What is the most overrated movie of all time?

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
shootthebandit said:
The Dubya said:
You're all wrong. The only correct answer is The Shawshank Redemption. Thanks for playing.
John McEnroe puts it a lot better than i can



Anything narrated by morgan freeman should not be considered overrated. Shawshank is one of the best films ever (and is based on a steven king book) granted it gets a lot of praise but its not undeserved
While i do enjoy Shawshank i also find it a bit too sentimental in the bad way, there's a lot of icky Hollywood schmaltz in there. I would never call it one of the best movies ever made for that reason, but i would call it a good movie though. But that's just my opinion.

I would probably say the same about Forrest Gump, except i don't enjoy it on any level. I just can't stand the soundtrack in that film, so overplayed and melodramatic in an almost vonit inducing manner. And i enjoy melodrama to some extent, i am a fan of Spielberg afterall.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
LuisGuimaraes said:
Blood Brain Barrier said:
I would have said the Nolan Batman movies if they weren't mentioned in the OP. So I'll say...

Spirited Away. Just never liked it. I preferred Grave of the Fireflies.

Also The Notebook. How that movie can be regarded as one of the best romance movies is totally beyond my comprehension.

tzimize said:
IndomitableSam said:
Citizen Kane.

Yes, I said it. It's boring. I haven't seen it in years and have never wanted to, since. Not a fan in the slightest.
Right there with you. Just because someone was the first to do something doesnt mean they were the best, or good at all. Boooooooooooooooring movie.
What was Citizen Kane the first to do?
It was the first film to be an actual film instead of a theatre stage recorded on tape.
That can't be true. I wouldn't call Metropolis a stage production, nor Frankenstein or Brunel's films. There were plenty of films with outdoor scenes and things that couldn't be done on stage.
It's not the first movie that wasn't like a stage production, it was just one of the first movies to utilize the language of film the way it did. There's a lot of depth and complexity in the image compositions and stuff like that, something you didn't usually see that often before it, atleast when telling a story like this. Actually i would go as far as to say that this is still the case, you have to look long and hard to find movies with images this complex in movies these days.

I can see why it would be viewed as boring though, the story is pretty simple when you look past how it's told. But i enjoyed it, mostly because i enjoyed Kanes character and the cinematography of the movie. Not the best movie out there, but i appreciate it for what it does. It's one of those films that shows how much your story can be elevated by the way you choose to tell it.
 

Lovisa

New member
Oct 28, 2013
4
0
0
MrBaskerville said:
I think The Deer Hunter is incredebly overrated, mostly because it's so poorly edited with loooong drawn out scenes that really doesn't add much to the movie. The wedding scene is endless and it achieves what it sets out to achieve long before it ends. To me, the only highlight is a couple of the final scenes in the end, but still i don't really see what's so great about it. What i'm trying to say is that the movie feels aimless and a lot of it feel like raw footage that probably should have been left at the editing floor... No wonder Cimino ended up making Heavens Gate...

I was also a bit confused about vertigo (The movie that replaced Citizen Kane on BFI's list last year), mostly because the ending seems so weird and sloppy, but i might be missing something here as i have only watched it once so far. I also think TDK is overrated, people who compare it to Heat are delusional. It's a fine action movie, but not some masterpiece in the thriller genre and i also had some problems with the lenght of the movie. I think it drags in the end and overstays it's welcome and the hamfisted ferry scene was pretty awful and unnecesary. Aside from that it was a decent action movie, but i prefer Begins and Rises (for it's campiness).
Well said about The Deer Hunter! Finally someone agrees with me on this one. It's unecessarily drawn out and it's like, realistic to a point where it just gets unnatural - if that makes any sense :p
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
Lovisa said:
MrBaskerville said:
I think The Deer Hunter is incredebly overrated, mostly because it's so poorly edited with loooong drawn out scenes that really doesn't add much to the movie. The wedding scene is endless and it achieves what it sets out to achieve long before it ends. To me, the only highlight is a couple of the final scenes in the end, but still i don't really see what's so great about it. What i'm trying to say is that the movie feels aimless and a lot of it feel like raw footage that probably should have been left at the editing floor... No wonder Cimino ended up making Heavens Gate...

