Is "Rushmore" the funniest movie of the 90's?

January 9, 2001 7:04 AM

Is "Rushmore" the funniest movie of the 90's? Matthowie thinks so, and kottke apparently does too. However, Eric Rapp sums up my thoughts exactly about the movie that may account for 2 hours of "lost time". Seen any other movies that people raved about but were completely lost on you?
posted by ethmar (105 comments total)

I'll start. Chinatown. I don't see what the big deal is. Is it the fact that Jack Nicholson spends the vast majority of the film with this nose bandaged up? Or is it the "my sister, my daughter" revelation?

Nobody has ever answered this. And yet the raving and recommendations continue.

Maybe if I saw it closer to the time the flick came out I'd see it in a different way.

Whereas with Rushmore, I did see it when it came out (can't get more timely than that), and I a) want my money and b) those 2 hours I spent watching the movie back.
posted by ethmar at 7:08 AM on January 9, 2001

Battlefield Earth?
posted by pnevares at 7:15 AM on January 9, 2001

Is "Rushmore" the funniest movie of the 90's?

No.

--

The big movie that everyone loved except for me: magnolia, although Unbreakable was close.
posted by hijinx at 7:16 AM on January 9, 2001

People raved about BattleField earth?

I'm going to get murdered for this, but Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was mind-numbingly boring. The story was juvenile, the writing poor, and I thought the fight scenes were kinda dull.

Then again, I really liked Magnolia and Unbreakable :)
posted by Doug at 7:21 AM on January 9, 2001

Loved both Unbreakable and Magnolia, but must confess - much like my compatriots above, that Rushmore kind of passed me by a bit. Responding to comedy is SUCH a subjective experience, that while it is clearly true that certain things just appear to be intrinsically funny, allegedly "sophisticated" humour does appear to alienate, irritate or merely CONFUSE (inevitably) a good proportion of the people who watch it. League of Gentlemen makes sense to me, and it doesn't to a lot of other people. Don't really know why...
posted by barbelith at 7:23 AM on January 9, 2001

Hmm.. Eric Rapp seems to be missing the joke. You could very well apply his theory to any other film and you'd get the same result. I could just see his writing up his thoughts on Schindler's List or the Godfather or 2001 or even Citizen Kane. He's not voicing his criticism here, just his prejudice. If you have something to say, say it with reason. As you could see, I'm rather pissed at these people, the assholes, the Kaels of our time.

Rushmore is a great film, one of the better of the 90's. I loved Bottlerocket too, and really, ever since I saw that, have been a bit of a fanboy for Owen Wilson and Wes Anderson.

Anyway, best film of the 90's? Eyes Wide Shut, and sadly, it is almost never thought of this way, because we are, in many ways like Eric.
posted by tiaka at 7:29 AM on January 9, 2001

Liked Rushmore...LOVED Schizopolis! What about Waitng for Guffman?
posted by black8 at 7:29 AM on January 9, 2001

War of the Roses. Hated that movie. Everyone else in my AP Enlglish class (yes, I was forced to watch this torture) loved it. I hated it from the beginning. "Hey, I go to Harvard Law School" "Hey, I'm a gymnast" (stands on her head and, well, spreads her legs), next thing you know they're in bed, next thing you know they're married. "Storybook romance" they say, but I don't see that. I see a gymnast spreading her legs for a guy who's gonna make oodles of cash. Then she suddenly decides she'd raher he were dead. Just like that. Then they have this stupid fight over their house of all things. Not their kids. Their house. That's the most important thing.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:30 AM on January 9, 2001

Well, I loved Rushmore and I thought that parody was funny, too. I think they liked it more than they let on, anyway. The thing is, for me one of the most pointless criticisms of a work of art is that it's "unrealistic". Clearly with films like Rushmore or Election there is a strain of stylized naturalism, where not everything needs to make sense as a real-world circumstance. In some ways none of Rushmore made real-world sense, but was essentially a collision of the wishful thinking of two monumentally different characters. I'd certainly agree that Olivia Williams wasn't as fully developed as she could have been.

Anyway, back on-topic. Movies all loved that I hated? I'll assume we're not including obvious schlock such as Armageddon (which I enjoyed as schlock, anyway). Or gross-out humor like the Farrelly Bros. e.g. I don't think I'm alone in hating Dumb and Dumber. Hm, this is hard.

I just have to say that I love anything that's idiosyncratic, just for being idiosyncratic. Because today's culture is such a regression to the mean. Christ, be an outlier already! And I love anything that's unabashedly American in outlook. So all the idiosyncratic American filmmakers, from the Coen brothers to the Wachowski brothers to P.T.A. and Wes & Owen above I'm automatically giving extra points.

Maybe Leaving Las Vegas is an example, if a middling one. While fully appreciating Mike figgis and Nicolas Cage's work there, my friend and I still laughed out loud at parts where you obviously weren't supposed to. (She still says "Look at me, I can act drunk, just like Nicolas Cage!")
posted by dhartung at 7:37 AM on January 9, 2001

There's only one movie that I've ever walked out of, in a theater, in my adult life: Natural Born Killers. Should've asked for my money back, but I didn't want to waste even that much more of my life on that flick.
posted by harmful at 7:39 AM on January 9, 2001

I once had occasion to visit a house that had been vacated by its former owners, who had left a frozen turkey on the kitchen counter. For two weeks In August. In Georgia.

It smelled like Eyes Wide Shut.
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:45 AM on January 9, 2001

Anyway, best film of the 90's? Eyes Wide Shut, and sadly, it is almost never thought of this way, because we are, in many ways like Eric.

Well, taste being subjective (which of course is THE point of this thread), I just can't get excited about stilted dialog and wholly laughable situations.

So naturally, I didn't last long watching House of Games. Look around you, and see how many conversations sound like this:

"There's this guy at the bank."

"The bank?"

"Yes. The bank."

"Right. The bank."

"Now this guy at the bank, he's what you call a 'teller'."

"A 'teller'?"

"Yes. A 'teller'. He handles the money."

"The money?"

repeat until end credits mercifully roll...


posted by ethmar at 7:56 AM on January 9, 2001

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Eyes Wide Shut are two movies that I know are much better than I originally thought in the theatre. They're movies I want to see several more times to understand it on a deeper level, because I could feel myself getting lost in the plot.

