Overrated


Wow I can't see the love for this movie, it's an entertaining action. But it's a very generic movie... Overrated in my opinion

reply

That''s what makes a horse race. Differing opinions. I happened to love Guardians and dislike the Dark Knight trilogy. Other people feel different.

In the kingdom of the blind, you're the village idiot.

reply

Yuuuuuup! I'm with you.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Better than bvs 

reply

As a whole yes, but I feel like BvS is film while Gotg is entertainment

reply

Then BvS is lousy film and GoG is great entertainment.

reply

I feel like BvS is film while Gotg is entertainment
Dumbest. Statement. Ever. Newsflash: all films are entertainment, or are supposed to be. They're BOTH films. They were released in theaters, they tell a story within the time constraints of a film's running time, and they were made by profession filmmakers. They are both films. One's entertaining, and the other is depressing.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Don't know why this is such a "dumb" statement... Some people refer to "film" as a specific type - like artistically so. For some people David Lynch is "film" and Hitchcock is "entertainment." Yes, both are essentially "films," but some people - like me - compartmentalize "film" as being more artistic and "movies" as being more entertaining. OF COURSE they are both films, but some people just like to classify things in different ways.

Who are you to judge, especially when theatre/film crit teaches us to compartmentalize/classify in such a way?

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

People who do that are morons, and no, I don't care if I just offended you.

I will judge because I have a free that hasn't been programmed by film snobs and I can decide on my own how I label films. All films are films, and also, anyone who refers to Lynch as "film" and Hitchcock as "entertainment" is a morn, and no, I won't take that back.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

I'm not offended I just think your worldview is seriously whacked and narrow-minded.

Just because I draw on what I've learned in college doesn't mean I've been programmed. I too am a free mind and I CHOOSE to follow that particular option that has been taught to me. Difference between us is I don't disparage a person who chooses not too. I recognize that there are more outlooks than my own and accept that other people think differently.

But why should we even argue? You want to talk about giving in to programming, you seem so inured of the Internet message board way of life, ready to pick a fight with your "I don't care if I offend you" attitude when there was nothing to argue about in the first place. We both apparently enjoyed GotG but rather than celebrate that we should be at each other's throats?

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

How exactly? Is it because I don't think that films that intended to entertain first and foremost are inherently inferior to "deeper" films? Look, pal, its been proven that after a long day of hard work and stress that people need to unwind and relax. Goofy, fun movies are one way to do that if, especially if you're too tired for anything else. So, yes, they DO have value. I know that after a long day of putting up with disgruntle customers who blame me for things I had no control over, I like, no, NEED to unwind and laugh. So don't give me that crap about how I'm narrow minded, because I'm not. You're the narrow minded one, if anyone is, since you seem to buy into the idea that films have to comment on the human condition or some crap we've seen a million times to be looked at as film.

Dude, I've also been to college, and in fact, been done with it for years. I also studied film, and unlike you, I didn't come out of as some wannabe film critic. Film critics have been proven to be utterly irrelevant, anyway.

Oh, I'm not inured to the internet. I'm just tired of people not seeing the value in films that choose to entertain instead of inanely preaching to us just to make "intellectuals" feel smart, because they mistakenly think they've just witnessed something profound. I'm arguing with you, because you're taking the side of the guy who's basically said that Guardians has less value because its aim was entertain instead of hit us over the head with some message we were already aware of.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Is it because I don't think that films that intended to entertain first and foremost are inherently inferior to "deeper" films?


I never said or intimated this. You inferred (incorrectly) from what I wrote.

Look, pal, its been proven that after a long day of hard work and stress that people need to unwind and relax. Goofy, fun movies are one way to do that if, especially if you're too tired for anything else. So, yes, they DO have value.


I never said they didn't have value. I like to turn my mind off and watch TransFormers in a nostalgic daze from time to time. I really don't see why you're getting so upset. I never once said anything to the effect of "films by David Lynch and other 'artistic' auteurs are superior to films made for entertainment by the likes of Spielberg and Abrams." But that certainly seems to be what you're inferring here. I think this says more about you than me.

I know that after a long day of putting up with disgruntle customers who blame me for things I had no control over, I like, no, NEED to unwind and laugh.


As do I. I work in a call center and have people yelling at me all day long, and I need to unwind at the end of the day too. In fact, the last few weeks I have been steadily working my way through the MCU films to prepare for Civil War. I often buy tickets for big summer blockbuster on the first day they're out and this year I treated my friends to tickets to CW.

So don't give me that crap about how I'm narrow minded, because I'm not. You're the narrow minded one, if anyone is, since you seem to buy into the idea that films have to comment on the human condition or some crap we've seen a million times to be looked at as film.


Once again, I never once stated that I feel films should only be artistic or a commentary on human interaction or whatever. These are all things that you inferred from what I wrote and once again I might add incorrectly assumed about me. The fact of the matter is, the several posts you've made on this subject show you to be intolerant of the way others process information, which led me to make the narrow-minded comment. When you call a person dumb for having their own way of looking at the world, I'm sorry but I see that as pretty narrow-minded. When you belittle a person because they look at something or categorize something differently than you do, once again, that comes off as narrow-minded to me.

Dude, I've also been to college, and in fact, been done with it for years. I also studied film, and unlike you, I didn't come out of as some wannabe film critic.


I don't understand why you're assuming these things about me. Nothing in my posts gave any indication of the sort. I do, for my own personal edification, have a classification system of what I think of as "artistic" or "entertaining" films - and both have value to me. And yeah I took film and theatre classes because I want to make films. As yet I have not made a break into that area but I like to come to IMDB to discuss a variety of films that I love (or even the ones I didn't like). In that regard, aren't we all wannabe film critics on here?