I was also a bit confused about vertigo (The movie that replaced Citizen Kane on BFI's list last year), mostly because the ending seems so weird and sloppy, but i might be missing something here as i have only watched it once so far. I also think TDK is overrated, people who compare it to Heat are delusional. It's a fine action movie, but not some masterpiece in the thriller genre and i also had some problems with the lenght of the movie. I think it drags in the end and overstays it's welcome and the hamfisted ferry scene was pretty awful and unnecesary. Aside from that it was a decent action movie, but i prefer Begins and Rises (for it's campiness).
Well said about The Deer Hunter! Finally someone agrees with me on this one. It's unecessarily drawn out and it's like, realistic to a point where it just gets unnatural - if that makes any sense :p
That's actually a very good way to describe it! Glad i'm not alone with this one.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
hazabaza1 said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
hazabaza1 said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
hazabaza1 said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
the Eagles could've totally flown the Fellowship into Mordor (fuck that "they're a proud race" argument, they did it all the time in The Hobbit).
How about the excuse that they're carrying what is basically a magnet for "evil glowing death light that fucks up your psyche and turns you mentally insane if looked upon for too long" really high in the sky and carrying the ring like that is essentially a death sentence?

[sub][sub]just sayin'[/sub][/sub]
I doubt they had much of a psyche to corrupt. Frodo made it to Mordor (barely), I'm sure they could've made it just fine in half that time. He'd still be carrying it anyway, it's not like they're giving it to the eagles. So they would've still needed a distraction to smuggle in the Ring, fair enough. But walking aaaaaaaall the way wasn't the best plan they could've gone with.
Yeah and walking all that way with a distraction Frodo got looked at for like 5 seconds and nearly gave in. The eagles would be in the wide open air with no cover and that Sauron light is a big fucker. Chances are it could shine on the eagle carrying whoever has the ring and the ring bearer. Both of them would be mind raped by the time they entered Mordor.
"Sauron light"? Are we talking about proper book Sauron or lighthouse movie Sauron?
Movie.
This is a thread about movies after all, I didn't think we were bringing in things that happens in books to talk about movie logic.
Still it sounds more like an excuse than an actual reason. Like when McKellen asked Jackson why couldn't he just use his magic staff on the Witch King. Jackson: "It's out of batteries". Same with the Eagles. There's never an in-universe explanation as to why not recur (yet again) to the Eagles for ferrying, just people handwaving about this or that. If this were really about calling attention, I'm sure they could've plotted distraction/s to smuggle in the Ring. That's more or less what they did in the end anyway (the Black Gate battle is one big distraction).
The odds of you seeing this are slim, but I feel both points have been answered in universe. In the Simarillion, we learn that the Eagles were the servants of Manwe and sent to more or less keep an eye on the evil and see what the exiled elves were up to. They weren't to intervene on behalf of good, though they would occasionally help individuals and later Gondolin, and after the war, they/their descendants moved to the Misty Mountains. I doubt Manwe had changed his mind on helping Middle Earth, especially after the Elves created the One Ring and humans had tried to invade Valinor (they are Gods. They hold grudges a long-ass time). With respect to Gandalf, he and the other Istari were forbidden to use their magic to battle Sauron directly, else Gandalf could have tried to fight him directly since they were both powerful Maiar. This would include the Witch King, as a servant of Sauron, but not the Balrog, who served Morgoth and whom even the Valar (in the end) had no reservations about intervening over.
 

Julius Terrell

New member
Feb 27, 2013
361
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Glongpre said:
2001 A Space Odyssey. It was just really god damn slow. Seriously, that trippy wave thing near the end lasts like 5 minutes. So does the space walk, but that lasts even longer.
This one! I had to watch this movie for a project I was doing and it was one of the most boring films I've ever had to suffer through, not the most boring, that dishonour goes to The Last Man on Earth starring Vincent Price. Seriously the film is paced like a snail running a marathon. It only got interesting once it got to the part with HAL9000, then once that part was over it got boring again. And for fuck sake did that ship really need to take 15 minutes to land?
2001 is one of the best films I've ever seen, but most people I recommend it to just get through it. I loved the pacing and the fact that you have to puzzle out the storyline for yourself. I can understand why most people can't get into a movie like this, but I'm glad it exists. Excuse me for having a reasonably long attention span.