Rushmore was excellent, but I think 80% of the problem with hyped movies is that your expectations skyrocket. Personally, I loved Phantom Menance, even though I'd say the majority of people were disappointed. I went in thinking "this should be cool" and therefore wasn't disappointed.

Rushmore was the same way for me -- I didn't read reviews, I made an effort to see it as soon as it came out, and I kept an open mind. I don't think I even know Murray was in it, and was pleasantly surprised. Did the same with Unbreakable; loved it.

Expectations can kill a movie. A lack of expectations can help a mediocre movie.
posted by jragon at 8:01 AM on January 9, 2001

I thought The Matrix was nothing but an overhyped kung-fu movie. The science fiction aspect was underdone and too much emphasis was placed on "cool" camera angles and freeze frames.

I wont even get into Keanu's "acting".


posted by bondcliff at 8:03 AM on January 9, 2001

I enjoyed Rushmore. I've only walked out of one movie, and I absolutely cannot remember which one. I *wanted* to run from Ready to Wear (Pret-a-Porter'), but I was stuck with someone who perpetually thought it would have to get better in the next five minutes. I also bail on The Fisher King, but that's because it was hyped locally by critics as being similar to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Uh, no. I did recant years later when seeing it again on video though.
posted by fleener at 8:10 AM on January 9, 2001

For the inverse, movies I loved that other people didn't: A Life Less Ordinary and The House Of Yes.
posted by pnevares at 8:11 AM on January 9, 2001

I think it's also worth mentioning that Steven Spielberg seems to make crappy movies that people enjoy because he picks really sensitive, sentimental subjects. Schindler's List was pretty lame, but its hard to criticize it without people somehow feel you're unsensitive, or whatnot. Same with the pretty terrible Saving Private Ryan.
posted by Doug at 8:12 AM on January 9, 2001

Damn you, Fleener. :]
posted by pnevares at 8:12 AM on January 9, 2001

What the....I just tried to end the italics streak started above, and it didn't work.
posted by pnevares at 8:14 AM on January 9, 2001

anything directed or written by oliver stone (with the possible exception of Salvador). The scenario and technical wizardry are usually ok but you can't see the film for the grubby fingerprints of the most overrated american director alive.
posted by shakabu at 8:15 AM on January 9, 2001

Ethmar, I guess that you are not a real big West Wing fan are you?

As for movies, trying to watch Simple Men was painful. Ditto for the Adjuster. For more recent films, Unbreakable was horrible. The writer/director shouldn't take comic books so seriously just because a character in his movie does. I guess he wouldn't make a movie like that unless he did, but still, ouch.
posted by rorschach at 8:16 AM on January 9, 2001

I think we aughta call upon mathowie to work his un-italic voodooo magic.
posted by tiaka at 8:19 AM on January 9, 2001

(ignore this post, I just wanted to close fleener's <I> tag. Carry on.)
posted by dandot at 8:23 AM on January 9, 2001

Huh, I tried to un-italic, but it wouldn't want to work. weird
posted by tiaka at 8:25 AM on January 9, 2001

I don't watch West Wing, sorry.

Tiaka, I respect the fact that movie appreciation is subjective. I'm glad you've really worked out what EWS meant to you as a viewer and that's fine. Based on your synopsis however, I feel there are better films/books/essays/etc that get that point across worlds more effectively. For me, at least.

To me, other than silent films, dialogue is half the movie. I never realized how true that was until I watched Tron in my 20's. I was embarrassed to be in the same room with the movie.

"But the special effects were so cool when I saw this 10 years ago!"
posted by ethmar at 8:26 AM on January 9, 2001

Rushmore was great, and could definitely be in my top 10 ever. I just need to see it a few more times to be sure. The plays alone could have been enough for most movies. So not that I have a lot to add, just a vote for Rushmore. But I can see how some people don't get it, I didn't the first time.


posted by chrismc at 8:28 AM on January 9, 2001

I'll toss out my nominee: I was apparently the only person in the world who loathed The Apostle. Now, I generally very much like Robert Duvall, but this thing . . . Jesus. I really didn't care about his character, or, for that matter, anyone else. Also, I just have to love the scene shoehorned right in the middle of the movie where Duvall takes ten minutes out of his busy schedule to effortlessly convince Billy Bob Thornton that being a hateful racist redneck is a bad thing.

Oh, just thought of one more: Chasing Amy. I died a thousand deaths watching that.
posted by Skot at 8:33 AM on January 9, 2001

Rushmore IS one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The taste was great. It might not have been stupid funny, but the character development was splendid. Either you feel this movie was overlooked as one of the best, or you just didn't get it. Throw in Bottle Rocket and you have 2 of my favorite comedies of all time. ...but then again other fav movies of mine range from Blade Runner to Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Its about the quality, thats what I love most.

Check out the Criterion Edition of Rushmore and look at the MTV movie award spoofs, these are amazing.

oh, sorry, back to the 90's.
posted by jamescblack at 8:42 AM on January 9, 2001

Y'all know, Transformers: The Movie was the best movie of the last 20 years. :)
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 8:43 AM on January 9, 2001

Sorry to wrench off topic.

Has Bill Murray been in an unwatchable film? I can't think of any.

Oh, and Thelma and Louise was "men are from mars" pseudo feminist bollocks.
posted by fullerine at 8:50 AM on January 9, 2001

Ethmar - Well, I have yet to see any other films, other than those of Kubrick or Ophuls, that were on this subject. I have, also, not really read up on the books or the essays, my fault I suppose.

I'm talking talking about film, and a film can't be a 5 hours psychological theory in a form of a lecture. A film needs to be entertaining, something that all of SK's work was. The blend of meaning and entertainment was perfected in 'The Shining', a horror film, many consider a classic, can show how we, as people can overlook the more meaningful things in life, and instead focus on the minutia until it builds up, and builds up, and then, we, of course, snap. We then must arrive at the center of our metaphorical maze, the overlook maze, and confront our evils, our Minotaur. You could see how this would apply to today's world. The Shining is, imho, best film of the 80's.

