Dr. DVD

Okay, I want to come out and say that this is not supposed to be a big "Shutter Island is overrated" thread. I have been wanting to start one like this for a while, but it seems recent statements of a similar nature being pointed at this release makes now a better time to address it.

I will say that there have been several times where I think a movie is overpraised not only because of certain directors involved, but also certain screenwriters and/or actors. Some examples:

-Just about any movie with Meryl Streep gets overpraised IMO. She's a great actor, I won't deny that, but they act like she elevates all material.

-Let's say the recent version of The Wolfman had not been directed by Joe Johnston but say David Cronenberg. It is the same movie out now (i.e. nothing changed), but Cronenberg's name is attached. Would it have been thrashed as much as it has been? Maybe not as much.

-Okay, Shutter Island. Let's say it was not done by Scorsese but say Ridley Scott or David Fincher (who was attached at one point). I have a feeling the reviews might be a bit more polarized, but who knows?

-Eyes Wide Shut- I like the movie okay, but let's face it. If ANYONE other than Kubrick's name was attached, this would not have been gushed upon like it was upon initial release.

Sessa17

I have to strongly disagree on Eyes Wide Shut which is excellent film making regardless of the director, if anything it was widely panned on its release rather than gushed upon.

That aside I completely agree with your premise. IMO Clint Eastwood's non-westerns are the ultimate example of this. They are nothing more than paint-by-the-numbers Oscar-bait.

The other main example of this is Ron Howard. His films are the epitome of everything I hate in modern cinema, but they are safe & Hollywood friendly so critics and the masses eat them up despite being completely devoid of imagination, innovation, or unique perspective of any kind.

I'm sure most here are going to post about Spielberg, but IMO Minority Report is a phenomenal film and Munich was criminally underrated. He is still a master of the craft and like any director, is also capable of a few stinkers. Then again, his name alone properly does get him unwarrented praise. There is no redeaming quality to the last Indy movie, yet some critics completely jizzed over it, as if they were afriad to criticize the man.

Super X

Without rehashing an entire thread of arguments, I'll say that I believe Avatar falls into this category. James Cameron's name attached as director has, in my opinion, given this paint-by-the-numbers film much more mileage than it would have had if his name had been left off the film. But, as the prior couple of posts point out, this is hardly an isolated occurrence. Certainly, having certain highly-regarded people in the industry attached to a particular project can sometimes, not always, result in an average-to-inferior product being lauded to a level to which it is not worthy.

Dr. DVD

I agree with you on Munich. In all honesty, I think that since Schindler's List Spielberg's attempts to return to the "popcorn movie" (i.e. The Lost World, War of the Worlds, and the most recent Indy) haven't been as much up to par as his pre-Schindler's stuff. I thought Schindler's List was a great movie, but I think that might have been where his flat out serious movies got better than the flare for which he was known.

Drexl

I think it's inevitable to some extent, that our expectations will affect how we perceive things. I didn't care for The Sixth Sense, but I'll never know how I would have perceived it if it hadn't been spoiled for me beforehand. Maybe with better directors, we're more forgiving and we're more patient about trying to see what he was attempting.

It can work both ways, too. A lot of people think The Godfather, Part III would have been more highly thought of if it had a different title.

TheMovieman

IDK, but Cinderella Man, A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Ransom and Backdraft are good/great movies (I haven't seen Frost/Nixon but heard it was good) while a good chunk of his other films were either wildly panned or lukewarm by critics (The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, The Grinch, EDtv, The Missing).

In regards to The Da Vinci Code (which I believe is his most successful movie at the box office), you could've put just about any director in there and it would've made a ton and the masses would eat it up.

Is he overrated as a director? Probably, but I hardly think he gets an exorbitant amount of praise, in fact it's probably closer to 50/50 with the guy.

Matthew Chmiel

A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Minority Report
Catch Me If You Can
The Terminal
Munich

These five films from the last decade are some of the best of his career; almost rivaling his output from the 70s and early 80s. I honestly think Spielberg's best film, Empire of the Sun, is his most underrated.

Honestly, the films that I honestly dislike from Spielberg are 1941 (bleh), The Color Purple (meh), Always (ugh), Hook (barf), Amistad (eh) and Saving Private Ryan (an ending just as bad as War of the Worlds --- a film in which I love until we meet up with Tim Robbins' character, then I just hit stop, take the disc out and continue on with my day).

