Overrated films part 33

I know a lot of films on my Overrated list are those that are beloved by many, and granted all of them have at least a few redeeming qualities at best, and I can understand their massive appeal, even though I personally have no interest in seeing most, if not all, ever again. Pop art has almost a limitless budget to convince the masses that what they're viewing or listening to is good, whether it is or not.

There are a few Holiday staples that have stood the test of time and have become classics many families have come to enjoy, such as the crowd pleasing It's a Wonderful Life, the hilarious antics in A Christmas Story, Scrooged, and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, the morality tales of the various versions of A Christmas Carol, and the charming sweetness of the original Miracle on 34th Street. One film that seems to be a now must watch Holiday movie is Elf, one I really don't care for.

 

Elf is the story of William, who as a baby sneaks into Santa's sack of toys, and ends up being adopted by Father Christmas and his wife. Raised as Kris Kringle's helper, William grows up, towering over all the others, and is finally told the story of how he came to be a part of the North Pole workforce, and then goes to find his birth family. He travels to New York and comes across his father, who works for a book publisher and isn't happy to meet his long lost son, for whatever reason.

 

William then traverses the metropolitan landscape, trying to understand the commercialized world we inhabit, falls in love, and does anything and everything to be accepted by his long lost Dad. It's mostly a fish out of water story, which you've seen dozens of times, and Will Ferrell is mostly acting like a man child, which is quite a stretch for him I know. The humor can give someone a smile, but with the exception of the short person author scene, it's mostly only funny once, and repeated viewings don't hold up. The climax is as stupid as it is predictable, and the movie just has an uneven feel for me. While the film does have its merits, some good light hearted humor, and a charming performance by the lovely hipster queen Zooey Deschanell, it's a silly film that I find largely forgettable. It has captured the imaginations of many, but we'll see if it stands the test of time as the previously mentioned Christmas classics have.

 

"Amorphous and ill-formed, relying solely on the strength of the gags to win the day." - Rob Faux

 



Overrated films part 32

You ever go see a film that everyone loves and recommends, only to walk out scratching your head wondering why it was so popular? I do that often, hence this overrated films list, but it's happened to everyone. This may destroy any amount of geek cred I may have ever had, but I'll say it anyways, I'm not of fan of Ghostbusters, and I never really was.

I saw the movie well after everyone else did. It was the talk of the nation as it was a massive hit, and spawned the overplayed theme song that was Ray Parker Jr's one hit. Finally my father relented after I begged him to take me, and we saw Ghostbusters. It was impressive looking film, and to a child of my age, hilarious, but upon repeated viewings it stopped being funny quickly.

I saw the movie a few years ago at the Cinerama, and I will say it still has a few funny moments, but all are owned by Bill Murray, and the rest of the cast might have well not existed. The special effects are still amazing even in a post CGI world, but the movie fails at what it sets out to do, make me laugh anymore. Sure some comedies don't age well as jokes become more sophisticated, but there are those that stand the test of time. For some reason Ghostbusters has stood in the hallowed halls of great cinema, and I'm hard pressed to figure out why, especially considering how awful it's sequel is.

"There is more attention to special effects than to humor." - Janet Maslin

Overrated films part 31

As anyone who's traveled outside of Mississippi knows, racism is everywhere. Yes, America has made great progress in race relations, but if you only watch Hollywood crafted media, one may assume it only existed in the deep south, pre-1974.

The Help attempts to chronicle the blatant prejudice that many black people endured during the civil rights movement, and does it adequately, but fails in many respects. It's the story of a local reporter, who decides to tell the story of African-American maids who are treated as second class citizens in their work and personal life, but the only difference between their careers and the ones of slaves is that their paid a barely livable wage.

In an attempt to finally break free of the bondage of Jim Crow and those who adhere to it's philosophy, the maids bravely tell their sad tales of having to use separate bathrooms at their employers, endure cold and often juvenile taunts, and being mistreated in every way imaginable. It's an inspiring story of the power of the pen and it's ability to change our perceptions.

As moving as the story should be, the film is bogged down with so many faults it's almost difficult to list them all. The real drag are the subplots, which are at best unnecessary, and at worst distracting. A forced romantic subplot tells us nothing about any of the characters and a heartfelt, but anti-climatic tale of a maid who stole a ring to pay for her son's education took me out of the film.

The real issue I had was not the Hallmark-ish speeches delivered every five minutes, but the antagonists, which can make or break a film. In The Help, the racist maid employers are so one dimensional that one can only imagine early 60s housewives as having no other emotion or life goal than to oppress black people. They were just evil for the sake of it, and had absolutely no depth. It's as if they were perpetuating stereotypes while at the same time crushing others.

