Name an overrated movie and an underrated movie.

[lovecraft68]

Over rated-going back some. Fargo, WTF with this movie's appeal? I thought it was lame and boring. I said that to someone and they're like "It was a dark comedy" yeah, so dark it couldn't be seen "Ya, ya ya."

Underrated Nightflyers A horror/Sci Fi hybrid from 1987(original, I think they did a remake or spin off recently) and based on a story by GRR Martin. Seems like a bit of a predecessor to the infamous Event Horizon that would come later on. Not perfect, but doesn't get the attention its worth

 

[Bramblethorn]

Dune has such a massive cult following that any attempt at a movie will send the fan base into a frenzy. I thought it was okay, visually fantastic, but not great, seemed like they tried to cram too much into one film.

King's Gunslinger was like that, pushing 3-4 books into a 2 hour movie.

Shoulda swapped with The Hobbit.

 

[RetroFan]

Last year the British film 'Last Night In Soho' directed by Edgar Wright was released after two years of COVID related delays - in fact two of the actresses Dianna Rigg and Margaret Nolan died between production and release - and it proved a flop at the cinemas. However it is a really great film with a great cast, very underrated and very original. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be that desire for new and different ideas in fiction at the moment.

 

[lovecraft68]

Shoulda swapped with The Hobbit.

Yeah, the Hobbit was not good. Best part of it was Smaug who died in ten minutes

 

[gunhilltrain]

Yes, and they got the revolvers more or less right. Certainly not "wrong," except that Lowe (Ioan Gruffudd) actually had an FN1900 that night.

I like it when they pay attention to such small deets.

That reminds me: where do they get all of those muzzle-loading rifles for, say, Civil War movies? (Glory, Gettysburg, et al.) Or the breech-loading rifles in the Zulu movies? Or in fact, any weapon from an earlier era. They must be replicas, I assume? Still, it must be rather expensive to do all of that work.

 

[XerXesXu]

Last year the British film 'Last Night In Soho' directed by Edgar Wright was released after two years of COVID related delays - in fact two of the actresses Dianna Rigg and Margaret Nolan died between production and release - and it proved a flop at the cinemas. However it is a really great film with a great cast, very underrated and very original. Unfortunately, there just doesn't seem to be that desire for new and different ideas in fiction at the moment.

I’ll watch that tonight, just to see what Rita Tushingham looks like now. I watched one of her early black and white films a short while ago. It was pre-motorway and featured an overnight race from the Ace Café to Edinburgh and back. Suddenly the thrill of racing on unlit A roads came back to me, following the cats-eyes strung out 60 yds or so in front and hoping they wouldn’t curve away too quickly, and occasionally a vehicle coming the other way blinding you. Happy days.

 

[ElectricBlue]

That reminds me: where do they get all of those muzzle-loading rifles for, say, Civil War movies? (Glory, Gettysburg, et al.) Or the breech-loading rifles in the Zulu movies? Or in fact, any weapon from an earlier era. They must be replicas, I assume? Still, it must be rather expensive to do all of that work.

Which is why big spectacle movies cost a shit ton. Kubrick tested out paper uniforms when he was researching Napoleon, but I'm sure the Barry Lyndon uniforms were cloth. By then, he had a much smaller army - for Napoleon he was planning to film tens of thousands of troops.

When Mike Nicholls filmed Catch 22 in the early seventies, he had the third or fourth biggest air force in Europe at the time, nearly all functional aircraft - most from the Spanish Air Force, if I remember my movie trivia correctly.

And the Battle of Britain, made a few years earlier, had vast numbers of serviceable aircraft recreating dog fights.

Now, of course, it's all CGI.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Shooting into the air to control the crowd was depicted, and in another scene a different officer threatens to shoot into the crowd, and gets them to back off. When they do, he turns his back and then loads the revolver.
I got confused as to which officer is which (there's a point where the same officer appears to be managing crowds on opposite sides of the ship), but one initially takes a bribe to let evil fiance on a lifeboat. I'd imagine that his family (I think he's named) would have been angry about that.

I've never seen A Night to Remember, but maybe I'll check it out. I'm definitely a person who watched Cameron's Titanic for the spectacle, not because I was particularly interested in the history of it. Though I did see that traveling Titanic museum exhibition.

