Scribe's Ten Most Overrated Films of All-Time (or Something Like That):

The following is reprinted from a list I scribed 2 years ago on my Organized Chaos blog. The purpose of the list this time is for Green to analyze and respond within the text of this blog and for others to leave comments.


Keep in mind that the criteria for this list do not exclusively include terrible movies that I didn’t like. Some of them are films that, while enjoyable or of high quality, did not live up to the hype upon first viewing nor on subsequent ones.


Number 10: “Braveheart”
Not at all a bad movie. It has many merits working in its favor including good cinematography, realistic battle scenes and Mel Gibson’s last appearance with rock star hair. However, it’s an inherently flawed movie due in no small part to Gibson’s novice direction and over-reliance on slow-motion and bizarre imagery. It was, however, a good training session for his superior directorial efforts on “The Passion of the Christ.” What really hurts this movie is that you’re forced to choose between the more civilized brutes from England or the kilt-wearin’ barbarians from Scotland.

I liked this movie, too. I agree it's got a lot going for it. Funny though that this movie won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director in 1995, so if Gibson's directing was bad here, the other four nominees for Best Director that year must really have been crap-tastic.


Number 9: “Full Metal Jacket”
Again, not a bad movie, especially during the first hour’s basic training scenes, but it has achieved undeserved classic status. Once the soldiers arrive in “Vietnam,” an old abandoned English studio, the film takes on a surreal yet fake tone replete with laughable philosophical observances and over-wrought attempts at shocking violence and tragedy. Kubrik, an elderly British director, knew nothing of the Vietnam War except what he’d read in newspapers and it shows. Best part of the movie: “Me so horny! Me love you long time!”

I've never seen this movie and I never will. I can't stand 99% of war movies having to do with Vietnam. In fact the only decent Vietnam film was "Good Morning, Vietnam!" largely because of the strength of the performance of Robin Williams in the title role.

Number 8: “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory”
Much like director Tim Burton, I am not one of those people who hold this film in holy regard. My generation was reared on this fatalistic rubbish thanks to TV but I resisted seeing it until I was an adult due to lack of interest. When I realized I might lose my Gen-X membership card if I didn’t see it, I subjected myself to the horror…the horror…

If you're talking the Gene Wilder version of this film, then it's not so bad. In the pre-Star Wars era of special effects, some of them are top-notch. Overall, remember that it's supposed to be a syrupy kid's movie. If you're talking the Tim Burton remake then you can forget it. As much as I admire the work of Burton in "Batman", "Beetlejuice" and "Edward Scissorhands", and the overall work of Johnny Depp, their collaboration here in this version of this film makes the elder version Best Picture Oscar-worthy. And that's saying a lot.


Number 7: “Top Gun”
Ah, the days when war was portrayed as a fun time had by all. OK, technically it was a Cold War, but nothing was cooler than watching a bunch of flight jockeys play shirtless volleyball in-between MIG hunts. The aerial sequences still hold up in this era of CGI, but the action on the ground is grade school melodrama at best.

Over all, this is a good, watchable movie, despite the ground level, grade school melodrama. The aerial sequences are cool. This is the film that rocketed Tom Cruise to fame and fortune, before he got all weird on that Scientology crapola. Yep, blame it on the "Danger Zone."

Number 6: “Forrest Gump”
Featuring stupid tag lines like, “Life is like a box of chocolates,” this simpering melodrama about a seeming ‘tard who was a genius in the business world was one of the more agonizing 2 ½ hours of my life. Hanks’ horrible southern drawl not withstanding, the entire film is just one big excuse to have Gump go from place to place and “learn things.” The morphing into historical footage was a neat trick when I saw it the first time in Woody Allen’s “Zelig!”

I don't recall any major hype before this film was released and think it's only notoriety came after Tom Hanks copped his second consecutive Best Actor Oscar in 1994. Aside from the Best Picture and Best Director Oscars that it also won, of course.

Number 5: “To Kill a Mockingbird”
This is a personal prejudice of mine based on my general disdain for the book. Gregory Peck turns in his finest performance in this sermonized piece of drek that teaches us that black people are idiots who need the protection of well-meaning white folk.

You know, this is one of those films that was always on my "to see" list, but since I'd read the novel in high school, never found the real need to watch it. Gregory Peck's performance nitwithstanding, there was always something more appealing at the video store to choose from.

Number 4: “Silence of the Lambs”
Poorly acted. Poorly written. Poorly directed. I laughed during this exercise in schlock. This film has earned a legendary status based on the performance of Anthony Hopkins as fun-lovin’ Hannibal Lechter, folk hero of the truly fucked up.

I'm not really into psycho-killer horror movies but this one was good. I haven't seen any of the recent Lechter spin off movies and don't intend to. Since "Lambs" swept the four major Oscars in 1991, someone must have liked it. Either that or there was a big payoff somewhere that escaped every one's notice, except for Bubba, whose got a huge wedge of soap shoved up his.... sleeve. Yeah, sleeve. That's it.

Number 3: “The Matrix”
This overwrought, under-thought, exercise in pseudo-intellectual pablum is the worst thing to hit theatres since...well, ever. I went and saw this before the hype. While the rest of the pimply-faced scratchy-voiced fan boys had no idea what the Matrix was, I'd already been reading about the movie and its supposed "complicated plot" for 6 months. Needless to say, it sounded highly derivative of William Gibson, but not un-intriguing (is that a word?) As I watched, all I could think was, "Why am I not liking this?" It took me a day to realize it was the over-reliance on visuals, the Swiss cheese plot and the TERRIBLE acting! Perhaps the current generation is superficial enough to consider this a worthy replacement for Star Wars, but I'm still waiting...

If the current generation expects this to be a worthy replacement for "Star Wars", then they're dumber than I thought. This film was the best of the trilogy. I hadn't seen or heard of it until I watched it on pay-per-view at cheesy motel I was staying at in Maine, during the weekend of my older sister's "wedding". All of the hype flew under my radar, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The special effects and acid rock soundtrack make this movie what it is. While the acting was sub-par overall, it gave me an appreciation for Laurence Fishburne, a terribly underrated actor and introduced the world at large (outside of Oz) to the talented Mr. Weaving.

Number 2: “Titanic”
Where do I start, with the historical accuracy or the Harlequin Romance level sub-plot? How about the unlikely love story between a filthy New York con artist and an English socialite who's about 80 years his senior? Maybe the shitty CGI work that reminded me the actors were on a sound stage? I could just stick with the fact that a great writer/director like James Cameron should have known better. Yeah, let’s go with that one.

What can I tell you except that I liked this movie, Harlequin Romance level plot and all. Saw it twice in the theater, I did. Kate Winslet is a babe. For my further comments, see my SNMR review.

Number 1: “The Blair Witch Project”
Heralded as some type of film making breakthrough for the new millennium, it was really just a bunch of morons making scared noises in a forest. Featuring absolutely no plot, one scare and a trio of the most unlikable assholes this side of Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street,” this low-budget garbage raked it in at the box office by exploiting the minimalism credo to its maximum. Yes, “less is more” but nothing is still nothing.

Lived through the hype. Ignored the hype. Life went on. Never wasted my money watching this film. This genre really doesn't do anything for me. Didn't I say that before?