This post is part of a conversation

Geeze I just don’t know.

I think it’s way to simplistic to arbitrarily divide all films into those exhibiting ‘technical achievement’ and those that don’t being regarded flippantly as ‘cinematic wallpaper’. I mean it’s not that simple and the position kinda does away wholesale with what most films at some level strive to achieve.

A connection with their audience/viewers through an emotional and intellectual engagement - in that profound way that films can really do so very well. A good film takes its audience on a journey. Films are feature rich, drawing on our sense of collective legends and myths within a highly technical medium. Sharing stories around the proverbial campfire, of exploring what being human is all about. A good film brings an audience joy, or perhaps pain, it excites, it could scare, it draws on your curiosity, it may play to your inner most desires, but above all film draws an emotional reaction.

To say that film reviewers such as Leonard Maltin and his ilk only fawn over films exhibiting technical achievements is just not correct. A good film or a ‘bad’ film is not assessed simply by its technical achievements to the exclusion of all else. They just don’t do that. Read his/their reviews. That’s a task reserved for the Oscar propellerheads within the ‘science’ part of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and film schools.

Yes, reviewers may and often do touch upon the technical attributes of a film – but this is usually well after the reviewer has touched on a film’s other attributes. Foremost the story. The characters that populate the story, and then the reviewer moves down their reviewer’s to do list, soundtrack (check), editing (checking), cinematography (check). Of course some films that are more ‘event’ driven than ‘character’ driven may encourage a reviewer to place a high priority on assessing a film’s technical achievements. Ironically this is usually associated with the ‘blockbuster’.

To declare that ‘blockbusters’ are rarely considered for their technical achievements is rubbish. ‘Blockbusters’ are event films that rely heavily on their spectacle to draw an audience’s attention and the more spectacular the film strives to deliver, the more accent seems to be placed on the technical achievements/attributes of the film (kinda like a sliding scale - the more grand in size the bigger the effects). It’s part of the cinematic experience they are offering and what distinguishes them from the straight to dvd/video market and ‘regular’ film fare. Think films such as the weather thriller “The Day After Tomorrow”, the ape goes berserk in “King Kong” and America saves the world in “Independence Day”.

All exhibited sensational technical achievements in terms of special effects and grand scale and all were marketed aggressively as a ‘blockbuster’ including the extensive merchandise support thrown in. Let’s face it, it’s not cheap all those technical achievements!
Audiences with bums responded accordingly.

The largely CGI driven ‘Lord of the Rings” franchise were not only ‘blockbusters’ in every sense of the definition but featured technical achievements galore, outstanding achievements, and could never be considered by any reasonable lover of film to be just ‘cinematic wallpaper’. It engaged all the senses and left no prisoners. Overhyped and for good reason.

And bringing the concept of ‘art’ into the mix is also a very complex notion.

Yes motion pictures are a ‘modern’ art form but who is the artist – the director? The writer? The star the film is centered around? The person who shot it? Although all art forms have a commercial dimension to them and all share a long history of industry commissioning art - but surely the industrialization of the motion picture form is so very pervasive that a sense of ‘art’ is really really difficult to assess or firmly determine. Suffice to say it is probably easier to consider motion pictures, films, as “popular entertainment” and certainly within the context of terms such as being either ‘overrated’ or ‘overhyped’, or both.

For me, being overrated is a critical consideration (influenced by personal preferences) whereas overhyped can be better assessed within much stronger commercial overtones. And is it really the film that is overrated and or overhyped, or the director or even star attached that is. Probably a bit of both. Depends which individual the film is mostly associated with. Is it a Speilberg film or a Cruise film… depends which will get more bums on those seats and wearing, reading, watching, and eating the film tie-in products.

A number of directors were raised in the previous posts as being either overrated or overhyped. Kubrick, Allen, and Tarantino.

Personally I think all three have been overrated and overhyped. But I think this has more to do with each of the indivudals being recognised as such powerful and effective storytellers rather than indivudal projects as such. They are all storytellers, the artisans if you like, struggling successfully and not so successfully within a brutal and unforgiving commercial environment. Luck, talent, both. They need the hype so they can be rated but ultimately it’s the viewer that makes the final decision on their efforts - and the following is mine.

Stanley Kubrick is kinda interesting in that he maintained through his career that he would ‘create’ one film per genre. And he pretty much did.

The thing is with Kubrick is that more than most other filmmakers, his work really does need to be assessed within the context of the period of time they were created. They don’t really carry well over time. Two films that are a real standout but are terribly dated are Peter Sellers tour de force in “Dr Strangelove”and the disturbingly now familiar world of a “A Clockwork Orange”. Perhaps even ‘The Shining’ could be considered here if for no other reason than serving as a great platform for Jack Nicholson’s ‘mugging’ style of acting. To be frank his other films do not really make the mark for me and are firmly overrated - films such as “2001: A Space Odyssey” and the posthumous “Eyes Wide Shut”.

As limited as Kubrik’s film catalogue is, Woody Allen is one of the most prodigious filmmakers around. He makes film after film, some are diamonds and some are charcoal. He has had some wonderful moments with highly rated films such as ‘Annie Hall’ and ‘Manhattan’, and under-hyped films such as the delightful ‘Hannah and Her sisters” and quirky “The Purple Rose of Cairo”. And then you have the Woody Allen films that are really hard work and are not so great including, well pretty much everything from ‘Radio Days” in 1987 onwards. Perhaps the odd exception like “Broadway Danny Rose” & “Small Time Crooks”.

