Underrated Movies

dissention · #1 03-29-2005, 12:53 AM

I was talking about this with one of my friends this evening and thought it might make an interesting thread. Which movies have you seen that were dismissed as crap, but you actually found to be quite brilliant? When we were talking, the two movies that came to my mind first were Spielberg's "Artificial Intelligence" and Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut".

I didn't bother with A.I. when it was in theaters because I don't have much of a tolerance for Spielberg (see one of his movies and you've seen them all, except that they get progressively duller and less interesting as the years wear on), and while I found the last half hour to be heinous and unwatchable, the rest of it was quite good. He couldn't keep his emotional masturbation in check, but that's to be expected. The "heart" that every hack critic finds at the center of it (while simultaneously bashing it) is nothing of the sort, it's incredibly fake and hollow as only Spielberg can do because he's the ultimate anti-intellectual, but the scenes involving David and the wide-eyed look of shock, terror, and excitement on his face as he wanders throughout the movie make it worth watching. The fact that Speilberg doesn't have the mental capacity to get a good grasp on the material was what I found most interesting, because he glossed over the perverse nature of it so much that you couldn't help but notice how twisted the proceedings were. It was as if he didn't quite understand the movie or what he was doing, so you were actually viewing it from a child's point of view. It worked magnificently, albeit unintentionally, until the last act.

I find Kubrick maddening. Watching his movies is like being hog tied and then being repeatedly bashed in the skull with a brick. He's either too naive in the treatment of his themes, or he's too cynical and downright vicious to the point where you find yourself watching the work of a man who believes his audiences are masochists. But "Eyes Wide Shut" was fantastic. I think I was the only person to walk out of the theater satisfied.

I could go on and on about it, but I won't. Probably his best movie (which, considering how I can't stand him, isn't exactly saying much, but it was still fantastic).

CreepingDeath · #2 03-29-2005, 01:12 AM

A few off the top of my head (I'm not sure how 'underrated' these are)

The Human Stain
College
The Awful Truth
Cape Fear
Badlands
Before Night Falls

I'll think of more I'm sure......

dissention · #3 03-29-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CreepingDeath

The Human Stain

Good one.

Hopkins was woefully miscast, but I still found it great. It must have been maddening to try to adapt the masterpiece that is the book, so they get kudos for pulling it off as well as they did. The scenes in bed with Kidman are magic.

CreepingDeath · #4 03-29-2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Good one.

Hopkins was woefully miscast, but I still found it great. It must have been maddening to try to adapt the masterpiece that is the book, so they get kudos for pulling it off as well as they did. The scenes in bed with Kidman are magic.

Yeah, Hopkins was definitely miscast, but I love him so I overlooked it.

Plus, I love Nicole Kidman in about anything she's in. I'll be skipping 'Bewitched' though.

DownOnRodeo · #5 03-29-2005, 02:53 AM

Dissention, I'm with you on AI - except I give Speilberg any and all kudos for it. First, like you, I don'twant to imagine how retarded and unwatchable Kubrick would have made it by himself. It owes a lot to Hayley Joel Osmont's awesome acting - and I think that can also be attributed to Speilberg being such a good director of children.

My choice would be Being There, but I'd say that it is unknown as opposed to underrated. Anyone who's actually seen it applauds it!

dissention · #6 03-29-2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownOnRodeo

Dissention, I'm with you on AI - except I give Speilberg any and all kudos for it. First, like you, I don'twant to imagine how retarded and unwatchable Kubrick would have made it by himself. It owes a lot to Hayley Joel Osmont's awesome acting - and I think that can also be attributed to Speilberg being such a good director of children.

Eh, Spielberg will never get my praises.

He's too showy, he doesn't let the audience think about anything; everything is up front, in your face, and pushed to such extremes with his heavy hand that it makes me want to ralph. I think we got a rather diluted version of A.I. because he committed the ultimate sin and not only rewrote Kubrick's original screenplay, but he took unfilmed scenes from Close Encounters and used them for the ending. I still think A.I. is ten times better than most people give it credit for, but as much as I can't stand Kubrick, he wouldn't have fecked it up so badly by inserting maudlin scene after maudlin scene, IMO.

dissention · #7 03-29-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CreepingDeath

Yeah, Hopkins was definitely miscast, but I love him so I overlooked it.

Plus, I love Nicole Kidman in about anything she's in. I'll be skipping 'Bewitched' though.

I'm skipping Bewitched simply because of Will Ferrell.

Gawd, he's annoying. Kidman is one of my favorites, but I can't brave two hours of Ferrell for her.

I think The Interpreter looks like a good popcorn flick, though. Can't wait to see that one, even though *shudder* Sydney Pollack directed it.

cliffdweller · #8 03-29-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Good one.

Hopkins was woefully miscast

So was Nicole Kidman! After reading the book you realize how miscast she was. It's like the director slapped some brown dye on her in an attempt to "ugly" her up. There is no uglying up Nicole Kidman no matter how hard you try! And her "tough" act did not convince me. Her vulnerability showed through too many times and the character was not supposed to be that vulnerable, at least not from the book's perspective. The director took a few too many liberties with the material. Sorry! I read the book first!

dissention · #9 03-29-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

So was Nicole Kidman! After reading the book you realize how miscast she was. It's like the director slapped some brown dye on her in an attempt to "ugly" her up. There is no uglying up Nicole Kidman no matter how hard you try! And her "tough" act did not convince me. Her vulnerability showed through too many times and the character was not supposed to be that vulnerable, at least not from the book's perspective. The director took a few too many liberties with the material. Sorry! I read the book first!

I *loved* her in The Human Stain, dear. The book is one of my favorites (it is, truly, the great American novel) and I knew going in that they'd never be able to do it justice on film, but I thought she was spellbinding. That scene between her and Hopkins right before Ed Harris showed up outside her house is pure movie magic; I couldn't take my eyes off her. I liked her interpretation of Faunia, however different it may have been from the book; I certianly bought her as white trash.

Hopkins, on the other hand, seemed to be going through the motions and he simply was not believable in the least. There was nothing to that performance.

cliffdweller · #10 03-30-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

That scene between her and Hopkins right before Ed Harris showed up outside her house is pure movie magic;

I thought Ed Harris was the best thing about that movie. Nicole was good don't get me wrong, I just think she was wrong for the role. Good effort on her part though. I think she's a great actress

DownOnRodeo · #11 03-29-2005, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CreepingDeath

Cape Fear

Do you mean the remake by Scorcese with DeNiro and whatshisname? It is great.

dissention · #13 03-29-2005, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

There's an Australian film called Lantana which did well here but I don't think did anything elsewhere. I doubt you'd have heard of it.

Au contraire, Lantana is one of my favorites. Some of the best acting I've ever seen is in that movie, they hit the jackpot with that cast. LaPaglia, Armstrong, and Hershey were especially fantastic. They ****ed up pretty badly when they marketed it as a cop thriller here, though, because it's anything but. I found it pretty disarming from the start because you weren't watching movie stars like you are when you watch most American movies, you were watching actors who looked and acted like real people, which made it all the more affecting. And you have to love the use of the title.

amber · #15 03-29-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lux

A film I thought was particularly underrated was The Ice Storm. American Beauty was a poor man's/shallow person's unoriginal version of The Ice Storm. There's brilliance in so many elements of it but I couldn't be arsed boring people with it.

You could bore me with it - I adore that movie (Ice Storm) and thought the same about American Beauty (although I enjoyed it). I didn't know Ice Storm was underrated, though.