What is the most overrated movie of all time?

[Frybird]

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.

Well, this is exactly what happens. Early on, he hires Izak Stern and states clearly that he has no idea how to run a business, but he knows everything about selling himself. As such, he rakes in symphathies from various Nazi officials responsible for the logistics behind the war effort so they make his factory a primary supplier for the military. Stern meanwhile manages everything regarding the finances and potentially running the factory. And since Schindler only employs jews who get paid next to nothing (and knows that you can make a lot of money in wartime), he gets rich quick with barely any effort except being a sympathetic guy towards the right people.

Similar with his list at the end (and in lesser form, the shielding of his workers). He does not try much in order to save "his" jews other than throwing so much bribe money at Nazi Officials that they eventually cave in.

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.

Well, as far as i know from both the movie and what i've read about the real Oskar Schindler, it's not like it was that much of an uphill struggle for him to keep the jews save since all he needed to do is have the right connections and money. (Even though the movie does surprisingly overlook that he later on conspired with jewish resistance movements)

The archievement, in my opinion, is less that he had to fight so much to save people, but that he grew a conscience and did actually invest money and risked prosecution in order to save his workers from Nazi atrocities. And that it all seems so effortless just undermines the fact that just doing a right thing in a time where everyone expects you to do what is morally wrong goes a long way. The Talmud Quote "He who saves a single life saves the entire world." is prominently featured in the movie and central to its theme.

And it's something i actually like about the movie (once again, except the ending)...it's not about the unlikely moral paragon who gives his all to become a true hero, it's about the guy who just did what he felt was right, and how important his very elementary sense of humanity did become.

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.

As i see it, the movie does portray well that in the end, he did give almost everything he had.
That he breaks down in the end i feel is more the tragedy of him realizing what he felt is a responsibility to save as many people as he could, and setting himself up to unrealistic expectations because he himself (and not anyone else) believes that he should've done more when in reality, he not only did good, but maybe couldn't have done more.

At least i don't think that the movie is trying to shame him for not also giving up the clothes on his back and his car.

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?'.

I don't think that the real Schindler was "the second coming" or that he has done an "ultimate" act of heroism.
He did something heroic, certainly, but i like that the movie is not overselling it (even though, again, it does push it a bit towards the end) and shows where he was coming from instead of putting Schindler up to some mythical status it shows the importance of basic decency and morality.

After all, Oskar Schindler "only" saved an almost insignificant amount of people when compared to how many were killed in the Holocaust, but it doesn't mean that his actions weren't important, especially not to the hundreds of people he was able to save.

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

Okay, hitting the most loved film of all time; The Shawshank Redemption.

Do not get me wrong, it is a great film and I would put it in my top 50 films of all time. But every site I see with a best films of all time list puts this one at the top.
I feel like it just doesn't do enough to justify that spot, it never made me question myself or my morality in the way other films have.
There is nothing objectively wrong with the film, it's well acted, well written, pretty well shot, and well paced but it didn't hit me in the same way that it has seem to hit everyone else or in the way other films have hit me.

 

[shootthebandit]

If you're one of those "I watch 5 movies a year and only retain 2 of them" kind of folks that don't ask for much of anything when it comes to their safe and sterilized entertainment, I GUESS this might do it for you. It's well put together and pretty enough and JUST "edgy" enough to convince simpletons that they're watching something "meaningful." But really. Anyone with an above average intelligence (not even film intelligence, just intelligence in GENERAL) should have been able to see right through this transparently phony nonsense. People whine about "Oscar Bait" when it comes to films that come out this time a year, and yet the POSTER CHILD for that stereotype is the #1 rated movie on IMDB. Figures...

Theres no need to be calling someone a simpleton because they enjoy a "safe" film, it just makes you look like a pompous twat. Simply because you have "above average" intelligence doesnt mean you cant enjoy a film that isnt "edgy" or "meaningful". Personally i watch a film because i like to be entertained and shawshank redemption is very entertaining and as you described just "edgy" enough to keep you immersed in the story.

Im sorry if we dont all watch black and white serbian indie films where all the dialogue is spoken word contempary jazz

The movie is stupid on its face, period. I never said you couldn't like the movie. I like my fair share of nonsensical-ness I find entertaining. But to call it one of the greatest films of all times is a complete joke (i.e. THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. Shoulda expected this one to pop up sooner or later).

