Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Critically panned films that are loved by many

1235

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    allybhoy wrote: »
    I would imagine the Transformers series firmly falls into this category... all 5 movies received extremely poor reviews (and rightly so) and yet its one of the highest grossing franchises of all time... 4.5 billion dollars in box office sales....

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Transformers#tab=summary

    I attempted to watch one of these Transformers films a while back. Only got 15 minutes into it and I had to turn it off. Useless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10 Herlihy82


    Forgot to mention John Carpenters The Thing previously

    Has been reappraised since and I consider it to be the greatest horror film made.

    Glad to see The Thing mentioned. Rewatched again recently. Really stands up well. Characters in extreme conditions very well portrayed and non-digital special effects still amazing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,146 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Scarface came up in the thread a while ago, this related story was published recently
    http://amp.vulture.com/2018/04/revisiting-the-controversy-surrounding-scarface.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    allybhoy wrote: »
    I would imagine the Transformers series firmly falls into this category... all 5 movies received extremely poor reviews (and rightly so) and yet its one of the highest grossing franchises of all time... 4.5 billion dollars in box office sales....

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Transformers#tab=summary

    I've only met one person who liked those movies-One.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Hudson Hawk. Huge flop, Box Office disaster, panned by critics. Strangely good.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Waterworld is the epitome of this.


    Fro me personally it would be Mortal Kombat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Hudson Hawk. Huge flop, Box Office disaster, panned by critics. Strangely good.

    Mark Kermode, who's a really fun film critic, loves that film. He gives a great rundown of the best box office flops-Big Budget Catastrophes of Pure Joy, on youtube. He also loves Howard the Duck.

    I watched Dune about two years ago, and it's really visually interesting, but also equally terrible. If you can see that film, give it a look. But afterwards see Alexander Jodorowsky's Dune, a documentary about his abandoned Dune film. It would have been impossible to make for anything other than a huge budget (At the time, now it could be made for a reasonable amount).

    Apparently Showgirls is treated like Rocky Horror Picture Show, or the Room-plays to packed cinemas at cult showings.
    Waterworld is the epitome of this.


    Fro me personally it would be Mortal Kombat.

    Which MK? The first one, which S and E liked, or the second one, which is so bad but you can't look away?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,958 ✭✭✭BailMeOut


    Has Caddyshack being mentioned? Huge cult following but hated by critics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,990 ✭✭✭Stone Deaf 4evr


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Hudson Hawk. Huge flop, Box Office disaster, panned by critics. Strangely good.


    hudson hawk is awesome! "woudl you like to swing on a star, carry moonbeams home in a jar"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    Waterworld is the epitome of this.

    My main problem with Waterworld is that it has one of the least interesting post apocalypse worlds. Compared to Mad Max's Wasteland, The Handmaid's Tale's Gilead or even Costner's The Postman's 'Gilead'-like America, Waterworld just is not interesting as an environment. There is good action and the film perhaps didn't deserve all the negative publicity but one cannot help feeling it was a ripoff of land-based post apocalyptic and dystopian films set on a less interesting water based world.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    I remember that Juno was 12s in the UK and 15s here. (Shock, Ireland overreacting to teen pregnancy whut?)

    Back on topic, Con Air is a film I can watch over and over again, without fail.

    It wasn't the teen pregnancy-it was the swearing. When the movie hit DVD in the UK, it got bumped up to a 15s.
    My main problem with Waterworld is that it has one of the least interesting post apocalypse worlds. Compared to Mad Max's Wasteland, The Handmaid's Tale's Gilead or even Costner's The Postman's 'Gilead'-like America, Waterworld just is not interesting as an environment. There is good action and the film perhaps didn't deserve all the negative publicity but one cannot help feeling it was a ripoff of land-based post apocalyptic and dystopian films set on a less interesting water based world.

    That's sort of a similar problem I have with it too-it's too 'clean'. Go watch any other post-apocalyptic movie, and they're more downtrodden and dirty. You get no real sense of despair in WW either, which sort of makes the whole 'mission' boring. Waterworld looks too fun to be a doom filled place.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭restive


    Although not critically panned. I always liked men in black 3. By far the best in the series. It seems to have a bad rap in some quarters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    restive wrote: »
    Although not critically panned. I always liked men in black 3. By far the best in the series. It seems to have a bad rap in some quarters.

