The 11 Most Overrated Movies of All Time
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that millions of people can be utterly, shockingly, and inexplicably wrong. There’s simply no other way to explain the repeated success and popularity of David Spade, Taylor Hicks, or George W. Bush. And people are even worse when it comes to judging movies.
The following, in my humble assessment, are the 11 most overrated films in history. If you love these films, good for you. You probably hate some of the movies I love. Let’s call it even, despite the fact that you’re so wrong not to recognize how weak many of these movies really are.
First, a disclaimer: For the purposes of this article, I’m focusing on films that either won major awards, rank highly in the IMDB Top 250 or AFI’s 100, or have a significant cult or fan following. Godfather 3 or Rocky V, for example, can’t be overrated, but most people already think they sucked. A second disclaimer: this article contains spoilers, so if you haven’t seen any of these movies, stop reading if you don’t want to read how some of them end. Finally, just because I call a movie “overrated” doesn’t mean it’s not a good, even a great, film. It just means that some of these films have gotten more of their share of acclaim than they deserve.
That said, some of these movies also flat out suck. Onto the list:
11. Fletch. A lot of people, myself included, still quote this movie often (“It’s all ball bearings nowadays!”) This 1985 Chevy Chase Comedy has a handful of memorable lines and funny moments. Fletch’s dream of playing for the Lakers, with a big bushy, white-man afro, and being interviewed by announcer Chick Hearn was endlessly amusing to me as a kid. But in between those memorable lines and short bits of goofiness, there’s not much of a movie here. The film’s producers clearly wanted to showcase Chase’s comedic silliness, but felt compelled to wrap it up in a conventional smart-but-unconventional-cop-gets-results storyline. For every one of Fletch’s great lines, there are three or four attempts that just don’t work. The guy is just a snarky wise-ass, in an early-’80s, Jack Tripper kind of way. Some comedies from the 80s hold up well, and they remain clever, entertaining, and funny. Fletch isn’t one of them — it’s half a dozen good lines, stretched out over 90 minutes of tedious, B-movie junk.
10. Crash. When I walked out of the theater having seen Crash, I thought maybe the movie was supposed to be some sort of parable. It was heavy-handed, unrealistic, and people didn’t talk like real human beings. We weren’t supposed to take this film seriously, were we? Still, it was trying to say something about race and culture and how we’re different, but separate, but connected, yet disconnected… and so on. I at least give the filmmakers credit for trying to look at some serious issues. But the movie oozed a sense of importance that it didn’t deliver. Some of the dialogue was unintentionally funny. The plot twists were manipulative and cheap. I was actually surprised that such a mediocre firm was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. I was stunned when it won, convinced it had to be the beneficiary of some odd vote-splitting list of nominees. Not only was it nowhere near the best film of 2005, let alone among the best movies in recent years. If you look at the nominees for Best Picture since 2000, I’m don’t think there’s a worse movie than Crash… maybe Gosford Park, but that’s only because Crash had Thandie Newton in it, and Gosford Park didn’t.
9. The Shawshank Redemption. Shawshank is on TNT approximately five million times a year. It is the second-highest rated film on IMDB, and it was nominated for seven Oscars. It is a movie that can make grown men cry. Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins deliver great performances. Thomas Newman’s original score is beautiful. It’s an engaging film about perseverance, friendship, will power, and hope.
But then again, does it really belong in the same company as Godfather, Godfather II, Schindler’s List, and other consensus top-ten films? Is it really one of the ten best films of all time? First off, the villain of the film, Warden Norton, is an incredibly cartoonish, two dimensional bad guy. He and Cal from Titanic could have a “pure-evil-for-the-sake-of-being-pure-evil” standoff. Aside from greed, we have no idea what made him who he was. The Warden is pure evil, and is willing to kill the prisoner who can help prove Andy’s innocence in cold blood. And yet, even though Andy is the one man who could expose him and all his criminal dealings, he doesn’t do the simplest thing and just kill Andy. Why not? Because Andy has to wind up hugging Red on the beach years later.
Secondly, think about the scene where Andy locks himself in a room and plays classical music over the loudspeakers to the rest of the prisoners, who stop in the courtyard and stare up in awe and wonder. Are you kidding me? The scene tries to be a powerful, emotional peak in the film, but it comes off as laughably implausible, even in the 1950’s.
