Most overrated films of all time

[Famous Mortimer]

To be fair, though, should it really be up to the public to decide what the greatest films are, or should it be up to people who are experienced/educated/professionals in the field? Lists like the Cahiers du Cinema 100 seem to be much more reflective of the actual greatest films ever made than the IMDb one ever will, wouldn't you agree?

I just don't know about "greatest". The first comedy with actual dialogue in it is way down at no.52, and the only film from the last 35 years is right down at no.94 (Mulholland Dr, not one of my choices for the 100 greatest films of all time). There are plenty of minor examples of famous directors' work in there (Notorious, Moonfleet) and Renoir is way over-represented. Oh, and there's films I thought were pretty boring (Barry Lyndon, for one).

It's probably a better representation of the "canon" of great cinema, but they're all flawed, and most of those lists are flawed by assuming filmmaking stopped with the end of the 1970s Hollywood mavericks. I think "Fight Club" and "Inception" are every bit as good as "Rio Bravo" and "The Deer Hunter".

[zomgmouse]

I just don't know about "greatest". The first comedy with actual dialogue in it is way down at no.52, and the only film from the last 35 years is right down at no.94 (Mulholland Dr, not one of my choices for the 100 greatest films of all time). There are plenty of minor examples of famous directors' work in there (Notorious, Moonfleet) and Renoir is way over-represented. Oh, and there's films I thought were pretty boring (Barry Lyndon, for one).

That, of course, is the downside to film critics' lists (especially something like Cahiers). They are also in their own way overidolatory of certain directors purely because it is "common wisdom" to revere them. Similarly, there's somewhat of a refusal to treat comedy as Serious Cinema, which is a shame.

It's probably a better representation of the "canon" of great cinema, but they're all flawed, and most of those lists are flawed by assuming filmmaking stopped with the end of the 1970s Hollywood mavericks.

Paul Schrader has a very good article about canons and the "film canon" (and posits his own, which I don't completely agree with, but it's more worth it for the actual article than his list).

I think "Fight Club" and "Inception" are every bit as good as "Rio Bravo" and "The Deer Hunter".

Rio Bravo is definitely an overrated one for me. It exists because John Wayne thought High Noon was unAmerican. Unfortunately for Wayne, it was a better film than his.

Inception isn't a good film. It's not a terrible film, but it's not a good film. There are better examples of 21st century cinema to choose from in order to make the claim that you're making - which, incidentally, I support: it's not as if contemporariness discounts quality or age entails quality; on the other hand, I do believe that it's too difficult to judge something properly before it's had time to settle to be able to make comparisons with films that have had that opportunity, and that is I believe one of the reasons why recent films get snobbed at (that and people's fetishisation of the past).

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I really liked "Inception". Thought it was about as good and interesting a film as yer multiplexes will ever show.

So what if you did?
We're discusing whether it deserves to be ranked alongside the greatest movies of all time.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

So we agree lists and ranking systems are flawed because:

They are largely voted on by men
They are largely voted on by men aged between 18-30
They are largely voted on by western men aged between 18-30

And this explains why the lists are full of 1990s and 2000s films
Why the lists are full of hollywood films from 1990s and 2000s
Why the lists are full of hollywood action films from 1990s and 2000s

In other words a truly skewed idea of what constitutes a good film, lacking any historical depth or perspective, lacking a wider cultural perspective, lacking a wider stylistic perspective.

[Famous Mortimer]

So what if you did?
We're discusing whether it deserves to be ranked alongside the greatest movies of all time.

Are we? Thread title - "Most overrated films of all time". The post I was specifically responding to -

Better example still is Inception, which a lot of people fucking detest, but it's there at #14 ...I think it's dropped from something like 5th over the course of 4 years.

Given the criticism of it has been pretty universal in this thread, a casual observer might be baffled as to its 86% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, its 74% on Metacritic and its very high rating on the IMDB list. I thought it worthwhile to spend a few seconds saying that I really liked it, is all.

[Ralph Cifaretto]

I just don't know about "greatest". The first comedy with actual dialogue in it is way down at no.52, and the only film from the last 35 years is right down at no.94 (Mulholland Dr, not one of my choices for the 100 greatest films of all time). There are plenty of minor examples of famous directors' work in there (Notorious, Moonfleet) and Renoir is way over-represented. Oh, and there's films I thought were pretty boring (Barry Lyndon, for one).

It's probably a better representation of the "canon" of great cinema, but they're all flawed, and most of those lists are flawed by assuming filmmaking stopped with the end of the 1970s Hollywood mavericks. I think "Fight Club" and "Inception" are every bit as good as "Rio Bravo" and "The Deer Hunter".

Famous Mortimer's posts are tiliting me big time.

Anchorman: Great film.
Barry Lyndon: Boring.

LMFAO. On the above evidence, it would appear you are delusional and need to be restrained in a straight-jacket. WHat's the phrase I'm looking for, 'Please, move away from the internet!'

[Funcrusher]

Reservoir Dogs is a wonderfully constructed piece of low-budget filmmaking with a cracking script. If Tarantino had died after that film, we would be assuming that he could have become of the greatest film directors of contemporary American history (which I think he has failed to do).

I remember seeing Reservoir Dogs before it's official release - it didn't even have a proper poster - and it just seemed fresh and remarkably competent piece of filmmaking. The performances are great.

I think if 'Reservoir Dogs' had just been received for what it was, a fairly well executed stylish crime flick, Tarantino might have gone on to make some fairly decent modestly budgeted genre pieces, although the self indulgent pop culture referencing crap might still have capsized them. Instead he somehow became the reference to drop for people trying hard to look hip and media studies lecturers, mainly because, coming off a decade, the 80's, which had largely ignored a lot pop culture of the past in favour of a year zero of Fairlights and cheesy video effects, he seemed like some guru of arcane knowledge because he had watched a lot of old films on video. He was just in the right place at the right time when the world was ripe for retromania. Success really did ruin him, although he was never likely to have been great because he's just too much of a geek with nothing much really to say.

[phantom_power]

So what if you did?
We're discusing whether it deserves to be ranked alongside the greatest movies of all time.

What does that even mean? Or matter? Everyone could agree that a film is the greatest but if I don't like it then so what. Placing the title "greatest" on something subjective is futile.

It would seem that if something is over-rated then lots of people really like it, and someone has decided that their opinion is superior to theirs and they don't like it as much. But then if lots of people like it then it isn't over-rated. I would say that all films are exactly as rated as they deserve to be.