See here - same idea but for films - no link to an online version of the article this time, so I've listed what was in the mag - the first 8 are from The Guide, and I've fleshed it out a bit.

2001. I sat through the first hour and nothing fucking happened. Massively boring and pretentious.

Thats incredible!!!!!
I hadn't even finished typing my desperate plea for someone to start this off and you were on the case already.

I am truly not worthy (bow down, bow down)

I most definately agree with the whole Forest Gump twaddle. Tom Hanks is an actor who could do so much yet he seems to feel that overlong, sentimental claptrap is what the audience really want.

And what do the audiences do? They go and see it in their millions and award him with oscars. Haven't they seen Little Angels on BBC3-ignore the unwanted behaviour and reward the good.

Ah, well - I had already planned a triptych of controversy, you see.

There's definitely a few of my sacred donkeys in that list - Tenebaums, Blade Runner etc.

I can't believe that anyone would dare touch Blade Runner. A masterpiece no less.

When I first viewed Kill Bill (volume 1) I wasn't quite sure what all the hype was about. It seemed to be a bit self indulgent and lacking the sharp dialogue of his previous films which I had so enjoyed.

However, when I viewed volume 2 I developed a better understanding of where he was going and how. Some people complained that the second one was too talky but I thought that it provided some well needed balance to the first. I certainly would only view them again as one film rather than two.

Hmm.

All of them. Except 'Withnail & I'.

I voted for 'Braveheart', though. What a load.

I put Kill Bill, I think a lot of people over rated this film, it's good, but not that good, I think the fact that Quentin Taratino made it exasabated (need to get a hold of one of those 10 year olds from hard spell) things as well.

the majority of the films listed make me angry for being too overrated (lost in translation not included cuz it has a special place in my heart).
but my god i was really angry bout kill bill. i didnt want to be, i went with an open mind and wanted to like it. the first one annoys me by throwing a million novelty tarantino gimmicks in too short space of time. while the second one gives it more depth it still feels overrated and the ending feels like such a let down.

ive been wanting to grumble bout that for a while but i alwys felt litke the odd one out cuz everyone else loves it so.

I really liked Kill Bill (1 & 2). But then, I hate everything else he's done so I didn't go in with any expectations of greatness.

That's a point - why aren't Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction on this poll? "Royale with Cheese"? SHUT UP YOU BORING ARSEHOLE.

Star Wars.

Because it always wins 'best film' in Empire magazine etc etc. And even Star Wars fans, come on, you know it's not.

For me it has to be Gladiator.
It's just Sparticus all over again. ...but with fewer extras & more special effects.

Kill Bill is shite, LiT hugely overrated, 2001 technically impressive but unbelievably dull.

The Royal Tenenbaums is a golden god of a film.

If you've only seen the first hour of the movie are you really able to call it boring and pretentious though

2001 is in my view one of the best movies ever made. It's certainly (and easily) the best SF movie ever made being one of the few that acknowledges what written SF is like. I suppose it's just beyond the Buffy generation

Again my choices aren't on the list - Pulp Fiction, The Matrix and Jerry Maguire..

Some sacred cows are clearly still too sacred a cow for even the "mighty" Guardian to challenge

and I see a director as well...

Why aren't Francis Ford Coppolla, Martin Scorese (hey lets make another movie about Italians in America - it can be about the mafia owning a casino when one fixes a boxing fight releases that it's wrong and then squeals to the police....Robert Deniro and Al Pacino can be in it....), Tim Burton, John Carpenter on the list??

The whole article is bullshit. Saying something is overrated is a coward's way of saying you didn't like something but are ashamed to admit it in case your 'high-brow' Guardian critic mates think you're an idiot. Also tearing down such easy targets... Sex and the City for fuck's sake? I thought everybody knew that was shit.

I think it's a landmark in cinema history - but that doesn't make it an entertaining film. When Hal sends them out to fix the ship and it's shown practically in real time with no dialogue - man that's dull. And fucking monkeys (or men in bad suits) for the first 25 minutes - jesus!

The bit that everyone remembers best is certainly the superior section of the film, the hour with "I'm afraid I can't let you do that David" and the like, but if ever a film was crying out for an edit it's 2001.

I rented it the other day to watch with my folks (who haven't seen it since the cinema in 1968) they were very excited - but much like they Stella gave up before an hour was out.

In 1968 it was a breathtaking moment in cinema history, they'd never seen anything like it. In 2004 it's a very very slow sci-fi film that stretches a simple story to new limits of dullness.

Mind you - Reggie Perrin's in it

I think you've got it the wrong way round. Saying something's overrated is honest - it's not hiding behind popular opinion. It's puncturing that popular opinion by saying "Actually, David Lynch is a big wanker who thinks he's making profound works of filmic art when in fact he's making two hours of boredom that leave you feeling irritated and unfulfilled for no damn good reason". For example.

Not saying something is overrated is cowardly.