Finally, the movie makes it a little too easy on the audience by giving it all the answers. Is Andy guilty? Does he really escape? Will he and Red ever meet up again? Nothing is left for the audience to wonder about, no ambiguity — everything is spoon-fed to the audience in tasty, happy-ending bites, right up to the final “hug on the beach” scene. Wait… this movie ends with happy people hugging on a beach? Yes it does.
8. Chicago. This won Best Picture? Seriously? It must be a musical thing. I don’t get it. How did this movie get an Oscar, but Saving Private Ryan and Letters from Iwo Jima didn’t? I take back what I said about Crash. Compared to Chicago, Crash is Citizen Fucking Kane.
7. Casablanca. Old Hollywood doesn’t get a free pass on this list. And perhaps the most overrated of the classic Hollywood films is Casablanca. AFI calls it the 3rd best film of all time. The IMDB 250 ranks it #8. Almost any list of the top ten films in history includes this Oscar-winning film. When people think of this movie, then tend to think of the famous lines: “Here’s looking at you, kid”… “Play it again, Sam”… “I’m shocked, shocked“… “We’ll always have Paris”… People also remember the look of the film: the glorious, rich black and white, with Humphrey Bogart smoking in the darkness. All of those things make this film a classic, but beyond that, the movie doesn’t quite live up its status as the best of the best. Does it really hold up after almost 70 years later as the highest achievement in filmmaking? I’d have to say no. Ultimately, I think nostalgia makes people give this movie more acclaim and praise than it deserves.
The acting, as was often the case in the 1940’s, is a bit campy and shallow. Bogart’s character is witty, sharp, and cynical, but he doesn’t seem particularly real. There’s a stage-play “acting” style to all the performances. Bogart’s role as Rick is far from his best work. He delivers dozens of quips, but they don’t seem like something a real person would actually say. The characters, aside from Rick and Ilsa, are mostly caricatures. Sam is a piano-playing black sidekick with no other human qualities, despite being one of Rick’s oldest friends. The Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark were more complex. The cynical Captain Renault is little more than a memorable bit of comic relief. And while I understand that some of this acting style was common at the time, but even for that era, the acting in Casablanca feels a bit thin. It’s a great story, but it often has the feel of a larger-than-life Broadway play more than a work of cinema. I respect this film, but if audiences watched it for the first time today, few would think the movie belongs in the top ten, even in the top twenty of all-time films. Just because a film is memorable, that doesn’t mean it is great.
6. Field of Dreams. I’ve seen people describe this as the “best baseball movie of all time.” Nonsense. It’s not even the best Kevin Costner baseball movie. It spends entirely too much time prattling on about the “poetry” of baseball and elevating the sport to some kind of mystical, magical form of art. This movie wants desperately to be the ultimate love-of-the-game baseball movie. Baseball is so incredible and magical, it will bring your dead father back to you! So I’m going to call the film’s sugary sentimentalism about baseball strike one. Strike two? This film pumped up Kevin Costner’s ego to dangerous levels and led to the American tragedy known as Waterworld. Finally, it’s obvious to me that this sentimental ode to “America’s pastime” helped inspire the intolerable Ken Burns’ 19-hour Baseball documentary series, which brought over-wrought baseball metaphors and poetry to a new height. That’s strike three. Next!
5. 2001: A Space Odyssey. AFI calls this movie the 15th best film ever made. Science Fiction fans often still speak of this 1968 movie with hushed reverence. The movie was a pioneering film in terms of visual effects that would evolve in the ’70s to make movies like Star Wars and Close Encounters possible. But it lacked the storytelling that made those later films great. In short, 2001 is a three-hour bore. With long, slow shots that go on pointlessly for minutes at a time, a meandering, confusing plot, and the lack of a single interesting human character, this film is a painful cinematic experience. Director Stanley Kubrick seemed more interested in showing what the future might look like in 2001 than in telling a good story. When the two most memorable characters from your movie are a monkey-man who finds a bone and a talking computer, it’s possible that your three-hour science fiction epic needed a lot of help.