Anyway, my answer for most overrated movie ever has to be any of the recent Batman movies. Nothing can outdo the animated series. Mark Hammil and Kevin Conroy made their roles so complete that nobody can imitate what they did.

As far as I see it these batman movies were nothing, but imitations in my eyes.
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
Most of them have already been said. I'll list the ones I agree with so far.

Christopher Nolan's movies except Memento
James Cameron's movies especially Titanic & Avatar
Lord of the Ring Trilogy (I haven't seen The Hobbit. Trick me once with a trilogy, shame on you. Trick me twice with trilogy, shame on me.)


There's a lot of underserved hate for Stanley Kubrick's movies, but I agree with 2001: The Space Odyssey being overrated.

Citizen Kane is like Birth of a Nation. Both are praised for technical reasons, but both movies are atrocious.

A lot of recent Best Picture winners have been overrated.
 

Ryleh

New member
Jul 21, 2013
105
0
0
Gravity!

When the trailer came out I was like "A movie where Sandra Bullock floats away in to space? Excellent!"

Then I heard that people very high up in the aus/nz cinema business were claiming it to be "the best movie ever", and whats more people further afield were claiming it was the "best space movie of all time". So I shut my mouth and resigned to the fact that it probably was pretty good and that I'd been too quick to judge.

But then I went, and holy butts it was the worst. The physics were all wrong, the main character is a female who just wishes there was a man around to tell her what to do, the whole symbolism is so forced and in your face... Not to mention a woman of science turns to god when faced with death and the whole thing reeks of improbability.

Yes, I know, I've probably spent far too long working in a cinema going to every art-house flick to come along, but goddamn, I could not tolerate the idea of such a flawed film being touted "the best move ever". We still screen The Room once per month and I'd rather go to every session of that for a year than watch Gravity again.
 

prpshrt

New member
Jun 18, 2012
260
0
0
I'd want to say avatar but I'm gonna say Life of Pi. Now I can understand that there's some classic movies I'd be unable to appreciate because I'd like to think I'm not cultured. But by god was Life of Pi such pretentious pile of shit. It's about a boy who's hallucinating from dehydration about being on a life boat with a tiger. How on earth people think the movie is a spiritual journey among other things is beyond me. I have never wanted a movie to do so badly. Yea it had cool effects but that hardly warrants it to be a good movie. Heck Avatar at least had some interesting elements to it and some story. The Life of Pi on the other hand... ugh. The entire novel could be dumbed down to a page and you wouldn't really be cutting down on anything important.
 

Fredvdp

New member
Apr 9, 2009
139
0
0
The Wizard of Oz

Sure, it has some great songs and was a technological marvel, but I think it was too long and repetitive. Also, the whole point of the protagonist's escape into the dream world is the real-life witch's threat to get Toto killed, and if I recall correctly, they never adress this again in the end. Are we to assume Toto dies?

Like many, I disliked Avatar as well, but you can't really call it overrated when so many people hate it.
 

Gary Thompson

New member
Aug 29, 2011
84
0
0
Avatar.

It's a heretical, xenos love film that rips off Dances With Wolves.

Also the good guys lose, and I hate films where the good guys lose.
 

The Enquirer

New member
Apr 10, 2013
1,007
0
0
lacktheknack said:
<link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.826022-Poll-15-reasons-why-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-is-incredible-stupid>Oh hey. I remember you. This isn't one-track minded at all!

