Movies you think are overated.

[Thespeckledkiwi]

300 was visually appealing but the movie was mediocre.

Transformers blew so much and really shows that box office success does not equate good movie (Prom night anyone?)

The Patriot (so flawed...Robert Rodat wrote this...WTF?)

Enemy At the Gate

U-571 (actually I don't know if people think this is a good movie. It's a horrible movie!)

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Zzzzzz)

Spirited Away

 

[ktanner3]

Gone With the Wind - much, much too long, with an incredibly dreary plot and some of the worst acting I've seen (even Leslie Howard was appalling).

Amen. It's a dull work whose age and astonishing popularity has somehow backed it into the status of classic.

At least we can agree on something.

 

[Goliath]

MSN had a recent article about movies that are considered great classics that some of today's audience think are overated.

"Overrated," with two r's: "over-rated".

 

[Goliath]

On-topic:

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread.

There is no such thing as an "over-rated" movie.

Different people rate different movies differently.

Each person gives each movie the rating that corresponds to the amount of entertainment and enjoyment that each movie provides.

As a consequence, each movie receives exactly the rating it deserves.

To say that a movie is "overrated" is only to say that you don't understand why some people rate a movie more highly than you do.

But that says more about you than it does about the movie in question.

It says that you lack empathy, and can't understand why other people enjoy movies that you don't.

Either that, or you just think that you're better than them. Or both.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Aliens - Good action but little else. Inferior to episodes one and three IMHO in just about every way. Uninspired, boring and (as is to be expected from a movie from that time centered around a group of space marines) insufferable dialog.

Ooh, I forgot about this one. Alien was a cinematic work of art. Scott's camerawork and use of sound was revolutionary, and frankly, fucking genius.

Aliens was just a gasbag of fan-wank flatulence. I never got any of the Cameron worship. Other than "The Abyss" and (maybe) the first Terminator, most of his movies are pretty mediocre. Yet people wash his balls because he blows shit up. Huh, well so does Micheal Bay.

 

[Mistral]

On-topic:

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread.

There is no such thing as an "over-rated" movie.

Different people rate different movies differently.

Each person gives each movie the rating that corresponds to the amount of entertainment and enjoyment that each movie provides.

As a consequence, each movie receives exactly the rating it deserves.

To say that a movie is "overrated" is only to say that you don't understand why some people rate a movie more highly than you do.

But that says more about you than it does about the movie in question.

It says that you lack empathy, and can't understand why other people enjoy movies that you don't.

Either that, or you just think that you're better than them. Or both.

Finally, an intelligent comment in this thread.

Regarding the Jack-bashing for Cuckoo's Nest-when it came out it was all new, not a re-hash. Older movies should be viewed with a thought about the original context/era in which they were made. Topper barely holds up today-but if you take into account when it was made and what the mores were at the time its a side-splitting, daring movie.
2001-it was done at a time when nothing but Star Trek took science fiction(visual mediums only) seriously. It is a bit slow-but it was done as a (serious) waltz, not a jitterbug. In our soundbite world its probably difficult to sit still for today-but like the above quotes says-"you don't understand ...you do."

Any movie that has sealed up "classic" status, like Citizen Kane, has probably managed to impress enough people to earn that status. It's a shame so many of you can't learn to appreciate the movies for what they are and what their creators meant them to be. Personally, I hated Reds-but I can appreciate what Beatty did with it. It just wasn't my cup of tea. That doesn't take away from a great movie-it just makes it a great movie I didn't enjoy, personally.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

The Matrix - intriguing, but that's about it. Masterpiece? Hell no.

2001 - ugh.

Casablanca - the "best Hollywood movie ever"? I don't think so. It's good and it's iconic, but I've seen it three times and I fight boredom each time.

LOTR: Return of the King - it wasn't the best of the trilogy at all. Had a good ending, but the theatrical cut, especially, was a mess.

 

[Orac Zen]

Gone With the Wind - much, much too long, with an incredibly dreary plot and some of the worst acting I've seen (even Leslie Howard was appalling).

Amen. It's a dull work whose age and astonishing popularity has somehow backed it into the status of classic.

At least we can agree on something.

