most overated movie of all time

BigDaddyKone · 02-09-2002 02:54PM #1

I reckon Easy Rider has to be the most boring overated movie of all time. It is the "on the road" (the jack kerouac book) of cinema. Shocking at the time, just plain boring now. honourary mentions to Matrix (is going to look so dated and boring in a few years, again to contemporary) and gladiator (how could anyone like that piece of turd).

Thanx 4 The Fish · 02-09-2002 02:58PM

Titanic, lied it's way to the top of the box office charts.

Venom · 02-09-2002 03:18PM

Of all the movies you have mentioned only Easy Rider would count as over rated. Titanic was over hyped like alot of movies but is not made out to be some sort of classic movie by pundits unlike Easy Rider which is. Gladiatior was clamied to be an Epic but those cries quickly dissapeared shortly after launch.

Gaz · 02-09-2002 03:25PM

2001: A space odyessy .... that movie is billed as a classic ...absolute pants if you ask me.

On the recommendation of a "friend" (saruman you bastard) i bought this and spent half the movie confused and the other half bored ... i mean there is a 10 minute intermission. What the fuk was the point in that ... suppose to be arty or something.
Kubrick is over-rated if you ask me.

Yes the movie has amazing sfx for its time and a great soundtrack but its still a load of old sh1te. Stay away from this one.

RasTa · 02-09-2002 03:31PM

star wars

conZ · 02-09-2002 03:35PM

The Shining.
Was told 'aw its brilliant - mad scary - best films' etc etc.
Watched it eventually about a month ago and it was pure ****e.
The most over-rated film iv seen for sure.

Lex_Diamonds · 02-09-2002 03:42PM

Face Off. Why on earth did so many people cream themselves over this? Prefered Woo's other HK shooters.

Snoop_froggy · 02-09-2002 03:44PM

Tomb Raider, I was lead to believe it was class,brilliant,cool.
so i went to see it, it was the biggest pile of crud ever you'd have to be 6 to like it.

ObeyGiant · 02-09-2002 03:54PM

Originally posted by Darth Homer
2001: A space odyessy .... that movie is billed as a classic ...absolute pants if you ask me.

On the recommendation of a "friend" (saruman you bastard) i bought this and spent half the movie confused and the other half bored ... i mean there is a 10 minute intermission. What the fuk was the point in that ... suppose to be arty or something.
Kubrick is over-rated if you ask me.

Yes the movie has amazing sfx for its time and a great soundtrack but its still a load of old sh1te. Stay away from this one.

2001: A Space Odyssey is another one of those films that encourages the viewer to think about what they've seen. As such, it gets bitten in the ass by people who just plain can't be bothered (and lauded by those who can).

Besides the gorgeous visuals, the entire film is a philosophical allegory regarding the future of humanity and its place in the universe. And yes, I do mean the entire film. From the three-minute sequence of Dave floating in space, to the 10-second shot of Floyd learning how to piss in space - they all add up to make a whole.

It's just a shame you missed the point Kubrick was trying to make.

Gaz · 02-09-2002 04:05PM

ObeyGiant i did get the movie, i understood the story but a 10 minute intermission or 5 minutes of a blank screen to open the movie just seems pointless ...that in no way helped the story

ObeyGiant · 02-09-2002 04:15PM

Originally posted by Darth Homer
ObeyGiant i did get the movie, i understood the story but a 10 minute intermission or 5 minutes of a blank screen to open the movie just seems pointless ...that in no way helped the story

I think the point of these were to emphasise the comparison to an opera, or ballet. The five minutes of blank screen, with orchestral sounds is even listed in the DVD chapters list as the 'overture'.

But besides all this - don't you have a fast forward button?

Seems a little harsh to damn an entire film for something that could be skipped by simply pressing a button on a remote control.

BigDaddyKone · 02-09-2002 04:16PM

kubrick is a genius. 2001 was an exceptional movie. Also lolita, full metal jacket. The shining is fantastic as well. I agree with venom. Tomb raider ectera can't be thought of as overrated. We are talking more in regards to classics.

