By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies Discussion - Movies that were panned by critics, but weren't really that bad

I quite enjoyed The Cloverfield Paradox. Only afterwards did I learn that it was an universally panned movie.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Around the Network

Hmmm..

Vertical Limit - fun little guilty pleasure action film
Sucker Punch - reapply previous description, plus cool effects
Die Another Day - Sure, it's cheesy, but a fun Bond film with some great action scenes
The World is Not Enough - Guess I'm partly biased for the Brosnan Bond films growing up with them, but again, I don't see why this one was panned in particular. Outside of a poor performance from Denise Richards, I struggle to really find faults. Overshadowed by Goldeneye for sure, but still a great narrative and a bit of a darker tinge of Bond which I dig.
Equilibrium - Sort of Matrix meets Brave New World. Fine line between rip off and homage and it definitely rides that line, but still a great film with an imaginative premise.
Immortals - Bit of a 300 rip off, though still pretty epic
It's come to my attention that "History of the World Part 1" is under 50% so definitely that one too - into ancient/some Medieval history and like much of Mel Brooks wacky, raunchy style of humor so no-brainer for me. Gets a little goofy at times but also some clever, hilarious jokes.
The Eagle - Fun adventure film set in Ancient Rome. Even if there's a lot of "down" time, there are some memorable moments.
Star Wars Episode 3 Revenge of the Sith - Has loads of flaws (hell just watch the Plinkett review on youtube haha) but it's a pretty epic conclusion and interesting the transformation from Anakin to Darth Vader, has a darker tinge too which I like.

I also have a bias for many of the late-90s/early 2000s comedies that seem to get panned quite a bit - Rush Hour 1 & 2, Me Myself and Irene, Waterboy, Bid Daddy, Road Trip, Liar Liar, Freddy Got Fingered (as long as you look at it as a spoof of the genre itself which I basically do haha), Harold and Kumar, Dodgeball, Old School, Super Troopers, Shallow Hal, Tallegeda Nights, etc.. Granted I don't LOVE most of these but I really feel most of them get knocked far more than they deserve, particularly by critics.

Probably well under half of the examples of films I've seen but these are what comes to mind off the top of my head.



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

FormerlyTeamSilent13 said:

I like the Star Wars prequels. Not going to disagree with the dialogue being goofy or pretend they are my favorite movies, but in anticipation for episode 7 I rewatched the prequels and original trilogy in that order and was surprised how much I still enjoyed eps 1-3. I enjoy the galactic politics and grander universe of the prequels and definitely prefer them to the sequel trilogy. Also, AJAB so I don't really care about critics opinions. If I like something I don't let a mob ruin my own enjoyment.

Story and screenplay-wise prequel trilogy is superior to original trilogy. The Vengeance of the Sith is a particularly strong movie 

My problems with OG trilogy are more about direction, passing and some weird decisions about character development. Anakin turning into dark side came out for me as extremely shallow and hard to digest, as well the reasons behind Amidala's death, Luke and Leia separation at birth, the way the Jedi purge happened and so on. They are movies I enjoy, but sometimes they don't "fit" when I'm analyzing the franchise as a whole 

Other problems regarding prequel trilogy is the universe is far too big for a movie, maybe it should be adapted as a series. There are characters, locations and actions that seems to be happening in the background and they are thrown right and left in your face, I remember Attack of Clones suffering a lot with this.

But prequel trilogy wasn't planned by critics. Phantom Mannace (indeed the weakest entry in the trilogy) got mixed reviews, but the others didn't. It's the fandom who hates prequel trilogy, but again, Star Wars fans are the most unbearable in existence and hate everything



Darwinianevolution said:

I quite enjoyed The Cloverfield Paradox. Only afterwards did I learn that it was an universally panned movie.

It’s all because of the last 25 seconds or so :D

I agree, it’s an underrated film, otherwise. I didn’t think it was as great as the first two - IMO, the first was phenomenal, the second was good, but had a “Made for Netflix” feel to it. And Paradox had more a “Made for TV” feel to it. It was like a really good Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode, and definitely worth watching for fans of the first two.

The last 25 seconds people didn’t like because it was a nasty twist ending for the crew, and people naturally like happy endings - and aren’t generally satisfied by stuff like that unless it’s some epic/way over the top last stand scene. Horror movie fans are probably more forgiving because we’re thinking “this is REALLY going to piss off the normies.” given most horror fans are dark comedy fans and are more tolerant of anticlimactic bad-turn endings.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

LMU Uncle Alfred said:
pikashoe said:

Wow, just no to all of this.

I think Predator (the original) is a perfect poster child showing critics actually do get it wrong, even overwhelmingly.  Predator isn't an amazing movie, but I think it's an overall good movie.  At worst a guilty pleasure movie, but not a bad movie by any means.

I’d classify Predator as an amazing action film. One of the few action films I can watch and consistently get that “I remembered it was good, but this is better than I remember” feeling from.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

If we’re going by outdated critical opinions, which IMO is a bit of a cop out - The Shining would be on my list. It won Razzies. It’s now today in the argument for best horror film of all time.

Vertigo was once considered a flop, but is now regarded as the greatest film of all time.

Both The Shining and Vertigo were revolutionary films that came out before their time because the cultural paradigm at the time wasn’t really ready for those types of films. Of course, you had people thinking “Whoah! This is (one of) the best film(s) I’ve ever seen!” And they eventually won out over the critics and popular opinion.

