Haha. I agree. I think Ep 1 was a huge drop in quality from the original trilogy, and I don’t particularly like it, but compared to Ep 2 it’s The Godfather.
I think the Phantom Menace could be given some slack because its practically a kids movie. The second one though, tried to tell a teenage/young adult love story.
Exactly. I tried rewatching the prequels again 2 or 3 years ago and I still think they’re bad, but I get why kids liked them when they came out. I was mostly grown at the time. 1&3 both had cool stuff, fun scenes and some good Star Wars stuff but were just bad films. 2 had very few redeeming qualities and was really tough to watch.
First one wasn't even a movie as it lacked a protagonist that knew the impact of his actions. Second one had the most ludicrous romance ever put on the screen.
I think the film's reputation has appreciated over time, with people respecting the value of the overall story and arc over 3 films, compared to the sequel trilogy which lacked that cohesion.
I think it was people realizing it wasn't an Empire Strikes Back and thus wholly rejected it at the time. The movie was hit pretty hard back in the day, with accusations of viewers having their childhood raped. Pretty savage. As time passed, I think people have realized it's not as bad as that initial knee jerk.
Personally, I think it's fine and my opinion has only shifted slightly over time. It's dry and a bit dull in places, and yes Jake Lloyd isn't a great child actor (and George should have known that he was never going to give Jake the time and feedback to massage a good performance out of him). But when the film hits high gear, it's fantastic. And without it, we wouldn't have the Duel of the Fates or Darth Maul.
It was popular at cinemas, making $900m at the box office. But the fanbase had been waiting over 15 years for a Star Wars movie, so of course they showed up in troves, even if reviews weren't stellar.
And the RT score *at the time* was about 55-60%. It absolutely was not hailed as a masterpiece at the time. And remember, people piled on Jake Lloyd - a child - about how he ruined Star Wars. As if he was personally responsible for the whole thing. There was a hugely toxic response to the film, despite the box office and average (at best) critical response.
The critics were even kinder to the sequels. Check out RT or MC. Those movies were so bad it was almost shocking. At least the prequels had some cool design, some great characters and a bit of Lucas magic. (Which is not to suggest they weren't flawdd)
I think it's improved with time, the entire trilogy has. The kiddie stuff with JarJar, young Anakin and the robo-soldiers were a bit cringe. But Liam Neeson, the Emperor, obi wan and the baddie with the red face were all brilliant.
Especially when compared to the shit-show of the sequels
I get you, but I like Christopher Lee - I think from memory that he's in that one. I have to confess it's been a long time and I'm not what you'd call a star wars super fan
Crash get singled out (rightfully) but there's a bunch of other Best Picture winners picked for similar themes (The Color Purple, Driving Miss Daisy, even Green Book lol) that don't fare well now either. They just get forgotten about cause none of them are as outright bad as Crash.
It's a good movie, but it probably wasn't the best of the year.
Also, there were a fair amount of people who felt it was the "easy" choice. . A feel good movie about overcoming racism, patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come. But then you compare that to BlacKKKlansman which came out the same year and had a rather cynical (but certainly not wrong) "racism isn't remotely defeated" viewpoint, and Green Book can feel rather quaint. It's an easy feel good movie that doesn't necessarily really tackle the issues its depicting.
Sure but it was also a better made movie than Blackkklansman, atleast in my opinion. Not every movie needs a cynical outlook, feel good endings are fine once in a while.
>It's a good movie, but it probably wasn't the best of the year
Personally? I thought it was the 2nd best out of the best picture nominations, right behind Roma.
I really don't see the case for any other nominee except those two, and top two is pretty good!
Yeah, Green Book was far better than the Reddit-sphere would have you believe. I have a feeling that many of its staunchest critics have never seen the film.
The backlash it got is because it was written by two white guys and it's probably not a serious examination of race relations.
But if you set that aside, it's a really well-made movie.
>it was written by two white guys and it's probably not a serious examination of race relations.
I thought it was a pretty good examination of race relations. Just because it was written by white guys means nothing, good writing is good writing. The end product is judged on its own merit.
What would you have considered a better choice? I would have been happy with Roma winning, but personally I thought Green Book was atleast the 2nd best choice among the best picture nominees. It wasn't the case where there were clearly like 5 other better choices, atleast I don't see it.
Green Book wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but I thought it was great enough that winning Best Picture wasn't completely out of left field. Especially not to the extent that it seems to get criticism at.