Speaking of jokes, your attempt at one with your little "black and white Serbian film" just goes to tell me everything I need to know about the target demographic I spoke of earlier. It's the same thing fans of Transformers or The Expendables say when anyone DARE cricitze those braindead flicks. I wasn't asking for spoken word contemporary jazz dialogue. I looked for an intellectually honest film that doesn't insult my intelligence, which The Shawshank Redemption flat out doesn't do the former and does the latter in spades. Just because you're a fan of it doesn't mean it's immune for criticism it rightfully deserves, so don't get all moody at people like me that hold movies (especially ones like this) to a higher standard.

Spoiler

And to be completely honest, the fact of the matter is that some people ARE just simply smarter/more intelligent than others and have higher IQs/attention spans than the guy next to them. The school valedictorian who goes out of their way to expand their horizons and learn above & beyond is going to be smarter than the guy who fell asleep every class and couldn't care less, soooo different they're going to have differing sensibilities. And I dunno about you, but Imma aim for the valedictorian's standards.

That's just the way life works sometimes....but that's a whole other can of worms we're not even going to open here.

I dont have a problem with you criticising shawshank redemption and saying its over rated. It does get a lot of praise which i feel is warranted and some may not. But what i do have a problem with is blantantly insulting someones intelligence because they enjoy it

Granted im far from the smartest guy and im not exactly a member of mensa but you still shouldnt make sweeping generalisations about someones intelligence based on their taste and calling them a simpleton is just down right rude

 

[Yakostovian]

To me, the only acceptable answer to this question is James Cameron's Titanic.

 

[GabeZhul]

Stanley Kubrick's movies, full stop. They are beautifully framed, directed and shot movies with tons of artistic merits, but they are abjectly horrible movies when it comes to anything other than being allegorical and artsy.
Citizen Kane in particular, while a good movie, is hyped to the point where it is just silly.

I would also name James Cameron's Titanic and Avatar. Again, they are not necessarily bad movies, but for some reason their box office success makes people believe that they are somehow objective masterpieces, which is just not true.

 

[irishda]

Most of Stanley Kubrick's work, with the exception of The Shining. The problem with a lot of the auteur directors is they put too much emphasis on building atmosphere. There's too much of what Bruce Willis would call "chuffa" because they're not very efficient at putting the audience in scene unless they can have a fifteen minute slow-pan. The pacing suffers, and the audience is left wondering when the hell something's going to happen.

But that works in The Shining because the slow pace and long set-ups help build a tremendous sense of dread and foreboding (even if the ending is different from the book).

From a more recent standpoint though, I'd have to say Avengers and really a lot of the Marvel movies. Thor was great, but the redemption arc was way too short. Iron Man 1 and 2 were the best only because Robert Downey Jr. is the best actor. And Captain America had a great first act but just devolved into frantic, messy shit after that. Avengers was really just Fast and Furious for the geek crowd, so it's always hilarious to see Movie Bob rip apart that series then lose his mind because of all the blood rushing to his nerd boner whenever he sees something from the comics make a two second cameo in a Marvel movie. It's dumb, popcorn fun, but you don't get to yell at Transformers and Fast and Furious for that same reason and then give a pass to Marvel just because you're nostalgic to be 10 again.

 

[KissingSunlight]

The fact that I'm seeing Kubrick make the list of most overrated movies pretty much proves how uncultured this site's users can be. Most of the reasons given are just buzzwords that critics use with "pretentious" being the absolute most common, hackneyed, used to prop up the "intelligence" of the word's user, and usually given to movies whose criteria would fall under more appropriate words such as heartfelt, intellectual, earnest, sincere, artistic, unconventional, nonconformist, or non-commercial.

Bad writing and poor direction are also buzzwords users give to why they don't like good movies, as if they have any idea what that even means cause I certainly don't. This thread seems like a breeding ground for hipsters, "This movie's popular therefore, I don't like it."

Quoted for truth. God, I hate these threads, and hopefully this post doesn't get me suspended like last time, so here goes...

This thread is to intellectual stimulation what rat poison is to cute animals. Seriously, I can see only a handful of well constructed criticisms, and the rest are just random dismissive adjective's espoused by angry hipsters. No, Citizen Kane is not 'nigh unwatchable,' and to assert otherwise is, in my humble opinion, hilarious. Just because a film chose not to hold your hand through the proceedings is not a mark of its quality. It's truly funny that people can get so worked up over a film just because it didn't broadcast its intent directly. Instead, it requires you to actually think and get invested. To make its viewing more than just a simply passive experience, but I guess that's too much for some. It's not enough to call a film boring because films don't exist solely to entertain you!

As for the rest, 'smug,' 'pretentious,' 'poorly directed,' and 'poorly written' are not arguments. They are conclusions you come to at the end of an argument. If you just call something pretentious and leave it at that, you look like an idiot. I'm sorry, but it's true. You don't come off as enlightened, you look like a god damn hipster.

