Things I Hate

Tags: 
  1. I hate When people use the word Over-rated to refer to anything. If someone doesn't like a movie that alot of people like they brand it as being over-rated because they don't think it deserves as much praise as it seems to get. But the same people who decide what movies are over-rated start a best vs. favourite argument whenever they're asked what the best movie is. If you can decide what movie is over-rated, why can't you also decide what movie is the best? The word over-rated is just another way of saying, "my opinion means more then yours."
  2. I hate When people accuse someone of selling out. No one's sold out, they're just working, trying to make a living like everyone else. They have a right to, so leave them alone.
  3. I hate movie reviews. I never read them before I see a movie, I see whatever I want and I don't need anyone to tell me if a movie is good or not. I sometimes read reviews of movies after I see them but I usually disagree with them.
  4. I hate when people complain about re-makes. It's just a movie, the world isn't going to end because someone decides to re-make one of your favourite movies so why make such a big deal out of it. If you don't like the idea of a re-make, you don't have to see it. A re-make doesn't change or affect the original in any way. The original is the the same movie that it's always been and it always will be the same. If you don't like the re-make, watch the original but there's no need for anyone to complain about a movie being made. It's just a movie and if you're 6 or 7 years old a little complaining may be okay but if you're older, it just seems childish.
  5. I hate the message boards at IMDB, it's so hard to have a decent conversation on them because people would rather insult you then to discuss anything. The only board worth visiting is the Classic Film Board.
  6. Internet lingo that some people use on message boards and instant messengers, like, u for you, r for are, lol, rofl, etc. I don't have anything against people using it, all of my friends that I talk to online use it. I just don't like to use it myself. I would rather type the entire word out then to abbreviate it, I don't like to abbreviate very much.
  7. I hate when I'm watching a movie with someone and a character in the movie does something and they say, "No one would do that." I hate when people generalize a group of people, it assumes that everyone is the same and would react the exact same way in any given situation. How would they know that no one would do that?
  8. When I say something and someone says, "Well, that's just your opinion." I said it, whose opinion would it be if it weren't mine? When I state my opinion, I always state it as if it were fact, otherwise it's no good. For example, if I think a movie is terrible, I don't say, "it's my opinion that that's a terrible movie." or "I believe that's a terrible movie." I say "That movie is terrible." The fact that I said it, will tell you that it's my opinion with out me having to point it out.
  9. Mad TV, it's just a watered down, generic version of Saturday Night Live. SNL isn't very good anymore but the skits on Mad TV are alot worse than anything from SNL.
  10. I Hate when people say that something is the new something else. Like 40 is the new 30, or Blue is the new Black. If we wait long enough, maybe one day Dying will be the new Living or Hell will be the new Heaven.
Author Comments: 

I hope that I wasn't too brutal.
I hope, I haven't offended anyone
actually I don't care.

Discussion is as always welcome.

I'm sure that I'll find more things that I hate to add later.

I dunno, I happen to believe the use of the word "overrated", "selling out", and the general hate of pointless remakes, are very valid ones.

I think most people see the word overrated as just another way of saying "i don't get it", although some do use it as a way of superiority i don't think it's the norm... not around here anyways.

Selling out is a valid accusation as well i believe... mostly because i happen to hate the "business" side of anything, and when someone chooses the "business" side over there own principals... that is selling out... in any medium.

And pointless remakes are well... pointless... I don't personally complain about them, at least i don't think so, I have my problems with the pointless ones that are done for no other reason than to update the special effects or sell a superstar cast or just being the wet dream of some overzealous filmmaker... Not that i'm complaining, again I "just don't get it".

spot on reviews and message boards though.

They may be valid points but I still hate them but I respect your opinion as well as anyones opinion.

Most everytime that I've seen someone use the word overrated, it was followed with something about the movie not being as good as people say and shouldn't be rated as high as it is so that's what I used in my comments on that.

