Most Overrated Movie

[Josh]

The first half, anyway...

The second half only seems bad because the first half is so fucking good.

[Doc Holliday]

This is the internet.

there is no Josh

[Mzo]

only zuul

[DacaZ]

I think Tron is not so much endearing as it is a film of its time. I'm pretty sure the majority of its appeal for me as a movie was nostalgia about going to see it when it first came out and playing the game in the arcades and shit like that. But I don't know that its all that highly regarded anymore, is it?

[Zac]

Lost in Translation is actually a pretty cool movie but it's mostly to do with the actors and the cinematography imo. Honestly though after the "acting" Sophia did in God Father III she should have never been allowed near a movie set again. As for Tron it was great at the time and my nostalgia helps me to still enjoy it but I don't know that I'd like it as much now, but then again I'm pretty excited about the sequel.

[Mr-K]

I don't get the grief LIT gets at all. I think it's a great movie.

LIP MY STOCKING

LIP THEM! LIP! LIP!

[YellerDog]

I like it too. Sad Bill Murray is my favorite.

I'll probably own a copy if I get on another Murray kick.

[Mr-K]

I don't really think there is another Bill Murray

[Frogacuda]

The second half only seems bad because the first half is so fucking good.

This is probably fair. I think the two halves don't compliment each other more than I actually dislike either. It's one of the better Kubrick movies, too, but I feel like mowing down all of his shit right now (although I like The Shining and Spartacus).

I'll even take on Clockwork Orange, which is like a montage of great scenes that somehow don't make a great movie. I'm not saying movies all need a good guy, but the second half of the movie is supposed to be a pity party for a character that it is impossible to feel bad for, so it just falls flat from that point on.

[Fe 26]

If anyone had happened to read the very, very short and easy to read book that 2001 is based off, the movie would make perfect sense. It was released concurrently with the film and was a collaboration between Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrik.

Plus the movie is goddamned beautiful, you people are idiots.

pretty much this. I will admit the movie is slow, and it is a bit aggravating if you read the book first. Kubrick doesn't explain things as well as the book does, and spends more time on showing things floating in space than on the parts of the book I like the best.

But it isn't trash. It is different than what we now consider to be space movies. Kubrick was trying express the emptiness of space. From people complaints in this thread, it sounds like he did too good of a job at that.

It is also one of those movies you kind of have to wait 5 years before you can watch it again, from start to finish, and really enjoy it.