Skip to main content

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

Sat, Dec 14, 2019 8:43 PM

Live Poll: Most Overrated Movie of 2019

It is about to end this 2019, it has left us great movies, but since the cinema is subjective we probably found them overrated movies. What do you think was the most overrated movie of this 2019? As much as by the public as by the critics.

List: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls091486020/

Poll: https://www.imdb.com/poll/1WOa8Imh8PI/

Responses

2.3K Messages

 • 

66.2K Points

a year ago

FYC: Joker (2019)

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

a year ago

*Bump*

174 Messages

 • 

8.1K Points

a year ago

I haven't even seen most of these, so I can't judge. But I can say this: If you asked me which one of these would you rather NOT watch at all costs, I'd say John Wick.

207 Messages

 • 

9.6K Points

a year ago

FYC
The Two Popes

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

Added, I thought I had added it before.

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

a year ago

'John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum'  !

234 Messages

 • 

8K Points

10 months ago

Probably Joker or Avengers: Endgame. To be honest, I have not actually watched the latter, but ... can it really be THAT good ? I have heard people compare it to the Shawshank Redemption and the Usual Suspects, to that I say; no way.

I found Joker to be quite enjoyable, amazing performance by Phoenix who I think should win a long overdue Academy Award, but is it really better than masterpieces such as Once Upon a Time in the West, Apocalypse Now or Das Boot ?

A worthy contender would be Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood. I can maybe see where people are coming from, but to me, it's just an average Tarantino flick.

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

It's implied though the infamous Manson murders take place directly after Rick Dalton enters the Polanski residence. The whole idea of the film is it portrays the end of an era, that being the 60s, and before these talented actors and filmmakers were killed by the Manson cult they lived their lives to the fullest. I do think Tarantino can be gratuitous with his violence sometimes but in this film I found it justified. Let those psychos burn I say! 

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

It was total legitimate defense, some psychopaths were assalting his house, in fact Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Tarantino movie that offers less violence, all the violence that is downloaded in the end is catartic and a good way to reach the climax of the movie.

234 Messages

 • 

8K Points

I feel like the violence in OUATIH was rather unnecessary. It just comes out of nowhere and ends just as fast as it came. In movies such as Django Unchained or Inglorious Basterds, the violence was handled very well, it is infact almost a need I think. But in OUATIH, I felt that Tarantino just decided (as you said cinephile) to throw it in for fun in order to craft a climax. It doesn't work that way.

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

I can see where your argument is coming from but I thought the use of occasional violence towards the end suited the context of the narrative, that being the end of the 60s and the looming dread of the Manson murders throughout the movie. The only part in that scene that seemed overly gratuitous to me was when Cliff slammed that girl's head in around five times, that wasn't really necessary but I guess to Tarantino he wanted to show the consequences of threatening violence in real life opposed to using violence in movies to entertain.

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

In real life Sharon Tate was awfully slaughtered by the Manson "family", which got caught and arrested. That's all what happened in real life, except that Polanski got shattered with it, too.

The movie just gives people who fear crime or maybe have be victim of a crime a vision of how it rather should happened instead the reality, were they can project their own inner hatred into. That's ok by me. :D

But sorry, the storytelling (for a Tarantino movie ) was disappointing. Over the whole time I had the feeling that the story is not really connected to the "incident". The "incident" is just a fantasy of QT. I got the feeling that his movies are not the same since his former cutter died. The movies had somehow more magic.

3.1K Messages

 • 

80.8K Points

"This movie had somehow more magic."

I felt that after watching his new film (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood).

I mean how the hell did the main characters get out alive from Tarantino's film.

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

I have to disagree, I found it to be Tarantino's most refreshing movie since Pulp Fiction. Tarantino as of late likes to pay homage to older genres which he has been doing for most of his career, but this movie goes back to what made his first few films so engrossing, following characters rather than using traditional storytelling. I think what separates mediocre films and good films is whether you as an audience member take anything away from the moviegoing experience. Pulp Fiction you take away, that despite the ugliness of the world, there are still human beings trying to redeem themselves. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood you take away that despite the atrocities committed by deplorable people, life isn't meaningless despite nihilistic psychopaths telling you otherwise. Sure the ending is a fantasy, but that's what movies are all about, they are not real! It seems like this was one of Tarantino's most personal movies since he is always criticised for using violence in his films and asked whether there's any connection to real crime. The ending of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood felt like a direct assault on those idiotic critics and that's why people loved it including myself!

