OldBoy

so, it's late here, on east coast, 2:51am. I have PBS (ch. 13) on and they are showing Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961). and i just don't see what the fuss is about. i see George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn. they seem good, but just can't get into the movie or characters. the story is just not striking me. i'm a little confused why it gets the accolades it does. i'm not saying it's not a well-made movie, just don't see the greatness in the film...

so are there any older movies pre-1979 you think are overrated?

Franchot

I don't think it's a great movie, but it was taken from a very well-regarded novelette and turned into something that does not measure up to that novelette. Some of the casting in the movie reeks.

Hazel Motes

Brack

Pre-1979 are “old” now? *sigh* I guess since it’s 2018 you can make that case, but there are plenty of movies made before them that work as “modern” films.

A lot of older movies, even “classics”, are probably not resonating with folks unless they saw the movie when it first came out or were relatively young. That’s not to say that’s every movie, but for the two listed films so far, I think that’s just the reality.

There’s a lot to like about Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Audrey Hepburn makes the movie, and Mickey Rooney was horrible racial stereotype that almost ruins it. Take him out of the movie and it would be much better.

Just listing Gone With the Wind would be like me just listing Casablanca. Go on...get it out.

Is that all we’re doing in this thread? Listing? Pass.

Mabuse

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a cult film. And I don’t mean like a John Waters flick or Rocky Horror. The film is a cult object to certain people. It has almost nothing to do with the film itself. Almost everything needed to create the cult can be seen in the film before the credits are even over. Beautiful Audrey Hepburn; sultry, elegant, independent. Standing on that sidewalk, in real New York (not some back lot). That image of beauty, grace, and independence amidst the big city was something that inspired a great many young ladies.

At this point it’s a cliche joke about how all the undergrad girls dorms are plastered with the poster, but none of them have seen the movie. But there’s some truth to it. Many girls may have actually watched the movie, but they don’t have the Moon River vinyl on display and they don’t pine to be the savior of Sally Tomatoes. They’re not interested in any of that stuff. For them there are a few fleeting moments where the film becomes their cult idol of what they all want; to look great in a black dress, to have a couch made out of a vintage bathtub, and to have no one but a cat to come home to. They conveniently ignore what the film is really about, that this independence came at a price. The costume and prop people really deserve more credit than Blake Edwards or Truman Capote.

Same thing applies for boys college dorms and Scarface. Never mind the horrible person that Tony Montana is, and the terrible fate that he attains, he looks cool in a suit with a gun in his hand.

Eraserhead is a cult “film”, meaning people go watch it again and again. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a cult “object”. People want to posses the essence of the Hepburn character. It’s not about the film. The film is irrelevant.

Ash Ketchum

I go through periods where I re-watch certain classics and they generally hold up as great films with each viewing, e.g. CITIZEN KANE, CASABLANCA, GRAPES OF WRATH, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, SUNSET BOULEVARD, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, ON THE WATERFRONT, REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, etc.

The ones I didn't like to begin with, e.g. Lubitsch's THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER (1939), don't get better with repeat viewings. Lubitsch in general is much less appealing or amusing to me in middle age. I'm not that big a fan of Michael Powell and I keep wanting to re-watch his films in their restored editions to see if they've improved over time, but I keep hesitating. I run hot and cold on David Lean, whom I admire a great deal, but is not someone I keep going back to. I won't say they're overrated because their partisans are truly and deeply enthusiastic about them, and their films did merit praise at one time or another, so I guess it's more a matter of taste. Certain kinds of filmmaking appeal less and less to me as I get older, whereas filmmakers who had a blunt cinematic approach and sought to tell realistic stories of believable characters with a hard-hitting style never lose relevance to me. The films I listed in my first paragraph are as fresh to me now as they were when I first saw them.

Timber

I've tried to watch Some Like it Hot several times and I don't even smile. It's apperently one of the best comedies of all times and...Ugh.

Mabuse

Agreed. It isn't even top 5 Billy Wilder.

dex14

I'd agree with that. Easily.

ntnon

I don't understand it either. But then I was very confused by Charade, too, until I watched it a second (third?) time and enjoyed it considerably... maybe BaT needs a couple of viewings..?

ntnon

Even if that were universally acknowledged (and personally I thoroughly enjoy it), not being a top 5 Wilder film could still easily put it in a top ten list of "films"..!

inri222

inri222

I agree, and I'll add

ntnon

Another that grew on me - underwhelmed the first time, but now it's one of my favourite films.

Mabuse

It’s a Wonderful Life has major flaws in its script, and attempts were made in the editing to try and fix them, but they weren’t entirely successful. The film really drags on a first viewing. It is also heavily front loaded with bad scenes. There’s like 5 bad scenes in the first 15 minutes. All the gold of the film is buried deep in the second hour.

But when it works it really works. “George Bailey stops the run on the bank” is maybe the most moving thing in all of American cinema.

But maybe it’s dated too. Full appreciation of the film is dependent upon understanding what America had just gone through. How the director and star had both served during the war.

Troy Stiffler

It's all about the rhythm. You certainly need to become accustomed to the different rhythm of old movies.

To me, you have the beginning of film to 1965. These films are the most challenging to adjust to.

Then you have 1965 to 1980. Early blockbusters, creatively different cinematic technique.

1980 to 2005 settled on techniques that began in the 70's. They still maintain the "slow burn".

And 2005 to now. Michael Bay. Hyper information delivery. You can't keep people's mind calm for less than a few moments. There's also an unprecedented amount of film and TV out there. So much so, that we started calling it "content".

GoldenJCJ

I blame the 50 years of heist/con game movies since it was made and I guess I was expecting an Ocean’s 11 type movie but I remember being severely underwhelmed when I saw The Sting for the first time. I remember thinking “that’s it?” When the credits rolled.

It’s a perfectly fine film, I guess. I just don’t think it holds up under today’s expectations.

inri222

Not a fan of The Sting or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Give me The Hustler or The Verdict anytime.

GoldenJCJ

^ I really like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid but I absolutely hate the “raindrops keep falling on my head” scene. Completely out of place in a Western and screeches the movie to a halt.

Ash Ketchum

BUTCH CASSIDY came out the same summer as TRUE GRIT, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST and THE WILD BUNCH. I saw all four films in theaters that year (1969), but the latter two are the ones I've revisited the most, going back to them over and over over the decades, including several theatrical revivals. Even back then, BUTCH CASSIDY was the lightest-weight of the four.

Hazel Motes

lightest weight, but also the most fun. Also, in my opinion, the best ending of the 4 you listed.

GatorDeb

The Big Lebowski. I made it all the way through the bowling scene and I just couldn't stand the stupidity any longer.

Boondock Saints. Saw it because of Daryl and watched it all the way through but don't get the OMG.

rw2516

I don't see what age of a film or personal likes have to do with whether a film is overrated or not. I can't stand 2001 but I don't think it's overrated.

This thread reads like "Shakespeare and Beethoven are overrated because they're too old and I can't understand what people see it them."

If a movie is overrated it never deserved it's reputation.

The question should be: What are some movies that were popular and highly regarded when released, remain popular and highly regarded, but should never have been popular or highly regarded in the first place because they were not actually as good as received because their reputation derives from social reasons independent of the quality of the film?

GatorDeb

That won't fit in the title space

Ash Ketchum

tl/dr, lol.