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

12346»

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    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 saw three of them in the cinema. Hated each one. They actually get worse with each iteration. I contributed to its huge box office profit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,341 ✭✭✭Bobby Baccala


    The Beach not sure whether it's the soundtrack or the colours just something about that film that I love. Likewise Human Traffic was one of my favourite films as a teenager but it's fairly poorly rated.


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


    The Beach not sure whether it's the soundtrack or the colours just something about that film that I love. Likewise Human Traffic was one of my favourite films as a teenager but it's fairly poorly rated.

    It's got a pretty solid score on Rotten Tomatoes and Imdb.

    I think everyone's kinda looking back on the Danny Dyer stuff with a modern lens, and giving it crap. (Unfair-he used to be a promising actor, until he bought into his own hype. Now he's in Eastenders).

    It got good reviews-but it was a very troubled production, Assistant Directors qutting, the director wasn't allowed edit his own final film, and the costs skyrocketed. It made over 100 Grand in total-but it cost over 2 Million to make.

    There's a director's cut of the movie-but is only available in the Ireland and the UK.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,341 ✭✭✭Bobby Baccala


    It's got a pretty solid score on Rotten Tomatoes and Imdb.

    I think everyone's kinda looking back on the Danny Dyer stuff with a modern lens, and giving it crap. (Unfair-he used to be a promising actor, until he bought into his own hype. Now he's in Eastenders).

    It got good reviews-but it was a very troubled production, Assistant Directors qutting, the director wasn't allowed edit his own final film, and the costs skyrocketed. It made over 100 Grand in total-but it cost over 2 Million to make.

    There's a director's cut of the movie-but is only available in the Ireland and the UK.
    Think I caught the directors cut on Netflix a few years ago and it was nothing special


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,897 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    PressRun wrote: »
    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?

    Well, I don't think Carpenter ever really had to worry about putting food on the table and these days he's raking it in by allowing directors without even a quarter of his talent to remake his classic films.

    But, yeah, 'The Thing' and its off kilter response certainly hurt his career, no doubt. But, in saying that, there's no guarantee that he'd have made tons of better movies either. But he probably would have had more choices.

    Carpenter is a strange director though. While on the one hand he can turn out something like 'The Thing', on the other he can also make duds like 'Escape from L.A.' and that was on a pretty decent budget too, for him anyway. So, even if 'The Thing' was universally loved by the critics and audiences, the chances are that he would have hit some rocky roads anyway, later on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    I don't know if Peacock has been mentioned. It's not very highly rated by critics but I love it. Excellent cast and performances all around imo.
    I don't understand how it got such low ratings.


  • Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭Weltsmertz


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Agree. Could never understand why to critics hated "This post has been deleted" it's one of my favorites.


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


    Think I caught the directors cut on Netflix a few years ago and it was nothing special

    Yeah-anytime there' s a troubled production, the director's cut's rarely turn out great either. (BladeRunner being one of the rare exceptions).

    I've heard Kingdom of HEaven's director's cut is pretty good. I found that movie uneven so I don't know if I wanna see it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,306 ✭✭✭✭Drumpot


    Adam sandler really does fall into this category. I heard he’s great in Cut gems and loved him in punch drunk love. But generally he makes low brow comedies that are very hit and miss.

    Happy Gilemore (3/10 critics on IMDb!) and the wedding singer are two of my favourite comedy’s from the 90s. Happy in particular got a cult status well after its release. I rememeber I worked i xtra vision in mid-late 90s and I alwasy played that movie in the store. People would always ask for the copy (we only had one at the start and ended up having to get more).

    I think Sandler really speaks to the majority in many regards and it shows most people or general audiences prefer simpler movies for entertainment. I can enjoy all sorts of movies but the critics absolute hate of sandler does come across as kind of snobby. It’s not that his movies are great and deserve high ratings, it’s more that I think critics over compensate with overly negative ratings at time’s. I’ve regularly watched sandler movies and thought they weren’t great but not completely terrible and see them get 2-4 stars and be a bit miffed.

    Just saw his last movie with Aniston , which was so so, got over 30 Million Netflix views and so will be getting a sequel. He’s done loads with Netflix so there is something to his popularity and I don’t blame him for not giving a crap about critics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Carpenter is a strange director though. While on the one hand he can turn out something like 'The Thing', on the other he can also make duds like 'Escape from L.A.' and that was on a pretty decent budget too, for him anyway. So, even if 'The Thing' was universally loved by the critics and audiences, the chances are that he would have hit some rocky roads anyway, later on.

    Actually now that you mention it Escape From LA is a very enjoyable "bad" film that's probably more popular than its reviews would suggest. Kurt Russell surfing a Tsunami along a drainage canal to chase Steve Buscemi driving a lowrider is hilarious.





  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,897 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    ^
    There are some parts to like, but over all it's a pretty wretched film - albeit one I've seen 4 times now. The main problem I have with it is it's damage on 'Escape from New York' (a film I love) and the character of Snake Plisken. 'Escape from L.A.' didn't just kill both of those items, it also shat on their graves and sealed the deal in respect to ever seeing any more "Escape" movies again. It's an incredible misfire.

    I remember seeing this in Piccadilly Circus. The ticket cost about £18. I nearly burnt the place down on the way out.


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


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Well, I don't think Carpenter ever really had to worry about putting food on the table and these days he's raking it in by allowing directors without even a quarter of his talent to remake his classic films.