The film does have it's merits, like most overrated films. The acting by the leads is at times remarkable, and for that I would recommend it alone, and the cinematography makes the city of Jackson as picturesque as a Thomas Kincaid painting. And really, that's the target audience of this film, people who enjoy their message films to be sanitary and unchallenged, and in that it succeeds in spades. Perhaps it is a good idea to see such content, if only to remind us that we sometimes need to see issues in such black and white contrast in order to understand the grey.

"As in many reductive period pieces, there are no real characters here, just archetypes, namely reactionary cretins and sensitive souls who anticipate modern attitudes." - Ben Sachs

Overrated films part 30

Teens don't have discriminating tastes like most adults, who've grown to refine their aesthetics. Film executives know this, so when they're not using the heads of Philippine children as a soccer ball they're green lighting any crap that comes across their desk to exploit the hormonally challenged. Such has never been more apparent than the pop culture phenomenon, Twilight.

Set in rural Washington, the story is about a girl named Bella, who goes to high school and generally acts aloof and distance with people who want to be her friend for reasons we can't comprehend. She is intrigued with Edward, the mysterious boy who stares at her in a creepy fashion. After some supernatural events occur, Bella can only come to the logical conclusion that Edward is a 100 year old vampire who lusts after her blood, but is too taken with her to do any sucking. Bella spends the rest of the film biting her lip and being swoon by a man four times her age, all the while ignoring her less than fantastic friends.

I really don't get the appeal of the film as I'm obviously not the target audience, but beyond the creepiness of an old guy wanting a young girl I'm hard pressed to find anything aesthetically appealing. The acting really bad and the script won't allot the players to do much with the roles they've been given. Bella is far from interesting or like able, but mildly attractive so I guess that's all females should look to in a heroine. Edward speaks in Hallmark cliches that would be laughable anywhere else, but in this film the lines somehow strike a chord with tweens.

Kids have an excuse to like this wildly popular film, but adults don't. Parents don't seem to care that their kids like garbage, which is paramount to child abuse. Films like Twlight bother me in the lessons they give young girls, like it's great to like the dangerous guy who swoons all over you, age be damned. Go ahead and ignore your friends or academic life, because being in love is the most important thing in the whole wide world.

“Harry Potter is about confronting fears, finding inner strength and doing what is right in the face of adversity. Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend.” - Stephen King

Overrated films part 30

Romantic comedies are a mixed bag for reasons that are kind of obvious. They're probably the most formulaic genre second only to horror. Basically you have boy meets girl, boy screws up, boy apologizes, girl forgives, wash, rinse, repeat.

Working Girl does take the formula and put it on it's ear, for better or for worse. Melanie Griffith stars as Tess, a spunky, ambitious secretary who wants to be a huge player in the world of big business. As her new boss is recovering from a skiing accident after stealing Tess' idea, Tess decides to steal it back and pretend she has her supervisor's job. She then meets Jack, a mogul in the industry and unbeknownst to Tess her boss' love interest, and attempts to solicit the idea. Romance ensues as well as a comedy of errors.

Sadly this romantic comedy has not one laugh. I can forgive a film for it, but it has to have a good love story to offset the failed attempts at humor, which it doesn't. Working Girl is as ambitious as the lead character in trying to give us lighthearted humor with a Cinderella story, but Pretty Woman this isn't. Melanie Griffith gives what is arguably her best performance in her entire career, but that doesn't save the lack of chemistry she has with Harrison Ford, or Alec Baldwin for that matter.

Critics praised this film largely on the back of Griffith's acting, and again it's a stellar performance, but the story failed to live up to that high standard. Perhaps if I were well versed with the world of high finance and brokering I may have had a few laughs, but I doubt it. Watching it recently just makes the film feel dated and awkward and the only chuckle I could give was for the strange hairstyles that were all the rage in the 80s. The film is well crafted as one would expect from Mike Nichols, but the script keeps this from being a memorable film.

"Blah comedy, but with nice performers." - Michael E. Grost

Overrated films part 29

It was strongly recommended to me by various friends and family to see Religulous. After being hounded for my opinion on it I finally took a friend to see it. Later I reported my opinion to those who cared and some were genuinely surprised by my enjoyment, or lack thereof, of Maher's film.

'Religulous' is a documentary, or it could be better called a vanity project, for Bill Maher, the outspoken host of HBO's Real Time. In it Maher travels the US and abroad interviewing and often times ridiculing his subjects who all have one thing in common, they're devout in their religious faith.

It's clear from the start that Maher is an agnostic who feels everyone else should be. That's not a criticism nor would I call him arrogant for his world view, but one is left to wonder just how much depth he's given to educating himself concerning the world's big three faiths. He often asks questions that only a child at Sunday school would. When speaking to a priest at Vatican City about his confusion regarding the Holy Trinity the man of the cloth responds with the age old answer of how water also exists in three forms. In a surprising admittance regarding his sophomoric view on the Bible, Bill had no answer to that. Seriously he couldn't think of a response, witty or otherwise, to one of the oldest and lamest explanations regarding one of the most complicated mystery of Christianity.