3.1K Messages

 • 

80.8K Points

I'm not saying it's a bad movie (Tarantino is one those few filmmakers who never disappoints) ... I still got the Tarantino vibe.

I'm only surprised by the fact that nobody (any of the main characters) dies in the end.

But it was tense tho. The real tense began when Cliff visits that ranch.

I loved it. I love Tarantino because of his way of story-telling and violence in his films, his lust for blood. ◉‿◉

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

Ok, sorry for my lack of language knowledge and vocabulary. Sometimes I have problems to express my self exactly enough. It is not the main fail, that it doesn't show what these awful freaks have done to Tate and Polansky. Who would really like to see her slaughtered by these sick *ssh*oles? Me surely not. That would be pure blood lust voyeurism. That's not the point. I wanted to explain another thing, which is the main point I don't like.

Tarantino spends so much time on the two main guys and tells all in all two stories. He tells the story of these guys. The manson "family" is connected too less over the playtime to the end. So we have a story around the two guys that bored me at some point. And then - surprise - party time! This is the first time I was moderate disappointed about a Tarantino movie. It's like: Now put the story away and start our themepark.

I had the feeling earlier, that he decreases. The last movie that got me complete was 'Inglorious Basterds', from there on I feel he decreased. He never again reached the quality of e.g. 'Kill Bill'. And now please someone tell me about connection to reality  in that movie. It's just a fantasy, not more. The whole movie is a violence theme park. With popping blood fountains, lots of limbs and gore. But it was all connected in a story with a red line through it. In his Hollywood movie, I miss this red line sometimes. I'm still disappointed.

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

Although that's exactly what I like about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood in that it's more like Pulp Fiction than Kill Bill. Kill Bill Vol 1. is good as stylised escapist entertainment especially that final action sequence and Uma Thurman is great, but Vol 2. was so heavy handed with the dialogue even for Tarantino standards, especially the comic book monologue from Bill which is so meaningless I don't even find it ironic. In Once Upon A Time In Hollywood I just really dug how Tarantino showed the day in the life of these two people in the movie, transporting you to another time and place rather than homaging another genre, like Kill Bill did for Martial Arts films, Django and Hateful Eight for Westerns, etc. I do like most of his filmography but it goes get tiring seeing him be retro homaging other genres.

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

I agree with cinephile, that 'Joker' was a way better film than 'One Upon a Time in Hollywood'. 'Joker' is a breathtaking fictional drama, which deal with the dilemma that might happen, when a government cuts medical help for people in need. I know that 'Joker' is very dramatised and not real. But it needed also to be connected to the Batman stories. For a fiction about a villain character of a super hero story, it felt nearly too realistic. I think it's a milestone in superhero (-villain) stories. I think the cut was perfect and the dirty, rotten, sad atmosphere of 'Joker' got me more that the atmosphere of 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'. And sorry - Joaquin Phoenix was so good in that role, that it hurt to see this guy suffer on screen. With false friends also around him (e.g. the gun dealer) A tragic character. A murder? yes! Prison? Absolutely! But the story also tells that this wouldn't have had to happen to this fictional character. Dramatic!

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

Both movies are amazing, I may like Joker more actually.

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

Ok, on one of the movies we have different povs, so what? :D
Greetz. :D

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

Yep your right, do you reckon this poll will get chosen? The underrated poll did extremely well but not sure if some of these picks are too controversial? 

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

I hope so, it's an extremely interesting subject, which I want to see how it turns out at the end. Controversial is ok, as long as the people behave and see just another  filmdude in each other. ;) If you ask me, if they put it online as a poll? I think so, because the users had a very interesting discussion and it's ovious that ruby already posted her words here down below:

(Quote:)
'Good poll and, although I think most of the films on the list are quite good, it's a good list of options for this particular poll.
(End of quote)

So for me it's obvious that it will become a poll, soon.

Champion

 • 

6.1K Messages

 • 

176.8K Points

10 months ago

'Good poll and, although I think most of the films on the list are quite good, it's a good list of options for this particular poll.

'Pain and Glory' is listed twice, though, so please remove one. It couldn't go live with a duplicate listing. I usually abhor unsolicited advice so I try not to give it but here's just a small tip that might make things easier: I usually put my lists in alphabetical order for a few reasons, one of which is that it's almost impossible to have a duplicate listing if the movies are in alphabetical order. 