I was thinking the same thing.

On-topic:

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread.

There is no such thing as an "over-rated" movie.

Different people rate different movies differently.

Each person gives each movie the rating that corresponds to the amount of entertainment and enjoyment that each movie provides.

As a consequence, each movie receives exactly the rating it deserves.

To say that a movie is "overrated" is only to say that you don't understand why some people rate a movie more highly than you do.

But that says more about you than it does about the movie in question.

It says that you lack empathy, and can't understand why other people enjoy movies that you don't.

Either that, or you just think that you're better than them. Or both.

Finally, an intelligent comment in this thread.

Regarding the Jack-bashing for Cuckoo's Nest-when it came out it was all new, not a re-hash. Older movies should be viewed with a thought about the original context/era in which they were made. Topper barely holds up today-but if you take into account when it was made and what the mores were at the time its a side-splitting, daring movie.
2001-it was done at a time when nothing but Star Trek took science fiction(visual mediums only) seriously. It is a bit slow-but it was done as a (serious) waltz, not a jitterbug. In our soundbite world its probably difficult to sit still for today-but like the above quotes says-"you don't understand ...you do."

Any movie that has sealed up "classic" status, like Citizen Kane, has probably managed to impress enough people to earn that status. It's a shame so many of you can't learn to appreciate the movies for what they are and what their creators meant them to be. Personally, I hated Reds-but I can appreciate what Beatty did with it. It just wasn't my cup of tea. That doesn't take away from a great movie-it just makes it a great movie I didn't enjoy, personally.

Wow. Aren't you both taking this just a bit too seriously? Not to mention the rather patronising tone of both your posts and the extraordinary assumption that not liking a movie as much as someone else somehow means one has some sort of character flaw. People just have different tastes, and not liking a movie hardly means one is incapable of empathy or of understanding another person's viewpoint.

As for this:

Older movies should be viewed with a thought about the original context/era in which they were made.

Not that I suspect it'll make much difference, but for the record the vast majority of my favourite movies were made before 1960 (as a rough cut-off point), so I at least don't have an issue with "thinking" about the original context / era in which something was made. And Nicholson always played himself, IMO. If you disagree, that's fine. To each their own. But the condescending generalisations about people who hold a different viewpoint from your own really aren't necessary in any context - much less that of a thread on an internet message board.

 

[Mistral]

Sorry-but if I'd quoted the specific entries that got my ire up and commented in an honest fashion on them I'd have been targeted for flaming individuals. Everyone operates from their own knowledge base and opinion-and some have less, ah, tools or experience to work with than others. I just thought there was a lack of historical perspective in the film-bashing of older flicks(although, I, too, avoid GWTW like the plague.) Anyway, a negative thread is a major bash to begin with, don't you think? Kind of a lose/lose way to start a commentary. IMO.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

Oh, I forgot the original Star Wars (Episode IV). I saw it recently for the first time in years and was astonished at what the passing of time has done to my opinion of it. Watching it as an adult, I can now see that it lacks a lot of the polish that its sequels had. And I found the story a little weak, too. It's almost as if it's over in a flash. And I had the feeling that there should've been a little more to it.

Empire, though, still holds up.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Oh, for the record, I also love Citizen Kane. Not the best movie ever made or the best American movie and maybe, just maybe not the best Orson Welles movie; but it's a very good movie nonetheless. And Lawrence of Arabia is simply David Lean's indelible mark on cinema.

Gone With the Wind - much, much too long, with an incredibly dreary plot and some of the worst acting I've seen (even Leslie Howard was appalling).

Amen. It's a dull work whose age and astonishing popularity has somehow backed it into the status of classic.

You know, it's rather interesting that some folks in this thread appear to be equating 'overrated' with 'bad'. Which is not always the case, necessarily.

I myself like Citizen Kane okay...and even said so in my first post which entered it into this discussion. And there is no greater shot than the ending shot of that film, where the camera scrolls over the mountains and mountains of empty material possessions left by this lonely broken man.

I just don't think it's the best film ever made (a place it holds on a surprising number of lists)...or even the best film Orson Welles ever made.

So basically, we agree.

