Are there any movies you saw and enjoyed that the critics absolutely ripped to shreds? Movies that friends and family told you “please, for the love of all that is holy, do NOT see this movie,” that you saw anyway and can’t understand why everybody hated them?
For me, the list includes Hudson Hawk (starring Bruce Willis) and Johnny Mnemonic (with Keanu Reeves). I have never seen as much vitriol spewed at a movie by so many people as these two films, and yet I have enjoyed watching each of them numerous times.
The humor in Hudson Hawk was just so incredibly goofy and full of complete non-sequitors that I repeatedly fall off my chair laughing every time I watch it. Maybe it helps that I am a major fan of Monty python, but I just don’t understand why this film is always pointed at as “Bruce Willis’ Big Mistake” (heck – it was soooo much better than Blind Date and North).
As for Johnny Mnemonic, although I agree that Keanu was at his wooden best, I actually thought his acting “style” was perfect for the character he played. I was never a Keanu Reeves fan before seeing this film, but I was afterwards. And it really got me psyched when I found out he was starring in the similarly themed The Matrix. I’ve read everything that William Gibson has written and, while the movie really went far astray from the short story on which it was based, I thought it did an excellent job of capturing the essential concepts and overal feel of the universe that Gibson has created throughout his stories.
I suspect that I would probably enjoy Ballistic: Ecks vs. Severs, if I ever get the courage to see it (last I checked, it still had a perfect 0% rating over at www.rottentomatoes.com). On the other hand, I’m willing to give the critics the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Master of Disguise with Dana Carvey.
So… Anybody else have a favorite movie or two that everybody else in the known universe (or so it seems) inexplicately hates?
I have a LOT of those movies, but my main two are Showgirls and Ishtar. Mind you, I can certainly understand why some people would dislike them, but it’s become abundantly clear to me over time, and repeated viewings, that those movies were shot down by a kind of critical bandwagon: once the consensus had been dictated, no one was brave enough to put forth a more balanced view.
There are beginning to be heard quiet rumblings (with a French accent, natch) of a reconsideration of Showgirls, but Ishtar has yet to find its champion. Though the rental box DOES sport a blurb by the Chicago Reader’s own Jonathan Rosenbaum.
I actually liked Swashbuckler, with Robert Shaw, Geniveve Bujold, Peter Boyle, and James Earl Jones. It was almost universally savaged by the critics, and probably rightly so, but I kinda liked it. Mind you, I was young at the time…
Sorry, should have included this in my post above:
Rosenbaum on Ishtar: “. . . a very funny work by one of this country’s greatest comic talents.”
–and on Showgirls (he’s actually updated his capsule review to reflect his reconsideration of it): ". . . it must be admitted that, as with Basic Instinct and Starship Troopers, which I also underrated initially, this movie has only improved with age–or maybe it’s just that viewers like me are only now catching up with the ideological ramifications of the cartoonlike characters. In this case, the degree to which Las Vegas (and by implication Hollywood) is viewed as the ultimate capitalist machine is an essential part of the poisonous package. "
One of my favorite movies is Dirty Work starring Norm McDonald. It’s just plain ol’ stupid fun, and great when you just need something on.
I’m also a big fan of Hudson Hawk, I thought it was a great movie. The problem with most critics is they don’t recognize when a movie’s made simply to be fun, and not to say anything serious.
Mars Attacks is a great example. I absolutely LOVE that film.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead [short pause to check spelling]. It was panned in every review I saw, but I really like Tom Stoppard’s writing, so I saw it anyway. I thought it was great! The interweaving of Hamlet and other plotlines (much like Shakespeare in Love but not so sappy), the whole existential/predestination thing–it was fun and meaningful, and you don’t get that in a film very often.
Anyway, I liked it, but apparently no one who writes reviews did. Ebert gave it zero stars. Rotten Tomatoes gives it 5.6 out of 10, so I guess somebody liked it–but I never saw a positive review.
Ditto on Hudson Hawk. I think this one was really just sold wrong. It’s interesting that I now find many people who have caught that on cable or something and really liked it.
Costner’s Postman. I like it in a wacky, mst type of way. But most of the people I know didnt see the humor in it.
Alien:Resurrection. I think it was a very deep movie questioning identity and what it means to be human. (At least, ya gotta admit it was better than Alien3! :p)
Oh yeah – I forgot to mention Alien 3. I loved the way it returned to the themes that made the first movie so great – a band of unarmed prisoners (whether on a ship or on a penal colony, there’s no way off), facing a monster that can go anywhere and kill anytime, forced to rely on their wits to survive.
Alien: Resurrection, while certainly stylish, just had too many implausibilities, anachronisms, and downright silliness (breath activated doors?) for my tastes. Not a bad film, and still enjoyable, but can’t hold a candle to Alien 3.
