Movies that aren't as great as they are hyped to be

[Kirby101]

In their defense the budget of those films is about $1-2 million.

As I said before, their FX is worst than amateurs on YouTube. It's like they try to be lame.

[Totoro Man]

James Cameron in general is a pretty overhyped director whom just rests on the tech he incorporates to get **** done whilst the stories tend to be weak.

I still think he's a good director: "Aliens" and "Terminator" are both justifiably classic sci-fi films. my complaints about "Avatar" weren't based on his skills as a director - they were based on his painfully bland characters and self-important story in his script. he's a second-rate writer at best... and an utter hack at worst.

(so far as I know) his best films usually had scripts which were collaborative efforts.

case in point: as soon as I learned "Titanic" was NOT a documentary but based on an original fictional script penned by none other than the mighty James Cameron... I decided it wasn't worth my time and money. still haven't watched it. have no interest in doing so.

[From The Shadows]

I still think he's a good director: "Aliens" and "Terminator" are both justifiably classic sci-fi films. my complaints about "Avatar" weren't based on his skills as a director - they were based on his painfully bland characters and self-important story in his script. he's a second-rate writer at best... and an utter hack at worst.

(so far as I know) his best films usually had scripts which were collaborative efforts.

case in point: as soon as I learned "Titanic" was NOT a documentary but based on an original fictional script penned by none other than the mighty James Cameron... I decided it wasn't worth my time and money. still haven't watched it. have no interest in doing so.

Just watch the ending when the boat starts sinking. I don't mean that in an insensitive way but the bad stuff was the romance in my opinion. And the dialogue is very sparse during the sinking, naturally.

[Soubhagya]

The Nolan Trilogy.

*dodges the rotten fruit tossed*

It has some decent moments, sure. But the Batman voice (Adam West Batman had intentional funny moments, this was unintentionally funny every time he spoke), Bane being a kind of big guy with a ridiculous voice, Joker not feeling like Joker (just an anarchist with makeup), the forgettable first film...

I just don't feel as awed by them as so many others do.

Hey. All films are subjective. Its a valid opinion and all.

Personally, i owe them to get into comics. I just loved the three films. Loved Batman. And i wanted more Batman. That's how i got into Batman comics and by extension to others. I can understand the argument that they aren't great comic book movies. But they aren't great movies? At least good movies?

Joker is a very versatile character. One day he would be pulling pranks. On others he would be killing babies. Anarchy must be there somewhere. Its like Elseworlds. A different take.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Joker is a very versatile character. One day he would be pulling pranks. On others he would be killing babies. Anarchy must be there somewhere. Its like Elseworlds. A different take.

To add to your point: the Joker is arguably one of those characters(along with Batman of course) that has no definitive version really. The original character from the early 40’s starting off as a jewel obsessed madmen who didn’t really use fancy gadgets like a buzzer before eventually being turned into a harmless, goofy, prankster character in the 50’s and most of the 60’s who drove the Joker-Mobile then he returned to being a homicidal madman who retained elements of the Silver Age version like the over-the-top gadgets. Joker as a character has already gone through a lot of revisions already in the comics. Case in point: Frank Miller’s effeminate, lipstick wearing TDKR Joker is nothing like Dennis O’ Neil’s 70’s Joker and most previous versions of the character but it works as a take on the character that’s unique.

Which is partialy why a literal adaption of The Joker from the comics is never really going to work as characterization of him tends to vary from writer to writer and if you were to do a adaption of the classic Joker or what we normally think of the Joker then it would simply invite too many unwanted comparisons to Jack Nicholson’s take(which hewed more closely to the golden comics, by the way) and other versions. It only makes sense for Nolan to revamp the character somewhat for his version of the Batman universe and contribute something fresh and different to the mythos rather then rehashing what we’ve seen before. Mark Hamil’s Joker is a great distillation of everything that came before in the comics but it’s certianly not the only valid way to approach the character. I find even though Heath’s Joker isn’t “ perma-white” and is more of a masochist in this version he still retains the classic Joker traits from the comics like announcing his dastardly crimes to the public before he commits them, his enjoyment of his never ending battle between Batman enough to spare or even save him, his nihilistic, cynical view of humanity that all people can become like him if their pushed to a certain point or if they go through a “bad” day & desiring to prove his point, and killing his own henchmen).

[Soubhagya]

To add to your point: the Joker is arguably one of those characters(along with Batman of course) that has no definitive version really. The original character from the early 40’s starting off as a jewel obsessed madmen who didn’t really use fancy gadgets like a buzzer before eventually being turned into a harmless, goofy, prankster character in the 50’s and most of the 60’s who drove the Joker-Mobile then he returned to being a homicidal madman who retained elements of the Silver Age version like the over-the-top gadgets. Joker as a character has already gone through a lot of revisions already in the comics Frank Miller’s effeminate, lipstick wearing Joker is nothing like Dennis O’ Neil’s 70’s Joker and most previous versions of the character but it works as a new take on the character that’s unique.

Which is part of why a literal adaption of Joker from the comics is never really going to work as characterization of him tends to vary from writer to writer and if you were to do a adaption of the classic Joker or what we normally think of the Joker then it would simply invite too many unwanted comparisons to Jack Nicholson’s take(which hewed more closely to the golden comics, by the way) and other versions. It only makes sense for Nolan to revamp the character somewhat for his version of the Batman universe and contribute something fresh and different to the mythos rather then rehashing what we’ve seen before. Mark Hamil’s Joker is a great distillation of everything that came before in the comics but it’s certianly not the only valid way to approach the character. I find even even though Heath’s Joker isn’t “ perma-white” and is more of a masochist in this version he still retains the classic Joker traits from the comics like announcing his dastardly crimes to the public before he commits them, his enjoyment of his never ending battle between Batman enough to spare or even save him, his nihilistic, cynical view of humanity that all people can become like him if their pushed to a certain point or if they go through a “bad” day & desiring to prove his point, and killing his own henchmen).