There are a couple of Titanic experts who go through the entire A Night to Remember. They do pick up some errors, which is inevitable. One thing I found out elsewhere is that some of the passengers are composite characters and others had their names changed. (Walter Lord did interview a number of survivors who were still alive in the 1950s.) Still, they think the movie tries to get it mostly right for what was known at the time.

If you really want to get into it, this is worth watching. Anyway, although some of the officers had guns, they didn't point them at the passengers. Also, there is no evidence that anybody took bribes.

 

[Voboy]

That reminds me: where do they get all of those muzzle-loading rifles for, say, Civil War movies? (Glory, Gettysburg, et al.) Or the breech-loading rifles in the Zulu movies? Or in fact, any weapon from an earlier era. They must be replicas, I assume? Still, it must be rather expensive to do all of that work.

Most are repros. You can get modern-made Civil War replicas that are historically accurate and fire-able for about a thousand dollars, and that's the highest of the high end. Most cost more like 600-750 or so.

For most CW films, they'll hire reenactment groups for the extras and background bodies, which tends to be a great deal for the production company because all those reenactors (and there are thousands of 'em) own all their own weapons and equipment, and it's all more accurate than a prop manager is likely to source.

Zulu's guns were mostly authentic, meaning actual rifles made for the actual British Army once upon a time. Martini-Henrys are not hard to find, even today, and they were even easier back then. A lot of the rifles in background scenes are not accurate; they're mostly Martini-Enfields, which are a good substitute, or CLLEs (which are very obvious to firearms enthusiasts).

For many decades, Stembridge Gun Rentals supplied Hollywood. By 1940 they had over 7,000 rifles and a commensurate number of pistols and machine guns, all authentic war surplus. That inventory grew over the years until the firm went out of business, but their stock was mostly sold to other rental places, chiefly ISS.

Just for fun, here's a link for ya. IMA bought up tens of thousands of old British rifles years ago, and even five years ago they were blowing out uncleaned ones for $400 or so. As you see, the price has gone up... but only because the cheap ones have been snapped up. Ironically, those ones would be most useful in Hollywood because most of them probably were unsafe to fire.
https://www.ima-usa.com/collections/martini-henry-rifle

All of those are 100% genuine, not reproductions, and there are still plenty in stock for sale to anyone over 18, in most places.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yeah, the Hobbit was not good. Best part of it was Smaug who died in ten minutes

Excepting LotR, I feel like Peter Jackson is one of those directors who does best on a small budget. There's a lot I like about his films, but he's a poster child for "sometimes less is more".

 

[Seadog777]

Were y'all really expecting The Hobbit to be an All-Time great?

It wasn't as good as LOTR, but it was good enough for what it was supposed to be.

BARELY, but good enough.

 

[MsNatalie99]

Were y'all really expecting The Hobbit to be an All-Time great?

It wasn't as good as LOTR, but it was good enough for what it was supposed to be.

BARELY, but good enough.

The book maybe. The movie's... I don't see it. Unless you're talking about the 1977 animated film, or some other version that wasn't torn to shreds, sprinkled with empty content, stuffed with hints eluding to movies we'd already seen, and stretched to fill three movies when two hours would've been more than enough. It was a shameless cash grab. LOTR on the other hand, still holds up as well today as they did 19 and 20 years ago.

 

[Seadog777]

The book maybe. The movie's... I don't see it. Unless you're talking about the 1977 animated film, or some other version that wasn't torn to shreds, sprinkled with empty content, stuffed with hints eluding to movies we'd already seen, and stretched to fill three movies when two hours would've been more than enough. It was a shameless cash grab. LOTR on the other hand, still holds up as well today as they did 19 and 20 years ago.

Peter Jackson said beforehand it wouldn't be good as LOTR.
All it was supposed to do was answer questions from LOTR.
Gandalf and Bilbo meeting, Bilbo getting The Ring of Fire, Bilbo getting Sting, How Legolas knew about Gimli, etc, etc.

I agree, LOTR holds up better today.
I still watch it at least once a month.