    A lot of problems behind the set apparently-Will Smith was being a jerk, everything from the size of his trailer, to demanding rewrites including the ending. He also wanted Jaden to play young him, and the latter Barry Sonnenfeld wouldn't cave to.

    It's the only film that he doesn't sing on-Pitbull does the movie's main track, rather than him.

    I like it too, I think Josh Brolin is great in it, I like Alice Eve even though she's not in it much. I miss Rip Torn, tho.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    That's sort of a similar problem I have with it too-it's too 'clean'. Go watch any other post-apocalyptic movie, and they're more downtrodden and dirty. You get no real sense of despair in WW either, which sort of makes the whole 'mission' boring. Waterworld looks too fun to be a doom filled place.

    That is true. Waterworld was really a pirate movie more than anything else but set in the future. Unlike the wasteland depicted in say Mad Max or Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale, the waterworld is not something one would be fascinated about. It is true there is no despair and it looks like all enjoy this watery home. Kevin Costner's half man half fish character does not convince as an aquatic Mad Max either.

    My main fault with Costner's other 1990s apocalyptic film The Postman was the lack of explanation of how America became fascist. The Handmaid's Tale series has filled that gap in for me and one of the many strengths of this series is how well it explains Gilead's formation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    That is true. Waterworld was really a pirate movie more than anything else but set in the future. Unlike the wasteland depicted in say Mad Max or Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale, the waterworld is not something one would be fascinated about. It is true there is no despair and it looks like all enjoy this watery home. Kevin Costner's half man half fish character does not convince as an aquatic Mad Max either.

    My main fault with Costner's other 1990s apocalyptic film The Postman was the lack of explanation of how America became fascist. The Handmaid's Tale series has filled that gap in for me and one of the many strengths of this series is how well it explains Gilead's formation.

    It's sort of the same problem that Cutthroat Island has-everyone's coiffed and groomed to within an inch of their life. The story is a problem from the get go, as is pretty much all the cast, but the first scene where these 'pirates' look like they've stepped out of a L'oreal/ Calvin Klein commercial is a sign somethings' wrong.

    Has anyone mentioned Xanadu-has some wonderful music, and the animated 'Don't Walk Away' is a really great sequence. The rest of the film is a bit 'meh'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 229 ✭✭Waternotsoda


    I saw xmen dark phoenix last night. I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. I actually found the villains quite good. Mistique dying early was satisfying. Far superior to previous outing apocalypse.

    Surprised it was panned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Oasis1974 wrote: »
    Anyone watch Forrest Gump recently its the most atrocious movie i have ever seen yet won Best Picture etc. I know I'm reversing the thread topic but what a stinker in every respect and Tom Hanks performance is puke inducing.

    Only a left winger would say such a thing


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Transformers


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Commando


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,334 ✭✭✭✭starlit


    PS I love you was such a let down of a film while the book itself was a way better and more enjoyable to read. They changed the story of the film too much from the book. Some films have turned out better than the what the critics and reviews out there. Can't stand the '50 shades' movies I don't see what the hype is all about. They just silly. Could only watch one of them and was bored and wanted to leave after the first hour was pure utter rubbish. I'd rather watch the twilight movies or a scary movie! Romantic comedies or something funny is more worth watching. Movies with a good story is what I prefer and that keep me interested for the full time film is on. Suppose everyone has different tastes.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    Only a left winger would say such a thing

    I can't watch that movie-well, I can watch the effects work that's 'mostly' aged pretty well.

    The rest of the movie... it's TV movie of the week. On the other hand, its competition, Shawshank Redemption and Pulp Fiction, I've watched more than I care to admit-they're masterclasses in film making. (Surprising, because one was made by a first time director, and the second was only the third directorial effort from that director).

    The thing about Forest Gump is, I LOVE the director's other movies-Back to the Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, even Cast Away I've learned to appreciate as time went on (I used to think the Epilogue wasn't needed-I was wrong).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,926 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    Simone

    Got terrible reviews. A little known Al Pacino film.

    I loved it and watched it 3 times


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Freddie got fingered is the greatest movie ever made hands down second to none


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,956 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    I love "The Rock". It's a strange movie: You have all the typical offensiveness of a typical Michael Bay movie: Misogyny, homophobia, racism, inability-to-have-a-shot-last-more-than-2-seconds, terrible TERRIBLE dialogue, incoherent editing and plot loop-holes (Why did Sean Connery spend so much time memorising the sequence of the flames from the still-working boiler when there was a door beside it which he opened for the rest of the team - He memorised the sequence to break IN?)..... All the usual Bay trash.