OT: To this day, I cannot understand why everyone is so impressed by Saw. It just... urgh. Yeah, it makes you think, but I've thought of similar questions while just sitting and staring at a wall. I didn't need an unpleasant movie to make me do it again.
Think that's all he's done? I took a gander at his profile. Every post he's made revolves around why the Nolan movies suck. I respect other's opinions to the best of my ability but seriously dude, talk about something else every once in a while :p

OT: I have never understood why people are so fascinated with the Nightmare on Elm Street movies. Last year for the first time I watched one of them and just wasn't impressed. The other people were screaming their heads off but stopped doing so once I started saying when anything scary would happen (keep in mind I had never seen this movie so it was just good prediction on my part). It's a good concept, but it has just been overdone to such a massive degree that they have become predictable in most regards because they are trying to appeal to a huge audience, so they can't do a lot of the grittier stuff that some horror movies do.
 

Frybird

New member
Jan 7, 2008
1,632
0
0
Hagi said:
For me, Schindler's List.

Mainly because of the portrayal of Schindler. In the movies he's basically put down as some sort of half god. Capable of seducing any woman and charming any German officer. Rich, handsome, dedicated to saving everyone from the Nazi regime. Which really makes the movie rather dull and boring. Of course he's going to save everyone, he's basically portrayed as Superman. Of course he's going to do the right thing, he's the perfect guy everyone in the audience is imagining they'd be and act as.
I...don't know honestly.

I'd easily agree that it just becomes too much near the end of the movie (Schindler trying to "fix" Göth, Schindler deliberately producing faulty grenades and my personal non-favorite, Schindler providing water for the Jews stuck in a train on a hot summer day without even trying to mask his intentions while his jew-hating nazi friends consider it a cruel joke for..some reason?) but i seen it recently and there is a lot more neutral characterization going on before the end.

Schindler himself pretty much spells out multiple times that (for the first half of the movie) he really just wants to make money, and even before the concentration camp stuff jews get paid so little that they are basically his slaves. What makes him different from other nazis is that he doesn't hate or belittle jews, he just sees an opportunity for himself to make a lot of money of them (wich would non-historically explain how his later businesses failed). He is also constantly on Izak Stern's (whose business-savvyness and tricky bookeeping is another implied reason why Schindler makes so much damn money) ass because he uses his "unhatefulness" to make his factory a refuge for his fellow jews, he just happens to be guilt-tripped enough to not act on it.

As such, i found myself surprised when i last saw it that Schindler is a much more rounded character than i remembered...i think the problem is a little different.
Schindler basically comes off as Jesus (even before the end, where, again, he admittedly is portrayed as such) because all the other nazis are just so impossibly evil. With the exception of a handful of one-scene characters, almost every other nazi can barely make it through a scene without doing or saying something anti-semetic. And of course, one of the other main characters is Amon Göth, a guy who kills jews out of sheer boredom, if need be (And Schindler defends[!] this guy in front of Stern, basically excusing his inhuman behavior by saying "He's a pretty swell guy, but war turns people crazy).

Just wanted to bring it up because i did once thought so too but was surprised when revisiting the film.

ON TOPIC:
Uhm....Citizen Kane i guess.
It's a good movie, a really really good movie, but since so many people seem to be convinced that it is the best movie of all time, it tends to get overrated a lot, and people tend to ignore some glaring pacing issues as well as blatant errors regarding it's oh-so-perfect cinematography.

Other than that, Metropolis is horrendously overrated.
It was basically the "Avatar" of it's time, an overly simple and trite plot presented in (for it's time) absolutely stunning production values. It's huge influence to the science fiction genre is more owed to it's amazing concept art and matte paintings than its archievements as a film.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
It's not that he's always doing good. For me it really was that he never seems to invest any effort in what he's doing yet still succeeds miraculously at whatever he's trying.

All the character has to do is want something and he achieves it. In the first half he wants to make money and lo and behold, without any real effort on his part he rakes in the money. Then he decides to start helping his Jewish workers and without any noticeable effort invested he succeeds. Any setbacks in the movie don't occur because Schindler tries and fails, he never fails. If something bad happens it's because Schindler didn't try to stop it.

Which, to me, makes the movie so overrated is because it makes of the acts of the real life Schindler not an achievement of tremendous willpower and difficulty, as it probably was, but rather something he just decided to try out one day and, like everything else the movie Schindler does, succeeds at without any trouble.

