Overrated Movies

[frogboy4]

Sorry, but to me Citizen Kane is the overrated one, hehe. It reminds me of big epic films they make today, all style and little subtance. And a big ego trip. Pioneering camera techniques but underwhelming story for me. (I mean really, it wasn't that hard to figure out what Rosebud was! ).

Casablanca's writing process may have been hectic, but the final movie's dialogue is witty, sharp and it was a brilliantly character driven story with talented character actors and leads. And I love the idea of this cynical guy who is finally inspired to join the good fight. Plus the fact that the actors themselves were actually living these events in real life at the time makes it all the more poignant.

Movies like Citizen Kane were trying too hard to be classics. Casablanca simply is a classic and didn't need to try.

However, I will agree with you about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, it never fails to move me. : )

Really? I can respect your preference but not your reasoning. Kane isn't really about some spectacular revelation of a physical object. It's a little long-winded but meticulously crafted, well performed and nothing short of brilliant. It's not about "trying hard". Everything about the execution and end result of Kane was thoughtfully planned. There were no happy accidents or classic scenes created due to production missteps like there are with "Casa Blanca".

I'll admit that there's definitely magic in stumbling upon classic moments rather than having them professionally plotted out in pre-production. However, I respect true intentional craftsmanship a lot more. I think you're unfairly transplanting modern views on what are now considered classic movies. There was no such thing as a classic film back then. Neither were trying to invent a genre or become a classic. They just tried to get butts in the seats.

While "Casa Blanca" is a fine film, I just find it overrated. But dissing "Citizen Kane" for trying too hard is like dissing Tolkien or Lewis for spending too much time fleshing out their worlds and characters.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Kane isn't really about some spectacular revelation of a physical object. It's a little long-winded but meticulously crafted, well performed and nothing short of brilliant.

Agree to disagree. I just didn't find it particularly deep. I felt like they thought they were doing something deep, but it just didn't impress me.

There were no happy accidents or classic scenes created due to production missteps like there are with "Casa Blanca".

Casablanca (one word) was no "happy accident" though. The writing may have been breakneck speed and hectic, but it was top notch and very few movies have equaled it, never mind topped it. I've seen many movies that noticeably suffered from hectic writing schedules, but Casablanca isn't one of them.

But dissing "Citizen Kane" for trying too hard is like dissing Tolkien or Lewis for spending too much time fleshing out their worlds and characters.

I'd never accuse Tolkien of that, hehe. Citizen Kane? Sorry, but yeah.

 

[frogboy4]

Agree to disagree. I just didn't find it particularly deep. I felt like they thought they were doing something deep, but it just didn't impress me.



Casablanca (one word) was no "happy accident" though. The writing may have been breakneck speed and hectic, but it was top notch and very few movies have equaled it, never mind topped it. I've seen many movies that noticeably suffered from hectic writing schedules, but Casablanca isn't one of them.



I'd never accuse Tolkien of that, hehe. Citizen Kane? Sorry, but yeah.

Ha! My cellphone spell-check didn't get that. At least it didn't create some other colorful spellings of words as it has done in the past! Stories for another time.

Actually, yes it was a happy accident in that the film prevailed despite many production problems that should have been settled before shooting. That's a known fact in film history. "Casablanca" benefited greatly from the post-production editing. Funny enough, that's one Oscar it didn't receive. Both films suffered setbacks and took a great deal of perseverance to make it to the screen. One because of powerful people trying to shut it down due to its controversial subject matter, the other due to a lack of preparation.

Accusing film noir of attempting to be deep is like accusing romantic films for weaving in sappy moments. You've got to accept the premise upon entry. You can't blame something for being exactly what it is.

Ultimately it's about the end result and our perspectives differ on that. I believe one deserves its accolades while the other is still a fine film. But to fault a film for its preparation and attention to detail is ludicrous. Filmmakers should try that hard! More modern films should take a cue from Welles and craft better pictures in every phase of production rather than the slap-dash last minute method that's so popular today. It's amazing Kane even made it to the screen! The film is such an achievement in all aspects of film-making, but even if it hadn't been I still pull for the underdog. And of course I'll always prefer the film constructed by the fella who made Kermit rich and famous.