    But for some reason, I do enjoy The Rock. You have Cage going full-on-mainstream-Cage (As opposed to totally unhinged Cage); you have Kyle Reece/Hicks... I mean Michael Biehn. You have Ed Harris giving a thoughtful performance (Well, for a Bay-movie anyway. I wonder if he knew he was in a Bay movie :) ) and you have Sean Connery.

    I mean I also enjoy Armageddon to a lesser degree. Still fun but the silliness overwhelms it. But, like any sentient being, I find the rest of his movies to be an offense to the senses and generally just offensive.

    So yeah, The Rock. Stupid STUPID fun :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭chalkitdown1


    I love "The Rock". It's a strange movie: You have all the typical offensiveness of a typical Michael Bay movie: Misogyny, homophobia, racism, inability-to-have-a-shot-last-more-than-2-seconds, terrible TERRIBLE dialogue, incoherent editing and plot loop-holes (Why did Sean Connery spend so much time memorising the sequence of the flames from the still-working boiler when there was a door beside it which he opened for the rest of the team - He memorised the sequence to break IN?)..... All the usual Bay trash.

    But for some reason, I do enjoy The Rock. You have Cage going full-on-mainstream-Cage (As opposed to totally unhinged Cage); you have Kyle Reece/Hicks... I mean Michael Biehn. You have Ed Harris giving a thoughtful performance (Well, for a Bay-movie anyway. I wonder if he knew he was in a Bay movie :) ) and you have Sean Connery.

    The Rock is a legitimately great action movie, IMO. Even critics at the time liked it. I disagree about the dialogue being terrible. Sure, there's some cheesy stuff (fúck the prom queen etc) but there's some genuinely great lines also. All the stuff with Ed Harris and his team is fantastic. The shower room scene is one of the highlights of the movie and it's just Ed Harris and Michael Biehn shouting at each other. I do agree however that Ed Harris didn't realize what kind of movie he was in. :pac: He goes ALL IN on this perfomance which is probably why he's so good and one of the best villians of the 90's.

    Speaking of which, I miss the days when action movies had memorable or well-written bad guys; The Rock, Die Hard, Robocop, Leon, Face/Off, Con-Air etc. The 80's & 90's had LOADS.

    Nowadays, bad guys are so bland and forgettable, particularly in all these comic book movies. Thanos & Loki are probably the only good ones out of 20+ movies. How can you have a hit rate that bad?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The Rock and Armageddon are pure Michael Bay. Fantastic fun, both of 'em.

    Two of those movies that when they appear on TV, cancel your plans for the next two hours.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    for the people who like a good action movie, i really enjoyed Angel has fallen even though i expected nothing!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭PressRun


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Always astounded at the critical "appraisal" of 'The Thing' in its day. So remarkable. I mean there are movies that are loved by audiences that critics hated, and to be honest most of them are actually shite. But 'The Thing' was a damn classic. Even as a child I knew I was watching something special. Bizzarre, to say the least and the negative reaction did a lot to damage Carpenter's steering of his own career. It really did have a very bad influence on him.

    I remember reading a quote from him where someone was saying that it's great that the movie has become such a cult classic and Carpenter just replied "cult classics don't put food on the table" or something to that effect.

    He thought his career would have been very different if The Thing hadn't been so poorly understood at the time, and he's probably right. I believe he lost a deal with a big studio over it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭Oasis1974


    Has anyone watched the Untouchables more recently? It's pretty bad.

    The music is overblown, the acting is a mixed bag, the lesser knowns doing a better job than the big names. Costner is wooden, and Sean Connery's Irish accent is appalling. (he won an Oscar that year-which is shocking in retrospect).
    Btw, Ennio Morricone is a great composer, but someone was messing with his music in the 80s-the sound editor or something-because in the Untouchables,it's often far too loud-the mix is all wrong.

    Damn I could watch that movie a hundred times really love it. Think it stood the test of time well Costner was always a bit monotone like Keanu Reeves.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 866 ✭✭✭El Duda


    Romero's dawn of the Dead was slated at the time I think. 5 star classic now.

    Twin Peaks FWWM as well. Boo'd at cannes. I've seen it twice and it is a masterpiece.


Advertisement