Maher often ridicules his subjects with devious glee, which would be entertaining if most of the participants in the film were anything other than emotionally inept. I couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for some of the folks he interviewed. As the friend who watched it with me commented, it was like watching someone poke fun at the mentally disabled. The majority of folks he spoke with gave the audience the impression that they were just not prepared to engage in a debate with the likes of Maher. Unsurprising to most, gotcha journalism doesn't exactly give people the chance to have a rational, well educated discussion. He catches his guests, makes laughs at their expense, and repeats the same formula for the entirety of the documentary.

A lot of my friends really enjoyed this movie, as well as many critics. Most of them had the same religious views as Maher and if they spoke honestly they'd probably admit the only reason they liked this film is because they finally felt they had a guy in their corner battling the forces of the unreasonable. The religious and the non share a common cross if you will. Both feel persecuted for their faith or lack thereof. If I were to outline why it would make for the longest blog post in the history of One Bad Apple.

Most of the interviews are hardly enlightening nor even that interesting and, sadly, weren't funny. For someone as smart and entertaining as Maher is this movie showcases few of his talents. A lot of it is information you are already well aware of, but if you feel the need to be preached at by an agnostic who holds disdain for anyone who doesn't think like him then this is the film for you.

Wanna see a film reviewed by Wiwille? Drop me an email or comment and you'll see it soon on One Bad Apple. Rules are posted here.

"Being snarky and smug doesn't equate to providing insight, and there's more than one occasion when the filmmakers lose sight of this in their zeal to spread the Gospel According to Maher." - James Berardinelli

Overrated films part 28

I want you to try and contain your shock as I state this, but I've never seen 'Blue Velvet' until last night. This is mostly a result of a love/hate relationship with all things David Lynch. While I enjoy 'The Elephant Man' the rest of his work, even those movies I do like, make little to no sense. It's difficult to broadcast such feelings to other film geeks as Lynch fans defend his work with a religious zeal. Most, if they spoke with any honesty, look down upon me as one who 'doesn't get it' or use it as a direct attack on my intellect.

It pains me to feel as if I'm missing the party. As with any overrated product in any medium I feel like the kid who happens to hate the current game being enjoyed by everyone else on the playground. Hate may be a strong word as highly regarded pop culture works usually have at least something redeeming about it. I try to avoid conversation with Lynch fans about his work as it's similar to a debate with an evolutionist vs a creationist. No matter how many facts and figures are thrown into the discourse neither side will bend.

'Blue Velvet' is a difficult movie to review as I'm late to the party. It's a noir film set in the 50s concerning a young college student, Jeffery, returning to his home town when his father falls ill. He comes across a human ear laying in a field and reports it to the police. Frustrated with the cops seeming incompetence with their investigation he decides to be his one amateur sleuth with the assistance of the lead detective's daughter.

He follows the trail to a nightclub singer's apartment, where he finds a twisted plot that involves a sadist, drug addled Frank Booth. Ever the seemingly invincible villain typical in noir films, Frank has kidnapped the singer's husband and child so she will engage in S&M acts. As Frank leaves Jeffery is engulfed in the drama in manners you might expect from a story of this nature.

The opening scene of the film is shot deep in symbolism, but the problem is I enjoy images steeped in allegory when it's subtle. In this film the editor decided to hammer into the audience what each visual was about, which I found a little insulting. Maybe at the time it was released in 1986 audiences, at least American movie goers, needed that to be done, but I quickly became bored seeing shots of grisly looking bugs beneath the soil of a perfectly manicured lawn that seemed to go on for what felt like forever. We get it. Let's move on.

What's bizarre about this film is the scenes taking place in the picture perfect town of Lumberton uses cliched, wooden dialogue that would best be used in an old pulp novel, but when Lynch delivers us the underbelly of the city the actors are forced to take on a new method of speech resembling little of what we saw previously. Consequently the acting suffers greatly.

I'm sure the violent scenes, especially when the nightclub singer was humiliated in any number of ways sexual and otherwise, were very unpleasant at the time (1986) and in a way it still is, but the way it's portrayed here feels uneven, especially given the fact that we're asked to accept it coinciding with the facade of a town that only exists in old sitcoms. We all know Lynch likes to see the dark side of humanity, especially when society presents itself in an almost perfect manner, but it seems a bit heavy handed in both manners.

All that being said there's a lot to like about this film. I really enjoyed it, flaws and all. It became a very interesting noir story, a genre I do find as a guilty pleasure. Even though the acting isn't great, it's convincing enough and Dennis Hopper has a lot of fun with the role of the madman Frank. The dialogue, while silly at times, is very quotable. If you don't have a weak stomach I can recommend this, but upon first viewing I don't get why it's received so many accolades. My only guess is that most viewers back in 1986 have never seen anything like it before.