Here are a few suggested edits to the intro: (Edits in bold below)

2019 has ended. It left us with some great movies but since the cinema is subjective we probably found overrated movies, too. What do you think was the most overrated movie of 2019? (Overrathed as much by the public as by the critics.)

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

Thanks for catch this, Rub :D

4.5K Messages

 • 

114.6K Points

I like some of his movies, they were interesting, but ...

I think 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' is truely overrated. I don't say it's crap. And I knew before that Tarantino always uses very graphic violence. Beside the overwhelming barefoot shots, it is a brand sign of Tarantino to use overwhelming graphic "shocking" violence.

There were several good scenes in the movie, which I liked, but for me it was somehow too longwinded. I would rather have seen the story he wrote, before it got stolen. :( The more Tarantino movies I watch, the more they seem equal. Build up a bad person and at the end destroy it as bad as you can. Violence theme park. ;D

Champion

 • 

4.4K Messages

 • 

134.5K Points

Joe, please make the edits ruby suggested.

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

Done :D

Champion

 • 

4.4K Messages

 • 

134.5K Points

Thanks. I noticed a typo: Overrated as much by the public as by the critics.

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

It's fixed, thanks for catch this, Jess.

1.8K Messages

 • 

49.1K Points

10 months ago

Terminator: Dark Fate was awful.

The only worse Terminator movie I have seen was Salvation.

FYC.

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.2K Points

Interesting. I haven't seen Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) yet, but I prefer Terminator: Salvation (2019) and/or Terminator: Genisys (2015) any time over original cashgrab that is Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

I agree, Terminator Salvation I can tolerate the most because at least that didn't tarnish the legacy of the first two movies. Terminator Genisys I found bad however I find it slightly less painful than the slapstick goofiness of Terminator 3...

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.2K Points

James The Movie GuyTerminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) is so tonally all over the place that it hurts to see movie's rather bold scriptwriting choices at times just being buried under execution, which just appears as shallow. It might also be the very definition of overproduced: there's so much put into each scene with little to no relevance, that audience might actually forget the overall plot's progression.

There were quite a few movies from 2003-2004 with rather similar problems, but those based on pre-existing franchises hurt the most. Perhaps due to them being easier to compare and contrast with imeediate predecessors.   

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

I agree there were plenty of bad movies from that era that tried to be cool with their low brow humour, especially kids films and sequels as you mentioned. There's a plethora of bad movies nowadays, however I would honestly rather watch Hellboy or Men in Black International, two of the most cash grab movies I saw last year, than Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines... 

1.8K Messages

 • 

49.1K Points

I actually thought Rise of the Machines was the third best Terminator movie to date, with Judgement Day (obviously) as #1 and Genesys as #2.

Perhaps it has something to do with my age... people tend to be most fond of stuff they watched in their late teens or early 20s.

I maintain that Salvation was AWFUL. It was a mish mash of bullsh** with no coherent storyline.

And Christian Bale and Sam Worthington are two of the most overrated actors ever.

Bale relies on his supporting cast (eg. Jackman, Johannsen, Caine) in "The Prestige" and (Neesen, Murphy, Caine, Freeman, Oldman, Ledger, Eckhart, Hardy, Hathaway, Gordon-Levitt, etc.) in The Dark Knight Trilogy. The guy has like literally 3 facial expressions.

What is Worthington most famous for? AVATAR? Give me a break. What unoriginal cr**. The Navi were basically Native Americans but blue instead of red, and the humans were white folks. The only saving grace of that film was its admittedly superb action sequences and CGI. And don't even get me started on Cameron's other multi-Oscar winning pseudo-masterpiece. Yeah , there was enough space on the piece of wood for both of them.

If Bale is the most overrated actor ever, Cameron is the most overrated director.

</end rant>

Edit: PS Nikolay... I have always appreciated, in all my various incarnations, the fact that you "Like" contributions even when you do not necessarily agree with them :)

4.4K Messages

 • 

123.7K Points

I think Genysis is the best Terminator movie to date.

1.8K Messages

 • 

49.1K Points

Marry me.

