GREAT movies that got BAD reviews...

[rushgoober]

Two come to mind off the top of my head:

 

1. Waterworld - I think this movie was treated VERY unfairly - when it came out, it was a huge controversy, almost a scandal, that the movie cost $200 million to make - it was so slammed right out of the starting gate, and people were SO prejuediced against it that it didn't stand a chance. I managed to see it right away before hearing almost any of the controversy, was therefore able to view it somewhat objectively, and I thought it was great - not one of the best movies ever, no, but still a great movie. Unfairly slammed...

 

2. Zoolander - Ok, now I don't know if this movie got universal bad ratings, but I know that Roger Ebert gave it a whopping ONE star. I don't know about you, but this was one of the funniest movies in the last 10 years IMHO - I laugh HYSTERICALLY every time!

[ALifeson85]

Haha, I agree...Zoolander is GREAT!

Another movie that got bad reviews, which i though was ALSO hillarious was Kung Pow : Enter The Fist. I remember it only being in theaters for like...not even 2 weeks. Maybe 2 weeks MAXIMUM. And just in general, it did really bad in the box office. But i bought it on dvd a couple years ago, and i laughed my @$$ of through the WHOLE thing! The thing is, is that too many people now days always want a "rational" reason or explination for jokes and stuff that are in movies, other wise, they think it's just STUPID and POINTLESS. Kung Pow is one of THE most irrational comedies out there...which is MY personal favorite kind of comedy. It's pretty much up there with the Monty Python movies. But...either way, it's a GREAT movie!

 

-Matt

Edited June 11, 2005 by ALifeson85

[Ru5h F@n]

Well I thought Waterworld and Zoolander were both cheesy movies. Even Scarface got bad reviews and that was a damn good movie.

[Jack Aubrey]

I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down".

 

[NeilPeartFan2112]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM)

I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down".

[anagramking]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM)

I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down".

It's a Chicago thing, Jack. A lot of the natives are tired of people associating this city with Al Capone.

[Jack Aubrey]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Jun 11 2005, 10:20 PM)

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM) I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down". It's a Chicago thing, Jack. A lot of the natives are tired of people associating this city with Al Capone. Wow! I didn't know that.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 09:21 PM)

QUOTE (anagramking @ Jun 11 2005, 10:20 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM) I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down". It's a Chicago thing, Jack. A lot of the natives are tired of people associating this city with Al Capone. Wow! I didn't know that. They tell me that when they go to another country and tell people they're from Chicago, Al Capone and gangsters always come up. Actually, it's better nowadays, because people are more likely to ask about Michael Jordan instead. People always say that Michael Jordan made the world forget about Al Capone and Chicago. Now it's Michael Jordan and Chicago. Not sure how Siskel and Ebert rated Space Jam, though.

[happysmiles007]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM)

I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down".

nuh uh!! they give everything two thumbs up..and The Untouchables was a super good movie. what's up with that??

[Ru5h F@n]

QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Jun 11 2005, 08:40 PM)

I remember when Siskell and Ebert gave 'The Untouchables' their "thumbs down".

Wow. That was such another great Brian DePalma classic. I can't believe they would say that.

[war2112]

QUOTE (rushgoober @ Jun 11 2005, 03:42 PM)

Two come to mind off the top of my head: 1. Waterworld - I think this movie was treated VERY unfairly - when it came out, it was a huge controversy, almost a scandal, that the movie cost $200 million to make - it was so slammed right out of the starting gate, and people were SO prejuediced against it that it didn't stand a chance. I managed to see it right away before hearing almost any of the controversy, was therefore able to view it somewhat objectively, and I thought it was great - not one of the best movies ever, no, but still a great movie. Unfairly slammed... 2. Zoolander - Ok, now I don't know if this movie got universal bad ratings, but I know that Roger Ebert gave it a whopping ONE star. I don't know about you, but this was one of the funniest movies in the last 10 years IMHO - I laugh HYSTERICALLY every time!

I agree. Waterworld was really good! I wonder if there wasn't some kind of industry backlash directed at Kevin Costner because of his success with Dances With Wolves. Perhaps it was his confrontational relationship with the director(sorry, forget his name but Costner vowed to never work with him again). Perhaps it was because it went over-budget. I dunno, but the final product was a very good movie, IMO. I thought it was intelligent and creative. It was kind of like the Road Warrior but on the high seas instead.

 

[war2112]

Blade Runner - This movie wasn't exactly savaged by the critics, but I distinctly remember Siskel & Ebert giving it a big thumbs-down. Huh? What the hell were they drinking that night? Ebert has since corrected his first impression by now giving it a thumbs-up, but I have to wonder where his head was at when he gave his initial vote. I mean, come on, it's perhaps the most seminal sci-fi of all time.

 

 

The Legend of Bagger Vance - This movie is a great fable and very entertaining. It can be enjoyed by the whole family. I thought it was delightful. Robert Redford directs a great cast and it shows. I will never understand why this movie was panned. It also bombed commercially .