Wanna see a film reviewed by Wiwille? Drop me an email or comment and you'll see it soon on One Bad Apple. Rules are posted here.

"Weird for weird's sake isn't enough; there has to be something more." - David Nusair

Overrated films part 27

A friend of mine who has little interest in politics or history read the famous biography "Che", about the legendary revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, for her book club. We talked about it for a spell, but it was years since I read it. She then pondered why he was such a beloved figure amongst many as the book paints him as a sadistic tyrant.

I didn't have a good answer for her. I admit that I love the myth of Che if not the reality. Since his martyrdom many have seen him as an inspiring figure in the struggle against imperial colonialism. While he claimed to fight for social justice upon closer examination of the facts one may found a man who cared little for basic human and civil rights, not the iconic revolutionary who many think should be the model for our collective conscious. Yes I do find it ironic that his legacy is largely lived through sweat shop produced tshirts and posters that are sold in Hot Topic and the like. Hardly the want of someone so against capitalism, but maybe he was that narcissistic.

I'm sure there are many like me who want to admire the bullet point history of Guevara and that's the only explanation I can think of when I see positive reviews for "The Motorcycle Diaries". I watched this yesterday wondering if it would give me further insight behind the man that helped shaped Cuba's future, but I was largely left to question why it, like it's main character, was so well regarded.

It's a simple road tale of Ernesto Guevara and his friend Alberto Granado who set to travel South America from Argentina to Peru on a motorcycle. They're friends because we're told they are, but we never feel that they should be. There's no real chemistry between the two and there's little dialogue that would suggest they even enjoy each other's company. They seem to share the same political philosophy, but even that is glossed over. It becomes little more than a travelogue, a poor one at that.

Across the landscape they meet important figures in shaping their beliefs and witness first hand the oppression at the hands of capitalists and religious figures, but again these moments are few and almost work in a montage sequence when the camera's not focused on the landscape. The poor are shot almost in still life fashion in black and white, mean to represent how they are a memory, a somewhat fleeting one as they are the victims of powerful landlords, corporations, etc.

It's an interesting concept, but it made for a poor film that does little more than make one wonder why Che became such a brutal thug. Perhaps if the downtrodden in this film were given more character we could imagine him becoming the extremist he was in his later years, but the viewer is left to ponder that for themselves.

This film failed me in two respects, one as a buddy road film and the other as a social commentary. What turned Che into the absolutist who even lobbied for Kruschev to launch at the US is still a mystery to those who view it. It's a long and often time tedious look into the world that begged to be saved from it's masters.

That's not to say the film is completely without merit. The visuals are lush and beautiful, the acting is much better than it's dialogue, and maybe if I spoke Spanish I'd understand the fish out of water aspect of the travels of it's protagonists. When the end came gave Che credit for creating the revolution against the Batistas I felt I wanted more.

"For a movie, this feels inadequate, despite its splendors and, later, its social dismay. It does, however, have the makings of a grand postcard." - Wesley Morris

Overrated Films part 26

I'm a sucker for comic book films. While I'm unfamiliar with a lot of their source material I enjoy seeing a good super hero romp. They often appeal to the child in me, one who marveled at the idea of superhuman beings fighting the good fight. I'm sure many others feel this way and it's why the genre continues to be a success.

Still they are sometimes a hard sell. Directors often time have difficulty trying to please both die hard fans and moviegoers alike, and sometimes the finished product ends up being enjoyable to no one (Ang Lee's 'Hulk', 'Daredevil').

The overwhelming critical and commercial success of Iron Man sparked my curiosity. The character isn't a house hold name like his other superhero counterparts, such as Batman, Spiderman, or Wonder Woman. My interest did peak though and on strong recommendations I finally spent the time and money to sit and watch what was so beloved by my friends.

I felt as if I missed the party. Sure there's a lot to like about Iron Man. Rober Downey Jr's performance is impressive as expected. The film does have a great sense of humor even if a few of the jokes fall mercilessly flat, and Tony Stark's alter ego is human after all and easy to relate to.

That being said I was completely underwhelmed. What makes a really enjoyable comic book film is not necessarily it's heroes, but it's antagonists. So often do orgin stories sacrifice a compelling villain for the sake of setting up the background and Iron Man is no different. While others may disagree, it is possible to have a great bad guy help set up the arch of a super hero's set up (Batman Begins, Superman, X-Men) and this film disappoints highly in that respect.

The other issue with this story is the character arc, which was largely resolved in the first act and was less than stellar. The action sequences, which were good at times, didn't have the majesty of flight and sound like so many other superior films. In other words this had a feel of paint-by-numbers film making.

I had hoped these small flaws would be corrected in the sequel, but sadly the script called for little more than setting up the stage for an Avengers film.