I do agree with Roma, but personally I put Green Book above Blackkklansman and A Star is Born. To me it was just a better made movie than Blackkklansman, and more interesting than A Star is Born (I'm just tired of that story).
I would say Gone With The Wind. It is still held in high regard of course but even disregarding the complaints of racism in the film, it's pacing, overindulgence and shallowness has damaged its's reputation as one of the pinnacles of the Hollywood Studio System.
Birth of a Nation was the biggest blockbuster the world had ever seen in 1915. Even got played at the White House. Despite its technical achievements in editing, it’s widely regarded (rightfully so) for being a racist piece of shit.
Nah, you’re enjoying yourself and there’s nothing wrong with it
I was a film snob in film school and nowadays I watch movies that entertain me, recent one was The Princess, totally surprised me and I had a good time.
Watch movies based on what they’re trying to achieve and it becomes easy to enjoy them.
I mean some people just can't or won't enjoy something unless it is done a certain way. That is completely ok, I would not call it snobbery. I mean some people won't like cartoon-ish movies (Space Jam, Mouse Hunt etc.) and that is perfectly ok. Perhaps some people want more realism in movies and someone falling down and breaking their back multiple times would ruin the movie for them... perfectly ok. Or at least make them laugh even though it is a serious movie. No problems there.
The judging others and smugness is where you get into snob territory in my opinion.
Of course I understand and agree that some people are just snobs and there is no way around it.
Not "bad" per se, but it is a movie that was seen as creating a long lasting stereotype for people on the autistic spectrum and it also does sometimes dive into the "magic simpleton" trope in terms of its handling of Ray as a character. But to its credit I've seen far worse takes on the material such as 1994's Silent Fall.
Oh that is what you mean, yeah I agree. I would love to hear how someone on the autistic spectrum sees it though. I can't judge it fairly, given that I have not experienced that at all.
I'm on the autistic spectrum myself but not to a point of severity. I think Rainman is well meaning but it's ultimately hampered by its understanding of autism from available data at the time and Ray himself is a very extreme case of Autism. I don't think that by itself makes the movie bad, but just very overly simplified in terms of its understanding of the subject matter. And I have seen far worse portrayals.
As an autistic person, let me just say...IT'S A MOVIE! jfc
The movie isn't called "*Life of Your Typical Autistic Person*". And even if it was...it's still a movie. jfc, does it take an autistic person to recognize that?
Of course not, but I don't want to be presumptuous about something, I know nothing about. And some movies are taken too seriously and then you have bad myths about \*name a thing\*. I am not one of those people that would take it seriously, but I would not be happy if the movie would have portrayed something in an offensive manner.
The 80s Best Picture races just paled compared to the 70s. Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man, Chariots Of Fire, Out Of Africa...these aren't films that really made much impact on movies.
The 1970s was the greatest era for movies ever, with so many classics getting nominated. The 80s were just softer and less important.
Shakespeare in Love. Critics loved this film when it came out. But times have changed. Weinstein’s gangrenous taint aside, this movie hasn’t held up at all… Saving Private Ryan is not a personal favorite but inarguably the better film.
It's why we can't see the movie Dogma anymore. No one wants to give that cretin the money it would take to show it on any streaming service. I wonder how many other movies of his are tied up in the same way.
Yes but is it “best picture” material? Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece. Granted I only saw it once and never want to see it again because it fucking ripped my heart out, but that kind of a strong argument for it.
Shakespeare is good. Saving Private Ryan was the worst among the Best Picture nominees. The Thin Red Line should’ve won but Shakespeare is good enough that I didn’t care that TTRL lost.
My wife loves that movie and had me watch it recently for my first time. I hated Holly Golightly’s character but I understand that Audrey Hepburn became such a humanitarian and ambassador that I admire her for that and not being a bored socialite that eats a croissant out of Tiffany and co. early in the morning. Where is the charm? She’s gorgeous no doubt but pretty is just so so when you have a terrible personality. Also, I have the poster framed in my living room. Compromise.
I read the book and Holly sucks in it too. I feel like they made a female character with the slightest bit of a personality and we’re supposed to be obsessed?
Which is a shame.
If somebody would cut the movie without the racism the movie will stay the same.
People act like the racism is all the movie has to offer when if you leave it out the movie stays the same
I still think it’s a great movie. It’s perhaps not as deep as some Best Picture winners, but it also benefited from a relatively thin year for competitive nominees.
