Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Oops, editor's note: It's 25TH HOUR, not 13TH HOUR, in my comments about Spike Lee. Hey, overrated films?

The Crying Game, The Hours, Saving Private Ryan, Blade Runner, X-Men 1 & 2, Dogma, Citizen Kane, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, The Abyss, Ghost, Gladiator, and The Big Chill


How, oh, how, Chris, can you pick a movie that no one really actually thinks is good, that the reason why it's a cult hit is because it's so bad and has an almost ingrained mock script? Easy, BECAUSE it's a cult hit, BECAUSE people somehow enjoy going to the midnight shows to hear THE SAME jokes over and over, and BECAUSE it has become a phenomenon with merchandising and shows on cable and...well, it's no different from any Disney hit, really. The average MST3K beats this, easily. I would much rather go to a theatre and enjoy an episode of that than go through this.


Whoopie Goldberg's Oscar for this performance goes to show what American people just fall over themselves for in announcing something as good. There are many performances like Goldberg's, and while she's great in this role it's not an Oscar performance. Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore, meanwhile, go through the love story cliches where the man can't express his feelings, but at least they can share their love of erotic pottery-making. Plus, what now is an extremely tired the-friend-did-it murder story.


Kevin Smith's fourth movie is much, much too big for him. Way too many actors, plus Jason Lee, who is Kevin Smith's MVP in past movies, is extremely wasted here. Linda Fiorentino is not a good movie heroine, she'll always be a good supporting actress. Plus, when you put in personalities like Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Salma Hayek in these small roles, it's overwhelming. This movie wasn't actually reviewed so well that it was unbelievable, but many people just dig it for some reason, even though Smith's ideas are stretched out way too thin.

9. X-MEN 1 & 2

With the X-MEN movies, I still feel like they're developing the characters while giving us only a smidgen of real action. I don't know how the comic books are, but I've never left an X-MEN screening feeling like I was blown away, or having watched a movie that garnered so much praise. I will say everyone is pretty good in these movies, and there ARE good sequences, but just when I think I like some characters, about five-hundred more get in the mix.


James Cameron's underwater opus is long, and mostly boring. The effects, which even today are amazing, are not enough to be a compelling movie. This movie has inspired a double-disc set with lots of features, and I wonder who was demanding it?


Ridley Scott's epic won Best Picture in 2000. It's got some good stuff in it, but it's a glorified action film that in any other year would not have been nominated.


Another of Ridley Scott's, this movie gets more attention in sci-fi as being the standard cerebral sci-fi film than any other. I still haven't seen the so-called better director's cut, so maybe I'm being harsh. But again, we have a boring, nearly sleep-inducing film.


Lawrence Kasdan has made a career out of thirtysomething bonding films, and this one is about as pretentious as it gets. A bunch of aforementioned thirtysomethings grieve over a lost friend and then grieve about their lives and we have people becoming surrogate dads for each other, and Glenn Close naked in a shower. I guess I have to be that age one day to appreciate, but GRAND CANYON is a good movie that Kasdan did that has some of the same themes.


Great, superb first 20 minutes, followed by an hour and a half of lost wondering, ending with a superb last 20 minutes, make everyone think they just saw a GREAT film. I love Spielberg, and he has some of his best images here, but man, is this chin-on-your-palm type viewing during the middle.


I like this movie a lot, guys, and I realize it's place in film history, and I realize how groundbreaking it was. But it just doesn't hold up in many ways, for instance, the performances are atrocious (especially Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander) and some of the lighter scenes are very outdated. It has ingenious camera work and editing, but it's not the best film of all time.


I've discussed why I think this movie is overrated before, so I'll skip my explanation.


Back in 1992, this movie had critics falling all over themselves about how great this was, what a unique love story, and how it plays with the male gaze. Yeah, I thought Jaye Davidson (who is a guy) was a woman and thought "she" was mildly attractive when I thought he was a girl, but why does that compel me to love the movie? This movie also stumps itself in the toe when it has a glorious opening with Forest Whitaker and Stephen Rea, and then it sort of...tanks, in my opinion.


Post a Comment

<< Home