While I was sometimes bored by the events that took place on screen I did enjoy the film. Still I have no interest in seeing it again.

"There's a slightly depressed, going-through-the-motions feel to the entire show." - David Denby

Overrated films part 25

"I still haven't seen Avatar," I relayed to a few friends.

"Trust me," one of them said. "You have."

I sat down to finally view the movie everyone is discussing, whether they've seen it or not. While most I know at least enjoyed the film, if not rant and raved about how it was the greatest movie ever created, I was curious to see what the masses saw in it, because after watching the previews I had little to no interest in seeing what I basically saw was a James Cameron animated adventure. There were those that reportedly took their own life in the hopes that they would be transported to Pandora and live like a giant Smurf if you can believe it.

I plop in the disc and figure out the plot within ten minutes. A man battling the demons of his past finds exotic culture, which embraces him, and then finds redemption in the new life he's chosen. Yes you've seen this plot at least a dozen times and sometimes better than this film can offer, but I enjoyed Avatar. Yes it was often corny, some of the characters were less then stereotypes, and the story was simple, but I loved the world Cameron created. The lush scenery, the wonderful imagery, and the creation of the utopian society hooked me.

I was impressed with many of the elements, but when the credits started rolling I couldn't help but think why it became so well regarded. Sure it's a technical marvel that deserves accolades in that department alone, but the music failed me in many respects as well as some of the acting. I can understand it being a hit, but an Oscar nomination for Best Picture?

Maybe if I saw it in 3-D, as many have, I would've enjoyed it that much more, but as it holds up as home entertainment it's simply an enjoyable popcorn blockbuster. Like many films on my Overrated list it's a movie I enjoyed, but it doesn't deserve being the hallowed halls of great cinema.

"It's a remote-control movie experience, a high-tech "wish you were here" scribbled on a very expensive postcard." - Stephanie Zacharek

Overrated films part 24

Sometimes you find yourself watching a film that's considered a classic from ages ago and you're left with an overwhelming sense of meh. Such was an incident that happened last night.

Kelly and I decided to finally watch 'Animal House'. Neither of us had seen it, although I felt a little guilty not doing so as it's often regarded as a comedy classic. I've often heard about it being the original gross out comedy, that it spawned the genre of college films from 'Revenge of the Nerds' to 'PCU'.

I threw in the DVD hopeful for a load of laughs. The opening credits rolled and I saw a list of top comedy talent. With a cast and crew of this caliber how can we go wrong?

Easily.

As I've stated before it's ridiculous to argue what's funny or not, but even the dullest of comedies I can understand their appeal. I can see why a four year old would laugh at Nickelodeon shows even though I'm not their target demographic. Even at some level I can get why people laugh at Tyler Perry's awful humor, but I was left scratching my head wondering why anyone laughs at Animal House. I couldn't find a joke to even give a brief chuckle. I wasn't alone in my feelings.

Maybe if I saw it while I was younger and I wanted to wax nostalgic I probably would've enjoyed it more. It's possible that if I were in my teens when the film was first released, before lazy writers borrowed liberally from the National Lampoons staff, I may have laughed. Still I couldn't muster a smirk when watching this film so it's hard for me to say this classic can stand the test of time.

I like a lot of old comedies, from 'Sixteen Candles' to 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World', and I was hoping Animal House would fall into that category of films that will never stop being funny.

"I never liked this. I never will. My apologies to all its diehard fans." - Alex Sandell

Overrated films part 23

I haven't written about film in a long time so I felt overdue. Going with the overrated category can be a chore as most of them seem pretty obvious (Titanic, Shakespeare in Love). That being said since everyone feels that their taste in movies is superior to anyone else I feel I should take a stab at a Western everybody worships.

No it is not 'High Noon' or 'Unforgiven', but 'Tombstone' became a massive hit and it's not hard to see why. Witty dialogue, great characters, and a brilliant performance by Val Kilmer ensured this film reached out to fans not only of Westerns, but people who enjoy action comedies as well. The gunfights, for the most part, are well staged and exciting. The supporting cast is fun to watch, especially the hot Dana Delaney.

The film, like many on my overrated list, is incredibly flawed though. Kurt Russel may be reliable as he normally is, but it's difficult to imagine him as famed gunfighter Wyatt Earp. That's not largely his fault as his dialogue was hardly authentic post Civil War tongue, but still he does well with what he's given. While some of the scenes are witty some are unintentionally funny at the same time.

The biggest problem I have with this movie is how it takes such as sharp dive after the gunfight at the OK Corral. With a first half that provides decent character development and exciting gun play the film reduces itself to ridiculous montage sequences of action so hokey you can't help but roll your eyes. One shot in particular intrigues me as it's just Kurt Russel shooting into the camera looking straight into the lens. It is as silly as it sounds. Plot lines are all over the board and characters seem to come and go with nary an impression left. It tries hard to be a Leone western at times, but it can't seem to commit enough to bring that sense of spaghetti feel.