Films such as the ultra serious and self-indulgent “Interiors” , “Zelig”, the misguided “Celebrity”, the just not terribly entertaining “Mighty Aphrodite” were for me personally just way too painful and left me with wanting to self harm myself for having sat through them to the bitter end. And then there is “Matchpoint”. Woody has at last left his comfortable New York environment and is back to his storytelling best. Not nearly enough hype and deservedly rated. What a great film even if it is distrubing at the end.

I am happy to go on the record as saying that Quentin Tarantino is a popculture genius and contemporary filmmaking phenomenon.
His first two films ‘Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction” really declared his mastery of bringing indie sensibilities to the mainstream and audiences rewarded him for it. His ear for engaging dialogue is second to none and his characters are inspired. In fact “True Romance’ which he neither directed nor starred, in is one of the best examples of great cinema dialogue in play.

Since then of course he has been industrialized to the point that Tarantino is a ‘blockbuster’ brand in his own right. Check the merchandise out! He has developed his own brand in his name and his career has struggled as he can’t quite decide if he’s an actor (he certainly isn’t) or a producer, writer, or director, or a celebrity. Probably the latter if we were to be honest about it. His recent outings with the two parter “Kill Bill” was stylistically brilliant in his distinct culturally reflective manner. It did suggest to me however that the studio/distributors (the money) could serve him better and in turn his fans by firmly saying ‘no’ a little more. Less sometimes is more. The two ‘Bills’ and “Jackie Brown” were overhyped and possibly overrated but his future projects in the works show great future promise.

But what about other film directors that have been accused of being overrated or overhyped.

Well Brian de Palma in spite of his fabulous reinvention of “Scarface” is overrated and I’m sure much to his disappointment is not overhyped.

Other directors that have been overhyped but could not be accused of being overrated include the recently deceased Robert Altman (standouts are of course Nashville and his Hollywood take with The Player), Michael Mann (richly shot films include Heat, Ali, The Insider as well as some iconic TV work with “Miami Vice”), and the grand-pappy of them all - Steven Spielberg.

Like Woody Allen, Spielberg enjoys a considerable back catalogue of films works to draw upon that have all been overhyped but rarely overrated. Key film outings that were deservedly rated include “Munich”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List”, “Jurassic Park”, “E.T.” and the Indiana Jones franchise.

The Indiana Jones franchise shared it’s parentage with one director who was and is certainly overhyped and his directorial efforts are overrated despite creating one of the most loved, commercially successful, and technically innovative screen legends – George Lucas and his “Star Wars” franchise. Great scifi morality films (particularly the first three shot) but damn he is one hell of a crappy director.

Other films that I would consider overrated AND overhyped include James Cameron’s mega hit Titanic, the dreadfully boring “A Passage to India” and the kill me now “The English Patient”. Films that I always think I should really like ( a perverse form of overhyping to myself) but after each viewing confirm that they in fact suck the big one are Russell Crowe’s seafaring flick “Master and Commander” and Warren Beatty’s acclaimed directorial and starring effort in “Reds”.

Other efforts worthy of nomination for being overrated include “Thomas Crown Affair” (Steve McQueen AND Pierce Brosnan versions), George Miller’s “Lorenzo’s Oil”, ‘The Prince of Tides” from Ms Streisand, and pretty much every painful movie directed by the reclusive Terrence Malick. May he stay ‘clusive.

Strangely, a film that I really do like in spite of it’s pacing flaws is the 1989 film “The Mission”. It stars Robert De Niro as a slave trader turned priest. “You looking at me my son?” Really like that film, good morality tale that reaches out and engages you, beautiful shot, and a wonderful soundtrack from the master cinematic composer Ennio Morricone. Just on that – I also really rated “Taxi Driver” with de Niro appearing not as a priest.

In regards to films serving as star vehicles, it was asked - has Kevin Costner EVER done anything that was even rated, let alone overrated?

Of course he has.

“The Bodyguard”, “Waterworld”, “The Postman” were all overrated and overhyped. They all shared common attributes in terms of poor scripting (poorly told story is a poor film) and plain technically ordinary execution. You could argue however that the one saving grace, as it were, for ‘The Bodyguard’ was a killer Whitney Houston theme song attached to it. And “Waterworld” – well it inspired some really cool theme park attractions around the globe. And “The Postman”…. Well the book it was based on was ok and certainly much better than the film. Not much of a tag to feature on it’s front cover for the film tie-in edition but there you have it.

In terms of Costner being ‘even rated’ – well “Dances with Wolves” was nominated for 12 awards and deservedly won 7. He also starred in the critically and commercial acclaimed “JFK” courtesy of Oliver Stone.

Now Oliver Stone has done some fabulous films that have been overhyped but appropriately rated!

But my two favourite Costner films that I personally rate are the lovely ensemble piece “Bull Durham” with Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, and the well paced and clever political thriller “No Way Out” opposite Gene Hackman. Those IT guys can do anything with a bit of time and a room full of servers run by a social misfit!

Gene Hackman. How good is he. He’s like John Cusak. Never a bad film effort from either of these two guys in my humble opinion. In fact – I think Leonard Matlin and his reviewing bretheren should all assess films as either an A class Hackman-Cusak effort or if it really sucks - a Whoopie Goldberg-Martin Short effort.