Another picture that I never quite liked as much as everybody else..."The Wizard of Oz". I wouldn't necessarily call it overrated because I enjoy its classic moments. I just prefer the truer interpretation and rich darkness of Walter Murch's "Return to Oz" a lot more as a motion picture. His telling is still flawed, but just a better Oz movie IMHO. There are several reboots of it in the works right now from different companies. I wonder how that will go.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Ha! My cellphone spell-check didn't get that. At least it didn't create some other colorful spellings of words as it has done in the past! Stories for another time.

Ah ok, lol, no worries.

Actually, yes it was a happy accident in that the film prevailed despite many production problems that should have been settled before shooting.

Ok actually, I'll meet you half way here. I should have agreed that Casablanca was a happy accident for the reasons you stated. I was just saying that it's no accident that the writing was so good because the writers were indeed very skillful artists and their final product witty and moving and relevant all in one.

Accusing film noir of attempting to be deep is like accusing romantic films for weaving in sappy moments. You've got to accept the premise upon entry. You can't blame something for being exactly what it is.

I wasn't criticizing it for attempting to be deep. I was criticizing it for not being successful at being deep. But in any case, I personally don't see Citizen Kane (or Casablanca actually) as film noir, but again, agree to disagree.

But to fault a film for its preparation and attention to detail is ludicrous. Filmmakers should try that hard!

You misunderstood me. I didn't fault him for trying to do a good job. Just for trying too hard to be a mind blowing work of art. There's such a thing as your ambition getting the better of you, that's all.

We won't agree and that's fine. Still an interesting debate! : )

Though I have to ask...are you sure you weren't watching Passage to Marseille and just thought it was Casablanca? Hehe, just kidding. Just that it has a lot of the same actors, but a mediocre script.

Another picture that I never quite liked as much as everybody else..."The Wizard of Oz". I wouldn't necessarily call it overrated because I enjoy its classic moments. I just prefer the truer interpretation and rich darkness of Walter Murch's "Return to Oz" a lot more as a motion picture.

I haven't seen Return to Oz, but I would be interested as I know a lot of people prefer it. I guess it's apples and oranges, two complete different interpretations of the story.

 

[frogboy4]

Ah ok, lol, no worries.



Ok actually, I'll meet you half way here. I should have agreed that Casablanca was a happy accident for the reasons you stated. I was just saying that it's no accident that the writing was so good because the writers were indeed very skillful artists and their final product witty and moving and relevant all in one.



I wasn't criticizing it for attempting to be deep. I was criticizing it for not being successful at being deep. But in any case, I personally don't see Citizen Kane (or Casablanca actually) as film noir, but again, agree to disagree.



You misunderstood me. I didn't fault him for trying to do a good job. Just for trying too hard to be a mind blowing work of art. There's such a thing as your ambition getting the better of you, that's all.

We won't agree and that's fine. Still an interesting debate! : )

Though I have to ask...are you sure you weren't watching Passage to Marseille and just thought it was Casablanca? Hehe, just kidding. Just that it has a lot of the same actors, but a mediocre script.



I haven't seen Return to Oz, but I would be interested as I know a lot of people prefer it. I guess it's apples and oranges, two complete different interpretations of the story.

Murch's is the truer, yet still flawed, interpretation of Oz. MGM amazingly rebranded the book and made so many elements their own that it practically eclipses the source material. Try doing Oz without ruby slippers and most people are going to cry foul. I'd really like to see someone do it right without relying on the MGM classic. Sam Raimi is apparently one of the directors at the helm of one of the Oz films. Could be interesting.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Murch's is the truer, yet still flawed, interpretation of Oz. MGM amazingly rebranded the book and made so many elements their own that it practically eclipses the source material. Try doing Oz without ruby slippers and most people are going to cry foul. I'd really like to see someone do it right without relying on the MGM classic. Sam Raimi is apparently one of the directors at the helm of one of the Oz films. Could be interesting.