 

[lovecraft68]

Excepting LotR, I feel like Peter Jackson is one of those directors who does best on a small budget. There's a lot I like about his films, but he's a poster child for "sometimes less is more".

Meet the Feebles is a cult classic. I enjoyed LOTR, unlike the Hobbit there was a ton of content that was relevant, and the syle reminded me of those big epic "a cast of thousands" biblical films from back in the day as far as its scope.

Issue with Hobbit was it was a much simpler story with pretty much one plot line. Had it been done in one movie, even a three hour one, it would have been better.

While we're on the topic I'll express something that hit me my first read of the hobbit back when I was 12ish. Bilbo cheated. What's in my pocket is not a riddle, Gollum should have killed him. It would have been a much shorter story at that point.


Similar, there was no reason ever given why Gandalf was returned from the dead after the Balrog battle except...reasons. LOL

Same in Clash of the Titans(original) Perseus is defeated and Zeus when no one is looking, stands up his clay avatar.
I wonder if I'm the only one who notices who the good guys cheat their way through things?

 

[pardog345]

Overrated - Forrest Gump - dim guy is inserted into multiple historic moments, adding nothing.

Underrated - RKO 281. It's about the making of Citizen Kane, and given the time since CK was made, actually much more interesting.

Could not agree more about Forrest Gump. Spectacularly overrated.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Meet the Feebles is a cult classic. I enjoyed LOTR, unlike the Hobbit there was a ton of content that was relevant, and the syle reminded me of those big epic "a cast of thousands" biblical films from back in the day as far as its scope.

Issue with Hobbit was it was a much simpler story with pretty much one plot line. Had it been done in one movie, even a three hour one, it would have been better.

Yep. I can think of several over-long action sequences that could've been cut.

While we're on the topic I'll express something that hit me my first read of the hobbit back when I was 12ish. Bilbo cheated. What's in my pocket is not a riddle, Gollum should have killed him. It would have been a much shorter story at that point.

That one does get discussed in the book. IIRC the justification was something like this:

When Bilbo asks "what have I got in my pocket?" it's not intended as a riddle. He's just talking to himself, because he's forgotten about the ring he found. Gollum misunderstands it as part of the game, and he would've been within his rights to reject it as a question, but instead he accepts it as a challenge. By the rules of the riddle-game which Tolkien made up to justify that sequence, once he accepted it he had to try to answer.

And then, in the version that most of us read, Gollum tries to kill him pretty soon after anyway, but the Ring has other ideas and helps Bilbo escape.

But in the 1937 edition, Gollum is a nicer character - he's genuinely willing to gamble the Ring on the riddle-game, and when he can't find it he feels bad and shows Bilbo out instead. That part got retconned when Tolkien was writing LotR because his ideas about the Ring had evolved, and it no longer made sense for Gollum to be willing to give it up.

Similar, there was no reason ever given why Gandalf was returned from the dead after the Balrog battle except...reasons. LOL

I can't remember exactly where this all gets explained - some of it is in the Silmarillion, some might be in the Appendices or elsewhere - but Tolkien did give an explanation somewhere.

In LotR cosmology, the universe was created by Eru, who creates the Valar and the Maiar as his servants. Christian equivalents: Eru = God, Valar = archangels, Maiar = angels. Then Eru mostly leaves the Valar and the Maiar to look after the world.

Melkor/Morgoth, the most powerful of the Valar, becomes corrupted and fucks things up. Along the way he also corrupts some of the Maiar, including Sauron. Some of the other fallen Maiar become Balrogs.

At the end of the First Age of Middle-Earth, Morgoth is defeated and imprisoned, and a lot of his minions are destroyed - the Balrog of Moria would probably have been trapped under the mountain as part of that battle.

With Morgoth's defeat, the Valar also become less active in the world, which is a pity because Sauron's still around making trouble. Eventually the Valar send five of their most trusted Maiar into Middle-Earth to fight Sauron: Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, and two other wizards who never get named - IIRC those two head off into the east, and either they got sidetracked or they were busy doing important stuff that doesn't get covered in LotR.

Saruman, the leader of the five, gets corrupted. So when Gandalf dies after his battle with the Balrog, the Valar tell him he still has work to do, so they send him back. Effectively Saruman gets fired and Gandalf is promoted to replace him, which is how he becomes Gandalf the White.

