necessary, but it (rightly) would not please modern audiences to just have a robot malfunction. There would be some expectation a reason, which could be adequate or inadequate. I understand that having no explanation might be scarier, but it's consistent with our understanding of technology, in which things don't really malfunction to become murderous, and it comes across as lazy. I won't say it failed for this film, because it's the one story element I think it succeeded at.

> Trying to accurately adapt a book to film is pretty difficult if not impossible
There have been, of course, perhaps worse films that have adapted books better. Usually, most of it just involves condensing or removing scenes for length, and not showing details because they wouldn't be appropriate for film, or would ruin the pacing, or improving it in some place. I think 2001 went too far in some places.

>King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation of the Shining either.
He has nobody blame for that. There's only so much you can do with, "Boo! Evil is coming out at this moment for no apparent reason!" and it's probably as good as anyone could hope for, including truly ingenious cinematography.
> Kubrick wanted to make something that would work well with film rather than trying to fruitlessly transplant a book to a movie.
He should have realized too much of 2001 didn't work well with film, regardless or whether he wasn't literally adapting a book to a movie.

>I didn't even see it I just know it's not deserving of fresh on rottentomatoes.

Well, I guess you don't need to watch any movies ever again.

Shawshank is the only answer
melodramatic shit

>Go ahead and watch gravity again because it's clearly exactly what you already want in a "space film"
>Go ahead and watch gravity again because it's clearly exactly what you already want in a "space film"
Oh, that's cold, user, but I still thin it clearly went too much in the opposite direction, though it's not like Gravity's failure is having too obvious exposition.

>Are people actually getting ass mad that someone is using the visual parts of a visual medium?
Yes, user, this is exactly what I meant. Clearly, the correct conclusion from my comments is that 2001 from a visual perspective, and they should have just put an audio recording of the movie in the theater, or better yet, just give out books so people can read in the theater.

>The thing about art films or films that are experimental is that the visuals tell the story better than... well, everything else that you would usually use to tell a story.
Holy insane generalization, Batman! Firstly, not everybody likes that experimental shit, which actually describes only a small portion of 2001. Secondly, you didn't quality your statement, as if every story would be better told with those sort of visuals.

>it did make sense and the little touches make the film for me
Not sure how to understand this. Maybe you're better at understanding films, maybe you were paying more attention, maybe we have different standards of comprehension. The parts of the film that I liked, I understood, and the parts that didn't and I don't, I don't.

>you just being a negative little cunt that just wants to be different?
Obviously, nobody would admit to that, unless they also want to confess to shitpoting.

Absolutely. The original trilogy is shockingly mediocre when you take off the nostalgia goggles

fuck you

it's the absolute comfiest

so we're all agreed that pulp fiction is NOT overrated?

good

The shining. Boring and random.

There are so many it's hard to choose.

Citizen Kane
The Wizard of Oz
Lawrence of Arabia
Star Wars
The Godfather
Aliens
The Shawshank Redemption
2001: A Space Odyssey
8 1/2
La Dolce Vita
Jaws
Schindler's List
Titanic
Pulp Fiction
The Dark Knight

Pick one

>Citizen Kane
How is it overrated? It's literally the most important film in history. Without that single movie everything would be far behind what it is today. If anything it's underrated as the majority of first-time viewers find it boring.

How can be stuff such as TDK or Titanic overrated here when, I think, no one really finds those movies as anything but alright at best.
TDK has the Joker as the only antagonist that really matters or is interesting, while the rest of it tries to be too serious for its own good. While Titanic is a romantic epic.
Each of those movies has something that makes it stand out and great (just like SW as it suffers from mediocre writing, but good visual effects, music, and great world-building).

It honestly depends on who is doing the overrating. If we're talking about general audiences who watch it, yes most of them think it's boring. Then again, modern audiences tend to find anything made prior to the sixties boring unless it's something they watched in childhood.

If we're talking film critics and historians, you're damn right Citizen Kane is overrated. Beyond overrated, as is the rest of Orson Welles' filmography. Importance =/= quality

>How can be stuff such as TDK or Titanic overrated here when, I think, no one really finds those movies as anything but alright at best.
People who are really into movies, sure. Everyday plebs eat that shit up with a spoon though

Also Joker is a shit villain, his "anarchist agent of chaos" shtick is cringe-worthy

I nominate Alien (1979)

I don't know, while I did find it a bit overrated.
I really liked the way they keep us guessing until the last scene.

Nah, Pulp Fiction is great

>important = good
But yeah, CK is amazing

>Movie is considered one of the greatest
>Is actually somewhere between good and shit in the Poster's opinion
What's so hard to comprehend?

Overrated by plebs and normies is not a thing

>Drake is the most overrated artist ever

>CK is amazing
Eh, I thought it was a good movie, but I don't think I'd even put it in my top 100 movies of the 1940's. There are so many great films made during that time IMO, films which impressed me a far greater deal than Citizen Kane

...

>Overrated by plebs and normies is not a thing
Yes it is, just look at Star Wars

In that case, TMNT and the like are also overrated?

City of God

it was alright but nothing more than a flick

Suicide Squad.

Are you referring to the latest movies? If so no, they were savaged by modern "critics" aka glorified bloggers. The main difference is that films like Star Wars, Titanic and The Dark Knight have generally stellar reviews and are venerated by the populace.

Financial success =/= overrated, even concerning normalfags

I had literally 0 shits cared about hedger as a person, as an actor, or his death but his Joker was a very good, extremely iconic performance.

That said, the movie is absolute shit. The plot makes no god damn sense at all and Bale's Batman is retarded.

It's an action movie so just... why try so hard to make your plot so try hard?

I read somewhere that Chris Nolan is a self-taught director. Is this true? That would be hilarious if it is

This and Inception.

At least Quentin has good editing and scene pacing.

Nolan is literally just an overrated hack that simpletons like.

ayyy ratatouille
that's some kino right there

I found "Django Unchained" to be way too tedious