›

Skyfall Considered the Most Overated film of all.

1…1718192022

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I liked his entrance and everything about his performance. He was a central reason for the film's massive success.
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/

    The article that started this thread. Should be mandatory reading.
    Glad that some people got it early on how terribly bland that film is. SF indeed is the most overhyped film of all time.

    Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
    Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next Time!
    They have Network and Inception in the top five on that list. Therefore credibility has been lost in my eyes.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    I find their points on Inception and Network quite right.
    Overall really good quality journalism and they know the films they are talking about.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Everybody thinks an article that reflects their point of view is great journalism.

    I think the idea that SF is the most overrated film is laughable, in Bond it's still clearly GF.

    The acclaim is retrospective yes but this is the default setting, all the reviews never bother to look at it's weak points and just concentrate on it's greatness.

    SF gets far more of a grilling from the get go, I don't remember reading any review after the Premiere that entirely loved it unreservedly, they had issues with it, modern films get so much more dissected than older classic ones.

    The noshing off that Goldfinger gets is almost sickening when you consider it's short commings.

    Connery is so much more Fleming's Bond in FRWL.

    I know Skyfall is flawed and I don't love it unreservedly, even OHMSS my favourite is flawed, my no. 2 CR also has it's issues.

    I don't think there is a Bond masterpiece in the big scheme of things maybe within the series it's OHMSS or I'll admit due to it's popularity although I personally disagree as I've said above it's GF.

    I think SF will settle down into the top 10 possibly slip into the 15 once it's had sometime.

    I'm not mentioning it's follow up because I made the promise to drop it, my view on that film is well documented here.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I liked his entrance and everything about his performance. He was a central reason for the film's massive success.
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/

    The article that started this thread. Should be mandatory reading.
    Glad that some people got it early on how terribly bland that film is. SF indeed is the most overhyped film of all time.

    Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
    Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next Time!
    They have Network and Inception in the top five on that list. Therefore credibility has been lost in my eyes.

    I was going to say the same. Both fantastic movies. For me personally I do believe SF was overrated at the time of its release; a lot of superlatives were bandied about that I don't think it necessarily deserved, but now the dust has settled I don't believe it's an overrated film. I think opinions on both ends of the spectrum have been reigned in here and there (bar some vitriol amongst a minority) and it's reputation as a very good Bond film is largely justified.

    For me it's outside that cabal of bona fide classics. Amongst colleagues/friends etc a CR v SF debate would turn up roughly 80-20 in favour of the former. So from my perspective, no, I don't think it's overrated. It's very far from being a bad movie. Very far.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Quality journalism maybe but poor knowledge of cinematic history. The debate is not whether or not SF is a good film or even an overrated film (I really liked it but do think it is overrated, just for the record). It is whether or not SF is the most overrated movie of all time. OF. ALL. TIME. Like in the whole history of cinema. That is a ridiculously superlative statement and shows poor criticism or perspective. What's his most underrated movie of all time? Whatever didn't win the Oscar two years ago?
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    It nails it. As someone else said, EON have Adele to thank for a large chunk of the BO. As does Thomas Newman for his Oscar nod.

    I think it's difficult to argue against this. Although it will always be impossible to quantify, if you take away the free PR from the Queen at the Olympics and Adele I would think SF would've come in around the 700-800m mark. It really was released at the perfect time.

    Have to say that it being the 50th anniversary made little difference though as I think only us here were really aware of that.
    Getafix wrote: »
    If anything SP is a more coherent movie.

    Let's not get confused with saying SF is overrated and it's plot convoluted so therefore SP is not as bad as you think.

    SF has some ludicrous leaps of logic/sanity in the Silva escape scene before pulling it round in a fabulously dour and doom laden final act. SP largely holds together until the third act where it falls spectacularly apart and ends on extremely damp squib of a finale. And at least SF doesn't take outrageous liberties with Fleming (I liked the gravestone touch although wasn't that keen on the made up stuff about Bond's past such as Kincaide and him hiding down a tunnel for two days - although little did I know that these were comparatively minor gripes compared to the desecration of Fleming's grave that took place in SP).

    I wonder how we will look back on the Mendes era in 20 years? Style over substance? They look fabulous and on the face of it they are deep, character driven pieces but they are so fragile that when you scratch the surface they both come tumbling down.

    But there again when you look at the by the numbers tick the box excercises of the Brozza era or camp dross like DAF and TMWTGG SF and SP both have so much more going for them than those.

    They both are in and around the top 10 and it will take a succession of very good Bond films to lower them into the bottom half of the table.
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'll take Silva over Koskov and Whittaker any day.