As for Gone With the Wind...well, I think it is too long too, but I do see it has having more of a point than, say, LoA. And I do think Vivien Leigh (who I don't generally like, actually) did a good job in it, as did Clark Gable. Perhaps I am being generous, but I give Leslie Howard a pass on being not up to his usual standard, because by all accounts he was extremely upset and preoccupied during the filming of GWTW due to the goings-on in Europe with Hitler, and concern over how that would continue to impact the UK. Can't say as I can blame the man for that...especially in light of the fact that he eventually died in that very cause. As for the other actors...well, Oliva deHavilland played Olivia deHavilland (at least the OdH of that era, anyway), and I thought Hattie McDaniel was great.

Still, this was another film that they could have cut a good 45 minutes out of without much trouble.

I just don't think most people have the attention spands to sit through these massive films. And to be honest, I think that in some cases, some of these directors simply liked the sound of their own voice, so to speak.

I've been giving this issue of the epic film (with the accompanying epic length) alot of thought lately as I've watched a couple as part of my own personal memorial to Charlton Heston (the King of the Epic Film, I'd say...or at least the epic films of the 50's and 60's). And really, there are very few of them that really needed to be as long as they were.

They probably coulda cut about 30 minutes out of Ben Hur, for example, without trouble. That film is probably my favorite CH film...but man it is too long!

 

[Orac Zen]

Everyone operates from their own knowledge base and opinion-and some have less, ah, tools or experience to work with than others.

Indeed. That doesn't mean they've got some sort of problem relating to other people or accepting other opinions, though...which was certainly the impression the posts I quoted gave.

Anyway, a negative thread is a major bash to begin with, don't you think? Kind of a lose/lose way to start a commentary. IMO.

"Major bash"? Hardly. To me, it's a thread on a message board and people have offered various comments. To draw conclusions about people on the basis of those comments seems, to me, to be unnecessary. Sometimes a movie is just a movie, and having a different opinion about it doesn't mean a person is in some way deficient, uneducated, or anything else along those lines. To each their own.

 

[Red Ranger]

Wow. I disagree with most of the movies claimed to be overrated, with the exception of Forrest Gump, Gone With the Wind, and Little Miss Sunshine. I'm apoplectic over branding The Shining and 2001 as overrated, so I'll just add my own movie to this list: Old School. The movie just isn't that funny and the plot, such as it is, is full of more holes than a pound of swiss cheese. Yet people hail it as a masterwork of comedy. Yuck!

Red Ranger

 

[stj]

On-topic:

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread.

There is no such thing as an "over-rated" movie.

Different people rate different movies differently.

Each person gives each movie the rating that corresponds to the amount of entertainment and enjoyment that each movie provides.

As a consequence, each movie receives exactly the rating it deserves.

To say that a movie is "overrated" is only to say that you don't understand why some people rate a movie more highly than you do.

But that says more about you than it does about the movie in question.

It says that you lack empathy, and can't understand why other people enjoy movies that you don't.

Either that, or you just think that you're better than them. Or both.

People aren't just talking about how entertained they were or how much fun they had. If they were, wouldn't porn always be the highest rated movies?

If movies or TV or SF or whatever really is stupid stuff that is just a matter of personal taste, the question is, why post? To point out how stupid we are for taking it so seriously? This kind of fake populism (belligerently declaring in effect, my taste is as good as yours!) ignores the possibility that some tastes and some ideas are approved but others are not for reasons separate from supposed entertainment value and/or artistic merit. The classic status of Gone With The Wind is not separate from its racist version of history. Nor is its entertainment value separate from racist prejudices and ignorance of viewers.

The refusal to analyze one's experience implies that at some level one is ashamed to examine the self at all. Or the rejection of reason. Or both.

 

[Kegek]

Camelopard, while that's a logical view I think there is a social context wherein one can justify the use of the term overrated. If a seemingly majority of people - of critics, or of people one socialises with, or so on - regards something very highly as entertainment or as art which you do not, then to say it's overrated is to disagree with this consensus. Not the most rigorous use of the word but I consider the circumstances sufficient. Hume, billiards, etc. Non-philosophical use of language in the same way we commonly use the word 'know' in everyday conversation.