The Cow

And I'll be the one that totally disagrees on that one. I think that is a horrible film.

It seems like most people aren't even aware of directors credits. And that shouldn't be a big deal.

But yeah, the 'hype' the media plays to some does seem to influence the box office.

PopcornTreeCt

Reading the thread title I immediately thought of Avatar, not Shutter Island. Avatar was hyped for a long time because it was James Cameron's return after Titanic. Had Avatar been directed by Michael Bay, everyone would've been bashing it.

Totally agree on Clint Eastwood and Ron Howard. It's a shame to name both those guys together, because Ron Howard is unabashedly Oscar baiting with every film, while, unfortunate, Clint Eastwood has evolved into that type of director.

Normally, I would take this opportunity to bash Steven Spielberg. However, Spielberg deserves to have #1 movie of all-time. He IS the Hollywood blockbuster.

jmu878

I wouldn't think any director is intentionally trying to make "Oscar bait." I think that's just more of a compliment thrown at directors who have a knack for producing quality and award winning films. Just about every well known director has his share of gold and shit films, (Spielberg, Howard and Clint included) but some are just kind of expected to make solid films after gaining a reputation to do so. Its more so the studios that push these films as such because they know they have a high percentage chance of being recognized, as opposed to a no-name or lesser known talent.

Sessa17

Those are the exact movies I was referring to. If those trite and bromide Hollywood turds are great movies, then that is pretty sad. Wages of Fear is a "great" movie. Cinderella Man is a dime a dozen.

Solid Snake

To us maybe, but to the average moviegoer not so much. WE have seen that film a bunch of times in it's rightful era of which there were many films like that but...today to the average person it's a emotional drama of when times were tough etc etc.

Groucho

On this forum, it's Joss Whedon. Anything that has his name attached is defended to the death, regardless of quality.

The Cow

I disagree with that one. There are a LOT of people that think Buffy (and on..) is crap, but love Firefly (and don't see much of the opposite).

The love for him here is mostly from Firefly/Serenity.

Mr. Salty

The problem with that supposition, as well as the similar comments in the OP, is that "Avatar" as it exists could not have been directed by Michael Bay (just as a Cronenberg "Wolfman" would be nothing like the "Wolfman" we have in theaters now). It's an impossible argument to make.
And on this forum, anything with Whedon's name attached will draw childish criticism from you, whether you've seen it or not. Seriously, do a search for "Groucho" and "Whedon." If you don't like Whedon, cool, but you need to let go of your need to bash him. It's not like he ran over your puppy or something.

GreenVulture

You don't know that.

Dr. DVD

I'm not arguing with that point. I'm just saying that since Schindler's List his more serious fare is better than the popcorn fare material for which he used to be known.

Groucho

Thanks for proving my point!

PopcornTreeCt

Very true.

However, in my opinion, Avatar is on the same level of quality (certainly story wise, characters and dialogue) of a typical Michael Bay film. Because it was directed by James Cameron, because it was hyped so much, is part of the reason why it succeeded.

Solid Snake

Don't put Bay and Cameron as a comparison. Cameron is a much better director BUT Bay can shoot the fuck out of an explosion like nobody else.

Yeti4623

I love The Departed, but it probably wouldn't have even been nominated, if Scoresese, or some other top 5 director wasn't involved.

Mr. Salty

Really? At what point in my post did I say anything positive about Whedon or anything he's made? Other than my assumption that he's not a puppy killer, which I'm rethinking. No, my post was all about you.

planetaire

just random thoughts.

"We fucked him on The Aviator, we'd better give this guy an Oscar before he dies." I'm not a huge fan of The Departed, that had to be the thought pattern when the nominations rolled around for that picture.

Honestly, I didn't expect Avatar to do nearly as well as it has. I didn't realize Cameron had that kind of clout. He has to be the primary reason for that film's success.

Skyclad01

The Dark Knight (Ledger)

TheKing

I don't think its so much that she elevates the material as much as some people believe she has great taste in the parts she chooses to take. In other words, Streep wouldn't pick a bad script, so it must be good if she does it.