It's not that Schindler is a paragon of goodness. It's that he never fails, never struggles, never has difficulties.

The final scene where he's crying about not having been able to do more really crowns it. Because the entire movie didn't leave me with the sense of a man who indeed gave it everything he had, invested everything of himself into the task and, against all odds, managed to do all that could be done in such a horrific situation. Instead it portrayed a man who really could have done a lot more, a man who only achieved what he did not because it was a near impossible task but rather because he just couldn't be bothered to try harder.

I guess that's what it really comes down to. The movie reduces an act of ultimate heroism against all odds to a point where I'm thinking 'Really? That's all you, the amazing Schindler, could do? You're basically the second coming and that's all you managed?'.
 

Popbangwoo

New member
Jan 6, 2012
29
0
0
I'll second Inception. It's a really good film an all, but was horribly over-hyped.
I would also agree with Avatar, seeing as that was overrated, but I saw it on release, so I didn't have anybody yelling at me to watch it.
To add a film to the list I would have to say Fight Club.

Fight Club is a very good film, and very clever, but I see a LOT of people rate it ridiculously high on their top films list. Personally for me, the second half of the film was just a bit plain compared to the rest of the film.
 

Exterminas

New member
Sep 22, 2009
1,130
0
0
OneCatch said:
IndomitableSam said:
Citizen Kane.
Yes, I said it. It's boring. I haven't seen it in years and have never wanted to, since. Not a fan in the slightest.
Arcane Azmadi said:
The most overrated film of all time? In my opinion, the most critically acclaimed one: Citizen Kane.
I had to watch the film at uni for film studies (twice actually) and I just didn't like it. While I appreciated the masterful cinematography (I'd have to if I was watching it for film studies), the story felt cumbersome and I just couldn't relate to the characters. Yes, the film is a study about how Kane's hubris and pride destroy him and leave him empty, but I just found it depressing, bleak and miserable, not to mention WAY too long.
Oh god, this. I've never finished it in one sitting. I'm sure it was groundbreaking it its time, and influenced the course of cinema, but it has not aged well.
And I'm not one of those people who can't get past black and white or verbose films - Metropolis is one of my favourite sci-fi films, and There Will Be Blood is in my top five in total. Come to think of it, There Will Be Blood does a far better job of hashing out Citizen Kane's themes (pride, cynicism, ceaseless pursuit of power) than Citizen Kane does...
Citizen Kane. Hands down.
It might have been great at it's time, but today it is nigh unwatchable because of the atrocious pacing and because everyone knows the twist already.
 

Adeptus Aspartem

New member
Jul 25, 2011
843
0
0
Everyone who's not writing Citizen Kane is wrong. Even on an objective level.

Everything in ANY other media gets compared to this one film and if something is good it's called "The Citizen Kane of X".
Not "The Dark Knight of X" or "The Avatar of X".

Since decades Citizen Kane counts as the greatest thing happening to humanity since bacon. And while the film certainly has alot of good qualities it is impossible to live up to the expectations.

The question is: "most overrated" and "of all time", so why are people citing multiple movies in 1 post? There can only be one.
 

OneCatch

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,111
0
0
Exterminas said:
Citizen Kane. Hands down.
It might have been great at it's time, but today it is nigh unwatchable because of the atrocious pacing and because everyone knows the twist already.
KissingSunlight said:
Citizen Kane
Trivea said:
Citizen Kane.
RedDeadFred said:
This. I don't care if it had revolutionary shots.
Arcane Azmadi said:
Citizen Kane.
IndomitableSam said:
Citizen Kane.
tzimize said:
Right there with you.
Edit:
Adeptus Aspartem said:
Everyone who's not writing Citizen Kane is wrong.
I have this pet theory that no-one, anywhere, actually likes Citizen Kane, but because the consensus has always been that it's concentrated genius no-one will admit to hating it.
I reckon even film critics secretly despise it. Sooner or later one of them will publicly crack, and then the floodgates will open.
We're the vanguard, people!