While there are high points of this film and I do enjoy it it almost ranks up there with 'Full Metal Jacket' as half the film is far superior to the other. Still it's worth seeing, but not as great as the public holds it to be.

"It has problems — a LOT of problems — but as bubblegum westerns go, there's also a lot to like." - Rob Vaux

Overrated films part 22.

A few years back a friend of mine highly recommended the film "What the Bleep do we Know?" to me. I asked him what it was about and he stood there silent for a while, then told me it's a documentary with a blend of quantum mechanics and spiritual consciousness.

Sounded kind of interesting, if not far fetched, but I never rushed out to view it as it seemed like some new age nonsense trying to pass itself off as true science.

To my surprise my roommate has it in his collection so a few days ago I sat down to watch the sleeper hit. Part documentary and part fiction the film jumps back and forth between the story of Amanda, a deaf photographer with a load of personal issues including hyper anxiety, to scientists and scholars explaining there theories on quantum physics, religion, reality perception, cell structure, etc.

While the movie is unique in it's technique of documenting it's hypothesis and seems compelling at times I found most of it's ideas as a bit of a stretch. I'm no expert in any of the fields the learned academics purport to be, but I still couldn't make the connection between the idea that quantum mechanics can accurately explain in detail why someone should feel spiritually connected to any and all of life's creatures especially when considered how our reality can be somehow controlled by our own positive thinking. I get that perception is reality, but that won't make me believe that by thinking optimistically will make me even more sexy than I already am nor will it make my encounters at the gym any less bizarre.

By the end of the movie I found it to be nothing more than suedo science. It's the same kind of thinking Dr Hugh Ross and his followers push upon the public. Plus the film uses JZ Night a lot as an expert on the topic who's no more an academic in any field other than blatant fraud. The film in my most humble opinion can be dangerous as well as it implies to it's viewers to abandon methods of traditional medicine in regards to mental disorders such as addictions, which is just insane.

For more information about the freak that is Miss Night, read Mattbear's little diddy on BOSTC, which was the inspiration for this post.

Many of my friends love this film and stand by the theories in it, even though all will admit they did no other research on the topics and/or the film outside of viewing it. Upon the film's DVD release it became a massive hit and a sequel has been produced. Still I enjoyed the film and it's art, but to regard it as a mind blowing experience with information that should be taken as gospel is naive at best. I recommend you see it, but take the values shown in this film with a grain of salt and by all means listen to other points of view on the matter.

"Quantum Bull-Bleep would be a more apt title for the conclusions that the movie draws." - Jack Matthews

Overrated films part 21.

It's hard for me not to root for an Indie film. When I see something that doesn't have a roman numeral in the title or the film doesn't have to contain a massive amount of CGI to effectively tell the story I smile inside knowing that drama at it's heart is not dead..yet. When a small movie with a quirky, non-conventional plot comes along with good acting and dialogue I feel giddy inside knowing that maybe, just maybe audiences will have more alternatives to your standard popcorn fare starring Will Smith and/or a bunch of aliens.

Little Miss Sunshine is still riding the wave of success, yet after finally seeing it I'm convinced that the powers that be at the studio spent more money on marketing this film then actually making it. It was a good movie mind you. The film had good acting, decent dialogue, and genuinely funny moments if you didn't see them coming a mile away. That being said it wasn't that funny and really the best character in the film made an exit way to early. Some of the downer points in the film felt unnecessary and gave it a disjointed feeling.

I'm sure I'm in the minority when I give the film any sort of criticism as everyone seems really kind to it. Maybe I've seen too many quirky Indie comedies for my own good. Sometimes I sit through them and feel they're all to predictable. It's something I'd recommend; however, it in no way lives up to it's massive hype.

"Sunny or dark, comedy should never be as predictable as Little Miss Sunshine." - Roger Moore

Overrated films part 20.

Guys around my age understand the sacrifices of having a girlfriend in high school. When dating as an adult many people have the defining moment that secures the relationship as a serious commitment. Giving your significant other the keys to your apartment is just one example couples make as a gesture of their true affection.

High school was far less complicated than allowing your mate the ability to enter your home without a moment's notice, still most will say they wouldn't know it at the time. If you wanted to be nice to your girlfriend you had to follow seemingly simple, but really complicated rules such as knowing the right amount of public displays of affection without looking creepy, understanding that her friends' opinions might as well be religious text, and giving attention, but only when it's convenient for her.

The grand gestures of my high school dating experiences consisted of many things, but the one that really showed I cared for a girl was my willingness to sit through Dirty Dancing. It's a small miracle that by the time the credits rolled I hadn't thrown off my shirt and ran into oncoming traffic screaming. Viewing that abomination which turned into a colossal success did irreparable damage to my psyche and I still haven't healed.

