This, exactly. I love Cherry 2000 (the movie, not the sexbot), and though it doesn’t meet the OP’s parameters as to year, it deserves mention. Melanie Griffith as an action hero–gotta love it. She appeared clumsy and unsure in Working Girl (which was probably the writer’s and director’s choice), and mostly succeeded, but that was not her forte. She was, however, forthright, badass, and confident in Cherry 2000. Her roles should have been in action movies, not rom-coms. Cherry 2000 proved that E. Johnson (Griffith) could rival the Terminator, Rocky, and John McClane on the action movie front.
I’m with you. *Joe Dirt *is a favourite, simply because it has heart. Every possible thing that can go wrong has been thrown against Joe from day one–and yet, he remains cheerfully optimistic, and eventually succeeds. What’s not to like about that?
Ghost Rider—both the original (27%) and the sequel (18%) (I mean, come on, the latter has Cage miming a pelvic flamethrower while explaining to a kid what it’s like to pee as the rider!). Also, Drive Angry (46%), where Nicolas Cage plays a father escaped from hell hunting down the demons/cult/whatever that want to sacrifice his infant granddaughter.
Ishtar. Legendary as a bad movie, it’s actually quite good, if uneven in part. The first 20 minutes are comedy gold. It flags when they get to Ishtar, then picks up when the go to buy the camel and has some great scenes. The ending, though, is rushed.
Overall, though, the good and great moments outnumber the bad ones by a wide margin.
Ishtar is a strange case. At the time it was released (in 1987), there was a lot of news about the fact that it had gone way over budget. Perhaps that influenced the popular and critical opinion at the time. It got a lot of bad reviews. It also got quite a few good reviews. It lost money at the box office.
However, since then, the film has been re-evaluated by viewers and critics. Most people who’ve seen it recently think it’s reasonably good. I saw it when it came out, and I also think it’s reasonably good.
Gods of Egypt. 15/37. I don’t particularly care about cultural appropriation or whitewashing. It’s cheesy, escapist fun, with beautiful visual effects.
The Keanu Reeves version of 47 Ronin. 15/48.
Yes, I know, they took liberties with the historical facts. But you know what? The historical facts are few and far between. Most of what we think we know about the ronin, was written by poets, and dramatists, and people with social and political axes to grind. It has always been more myth than history. When the film-makers throw in supernatural monsters, in a twisted way, they are being more honest than most storytellers. And the supernatural elements fit in nicely with old folktales.
I don’t know if heterochromatic eyes are a thing in Japanese lore, but shapeshifting foxes definitely are. The portrayal of the Tengu—living in a monastery, protecting orphans, teaching them martial arts—was quite faithful to the old folktales. The physical appearance of the Tengu was a bit strange, but down through the centuries, Japanese artists have depicted them far stranger.
I’ll second “Year One.” It’s funny little vignettes. Yeah, it’s crass and a bit shoddy - but that’s comedy, amiri? And Jack Black’s response to “the holiest of holies” is gold/QUOTE]
Personally, I thought both 2013’s Planes (25% Tomatometer, 49% audience) and 2014’s Planes: Fire and Rescue (43% Tomatometer, though it scraped a 56% with the audience) were quite fun.
I just watched, today, the 2010 re-make of, “Clash of the Titans,” and really enjoyed it. It’s certainly no worse than having to sit through Mythology in junior high. The Bubo joke was worth the price of admission.
I object to the original assertion about adult life being past 2000, it limits to people mid 30s. So I’d add Hudson Hawk in there 27/56, surprised the audience agreed as much with me.
But using that criteria and list of flops, Monster Trucks (32/51), RIPD was fun (13/38), I really liked Tomorrowland (on the cusp, at 50/49), Super is close (49/55), and Wet Hot American Summer (36/76),.
Not a fan (and pre 2000), but surprised to find Cocktail a big variation from critics and audience at 5/58 and same with St Elmo’s fire (44/68),.
Another one I’m not going to mention since it’s pre-2000 is The Villian. It has Kirk Douglas, Ann-Margret and Arnold Schwarzenegger. There’s 6 Oscar nominations and one win among them.
Plus a host of character actors. Includes Paul Lynde as an Indian chief. Nothing wrong there!
0% at RT.
And yet I find it a hoot and a half.
But, like I said, can’t bring it up due to an arbitrary cutoff.
(I get that you want a minimum number of reviews that older films night not have, but then just make that minimum the cutoff.)
I came in here to mention this movie and I will defend Joe Dirt to the death! I agree with everything written about it by the two of you. It’s a wonderfully heartening movie with some funny jokes and a happy ending. I defend most Adam Sandler/dumb comedies like that because they always end happily and you leave the movie feeling good.
I’m surprised Battle: Los Angeles is scored that low, I also genuinely like the movie a lot and think it vastly underrated.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) for me. 31% on Rotten Tomatoes. I wouldn’t call it high cinema, but it’s an interesting British-gangster (Thanks Guy Ritchie) take on the story, with lots of fun action sequences and a pretty good soundtrack.
I gave up after about 5 movies I really love that I thought possibly might have too narrow an appeal all came back 80s-90s on Rotten Tomatoes. Though to be fair, all of them did score higher with critics than with viewers.