Mr E · 02-09-2002 04:17PM

Originally posted by Snoop_froggy
Tomb Raider, I was lead to believe it was class,brilliant,cool. so i went to see it, it was the biggest pile of crud ever you'd have to be 6 to like it.

By who? All reviews I read completely slammed it, anyone I know who has seen it thought it was AWFUL. By any chance was it a 6 year old who told you it was good?

- Dave.

Gaz · 02-09-2002 04:23PM

ObeyGiant I totally see where your coming from but i would rather not have to fast forward through certain parts of the movie. Personally i just didnt enjoy the movie as a whole there where scenes i did enjoy how ever but i think 2001 is not kubricks best .... i preferred full metal jacket.

How about Dr Zhivago ? Now thas over rated, that film is always in the 100 of all time ... why o why ????

po0k · 02-09-2002 05:06PM

2001 annoyed me when I first watched it.
I like Arthur's stuff, but Kubrick's presentation of it just bored me.
Akira I feel is a bit overrated. Tis a good anime, but I like a bit more sci-fi and action in it. Ghost in the Shell suits me better.

Battle Royal was a good flick, though it supposedly didn't carry over half of the substance of the book.

Under-rated:
Run Lola Run
Gattaca
Pretty Village Pretty Flame

mike65 · 02-09-2002 05:11PM

Kubrick is both a genius and overrated!

As for most overrated, hmmm. I try to aviod anything I supect is
over-praised or too popular which is why I've never seen Titianic,
Ben Hur or the Sound of Music!

E.T. was a big disapointment, maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind, as it was on at Christmas when I'm usually in bad form.

Mike.

Kali · 02-09-2002 05:34PM

Heat. way too long. completly over-rated due to the whole De Niro/Pacino never having been in the same film together before thing.. which dragged, and dragged.

The Gopher · 02-09-2002 05:43PM

The Exorcist:mad: :mad: :mad: Best horror my hole!After an hour of watching nothing at all had happened so I just gave up.Piece of overrated ****e.

Dustaz · 02-09-2002 05:46PM

Agree with Heat, but jaysus, its hardly rated as a classic. Ditto Tomb Raider.
Titanic however DID win a shedload of oscars, and its a load of twat.

(2001 is genius:) )

Pugsley · 02-09-2002 05:57PM

Pearl harbour deserve's a mention, tis ap ile of glorified sh*t IMO.
Ditto to titanic and tomb raider.

Winters · 02-09-2002 05:59PM

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
Face Off. Why on earth did so many people cream themselves over this? Prefered Woo's other HK shooters.

Face Off and most of Woo's films are pure and ubber pants. Aswell as just about all films with Cage, Segal and Travolta... i find most movies with them are total pants.

Heat is a great storyline and that great 20min gun battle right in the middle.. Its hard to follow if you dont watch it from the start though...

Kubrick is a genius but some people do overrate him... some of his movies are pure magic but others can bore the crap outta ya. It was really just his "style"

Dont be at yourself · 02-09-2002 06:02PM

Godfather Pt1.

Makaveli · 02-09-2002 07:10PM

Planet of The Apes remake. Not most overrated proabably most overhyped.
What a pile of crap it was.

plastic membrane · 02-09-2002 09:40PM

I cannot even begin to tell how much i hate Gone With The Wind.

zAbbo · 02-09-2002 09:44PM

We have a Winner :Independence Day

Full of gung ho - USA no.1, go America propoganda.

in short - worst film ever

Karl Hungus · 02-09-2002 11:06PM

Cant beleive a lot of the suggestions here!

But Independance Day is sheer dross.

phobos · 02-09-2002 11:20PM

I am rather annoyed at a movie with a title such as AI, could be so bad. That movie could have so much more. I like the start of it, but quickly disliked where it was going.

As for Tomb Raider, movie/game, game/movie conversions are always pants IMO. Resident Evil did not impress me, even though I looked forward to it for ages. I wonder did the makers finish the original game. It's like they took words like Umbrella, Racoon city, Zombees, and made a movie. Mortal Combat, Street fighter, shall I go on...