I, somehow, deeply doubt you share my views. : ) Btw, your favorite films?
posted by tiaka at 8:50 AM on January 9, 2001

I thought you'd never ask. :-)

Favorite films ever? Well, unlike John Cusack in High Fidelity, I don't espouse my top five ________ at the drop of a hat. I'm going away to my secluded mountain retreat to ponder this deep question.

Rake my Zen garden while I'm gone, please.
posted by ethmar at 9:00 AM on January 9, 2001

I agree with Chasing Amy. Not even Jay and Silent Bob could save that one.

I also agree with that Transformers statement.

For a long time, The Godfather kept going over my head. My dad would rant and rave about it, my friends would quote it like it were the bible. I could never get it until I saw the Complete Saga. Now it ranks up there with the Shawshank Redemption.
posted by Cavatica at 9:07 AM on January 9, 2001

tiaka, I can't speak for others, but my main problem with Eyes Wide Shut was that it was so cowardly. Having built up to a reasonable, though obvious point -- that women are not only sexual creatures, but considerably more so than men -- Kubrick and Rafael (the co-writer on the script, Frederic Rafael) run screaming from the room, all concerned about the poor widdle man, and how his fragile ego has been pierced to the root.

Pah.

So they drop the more interesting plotline and performer like a hot potato.

Like I said, cowards.

posted by aurelian at 9:13 AM on January 9, 2001

Chasing Amy was saved by Jason Lee.
posted by fullerine at 9:15 AM on January 9, 2001

Okay - the one film that I makes me walk around with a "huh" look on my face when I hear people rave about it is "Fargo". I saw it as a brutal, sad tale populated by cartoonish characters. It never affected me deeply in any way, and some of the over-the-top dialects really made me wince. I really don't get why people love it so much.

Rushmore was good, I remember liking it, but now, months after having seen it, I can't for the life of me remember any uproarious scenes or moments. My memory has glossed it into an average "coming of age" film with some quirks.
posted by kokogiak at 9:22 AM on January 9, 2001

The 6th Sense. Great word-of-mouth, good-ish reviews, boffo box-office - and it sucked the raw prawn.
posted by Mocata at 9:22 AM on January 9, 2001

OK, I have my favorite movies of all time.

Here in the future, where all dreamers dwell, I have enjoyed the following movies immensely:

Isaac Asimov's Foundation

Plato's Republic starring Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, and Russell Crowe

The Matrix III

Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis (starring Christopher Walken as the beetle)

Thelma Z Lavine's From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest featuring Kevin Kline as Descartes and Albert Finney as David Hume

The rest of you realists will have to wait for the present-day to catch up. :-D

posted by ethmar at 9:34 AM on January 9, 2001

Jerry Maguire. I don't know how anyone could even sit through it without hurting, let alone nominate it for awards afterwards.

Strangely, I thought Cruise and Gooding Jr.'s performances were great, but they couldn't distract from a mechanistically manipulative, content-free plot holding zero surprises, and the awful directing. ("Okay, this is going to be a poignant scene, so slowly zoom in on character's face... and hold... and hold... music... hold some more to drive the point home... come on, really smear it into the audience's faces... and... okay, next scene, now do it again.")

Plus, as an extra bonus an execrable, unbelievably precocious kid!

Horrible, horrible, horrible.

posted by BobInce at 9:37 AM on January 9, 2001

Sometimes favorite movies ever don't have anything to do with how good they are. My favorite (Clay Pigeons) I saw on a really great day and it seems to have imprinted. Whenever I see it I become elated. This even though it's probably really only a moderately good movie.

Did anyone see The Grinch and like it? It seemed bad from the minute the merchandising emerged and I've yet to hear anything good about it, despite the high ratings it seems to have received in theatres.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 9:39 AM on January 9, 2001

A film needs to be entertaining, something that all of SK's work was.

Yeah? Explain Full Metal Jacket.

We are within the realm of subjective opinions on films, and I'm glad to see that most people acknowledge that when it comes down to it, they're opinions.

But I appeal to thee, you movie-watching folk:

Do not form an opinion about a film you have seen only once.

This really doesn't go for eye "candy" like any Armageddon or some such rot, but any film that is deeper than a comic book, please see at least twice before deciding that everyone who likes it is stupid.

Oh, and come up with better reasons than "I just hated it."

Danke.
posted by solistrato at 9:39 AM on January 9, 2001

For me, it's no contest: Jerry Maguire. Bad script, horrible acting, stuffed 'til bursting with offensive schmaltzy crap... and widely seen and Academy Award-nominated. Bleah. (My final judgement is, of course, overlooking the plague that was "Titanic"... it's still too painful for me to think about.)
posted by jess at 9:52 AM on January 9, 2001

But did you see it twice? :-)
posted by ethmar at 9:55 AM on January 9, 2001

hell, ethmar, if you're going to go that route...

The original mid 1940s movie that Out of Sight was based on, starring Louise Brooks and Cary Grant, script by Billy Wilder, directed by John Huston. Call it Key Biscayne. How Huston and Brooks sneaked in a nude scene, no one knows to this day... maybe it was to perk up the boys in the war... :)

posted by aurelian at 9:59 AM on January 9, 2001

I have friends who loved Armageddon so much they bought it on DVD. AUGH! What crap. I can't figure out how people can stand it.

But Armageddon is forgivable, since I never presumed it to be more than a summer popcorn flick. Phantom Menace, on the other hand, was so disappointing it was maddening. I've seen Hanna Barbera cartoons with more developed and less irritating characters.

Full Metal Jacket wasn't so much "entertaining" as it was haunting. The surreal brutality of boot camp is put into context by the surreal brutality of war. I was amazed at how I was drawn into the film but I can see how it would be off-putting to some.

Meanwhile, I just can't understand people who don't love The Fifth Element... mmm, Leeloo...
posted by Tubes at 9:59 AM on January 9, 2001

I dunno - I thought The Grinch was decent. Of course, I'd heard nothing but bad about it - the makeup! the commercialism! the cost! - and was pretty much expecting mindlessly saccharine Disneyesque pap. That it didn't entirely suck pretty much blew away my expectations. :-)

Anybody ever see Freaked, starring Bill-of-"Bill and Ted" fame and Mr. T? The thing's achieved some sort of campy cult status with me, while most of my comrades don't see what the appeal is.
posted by youhas at 10:03 AM on January 9, 2001

Heh. ethmar. Liked the future post.

