|
If you mean over-rated by how they did in the box office; its totally in everyones perspective. Thats the main reason movie critics annoy me. It boils down to the directors talent to guide everything together vs the directors choice to be truest to themself in approaching the movie as a piece of their art. Like John Carpentor; the man has done some good stuff, but lately all hes putting out is shit. I dont understand how he cant look at his projects like Vampires and Ghosts of Mars and think he's creating something of value. Its like isnt there anyone around him saying what the F*** are you doing. The point is he doesnt seem to care as long as he's satisfied his eye. If a movie like Titanic or Gladiator do well; it probably means on the general level aside form any marketing they're good. Otherwise word would get out fast. Again Im referring to the term referencing peoples opinions. Believe me I have alot of "guilty pleasure movies" that I truly dont understand why I like them, I just do.
The other side of "over-rated" is movies that were built up in marketing and expected to be mega-block busters and just flopped. Thats where I see the term or as I view it.
The one that pops in my head first is Pearl Harbor. Even though I loved the effects during the bombing sequence. Another that I rememeber getting a ton of hype was The Scorpian King. Man I couldnt finish watching it. Im glad it was only rental.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking
|