Around the time of Independence Day there was a lot of that kind of shíte knocking around our cinemas and new release shelves. It has died somewhat since, thankfully.

There is a shít load of decent movies due out on video/DVD in the next few weeks, such as A Beautiful Mind, which I personally can't wait for.

;-phobos-)

Shinji · 03-09-2002 12:11AM

2001: A Space Odyssey is another one of those films that encourages the viewer to think about what they've seen. As such, it gets bitten in the ass by people who just plain can't be bothered (and lauded by those who can).

Ooooh, hark at her!

2001 was crap. Compare the visual effects ****-a-thon of the movie with the brilliance of Clarke's book; the movie simply has no soul, no intelligence, and, er, no bloody plot.

Kubrick is one of my favourite directors, but 2001 was a terrible, terrible film. It's a showreel for dated special effects and nothing more; like an excruciatingly long and utterly pointless music video rather than the film of one of the greatest hard sci-fi stories ever told.

I suppose you have to give the man credit for trying to film hard sci-fi though - pretty much every effort at this has failed, with space opera and alien invasion stories doing far better as movies. Hard sci-fi remains the preserve of the written word (although animation has made some decent stabs - Crest of the Stars is pretty decent hard sci-fi, and the original Gundam timeline series' had some excellent hard sci-fi elements).

DiscoStu · 03-09-2002 12:26AM

does anyone understand that the pace of the film ties perfectly in with the notion that space is big, black and boring. which it is. there aint a wookie or deathstar every five minutes in space all there is, is just cold dark empty space that goes on for distances we cant even contemplate

yellum · 03-09-2002 07:22AM

Lord of the Rings - it happened 5-10 years too late.

GreenHell · 03-09-2002 08:58AM

Water world ..... *shudder*

Lex_Diamonds · 03-09-2002 09:21AM

Originally posted by yellum
Lord of the Rings - it happened 5-10 years too late.

Thank you! I can't believe i forgot to mention that one. Is it still the No.1 film of all time on IMDB? :rolleyes:

GreenHell · 03-09-2002 09:28AM

oh Pearl Harbour as well..... *shudder*2*

ObeyGiant · 03-09-2002 12:21PM

Originally posted by Shinji
2001 was crap. Compare the visual effects ****-a-thon of the movie with the brilliance of Clarke's book;

This will probably get me barred from the internet - but I've never been too partial to Clarke's writing. I admit that some of his stories have been based on fantastic ideas (The Nine Billion Names of God being one of the mose amazing ideas I've ever heard of for a story), but his style of writing is too heavy-handed for my tastes.

As such, I have not read the novel 2001.

Originally posted by Shinji
the movie simply has no soul

This is the something Kubrick went out of his way to emphasise. Congratulations on spotting it.

Originally posted by Shinji
no intelligence

And Shinji drops 10 points for dismissing something he didn't fully understand as 'unintelligent'. Bad show.

Originally posted by Shinji
and, er, no bloody plot.

From the ever-reliable imdb:

Moon explorers encounter a monolith that points them to a destination near Jupiter. In flashback, we see another size of the monolith playing a key role in human evolution, i.e., we learn how to kill. An expedition is launched to investigate the Jupiter possibility. Two young astronauts and a bunch in suspended animation spend months in space, passing their time partly in communicating with the human-like brain of their ship's computer, HAL. HAL malfunctions and causes the death of all the suspended animation passengers as well as one of the "awake" astronauts; the other one barely survives and figures out how to disable HAL. He arrives alone at the Jupiter destination and undergoes a series of cinematographically confusing experiences that amount to his final appearance on the screen as a giant fetus.

There was a plot. It might have been secondary to the underlying message, and as such, appeared 'stationary' at times, but there was a plot.

Originally posted by Shinji
It's a showreel for dated special effects and nothing more

Personally, I think the special effects on show in 2001 have held up pretty good. They're certainly done with more flair and style than recent digital effots, which have become almost throwaway. I can't remember a single effects shot from Armageddon, for example.

