M-Wolverine

October 23rd, 2013 at 12:32 PM ^

Anchorman could work because they can certainly advance his career to another level, and movie it to another time frame to parody. Hangover 2 doesn't work because the idea that these same guys have a once in a lifetime thing happen to them again...well, yeah, it's because the first one made a lot of money.

1464

October 23rd, 2013 at 1:22 PM ^

Avatar is CGI Dances With Wolves.  It was okay bordering on good, but not what it was hyped to be.  The Hangover had its moments, but still did not distinguish itself from other R rated comedies.  Neither was downright bad, but not worthy of its praise.

I'll flip it a bit, what acclaimed movies have lived up to their billing?

Saving Private Ryan is the only one that stands out to me right now.

gbdub

October 23rd, 2013 at 2:22 PM ^

I disagree about The Hangover. That was truly hilarious, and I say that as someone who was convinced it would be terrible before I watched it. But whatever, to each their own.

The thing with Avatar is that I would also but it in the "overhyped" rather than "overrated" category. I don't really know anybody for whom Avatar is their favorite film. It got a lot of positive reviews, but even those were mostly "This is a tremendous visual spectacle and technical achievement, but the story is derivative and lame". Which seems to be the prevailing opinion of most people I know, including myself (It is still the only film I thought was honestly improved by 3D).

Anchorman, on the other hand, is flat out worshipped as a paragon of comedy and quoted endlessly by males 25-35 or so. It absolutelty is a "favorite movie" for many. I found it funny, but it's no Blazing Saddles, or even a Caddyshack. It's certainly not something I can watch and rewatch endlessly. Then again my favorite recent comedy is Hot Fuzz, so to some degree Will Farrell (at least in feature length mode) is not really my cup of tea. I do like Talladega Nights more than I should though, so it could be that I'm just weird.

M-Wolverine

October 23rd, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^

Just because it doesn't live up to the four corners of comedy that is Blazing Saddles, Caddyshack, Airplane, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail....

Avatar would have been Independance Day or any number of fun but stupid sci fi movies if it wasn't for 3D. Actually filmed in 3D, not converted, and by a filmmaker who actually knew how to use it. But I can't imagine the point of watching it at home. Even if you have a 3D tv it's not the same quality of 3D.

gbdub

October 23rd, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^

I have no issue with people who find Anchorman good for a laugh on a lazy Sunday with nothing else on the TV. I wouldn't call it "great" but I can see it being enjoyable.

It's just that many people seem to think it does belong in the same breath, or even beyond, the 4 you mentioned, and quote the damn thing endlessly as if merely repeating "Dorothy Mantooth is a Saint" is an adequate replacement for a sense of humor...

That may be overly harsh, but anyway my point is I just don't seem to get Anchorman on the level that a lot of people apparently do. I don't see how it rates a sequel, but maybe I'll be surprised.

pinkfloyd2000

October 23rd, 2013 at 12:29 PM ^

The critics all hated it (surprise!), so...when you say "overrated," I guess you mean by the masses, right...and if that's the case, yeah, I agree.

And I LOVE stupid movies, and even ones with Will Ferell in them. I enjoyed Talladega Nights and Blades of Glory probably way more than I should have...but I just did NOT find Anchorman all that funny. A chuckle here and there, but that's about it.

But if you want to see a truly, truly bad WF movie, check out Casa de mi Padre. I don't care if it was done as a parody, tongue-in-cheek, whatever...it was almost completely unwatchable.

I Have A Gnarly Face

October 23rd, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^

I truly hate almost every movie critic. They tend to like the movies that most people in the world have no interest in and hate the movies that kill it at the box office. Obviously there are several exceptions, but I mean in general. I never take the opinions of movie critics seriously. If they hate a movie that looks interesting to me, then that is almost always a good thing for me because that means I'll like it.

pinkfloyd2000

October 23rd, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^

The ones who are able to watch and write intelligently about films. Not the schmucks like Leonard Maltin or Gene Shallot or those kinds of critics.

Roger Ebert, no longer with us, was one of good ones. With some exceptions, of course.

 

I Have A Gnarly Face

October 23rd, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^

I don't know the names of any, but usually the ones who vote for the Academy awards are the ones I just don't understand. They're the ones who love the movies that most people in the world never heard of or don't want to see. I call them the "artsy farsty losers."

Everyone Murders

October 23rd, 2013 at 6:18 PM ^

non sequitor - noun

def. 1 - an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically: a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent 

def 2  - a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said 

(Provided in a state of serene confusion.)

Bronson

October 23rd, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^

I don't believe that you figuratively thinking they are losers makes it any better there, champ...

I guess my point is:  a large majority of these artsy fartsy critics you speak of, they have been steeped in years of film viewing, analysis, and criticism.  They've forgotten more about film than you will ever know, more than likely.  Their opinions are just tools to hopefully help lend you different perspective than you might normally take from something; you shouldn't take the fact that they differentiate from your own opinion as some sort of personal afront.  

You may well be 31, but the manner in which you've expressed some of your opinions herein lends itself more to that of a 12 year old.  

I suppose I also just may have inadvertently confirmed Everyone Murders' opinion, so I apologize.

1464

October 23rd, 2013 at 1:29 PM ^

I had a run of that attitude when I was younger.  The closer I get to 30, the more I realize that it is not bad to take into consideration the opinions of others.  They come from a different path, and evaluating their opinions can only lead you to be more insightful.  Ultimately, make decisions for yourself, but if you always do things your way, you'll not grow as a person.  And you'll also come off as a dick.

Anyways, sorry to get all introspective in an Anchorman thread...

gbdub

October 23rd, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^

+1 for Rotten Tomatoes. I've yet to regret seeing a movie rated "Fresh" on there, and I don't have time to see everything that comes out so that's a win for me. It's also gotten me to watch (and enjoy) a few films I would have looked at and dismissed without thinking (Cabin in the Woods and 21 Jump Street are 2 I can think of off the top of my head).

1464

October 23rd, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^

21 Jump Street would be in my "underrated" bin.  That shit was funny, I was shocked that it was a good movie.  On the other end of the spectrum, I picked up Incendies because of its score, and was also glad I did.  While there was certainly a bit of a cliche plot twist, I never would have picked up a French Canadian foreign language film that takes place in the Middle East. 

M-Wolverine

October 23rd, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^

But there is a class of film critic that's like the food critic who not only doesn't like McDonald's, but wouldn't say a nice thing about the BBQ shack that has lots of delicious food but isn't fancy giving you four course meals with tiny portions. It's the guy who can't differentiate between The Avengers and Transformers just because they're both popular popcorn movies.