Another vote for
Several of the movies that have been mentioned I’ve seen and haven’t been wild about–Titanic, The English Patient, and Forrest Gump spring to mind–but I can see why people think they’re impressive. 1. and 2. above, I can’t. Boring and poorly executed, both of 'em.
Bullitt. Yes, yes, I know, it has an exciting car chase. Otherwise, it’s choppy, generic and dull. I watched it last night after forming that opinion over 30 years ago. I liked it slightly better this time around because it was fun to take a peek back into the seamy grit of the late 60s, but otherwise, meh.
Gone With The Wind. I first saw it in its 1971 re-release. I have never wanted to see it again.
On my list, this edged out La Dolce Vita, which I saw for the first time just a couple of months ago on DVD. For its day (1960) it was incredibly groundbreaking and considered by some to be near-pornographic. It seemed to me merely a bit surrealistic, like Buñuel. But that’s it.
I’d like to congratulate all the posters who nominated movies that I agree are overrated for your canny ability to recognize overhyped crap. And shame on all the posters who mentioned movies I love; you’re all philistines who can’t recognize genius when you see it.
This goes for all future threads of this sort, too.
I think some movies suffer from being too fixed in the era when they were made. Easy Rider, for example, may have been a great movie in 1969. But it’s not a great movie now.
No, it wasn’t a great movie then either. Wasn’t even a good movie.
No it wasn’t. In my opinion, a waste of film except for Nicholson’s performance in the campfire scene. In 1969 and ever since.
GWTW is not the blockbuster it was back in what, 39? It is very much a product of the time in which it came out. It was, I believe, one of the first movies tied to a best selling novel, so it already had a built in audience/fan base. Also, I don’t know this, but I’ll wager you didn’t read the book. It’s understandable, since the book is 1K pages (plus or minus) and may not be a topic you are interested it. Plus, if you’ve seen the movie and didn’t care for it, you would probably never have the desire to pick up the book.
I felt like you did when I first saw it. It was a boring, drawn out movie that didn’t hold my attention enough to want to see it again. Then, about 15 years after seeing it, I read the book. The book is amazing. The single best novel I’ve ever read. Margaret Mitchell literally ***puts ***you in the pre- and post- Civil War south. Her writing style is amazingly descriptive.
The movie did not follow the book, and it could have been fatal for those that were expecting it to. Some plot threads that were part of the book from the beginning were left out entirely. Scarlett, for example, had three children in the book, one by each of her husbands. The director made some amazing choices to cut out things witch actually streamlined the movie (if you can believe that), so after reading the book, I found that following the movie was much easier.
It still doesn’t play well to a modern audience, but I thought I’d throw this out there in case someone wanted an excuse to read the book and then rewatch the movie. The pace of the movie worked for 1939, but today’s audience by and large doesn’t enjoy movies that move slow and have musical interludes. GWTW was an event, perhaps like the Godfather movies of the 70’s. (I never read the book, so I don’t know if it is a good comparison).
I watched Easy Rider for the same reason you did. You heard it was a great movie. I don’t think the movie was EVER great, and am now convinced you have to be high as a kite to watch it at all. I was actually happy the redneck smacked Peter Fonda off the bike, because I knew the movie would be ending soon.
Pauline Kael lives.
mmm
Yes! *Hands **Rico *a trophy
I was so excited to finally get to see this, since everyone was wetting their pants over how good it was. I got to the end, and I was like, “Really? *That *was it?”
I know that there’s a lot of adulation out there for *Titanic *and Avatar, and it gives the impression that these are “great” movies, but I always felt like you need to understand what those movies are for. They’re visual and technical achievements, great for their success at pushing the boundaries of certain aspects of film making, with just enough of a recycled plot scraped together to give you an excuse to look at them for two hours. I think they’re amazing at what they do, but they were never really in the running for “great all-around movie.”
I’ve never been able to get through Giant. Everything just looked so fake- especially the old age make-up. Boring, too.
Forrest Gump… hated everything about it… hated its politics… hated what i felt it was trying to say…found the characters to be caricatures… wanted to take the box of chocolates and shove em up somebody’s ass…
Agree wholeheartedly with everyone who mentioned Forrest Gump and American Beauty. I always think of those two films as being in the same category of films that think they’re profound, but are completely empty. Someone once said on the boards something like: “these are movies that are considered good by people who don’t know good movies”. If you watch any scene or even just any 30 seconds of these films, you get the feeling you’re watching some epic masterpiece. But there’s nothing there. I might include Dead Poet’s Society as well.
E.T. is easily the most overrated movie ever made. I never felt so manipulated and violated in my life. It made it difficult for me to ever watch a Spielberg movie again.
Good one. I thought Up would have been better the way people talked about it. **Cars **sucked IMHO.
Good choices
First thing I thought of was TheGodfather,but gave it some thought and…
Not even a bronze
This is the one.
Worth watching once,but the academy got it right that year by giving a much better movie best picture.
I don’t know how I missed that one. That easily makes my #1. I found little interesting or redeemable about it, and I was so looking forward to it when I saw it in the theaters. It wasn’t the aesthetics of it or anything like that–that was the part of the movie I actually liked. It was just so completely devoid of substance, of anything interesting happening, of any tension, suspense, or fright. I honestly don’t understand how anybody found this a “scary” movie.
Oh, and while I’m at it, 28 Days Later. I assume it’s because I don’t know anything about the zombie genre, but I found this movie dreadfully dull. I saw it because the premise sounded really cool and interesting to me, with so many possibilities, but the way it played out was unimaginative, in my opinion.
This list is turning in some excellent choices.
The Blair Witch Project - The screen shaking alone made this unwatchable for me, forget about the supposed fright factor. The shaking camera is one of the major reasons why I cannot watch anything directed by Paul Greenglass. I just don’t get the appeal of this technique.
The English Patient - Have never made it more than 15 minutes into this movie before calling it quits. Best picture of 1996? wow. I thought the best picture of 1996 was Sling Blade, and it wasn’t even nominated.
Forrest Gump - Never understood the appeal, and never will. Every time I talk to someone who loves this movie, they start to sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher after about one minute. I zone out.
No they’re not - I was born after the movies come out and did not watch them until I was in my later teens, and they still worked for me. Just because you don’t like them for some reason does not mean that everybody who does like them just does not accurately remember the movies.
Definitely agree. I sometimes think that perhaps this movie is rated as highly because it invented the cheesy cliche, because otherwise I can’t come up with a reason for it showing up in top ten movies of all times lists.
It is a good movie. Solid 3.5 stars. Some memorable scenes, a couple good characters. I would watch it again sometime. I have to admit scratching my head when I saw its ranking on IMDB. Not the best movie of all time. Just don’t get it.
Most overrated for me would be Citizen Kane. It has a lot to be admired about it but it really is not very convincing or entertaining. I love slow paced old movies, but Kane is just tedious.