4.4K Messages

 • 

123.7K Points

LOL!  
The first one is fun because it's the original, y'know, from the 80s.  Everybody was young and there's 80s music and nice cars.  :D  
But as far as a good story and enjoyable action scenes, I prefer Genisys.  Haven't seen Dark Fate, but something tells me I wouldn't like it, lol!

BTW, nice to hear someone else isn't a huge fan of Avatar. :)

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

"If Bale is the most overrated actor ever, Cameron is the most overrated director."

I think Bale is a great actor, Cameron if I think he is one of the most overrated filmmakers by both the public and the critics.

415 Messages

 • 

17.9K Points

Christian Bale is phenomenal in American Psycho and The Machinist! I even like him as Batman/Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. By The Dark Knight Rises though I felt he was worse in the role with his mumbling throat cancer voice Batman and also it didn't help he was working with a boring script...

Champion

 • 

4.4K Messages

 • 

134.5K Points

10 months ago

4.4K Messages

 • 

123.7K Points

Congrats!

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

Thanks :D

1 Message

 • 

102 Points

10 months ago

I've got to choose between Us and Joker.

Everyone thinks Us opens up after its intro and evolves everything set up into some magical mush of greatness, but I think the opening promises something great and quite a few of the "twists" are like taken straight out of a cheap 1970 horror movie.

Joker has some nice performance, but the film is literally being carried by Phoenix. The way he portrays things is great, but not the plot itself. It comes along as a very dry documentary with a logical sequence of things happening and then, in the end, the movie is like: this is how a villain could be born these days... and I'm like: no shit. It's said to be complex and so much more than your average superhero film, but I can't say it's any less by the numbers than e.g. the last Thor movie.

I would never label either of these movies "bad", but both cap at maybe 7/10 for me. I'll still vote for Joker, as Us gave me an interesting world to dive into and was overall, in some ways, very creative. Joker on the other hand is just trivia thrown at you with some acting power and budget to back it up.
The few pieces in this movie one might consider creative and thought enforcing (SPOILER___________ you know, the hallucinations n' stuff__________) are, in my honest opinion, even worse than the trivia itself. You could make an argument that these scenes and resulting interpretations gonna help you understand Arthur even better, but I really think they are just there because hey, everything being a dream is so cool and I've never seen it in any other movie before. It reuses too many elements and implements too many things I'm not even entirely sure why they're there. Hell, I think the entire thing would probably be better if it was not about the Joker but really some random guy. It'd likely make less money because of course it would, but then the outstandingly pointless scenes about Bruce wouldn't be there, and you could actually tell a story which surprises you at some point, instead of a movie where you know many things in advance anyway.

844 Messages

 • 

34.3K Points

Yes, what bothered me most about Joker, was that this is not the Joker we know, it can't even be Joker, I know that Todd Phillips said he was trying to do something unique but he made a Joker who can't face Batman or even more remote reality, Arthur is built as a character with mental problems and even there, does Arthur have the skills to face Batman? Arthur is a weak character that only has flaws, I do not see him putting Batman in a dead-end situation like the Joker of Heath Ledger, or conquering the soul of Gothic, this configuration of the character does not have much future how villain as I see it.

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

227.2K Points

joe siegel, allow me to disagree slightly on this one. Arthur is very much skilled, to a point that he seems to be nearly unaware that he is. Not only years upon years of abuse shaped him into someone who can shrug off being hit by a car (ironic coming from me: did exactly that once, can at least confirm it's not that easy of a task) and most forms of physical damage, when he's not on his meds, he's alarmingly smart in addition of being psychotic and... talented

It is a clear point in the movie: he holds on to remnants of his mental health, despite meds not only restricting his illness, but also his personality. He's let loose through the course of the movie and also stops holding on to his mental health. Immediately his mind reshapes to its primal damaged form and allows him to sneak into guarded building with ease, improvise weapons on spot, manipulate a situation in the crowd making a clear getaway from police for oneself etc. He pretty much allows to arrest himself to prove a point: he surrenders the gun which makes his murders easily connected a proven to simply and elegantly say to the crowds that he's the real deal. All that while the subway scene easily demonstrates that he treats crowd of followers as disposable at worst and audience at best which is... A very Joker moment. 

It, of course, depends on this universe's version of Batman, but I have a feeling this version of Joker is still a very real threat, especially if it's also going to evolve in the few years. Despite being thirty-something closing in on forties, Arthur is a very quick leaner, as well.