    Yeah the one really fatal flaw in TLD. I can live with Koskov but Whitaker totally pointless and the 'showdown' at the end might be a weaker climax than SP. Luckily we've already had one of the best set pieces of the series in the previous scene so we shouldn't be too greedy.
    jobo wrote: »
    Interesting discussion regarding 'cold kills'.

    For me there is nothing colder than calmly letting a "helpfull chap" fall to his death, then follow up with a dry, casually emotionless and sarcastic joke. When Connery sprayed Dent with bullets or Dalton 'gave Killifer his well earned money' there was a sense of intense contempt and and anger, an emotional investment. It is the emotional detachment described earlier which defines coldness in my book.

    So one could argue that Moore is in fact the coldest bastard we ever had as Bond. Quite a paradox considering the general consensus, but I am inclined to support this theory. ;)

    That's a good point actually. Locque you can understand as revenge for Lisl and Luigi but poor old Sandor never hurt anyone (well Felicca I suppose but Rog barely knew her).

    Couldn't he have just said 'Thanks for being such a helpful chap', pulled him back up and let the bloke go on his way suitably chastened?

    Although to be fair I think he might rip Rog's tie when he's hanging on so he didnt really deserve any mercy. Rog is a reasonable man but that's crossing a line.

    Fair point about SP's third act - it's total dross. I'm not quite on the same page about SP's Scottish sequences - looks good but lacks any real tension. Mendes just throws explosions at the screen. He basically doesn't 'get' action.

    I think SP and SF are middle rankers. I might even prefer to watch Gun or DAF over these two. I think the interminable running times of SP and SF (and CR?) may count against them in the future.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    The most overrated film of all time may (famously) have to be Ordinary People, the 1980 Robert Redford soap/drama that was awarded best picture Oscar ahead of Scorcese's masterpiece Raging Bull.

    Skyfall (which I don't personally consider overrated in the slightest) doesn't come close to that example.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Yes but who talks about Ordinary People now? No one. So it's clearly no longer overrated, although clearly was back in the day.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but who talks about Ordinary People now? No one. So it's clearly no longer overrated, although clearly was back in the day.

    I don't see anyone talking about SF either, hence my comment about it being overrated on release.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    In which case, outside of Bond communities, who talks about Skyfall?
  • RC7RC7
    edited September 2017 Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    In which case, outside of Bond communities, who talks about Skyfall?

    Indeed. Even in this community, the SF topics are usually resurrected by one of @Getafix or @BondJasonBond006 to remind us how awful it is. Almost like they can't let it go, hey Nackers?
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I liked his entrance and everything about his performance. He was a central reason for the film's massive success.
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/

    The article that started this thread. Should be mandatory reading.
    Glad that some people got it early on how terribly bland that film is. SF indeed is the most overhyped film of all time.

    Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
    Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next Time!
    They have Network and Inception in the top five on that list. Therefore credibility has been lost in my eyes.

    I was going to say the same. Both fantastic movies. For me personally I do believe SF was overrated at the time of its release; a lot of superlatives were bandied about that I don't think it necessarily deserved, but now the dust has settled I don't believe it's an overrated film. I think opinions on both ends of the spectrum have been reigned in here and there (bar some vitriol amongst a minority) and it's reputation as a very good Bond film is largely justified.

    For me it's outside that cabal of bona fide classics. Amongst colleagues/friends etc a CR v SF debate would turn up roughly 80-20 in favour of the former. So from my perspective, no, I don't think it's overrated. It's very far from being a bad movie. Very far.

    That's basically how I feel as well (except I prefer it to CR). The best Bond ever hype at release was a bit OTT (to be fair it was easy to get swept up in, I remember comments from several members on here being more critical saying it was top five and a real classic on release, myself included) but now things have settled down I wouldn't call it overrated. It's a very good top ten Bond film but it isn't perfect and I think that's generally the consensus on it now.

    Oh and Silva is great. One of the best villains I thought. The only one I think is better is Sanchez.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    In which case, outside of Bond communities, who talks about Skyfall?

    Indeed. Even in this community, the SF topics are usually resurrected by one of @Getafix or @BondJasonBond006 to remind us how awful it is. Almost like they can't let it go, hey Nackers?

    Hah, indeed. We submitted almost the same comment a minute apart. I just wonder what the criteria is to name the most overrated film of all time? It seems it has to be still talked about incessantly by everyone in the entire world.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but who talks about Ordinary People now? No one. So it's clearly no longer overrated, although clearly was back in the day.

    Plenty of people still talks about The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and these are far more overrated than any Bond movie.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/

    The article that started this thread. Should be mandatory reading.
    Glad that some people got it early on how terribly bland that film is. SF indeed is the most overhyped film of all time.

    Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
    Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next Time!

    It is really a big mystery for me, how someone who sees SF's weaknesses that clear can enjoy the train wreck that is SP. Fascinating. Fascinating indeed.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but who talks about Ordinary People now? No one. So it's clearly no longer overrated, although clearly was back in the day.

    Plenty of people still talks about The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and these are far more overrated than any Bond movie.

    Ben Hur overrated? No way!
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but who talks about Ordinary People now? No one. So it's clearly no longer overrated, although clearly was back in the day.

    Plenty of people still talks about The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur and these are far more overrated than any Bond movie.

    Ben Hur overrated? No way!

    Grand spectacle sword and sandals. Entertaining yes, but pretty thin on content, preachy with a, two bit morality. So yes overrated. Gladiator is too for pretty much the same reasons. Both movies may be better or worse than Skyfall I don't know but they are far more overrated and have been overrated for far longer.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/

    The article that started this thread. Should be mandatory reading.
    Glad that some people got it early on how terribly bland that film is. SF indeed is the most overhyped film of all time.

    Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
    Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next Time!

    It is really a big mystery for me, how someone who sees SF's weaknesses that clear can enjoy the train wreck that is SP. Fascinating. Fascinating indeed.

    Quite. They are both cut from the same cloth.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Oh things I could say but I promised I wasn't going to get into a critique about a certain film.

    I can't defend one without getting into the short commings of the other.

    Although the dead horse I'd supposedly been flogging is positively decomposing where Skyfall is concerned.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/

    The article that started this thread. Should be mandatory reading.
    Glad that some people got it early on how terribly bland that film is. SF indeed is the most overhyped film of all time.

    Gulp. Let's first admit that Javier Bardem has three great scenes in Skyfall, before the film decides that Silva, his magnificently creepy-camp villain, wants nothing more than to chase Judi Dench up to the Highlands and bombard Bond’s ancestral pile with a Merlin helicopter. This is his masterplan? In the plus column, it may be the best-looking Bond film ever made – high-five there for Roger Deakins – but it’s nowhere near as sure of itself, or sure where Bond should be going this decade, as evangelists on its release liked to think. Awkward in shape and thrilling only periodically, the film’s a fraught salvage job for which Sam Mendes got far too much of the credit.
    Look closer and the scars of indecision are painfully obvious, especially in that third act. Ben Whishaw’s Q allows the MI6 server to be hacked by… plugging a pair of ethernet cables into Silva’s laptop? The tube crash is a shambles. The disposal of Severine, after Bond has had his wicked way with this maltreated sex slave, is brutally callous. Daniel Craig seems hardened, waxy, and humourless, with no gift for floating a weak punchline, and the uninspired script (“Got into some deep water”, anyone?) gives him a morass of them. The drift of the movie is interestingly reactionary – it’s about reverting to old certainties, like having men in charge, in a confusing new world (and a world which hated Quantum of Solace). But we’d prefer the old certainty of a Bond movie that’s light on its feet, satisfying right to the end, and puts more than the security services in brief jeopardy. It’s the biggest hit in British box office history, to which we say, with apologies: better luck next Time!

    Yeah, a 'high quality newspaper' should be mandatory reading if it fits your personal opinion. Would it not have fit your opinion it was nothing else but 'crap media' or 'fake news'.

    The article on the whole is interesting though. And does touch the flaws of the film. But I disagree to expand on it in such a grotesque way and declare it the "most overrated film of all time".
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.

    Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments and Goldfinger are classics regardless of their flaws. That comes with their enduring popularity, not their intrinsic quality. Regarding the first two as they are praised beyond technical achievement I do think they are overrated.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.

    Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments and Goldfinger are classics regardless of their flaws. That comes with their enduring popularity, not their intrinsic quality. Regarding the first two as they are praised beyond technical achievement I do think they are overrated.
    Yes, perhaps, but my point is that kind of criticism can be leveled at any film which has a major impact on the public consciousness. Ultimately nothing is so perfect to withstand criticism in some way shape or form (whether it be performances, plot, visuals, sound, production design etc.).

    I believe, in time, SF will be seen as a classic like those other films. SP ironically guaranteed that imho.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films.

    Overrated means something which is given too high value, originally overpriced, at least that is what it meant 400 years ago. Now it is just a way to express your own opinion as compared to that of others.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films.

    Overrated means something which is given too high value, originally overpriced, at least that is what it meant 400 years ago. Now it is just a way to express your own opinion as compared to that of others.
    Yes, and a value perception is inherently in the eye of the beholder. If enough people feel this way without objection (as in the case with these so called 'classics'), then perhaps by definition they are indeed 'overrated', because as I said nothing is (or should be imho) beyond critique.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.

    Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments and Goldfinger are classics regardless of their flaws. That comes with their enduring popularity, not their intrinsic quality. Regarding the first two as they are praised beyond technical achievement I do think they are overrated.
    Yes, perhaps, but my point is that kind of criticism can be leveled at any film which has a major impact on the public consciousness. Ultimately nothing is so perfect to withstand criticism in some way shape or form (whether it be performances, plot, visuals, sound, production design etc.).

    I believe, in time, SF will be seen as a classic like those other films. SP ironically guaranteed that imho.

    I'd say some movies withstand most if not all criticism: lots of Kubrick's, Bergman's, The Godfather I and II, The French Connection, etc.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.

    Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments and Goldfinger are classics regardless of their flaws. That comes with their enduring popularity, not their intrinsic quality. Regarding the first two as they are praised beyond technical achievement I do think they are overrated.
    Yes, perhaps, but my point is that kind of criticism can be leveled at any film which has a major impact on the public consciousness. Ultimately nothing is so perfect to withstand criticism in some way shape or form (whether it be performances, plot, visuals, sound, production design etc.).

    I believe, in time, SF will be seen as a classic like those other films. SP ironically guaranteed that imho.

    I'd say some movies withstand most if not all criticism: lots of Kubrick's, Bergman's, The Godfather I and II, The French Connection, etc.
    Again, I'd contend this is just a matter of opinion. I'm quite sure there's lot to take a part there too, although I'm certain some hold up better than others.

    Film is a visual medium too after all, and some films just knock it out of the park in that realm. Arguably SF and the two religious epics are in that category.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.

    Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments and Goldfinger are classics regardless of their flaws. That comes with their enduring popularity, not their intrinsic quality. Regarding the first two as they are praised beyond technical achievement I do think they are overrated.
    Yes, perhaps, but my point is that kind of criticism can be leveled at any film which has a major impact on the public consciousness. Ultimately nothing is so perfect to withstand criticism in some way shape or form (whether it be performances, plot, visuals, sound, production design etc.).

    I believe, in time, SF will be seen as a classic like those other films. SP ironically guaranteed that imho.

    I'd say some movies withstand most if not all criticism: lots of Kubrick's, Bergman's, The Godfather I and II, The French Connection, etc.
    Again, I'd contend this is just a matter of opinion. I'm quite sure there's lot to take a part there too, although I'm certain some hold up better than others.

    Film is a visual medium too after all, and some films just knock it out of the park in that realm. Arguably SF and the two religious epics are in that category.

    When an opinion is shared over time but various prominent filmmakers, intellectuals, movie reviewers, actors, etc. Then you have something akin to consensus. Especially when the movies are source of influence for other creators.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm really not sure how one defines overrated in terms of films. Some tend to capture the public imagination and resonate. These films endure in the public consciousness, sometimes nostalgically, for decades after release.

    Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments are two of these kinds of films, and I'd say Skyfall is one too. Possibly Goldfinger as well. Are they perhaps too flawed to be considered true classics? Possibly, but the bottom line is at the time of their release they caught the public eye globally and had a huge impact. There are a variety of reasons for that, some intangible.

    For some time to come, the public uses such films (sometimes through an exaggerated nostalgic lens) as a benchmark with which to rate future films in that genre. Mark my words: that will be the case with B25 as well, and particularly because it will star Craig.

    Ben Hur, The 10 Commandments and Goldfinger are classics regardless of their flaws. That comes with their enduring popularity, not their intrinsic quality. Regarding the first two as they are praised beyond technical achievement I do think they are overrated.
    Yes, perhaps, but my point is that kind of criticism can be leveled at any film which has a major impact on the public consciousness. Ultimately nothing is so perfect to withstand criticism in some way shape or form (whether it be performances, plot, visuals, sound, production design etc.).

    I believe, in time, SF will be seen as a classic like those other films. SP ironically guaranteed that imho.

    I'd say some movies withstand most if not all criticism: lots of Kubrick's, Bergman's, The Godfather I and II, The French Connection, etc.
    Again, I'd contend this is just a matter of opinion. I'm quite sure there's lot to take a part there too, although I'm certain some hold up better than others.

    Film is a visual medium too after all, and some films just knock it out of the park in that realm. Arguably SF and the two religious epics are in that category.

    When an opinion is shared over time but various prominent filmmakers, intellectuals, movie reviewers, actors, etc. Then you have something akin to consensus. Especially when the movies are source of influence for other creators.
    It's my understanding that SF (along with CR) is one of the most highly regarded films in the spy genre of the last 10 odd years.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Their opinions may be overrated.
Sign In or Register to comment.