I don't believe that selling out is a valid point. For one thing, how do we know what these people's principles are? For another thing, people don't start working in a business, unless they want to succeed in that business and filmmaking is a business, whether you make independent films or work for a major studio. Most fans seem to think that everything in the entertainment business is done solely for the fans but that's not true, their family would come first. If it wasn't for the business side of anything, everything would have to shut down, there'd be no money and we would all starve to death.

I'm not against any remake for the same reason I'm not against a house being built on a block with a hundred houses already, it will employ people who need work and someone will have a use for it.

I had another thing that I hate to add but now I've forgotten it, maybe I'll remember it later and add it.

I'm sorry... i don't know what kind of business you are in but some people do choose their career based on things other than just succeeding and being ambitious on the business side... and i have no respect for anyone who chooses business or money over their principals... Hell if i bake cakes and cakes are my passion and I decide that I can make more money by making shitty cakes that no one likes, but look pretty... and i do... that is selling out and i have no respect for anyone who sells out... in any business... not that you can't hate the fact that that is what i believe... i just don't see how you can't agree that it is a valid point.

I also believe that NOTHING in the entertainment industry is done for the fans... it's either done for money/fame or it's done for the persons own personal enjoyment/fulfillment... i just happen to enjoy things more when it's for the second reason... and not just selling out.

Could you give an example of someone, a musician or filmmaker that doesn't want to succeed in their chosen profession because I can't think of any? You have no respect for people who choose business or money over their principals. But, what are their principles? I've never heard anyone in the entertainment business release a list of their principles to the public.

i don't know... principals is a bad word... but i couldn't think of a better one... it's more like the quality of what they do... I don't know where you get that I think there are people who don't WANT to succeed in their chosen profession... i'm just saying there are people who wouldn't do ANYTHING in order to suceed, such as compromising the quality of their work and "selling out"... I can think of plenty of filmmakers that wouldn't direct "the day after the day after tomorow" just because it would make a shit load of money... and i can think of plenty of musicians who wouldn't hang up their instruments and do a pop album written by a generic industry writer just because it would get them on mtv and into a huge mansion...

I would find it hard to believe that you could sit there and truthfully say that you couldn't name a filmmaker or musician that has "sold out"(comprimising the quality of their work for some money)... and i don't mean quality as determined by some critic or you or me... i mean someone who if you asked them and they answered sincerely would tell you it wasn't their best effort, they just did it for the money... thats why i believe "selling out" is a valid term.

Okay, maybe I misunderstood what you meant, when you said, "I'm sorry... i don't know what kind of business you are in but some people do choose their career based on things other than just succeeding and being ambitious on the business side..."

If you feel that someone has sold out because the quality of their work has changed, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But the perception of the quality of someone's work is opinionated, you might think the quality is weak but not everyone may not share that opinion. So who decides when someone has sold out?

However, William H. Macy has stated that he's selling out because he needs to start making bigger movies that make more money.

I'm sorry if I offended you or if you feel that I have, that was not my intention. My intention was to just express my opinion which is almost always different then most peoples.

no offense taken at all... in fact i thought it might be the other way around... and as far as someone selling out... i try not to accuse anyone of doing so... but i think it's obvious when some people do and they would probably tell you the same thing... like your macy reference... i don't think it's fair for people to just accuse people of selling out because they don't like their work, or they used to but it tailed off.

I don't accuse anyone of selling out either, and it's like almost everyday, you hear someone say someone has sold out. Whereas most people would see it as being a sell out, I look at it as them taking a new direction in their career, maybe they want to try different things, try a new musical style for awhile or work on different movies then they're known for. It prevents them from being type cast as a certain type of actor, director, singer, etc. and it gives them more experience and a better chance to grow in their career. Most musicians, have been influenced by a broad range of musicians who came before them so it shouldn't seem strange that they would want to play different kinds of music. And actors and directors are fans of different types of movies so it shouldn't seem strange that they would want to make different kinds of movies, even if some people don't like them. They shouldn't be called a sell out for their decisions.

