Movies considered "classics" that aren't that great

[The Chairman]

Correction, an overly opinionated elitist snob who sees Hannibal for the mindless garbage that it is.

To be honest, I did enjoy Hannibal, it was definitely entertaining, but to say it's better than SOTL is rediculous. SOTL is one of the most terrifying pyschological thrillers ever made. Hannibal borders on camp in many instances.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Good question.

And I love how Stormyprecious uses the term "Elitist Snob" as if it's bad. If appreciating films with true artistic value and depth makes me an elitist snob, then I'm proud to be an arrogant, overly opinionated elitist snob!

Elitist snob has nothing to do with what films you appreciate, it has to do with people that arrogantly put down those with opposing viewpoints because they're too high up on their imaginery pedastel to understand the very simple difference between opinion and fact and to debate like mature, respectful individuals.
They assume someone having a different idea of true artistic value and depth doesn't know **** about filmmaking, because they are very rude, arrogant, ignorant, and immature; they also tend to love patting each other on the back...

 

[The Dark Defender]

To be honest, I did enjoy Hannibal, it was definitely entertaining, but to say it's better than SOTL is rediculous. SOTL is one of the most terrifying pyschological thrillers ever made. Hannibal borders on camp in many instances.

Or compelling character drama with a twisted sense of humor that people might confuse with camp; and it's not nearly as ridiculous as calling an opinion ridiculous or wrong simply because it doesn't match your own.

 

[Killgore]

No, I'm going to point out it's superb writing, beautiful score, excellent performances, stunning atmosphere, brilliant morality tale element, great blending of interwinding subplots, and all around terrific filmmaking that make it vastly different from SOTL rather than rehashing the same thing as most silly, unnecessary sequels do.

Whatcha gonna do about it? Other than claim "That's wrong because I don't agree with it" in typical elitist snob fashion.

"OMFG?!?!? Someone is using fallacious reasoning on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD?!?!?"

Which I acknowledged was rather common, hence making your sarcasm very void.

You'd think that after 5,000 posts one would be able to properly use quote tags.

 

[The Chairman]

No, I'm going to point out it's superb writing

The writing in Hannibal was convoluted and poorly conceived. The dialogue was third rate, there was never any real tension, and even when the film showed potential it amounted to nothing in the end.

I've seen better writing on the Dollar Menu at McDonald's

beautiful score

I personally didn't care for the score. It felt out of place.

excellent performances

Ha! The acting was horrendous. Moore was dreadful as Clarice. Her accent was forced, her acting overall was stiff as a board and she had no chemistry whatsoever with Hopkins.

Hopkins played Lecter way too campy this time around to the point where it was rediculous and bordered on effeminite. Lecter is a borderline joke in Hannibal.

Liotta, Oldman and Giannini, all great actors, are terribly wasted in their roles.

stunning atmosphere

This I'll give you.

brilliant morality tale element

I must have missed this.

great blending of interwinding subplots

As I said earlier, the plot is incredibly convoluted and poorly conceived. There's no cohesive plot structure present throughout the entire film.

and all around terrific filmmaking that make it vastly different from SOTL rather than rehashing the same thing as most silly, unnecessary sequels do.

If you think Hannibal is terrific filmmaking, than I'd love to hear your opinion on anything by Uwe Boll (though, sadly, Hannibal did actually have a truly great director, it was the writing and the acting that made it weak).

Seriously, how is Hannibal terrific filmmaking? Care to elaborate? Is there anything that separates from any other generic serial killer thriller?

Oh, and for the record, Hannibal itself was a silly and unneccessary sequel. Entertaining, but not needed.

Whatcha gonna do about it? Other than claim "That's wrong because I don't agree with it" in typical elitist snob fashion.

"OMFG?!?!? Someone is using fallacious reasoning on an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD?!?!?"

Which I acknowledged was rather common, hence making your sarcasm very void.

* Doesn't dignify with a response *