“Best film of the year!” “The funniest film since ____!” “Four stars!” “A masterpiece!”
Any fans of film will tell you that hyperbole is a major part of film promotion, and it also plays a major part in how we talk about movies. Just think how many times you’ve said something like “That’s the funniest movie!” or “I love that movie so much!” If you’re like us, you probably say things like that a few times a day!
But there’s never any across the board agreement, right? Even among your closest friends you probably have disagreements over movies you each love and hate. Sometimes it even seems like you might be the only person in the world that doesn’t like a movie everybody else likes. We might even like the film in question, but we don’t understand all the love. That’s when we drag out the one word known to make lovers of a particular movie go crazy: OVERRATED.
Like our last roundtable post, 5 Movies That Don’t Deserve Their Awful Reputations, we’ve decided to state our cases on films we think are way overrated. Of course, we don’t share the same opinions — most of us think the others are crazy for picking the films they picked — but that’s what the comments are for. So after reading our opinions, why not let us know what you think of the films we picked in the comments? Feel free to add your two cents about what movies you think are overrated that we didn’t mention, too!
KEVIN: Elf (2003)
Jon Favreau. Writer of Swingers. Director of Iron Man. Actor of, uh… Rudy. Somewhere between those first two films, Favreau was given his first big studio paycheck with Elf, a Will Ferrell-led Christmas vehicle, in 2003. From Ferrell’s ear-shatteringly loud cry of “Santa!” to James Caan‘s frustrating caricature of a businessman, the film grates on my every sensibility. The first two acts can be labeled as follows: Act One – Buddy Is Big and Act Two – Buddy Is In New York. The first twenty minutes of “jokes” involve Buddy hilariously ramming into doorways, barely fitting into his classroom desk, or sitting uncomfortably in another elf’s lap. The next forty minutes feature Buddy eating gum off a sidewalk and being overly disruptive and exhibiting naivete in situation after situation. The film is one note followed by another note and it just drags on and on and on. We get it; it’s Will Ferrell in his prime being stupid so we should hand you money.
The ending, with its message of believing in Santa Claus, would be adorable — if it weren’t needlessly complex and difficult to follow in the action. At the climax, the children of Manhattan are conducted by pre-pixie-nightmare Zooey Deschanel in chorus as they sing to restore power to an engine part which can get Santa’s sleigh off the ground while Ferrell hangs precariously off the back during a wild chase with the cops… or something to that effect. It’s a little much for a relaxing holiday flick. And James Caan’s positive turnaround at the end doesn’t exactly undo his brutal shout of “GET THE HELL OUT OF MY LIFE!” earlier in the movie.
But more than all of these flaws is the grand idea that this film absolutely MUST BE HERALDED AS A MODERN CHRISTMAS CLASSIC. Every year at parties, someone throws out “Let’s put on Elf!” and another calls out “Ohmygod I loooooooove Elf!” and yet another chimes in with “That movie is a masterpiece! Now now now!” When I voice my opinion, I am trounced by a cacophonous array of pejoratives and dismissals as a grump. My friends, one does not simply declare a classic. Charlie Brown, The Grinch, and Rudolph grow on every viewer, young and old, and endear themselves to the audience. They are timeless, simple, and heartwarming. Elf is busy, dumb, unfunny, and bizarrely dark at points.
CHRIS: Spider-Man 2 (2004)
When Spider-Man 2 was released, Roger Ebert gave it four stars and called it “the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched with Superman (1978).” It has a 93% score with Rotten Tomatoes (96% from top critics). Many name it as one of the best comic book movies ever made. So I keep thinking I saw some kind of Asylum-style knockoff because I think it’s an awful movie.
I enjoy Sam Raimi‘s Evil Dead films, but he’s never been a director who gets great performances out of his actors. His Spider-Man films are full of awkward, wooden performances. Nobody is worse than Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane, but that’s not Dunst’s fault. Mary Jane is about as one-dimensional as a love interest can get. For example, she gets so mad at Peter for missing her play she decides to retaliate by… getting engaged to another dude? Uh, that’s taking it a bit far, isn’t it? It’s a shame that the Spider-Man movies essentially ruined Dunst’s once-promising career. Likewise, Harry Osborn is James Franco at his laziest, but who could be inspired by his character’s awful dialogue? The only thing worse than the bad acting is the lazy writing.
The absolute worst though is how Spider-Man defeats Doctor Octopus. After electrocuting Ock in a ridiculously cartoonish way with giant ACME wires, Spider-Man convinces Ock to stop his evil plan by using THE POWER OF GOOD REASON. That is, he takes off his mask and just nicely asks the suddenly somewhat sane Ock to put a halt to his fusion reactor, which sucks up everything metallic around them (such as cars and street signs blocks away) except Ock’s giant METAL arms during this tender moment of UNDERSTANDING. Then Ock pulls the reactor in the ocean and drowns. This is not how a superhero fight scene should end. I was so soured by that ending that I’ve never seen Spider-Man 3 — which, considering the horrible reviews the third got, was the best thing I got out of Spider-Man 2 in retrospect!