William H. Macy may have said that he was selling out but I don't think he is, I think he is just doing what he needs to do for his family.

"Over-rated" is one of my pet peeves, too. I dislike being told by some seventeen-year-old that a powerful, influential classic movie is "over-rated", just because they are too young to appreciate it. Some movies were so influential, and hence, widely imitated, that modern filmgoers don't realize how innovative they were.

Yeah, I agree with that. I don't like the Alien movies, which have no doubt been influencial in the sci-fi and maybe even the horror genre's but I wouldn't call them "over-rated" because I don't like them.

I guess one of the reasons I have always loved the term is that it is usually born of geniune, passionate reactions to art. It is a sort of disappointment that short-circuits the logical side of matters and prods one with something close to disgust, rage, or disillusionment (all states of mind I can relate to very well as of late).

Now, having said that, I (who, for matters of full disclosure, will admit that one of my very first lists on this site used the O word) always try to give a highly-praised work several tries before slapping that term on it, and I restrain myself until I feel I at least (rightly or wrongly) understand the work.

Of course, as everybody who has had the displeasure to encounter me knows, I am a fan of passion, especially concerning the arts, so perhaps I err...

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

It's okay if you use the word "Over-rated" you have a right to. Just because I don't like the word and I may hate to hear movies being referred to as Over-rated, it doesn't mean that I don't respect the opinions of those who do use that word.

I saw your list of "10 (or more) Over-Rated Films" most of the films on that list I really like but Vertigo is not one of my favourite Hitchcock films and I love Chicago, I've only seen it 18 times so far.

Oh, I wasn't trying to argue. Seeing your comments simply made me ask myself why I do like the word so much, and I felt like sharing my findings.

Of course, it could always be that I just like sounding superior...but I don't think so. :)

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

I would use the word "over-rated" to describe a movie that is getting a lot of press, but I don't understand why. I wouldn't use that word for a classic film, because they've stood the test of time, and naturally, would have alot written about them.

I can understand that approach. I rate on quality, and personally, I think a number of factors other than quality can cause a film to stand that time test. Films that survive for those reasons yet are touted as masterpieces tend to earn the word from me.

On a light note, would you believe I just filled the word 'overrated' into a crossword puzzle not thirty seconds ago?

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

Perhaps I'm just a cynic about this kind of thing, but I agree that standing the test of time can often have very little to do with quality. The films that last are usually the ones that are bold, controversial, or influential - and films can be very bold, controversial, and influential without actually being any good. Oftentimes a movie can have a really unique visual style but the screenplay could be a real piece of crap, and everyone ignores the flaws in the script and praises the movie for its style.

I sometimes overlook flaws in the script, I mean everyone makes mistakes and I don't expect them to be perfect. For example, in Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane is alone when he dies but everyone knows what his last word was when there was no one there to hear it but I still love the movie.

I'm not talking about little logistical flubs like that (which could be explained by proposing that his butler or something simply walked into the room as he died). Personally, I think Citizen Kane has a brilliant script.

I'm talking about films like, say, Don't Look Now. This is a film that I personally think is overrated. Oh, I can see why many people think it's a classic. Nicholas Roeg's visual style is gorgeous and very influential. It also has a very racy sex scene - so it was quite controversial.

But the script, it just sucks. Here's a snippet from my review of it: "Let me ask you something. If your wife was in a different country, and for one fleeting second, you saw her pass on a boat along with two other women whom your wife knew, what would you do? (a) Assume you were mistaken, since, y'know, YOUR WIFE LEFT THE COUNTRY; (b) Contact your wife and see if she is where you thought she was; or (c) Have the two women arrested. If you picked (c), then maybe you will understand the characters' logic in this film better than I did."

Oh, and who can forget that ending? Throughout the film, Donald Sutherland thinks he sees his dead daughter running around the streets of Venice, in the red coat that she was wearing when she drowned. It turns out that it was actually just a serial killing midget, who has apparently decided that the best way to escape police detection was to run around Venice in a bright red coat.

