Overrated/Underrated Geek Media
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Jar Jar and the pod race kind of bump me out of it. I think it did have an interesting feel and look, but but it got bogged down by some things
payn
Glory to Marik
Yeah toddler Anakin is a tough sell.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I honestly could have done entirely without Anakin as a kid. I get he is the main character of the trilogy but I think starting with him older would have worked way better
It really is impossible to stop folks from complaining about Star Wars, eh?
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
It is as constant as complaints about weather, but more satisfying
Scribe
Legend
Is it?! Or is it underrated simply because its even better than people already proclaim?
That its an all time great to me.
Gradine
🏳️⚧️ (she/her) 🇵🇸
I mean, it is the best video game. I mean, it is, as objectively as you can be, perfect. Acknowledging anything less is underrating it, frankly.
But also kids these days, old woman shakes fist at clouds, yadda yadda
Scribe
Legend
Fair, it is factually, objectively, fantastic. I guess I cannot see it as possibly underrated, because anyone who would rate it poorly, simply can be dismissed as out of their mind.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Oh I watched The Middle, but I had forgotten it was called that! It was appropriately named.
On the other hand I have never even heard of American Housewife!
You've clearly not met younger-to-mid-gen Millennial middle class white men. They pretty much all have it the way around you prefer, and most of them have never even seen Aliens! Nolanites especially worship Alien and are almost guaranteed to have never seen Aliens and in many cases have never even seen Terminator, let alone Terminator 2. A a bonus a lot of them think Prometheus is a heartbreaking work out of staggering genius, which tends to undermine their other cinematic opinions somewhat. Thanks to the sheer number of them and how loud they are, Alien is, right now, if anything, wildly overrated. 20 years ago you'd have been right though.
The Phantom Menace has precisely one thing going for it. < starts humming Duel of the Fates >
Unfortunately that one scene is pretty much definitely better than all of AotC (I would have slapped myself for this opinion 25 years ago, note) and nothing in RotJ compares to it, though, overall RotJ is a lot easier to rewatch than the intense agony of Child Anakin scene and the wonderment how they got away with the worse-than-an-80s movie racism of Watto.
I would agree with this except BotW single-handledly got my sister (who is in her late 30s) into videogames when the last time she played them was on the Gameboy when she was a teen. That's some kind of magic. She's got dozens of hours in the game, maybe over a hundred. Since then she's played a number of games, particularly open-world explore-y ones though.
You're factually wrong to generically suggest critics aren't experts.
The issue that I think is confusing you here is that film critics in newspapers, on TV shows, and on YouTube are a complete mix of experts and non-experts and there's no particular guidance as to who is which. A lot of critics understand a huge amount about film-making, in real depth, and with real context, and additionally have seen thousands of movies with a critical eye, and understand things about them that other people don't necessarily notice, as well as understanding critical theory. Those people are experts, and you calling them not is just bad manners and frankly a little ignorant. But countless others are just some guy with an opinion, which may be informed by very little indeed. For example, there was a popular critic who I think was on YouTube who just wouldn't watch movies from before 1980s, and generally offered the most shallow CinemaSins-type criticisms and praise possible, who was really popular a few years ago (I assume he Milkshake Duck'd himself as I haven't heard of him in a while). Unfortunately this even applies to a certain proportion of critics who work for actual media outlets.
The problem is even larger with videogames of course, but not as bad as it was say, 10 years ago there.
If you have the NYT on subscription they generally have archival reviews (sometime they are available without subscription, it's kind of random), it's one of the few things I respect them for. I think the WaPo and a few others might too but they don't show up in searches easily.
For Dances with Wolves here are three major examples you could find on Google (it's harder with a lot of movies):
Dances with Wolves movie review (1990) | Roger Ebert
They meet at first in the middle of the prairie, holding themselves formally and a little awkwardly, the cavalry officer and Sioux Indians. There should be
www.rogerebert.com
Roger Ebert thinks its great!
Vincent Canby (for the NYT) thinks it's okay but not great.
Dances With Wolves (1990) - Review by Pauline Kael - Scraps from the loft
Pauline Kael reviews Kevin Costner's Dances with Wolves (1990)
scrapsfromtheloft.com
Pauline Kael (for the New Yorker) thinks it's kind of crap.
Look how well-written and thought-through those reviews are. Actual pieces of actual journalism. Of course that was because people actually got paid and being a film critic for a newspaper then required more than calling yourself one.
For Goodfellas
GoodFellas movie review & film summary (1990) | Roger Ebert
For two days after I saw Martin Scorsese's new film, "GoodFellas," the mood of the characters lingered within me, refusing to leave. It was a mood of guilt
www.rogerebert.com
Roger Ebert thinks its great!
Pauline Kael Reviews "GoodFellas"
Is it a great movie? I don’t think so. But it’s a triumphant piece of filmmaking.
Pauline Kael thinks it's good - literally says it's not great but seems to have a positive opinion.
I couldn't easily find any other actual 1990 ones.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