4. Gladiator. I like this movie. It’s my favorite DVD for testing out and showing off how cool surround sound can be. It’s an entertaining action movie with a spectacular recreation of ancient Rome. Russell Crowe is memorable as Maximus. But seriously… how the hell did this win Best Picture? For all its entertainment value, it’s a bit like a comic book. The villain, Commodus, is a one-dimensional cartoon. What’s worse, in his famous exchange with Maximus in the middle of the Roman Coliseum (“I will have my vengeance…”), the two speak to each other in normal speaking voices, and yet half the crowd can hear the conversation, including Commodus’ sister, who is about 100 yards away. The movie also has the token black sidekick to the hero, the child actor who really needs a haircut, and a bunch of undeveloped characters that the audience is given little reason to care about. All that said, Gladiator was a fun, summertime, popcorn-crunching movie. I just have no idea how it was deemed the best film in the same year that Memento, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Traffic were released.
3. The Matrix. Matrix was a pretty good film, mixing an intriguing storyline, innovative special effects, and some memorable quotes. Countless movies have tried to imitate its funky style and cool action sequences. It sparked a lot of interesting philosophical conversations about fate, the nature of reality, and choice. It spawned more fan sites, videogames, and pop culture references than almost any film since. Not bad for a sci-fi action summer movie. But for a lot of people, especially younger filmgoers, this movie is their Star Wars. And while I like Matrix, it is a movie with a lot of glaring flaws.
First off, there’s Keanu Reeves, who has the emotional range of a cucumber and brings little to the movie other than a very appropriate look of befuddlement for most of the film. Whoa!
Second, if you think too much about it, the core premise of the movie doesn’t make much sense. If the “machines” are using humans for energy, who bother giving them an imaginary universe in which to live? Why not just treat them like some biological fuel source and let them all rot in a coma-like state, thinking about nothing at all? Wouldn’t that still provide them with the energy they are harvesting? Better yet, couldn’t they just harvest the energy from cows or other big mammals that aren’t so high maintenance?
Third, there’s the ending of this movie, in which Neo is dead until Trinity tells him she loves him, and that makes everything better. Hurray for love! Seriously — the writers seems to have gotten stuck trying to figure out how to revive Neo, and finally gave up. “Screw it,” they must have said, “let’s just say Trinity brings him back with a magic kiss! Genius!”
And finally, Matrix is a bit tainted by the less impressive and more confusing sequel Matrix: Reloaded and the terrible, I-wish-I’d-never-seen-it conclusion to the trilogy, Matrix: Revolutions. The final film was a wholly unsatisfying end to the series and the worst of the trilogy, leaving unresolved a lot of the biggest and most interesting questions raised in the original film. Once you see Revolutions and know that Neo isn’t going to really free his people from the Matrix after all, that Morpheus’ biggest hopes will never be fulfilled, the first movie looks a lot more like a big tease for a payoff that will never come.
2. Dirty Dancing. Since I don’t know many men who like this movie, this one’s for the women of the world to explain. This movie is always on cable. It seemingly has some new commemorative DVD every year. Almost every woman I know adores this film and has probably seen it dozens of times.
I honestly don’t know why this corny ’80s dance movie isn’t largely forgotten along with Grease 2. I just don't get the appeal of this film on any level. I must be in the minority, but even at the time the movie was released, I thought the music sucked. Moreover, the star of the film is Patrick Swayze. That by itself should have killed this film.
The worst part of it all is the final scene, an excruciating dance sequence where an army of cheesy people dance off the stage and down the aisle of the theater to that unbearable "The Time of my Life‚" song. One writer described the final dance sequence in this film as "the most goosebump-inducing dance scene in movie history." I'm not sure how many dance sequences induce goosebumps, but the only thing this one should have induced is laughter.
1. Scarface. This movie is #1 and it's not even close. Not only is this easily the most overrated film of all time, it's not even a good movie. It's badly-acted, badly-written, violent crap. Aside from one early part of the film — the "'chainsaw" sequence, which is extremely suspenseful and masterfully directed — Scarface is a terrible movie.
There is not a single character in this movie you can really care about. Al Pacino's performance mostly consists of using a terrible, fake Cuban accent and shouting "fuck" every other word. This movie marks Pacino's first real foray into loud over-acting. And while Pacino's performances in the Godfather films, Serpico, and Glengarry Glen Ross are rich and complex, in this film, he deliver little more than a loud, two-hour Cuban caricature.
We also never learn why his wife, Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer) ever warms up to him. Like many of the characters in the movie, there’s no depth or complexity to her. She’s just another plot device to give Tony Montana reasons to scream and freak out.