Last year’s Amazing Spider-Man wasn’t perfect (Peter swinging in a warehouse to Coldplay is as cheesy as anything in the Raimi trilogy), but it had better acting and a far more likable love interest in Emma Stone‘s Gwen Stacy. The special effects are also so much better, proving that the trilogy’s over-reliance in choppy early 2000s CGI was not a good decision. Unlike many, I never thought of Spider-Man 2 as one of the best superhero films… I’ve always thought it was one of the worst.
TOM: The Hangover (2009)
In 2009 The Hangover was making a massive name for itself. It was arguably one of the most popular comedies of the year and even became the highest grossing R-rated comedy in the US of all time, dethroning the 25 year reign of Beverly Hills Cop. But I just wasn’t convinced by the trailer. I gave in and saw the film regardless, yet through all the rave reviews and public love I just couldn’t see what everyone else seemed to be enjoying, that’s when it hit me, The Hangover clearly had a spell on the entire world that I was somehow immune to, so I’m here to help.
Generally I’m a comedy fan – I don’t tend to be too much of a snob. I like Todd Phillips films, and I like Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifianakis, but I just couldn’t tolerate The Hangover. Let’s start with Ed Helms, the film’s first stumbling block. Outside of The Office, Helms never seems to play the right character, I’m not saying all I see is Andy when I see Helms, it’s just the only character he’s done well. His performance in The Hangover is consistently uninspiring and lack-luster. I get the sense he’s attempting (albeit, a poor version) the Steve Carell patented ‘sad sack’ character, without any real prowess. He also tries to be a bit too cool for the role, which simply doesn’t work, and it comes off awkward and sad to watch. Really though, all three of the leads were bitterly misused. Cooper is somewhere between the suave-cool guy and the asshole, never really picking a side, which means he’s a bit of a nothing character in the end. And I simply cannot stand the Alan character by Galifianakis because it screams out of ‘trying to hard for a laugh’ (see Due Date or Dinner For Schmucks for how best to use him). The film leaves out for the most part a good comic actor in Justin Bartha (I would have happily switched him and Ed Helms around), the humour is all a bit too obvious, show-offy and stereotypical.
In contrast, Phillip’s previous film, Old School (which he also wrote as well as directed), creates three likeable characters who actually have room to grow and develop for better or worse, in a charming film that had a lot more going for it. The Hangover just tries too hard to appeal to the masses, and while it was obviously successful in doing that, it hardly makes it a good film. We’re not really rooting for anyone in The Hangover because ultimately it’s a bit of a nothing story in which we just find out “what super cool things these super cool guys got up to on their super cool night,” only…it’s not ‘super cool,’ it’smore a rip-off of Dude, Where’s My Car (which again has more likeable characters). The jokes are simplistic and two-dimensional and there’s just no heart in the film whatsoever. Seriously, they have to find a groom who’s barely in the film to get him back to his wedding which we don’t care about because we’ve been told nothing about the happy couple? How are we meant to care?! Quite simply, I just didn’t and you probably shouldn’t either.
KRIS: Pulp Fiction (1994)
I love cult films. I love films that gain a following and the films that don’t. Films like 1994’s humorous Clerks, 2001’s metaphysical Donnie Darko, and even Quentin Tarantino’s breakout movie Reservoir Dogs. However, with all respect to Mr. Tarantino, I do not understand the fascination with Pulp Fiction. Let’s start with the decent aspects: the acting. I’m not a fan of John Travolta because of his propensity to overact; in Pulp Fiction, it fits the storyline. The acting is exceptional by everyone from Tim Roth to Eric Stolz to Uma Thurman to Frank Whaley. Except Mr. Tarantino himself. Note to QT: Stay behind the camera my friend. Before I get into my biggest issue with this overrated mess, let me first say this: When Django Unchained came out in 2012, everyone was up in arms for his overuse of the “n” word. It was spoken about 108 times in 165 minutes. Which is, in all truth, excessive. However, in Pulp Fiction, during Tarantino’s monologue as Jimmie he says the word 4 times in less than 2 minutes. That’s Quentin Tarantino. People need to accept it and move on.
My biggest issue with this film is this: the entire movie. After watching it back to back for the last 5 days, I feel like I just witnessed a child with ADHD trying to piece together a semi-comprehendible movie. The story skips around in non-sequential order and, at times, confuses the viewer. By the time I finally became interested in the film, at 2 hours and 15 minutes, the movie ends in 19 minutes. I don’t buy the “hipster” attitude that Tarantino claims to bring to his stories. He’s a fantastic creator; however, his execution to his own material is ridiculous and lazy. From his past writing, I would rather watch 1994’s Natural Born Killers or 1995’s Four Rooms than this “masterpiece”. Even after all these years, this movie is still one of the most overrated movies of all time for me. If anyone wants to explain to me why it’s such a hit, let me know.
Why don’t you let all of us know why we’re right or wrong? Tell us know in the comments below what you think about our choices — and feel free to give us your own choices!
Recent Comments