Salistrato - do you imply that Full Metal Jacket wasn't entertaining? Funny because most people argue otherwise, that it was an entertaining film, but the characters were undeveloped and the plot was thin and the two parts didn't merge. Is that what you wanted to say? I would appreciate something more than 'explain'. (remembers 'you got some splaining to do Lucy!' 'wahh!' heh.)
I don't think I ever formed an opinion on something I saw only once, I saw Saving Private Ryan like 5 times. (sigh)

aurelian - What do you mean a more interesting plot line? Rafael is a sad, sad little man. And cowards? *What* are you talking about?
posted by tiaka at 10:08 AM on January 9, 2001

Rushmore sucked major league. I could barely stay awake during that dreck fest. I was waiting for it to be even mildly humorous. But it never happened.

I also waited to be entertained by Pulp Fiction. Another piece of overhyped, "oh-so-indie" garbage.
posted by owillis at 10:11 AM on January 9, 2001

People loved pi, but I thought it was terrible. Self-conscious, pretentious, and not terribly compelling, even if you're into math. And the lead guy with the apartment full of equipment... such a hambone!
posted by Bootcut at 10:20 AM on January 9, 2001

Perfect timing to share the pain my boss inflicted on a few of us from work in his new 'media room'

Airforce One

I was praying an out-of-control greyhound bus would mow us all over and end the suffering.
posted by uide at 10:56 AM on January 9, 2001

Now see, I loved pi. I thought the increasing paranoia that was built up throughout the film was great.

My own favorite was _The Thin Red Line_. Of course, the two friends I saw it with both walked out of the theater.
posted by krakedhalo at 11:01 AM on January 9, 2001

I think a lot of people are too critical of film in general. If something can keep me entertained for two hours, then bravo! For instance, The Fifth Element, while conflicted in its own purpose ("Am I a comedy, or a serious assertion of the power of love?"), was so visually stunning and funny that I can't help but love it. Bottle Rocket is the best independently produced comedy of the 90's, hands down.Everyone makes a big deal about "predictability." Well, I'm sorry, but a love story is going to deal with love and sex, a horror movie is going to involve death and danger, and a comedy is going to try any cheap gimmick to make you laugh. There aren't any new stories, just new interpretations, and dialogue is the hardest thing for anyone to write naturally.Obviously not every movie is destined for greatness, and we all realize that when you rent Dude, Where's my Car?, you are renting disposable entertainment.That said, just for the record, I've always thought Kubrick's The Shining missed the boat entirely on what the book is about (um, the depravity of alcoholism), and as a piece of film, it serves as nothing more than two hours of Jack Nicholson's "look at me, I'm crazy" routine.
posted by Awol at 11:08 AM on January 9, 2001

Krakedhalo - do you mean Mallicks? Or the earlier one? I presume if they walked out of the theater, then it was Mallick's. I loved it too, and, funny thing is, it revealed those critics that are no better than the flakey audience who think their entertaining dollar isn't wasted watching 'Little Nicky'. They were fast in jumping onto the 'pretentious' train that ran over the picture, huh?


Awol - aww... come on! One - What is the title of the film? Stanley Kubrick's Shining, not Little Stevie King's Shining. Different things.

Two - Alcoholism was done, and done over, certainly SK had better ideas to make. How can you even say that it 'serves nothing more than two hours of Jack Nicholson's "look at me, I'm crazy" routine."? I would really like to hear you argue for that.

posted by tiaka at 11:22 AM on January 9, 2001

I think my complaint is that there is no subtlety to Jack's performance, he throws everything out there to start with. A quiet menace is so much more frightening than a raving lunatic with a bat, by that time we already know he's homicidally dangerous. I just felt there was no real transition emotionally. (I suppose you'll counter that the movie would have been too long otherwise.)

posted by Awol at 11:28 AM on January 9, 2001

The thing about Rushmore is its subtlety. After I saw it once, I thought "ho-hum, it was funny in parts but not that funny overall." A friend had a copy and begged me to see it again, and I caught a lot more. I've seen it probably five or six more times now that I own the DVD, and I still find new stuff to laugh at. It isn't comedy that beats you over the head with a hammer to get a laugh, it's way more subtle than that. I loved Bottle Rocket for the same reason.

LA Story is another one of my favorites, but it requires you to see it more than once (I had the same initial reaction to LA Story that I had to rushmore), and you must have lived in LA before. It's not nearly as subtle, but the humor comes from a similar place (farce, believable characters doing unbelievable things).

I'd even go so far to say that maybe I liked Rushmore in the same way I can enjoy a song by REM. Michael Stipe's mumbling means that even after the 100th listen, you can still catch a lyrical surprise you didn't hear before.

I have to watch Eyes Wide Shut again though, I wasn't impressed the first time, but the more I hear from people that loved it, the more I realize I missed a lot of things.
posted by mathowie at 11:29 AM on January 9, 2001

Exactly.
posted by jessie at 11:32 AM on January 9, 2001

No, actually, it was 2 hours, but then SK cut it.

You know, Spielberg actually said the exact same thing in the 80's when he was having dinner at SK's house. Kubrick responded saying that he prefers the kind of acting, because it's more emotional. Nicholson also brought this up, and then agreed that realism would have been boring, SK wasn't striving for that, he was striving for excitement, inside ourselves.

But here's where you stop - you have to think outside of the horror film genre, sure he would be more scary if he was all cool and chill, acting sly. Killin' n' Chillin. Sure, it could have been scarier, if say, SK directed the ax scene differently, with Wendy running into the bathroom, finding refuge, relaxing right by the door, and then *boom* the ax came through and we'd all have a cheap thrill. That's not something Kubrick wanted, he wanted to show us Jack with an ax, striking the door, we already know what he's doing. He wanted to show us this.

In my opinion, this works better, a long transition dragging out would have been wrong. Because Kubrick wanted to show up a man that snapped, He sees Lloyd, we know.

In Full Metal Jacket he takes an hour to show us the progression into into a world of shit. So, it's not like SK doesn't have a clue at how to craft slow descents, or progression. He's a master, he did it for reasons.
posted by tiaka at 11:40 AM on January 9, 2001

Waiting for Guffman.

A monument to subtlety.