Thumbs up!

Your post is too good. One of the things i really adored about Nolan's Joker is that he might not have electric buzzers, but he captured the spirit of Joker. I think even more so then Nicholson. Nicholson had a definitive origin. Not multiple choice like Killing Joke. I love Nicholson's performance. Due to him i prefer Batman over Returns. But Nolan and Ledger somehow improved upon it.

That's why i am interested in the upcoming Joker. If one can improve over Nicholson, what can't you do? And i am 100 percent with you on Hamill's Joker. Those animated shows excelled in distilling the mythos like no one had done. And none since. They are ever popular with DC fans but easily accessible to first time viewers.

[AJBopp]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

[Vinsanity]

- Marvel Movies - Don't get me wrong most a great but the tone (minus BP) are very similar. People go gaga over it
- Dark Knight Trilogy
- Wolf of Wall Street - Wall Street was better and more compelling
- Ghostbusters - The original one was kind of dull imo. None of the characters were compelling.
- Indiana Jones & Last Crusade - People love it cause of Sean Connery but it has nothing on the 1st one and i prefer the 2nd one tbqh
- Jumanji - Carl was the best part of it
- Top Gun - Tom Cruise has done so much better
- Space Jam - 90's are not kind of this movie

I'll post more when I think about more.

[Innocent Bystander]

With you, 100% of the way.

Nolan gave us one of the worst takes on Batman I've ever seen. His Batman was a quitter that constantly had to be told what to do and receive peptalks to keep going.

I have Nolan to thank for making me lose complete interest in the character. His "realistic" take just felt pretentious and, well, unrealistic. Nothing in the films worked for me. But at least I'll always have B:TAS.

[Cyke]

- Top Gun - Tom Cruise has done so much better

Just to back up your point, I don't think anyone has said Top Gun is a great or well-made movie. A fun or memorable movie, sure, but not exceptional.

In my mind I lump it in with all those other 80s movies about machismo and as a recruitment tool for the American military, rather than other war or military movies that are more concerned about just being good movies.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Batman Mask Of Phatasm - I know, I know, bring the hate. It doesn’t play like a movie enough for me, and feels like an extended episode of the show.

Iron Man -The film is uneven and there’s not much to it besides Robert Downey Jr’s performance. The film is another origin story and the third act battle and villian reveal is about as generic as you can get.

Days Of Future Past - meh. It’s a time travel story that doesn’t say much beyond the simplistic, “revenge is bad!” Beyond the Quicksilver sequence the movie especially the cut with Pryde in it is kind of a slog. I was already bored of the Xavier and Magneto conflict even before Apocalypse.

[Immortal Weapon]

Scarface, from the scenery chewing acting to the ridiculous action, I just don't get the adulation this cartoon of a film gets.

Yep, got rid of the "e" in my post. There were parts that are laughable, but it became this big Hip-Hop gangster thing.

It gets adulation because how relatable the basic premise of the movie is. Tony Montana went from rags to riches and did so on his own terms and went out on top. Something like that will appeal greatly to Hip Hop culture as many of them see themselves as Tony when he started. It is an inspirational film.

[Cyke]

It gets adulation because how relatable the basic premise of the movie is. Tony Montana went from rags to riches and did so in his own terms and went out on top. Something like that will appeal greatly to Hip Hop culture as many of them see themselves as Tony when he started. It is an inspirational film.

Yeah. And just to add, it predates modern hip hop culture as we have it now, too. While hip hop's been around for decades and has always been street, the culture during the time of Scarface was markedly different than the era inspired by the movie arguably starting a decade later.

So saying that it became this hip-hop gangster thing is apocryphal when it helped shape what it is today.

[Amadeus Arkham]

I quite like the realism of the Nolan Batman films. It’s a fresh and different than we’ve seen before with the films and its interesting(to me anyway) to see Nolan re-work certain over-the-top characters like the Joker into a real world context. They’re valid takes on the Batman source material, imo. I get some people favoring something more comic booky and disliking the idea of taking something so inherently silly as a man dressing up as a bat to fight crime so seriously but there’s a precedent for it in the source material.

Batman Year One in particular (which are more gritty and realistic than the Nolan films) has no over-the-top colorful villains like the Riddler and Joker, features a realistic, down-and-dirty city that eschews the stylized Art Deco depiction of Gotham of BTAS in favor of a real-world city. If anything that story is basically a gritty 70’s crime drama in comic book form. I like the fantasy aspects of the Batman character as the next guy but I do like the more realistic version as well. Batman can work both in a fantastical setting like Batman The Animated Series as well the grounded more realistic setting. Though the Nolan films aren’t really realistic is so much as they’re just grounded(if that makes sense). Its subjective, and ones mileage will ultimately vary as to whether that type of tone in a comic book film works for you or not.

[Starter Set]

2001: A Space Odyssey.

When nothing at all happens for like 30 minutes, i kinda lose interest in a movie. It's awfully pretentious, boring to a level seldom reached before and just a terrible movie to watch.

Never understood the cult around that stuff.

Now ladies and gentlemen, you can grab your pitch forks.