Their reasons for these movies being overrated are less than illuminating.

"I LOATHE Close Encounters. It is the WORST. It makes me want to scratch my eyeballs out of my head. Ugh! - lettergirl

Really?

In related news, see the list of opinions that resemble dirty brown arseholes

Annie Hall is hysterical. End of discussion.

It's shiat like this that makes me glad I canceled my subscription.

Lawrence of Arabia? Come on. Amazing film.

But, I guess if you have the intellectual prowess of a 7 year old, many of these films would seem, well, boring.

Oh, and their website sucks balls.

FredaDeStilleto: Lawrence of Arabia? Come on. Amazing film.

But, I guess if you have the intellectual prowess of a 7 year old, many of these films would seem, well, boring.

It's not Twilight, therefore it is crap!

Well, I can at least see the angle they're coming from. Some of the movies on the list are seen as significant because they were ahead of their time -- if you took the films out of their historical context and looked at them solely based on their content, they really aren't all that special anymore. Citizen Kane was groundbreaking in its day, but were it to have been made today it certainly wouldn't go down in history as a classic film.

Of course, that raises the whole question of how art should be judged; there's a good case to be made that it's not at all fair to try to judge a work of art without considering the historical context of the work.

The Wizard of Oz?
Close Encounters of the Third Kind?

I love those movies :/

Lawrence of Arabia is one of the best films ever.

Sweet mother of god.

I don't even like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I think it's amazingly well made and races many, many interesting questions.

His Girl Friday? Forrest Gump? Citizen Kane? Wizard of Oz?

Who are these farktards and why are they watching MY GOD DAMN CINEMA?

*raises

Furthermore, why are we giving traffic to this "article" -- it's a slide show of movies with a few comments underneath by random people I don't know. This isn't even one of those things where you can simply "disagree" with it -- this list/article is just farking retarded. Someone else said EW is trolling -- I'm almost inclined to agree.

RobertBruce: I agree with Gump. But the rest are good movies.

seconded. even if you take Pulp Fiction off the table for the 94 Best Picture Oscar, how the fark can you honestly say that Gump is a better movie than motherfarking Shawshank?

dabarwench: Is today Opposite Day over at EW?

No. It must be Retard Thursday.

This article does bring up a good question though -- what films can you legitimately call overrated (whether they are or not)? I think a prime example of such is Crash (2004). It was a very mediocre, melodramatic film that had a tried and true message in it. The acting, the dialogue, the plot -- none of it was "grand." Yet it won an Oscar for Best Picture.

Wizard of Oz (1939) on the other hand is the most highly referenced movie ever made, if IMDb is any source on the matter. It has more movie connections than any other film. Its influence is incredible -- from the technology behind it (such as the design of the tornado), to the use of technicolor. It would play once every Thanksgiving on television for decades, something people would come to look forward to.

You can't call a film "overrated" on the basis that you don't "enjoy" it for reasons that aren't objective. For instance, one could have a useless debate on whether or not Citizen Kane tells a good story -- because that's subjective. But whether or not Citizen Kane inspired other people, other films, inspired camera shots -- those things are objective. In other words, a film's lasting impact, its legacy, is objective. It can be "measured" in a sense.

To dismiss such films then that have those legacies as being overrated, that speaks volumes on a person's view of cinema. If I met someone who actually agreed with this list, I'd probably never speak to them again, because I would assume they are just retarded.

Meh on Exorcist (but then it's a horror movie,) but they need a cockpunch for Forrest Gump.

Breakfast at Tiffany's was farking boring. Moon River is a crappy song.

North by Northwest was also pretty lame.

ignite ice: This article does bring up a good question though -- what films can you legitimately call overrated (whether they are or not)? I think a prime example of such is Crash (2004). It was a very mediocre, melodramatic film that had a tried and true message in it. The acting, the dialogue, the plot -- none of it was "grand." Yet it won an Oscar for Best Picture.

The Best Picture is overrated every other year. The kind of films that get nominated are mostly pretentious crap.

MeinRS6: They probably have 16 Candles in the top 5 movies of all time as well.

I'd really like to see their top twenty list. Probably includes Cocktail, Battlefield Earth and The Giant Spider Invasion.

ignite ice: perfectly reasonable comment

dabarwench: Is today Opposite Day over at EW?

it sure as shiat is on Fark...

oldebayer: MeinRS6: They probably have 16 Candles in the top 5 movies of all time as well.

I'd really like to see their top twenty list. Probably includes Cocktail, Battlefield Earth and The Giant Spider Invasion.

you go to hell and you die.

/i feel dizzy
//oh so woozy
///i've had whiskey and vodak and giiiiiin