Rushmore.

Where two hours go to die.

Even if I cast aside the apparently horribly misguided attempts to make that movie out to be something other than "Jonathan Schwartzmann and Bill Murray try to 'get' each other in clever and amusing ways" (which who will deny that was how the movie was marketed from the outset?), I still have no love for that movie. May I state, Matt, that I am not calling you or anyone else "wrong" for liking that movie. I'm sure this thread could go on for days if we were to expand out to what our favorite cars are, cities, foods, etc. Our tastes are subjective. What I am saying is that I can't for the life of me understand how a movie that banal gets on anyone's "top 10" list.

Guffman on the other hand, was bursting with subtlety. I could see it when I watched it the first time, and knew right then that the film would require additional viewings to really get the most out of it. The same could be said for other Christopher Guest fare, such as This is Spinal Tap and Best in Show. Rushmore on the other hand, did not strike me as particularly redeeming, as was the case with Brokedown Palace. I seriously doubt repeated screenings will be any less painful. When I'm on my death bed, I will be sure to remind God that I am owed at least 4 hours collectively before taking my rightful place at the Captain's Table in hell.

I too, loved pi.

BTW, don't everyone fall over yourselves in the rush to answer my query concerning what was so "incredible" about Chinatown.
posted by ethmar at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2001

Clerks was my favorite movie of the 90s
posted by corpse at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2001

Guffman was ok, but Best In Show was like a home video your friends make, and you all think it's hysterical because you know the people in it, but slowly realize is just kind of silly, and not all that funny. That whole improve comedy style has some moments, but too many of those moments are embarrassingly unfunny. So I'll throw Best in Show on my overrated list.
posted by Doug at 12:01 PM on January 9, 2001

Rushmore rocks. It's that simple. If you don't get it (as a few friends of mine didn't get Wes Anderson's other great film, Bottle Rocket), you just don't get it. The film is possessed of a very original wit. Amazing photography (including a Barry Lyndon homage), dead-on performances from Schwartzman and Murray and, to top it off, a kick-ass Criterion DVD (complete with a map!).

As for Best In Show, two words: Fred Willard.


posted by ed at 12:08 PM on January 9, 2001

Way belated reply to youhas: I saw Freaked about five years ago when it first hit video, and I laughed my ass off. This is a film with everything (tasteless), including a leering Randy Quaid as the mad doctor, Mr. T as the bearded lady, a waving skeleton as Paul Lynde in a cracked version of Hollywood Squares, and a priceless projectile vomiting scene. Now that's class . . . but man, it was funny.

I do love Rushmore. I guess I'd just advise those who hated it, to bite the bullet and give it just one more shot. As an example of why, when I first saw Raising Arizona many years ago, I HATED it. Just flat-out thought it sucked. A couple years after that, I happened across it on cable late at night with nothing else on, and thought, "Oh, God . . . this pile of crap." But as I watched it again, I was busting up, and thinking the whole while, "What the hell was wrong with me? This is brilliant!" Hey, it might not happen, but every now and then . . .

(I will not be available for beatings should you follow my advice and still hate it. Sorry.)
posted by Skot at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2001

OK, Ed, two things.

1. "Rushmore rocks" is not an explanation. It is a declaration. I'll sooner agree with the second half of your sentiment that "if you didn't get it, you didn't get it."

2. Not everyone has a DVD player. Also, while the extra "goodies" that apparently get crammed into every DVD whether they needed to be are not sound wonderful, but for the rest of us poor bastards who don't have them, dowes this mean we're doomed to "not get it" because we have VHS or cable?
posted by ethmar at 12:33 PM on January 9, 2001

Rushmore is the funniest movie I've seen in a long time, but it's more than just funny. I was lucky enough to see the (world?) premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival and I knew it was something special. Another movie I love that no one else in the world thinks is funny is "Ishtar." It's almost fashionable to hate it, but only if you take it seriously. It KNOWS how stupid it's being.
posted by jmcnally at 12:47 PM on January 9, 2001

ethmar: I've seen and enjoyed Rushmore in a theatre and VCR, never on DVD, and I still enjoyed it, so it isn't the DVD that makes it good. :-) As to why I enjoyed it, <shrug> I think it's a matter of personal preference.

It was definitely marketed poorly. I think had the same response to The Professional. The copy on the box said "Makes Speed look like a ride to Grandma's house!" That seriously hurt the movie when I watched it the first time, since I rented it on the basis that it was a stupid action movie with lots of things that go boom and bad acting.

It wasn't either of those things, and I ended up walking away with a sour taste, because it wasn't what I expected. I think a lot of movies suffer from the marketing department's desire to make a summer blockbuster, which ends up hurting the movie's ratings because the viewers are given something that, while possibly still good, is not what they're looking for.
posted by cCranium at 12:50 PM on January 9, 2001

cCranium: Excellent points. Perhaps if we had not seen the trailer for Rushmore we would have had an entirely different viewpoint of the flick.

Same can be said for Loser, I'm told.
posted by ethmar at 12:57 PM on January 9, 2001

Some overrated critic's darlings:

Gandhi
Out of Africa
Don't Look Back
Slacker
The English Patient (thk u, Elaine)
Zentropa
A River Runs Through It
Schindler's List
Hiroshima, Mon Amour
Dances With Wolves
Thelma and Louise
Unforgiven
Trainspotting
The Age of Innocence
Manhattan
Last Year at Marienbad
Saving Private Ryan
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover
Pulp Fiction
As Good as It Gets
Titanic
The Deerhunter
People vs. Larry Flynt
Quiz Show
posted by bilco at 1:26 PM on January 9, 2001

Oh, and how could I forget this one?

Rain Man
posted by bilco at 1:29 PM on January 9, 2001

The Fisher King, but that's because it was hyped locally by critics as being similar to Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Aagh! I loved that movie, but I can't imagine it being compared to Monty Python and the Holy Grail! I mean, yeah, the holy grail is sort of involved, and it's Terry Gilliam, but the Fisher King isn't even really a comedy. Sometimes people are insane.
posted by dagnyscott at 1:35 PM on January 9, 2001

The Fisher King has many, many flaws. In plotting, in design, in editing. It rambles at times and is pretentious in parts.