Originally posted by Shinji
like an excruciatingly long and utterly pointless music video rather than the film of one of the greatest hard sci-fi stories ever told.

I'm tired of belabouring the point of this film being a philosophical allegory about humanity's place in the world, and its future (since I may as well be telling it to a crowd of people with their fingers in their ears, shouting "LALALALALA" at the top of their voice - some people just don't want to hear it, and will dismiss such points without a second thought). Instead, I'll focus on the fact that the entire story was written jointly by Kubrick and Clarke. Kubrick did not take an existing Clarke story and change it (or, to pre-empt your probably retory, 'destroy it') for the screen. Kubrick and Clarke co-wrote both the screenplay, and the novel that you laud so highly.

If Clarke had not been satisfied with the movie 2001, don't you think he would have said so? In fact, according to the imdb trivia for 2001, he is quoted as saying "If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."

From this, you have to wonder, if the co-author of the novel you laud so highly is satisfied with the film version of his story, doesn't this beg the question: why aren't you?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question, which brings me full circle to my first post here, the point about Kubrick being bitten in the ass because some people just can't be bothered searching for a deeper meaning in the film they've just seen.

seamus · 03-09-2002 12:33PM

Defo Titanic. 2 and a half hours of tripe just for a good 30 mins of action :rolleyes:

The most under-rated movie of all time has to be Leon. A masterpiece.

DapperGent · 03-09-2002 12:55PM

Originally posted by Shinji
I suppose you have to give the man credit for trying to film hard sci-fi though - pretty much every effort at this has failed, with space opera and alien invasion stories doing far better as movies. Hard sci-fi remains the preserve of the written word.

Yeah there really is abysmally few hard sci-fi films out there. I would love to see Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy filmed. Although theres probably too many old people in it.

For most over-rated film I'd have to say Saving Private Ryan the opening scene was fantastic but after that it descending into the most gut-wrenchingly awful cliche. Irritating. Another that seems to be highly at least by my age group is Event Horizon. Besides Highlander 2 I think this is truly the worst film I've ever seen.

yellum · 03-09-2002 03:39PM

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds

Thank you! I can't believe i forgot to mention that one. Is it still the No.1 film of all time on IMDB? :rolleyes:

Thats probably what I meant by overrated.

Venom · 03-09-2002 04:26PM

Tomb Raider, I was lead to believe it was class,brilliant,cool. so i went to see it, it was the biggest pile of crud ever you'd have to be 6 to like it.

Dunno who or what led you to belive such a pile of shíte was a good movie but they deserve an award for manageing to do it.

From the moment the trailer was first screened it was so obvious to anyone with a bit of cop, that Tomb Raider was going to be utter pants.

Also alot of post's in this tread seem to be mixing up hype and over rated.

Hype = alot of buzz before and during the launch of the movie like the effects or how much it cost to make.

Over-rated = a crap movie that years after it comes out people still maintain its a great movie.

pauldeehan · 04-09-2002 08:34AM

Pearl Harbour, with more American jingoism than Independence Day.

kaimera · 04-09-2002 06:41PM

Hannibal was poor given all the hype

sceptre · 04-09-2002 09:44PM

Originally posted by Lex_Diamonds
Thank you! I can't believe i forgot to mention that one. Is it still the No.1 film of all time on IMDB? :rolleyes:

Naw, it's some kind of gangster flick now.

Recent (and not so recent) overrated movies: Almost Famous (wasn't that bloody good), Moulin Rouge (visual feast for the first hour and well, that's about it), Titanic (obvious reasons, 11 Oscars hahaha), ET as well.

LOTR was good but again, not that bloody good. As for its replacing Godfather 1 at the top of the IMDBlist for a while, I can understand people suddenly rating it highly. I can easily think of 100 better movies off the top of my head and I suspect I'm far from alone.

Most overrated movie of all time must surely be Gone with the Wind though. It's too long (normally not a problem for me - I thought Larence of Arabia was just the right length) and it's too incoherent in places. I can understand the idea of an infulfilled love having an attraction for people but anyone who thinks like that should just go and rent Titanic. In that regard it's a better movie. Rhett and Scarlett weren't suited from the start - if they'd recognised that sooner they'd have saved a good ten years.