Of the films I've seen on the list I've voted for Forrest Gump, it was okay but it didn't deserve the hype it got just because Tom Hanks could act dumb and talk in a funny voice . . .

Just like to say I actually do think David Lynch is a wanker. Though Mulholland Drive was pretty good.

Lost in Translation was the most overrated on the list. A pretentious film that seemed to look down it's nose at well anyone not American. Overacted with an out of date Murray and a massively overrated Johansson. I walked out of the cinema in a big coat... And disgust.

Braveheart came close to being voted though. What shite.

In thirty odd years, Scorsese has only made four feature fillums concerning Italian Americans, two of which are masterpieces (never been able to get into Raging Bull, and Casino was overshadowed by Goodfellas), and he's never worked with Pacino


I dunno - I'd say having a pop at the likes of Star Wars, Blade Runner & Godfather is 'braver' than the three you've mentioned.

I don't think the article is to be taken too seriously - at the end of the day it's just individual writers' opinions, and they know they're gonna provoke a reaction - if someone doesn't like summat you do, it can seem frustrating, but hey, that's life.

My choice out of the first 8 (as picked by the Guardian) would be Manhattan or De Palma, I guess, as the other six films I like, or even love. But I'm gonna go for one of my additions as being most overrated, and that film is Forrest Gump - I don't think any other film has made me so angry.

I just think it's slightly less than expressing an opinion. Saying you don't like something is honest but saying it's overrated gives you the get-out clause of pretending you do like it after all just not as much as everyone else.

-edit-
damn, I didn't see Forrest Gump on that list. I want to change my vote. Absolute piece of shit and the same year I stopped paying attention to the Oscars.

Thinking about it I'm surprised Titanic didn't make the list . . .

I really liked Forrest Gump.

I think it's landmark AND entertaining. Just because a film moves slowly doesn't mean it should be labeled as dull. It's sad that nowadays everything has to move quickly to keep people entertained. (I will not mention zombies here ). While watching "Once Upon A Time in The West", my b/f kept mentioning how nowadays you couldn't get away with making this film....it moves too slow. But change the pace of either of these films & you have a piece of shit.

2001 WAS edited. Believe it or not, but it was A LOT longer. I also believe that it was a bit of a public failure. So in that respect IS it overrated? Critically it is highly hailed, and justly as it is a great piece of cinema. But is it for the mass audience? Definitely not. I will admit that the part where Dave goes into the monolith and has a psychedic experience is WAAAAY too long. I guess he got away with leaving that in because of the times.

Of course people are entitled to their opinions and I'm sure you're not alone in thinking that 2001 is boring. However, is it overrated? Just because I don't like something that everyone else does, I wouldn't label it overrated. I feel something is overrated if everyone & their brother is saying how great it is and it's really a piece of crap, no redeeming factors at all.....more fluff than substance.....second-rate workmanship .....MEDIOCRITY passing as quality.

Heh, I like Forrest Gump. It's a piss take and one so good most people didn't realise. Ah well.

I voted for Braveheart (though it was between this and 2001 because that's awful except when they turn Hal off) because it's just so fucking wrong. If some Scotsman had done that to my history I would not be using it as a rallying call for my party I'd threaten to lock the fucker up if he ever tried coming back. Such a crock of shit doesn't deserve anything but a good kicking.

I've voted for Kill Bill. Apart from the manga interlude it was cringeable, pretentious and the script stank like a skunks arse. Strangely enough, I haven't seen Vol 2.


JJM

My brother in law, who is Scottish, really likes the film - mainly 'cause the English get a damn good kicking . . .

That's what they say about Independance Day and it's bollocks on both counts.

Film makers (and musicians) think that they can get away with anything if they say that they were being ironic or even worse, were being 'postmodern', in their work. Sometimes you have to say 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .'

Forest Gump and Independence Day were both shite!

I used to enjoy watching Independence Day. Sure it was tosh, but it was mindlessly entertaining tosh.

Then someone parked two planes in the World Trade Centre and suddenly it didn't seem quite so cool anymore . . .

Exactly. Well put. I think it's a good film. Not great but good. The length tends to put me off rewatching it too often.

Well I suppose when they win a couple of battles that's alright then. I think we should respond with a film about how we beat the shite out of the Scots but it would be a little too long and horribly repetitive as you see lots of caber tossing tossers get themselves blown to kingdom come by the hugely superior English force. I mean you watch the fiction that is Braveheart and even it shows that Edward I was called the Hammer of the Scots for a reason. Ah well.

And to defend Forrest Gump a little more, it is based upon the satirical book by Winston Groom which right royally takes the piss out of post WWII USA. That's not me saying that or even the film makers but the whole point of the book. So the film makers hardly had to say this, of course how dare they try and tell people the truth of their film. The bastards. If you didn't see that in it then fair enough but it was always the point.