Yet I love that movie, and whenever I stumble across it on the tube, I have to watch it till the end.

Funny how that works.
posted by bilco at 1:44 PM on January 9, 2001

When I first saw Rushmore, I wasn't blown away. However, I was blown away by Bottle Rocket and expected more of the same. Upon watching Rushmore a second time, I soon realized that there was much more to this movie than I first thought. Now it ranks as one of my favorite movies ever.

And Freaked was entertaining and fun, but I can only sit through it every now and then.

My girlfriend actually moved seats away from me during Air Force One, because I couldn't stop laughing at how horrible the film was. Apparently people like that one, which I find very strange.

Now how about Tapeheads? That's a movie!
posted by daedsiluap at 1:47 PM on January 9, 2001

Oh yeah, As Good As It Gets did not live up to its name at all.
posted by daedsiluap at 1:48 PM on January 9, 2001

Don't you start be diggin' on my Trainspotting. I will End you.
posted by thebigpoop at 1:49 PM on January 9, 2001

[I can't believe nobody has mentioned Citizen Kane]

As to the Thin Red Line, when it came out I told all my friends it was the most beautiful film I'd ever seen and they all rushed out to watch it.

Three of them still aren't talking to me.
posted by fullerine at 1:51 PM on January 9, 2001

Oh, and the Assasin is a crime against humanity.
posted by fullerine at 1:53 PM on January 9, 2001

Indeed that "Rushmore rocks" is no kind of defense. When I think about the movie, I recall that it was clever, but not clever enough. That is, it was smart in a certain sense, but there wasn't anything backing it up. It was entirely literal - there was nothing going on in the background.

Then again, that's not a firm opinion, because I haven't seen it twice. :)

A bad marketing campaign can completely kill the movie. Look at the "stealth" marketing for Eyes Wide Shut, for example: "It's Kubrick last film, and it's a porno!" It was hardly porn - it was an exploration of the sexual imagination. But everyone was expecting to see Tom and Nicole fucking their brains out.

(While I love that movie, BTW, the fucking piano thing drives me nuts.)

Marketing tries to build expectations. Ever see the horrifying blurbs on the backs of videos and DVDs? That's the marketing people trying to convince you that the film you're seeing is just another comedy or drama or whatever. It's atrocious. A particularly noxious example that comes to mind is the back of the High Fidelity DVD, which tries to turn a charming, winsome tale of one guy's dissection of his love life into a wacky hijink-filled buddy romp about chicks n' stuff.

Remember: they're trying to get as many people as possible to see this movie, so they'll advertise it in whatever fashion they can to get those box-office receipts, even if it does a disservice to the movie.

Re overhyped list up there: I see a bunch of Oscar faves up there. Hype about a film in no way means it's any damn good; it just means that a bunch of portly newspaper writers like it. Also, film critics tend to live in the past and romanticize the Hollywood films of yore. Granted, there were some incredible films coming out of the studio systems, but there were tons more crap.

Also, people build up this idea of "important movies" that should be watched. Because it's all "serious" and whatnot. Well, you know what? I liked The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and I got more insight into human nature from that movie than from most of the stuff on that list up there.

Only once the hype has settled can one really look back and judge what were the best. This applies for all fields.

Do yourselves a favor and go to Fametracker and look up the "The Oscar can be returned by..." pieces. Hi-larious.
posted by solistrato at 2:35 PM on January 9, 2001

No, that would be Happy Gillmore. :)
posted by swank6 at 2:42 PM on January 9, 2001

My reactions to a variety of topics in this thread (as if you were interested--play along will you?):

[Favorite Comedy of the 90s]
Well, not that I've seen them all more than once, the movies that made me laugh the hardest this past decade have to be Clerks, Liar Liar, and American Psycho. Heh.

[Full Metal Jacket]
A controversial movie, apparently, but I think it's amazing. It's certainly head and shoulders above Apocalypse Now or Platoon in writing, production quality, direction, and portrayal of the Vietnam War.

[Rushmore]
I've only seen it once, and it doesn't really stand out in my mind as a particularly hilarious film. But I did enjoy it, and I'm sure it could bear repeated viewings.

[Magnolia]
I admit, I didn't "get" this one. There were lots of interesting characters and situations, but the movie never went anywhere. I kept expecting more.

[Pi]
I thoroughly enjoyed this one. The slow but constant buildup of tension is amazingly well done. I don't quite get the end... but whatever.

[Judging a movie only seen once]
Hey, that's not so bad. I have acquaintences who judge movies they've never seen, or movies they slept through ("If I fell asleep during the first five minutes in an uncomfortable theatre, it couldn't have been all that great!")

[DVDs]
Hey, ethmar, don't knock the DVD format just because you don't have a player. You don't need the extras to enjoy the film, but they often help. Especially director's commentary. At this point, I think it's a travesty to release a DVD without a ton of extras. Hopefully Fight Club, Seven, and Gladiator will set the bar.

[The Matrix]
I think this one is a classic. The acting isn't great, nor is the dialog or even the plot for that matter, but it's highly entertaining and never tiresome. We're exploring a whole new world just different enough from our own to be interesting. Kinda like the original Star Wars.
posted by daveadams at 2:43 PM on January 9, 2001

Gladiator.

I laughed my way through this tripe on opening night. (I'm a sucker for a cool trailer). The stupid dialog, the gargantuan plot holes, Jaquin Phoenix doing his "Look at me, I'm EVIL" routine, Connie Neilsen in general. I was sure it would bomb. I was only wrong by about 900 Bazillion Dollars. To quote Mr. Hicks: "Boy, is MY finger not on the pulse of America".
posted by Optamystic at 3:19 PM on January 9, 2001

Oh yeah, I still have to finish watching that, thanks! I got interupted while watching the DVD before Crowe's character even becomes "Gladiator" and really haven't felt the inclination to start it back up again.

Just goes to show that putting something on a shiny disc ain't gonna make it any better. :-)
posted by cCranium at 3:38 PM on January 9, 2001

What do you mean a more interesting plot line? Rafael is a sad, sad little man. And cowards? What are you talking about?

OK. We spend the first third of the movie backing into the dialogue between Alice and Bill, wherein we discover (surprise! - yeah, right) that she's had lustful thoughts for other men, and that Bill's whole, "women don't think about sex, only men think about sex" world view is mostly a prop to support his poor fragile little ego.