The Shining and Vertigo are both in my top 25 at least (Vertigo is arguably my #1), so those would be my picks of films where the critics originally got it wrong. As for horror, I think the one I like best currently is Hereditary - but so many great horrors have been coming out in the past decade or so. Insidious really kicked off a revolution.

If I would pick a film that is, granted, a bit dated today, that I really liked that a lot of people didn’t: The Grudge (2004). I thought this one was fantastic in how it used tension and execution. It also had the Sam Raimi budget, production, and time for Shimizu to really craft a great horror film for the era. I appreciate the others, but found the tension and pacing fell flat in a lot of the time. When I think of horror films from this era, that’s the one that sticks out. But when I saw The Grudge, it was probably the first time a horror film really frightened me since childhood. I mean, late 90s stuff wasn’t even trying to be scary, it was just making fun of the blatant formulaic slasher film that had dominated the genre since the early 80s. At least for my generation, the slasher genre was seen as more of a comedy sub-genre than anything, like our version of slap stick + dark humour. The Grudge was a big change for that.

The other one from that era is the remake of Dawn of the Dead, and while I like that film, and really liked Sarah Polly’s acting (wish she was in more things, as she had loads of potential), it suffers massively by comparison to the original Dawn of the Dead which is a much grittier and more grand scale film - while both have the mall setting, you’re talking a few days for the remake compared to about a year or more for the original - and with the original you follow the characters preparing their sanctuary while watching the rest of the world collapse around them as the days and months pass… unfortunately, the remake just focused on the characters, had little references to the original, and had some interesting ideas. Still, Dawn of the Dead 06 (or was it 05) was a good film for its era. Bust don’t compare it to the original Dawn of the Dead, which is an all time mega classic.

There is also The Butterfly Effect, which I remember stood out in this era. I don’t have much to say about it as I haven’t seen it in a long time.

Of course, and this is just my opinion, but Insidious revolutionized horror, and the era since has been the best of all time, IMO, finally beating that late 70s/early 80s era. It’s a bit hard to look back at the pre-Insidious era and talk about it with praise given James Wan has REALLY stepped it up with tension and execution for those style of horror films. I have yet to see one that has given me goosebumps more than Conjuring 2 did. But films like Hereditary really show the impact that The Shining had on the genre. And like the late 90s, there are too many horror films to watch, I love the feeling of missing something and discovering it has a cult following, and being surprised at how great it was - knowing there’s a bunch of hidden gems out there.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Jumpin said:
Darwinianevolution said:

I quite enjoyed The Cloverfield Paradox. Only afterwards did I learn that it was an universally panned movie.

It’s all because of the last 25 seconds or so :D

I agree, it’s an underrated film, otherwise. I didn’t think it was as great as the first two - IMO, the first was phenomenal, the second was good, but had a “Made for Netflix” feel to it. And Paradox had more a “Made for TV” feel to it. It was like a really good Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode, and definitely worth watching for fans of the first two.

The last 25 seconds people didn’t like because it was a nasty twist ending for the crew, and people naturally like happy endings - and aren’t generally satisfied by stuff like that unless it’s some epic/way over the top last stand scene. Horror movie fans are probably more forgiving because we’re thinking “this is REALLY going to piss off the normies.” given most horror fans are dark comedy fans and are more tolerant of anticlimactic bad-turn endings.

I think people also got tired of the Cloverfield name being used to trick people into going to see movies that weren't proper followups to the original.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Dark Shadows. A Tim Burton film from 2012. I don't necessarily disagree with the critics on the film, but for some reason I just kept getting sucked into the film. I watched it like 10 times in one month cuz I kept seeing it on HBO and I couldn't stop watching.



I wouldn't say these movies were necessarily "panned", but I think the closest movies I can think of would be Operation Avalanche and Under the Silver Lake.

Both of them wound up being tremendously interesting movies, which didn't execute their premise flawlessly, but executed it well enough for the movies to really work for me. I love both of these movies despite their flaws and while I can certainly imagine some people not being able to get past those issues, I'd still strongly recommend them if you are into cinema. 

To briefly sell them, Operation Avalanche is a political thriller type movie from the makers of The Dirties (another fantastic film) which portrays in a mock-documentary period piece, how the CIA faked the moon landing. While the character writing doesn't always feel appropriate for the period, I found the story itself extremely engaging and it all uses it's low budget to amazing effect to really sell the mock-documentary aspects. They actually managed to film a lot of the story on location in NASA with interviews from a lot of NASA employees by pretending that they were making a PBS style documentary. The entire making of this film is fascinating and it resulted in a project which is nothing like anything else I've ever seen and I love it for that.

Under the Silver Lake is a bizarre and extremely ambitious project from the director of It Follows, which explores Hollywood and pop culture conspiracy (turn out conspiracy movies can be real interesting), but while Operation Avalanche tells a pretty clean and concise story, Under the Silver Lake just goes all over the place. It is an absolute journey of a film and while not all of the plot threads feel like they are tied up, it kind of makes it have the feeling of something like the old X-Men movies where these ideas are cameos hinting at a world beyond the film. 

Both of these films have an energy to them which make it feel like the creators were really having fun experimenting and trying things out. While they don't always nail the polish, they do manage to be unique and memorable and I hope enough people watch them that the creators can keep experimenting with future projects. 



JRPGfan said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

None

I never watched a movie in my life that received negative reviews and end being good

^ basically this.

I dont buy into the "its so bad, its good" stuff.
Or "mindless action fun".

Basically if a movie is hated by critics, its almost certain its just a bad movie.

Obviously, A LOT of people disagree with you two.

And I stopped taking "critics" seriously a long time ago.