This is a film that I think has been acclaimed for its merits, but has ridiculous flaws that I just can't get past. And it's not the only film like that. There are plenty of films that have been acclaimed for certain merits in spite of major flaws.

I haven't seen Don't Look Now.

But you know what I'm talking about, right? Haven't you seen a film like that, an acclaimed classic where you just thought, yeah, some parts of that were good, but how did everyone not notice these glaring flaws?

P.S. I agree 100% about those IMDB message boards. What a bunch of idiots.

Yeah, I know what you mean.

Like Pink Flamingos? Star Wars? Gone With The Wind?

Great examples. Yeah, that's just what I'm talking about. Of the three, I've only seen Star Wars (which I haven't seen in a long time), but I've certainly heard much about Pink Flamingos and Gone With the Wind, and I think they'd fit the bill.

I love Star Wars and Gone With the Wind, but for purely sentimental reasons, not because of their great artistic qualities.

I'd like to hear more from you on this subject. What do you think those "other factors" are which go into making a movie stand the test of time?

I think the two obvious factors are innovation and influence. A film can break new ground in many ways and still be a bad film, but if it forges forward in an important way, chances are it will be remembered.

A highly influential film also tends to be well remembered, even if its imitators do much better work with its material than it did.

Two other factors come to my mind. Hugely popular films can gain a sentimental sheen that makes it difficult to separate the film from the event or memory.

Additionally, a film can stand as a sort of Cliff's notes for an artist. It might be the one work where many of the artist's themes and motifs combine in one film. Now, it might not be the artist's best film, but it will be lauded as a one-stop introduction and as a standard bearer of sorts because it is an easy place to get a grip on so much of what the artist has to offer. I think critics, especially of an academic bent, tend to give such 'epiotme' films a bit too much credit simply for summarizing, or at least at times they do.

On a related note, those same people can give a poor film too much credit simply for little characteristic elements the directors does well. They focus on the small, telling touches, and they can often lose sight of the fact that the film overall just does not work. I am tempted to provide many examples here, but...

To sum up these two factors, some critics and historians can get so wrapped up in the personality behind the camera that they lose focus on the actual work created.

I fear I expressed the above quite poorly, but there are a few examples.

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

I think I understand what you're saying. You could make a lot of lists out of examples for this post :).

What you're saying sounds like what happens when people worship the "auteur". I think they do that when they make lists. Probably, a lot of "cliff's notes" films end up on lists, because of their representation of the auteur.

I can think of several examples to fit your descriptions.

"What you're saying sounds like what happens when people worship the "auteur". I think they do that when they make lists. Probably, a lot of "cliff's notes" films end up on lists, because of their representation of the auteur."

I think you are especially right in your last sentence. A critic sits down to make a top 100 list. When he or she is done and rereads the list, questions occur. Did I get a Scorsese one in there? How about enough Hitchcocks? Kubrick? French New Wave films? Oh, and I really should make a nod to films from this decade...

If the list is missing an auteur, it is easy to reach for 'the film' from that director and plug it in somewhere. You know, 'the film' that sums that artist up.

I always wonder how skewed lists become in the name of diversity, representativeness, and the need to seem hip. (I know I expanded on your original statement; I am a babbler by nature.)

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

I usually use the phrase "over-hyped" for the initial pre-release hoopla by the studios and stars, as well as the single-headline critic reviews that pop up out of pre-screenings.

"Over-rated" I usually use for movies that, over time, the critics tend to split 50-50 or 60-40 and someone in my immediate vicinity is expressing a point of view other than my own.

IMHO, over-hyped should be a criminal offense, over-rated just a friendly discussion.

Good one. But I still don't understand all the fuss about "Lost in Translation". What about all the awards given to that movie? I thought it was a good movie, but not a masterpiece.

Thanks for sharing your findings with us, it's always good to learn from other people.