Having gotten to this spot of relative honesty... We then don't spend the rest of the movie telling the story of the more interesting character -- Alice -- we instead follow Bill around as he mopes about, mostly as he tries to find an opportunity to childishly "pay her back".

I say that Kubrick and Raphael are cowards because they clearly have an inkling of the way human sexuality works... but are scared shitless by women, and pass up the chance to tell what would have been a much more interesting movie -- Alice's story, and what really makes her tick.


posted by aurelian at 3:38 PM on January 9, 2001

I have to agree with aurelian there. I'm as big a Kubrick apologist as the next film studies student, but everyone has to agree he had the air of misogyny about him.
posted by fullerine at 4:04 PM on January 9, 2001

I'm not willing to be as strong as misogyny "in him"... but EWS is certainly a gynophobic script, shall we say.

posted by aurelian at 4:34 PM on January 9, 2001

ethmar: I love Rushmore first and foremost as a film (saw it three times in the theatre). The DVD extras just make it that much more wondrous for those of us who like to wander deep within the films we love.

I think that enjoying Rushmore really is a matter of personal preference. (I would suspect that the anti-Rushmore clan is more distracted by how "clever" the film is rather than allowing themselves to escape into the delirious humor.) So I stand by my statement. "Rushmore rocks" is the only "explanation," albeit one rooted in feverish cinematic fervor, that came immediately to mind. Though perhaps I can amend it to read: "Rushmore rocks for those souls who desire to understand it."

aurelian: An interesting take. But keep in mind that Eyes Wide Shut was also an adaptation of
Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle and that the "scared shitless" element was perhaps furthered by the Puritanical censorship of the MPAA.

posted by ed at 4:39 PM on January 9, 2001

Did anybody see "American Movie" last year? Chris & Sarah, a couple of film grad students, made this documentary about Mark, one of their peer filmmakers trying to complete his own project. Their film went on to win the jury prize at Sundance and was released nationwide.

It's so damn funny that many people suspected it was a "Spinal Tap" breed mockumentary. It's not - I can vouch for it. I took a class from Chris & Sarah before this project began, and I spent a year of film school dodging Mark's invitations to help out on "Coven" by standing in a muddy forest freezing for hours or some such torture.

You may have seen Mark acting as David Letterman's political correspondent or something. I know he was on several times but I never caught 'em.

Anyway, American Movie is out on VHS & DVD now for your viewing pleasure...
posted by Tubes at 4:52 PM on January 9, 2001

[Gladiator]
When I said that Gladiator was a good DVD, I hope you guys didn't take that to mean I thought it was a great movie. There are tons and tons of extras, though, taking full advantage of the DVD format. I think all DVD movies should follow this trend, although some directors would probably object.

[Referring to Stanley Kubrick as 'SK']
This is particularly confusing in a thread about The Shining which was written by Stephen King. I was confused by 'SK' several times.

[The Shining]
I thought it was a decent horror flick, but I wasn't as impressed as I have been by other Kubrick movies. Maybe I need to watch it again. But there were a couple of particularly chilling scenes (to me, anyway): [WARNING, potential SPOILERS ahead (is that necessary after 20 years?)] after long weeks of Jack working on his novel, we see the wife come in and see that Jack has just been typing the same thing over and over, nicely formatted in different ways... and the redrum bit. The ending was rather disappointing to me, unfortunately.

[American Movie]
Mildly funny and interesting in that it's real, but not really worth seeing more than once to me.
posted by daveadams at 5:05 PM on January 9, 2001

Kinda like Trekkies? :-)
posted by ethmar at 5:49 PM on January 9, 2001

The Matrix...I thought it was formula and thin, and about as good as Armageddon (which is one of the worst movies I've seen in a while), but everyone I know thinks that I must be huffing gas.

Jerry McGuire...same thing, plus it reinforces "decent" american values a little too much, kinda felt like watching a recruitment video for living in the suburbs.

Rushmore...loved it. not really a laugh out loud comedy, but more of a big grin-inducer. I though it was well written, well paced, and well acted. One of those hard to define movies, maybe might be what bothers people? It definetly wasn't what I expected, but I wholly enjoyed all of it.

American Movie...good, because it was a documentary. I don't expect hilarious plots or regular story structure from docs. It did drag in some places, but I still think its a must see. If you have ever spent any amount of time in a small town, that guy is familiar. or at lest you've seen him at the mall.

Dumb and Dumber...a personal favorite of mine that no one I know likes. I think it's stupidity done right.

Ditto for Billy Madison. Not quite a Happy Gilmor, but I still think its got the goods.

posted by Hackworth at 5:56 PM on January 9, 2001

aerilian - Where do you get this from? The film is an adaptation of Traumnovelle, so, there was nothing to wimp out from. Alice isn't /*the*/ "interesting" character, SK wasn't exploring the one character and 'what makes her tick'. Maybe she liked to swim, maybe her favorite color is blue, or yellow, or red, maybe she's concerned with the violence in today's america. Who knows? Do you?

Sorry Dave, yeah, I actually didn't think of the Stevie King - SK connection. I can see where this would be confusing, at the least. heh. You really should watch The Shining again, I'd recommend you'd read up on some stuff here, and here. The ending was a bit sad, because he lost.

I was a bit disappointed over American Movie, because, I heard a lot about it, but, I didn't really get to see someone with a big dream, the dream to make a movie, such as was described. We get a lot of minutia, stuff that doesn't bring off the to-be film makers in a negative light. But, I guess that's not really a valid argument, not liking a film just because you don't like the characters. Hmm, actually it's ok.