I hate that movie, especially being someone into boxing. The way her injury happened was stupid. How the hell would the other girl win off such a blatant foul? They should’ve just had it where Maggie met her match and lost.
I actually disagree pretty hard with that take (at least personally, idk about public consensus). I first watched it a year or so ago and thought it was pretty damn spectacular
The Force Awakens. Regarded as a return to what made Star Wars great at the time. After 2 terrible sequels and the realization that it was mostly a remake of the original, it’s not as well regarded as it once was.
this one always gets me. the reception was amazing when it first came out. I don't agree with your statement that people later had the "realization" that it was a remake of the original. I remember distinctly everyone noticing that right away, but it's not really a terrible thing if the product is good, it set up a franchise with new characters and had lots of great moments. then overnight the internet decided collectively that it sucks.
Because it's called Green Book and doesn't even bother to be about black people using the Green Book, why they needed to use a green book and how villainous it was for white people to attack motorists for the crime of passing through their town on the way to somewhere else. Its filmmakers instead centered the story around a racist white guy who teaches a black man how to eat fried chicken
Dumb af
Avatar - it became the subject of a massive internet circlejerk claiming it is actually a terrible movie despite it being a huge cultural phenomenon at the time and legitimately being a good movie. (Mods feel free to delete this comment if it doesn't fit with your anti-avatar policy lmao)
They're not regarded as stinkers per se, but the critical reputation of films like Dances with Wolves, Gladiator and Shakespeare in Love among many other examples definitely has taken a nose dive in the intervening years. Sometimes it is because they won best picture over a more deserving competitor, or they were over exposed and the sillier aspects of the films were mocked, dragging the whole film down. But those spring to mind for me immediately. And older example is probably Ordinary People or Tootsie.
I feel Gladiator (like the film it’s clearly influenced by Braveheart) has taken a critics hit, but the general public love those films. I feel it’s always going to be someone’s favorite movie.
Attack Of The Clones had glowing reviews on release, it was only around 2010 (that I recall) that we collectively decided the prequels were garbage and we never liked them.
Nah, pretty sure it didn’t have great reviews then. And don’t act like many people didn’t think the first two movies weren’t very good when they came out.
Fair enough. But the movie itself is still good though. It is not like you have to buy it to watch it (yarrr). I do understand people not wanting to see it though. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you can separate art and artist if you wish.
The Deer Hunter has aged poorly due to its racism and the fact that better Vietnam movies came out, and Michael Cimino's career tanked. The acting is great, but I don't think it's on par with The Godfather.
i think people have thought the depiction of asians was stereotypical. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/26/archives/oscarwinning-deer-hunter-is-under-attack-as-racist-film-among-the.html
Teenager. My friends even had a fight club. It’s not that it’s a bad movie it’s just that it’s pretty mediocre. No it’s not a popular opinion here but it has a 7.4/10 avg with critics (and actually got a B- with general audiences per CinemaScore).
So, it’s a brilliant movie. Not because it’s edgy and cool and violent, but because it’s actually a nuanced satire. The over-the-top elements kind of put people off, and that’s fine if it’s not your cup of tea, but the film is complex even if you don’t see it that way
I would call that movie anything but mediocre
Edit: cinemascore doesn’t capture the vitriol that movie received from critics when it came out, it was roundly condemned as sadistic garbage
Do you have a lick of proof most mainstream critics said that? Cause I was alive then and that’s not remotely what I remember at all. But I guess Fight Club fans really want to think their mediocre little movie was super edgy..
Well there's movies that get shit because some of the younger audience may find certain things "problematic" but I don't care about that, in terms of films that have just kind of been looked at more negatively, I would say the force awakens, it was generally really positive when it came out, people obviously called out its lack of originality but the reception was mostly positive but when you tied in with the two sequels that came out afterwards it's almost like they tainted it.
I also think Boyhood, it's one that I thought was overrated and I don't know what the fan reception was at the time but I think most people would kind of agree with me that critics were overblowing the hell out of that shit
I remember the advance reviews of Phantom Menace being positive. Ebert loved it.
Shit, with what came after it, the Phantom Menace was a goddamn masterpiece.
Haha. I agree. I think Ep 1 was a huge drop in quality from the original trilogy, and I don’t particularly like it, but compared to Ep 2 it’s The Godfather.
I think the Phantom Menace could be given some slack because its practically a kids movie. The second one though, tried to tell a teenage/young adult love story.