While not one sane critic gave this film a positive review audiences made this film immortal. This low budget drama swept the headlines and became for many young girls the movie to see. Hearing them talk about it and how they felt so adult when they first viewed the film makes me wonder why guys don't sit around discussing their first porn. (Actually some of us do do that.)

Dirty Dancing is loaded with flaws, but the one element I couldn't understand was the music. This film is set in the early sixties, but damn the music is all over the board. First you'd hear 60s music, then 80s, then 70s, then back to 60s. The score was epileptic at best and why not? The rest of the movie was too.

Looking back on the film *shudder* I think the execs behind this wanted nothing more than an excuse to sell a soundtrack, but alas they created a movie that many claim will be a classic for many generations. I'm really tired of mass public consumption being labeled as great cinema.

Since I'm out of high school I will no longer subject myself to a dancing Swayze anymore, but I will say this to all females out there. If you love your man you will not insist upon his viewing of this film. It's known to cause high blood pressure, diarrhea, and bouts of temporary insanity. In rare cases men have been observed trying to break their own skull with a baseball bat when the infamous line of 'no one puts Baby in the corner' is spoken.

"The movie plays like one long, sad, compromise; it places packaging ahead of ambition." - Roger Ebert.

Since you sat through the pain of reading this tripe I bring you a present. The gift being Patrick Swayze singing the praises of his onscreen love interest:

Overrated films part 19

While not a critical success, no one can deny the massive popularity of Grease. I have to admit I do enjoy this film from time to time, but for different reasons than most. I hate most of the music, the actors are way to old to be playing high school kids, Olivia Newton John should've never had a career, and I still can't accept John Travolta playing a tough guy. I also can't buy anyone wanting to sleep with Stockyard Channing.

There are times though that I laugh out loud at this film. The ridiculous Grease Lightning sequence has me howling. The silly, but admittley cute, Summer Nights song cracks me up as well. Really the film isn't a total bunch of tripe, but what makes me loathe watching this is the friggin ending. When Sandy steps out in that slutty leather outfit with the huge hair I can't help but think why anyone thought that was an improvement. I found the pony tail and cheerleader outfit much hotter.

I guess that last line makes me a pervert. Oh well.

Maybe I'm getting older, but I find the films message a little disturbing. I feel having a movie tell women to tramp it up for a guy like Danny Zucco an affront to feminsim. Hey girls you want to be happy? Start smoking, look like a slut, and add a serious amount of hairspray and you'll find happiness.

The film has an appeal that spans many generations and we won't likely see it fade away anytime soon. This movie has massive following and already we've seen a few special editions of it on DVD.

Fine musicals such as Fiddler on the Roof are lost on our youth, but many people of my generation worship at the altar of Grease.

"Grease" hasn't improved much in two decades. It remains a juvenile remembrance of a mythologized '50s, a musical lacking grace." - Jeffery Westhoff

Overrated films part 18.

It's been a while since I've written about film, but after this I'm sure you'll never trust my judgement on movies again. I really have a hard time convincing people I'm right about everything. Sigh...maybe one day.

Like almost all overrated films I rant about Scarface is not a bad film, but it's not great either. The intriguing aspect of this movie is that you will hail it as one of the best films ever, but you know deep in your heart it's just a B movie with cool dialogue. Pacino's performance is way over the top as is the film's style, including it's ridiculous montage sequence, but you know what? It works. The simple story of the rise and fall of a drug kinpin sucks you in partially because of it's camp.

Time has been good to this film as now it's been embraced as a ganster classic. Even the hip-hop community has shown warmth to this DePalma film which found it's way into entertaining a new generation.

The over the top performances, gawdy settings, horrific music, and shoddy photography really make watching this film an experience you won't likely forget. You know it's bad, but it's so damn cool you can't take your eyes off it.

"To be honest, Scarface isn't exactly what you could call a 'good' movie. It's overwritten, overacted and overdirected (not to mention overlong). And yet, against the odds, it still works." - Ethan Alter

Overrated films part 17.

A good comedy is truly hard to find nowadays. If a year goes by with at least two relatively decent comedies being released audiences are thrilled. I'm no exception really. Like most everyone I enjoy a good laugh, but I find that more of the funny is brought to television rather than the silver screen.

It's gotten so bad that when a mediocre comedy is released it gets hailed as brilliant. There never has been a better example of that than Old School. Sure the first 30 minutes were hilarious, but after the infamous Will Ferrell streaking scene the movie drags into mildly amusing jokes to rather long and dull sequences.