I mean I never minded that MGM's version wasn't accurate to the book; it is its own movie and it works. But it's great that other attempts like Return to Oz have also been made. I can see why fans of the book would want to see a movie that follows the book more closely but as usual I'm concerned about it being a major Hollywood picture nowadays with the typical big stars who may not fit the roles at all. Or battle scenes thrown in for no good reason, hehe.

 

[BoomerangFish]

I haven't seen Return to Oz, but I would be interested as I know a lot of people prefer it. I guess it's apples and oranges, two complete different interpretations of the story.

I would much rather watch Return to Oz than the Wizard of Oz.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I would much rather watch Return to Oz than the Wizard of Oz.

Well it's not very original, but I have to say, I grew up watching The Wizard of Oz, one of my very first movies, and I just can't hate it, lol. But I'd definitely be willing to give Return to Oz a chance as well.

Speaking of Oz adaptations, has anyone else seen The Wiz? Definitely captures a moment in time and the songs are still very cool.

 

[Frogpuppeteer]

On the subject of George Lucas, am I the only person on the Internet who refuses to demonize him for adding things he wishes he could've had in the first place?


:

dont worry im woth you on this...i really dont mind the changes and lsorta like it...but that doesnt mean i still dont enjoy the original prints

 

[Drtooth]

haha! yeah, possibly. Although I adore the 1st Batman by Tim Burton (and Batman Returns)... in fact I still think the Keaton batman films are better than the newer ones. Something about the weirdness of them feels like Batman to me. The new ones are too grounded in reality, but hey, its a fresh take.

I hate to buck a trend, but out of all the Batman movies I've seen (NEVER saw Mask of the Phantasm! ), Dark Night WAS my favorite, but to deny the style and dark camp of the first 2 Batman films is to deny the similar style done in everyone's favorite Batman cartoon, Batman TAS. I also say out of all the Batman films I've seen, Batman and Robin WAS the only one that sucked. Forever was actually decent, but I HATED how they portrayed Twoface. But Batman and Batman Returns? I really love those too. And the 1966 one. The ONLY bit of that show we'll ever get on DVD!

Yeah, audience preferences always seem to shift towards a director's earlier works. I felt that the main problem with Alice is that they were trying too hard to make a concrete fantasy adventure story out of sheer nonsense (JABBERYWOCKY WAS THE POEM, DANGIT!).

Incedentally, have you ever seen Mars Attacks or Sleepy Hollow?

Saw Mars Attacks, unfortunately not all the way through cuz it was television. Now, THAT'S what I want to see him do again... something WACKY! Pee Wee's great Adventure? Wacky! Even to an extent the stop motion films he produced (but Henry Selleck actually did) had some wackiness to them. I will say AIW was a stylish film... I saw most of it, but it really seems to be something goth kids like. I'm so psyched for the stop motion remake of Frankenwiene! I wish he'd do a stop motion remake (or sequel) of Beetlejuice.

On the subject of MoCap, I think it works better in live action movies when they're trying to get believable interaction and movement out of a CGI character, than as an animation medium on its own (Still like A Christmas Carol, though).

I've no problem with motion capture... just... Zermekis thinks it's his wonderful new toy, and film audiences DISAGREE. If you're a director and you keep forcing something a public doesn't want, you become Uwe Boll! That guy... he's like the Kim Jong Il of movie directors... he's nuts, scary, and delusional. I'd hate to see any great wizkid director become that. If it's use PROPERLY in a movie there's nothing wrong with it. But if it replaces human actors with corpse like characters... it doesn't work.

On the subject of George Lucas, am I the only person on the Internet who refuses to demonize him for adding things he wishes he could've had in the first place?

I'm in the middle... I can't say I don't like it, but I really didn't get to see Star Wars UNTIL the special edition trilogy. I'm mixed... they are his films, but it also doesn't mean he had to do it. Somethings I liked (I'm the only one that liked the Jabba scene in the first one), but some just felt perfectionist. I commend him for releasing BOTH special and regular versions of the trilogy on DVD (even though they aren't anthro wide screen... not a problem on my tiny TV).

There's a story a writing teacher I had once told me. When he had a type writer, it was very hard to correct a mistake. When he got a computer, correcting mistakes was easy. What took him longer? Using the computer. It made him a perfectionist!