Yes they do, and no they dont.
*“- Derivative but charming and fun enough, Disney’s mammoth sci-fier is…”
“. the more that was revealed of John Carter, the more derivative it looked, …”
“John Carter — or John Carter of Mars, as the end credits still give the title — plays like a derivative patchwork of …”
“John Carter: A Somewhat Derivative Yet Entertaining Sci-Fi Action Flick”*
:eek::dubious::rolleyes::(:mad:
And they were right. If a movie feels derivative, then it’s derivative, no matter what its pedigree is.
That’s why I hated Casablanca. I mean, how many cliched lines can you pack into a single movie?
That’s the charm: it is epitomal Hollywood fluff, but it all works. There were probably hundreds of movies just like it, but there’s only one Casablanca.
{Shakes head sorrowfully.}
Actually, everyone else was derivative - they were just derivative first, before “John Carter of Mars” came out. 
Hah!
No, they were derivative of the books. The movie was derivative of the movies that were derivative of the books the movie was based on. Movies and books are different things. It’s not fair, but that’s just how it was - the movie *showed *us nothing we haven’t *seen * before.
Maybe there was a way to film *A Princess of Mars *in such a way that it didn’t look like a dozen earlier films, but the movie - which I actually liked - didn’t really do it.
Trouble with that, is that it was nothing compared to the original film. The music soundtrack was hopeless too. B-tracks from famous bands, where as the first movie had excellent tracks from unknowns. I still listen to the Bill & Teds Excellent adventure soundtrack to this day (Shark Island? Big Pig?), vs a bunch of forgettable tracks from Faith No More, Megadeth, Kiss, Slaughter, Winger?
I think there’s always been a massive weakness in modern cinema go-ers to pay attention to the critics, especially when the movie is flop.
A bunch here are derided (and I’ve argued with my friends who’s views are set in stone BECAUSE of the critics) that they are bad because they failed at the box office.
Last action hero (loved it). Hudson Hawk (great fun). John Carter (why the hate, blockbuster, ticked all the boxes). Battleship is another one (I want my idiot action movies to be stupid, it was based on a game for gods sake).
The critics often don’t get it (Arnie in a comedy? Bruce Willis in a comedy?) . Sometimes people are not going to movies that weekend. Or another one takes their fancy instead (release against a speilberg). It takes years, if ever, for some people to actually sit down and watch a film and wipe away prejustices. I’m sure there are still people deriding Blues Brothers due to its lack of immediate success.
To me, this is an affliction which should be fought against. Critics are sometimes, indeed, often wrong. Some are plain idiotic. Indeed, I only trust a couple of sources for film reviews, and even at that they often re-evaluate after popular “opinion” tells them so. Watch a film and to heck with the critics. It’s you watching it.
And what, I should waste my money and time on hack filmmakers just because I couldn’t be bothered to perform basic market research before going out? No, I’ll keep on reading reviews. It’s the only control I have over who I give my money to.
Well, don’t trust them all, you’re missing some good movies. Find one who shares your opinions…
I read a bunch, get a general impression.
I’m 40 years only, married, with a kid and a job. I can’t just hop to the movie theater on a whim. When I finally go out to see a movie, I’m going to do whatever I can to make sure it’s a good one.
My friends and I laughed from beginning to end when we saw Starship Troopers at the cinema. Most of the audience were dead silent, and I saw a few walk-outs.
We were film students (of a sort - part of our degree involved film) so I guess we were more attuned to the filmic tropes ST was lampooning, but we were also fans of action movies and science fiction. I would have expected film critics to be more like us than like the average joe. That sounds really patronising but only because I actually think the average joe should have got that it was a comedy. It had Doogie Houser as a an evil doctor, FFS! How much more obvious could it be?
But if some people missed the lampooning, then those people who were paid to watch movies, and had presumably watched tons of them, should not have been among them.
Same with Last Action Hero. I think advertising was at fault for part of the latter’s reception, though, since it seems to have been marketed more as an action movie than as a family comedy.
My own submission: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I can completely understand why the viewing public would have loathed this film when it came out, due to the ending (I would probably have been one of them), but in retrospect it should be recognised as a great Bond movie that’s incredibly important to the Bond story.
I think part of the problem with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was that too many people only saw that it was a Bond movie without Sean Connery. That was all they saw – they missed the clever lampshading and in-jokes, and the use of the incredibly sexy and capable Diana Rigg. It didn’t have Connery, so it wasn’t Bond, and therefore wasn’t good. (It probably didn’t help that the only other non-Connery Bond film*, Casino Royale, was really bad and disorganized, and apparently wasn’t even trying to be good, and poisoned the well for other Connery-less Bond films for several more years).
*We ignore the TV version of Casino Royale that appeared on the show Climax!, because hardly anyone seemed aware of it at the time.
On first glance you can just enjoy the action. Lots of gore, guns, explosions and shit. Cool. Then you realize how stupid the tactics are. King Arthur and his knights had better tactics in The Holy Grail. Maybe not boring but certainly eye rolling.
That is the problem I have with the criticism of the book. Anyone who read the book and thinks it promotes militarism, fascism and military rule either didn’t really read it or went into it with their own agenda. If anything it is against all of that. And the attitude towards military service is completely opposite what is portrayed in the movie. Point by point the movie shows the complete opposite of the point of view of the book.
I do have to give Verhoeven credit for being the first person to accept his Razzie in person for Showgirls.
You may be right about the soundtrack but I would argue that the second movie is as good as, and is better in some areas, than the first. Bill Sadler’s work as the Reaper is the work of a genius.
Another movie that I thought was unfairly derided was 13th Warrior. Not the greatest film in the history of films but one of the better Poet-from-Bagdad-hooks-up-with-12-Norsemen-and-they-fight-cannibalistic-Neanderthals movies that I’ve seen.
Constantine is only 46% on RT, but I think it’s probably Keanu’s best movie
American Pop wasn’t well received I believe at the time, but I think it’s fantastic. Any one who doesn’t like that film can kiss my ass. Even over the selection of that piano version of “Night Moves”. That includes you Bakshi!
I’ll have to go back and look at it again. I do remember liking it at the time but I only saw it once. I have since become very prejudiced against Bakshi.
Two words: Metal. Pasties.