You've all seen the film so I won't even bother with a synopsis. It tries to be a classic in the stale genre of college comedies, but Animal House it isn't. It's a good movie in it's own right, but ask anyone of my generation and they'll quote it endlessly like it was Office Space or Swingers, both of which are far superior films. Old School was refreshing given that the genre of leave your brain-at-the-door honest laugh fests is slim; however the film as a whole can be a chore to sit through.

Sadly the same phenomena occurred with another Wilson brother/Vince Vaughn film a few years later, but I'll save that for another post.

"At its best, it's a hilarious celebration of the party-animal id that's always at odds with the Apollonian superego of the house payment and 401(k). But like our own wild nights of pouring liquid soap into the fountain, it's just as easily forgotten." - Jonathan R. Perry

Overrated films part 16.

The Matrix has universal appeal and for obvious reasons. The special effects, action, dime store philosophy, and mild S&M costumes makes it a favorite amongst gamers, sci-fi geeks, action movie fans, and suedo-intellectuals. Oh and don't forget anyone who's dabbled in hallucinogens at least once. Of course I would never do something like that.

The film's huge success sparked a new interest in sci-fi. Ironically it starred Keanu Reeves who's previous sci-fi flick, the horrendous Johnny Mnemonic, almost killed any fanfare associated with the genre.

The main problem I have with this film, which claims to have numerous philosophical and religious analogies, is that the violence in it was a little too much even for my tastes. In one of it's most famous scenes Neo and Trinity decide to storm a building and kill a bunch of security guards. What the security guards did to them or anyone I don't know, but they needed to die and the audience was supposed to revel in it. Granted the scene looks really good and most people didn't even give a second thought as to why the duo with all their powers could have whisked their way into the building to the place they needed to go without leaving behind a senseless death toll.

That's the power of The Matrix. Visually it's so impressive that everyone ignores it's numerous flaws and enjoys the mindless action piece that it is. The cult of Neo was born and everyone discussed the deeper meanings they attribute to the taking of the red pill. It's truly an example of powerful cinema. The visuals in the film, as well as the cool concept, are stunning enough to make you look past the atrocious acting and banal dialogue. It looks so good guys kept trying to convince me that Trinity is hot. That's something I still don't get.

You're probably thinking I'm an idiot for missing some hokey dialogue sequence that explains the importance of killing innocent civilians for the purpose of Neo's mission, but please spare me that bullshit.

I've never considered the film to be all that bad, but after viewing it's two terrible sequels one would easily consider The Matrix to be a cinematic masterpiece.

The Matrix scene I was referring to:



"It's astonishing that so much money, talent, technical expertise and visual imagination can be put in the service of something so stupid." - Bob Graham

Overrated films part 15.

There are two genres of movies that I'm a sucker for and that's sports films and super hero pictures. The former keeps me engaged enough, whether they're wildly overrated homoerotic Bruckheimer flicks or the extremely underrated Cinderella Man and Friday Night Lights. Most super hero movies I disagree with the entire general public on as I don't worship at the altar of the Burton Batman films, nor did I think the last X-Men was all that bad. I actually loved Hulk which is a film that escalated the blood pressure of so many comic book fans they collectively came down a case of hemorrhoids.

I saw Spider-Man shortly after it first opened and walked out of the theatre numb like. It's not that I hated the movie, but I did have some problems with it. I still can't understand why they took an actor as talented as William Dafoe and put him in a dull, lifeless mask. This guy gave audiences chills with his portrayal of Max Schreck yet he's reduced to cackling in a ridiculous costume. Often times super hero movies are dependent on having an engaging villain and the Green Goblin is one of the worst super villains in all of DC and Marvel lore. Expecting me to enjoy this character was a stretch, one that I still don't get.

I didn't expect a dark film, but Sam Raimi felt compelled to ham it up with scenes such as New Yorkers throwing random objects at the Green Goblin all the while screaming statements about how the town's residents are always collective in their stand against the enemy. Isn't it nice that he throws in a 9-11 reference in a cheesy comic book film?

Some of the scenes looked impressive, but most were obviously animated and even when they weren't it still looked mediocre. The plot was fairly thin even by comic book movie standards.

I truly believe there is a conspiracy in Hollywood to try and make me believe that Kirsten Dunst is hot, but I'm still not buying it. They can throw her into all the lame movies that feature her in a cheerleader uniform all they want, but I will never spend quality time alone with her image. Having her in tight dresses soaked to the skin doesn't help either. Same goes for Liv Tyler and Sarah Jessica Parker.

I've never been a fan of the web slinger, but audiences and critics helped the film become one of the most successful movies in history with a huge box office showing. After this lifeless film became such a massive hit Raimi did decide to thank the viewing public by giving us a far superior sequel, which redeemed him enough in my book.

Spider-Man kiss:



"Plays like a sensitive 1980s-era John Hughes teen film ... Interrupted by really tawdry special effects and hammy appearances by a cartoonish villain played by William Dafoe." - Steven Rosen