You know, it's rather interesting that some folks in this thread appear to be equating 'overrated' with 'bad'. Which is not always the case, necessarily.

True. To be fair, I agree that A Clockwork Orange is overrated but I don't think it's a bad film. It's also true that many people who consider a very popular or critically acclaimed film to be bad would by default consider it to be overrated.

But I guess I don't consider the difference of my estimation of Kane and the critical one to be sufficiently different to consider it overrated. I may not it the greatest but it's teetering on an edge with a lot of close contenders.

They probably coulda cut about 30 minutes out of Ben Hur, for example, without trouble. That film is probably my favorite CH film...but man it is too long!

What do you think of the silent version, then? It's half the length and even includes material from the book that never made it into the film (like Iris, for example).

Personally, I love a good epic movie and I'm not that prone to ADD. But if a film is a half-hour short or a gargantuan epic, it has to hold my attention and keep me entertained consistently for me to like it. Gone with the Wind really doesn't do that, though I'll concede Vivien Leigh is a fine spoiled brat.

 

[tomalak301]

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

I found these movies boring, tedious, and mostly dull. Two Towers was probably the best one, but then Suramon wasn't in the third one and that really scratched my head. Everytime I speak anything bad about these films, I'm called a blasphemer and they always bring up the Academy Award wins. I really hated those years oscars. All the movies that came out that year was shafted because the Oscar decided to celebrate three movies. How fair was that.

 

[Cicero]

2001: A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
Amadeus
Apocalypse Now
Ben-Hur
The Big Lebowski
Born on the Fourth of July
Braveheart
Chariots of Fire
Dances With Wolves
The Deer Hunter
The English Patient
Fargo
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II (I actually enjoyed Part III)
Gone With the Wind
The Guns of Navarone
Kill Bill
Kill Bill Vol. 2
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Little Miss Sunshine
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (A very good but not excellent movie, unlike the first two)
Lost In Translation
Million Dollar Baby
Mystic River
No Country For Old Men
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Platoon
Pulp Fiction
The Sound of Music
The Sting
Superman
Superman II
Taxi Driver
Titanic
The Unforgiven
West Side Story

 

[Cicero]

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

I found these movies boring, tedious, and mostly dull. Two Towers was probably the best one, but then Suramon wasn't in the third one and that really scratched my head. Everytime I speak anything bad about these films, I'm called a blasphemer and they always bring up the Academy Award wins. I really hated those years oscars. All the movies that came out that year was shafted because the Oscar decided to celebrate three movies. How fair was that.

Saruman's final defeat is in the extended version of Return of the King, but was (unwisely) cut from the theatrical edition for pacing reasons.



Edit: I also think that Batman Begins was a mediocre movie.

 

[tomalak301]

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy

I found these movies boring, tedious, and mostly dull. Two Towers was probably the best one, but then Suramon wasn't in the third one and that really scratched my head. Everytime I speak anything bad about these films, I'm called a blasphemer and they always bring up the Academy Award wins. I really hated those years oscars. All the movies that came out that year was shafted because the Oscar decided to celebrate three movies. How fair was that.

Saruman's final defeat is in the extended version of Return of the King, but was (unwisely) cut from the theatrical edition for pacing reasons.

So they introduce him as a villain and then don't use him at all in the third in favor of 5 different endings? You're right. It was unwise.

 

[Red Ranger]

2001: A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
Amadeus
Apocalypse Now
Ben-Hur
The Big Lebowski
Born on the Fourth of July
Braveheart
Chariots of Fire
Dances With Wolves
The Deer Hunter
The English Patient
Fargo
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II (I actually enjoyed Part III)
Gone With the Wind
The Guns of Navarone
Kill Bill
Kill Bill Vol. 2
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Little Miss Sunshine
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (A very good but not excellent movie, unlike the first two)
Lost In Translation
Million Dollar Baby
Mystic River
No Country For Old Men
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Platoon
Pulp Fiction
The Sound of Music
The Sting
Superman
Superman II
Taxi Driver
Titanic
The Unforgiven
West Side Story

A pox on your house and on your list! Is there any movie you do like? -- RR