Movies the Critics Got Wrong

[Buscemi]

So we all know how film criticism has essentially turned into bias steamrollers and "what fandom are you with?" wars nowadays where you can't really trust who is right and who is wrong (for example, is The Force Awakens really a better movie than say, The Revenant?). But even then, critics, though they totally have the right to their opinion, haven't always been 100% with us.

Let's look at a sci-fi classic in Predator:
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/predator

Despite getting a positive review from none other than Roger Ebert, the general Metacritic rating (collected from archival reviews) is a 36 with most reviews being mixed-to-negative. I can understand their reasons for not liking the film, but personally I think they were a little harsh. Predator never aspired to be high art. Predator is pure popcorn cinema (and a pretty good analogy on life and goals when you think about it).

What else do you think is better than what the critics (educated or with a website) suggested?

[Walleye413]

I think I'd go with The Mask. It gets remembered, and I think rightly so, for being the movie that showed the world Cameron Diaz, and helped make Jim Carrey a star. But the critics were awfully dismissive of it, and I think it really holds up. It's surprisingly sweet, wicked funny at times, and the craptastic sequel proves just how good the original was.

[Buscemi]

The Mask is a good choice (56 on Metacritic). Great effects on that one and I think the critics were a little too harsh on a lot of Carrey's films. In his prime, he was probably the closest Hollywood had to a new Buster Keaton.

Related to that, I think the critics got both Ace Venturas and Dumb and Dumber wrong. These were never meant to be world-changing movies. They are fun escapist fare with great physical humor (physical humor never seems to get much love unless there's some wacky fratboy hijinks mixed in).

A more recent movie I think the critics got wrong was Concussion. Yes, the NFL forced some changes that made the film less hard-hitting than it should have. But lots of biopics/films based on true stories do that (look at Argo, a film that changed almost everything from the real story but the critics still loved it). Look past that and you see an excellent Will Smith performance (his accent may be a bit jarring at first but he really commits himself to the role and becomes Bennett Omalu) and a quality supporting cast.

And there's the case of Disney burying some of their most ambitious films because critics took the bad press to heart and panned. I'm talking about John Carter and The Lone Ranger. Two of the most notorious money losers and critical flops for Disney but they are far more fun and interesting movies than the MCU movies they've produced.

It's amazing how many good movies that can be found but have been ignored just because a few people with press screening passes didn't like them.

[numbersix]

Did a quick search and see that Sympathy for Mr Vengeance is at 54% on RT. What the hell??? It's almost as good as Oldboy. A superb revenge thriller that explores both sides of the story.

[Chienfantome]

Did a quick search and see that Sympathy for Mr Vengeance is at 54% on RT. What the hell??? It's almost as good as Oldboy. A superb revenge thriller that explores both sides of the story.

Indeed, such a terrific revenge thriller / social drama, it's a shame !

I'm talking about John Carter and The Lone Ranger. Two of the most notorious money losers and critical flops for Disney but they are far more fun and interesting movies than the MCU movies they've produced.

Agreed. Two flawed films that are fun nonetheless. A recent Disney film that was much better than what reviews and BO suggested is The Finest Hours. Very classy old-school cinema. Really liked it.

[transformers2]

John Carter is one of the most boring, convoluted and poorly-acted movies I've ever seen. I honestly forgot about that movie until Boosh brought it up, so thanks for making me re-live that horrible life experience.

Anyways, here's my list. I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but this is what I could come up off the top of my head.
Boondock Saints
The Book of Eli
Death Race (2008)
Grandma's Boy
Hot Rod
Pain & Gain
Smokin' Aces
Pootie Tang
Pootie Tang
Pootie Tang
Pootie Tang
Pootie Tang
and Pootie Tang

[Chienfantome]

Hot Rod

I've discovered Hot Rod a couple of weeks ago and it was hilarious indeed.

[Buscemi]

I also feel sometimes critics get directors wrong. Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, Zack Snyder, and Stephen Sommers have all made more than one good film but their movies are almost always panned. And yes, Bay's done some bad movies but there's some enjoyable ones in there too.

A master list (in my opinion) of these four:

Michael Bay:
Bad Boys
The Rock
Bad Boys II
Pain & Gain (previously mentioned)

Brett Ratner:
Money Talks
Rush Hour
Rush Hour 2
Red Dragon (sure, it's nowhere near the masterpiece that is Manhunter but still a good remake)
After the Sunset
Tower Heist (a rare Ratner film critics seemed to like but audiences were indifferent)
Hercules

Zack Snyder (I'll be seeing Batman v. Superman tomorrow, maybe that will join the list):
Dawn of the Dead
Watchmen (critics seemed to like it initially but nowadays, it's not very well liked)
Legend of the Guardians
Man of Steel

Stephen Sommers:
Deep Rising
The Mummy Returns
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

[numbersix]

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/1 ... -dbell.php

[Geezer]

Hot Rod

I've discovered Hot Rod a couple of weeks ago and it was hilarious indeed.

Hot Rod is AMAZING

[Buscemi]

http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/1 ... -dbell.php

Fantastic list, Six. It really shows you that no one really knows anything (especially critics) and that anything is worth a revisit.

Keep them coming.

[NSpan]

Hot Rod

I've discovered Hot Rod a couple of weeks ago and it was hilarious indeed.

Well, finally! I've been championing that movie since I went to see it on opening day and the only people in the theater were me and my friends.

[NSpan]

Let's look at a sci-fi classic in Predator:
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/predator

Despite getting a positive review from none other than Roger Ebert, the general Metacritic rating (collected from archival reviews) is a 36 with most reviews being mixed-to-negative.

Does Metacritic accurately portray the landscape of criticism for movies that came out "pre-internet" ?

[Buscemi]

Metacritic is better than Rotten Tomatoes, at least. Metacritic uses reviews from the original release. Rotten Tomatoes uses primarily revisionist reviews. Otherwise, you'd need to do a lot of research.

Meanwhile, I didn't get to see Batman v. Superman today as I didn't really have the time. I'll be seeing it tomorrow (crowds will probably die out on Sunday).