    Sadly, most movies are remade without his permission (The Fog, Rob Zombie's Halloween movies (Zombie claimed he tried to speak to Carpenter about em, Carpenter completely refutes this-he had no contact with Rob), Assault on PRecinct 13). Yeah, he gets paid from them, but his general problem is they tend to not do anything 'new' with the concepts.

    Hence why he returned as a producer on the new Halloween movie.

    But the amount of projects that he didn't get to do-or that fell thru, you could write a book about (and folks have). He's sort of similar to George A. Romero. (A great director-but the amount of movies he almost made, that fell thru at the last minute, is soul crushing).
    But, yeah, 'The Thing' and its off kilter response certainly hurt his career, no doubt. But, in saying that, there's no guarantee that he'd have made tons of better movies either. But he probably would have had more choices.

    Carpenter is a strange director though. While on the one hand he can turn out something like 'The Thing', on the other he can also make duds like 'Escape from L.A.' and that was on a pretty decent budget too, for him anyway. So, even if 'The Thing' was universally loved by the critics and audiences, the chances are that he would have hit some rocky roads anyway, later on.

    He's written a Joker comic book that came out this month, I think. It's actually really good. Carpenter's also worked on a few video games-FEAR 3 for example.
    He's an avid gamer.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Adam sandler really does fall into this category. I heard he’s great in Cut gems and loved him in punch drunk love. But generally he makes low brow comedies that are very hit and miss.

    Happy Gilemore (3/10 critics on IMDb!) and the wedding singer are two of my favourite comedy’s from the 90s. Happy in particular got a cult status well after its release. I rememeber I worked i xtra vision in mid-late 90s and I alwasy played that movie in the store. People would always ask for the copy (we only had one at the start and ended up having to get more).

    I think the problem with Sandler is he 'can' make quality stuff-he just chooses lowest common denominator, because he 'thinks' that's what people want.

    If you look at the song he wrote as a tribute to Chris Farley.... it had more heart in it than most of the last 20 years of his output. (That's My Boy was just a horrible, ugly film. Like something Victor Salva would have made)


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,972 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    Pretty sure Cable Guy was slated by critics on release, but I loved it. My favourite Jim Carrey film.


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


    Good shout. The Cable Guy is quite dark.

    That karaoke scene is brilliant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,077 ✭✭✭the whole year inn


    Pretty sure Cable Guy was slated by critics on release, but I loved it. My favourite Jim Carrey film.

    Yea Cable Guy is great, its very funny. Ace Ventura 2 is brilliant aswell I prefer it over Ace Ventura anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,929 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    Most the Jason Statham movies I enjoy, they are formulaic, predictable plot lines but entertaining. I know he never ever seems to take any damage in his scenes but he's got a good presence and looks like a regular dude kind of like Bruce Willis but not as good actor.
    If I want something not too demanding after a hard day, his movies are grand, he fills that low budget action role well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice




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


    rob316 wrote: »
    Most the Jason Statham movies I enjoy, they are formulaic, predictable plot lines but entertaining. I know he never ever seems to take any damage in his scenes but he's got a good presence and looks like a regular dude kind of like Bruce Willis but not as good actor.
    If I want something not too demanding after a hard day, his movies are grand, he fills that low budget action role well.

    Yeah, there was some details about rules him, Vin Diesel, and Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson have regarding how many 'hits' they take on film.

    They have all these rules regarding 'can't lose a fight' or something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,929 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    My wife absolutely loves Grease 2 its her favorite movie :rolleyes: , most people don't even know a sequel was made.
    It nearly ended Michelle Pfeiffer's career (Brian De Palma nearly dropped her for scarface over it) and no one ever called the lead male again he's been doing broadway since.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    Glitter - the Mariah Carey turkey, covers the night club era from the 1980s.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Slydice wrote: »
    what way did they see this displayed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    what way did they see this displayed?

    The critics or the audience? I dunno..
    I can only remember some critics mention smaller screens when getting their advance press viewings.

    Not the 120 frames per second stuff that this film has been touted for.

    As for the audience.. 4000 of em.. eh probably a mix I'd say but in any discussions I've seen, I got the feeling that 120 frames per second cinemas are rare.

    Maybe the action and story is just fine for the audience that wants this type of film.

    I can see myself wanting a simple story but action packed film at some point in the future.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    Snap - Irish movie that no-on saw. Long forgotten but it's better than most of the rubbish we produce.


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


    vriesmays wrote: »
    Snap - Irish movie that no-on saw. Long forgotten but it's better than most of the rubbish we produce.

    Interesting choice. And I agree-I've seen 'highly regarded' movies like 'What Richard Did' that bored me to tears. (One of those 'I think I'm great' kinda movies-whereas it's more like one of those TV movies, at times).
    Whereas I've seen lesser liked films that I can sit there and be entertained by.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,753 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Slydice wrote: »
    The critics or the audience? I dunno..
    I can only remember some critics mention smaller screens when getting their advance press viewings.

    Not the 120 frames per second stuff that this film has been touted for.

    As for the audience.. 4000 of em.. eh probably a mix I'd say but in any discussions I've seen, I got the feeling that 120 frames per second cinemas are rare.

    Maybe the action and story is just fine for the audience that wants this type of film.

    I can see myself wanting a simple story but action packed film at some point in the future.
    would it not right to believe that a higher percentage of critics saw it at 120 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    would it not right to believe that a higher percentage of critics saw it at 120 ?

    I don't know how many 120 even exist in the world. Feeling I got was that the number is low. Based on that, I'd guess that only a few critics saw it like that.


Advertisement