The plot of Citizen Kane is a reporter trying to figure out what's Kane's last word, Rosebud, meant. Not going to spoil it, but it's the most trivial thing about the movie. Honestly, a docudrama about Citizen Kane is better than Citizen Kane. It's called RKO 281 starring Liev Schreiber, James Cromwell, and John Malkovich. It showed what Orson Welles tried to do with Citizen Kane and why it was controversial. Most of that gets lost when most people watch Citizen Kane, because it got framed with a frivolous plot.

 

['Record Stops.']

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.

Oh damn! You caught me before I could say that! Yes, Citizen Kane is the all time most overrated film. It's still very good, just nowhere near praise worthy enough to be required watching in Film school.

 

[Nico4]

Probably Apocalypse Now. It was basically a dumbed down version of the book. I understand it was trying to be a criticism of the Vietnam war, but some of the scenes are so absurd and sloppy it was ridiculous. I actually agree with much of the films message, but I think it's heavily overrated.

The boat scene actually had me in tears of laughter, it was ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the Vietnam War, and I understand atrocities were committed, but the scene was so over the top I'm surprised hey didn't pull out sticks and start clubbing baby seals.

The surfing scene was completely random too. The whole film just felt like a random cluster fuck of ideas.

Also, anything by Stanley Kubrick. Almost all of his films are lesser adaptations of better novels. A Clockwork Orange missed the point of the book entirely. Same thing with the Shining. He was also a huge ass hole of a director. In the end, even his best films were usually descent films and terrible adaptations.

DR. Strangelove was weird and over the top enough to atleast be fascinating in it's strangeness.

Oh you and I are quite different (especially since A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove are some of my favorite movies.

Anyway, here's some on my list:


Highlander: This has a huge cult following aparrently (which I didn't know about until I saw the film myself). Sean Connery and Lambert are always cool, and the music is kickass, but the movie itself was pretty terrible. Characters aren't well developed, ti's horribly edited and the effects (even for an 80's movie) are pretty atrocious. Plus, why all the love for the villian? He was both over the top and completely devoid of anything cool.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (The Swedish Version): I didn't get all the love for this film, and it's gotten it's fair share of international love ever since it's original release. Personally I find the movie boring and predictable

 

[saxman234]

Wall-E. Sure, its cute (to the point of being saccharine); but its also packs a hamfisted environmental message (nothing wrong with the message, but its a really clumsy delivery), the human characters are pretty unrealistic and I really hated that it switches to real actors from time to time.

Oh, I think Wall-E is my favorite Pixar movie. The first 20 minutes are the most depressing yet fantastic thing Pixar has done. Plus I really enjoy how fat and pathetic everyone became. Plus 2001 a space odyssey bad guy! I can see your points about the hamfisted environmental message though.

I wasn't really a fan of a Clockwork Orange. I know many people regard that as being a classic, I just was not very into the plot. Hmm, I'm sure there are plenty of other movies but main problem with trying to pick movies that I think are overrated is that I wont remember them.

[edit] I guess if I have to choose the most overrated movie of all time, it would have to be Citizen Kane. I will admit that I haven't seen it, but that movie is declared as the god that made movies what they are. There is no way that the movie could seriously live up to that, so it must be the most overrated. Hell, for every new great game people wonder if it will be the "Citizen Kane of gaming" (hint they are not, this title belongs to the perfection and godliness that is Half Life 3 . . . which only lives in our minds)[end edit]

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

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.

Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane.

This. I don't care if it had revolutionary shots.

Citizen Kane.

Citizen Kane.

Right there with you.

Edit:

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!

Oh, I don't despise Citizen Kane. I just think it's massively overrated. It's not a bad film, it's just not the kind of film I like and it's not as good as the critics all say it is.

 

[Uhura]

Seriously, I can see only a handful of well constructed criticisms, and the rest are just random dismissive adjective's espoused by angry hipsters.

I wouldn't get too worked up over it. I mean, if you have read any of the movie related threads on the Escapist, it's fairly obvious that we don't have that many "film buffs" posting here.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

Two things ahead: I like Stanley Kubric movies, and no, I never saw Citicen Kane.

But the most Overrated movie for me is: Full metal Jacket.

Seriously! Most People can Quote the first half of the movie more, then their shopping list, and the second half is hands down the most boring waste of time I experienced.

I'd also say Human Centipede, since I kinda felt bored out of my mind and would have love to get my wasted lifetime back from the guy, who produced that.... thing. GRAH!