glasso wrote: » Highly annoying actress imo - even just annoying to look at before she starts speaking. This movie was her high point really and has disappeared into minor exposure since. Not that I'm complaining about that. Juno doesn't qualify for the concept of this thread really as it was well-reviewed / rated at the time.... I think that anything above about 55 or so on metacritic should be the exclusion bar for not being "under-rated" Juno for example got 81 which is a very high score for a movie.
Quantum Erasure wrote: » Any Steven Segal film,
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » No. Just no. Have you see the more recent ones on the low rent channels ? He uses body doubles for EVERYTHING he can get away with. If you can't see his face it isn't him.
onform wrote: » The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Great cast, Bill Murray is excellent. I think the movie might have got a bit of a backlash critically due to high expectations because it was Wes Anderson's next movie after The Royal Tenenbaums, which had been a big hit. Great soundtrack also.
Lockheed wrote: » Uncut Gems, watched it and enjoyed it so much that I was genuinely surprised to see the reviews.
Alejandro68 wrote: » Not to mention of that reality show where he is with a sheriffs dept. doing busts. He clearly struggles to even get out of the police car.
KungPao wrote: » The bloke's pushing 70, leave it out. A true legend of '90s cinema!
I see sheep wrote: » Con Air
Your Face wrote: » Starship Troopers
Quandary wrote: » I absolutely loved Event Horizon and was shocked to see it reviewed so poorly.
Mad_maxx wrote: » ever see the uncut version , holy crap , its beyond disturbing
Deleted User wrote: » The Shawshank Redemption. (Am I doing this right?)
dark crystal wrote: » Few films that were critically panned (that is the idea, right?) that I really liked are:Far & Away First Knight Stayin' Alive G.I Jane Come at me bro!
Deleted User wrote: » Babe: Pig in the City