Definitely not well explained within LotR, but then Gandalf keeps a lot of secrets.

 

[lovecraft68]

Yep. I can think of several over-long action sequences that could've been cut.



That one does get discussed in the book. IIRC the justification was something like this:

When Bilbo asks "what have I got in my pocket?" it's not intended as a riddle. He's just talking to himself, because he's forgotten about the ring he found. Gollum misunderstands it as part of the game, and he would've been within his rights to reject it as a question, but instead he accepts it as a challenge. By the rules of the riddle-game which Tolkien made up to justify that sequence, once he accepted it he had to try to answer.

And then, in the version that most of us read, Gollum tries to kill him pretty soon after anyway, but the Ring has other ideas and helps Bilbo escape.

But in the 1937 edition, Gollum is a nicer character - he's genuinely willing to gamble the Ring on the riddle-game, and when he can't find it he feels bad and shows Bilbo out instead. That part got retconned when Tolkien was writing LotR because his ideas about the Ring had evolved, and it no longer made sense for Gollum to be willing to give it up.




I can't remember exactly where this all gets explained - some of it is in the Silmarillion, some might be in the Appendices or elsewhere - but Tolkien did give an explanation somewhere.

In LotR cosmology, the universe was created by Eru, who creates the Valar and the Maiar as his servants. Christian equivalents: Eru = God, Valar = archangels, Maiar = angels. Then Eru mostly leaves the Valar and the Maiar to look after the world.

Melkor/Morgoth, the most powerful of the Valar, becomes corrupted and fucks things up. Along the way he also corrupts some of the Maiar, including Sauron. Some of the other fallen Maiar become Balrogs.

At the end of the First Age of Middle-Earth, Morgoth is defeated and imprisoned, and a lot of his minions are destroyed - the Balrog of Moria would probably have been trapped under the mountain as part of that battle.

With Morgoth's defeat, the Valar also become less active in the world, which is a pity because Sauron's still around making trouble. Eventually the Valar send five of their most trusted Maiar into Middle-Earth to fight Sauron: Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, and two other wizards who never get named - IIRC those two head off into the east, and either they got sidetracked or they were busy doing important stuff that doesn't get covered in LotR.

Saruman, the leader of the five, gets corrupted. So when Gandalf dies after his battle with the Balrog, the Valar tell him he still has work to do, so they send him back. Effectively Saruman gets fired and Gandalf is promoted to replace him, which is how he becomes Gandalf the White.

Definitely not well explained within LotR, but then Gandalf keeps a lot of secrets.

You're far more advanced in your LOTR lore than I am. Read the Silmarillion so long ago I barely remember most of it

I think you'd really enjoy this guy. He's excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/c/NerdoftheRings

 

[PoisonPen33]

Overrated - "Avatar." It's a huge spectacle with fantastic CGI and unique visuals but damned if I can remember a single thing about the movie.

Underrated - "Strange Days." A kinetic thriller that still resonates 20+ years later, but has never gotten a Blu-Ray release in North America.

 

[MsNatalie99]

Peter Jackson said beforehand it wouldn't be good as LOTR.
All it was supposed to do was answer questions from LOTR.
Gandalf and Bilbo meeting, Bilbo getting The Ring of Fire, Bilbo getting Sting, How Legolas knew about Gimli, etc, etc.

I agree, LOTR holds up better today.
I still watch it at least once a month.

It shouldn't had to have answered those questions from Lord of the Rings. It was set before Lord of the Rings. Most of stuff you named was in The Hobbit anyway, one book. The Lord of the Rings were three books. Turning one book that was shorter than the other three books, into 3 movies, is a Shameless cash grab. In the major thinga the Hobbit was supposed accomplish, was to establish how the Ring of Power found its way into Bilbo's hands, and introduce the reader to Tolkien's world. Both of those we're accomplishing with one book, so there was no need to turn it into three movies.

 

[Voboy]

You're far more advanced in your LOTR lore than I am. Read the Silmarillion so long ago I barely remember most of it

I think you'd really enjoy this guy. He's excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/c/NerdoftheRings

Most of what Bramb posted is in Unfinished Tales, actually, which is WELL worth the read. It's generally much more accessible than Silmarillion for most casual Tolkien fans.

