No. You can give these films whatever score you like, it's your opinion, but the use of the word 'overrated' is just stupid and childish.BlairCo wrote:chinn riseschinn70 wrote:over rated & sick of more than half of the movies
except IM 1
Instead of analysing why don't you like a film and trying to consider why do other people like it, you simply act like a kid who believes himself to be the King of the Mountain, saying: "yeah, I don't like that thing but because a lot of other people do I just call it overrated so that my opinion can still be the correct and most intelligent one because the others are dumb and can't rate it properly".
It's just insulting. Give your opinion but always with respect, saying things like 'overrated' pretty much obliterates any sense of impartiality you had in the discussion. And if you're biased, you probably won't be here to discuss about qualities and flaws, just to take attention to yourself.
Re-posted for anyone interested:
didich wrote:While (with the exception of Marvel's The Avengers) I've got mixed feelings about Marvel's Phase 1 in terms of quality (sometimes I like them more, sometimes I don't), in any circumstance I always have a great deal of respect for what they tried and accomplished.
In the minds of any sane film producers, the idea of making a film about a B-list comic book character with a washed-up actor in the lead role and with a director whose last film was the epitome of underwhelming wouldn't be even considered. In hindsight, it was Marvel's greatest decision they ever made. And they didn't stop there. Before Thor was released, a lot of critics and bloggers thought it wouldn't do well because the title character wasn't as much of a household name as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or the X-Men; it involved a lot of super-shiny costumes and set pieces; and it was directed by someone primarily known for Shakespearean adaptations who hadn't directed a big action movie before. And then it made 450$ worldwide, was pretty well-received critically, and gained an active and devoted fandom (personally it's my favorite pre-Avengers movie, although probably not the best). The Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel's The Avengers as a whole were also quite risky in hindsight. Ever since the nineties it was declared over and over that a movie about a Super-Team consisting of superheroes each big enough to have his own solo movie, thus requiring a lead-star-capable actor for each role, would never be more than a fanboy's daydream. Even so, The Avengers are not exactly the most-well know superheroes.
Now, indepedently on whether you like the end result or not, they put a lot of (risky) effort in this project and I'm glad it paid off for them (from a general standpoint, both critically and financially). Possibly the best proof about this experiment's influence over the genre and (sometimes ignored) merits is that Fox and WB have decided to try their own, with X-Men: Days of Future Past and Justice League respectively.