If the book is as satirical as you say (I had no idea it existed) then I can only assume that the screenplay has been completely stripped of it's satirical elements. I saw none. I did however see an overlong, sickeningly corny Hanksathon with a despicable underlying message.

I used to like Hanks. The 'Burbs is one of the best movies of the 80s. What the fuck happened?

It's fair enough you didn't see it as it was underplayed but I saw it immediately and didn't know about the book either at the time. I dunno, the whole point of a simpleton being the American Dream just makes me smile.

Hanks has done that, I agree, but he's still a nice bloke when it comes down to it and now he's incredibly wealthy so from his point of view it's all coming up Roses.

What happened to Hanks you ask?
I dunno...he just went off and made shit like Saving Private Ryan and Philidelphia.

What was he thinking?


JJM

He'll never be as good as he was in Batchelor Party.

Must admit I didn't get that - I must be thicker than I thought. Having said that, I've never known of anyone else with that particular take on it - on the US fillum forum I sometimes look at, they all seem to take it at face value, for good or bad.

Famous creepy Criswell lookalike film critic Roger Ebert did as well, here.

Reading up on this I discovered that the film's sickly 'Life is like a box of chocolates' is a complete bastardisation of the book's 'Being an idiot is no box of chocolates' which seems to support the not so satirical adaptation viewpoint.

Are you sure that was Tom Hanks and not Paul Burrell from the nose up?

Quite possibly Paul Burrell from the nose hair up.


JJM

I am very surprised by these reactions. How could that film be taken that seriously? How in all possibility could this man JUST HAPPEN to be at all the siginificant events of the latter half of the 20th century? I took it as a bit of satire, tongue-in-cheek & all that. Honestly, if I were to have taken it at face value I would have thought that it was a very stupid story.

Are those amercians on the U.S. film forum? Just remember, almost half of america takes the Holy Bible at face value.

Mostly American, it's called joblo.com, and they're real film, sorry, movie freaks, and I mean freaks.

I'm being judgemental again, aren't I.

Surely the beauty of films is that we can all take away different interpretations. That sounded wanky I know.

Blade Runner - genius
Lost in Translation - slightly disapointing
Star Wars - if it wasn't for the nostalgia factor, I'd think it was a complete pile of crap
Manhattan - he's done better films (and worse)
The Royal Tenbebaums - not as overrated as Rushmore
Withnail & I - untouchable
The Godfather - a little overrated
Brian De Palma (director) - watch Hitchcock instead, though Untouchables is brilliant
Kill Bill - exceeded expectations
Forrest Gump - some say satirical , I say bordering on "middle America family values promoting conformist bollocks"
Close Encounters - better than Star Wars
2001 - I suppose it was prety amazing in 1968
Gladiator - wanted more fights
Braveheart - my choice. Revisionist shite. What's next...Abraham Lincoln fighting the Zulus at Rorkes Drift, with added romantic interest!


Saving Private Ryan should be in there......amazing opening and then down hill. Would also add Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels, Pearl Harbour and Titanic...but no one really rated them in the first place did they?

I think nearly all films are overrated - or at least wrongly-rated.
That doesn't mean I don't like any films, it just means that with all the hype and merchandising and sales crap these days, they make every film seem like it should be a cure for cancer. And frankly, it aint so!



I have to disagree on this one. I don't think the film was looking down its nose at non-Americans at all. I think it was about Americans' (or any Westerners) inability to adjust to foreign surroundings/situations.

That's just my opinion of course.

I really liked the film. I don't think it was fabulously well written/edited/etc but I really liked the ideas and sentiments behind it.
My partner and I went to Tokyo a few years ago so we found the whole 'Westerners lost in the Japanese culture' thing quite amusing. Lots of bits we related to. I think it was funny, and if anything was poking fun at the American characters.



Personally I think "Joe versus the Volcano" was his real career highlight

Cheers
AC

That's twice in these kind of "overrated" threads you've hit the nail on the head imho. First with the Beatles in the music one and now tarantino in this one. Although I don't just see Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs as being overrated, I think they're the worst films I've ever seen in my life. Utterly utterly abysmal. I'd taped Reservoir Dogs off tv, and after about an hour and a half of it i immediately taped over it with whatever was on tv at the time just to get rid of the utter shit. I think you can tell that I get angry even thinking about those two films they're so bad.

come on, everyone loves them, you don't see what the big deal is about...

the obvious one is star wars (but they're worth keeping for light sabres if nothing else).
I seem to be fairly alone in my vote for 'The Shawshank Redemption' - so cheesy and clichéd!
and kill bill...yeah they're still really awesome and cool, but there was too much hype...maybe if tarantino worked more often...

what are yours?

Spiderman. Actually it's pretty good and i do like it but i can't help but feel slightly disappointed when i watch it. The Green Goblin mask was rubbish and the final confrontation was something of an anticlimax.

The fucking Avaitor! Dear god such a waste of celluloid, fair enough, it's a worthwhile story but it just doesn't work