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

Jumpin said:

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.

Dead Silence was batshit intense as well. Not many horror movies really scare or even phase me, anymore, but that movie legit gave me sleep troubles for a couple of nights afterwards, having to walk all the way upstairs in the dark to go to bed was no fun. It didn't have a great plot, mind you, but holy shit did it deliver on the scares. Mary Shaw is nightmare fuel. James Wan really is the best at what he does (yes, he also directed that movie), which is why The Conjuring received an R rating despite having virtually no blood or gore and no nudity or F-bombs. 

Oh and the first Transformers I have a soft spot for. It was also the only Transformers movie I really enjoy aside from Bumblebee, which is the only TF film not directed by Michael Bay (I remember saying I "liked" the others while feeling guilty for doing so, then rewatching them and realizing they're bad).

The original Saw, like its successors, also wasn't well-received by critics despite being relatively well-liked by moviegoers. It's the only Saw film that doesn't rely excessively on gore (and creating the "torture porn" subgenre) and it had great tension and atmosphere. I also liked seeing Adam and Dr. Gordon's story unraveling through all those flashbacks and learning more about their characters, and that twist is still one of the best in horror history. Ironically enough, the first Hostel, which IS juvenile trash, was better-received by critics despite being more exploitative and less story-focused.



Around the Network

Alien 3 (59 MC) excellent horror movie, with unique visuales and the best soundtrack of all alien móviles.
Excalibur (56) Epic movie full of symbolism. The best King Arthur movie.
Predator and Predator 2 are great action films and got really bad reviews.
Predators is just stupid nonsense.




Loneken said:

Alien 3 (59 MC) excellent horror movie, with unique visuales and the best soundtrack of all alien móviles.

Wait, Alien 3 is only a 59?

Wow, I mean it has its flaws, but I still found it to be a very good movie with strong atmosphere, direction, and performances. Add that one to my list.



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

chakkra said:

Obviously, A LOT of people disagree with you two.

Just because some people (mostly who barely watch movies, or even knows anything about cinema) disagree with my opinion does it make it less valid? 

I never watched a really badly scored movie (I.e. a movie with less than 40 on MC) that is even remotely close to be any good, never. If you have a good counter example please give it to me, I'm curious to see 

Mixed reviews movies (50-60) are another thing. Those aren't badly reviews, those are mixed. That are nixed movies I like and mixed movies I dislike which kinda makes sense because they were... mixed reviewed ?



IcaroRibeiro said:
chakkra said:

Obviously, A LOT of people disagree with you two.

Just because some people (mostly who barely watch movies, or even knows anything about cinema) disagree with my opinion does it make it less valid? 

I never watched a really badly scored movie (I.e. a movie with less than 40 on MC) that is even remotely close to be any good, never. If you have a good counter example please give it to me, I'm curious to see 

Mixed reviews movies (50-60) are another thing. Those aren't badly reviews, those are mixed. That are nixed movies I like and mixed movies I dislike which kinda makes sense because they were... mixed reviewed ?

there are huge differences in scores between critics reviews and user reviews for a lot of movies, so that tells me that movie critics don't know what they are talking about when the general public enjoys those same movies much more



Around the Network
Makaha said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Just because some people (mostly who barely watch movies, or even knows anything about cinema) disagree with my opinion does it make it less valid? 

I never watched a really badly scored movie (I.e. a movie with less than 40 on MC) that is even remotely close to be any good, never. If you have a good counter example please give it to me, I'm curious to see 

Mixed reviews movies (50-60) are another thing. Those aren't badly reviews, those are mixed. That are nixed movies I like and mixed movies I dislike which kinda makes sense because they were... mixed reviewed ?

there are huge differences in scores between critics reviews and user reviews for a lot of movies, so that tells me that movie critics don't know what they are talking about when the general public enjoys those same movies much more

The fact that there are huge differences in scores could just as easily demonstrate that general audiences and user reviews are both pretty stupid, not that critics don't know what they are talking about. You may have people who are willing to side with you in the argument that critics suck, but the argument that general audiences are any better likely won't get you far. 



Makaha said:

there are huge differences in scores between critics reviews and user reviews for a lot of movies, so that tells me that movie critics don't know what they are talking about when the general public enjoys those same movies much more

This comes down for me to how much used you are to your hobby. If you know to play music how you evaluate music will be hardly the same as someone who knows nothing about music theory. It doesn't make anyone "more correct", it's just different standards 

Cinema in specific is an old art, there are people who study technical aspects when studying cinema as artistic expression. Of course, not every movie critic have such extensive knowledge and vision, indeed most of them just agree with other fellow critics say, but stands the point they are vastly different from general public

General public just wants a good entertainment with some production value, that's why they enjoy movies like lets say Venom, even if this said movie according to critics is pure garbage

I never could find a movie that was PANNED (focus on the word, PANNED) that I found good, at least not yet. I'm not a cinema scholar either in this sense I'm much closer to general public, but I know the basics enough to no overlook some movies where the flaws are so obviously apparent that became a bunch of nonsense. For a movie to get very low scored is because the flaws are nearly impossible to not notice, like Suicide Squad. The question is how much the overly evident problems are enough to bother GP or not