Pigman · 07-09-2002 07:51PM

4 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) 8.8/10 (70075 votes)
32 Some Like It Hot (1959) 8.3/10 (12995 votes)
60 Touch of Evil (1958) 8.2/10 (6621 votes)
99 African Queen, The (1951) 8.0/10 (8465 votes)
113 Mulholland Dr. (2001) 8.0/10 (11868 votes)
135 Gladiator (2000) 7.9/10 (51135 votes)
136 Gone with the Wind (1939) 7.9/10 (16948 votes)
172 Moulin Rouge! (2001) 7.8/10 (24199 votes)
218 MASH (1970) 7.7/10 (9131 votes)
250 Heat (1995) 7.6/10 (22824 votes)

All of the above made the IMDB top 250 at http://us.imdb.com/top_250_films
All of the above are complete bores that I wouldn't sit through (and suffer through)again even if you paid me.

kaimera · 08-09-2002 02:58AM

Unbreakable....maybe cos I wasn't sure what to expect butt I felt it wasn't as good as it as hyped up to be

Caesar_Bojangle · 08-09-2002 02:52PM

2001 is a masterpiece, look at it from the perspective of the 70's when it came out.

Gladiator
godfather 3
tomb raider
waterworld
michael collins so inaccurate

gandalf · 08-09-2002 03:07PM

One film comes to mind immediately and its Star Wars. Watched it again a few years ago and thought to myself what a pile of manure.

Gandalf.

irishgeo · 08-09-2002 03:27PM

i really dont know which film to pick. i have to pivk engima. i hate the way americans slant the truth for them to look alll action heros.

any war film they make they being the yanks.

Also titanic the film a night to remenber is much better.

Goodshape · 08-09-2002 07:06PM

Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans, Heat, Ali. All of which bored me to pieces. Michael Mann seems to take far too long to tell a story and I don't care much for his visual (or musical) style.

Kubrick, on the other hand, is a genius. 2001 is both a visual and musical feast. It's quite deep, requires a bit of thought maybe and certainly doesn't rush the story along - but I find Kubrick has a way of sucking you in, making any of his films highly watchable.

The most over-rated Kubrick film though, is The Shining. It's good, but it's definitely his worst. It's biggest downfall is it's casting - I cant stand Shelly Duval and Jack Nicholson looks too evil from the outset. They should have gone for a more Anthony Perkins (Psycho) look: clean cut kinda guy... he wouldn't do anything bad. Would he?

Lord of the Rings really is quite good. It's not the best film ever, but I think people were just happy to finally have a screen adaptation of such a great book that didn’t suck.

The book itself is also over-rated - but anything rated that highly just has to be.

mike65 · 08-09-2002 10:03PM

Pigman! How dare you? Some Like It Hot is a definite classic, maybe it seeing Jack lemmon in a dress freaks you
out...its worth it just for Tony Curtis doing Cary Grant.

Another flick that I just thought of is The Truman Show which has been praised to the rafters as being a perceptive satire on media omnipetence or something
but I found to be as profound as a not very clever comedy starring Jim Carrey (who I don't rate). Thats said most Peter Wier films leave me unmoved.

Mike.

kamobe · 08-09-2002 10:17PM

Waterworld! Folks, this was billed as the most expensive movie of ALL TIME (prolly cause of costners yacht), and it bombed at the box office. Massive failure, gets my vote :]

Pigman · 08-09-2002 10:29PM

Originally posted by mike65
Pmaybe it seeing Jack lemmon in a dress freaks you
out

Can't deny that! But it's not the only reason I didn't like it.

mike65 · 08-09-2002 10:33PM

Waterworld was'nt that bad nor was it over-rated it was just very over hyped which is a different matter.

Also it actually made a small profit, amazing but true-
it made less than 100 mill in the states but 165 elsewhere
add in TV and video sales and somehow the studio did'nt loose its shirt.

most overated movie of all time

Comments