It was a pretty common consensus that the Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a bad movie. It got many bad reviews. It under performed at the box office to the point where Sony kind of scrapped and redrew all their future plans. Yet I liked it a lot when I saw it in May. I just re-watched it again on Blu ray, this time with a critical eye and dang it I still like it a lot. The performances are good (Jamie Foxx is a little hammy but that’s okay), the story isn’t perfect but holds together pretty well and more it fills in a lot of the gaps of the first one which improves that movie. The battle scenes are imaginative and well shot. It’s colorful and bright with a lot of optimism (something a lot of Superhero movies forget). The movie’s good.
I was going to resurrect the original review thread to state this but thought I would make a new one that is more general. Do you ever feel like you are the only one that likes a movie and you’re not sure why that is? This isn’t the same as underrated exactly. It is more like that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry dates a girl who seems perfect but the world just thinks she’s a dud. A movie everyone seems to hate but you are sure they are wrong.
John Carter got a lot of bad reviews, but really, it was pretty good. I wouldn’t say it was great, but it worked well enough, didn’t have any major flaws, and was enjoyable to watch. I think most of the reviews were actually panning the budget of the movie, and not the movie itself.
A similar thing happened with Waterworld. Yeah, maybe it was at the time the most expensive movie ever made, or whatever, and it wasn’t that good… but why should I, the audience member, care how much a movie cost? My ticket price is still the same.
And I’m probably the only person in the world who liked Terminator 3 better than 2. T2 relied way too heavily on its brand new gee-whiz special effects, which were already starting to look dated by the time it was released (and calling too much attention to special effects is always a mistake). I thought that T3 was the movie that T2 should have been, as the effects were much more refined by then, and most of the things that didn’t make sense in T2 were explained and fixed.
There hasn’t been one where I say “The whole world is ****ing nuts”. I can usually see at least somewhat why a movie I adore won’t appeal to people.
The closest I can think of is, “The Quick and the Dead”. Come on people, it’s a video-game movie (not literally). It’s fun and it’s got Gene Hackman.
Speaking of which there HAVE been certain actors or musicians in certain circles of mine where I feel like I’m taking crazy pills cause everyone that hates the musician or actor is beyond insane.
Casablanca I found indescribably dull. I described it to my mom as “a love story with no love, and a war movie with no war.”
Similarly, Gone With The Wind is nothing but overhyped melodrama from the first frame.
The Wizard of Oz I thought was just OK. I was a grown adult before I saw it, and it was in a big theater for a one-night revival. Wasn’t the best movie I saw that winter, wasn’t the worst.
Despite its almost universally bad critical reviews, I really loved Into The Storm. Sure, the story was weak and the acting was hammy, but the comic relief had me in stitches (I know tons of guys like Donk and Reevis; hell, my brother-in-law and his bestie ARE Donk & Reevis). I thought the special effects were magnificent, and, for me, the terror was real.
Similarly, people make a game of laughing about it now, but I think The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are two of the best horror films ever made. When I saw TBWP in theaters I genuinely felt terror, and loss, at the characters’ plight.
Yes, that’s a big second. I will say, however, there are 2 minutes of honest drama in GWTW: the “birthing babies” scene; Vivien Leigh came alive for just that small bit.
Gravity. Oookay what is the big deal. I didn’t see it in the theater but I have a nice high def at home. Yeah the special effects were mostly decent but Clooney buzzing around the breaking up space station looked completely lame, other scenes weren’t much better and the story was one step above plodding. Maybe it does make a huge difference seeing it in the theater but I kind of doubt it. <shrug>
I agree with the Quick and the dead. I liked it quite a bit, admittedly though, Sharon Stone being in it is probably clouding my opinion somewhat.
I’ve never seen The Blair Witch Project, but it seems to me that it was rather well-received when it came out. People only started getting sick of it after the many, many attempted copycats.
This is the most recent overly-awarded movie on my list. It was just a cycle of “Sandy’s about to die horribly! Absolutely last second saved!” repeated over and over. No actual story of any sort or significant acting. Huge number of completely unrealistic if not Physically impossible crap. (Did anyone care about the Math on how long it takes for a collision cascade to occur especially when everything is in different orbits?)
And they finish with the ending:
After all the banging around she’s experienced, she walks out of a swamp looking like a Movie Star.
It’s a joke of a movie. And it just won a Hugo Award. Even the SF community has given up on standards.
I posted a thread here when I finally got around to watching Full Metal Jacket - wow, what a disappointment. People are clearly only remembering the first third of the film with R. Lee Ermey - the rest of it is awful!
The Matrix. I wasted good money seeing this thing in a theater because of all the hype. It’s a mediocre (at best) scifi action flick with a premise based on a scifi / philosophy idea that was already worn out.
Pretty much every movie directed by Robert Altman that I’ve ever seen. I don’t understand the appeal. To my mind, a movie requires characters that are either likeable or interesting if not both. Failing that, a good story can salvage it. His movies are lacking in every respect.
I recently watched Silent Hill Revelation, it is the sequel to the first movie.
I thought it was fair for it was, and followed the video game(Silent Hill 3) faithfully, the plot is vague and poorly explained but that is present in the original game series too. Hardly the movies fault. I enjoyed the practical/make up effects which apparently were needed because of lack of budget.
Going online I see it was totally panned by critics, like savaged.
There was a plot of sorts, it was extremely subtle. It was basically Sandy moving from dead inside following the death of her kid to wanting to survive.
My wife and I love the almost universally panned Coppola film One From The Heart. The critic reviewed the budget, and didn’t pay attention. If you want to really follow the plot, you have to listen not only to the actors but Tom Waits’ songs.
This is my recollection as well. I remember a lot of Dopers chatting here after they’d seen it, and they were generally very positive.
I remember one poster who posted that she’d just come back from it, around 10 pm, and thought it was sorta “meh.” She didn’t see why people were raving about it.
Her next post was at 3 am, saying she hadn’t been able to get to sleep, and had gone all through her house, making sure all the doors and windows were locked, and had turned on lights in every room. She was shivering and waiting for the sun to come up.