If "overrated" is one of your pet peeves than someone appreciating a classic based on it's supposed "influence" and saying people who don't like it are too young to appreciate it is one of mine... although i do agree a lot of great classics are being bashed to pieces by kids who don't even give them a chance... but i hate equally as much when someone(not saying you do rosie) hails a classic film and judges it on a different predetermined set of criteria because it's old... I'd much rather see people judging movies on a level playing field, a bad movie is a bad movie as far as i'm concerned... i don't care if the special effects or the storyline were revolutionary for their time... if a movie is done right, it will still be a great movie 30 years later, and plenty of them are... i'm just sick of hearing how a movie is amazing because back when it was made it was ground-breaking... hell look at the so-called "ground-breaking" films of the present... should they all be called great classics a few decades from now... for the most part, i say no.

There's nothing I can do to avoid having a modern viewpoint on an old movie. That comes naturally. However, it adds to my appreciation of a movie, if I take the extra effort to understand and evaluate movies within their historical context.

It's like getting to know a person. You appreciate your friends more if you know something about their past and future goals.

It's also similar to my appreciation for electricity or the telephone. I appreciate those things far more if I understand what it would be like to live in a world without them. I do not take such things for granted. Knowledge is hard-won and easily lost. I appreciate (I think) the accomplishment "film" is. To have lived in a world without it, and then to see it for the first time, must have been amazing.

Thus, when I view Citizen Kane or the Cabinet of Dr Caligari, I try to understand what was going on at the time, what came before, and after, those movies, so that I can see not just the movie itself, but "the big picture".

oh it's great that you try and see "the big picture", but it's a whole different thing to hold a film so highly based only on it's big picture and not the fact that it's a not a great movie... like so many do with Citizen Kane... Just my opinion of course,haha... Sure i can appreciate the big picture and Citizen Kane is a good movie... but for so many people to love it so much based soley on it's "big picture" background is ridiculous to me... that is my impression anyway, i'm sure there are plenty who genuinely love the film on it's own and still consider it one of the best... i just don't see it.

Re: Internet lingo. I tend to you agree with you about things like "u" for "you", "r" for "are", but you're going to get some strange looks if you start typing, "Laughing out loud" all spelled out.

Yeah you may be right about that but I don't actually type those phrases out, I just avoid them. If someone says something that's funny, I just say that was funny or whatever best fits the situation.

Wanna know what I dislike? When people immediately dismiss my opinion because I'm 14. Well, get it straight, people: I love The Godfather and Shawshank, detest 2 Fast 2 Furious, enjoy music from the 60s and 70s and detest "nu-metal".

Sorry, rant over now. ;)

To drag this slightly back on-topic, nice list there Oedipus. I agree with most of what you said!

Yeah, no one's opinion should be Be dismissed regardless of their age.

You seem to hate the idea of generally accepted standards for rating films. But doesn't this imprison us in solipsism?

I didn't think that I had written anything about hating the generally accepted standards for rating films but even if I had, it wouldn't imprison us in solipsism unless you believe that the only two things that exist are the self and films. Solipsism is a philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist, take away the accepted standard of rating films and their is still so much to life then the self. But as I said before I don't think I stated or implied that I hated that at all.

I just mean we would be imprisoned in solipsisim as far as film is concerned.

Well, if you think there are standards, why do you hate movie reviews? Maybe you have more time and disposable income than I do, but if I can only see three films in a month, I know that I want to choose the ones I'm most likely to enjoy.

I don't think there are any standards for rating films, I think that everyone should see whatever they want.

I hate movie reviews because I have a mind of my own and I don't need someone else to tell me what movies are good. Too many people rely too heavily on movie reviews and when a reviewer writes a bad review, all you hear from everyone is how bad the movie is, It's like a big game of follow the leader. Just because Roger Ebert or some other movie critic says a movie isn't any good doesn't mean I think it isn't any good.

To answer your question about me having more time and disposable income then you, I don't. I rarely see movies in the theater. When I see new movies, I rent them but here lately I haven't done that very often. 99% of the movies that I see are from Turner Classic Movies.