A-List: Overrated Movies
By Josh Spiegel
May 28, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
So, is this week's A-List merely out to make you get so riled up that you fire off some e-mails towards the Box Office Prophets Web site? Well, no, but feel free. There are only five films in this list, meaning that the likelihood that your pick for the most overrated movie of all time probably isn't on the list. Obviously, this list doesn't extend to films I haven't seen, so a movie like the aforementioned Gone With The Wind won't be appearing (though it will likely make for a fine Classic Movie Review choice one of these days) among these famous five flicks.
Also, let's be honest, if anyone out there reads this whole list and agrees with it 100 percent, I might be a little bit creeped out. Now, granted, it's not that these movies are among the most obscure films (for the obvious reasons), but my disdain and, at some times, hatred for these movies would seem a bit too personal to extend to loyal readers. Either way, by even creating this list, I'm aware that I will draw ire from some for including one of their beloved films here and there, so fire away if need be. So, let's get to it. Here's the A-List's look at some of the most overrated movies ever made.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Here's a movie that I've grown to accept without truly enjoying it. As a Blu-ray owner, I have this 1968 sci-fi epic, directed by the late Stanley Kubrick, in my library of movies. So why is it overrated to me? Why own a movie I put on this list? Where to begin? 2001: A Space Odyssey is long, meandering, slow, too in love with its visuals, filled with bland and unmemorable performances, and just all-around bad. Its visuals, though, are impressive, and when you key it up on a high-def TV, it's hard not to be impressed, especially considering that some of these special effects were revolutionary for their time. How does a movie like 2001 make images like men floating around helplessly in space or a large black monolith seem so striking and disturbing while making me fall asleep? Yes, I know the first 30 minutes of the movie, which shows a bunch of guys dressed as monkeys walking around a desolate landscape, is meant to show how man evolved from a savage into someone who wanted to learn the unknowable while still retaining that savage streak. But it's 30 minutes. 30 minutes of guys dressed as monkeys. The story doesn't get interesting in the slightest until the closest thing to a villain, HAL 9000, shows up. What a statement, purposeful or otherwise, that HAL is the most interesting character in the film, eh? Watching the human characters barely talk, barely even breathe, and be as mundane as possible is...well, it's mundane. I've seen 2001 more than once, but it always sends me off to a nice slumber, special effects be damned.
The Searchers
It's all there in that final shot, folks. For those of you who are not acquainted with this famed 1950s Western, directed by John Ford and starring John Wayne, here's how it goes. Wayne is Ethan Edwards, a rough, racist cowboy who's out to save his niece from some Native Americans who've kidnapped her. Though there's been much action and suspense that takes place over the lengthy story (which spans years), Ethan has saved his niece even though he had vowed to kill her if she'd become like one of the Comanche who'd taken her. Ethan brings her back home and is then shut out from his family, who've never really liked him all that much; the final shot is set inside the house, as the family goes inside without him, leaving Ethan alone as ever. This shot is iconic and quite impressive out of context. But, in context, it frustrates me to no end. Why exactly am I supposed to feel anything - sympathy, bitterness, or the like - for such a horrible character? I give Ford and Wayne credit for choosing such a despicable character to lead one of the big Westerns of the 1950s, but it's hard to want to spend two hours with such a man. Of course, The Searchers is also burdened by the fact that John Wayne is (brace yourselves) just not a good actor. There's a reason that he's so easy to imitate, with his grandiose swagger and husky voice: he's a caricature of a cowboy instead of a character. Wayne has been in good movies, and Ford's made fine films. The Searchers is, despite popular belief, not one of those movies.
Scarface
Now, it'd be nice if I had to remind you that, no, I don't mean the 1933 classic directed by Howard Hawks and starring Paul Muni. Of course, very few people these days are as familiar with the film that spawned the egregious, excessive excretion that is known as Scarface. Not only is this the film that began Al Pacino's slow but steady slide into his being a cartoon, but it's the most ridiculous, hyperactive yet phenomenally boring mobster movie ever made. Is there any reason for this movie to be three hours long? Hell, even 2001, which is as overlong as some movies get, knew to cut things off before the 150-minute mark. This version of Scarface, featuring a Cuban mobster named Tony Montana, was directed by Brian DePalma and written by Oliver Stone. DePalma, Stone, Pacino; these are all men who have the potential to be amazing. Scarface is, unfortunately, a black mark on their records. Of course, this movie has achieved a misbegotten cult status in the past decade and a half, thanks in part to many rappers choosing to have Montana as some kind of twisted role model, even though he ends up burying his head in a hill of cocaine and dying in a crazed blaze of glory. Granted, those two scenes, which come in the final 20 minutes or so of the movie, are worth checking out on YouTube, if only because they feature Al Pacino at his raving worst (with the exception of a climactic monologue in The Devil's Advocate). Despite featuring a pretty strong performance from Michelle Pfeiffer, Scarface is a bloated mess that somehow has managed to survive all these years later.
Gladiator
The next time someone blathers on to you about why The Dark Knight didn't even deserve to be nominated for the Best Picture of 2008, just remember to tell them that this overwrought, swords-and-sandals epic not only got nominated in 2000, but won. Yes, folks, Gladiator won Best Picture at the Oscars, over movies like Erin Brockovich, Traffic, and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Yes, this movie won Best Picture. Sure, everyone jumps onto an example like Crash as a good example of a movie that should not have won Best Picture, or maybe Shakespeare In Love, but here's the thing: Gladiator was successful enough to help launch Russell Crowe's career, or fuel it, and helped Ridley Scott get to a second wind in his own career. Not only that, but these two men are getting together for a reboot of the mythical tale of Robin Hood and, from the early set pictures, it looks like Maximus is once again starring in a Ridley Scott film, this time with a green tunic. The amount of melodrama in Gladiator is suffocating, as is the general grimness of the film. I'm not against dark material, but there has to be some kind of investment in the material; despite quirky performances from people like Joaquin Phoenix, Oliver Reed, and Richard Harris, Gladiator just never got over its dull and leaden lead performance and colorless, drab direction. And, in case you're psyched for Ridley Scott's next picture, don't forget that he's also got a movie based on the board game Monopoly in the works. Maybe Crowe can gain the weight to play Mr. Moneybags.
Lost In Translation
Have you ever heard about something that, according to your friends, neighbors, and complete strangers, is so amazing that you just have to see it to believe it? Have you ever been so pumped up to see a movie that all of your friends rave about? Have you ever had the feeling that all of your friends may be a few cards short of a deck? Yes, that's what happened to me with the 2003 character study Lost In Translation, the first film that made serious film critics realize that Bill Murray is actually an amazing actor. Murray has been a phenomenal comic actor, but even in a high-concept film like Groundhog Day, he brought a dour, quiet charm to his snark. Though many thought that his performance in Rushmore deserved an Oscar nod, it was his turn as a glum Hollywood celebrity who falls in love with a beautiful, young woman in Japan that got him a shot at the golden boy. Too bad Lost In Translation is one of the most boring (yes, boring) movies to come out of indie Hollywood in years. Sure, Murray is great here, no more or less than he is usually (I even liked him in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), but he does a lot more heavy lifting than he ought to opposite someone as gorgeous yet dumbfounded as Scarlett Johansson. It's something pretty terrible to say when Anna Faris, as the starlet wooing Johansson's husband, is more interesting to watch in a cameo role than the lead actress. Many people think of this as a great, poignant, tragic slice of life. I just wish I'd seen the movie they've always raved about.