Overrated "masterpieces"

Do I have to back all of these up or can I just throw them out there.

Errrr, The Matrix?

I think in certain cases, films should be remembered for their historical importance, but we also have to recognize when the time comes to stop praising and realize that yes, films do become dated and worthless on an artistic level.

The Battleship Potemkin: apart from it's (admittedly great) technical achievements, there's nothing to this film. It's stiff Soviet propaganda with corny higlights. And I'm not saying this because of my political stance; I'm a socialist myself, and I like political films, as long as they remain non-preachy. That isn't the case with Potemkin, sadly.

Taxi Driver: for me, this film will always be shadowed by another Scorsese - de Niro movie, The King of Comedy. It has essentially the same story as Taxi Driver, but it's more subtle, has better acting by de Niro (his best performance ever, arguably) and doesn't need to resort to violence for shock values. Therefore, Taxi Driver will always be the lesser of the two for me.

As for the Taxi Driver/King of Comedy thing, I like The King of Comedy, but I don't think it comes anywhere near the brilliance of Taxi Driver. For one, Scorsese wasn't personally interested in the project, he only did it as a favor to De Niro. Therefore, it lacks the passion of Scorsese's best work. TKoC also leaves a lot of loose ends. And as far as the violence in TD being for shock value, I disagree. It is never glorified and turned into pornography, but rather, is genuinally shocking and terrifying, and it certainly can't be argued that the violence is thrown in suddenly without explanation. The film certainly makes it clear early on what it is all going to wind down to in the end. TKoC may truly be De Niro's best performance, it's hard to say. Travis Bickle, Rupert Pupkin, and Jake La Motta were all very complex and challenging roles that De Niro conquered.

ford's attempt to apologize for the portrayals of indians in his westerns is the epic "cheyenne autumn," a v. mixed bag of a movie.

So according to this argument, no need to go back and watch anything that's been groundbreaking, so long as it's been co-opted by the popcorn directors as "homage"?

Thank God - now I can just watch the Van Sant version of Psycho - it is shot-for-shot, after all, and I don't need to deal with that black and white crap. What kinda outmoded whack bullshit is black and white, anyway?

Martini, anyone?

both "king of comedy" and "taxi driver" are light-years better than "raging bull," the emptiest so-called "masterpiece" ever made.

Thank God - now I can just watch the Van Sant version of Psycho - it is shot-for-shot, after all, and I don't need to deal with that black and white crap. What kinda outmoded whack bullshit is black and white, anyway?"

Sure, it is groundbreaking, and it's worth seeing if you are interested in the history of cinema, but it's historical importance is the only reason it has any relevance these days. And in that case, you might as well see "Intolerance," which is a better film in every way.

In my opinion, there are two ways to define a masterpiece. Either it is a landmark achievement in a filmmaker's career, or a work of art with strong social, historical, or aesthetic importance (which, of course, would make it a landmark in a filmmaker's career as well).

Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece in the sense that it was a major achievement in the development of film language. But other than that, I don't think it deserves so much attention. The Nazi propaganda films by Leni Riefenstahl were innovative and well-made, as well, but how often do you hear about them? I believe that above all else, a film's greatness is determined by it's emotional or intellectual impact, what it can do for us personally or socially.

Style isn't everything; film is not a self-important medium.

I felt The Killer was overrated the first time I saw it too. I think its impact was lessened because of the films I'd previously seen that were influenced by (and expanding upon) its style. I appreciate it more now after a couple of extra viewings, but its still far from my fave HK action flick.

A much bigger offender (for me, anyway): granted, it's probably not considered a tride and true 'classic' anyway, but nonetheless I am surprised at how high Fight Club has managed to rank in the IMDB. I thought this was probably one of the most overblown and pointless movies I have seen in a long, long while. I don't know which is more unbearable--it's lame "twist" or Helena Bonham Carter overacting just to show that she can play an annoying borderline chick in addition to her prim and proper Merchant Ivory roles. My, what range, Helena.

it's decent, but personally i'd put a half-dozen other polanski films ahead of it - including rosemary's baby, mentioned upthread.

rififi was a damn good noir-ish ending with a dark ending.

most of the other polanskis i like resonated pretty instantly after first viewing, the exception being knife in the water, which i now like a lot, but didn't after my first viewing. i still think it sags in places, but i no longer mind it.

The first Godfather film is overrated... even Coppola thinks he could've done it better (Brando's perf stinks). I think his only great films are Part II and Tucker.