Overrated Films: From Star Wars to The Godfather

The franchises everyone loves and you can't stand

What is that movie everyone raves about while you find it unbearable? This seemingly innocent question sparks one of the most revealing debates on cinematic taste: the gap between what the industry sells as a masterpiece and what a specific viewer tolerates in their seat. In the center of the ring are the franchises dominating box offices for decades: Star Wars, James Bond, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings.

The debate starts with blunt statements: 007 movies are "unbearably dull," Harry Potter is for "annoying children," Star Wars is only tolerated under duress, and The Lord of the Rings leaves viewers feeling dizzy. The complaint isn't about refined taste; it's exhaustion with a product that repeats itself, stretches too long, and is sold as an essential experience.

The Godfather, Tarantino and fatigue with masterpieces

The list of untouchables falling from grace extends beyond sci-fi. The Godfather is labeled "impossibly unbearable," and some outright call any Tarantino film "trash." The pattern is striking: it's not attacking popcorn entertainment, but the canon. The higher a film ranks among critics, the more people want to tear it down.

This trend repeats with Nolan. Inception is described as a mess of poorly resolved dreams, while Interstellar receives the harshest technical critique: astronauts who couldn't last five minutes in a broken elevator, battling impossible singularities at that scale, with temporal cross-cutting that seems designed by a child just learning to read clock hands. The criticism targets pretentiousness, not the genre.

Why the hero's journey tires us out after thirty

A recurring answer with sarcasm suggests the problem isn't the film, but age. "I think I'm too old for this now," summarizes one message adding There Will Be Blood, The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter to the list. The hero's journey structure, which has worked since Gilgamesh, feels like a predictable chore when you've seen how it ends too many times.

Defenders of the canon also have their say. They argue rejecting all classic franchises means being dead inside, asking if the detractor prefers Iranian cinema. The implicit answer is no: one can admire 2001: A Space Odyssey—some consider it among the best ever, noting Kubrick filmed it in 1968 with effects that look 21st-century—and still feel Star Wars doesn't hold a candle to it.

Musicals, superheroes and Spanish cinema nobody defends

Rejection extends across entire genres. Musicals bore some viewers "thoroughly," with La La Land cited as an award-winning film never actually watched. Superhero movies are deemed unwatchable, except older titles or isolated cases like Venom or Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, saved by its performance. Meanwhile, Spanish comedy antiestéticaturing habitual comedians generates rejection beyond mere taste: "not even free on TV."

Dislike for overrated works also hits Gladiator, described as mediocre, ignoring history, with a caricatured villain and a protagonist less expressive than a stone. The only consolation might be veteran British actors. In war films, 1917 and Dunkirk are called dreadful.

Dead Poets Society and the too-cool professor

One of the most elaborate critiques targets Dead Poets Society. The argument reduces it to absurdity: imagine a Physics teacher so charismatic that five minutes of class turns a room full of fools into Molecular Physics professors. That movie doesn't exist because it's implausible. So why accept the literature teacher inspiring students? The conclusion is that the cool professor is played by an actor lacking charm or wit.

Contempt for official narratives has historical versions too. Casablanca is defended as a masterpiece despite being propaganda, not for the love story but for portraying two men representing sacrifice and revolutionary idealism, with a nihilistic Bogart stealing every scene. In contrast, Tod Browning's Dracula retains legendary status undeservedly: slow, theatrical, with mediocre acting and a fragmented script. The trinc year, James Whale's Frankenstein surpasses it.

The unanswered question: Is it the audience or the film?

The discussion moves to uncomfortable ground. Some claim modern comedies have degenerated, with none truly funny in decades, citing Austin Powers as the last example. Critics accuse audiences of overrating gangster films due to lack of respect, arguing respect means calling a fool a fool without losing composure, but also acknowledging genius even if disliked.

Responses arrive with humor: how arrogant to use plural forms implying knowledge of anyone. The exchange clarifies disagreement isn't just about movies, but who decides what constitutes a masterpiece. And there, as in cinema, everyone leaves with their own dizziness.