Whenever Tony gets really angry, there’s a bizarre sound effect and a close up of his eyes that’s incredibly silly. It’s like something out of a bad kung fu movie.
The music in this movie is horribly dated —a terrible synthesizer-heavy sound that lived and died in the 1980s.
The movie is vulgar, violent, and bloody and almost all of it is gratuitous. Yes, it’s a gangster movie, so it’s going to have lots of violence, but great films about criminals or mob life find ways to make the audience identify with or care about the main characters.
Scarface is a shallow, ugly movie with few redeeming qualities. It doesn’t deserve a fraction of the attention and praise it has received over the years. It would be better if no one remembered it at all. And for that, it’s easily the most overrated movie of all time.

October 16th, 2007 | 12:01 pm
scarface is a ok movie but it is the worst gangster movie ever. Paccino sucked in it and that is the worst cuban accent ever
October 25th, 2007 | 10:10 am
Scarface is not the most overrated movie . In my opionion it is the best movie ever made. Many people dislike the violence and ambitions of Tony Montana however many see the genius in his character. That being said i have not met a single female who understands the movie.
November 19th, 2007 | 1:12 pm
You must be a moron to put Casablanca in this catagory. Perhaps you have never seen the movie. Besides being the greatest movie of all time, it has the greatest supporting cast of all time. It has the greatest memorable lines of all time. I watched the movie again last night and had tears in my eyes at lease 3 times. I have to guess that you are about 15 years old. If you are older, then you must have stopped maturing at that age. Am I right on one of these.
November 27th, 2007 | 9:49 am
Whether or not I am a moron is a matter of debate, to be sure. And my maturity, no doubt, is also a matter of speculation.
All that said, I like Casablanca. It’s a great movie. Everyone should see it. My argument is that as good as it is, it doesn’t hold up as “the greatest movie of all time” or one of the handful of very best films. As I noted above, the acting is a bit wooden, some of the dialogue feels artificial, and several of the characters are two-dimensional. Those things don’t make Casablanca a bad movie, but they are the kinds of things that keep it from being the kind of flawless cinematic experience that I’d expect from “the best movie of all time.”
December 11th, 2007 | 1:14 pm
I point out that The Shawshank Redemption was a “fantasy” more than anything else. It wasn’t trying to portray real life, IMO. Being derived from Stephen King, and not being out and out horror, the only other form of writing he did was fantasy. The Shawshank Redemption should be looked at in that light. It still might not hold up, but it explains the nature of the characters - fantasies generally are more black and white, good versus evil without having to explain why.
Having said all that, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So many people find something in the movie, and it’s not simply hype. It struck a chord with so many people on an emotional level and that’s why it is where it is. Perhaps it is the fantastic, black and white quality that appeals so much. It’s simple to digest. But not everything needs to be ponderous to be valuable. Personally I go by how many times I’ve watched a particular movie to determine my own ranking and TSR certainly is high on the list.
December 22nd, 2007 | 8:02 pm
Movies-and all-art, need a timeless quality to be considered truly great, but understanding the times, in relationship to the movie, goes a long way to explaining much.
For example (and a small, obvious example) if you don’t understand that there was a was a war on, with German Nazis, in the 40’s, then they’ll you’ll have much trouble understanding the context of Casablanca. And a man willing to risk his neck, when he professes to “never risk his next for anyone,” has a lot of inherent romance. Aside, from the stodgy acting-a style we’re far removed from in the post-Brando era-Casablanca is a great movie, and a greater screenplay. It’s really a dialogue driven movie, framed film noir shades of grey.
You make a valid point about Scarface…it is overdone and undercharacterized. But Pacino’s character-long before we got used to his volcanic tirades-is mesmerizing. The violence is overdone in typical De Palma style and said to be operatic. There’s nothing operatic about it. It is, like you said, gratuitous. But the movie is so quotable because of Pacino, I just couldn’t put it on a worst list.
Gladiator winning the oscar, like Titanic, defies explanation. I understand the thrust of those who love the film. I after all find the film highly watchable…just don’t think it is oscar material. Memento should have one, and in the year Titanic won LA Confidential should have won.
You’re completely wrong about Shawshank Redemption. This movie is great on all counts.
March 26th, 2008 | 7:10 pm
One question…where is Titanic?????