The Matrix - I liked it, there. I said it. Be shocked! Argument against it - basically it was based on anime, and, the sad thing is, a lot of that anime is actually better, story and eye-candy wise. This aside, for a Hollywood film, that anime stuff has been transformed almost perfectly into film. I really look forward to Matrix 2 and 3.

posted by tiaka at 6:17 PM on January 9, 2001

"stuff that doesn't bring off the to-be film makers in a negative light"

should be -

"stuff that brings off the to-be film makers in a negative light"

Sorry : (
posted by tiaka at 6:18 PM on January 9, 2001

sidewise grump: I wish there'd been a spoiler marking for Eyes Wide Shut. I realize that I've basically given up any right to not hear the plot by now, and there was ample enough warning that I was able to scroll by it, but like I said, this is a grump. :-)
posted by cCranium at 6:41 PM on January 9, 2001

Past five years:Grossly overated: The Matrix, Being John Malkovich, Boogie Nights, X-MenGrossly underrated: The Fifth Element, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, The Big Lebowski, PiBut what do I know?Those are the one's I've seen on cable (or PPV).Most movies are far too pathetic to pay to see on the big screen.
posted by Mr. skullhead at 6:51 PM on January 9, 2001

Overrated tripe the success of which is incomprehensible: Any Gwyneth Paltrow movie ever made.
posted by aaron at 9:21 PM on January 9, 2001

I liked "Rushmore." It's not a comedy in the "screwball" sense of comedy-- which may account for the disappointment of some who went expecting "hilarity." It's more of a... um, situation comedy. But the characters seemed realistic to me, their odd little reversals and quirks and densities seemed more-or-less in accord with how humans seem to me.

But I cringe a bit when I hear people say it is one of the best movies of the last ten years-- even though I more-or-less agree. It's a minorly pleasing film that tells a minor little tale that is somewhat idiosyncratic and leaves one with kind of a warm feeling. This should be the lowest common denominator for a movie, and instead it's treated as a mark of not just competence, but excellence. Depressing.

My vote for best movie of the 90s is The Pillow Book. Gotta say I liked Slacker, too, so "in your face" to the person who dissed it somewhere above.

As for overrated-- Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou?. I love the Coens, but neither of these films really ever seem to get going.

Bonus points of love to the person who mentioned Tapeheads.
posted by jbushnell at 9:53 PM on January 9, 2001

Victim of Overhype: "The Blair Witch Project". Could have had something to do with the fact that, in Australia, I had to wait about six months to see it and try as I might to ignore every little thing about it, I couldn't. I liked it, but it wasn't the interesting exploration of pure un-special-effected horror I was hoping for. The ending did creep me out, though... alright, I'm on the fence here.

<small voice> I love "Jerry Maguire", and I've seen it several times. More than several times. </small voice>
posted by sammy at 12:18 AM on January 10, 2001

tiaka:

aerilian - Where do you get this from?

Get what from? If you're talking about my own impressions and criticisms of the movie, they're just that -- my own.

The film is an adaptation of Traumnovelle, so, there was nothing to wimp out from.

I'm trying to figure out if you're really naive enough to mean this statement, or if you're just joking with us.

Look... We're talking about movies, yes? The making of movies is an industry which has absolute contempt for its screenwriters. Standard, paradigmatic joke: Did you hear about the actress so dumb she screwed the writer?

The number of "adaptations" of prior material in the movies that are actually faithful to the source material is vanishingly small. Kubrick, in particular, was known for not giving much of a damn about the original writer -- ask Arthur Clarke. Ask Terry Southern. Ask Anthony Burgess. Ask Thackeray.

For good or for ill, Kubrick is about as close to an actual auteur as one gets, mythical though that beast usually is... so palming off criticisms of his work as lying with the source material doesn't really wash.

Alice isn't /*the*/ "interesting" character, SK wasn't exploring the one character and 'what makes her tick'.

I appreciate you taking the time to restate my thesis for me, as it applies to the final product. I think I did a better job of it... But then I would, wouldn't I?

Anyway, the question is, while both of your statements are true, should they be?

Maybe she liked to swim, maybe her favorite color is blue, or yellow, or red, maybe she's concerned with the violence in today's america.

And, again, I'm trying to figure out if you really think women's sexuality and the apparent fear of it that Kubrick displays in the movie is based on anything this facetious, or if you're joking with us again.

Who knows? Do you?

If someone were to pay me about 50% above WGA scale for the screenplay, sure. But we're talking about movies that are already made and overrated (mostly, he said, tipping his hat to ethmar), and what their strengths and weaknesses are... A discussion of my writing should probably be in another thread, and for that you'd need an URL that doesn't exist, and... well, it'd be complicated. :)

posted by aurelian at 1:14 AM on January 10, 2001

As far as overrated films go, Being John Malkovich left me completely dumbfounded. I'm not adverse to unusual films at all - but I just didn't 'get' it. I'm going to force myself to watch it again some time, and see if that opinion changes. In a slightly different vein, has anyone seen Very Bad Things? I can normally find something redeeming in almost any movie - you know, 'so bad it's funny', etc, etc. VBT has absolutely no redeeming qualities - it is a horrible, horrible film, even for one posing as a black comedy.
posted by viama at 1:23 AM on January 10, 2001

Who's going to get the 100th comment?
posted by fullerine at 4:33 AM on January 10, 2001

I've never walked out of a movie, but came close with "Very Bad Things." VBT ties with "Boxing Helena" for worst movie ever.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 5:34 AM on January 10, 2001

deeper than a comic book

what's that supposed to mean?
posted by sudama at 5:44 AM on January 10, 2001

I would have walked out of "The Piano" if I'd had anywhere to go. Wasn't Gwyneth Paltrow in "Sliding Doors"? That was good, in a much-better-than-I-expected sort of way.
posted by sudama at 6:19 AM on January 10, 2001

ummm... I don't Care about this stuff the way it seems some of you do... but I feel compelled to say that I can't remember ever being excited about theoretical math in my life, before seeing Pi. I left that movie wishing I too could be a cloistered and obsessive math genius, and well, that was a first for me :D
posted by Sapphireblue at 10:20 AM on January 10, 2001

everyone loved Shakespeare in Love and The English Patient. Not me. I thought Shakespeare... was unfunny and forced and The English Patient bored me to tears. Guess It's just me and Elaine on that one...
posted by brittney at 7:24 PM on January 10, 2001

Oh yeah, I meant to add of the deeper than a comic book statement - a lot of comics today are quite deep, thankyouverymuch, (plot wise, backstory, the interweaving of different characters and development of same, etc.) and aren't really considered "comic" at all. I'll just go back to my closet 'comic' geekdom now.

I also like Adam Sandler movies. You might as well just go ahead and shoot me right now.
posted by sammy at 2:45 AM on January 11, 2001