I'm arguing with you, because you're taking the side of the guy who's basically said that Guardians has less value because its aim was entertain instead of hit us over the head with some message we were already aware of.


Well excuse me for "taking sides" against you. I just felt you were being unduly harsh on the guy because what I read of what he said did not indicate to me he was saying one was better or worse than the other. If you want to have a discussion about the subject at hand, I did find BvS to be an excellent film with a little bit deeper or more layered quality to it than Guardians which is to be honest pretty straightforward in its intent. This isn't to say one is necessarily better than the other. BvS has a pretty specific goal, which is to perhaps be a commentary on the nature of a cynical society's response to a hero with god-like powers, while GotG and other Marvel films are just trying to have fun with it and please audiences. I feel that both approaches to CBMs have their value and I appreciate them for what they are.

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

If you want to have a discussion about the subject at hand, I did find BvS to be an excellent film with a little bit deeper or more layered quality to it than Guardians which is to be honest pretty straightforward in its intent.
I'm sorry, but I can't get past this comment and it certainly damages my ability to take your seriously. No. Just no. BvS is a horrible film without a proper plot structure that is needlessly dark and bleak when it has no business being so. It makes the World's Greatest Detective into an easily led lunkhead and turns the iconic Superman into a moping sadsack. It forced roughly half a dozen different stories together into a blender and hit the switch without a single thought about how they relate to each other or are different from each other. Luthor was an annoying comic relief character they tried to make into a villain and they had no business killing off Superman so soon.
And the whole "Martha" thing was as insulting as it was banal.
Snyder has no understanding of any of the characters and it shows. Bruce Timm and Paul Dini are far better superhero writers than he will ever be. Timm's Superman had doubts and fears, too, but that never stopped him from being Superman and a role model. His Batman had misgivings about Supes, too, but he never dehumanized him and went on the offensive for the flimsiest of excuses. And Timm's Batman would NEVER have trusted Lex Luthor.
Snyder's vision of Superman lost me the instant he had Pa Kent tell Clark to let a bus full of people die.

The shallowest Marvel film is deeper than anything the DCEU has produced so far.

If you don't want me taking your words to mean other than exactly what you mean, then don't take the side of film snobs. Whatever. I'm "narrow-minded" for being so tried of putting film snobs who look at anything that's meant to entertain and categorize it as less than something like America History X like the OP did.

Hey, OP, wanna know why people like this movie? Because people like feeling things like joy and happiness, and they like to be able to laugh and cheer. That's why. Sorry if both are so alien to you.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Dude you have some serious anger issues. You have a difference of opinion and I don't think any less of you just because you didn't appreciate or enjoy a movie I did yet you - knowing next to nothing about me besides what I've written here immediately dismiss me because of a differing point of view over a f--king movie. This is what I'm talking about when I say narrow-minded. Whatever, I don't need your approval, I like what I like and make no apologies. Done with you

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

Whatever. I never wanted to have this conversation, anyway.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Could've fooled everyone by the argumentative diatribe between you two. It's just a movie. Everyone is different, ergo has different opinions on everything. That's life.

reply

Thank you. A brilliant reply.

reply

Watch "Lost Weekend" if you think all films are about entertainment. Many films exist to make a point, not to entertain. Smart enough comment for you?

reply

Most films do have a point, but most of them also exist to entertain. Sorry, but that is the truth.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

no. BvS makes no sense, the characters have no weight to them. GotG is played for laughs but all the character arcs make sense

I'm a contradiction 

reply

I'd amend this to say "I felt like BvS wanted to be a film, while GOTG was content being great entertainment."

I actually like BvS just fine, but it wasn't nearly as successful being what it wanted to be as GOTG was.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

reply

It is so much better than BvS that you cannot even compare them.

GO SIXERS!!!
Phillies
Fly Eagles Fly

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Waaaay better. Unlike BvS I actually wanted to go see it a few more times but couldn't

reply

Most fun I've had watching a Marvel film this one. Absolutely loved it

reply

Agree 100% with TC. Fun, but extremely generic.

reply

This film is lame. Whole bunch of CGI with a weak story. Over hyped piece of crap.

reply

Well not overrated !!! its the BEST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER !! didnt u see the peter quill dance the *beep* out of Ronan. , real action. ,.

reply

BEST COMIC BOOK MOVIE EVER !!


FULLY agree. and i cannot get enough Ant Man. this film has possibly eclipsed my long-standing favorite (Like Water for Chocolate) as favorite film of all time. pacing, humor, nostalgia, sci-fi, fun, whimsy - it is so perfectly done my only minor criticism would be the casting of The Collector.

i can see why they thought this guy will be perfect in this role, except that he wasn't. Instead of Benicio Del Toro, they should have cast Elton John or David Bowie. Del Toro was too monotone - I wanted him to be flaming insanely wild, dramatic and fun, like a shock to the system to meet him, but they cast an actor, and actors are trained to perform understated in film, less so on TV, and if you really want to go all jazz hands, do live musicals on broadway. but this role called for melodrama, and instead we got makeup and costume for the role, but performance for wall street office work.

reply

After reviewing your list I noticed that the only and highest (10) rated movie was Brave heart the problem was that you also gave Force Awakens a (1) but Snake eyes, Face Off a (7). SO arguing film taste became pointless. Really Face Off!!

reply

There are some things that are original like the casette player and the characters and many things in general but the overall story is quite boring. It is made for "special" tastes.

reply

I agree....movie was very mediocre. One dimensional and unimaginative characters and a storyline we saw a thousand times before.

reply

I thought it was pretty boring and the villain was very lackluster.

reply

Boring? You're completely insane.

reply