The chapter you're looking for discusses the Istari. The idea (IIRC, which I think I do) is that Gandalf was reluctant to go to Middle-Earth in the first place, but was personally chosen by Manwë the chief of the Valar. Gandalf doubted his own powers. His death (defeating a fellow Maia) and rebirth is a testament to the fact that he's more powerful than Saruman, meaning Manwë was right to insist he go... and go back again.

The book is full of useful things, like how to properly orient a palantir, the location and wording of the Oath of Eorl, the most readable account of Tuor (only partial, alas), and the length of a Numenorean stride.

ETA: The account of the Battles of the Fords of Isen is first-rate, and really helps decipher the LOTR backstory.

 

[Seadog777]

It shouldn't had to have answered those questions from Lord of the Rings. It was set before Lord of the Rings. Most of stuff you named was in The Hobbit anyway, one book. The Lord of the Rings were three books. Turning one book that was shorter than the other three books, into 3 movies, is a Shameless cash grab. In the major thinga the Hobbit was supposed accomplish, was to establish how the Ring of Power found its way into Bilbo's hands, and introduce the reader to Tolkien's world. Both of those we're accomplishing with one book, so there was no need to turn it into three movies.

You are forgetting that a significantly large portion of the population never read the books.
Making "The Hobbit" was for those that didn't, so the dots got connected that way.
I myself have never read ANY of Tolkien's books, so while I was introduced through the movies, my cousin Fred explained a lot of it too me before "The Hobbit" came out.
I 100% absolutely agree, there was no need to make "The Hobbit" into 3 movies.

 

[Seadog777]

Overrated - "Avatar." It's a huge spectacle with fantastic CGI and unique visuals but damned if I can remember a single thing about the movie.

Underrated - "Strange Days." A kinetic thriller that still resonates 20+ years later, but has never gotten a Blu-Ray release in North America.

To this day, I haven't seen the entire movie of "Avatar".
It puts me to sleep every time that I try. LOL.

 

[MsNatalie99]

You are forgetting that a significantly large portion of the population never read the books.
Making "The Hobbit" was for those that didn't, so the dots got connected that way.
I myself have never read ANY of Tolkien's books, so while I was introduced through the movies, my cousin Fred explained a lot of it too me before "The Hobbit" came out.
I 100% absolutely agree, there was no need to make "The Hobbit" into 3 movies.

The dots would've been connected just fine following the source material. I understand that a book must be adapted when changing medium. This of course will piss many fans of the IP off. Such is life. However, the bulk of the crap shoved into the Hobbit movies was done to pad the runtime, doing little for the story other than muddying the waters. What does explain the one book destined to become three movies, was the other IPs whos last books were adapted into two movies. If you enjoyed the films, more power to you. Honestly. There's already been half a dozen "overrated" movies named here that I adore. That doesn't imply anything negative about me or you. Overrated movies are like Chihuahuas. Some people see over-appreciated ankle biting rats, others see precious little members of the family.

 

[MsNatalie99]

I struggled with the Silmarillion. Thanks Bramblethorn for your explanatins. MIND BLOWN

 

[Seadog777]

The dots would've been connected just fine following the source material. I understand that a book must be adapted when changing medium. This of course will piss many fans of the IP off. Such is life. However, the bulk of the crap shoved into the Hobbit movies was done to pad the runtime, doing little for the story other than muddying the waters. What does explain the one book to become three movies, was the other IPs whos last books were adapted into two movies. If you enjoyed the films, more power to you. Honestly. There's already been half a dozen "overrated" movies named here that I adore. That doesn't imply anything negative about me or you. Overrated movies are like Chihuahuas. Some people see over-appreciated ankle biting rats, others see precious little members of the family.

I agree that most of it was done to fill out the run time.
I was just saying exactly what Peter Jackson said from his own mouth.
He never thought "The Hobbit" would come close to "LOTR" or even in the same galaxy as it, so I can see how people say it's overrated. I agree with that statement.

I'm with you. I've seen some movies on here that I like but others don't.
I'm a big fan of discussions, because I might learn something that I didn't know before.