April 9th, 2008 | 1:12 am
I agree with scarface. Very dated , but the movie has this trancing effect on people. My niece who was born 9 years after that movie was made, loves it. Its more popular now than it was back then. Its the Godfather of the 80s, and like u said, its a poorly acted film filled with non latino actors destroying accents like it was a parody gone wrong.
I enjoy the film on a simple level and feel its classic in what it accomplished but it is also very overrated as well, good call.
May 19th, 2008 | 10:09 pm
I agree with some. But i see many missing the list. especially Titanic
May 23rd, 2008 | 2:23 pm
put Donnie Darko on that list, never has a movie been more over-rated
May 29th, 2008 | 3:37 pm
Shawshank Redemption is not over-rated and shouldn’t be on the list atall. It is a brilliant film because of the feeling it gives you and helps people with their issues and problems in life. It’s about hope, friendship, freedom and believe. The elements of the film are all great, the story, the acting, the characters, the story, the message, soundtrack and script. In answer to your theory about the plot, is the Warden was using Andy for his benefit. He knew Andy was the only one who could keep his crimes going without getting caught and used Andy so he could get more money. The warden had no idea what Andy has been up too, with the tunnel out of prison, and the fake account which Andy could use to get the Warden caught. Without Andy, the Warden might have been found out so he needn’t Andy to carry on with his dirty work. That’s why he didn’t kill Andy, but Tommy instead cause Tommy was Andy’s way out of prison. So everyone thought. It is a fiction story yes, but it has also been said that it’s based of a morally based true story, so means it could happen. Andy found his way out of prison to start a new life in Mexico, which him crawling through the pipe was symbolic of him being born into the new real world which andy hasn’t seen for near 20 years. What’s wrong with the end scene? I think two friends would hug if they haven’t seen each other for two years, after everything they’ve been through. So in theory, go through what you’re gonna say before you post it.
June 26th, 2008 | 7:45 am
Great list, but definitely Titanic should be on there, and I completely have to disagree on “Shawshank Redemption.” That movie was incredible, and remember that the scene is being remembered from Red years later, so from a beach thinking back, stunned expressions could be seen as awe. Also: Shakespeare in Love. Beat everyone in awards, including Saving Private Ryan, but you don’t even remember about “Shakespeare” 10 years later, while “Ryan” will be a classic for the next several decades.
Good overall list, though. Thanks for sharing.
btw - Donnie Darko was amazing. Have to disagree with the comment on that one.
June 26th, 2008 | 7:51 am
Great point, Shane. I can’t believe I didn’t include Shakespeare in Love (good movie, but wholly unworthy of beating Private Ryan for Best Picture)
I realize I’m in the minority on Shawshank… Very good movie, but I’m surprised how often people list is as among the best ever.
I don’t hate Titanic as much as some, so it doesn’t quite make my list. But a LOT of people have told me it belongs high on this list. Should it have been the highest-grossing film of all time? Probably not. But I’ve seen much much worse…
July 24th, 2008 | 10:05 am
Scarface rules!!! BEST. MOVIE. EVER. It’s just a pure bad ass movie!
You’re right about Casablanca…I nearly nodded off watching it. It’s by far the most overrated movie and you’re break down of it was correct.
July 30th, 2008 | 5:14 pm
Some films I would consider to be overrated would be Titanic, Pretty Woman, Lord of the Rings series, The Blair Witch Project, Chicago, Saturday Night Fever, Juno, Birth of a Nation, E.T., A Place in the Sun, and The Apartment.
August 8th, 2008 | 7:51 pm
Even though I love me some Shawshank, I can at least see how one could perceive it as overrated. What can I say, it moved me, which is a pretty damn tough task for any movie. So for me, it gets a high rank for doing what so many movies try and fail at doing.
Where the heck is Forrest Gump? You talk about villians being cartoonish and one-dimensional, but in this movie the main character is just that. Although, it is fair to say the movie is not really about Forrest, its really about pop history. For me, the Gump amounted to about the same value as those “The 60’s” and “The 70’s” miniseries that came out a few years back: overly referential to the pop culture of the times, with no meaningful character development (and no, AIDS cannot be considered character development).
Seriously, where is Titanic?
Casablanca is a very witty and clever movie. Try watching any other movie from that period and you will understand why its held in such high regard (OK maybe its still not top 10).
Yes, Scarface is terrible. The same guys who were into that were also into “Cobra” and “Rambo” back in the day. That should say something.