As a film fanatic, there is nothing worse than all your chums recommending a subpar movie under the guise of greatness. Sometimes, a decent film can be ruined by its hyperactive internet presence or the gleeful, rabid word-of-mouth on the streets. Yeah, I am from the streets and there, we run guns and hos, sell massive amounts of heroin and talk about movies. Seriously, all that is true except for the guns, hos, and heroin. I made that up. Also, I am not from the streets. I live in a house.
It’s one thing when critics don’t like something. According to our “about” page, opinions don’t matter. My opinion of a movie can vary greatly from your opinion. For instance, if you liked “Shakespeare in Love,” my opinion of you is that you have terrible tastes in film. Before you get all mad and try to defend Gwyneth Paltrow, remember, I just said opinions don’t matter. You are still a special snowflake in a cloud of sleet and your mama still loves you.
Here is a list of dramas that came highly recommended to me and that I did not see the impact. Not all of these movies are Overrated Dramas. In fact, some are decent; just not worth the love from my friends.
7. “Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai”
Forest Whitaker plays Ghost Dog, a bird-loving samurai who spends his days creeping around roof tops and performing mob hits for his low level boss. During a hit on a rival crime boss, Ghost Dog is made by his victim’s daughter. This does not sit well with his “master” or his fellow colleagues who decide that they really do need to make a ghost of this dog.
Have you ever scratched your head so much that you went bald? If you still have hair, the answer is probably “no,” but if you saw “Ghost Dog,” the answer is probably “stop making fun of my bald head!”
This movie sets itself up like a thriller and then quickly dissolves into philosophical debate about inner peace, honor and tampons…or something.
The pacing in this film is like molasses kept inside of a freezer that is inside of an igloo. Whitaker is a great actor, for sure, but he is no more a samurai than Tom Cruise. He’s more akin to that mentally disturbed homeless guy at Denny’s who happens to have an obsession with Wu Tang.
You think this is impressive? You should check out how fast I can slice through a “Moons over My-hammie.”
6. “The Artist”
This Oscar domination master about a silent film star facing certain career challenges with the introduction of “talkies,” damn near swept the Academy Awards a couple of years ago.
Critics and American audiences embraced this silent film like it was their favorite aunt at Thanksgiving dinner. It has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes with some critics calling it “unique,” and “original.” Really? A movie made in as an art form that thrived for thirty years and died about 80 years ago is unique and original? That is like getting the same acclaim for starting a swing band. Mel Brooks’ superior “Silent Movie,” is all but forgotten. Now I know how the Cherry Poppin’ Daddies must feel.
Sure, “The Artist” was an exercise in homage film making. You know, the same kind of exercise you learn in first year film school. Don’t believe me? Check out this link of film project I made in college. It is a silent film about manhugs. While, admittedly, my film is not as well made as “The Artist;” in my defense, we shot and cut it in about 2-3 hours with heavy and consistent smoking breaks and no budget.
“The Artist” wasn’t a bad film. It was entertaining enough, but picture of the year? Not even close.
Get that bitch a bitch. Bitches love bitches.
5. “Born on the Fourth of July”
It pains me to put this movie on the list. All of my friends know that I am an unapologetic Oliver Stone fan. “JFK,” “Natural Born Killers,” and “Talk Radio,” are some hugely influential films on me.
A few years ago, I decided to watch all of the Stone films that I had never seen. “Alexander,” of course, was awful, but no one was saying otherwise. “Born on the Fourth of July,” however, was hailed as “compelling,” and “ambitious.”
Here is the sad truth about this movie: go to any homeless shelter and ask a Vietnam Vet to give you a lecture about how our government doesn’t care about soldiers. Then ask him if he can swing some of that blame to the apathy of your (or previous) generations. Great. Now you have seen the movie and you can save the money.
It’s not that the message is wrong; but who wants to pay to be told they are a piece of shit? I mean, I’m married, so I can hear that everyday for free.
Think of all the child molester roles he had to turn down after shaving this awesome mustache.
I actually liked this film. I really did. Going into it, I knew it was my kind of film. All my friends were raving about it. The previews looked awesome. Christopher Nolan was fresh off of “The Dark Knight.” The premise was new. The actors were solid.
So why is it on this list? Because I will never watch it again.
After watching it in the theater, I left with a “so that’s it?” kind of an feeling.
I can’t really trash this movie so much as I can let out a sigh of indifference. It was interesting enough to spend 2.5 hours watching in a theater, but in hindsight, seems like a grueling feat unworthy of the critical praise.
**SPOILER** It never falls.
3. “Lost in Translation”
If you defend this movie; I will find you and I will kill you. Seriously. Stop!
Sofia Coppolla made her first big directorial splash with “The Virgin Suicides.” I really liked this film. It was quirky, twisted, dark, and moody–even suspenseful. “Lost in Translation,” on the other hand, was a series of conversations between a washed up actor (Bill Murray) and a confused, young lass (Scarlett Johansson).
At moments, I hoped the film would get funny. It’s got Murray in it. Right?
Other times, I thought this film would give up some kind of thrill or scandal between its characters. Not so much.
Look, if I wanted to watch an old guy have a conversation with a young girl, I would go hang out at a college bar before 9 pm. The reason why I don’t do that is because it would be fucking boring. Which is also the best description I can give this movie.
“Ghost Busters 3” is but a dream; but “Garfield 3” can be a reality.
2. “No Country for Old Men”
This is sure to ruffle the tape off of some film nerd’s glasses.
I get it. According to the defenders of this movie, I just don’t get it.
And they are right. I don’t get how the Coen Brothers (who are geniuses in my book) would want to make a film that takes you on a somewhat thrilling journey of hitman chasing a thief while being pursued by a geriatric detective; only to remove the climax.
The film leads all the way up to a hotel shootout; the pay off, if you will. The only problem is, they skip over it and drop the audience right into the aftermath. I hated this. It killed the entire movie for me.
Some say that the book was written that way and it was not the Coens’ fault. Well then, the book sucks donkey nuts too.
What does my ass taste like? Depends.
What happens when you roll your eyes so hard that you become blind? I don’t know, ask Stevie Wonder. He could see before he watched this film.
I was a kid (referring to the title–I was a teenager) when this movie came out and all I remember thinking was, “this is how Larry Clark thinks we act?”
The dialogue is not genuine and sounds like it was written by a guy who was older than my dad. So, it came as no surprise when I IMDB’d that fool and found out that he is, infact, 12 years older than my pops. Clark is 70 now. That means, he was only 52 when he started hanging out with under 18 skater kids.
This movie is less about kids and more about preying on parent’s fears of how their kids act when they are not around. In 1995, I was about to start high school and as egocentric as I might have been, I wasn’t a straight up sociopath. I wonder what “kids” Larry Clark knows.
**SPOILER** Everyone has AIDS.
Around The Web