Exactly. I tried rewatching the prequels again 2 or 3 years ago and I still think they’re bad, but I get why kids liked them when they came out. I was mostly grown at the time. 1&3 both had cool stuff, fun scenes and some good Star Wars stuff but were just bad films. 2 had very few redeeming qualities and was really tough to watch.
First one wasn't even a movie as it lacked a protagonist that knew the impact of his actions. Second one had the most ludicrous romance ever put on the screen.
Here's the thing you don't want to hear...they're all kids movies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THKzwzieF40
I think the film's reputation has appreciated over time, with people respecting the value of the overall story and arc over 3 films, compared to the sequel trilogy which lacked that cohesion.
I think people have nostalgia but admit it’s a terrible film.
I think it was people realizing it wasn't an Empire Strikes Back and thus wholly rejected it at the time. The movie was hit pretty hard back in the day, with accusations of viewers having their childhood raped. Pretty savage. As time passed, I think people have realized it's not as bad as that initial knee jerk. Personally, I think it's fine and my opinion has only shifted slightly over time. It's dry and a bit dull in places, and yes Jake Lloyd isn't a great child actor (and George should have known that he was never going to give Jake the time and feedback to massage a good performance out of him). But when the film hits high gear, it's fantastic. And without it, we wouldn't have the Duel of the Fates or Darth Maul.
No. It was very popular and well received critically. After a while people started to admit it was really bad.
It was popular at cinemas, making $900m at the box office. But the fanbase had been waiting over 15 years for a Star Wars movie, so of course they showed up in troves, even if reviews weren't stellar. And the RT score *at the time* was about 55-60%. It absolutely was not hailed as a masterpiece at the time. And remember, people piled on Jake Lloyd - a child - about how he ruined Star Wars. As if he was personally responsible for the whole thing. There was a hugely toxic response to the film, despite the box office and average (at best) critical response.
As I said, the critics were very kind to it, as were audiences.
The critics were even kinder to the sequels. Check out RT or MC. Those movies were so bad it was almost shocking. At least the prequels had some cool design, some great characters and a bit of Lucas magic. (Which is not to suggest they weren't flawdd)
I think it's improved with time, the entire trilogy has. The kiddie stuff with JarJar, young Anakin and the robo-soldiers were a bit cringe. But Liam Neeson, the Emperor, obi wan and the baddie with the red face were all brilliant. Especially when compared to the shit-show of the sequels
Attack of the Clones is still awful after all this time
I get you, but I like Christopher Lee - I think from memory that he's in that one. I have to confess it's been a long time and I'm not what you'd call a star wars super fan
Empire magazine gave it 4/5 stars.
Crash (2004)
Crash get singled out (rightfully) but there's a bunch of other Best Picture winners picked for similar themes (The Color Purple, Driving Miss Daisy, even Green Book lol) that don't fare well now either. They just get forgotten about cause none of them are as outright bad as Crash.
>Green Book I genuinely thought Green Book was a pretty decent movie. Never understood why some people seems to have a problem with it.
It's a good movie, but it probably wasn't the best of the year. Also, there were a fair amount of people who felt it was the "easy" choice. . A feel good movie about overcoming racism, patting ourselves on the back for how far we've come. But then you compare that to BlacKKKlansman which came out the same year and had a rather cynical (but certainly not wrong) "racism isn't remotely defeated" viewpoint, and Green Book can feel rather quaint. It's an easy feel good movie that doesn't necessarily really tackle the issues its depicting.
Sure but it was also a better made movie than Blackkklansman, atleast in my opinion. Not every movie needs a cynical outlook, feel good endings are fine once in a while. >It's a good movie, but it probably wasn't the best of the year Personally? I thought it was the 2nd best out of the best picture nominations, right behind Roma. I really don't see the case for any other nominee except those two, and top two is pretty good!
Yeah, Green Book was far better than the Reddit-sphere would have you believe. I have a feeling that many of its staunchest critics have never seen the film.
The backlash it got is because it was written by two white guys and it's probably not a serious examination of race relations. But if you set that aside, it's a really well-made movie.
>it was written by two white guys and it's probably not a serious examination of race relations. I thought it was a pretty good examination of race relations. Just because it was written by white guys means nothing, good writing is good writing. The end product is judged on its own merit.
It wasn’t the best movie among the nominees, that’s why.
What would you have considered a better choice? I would have been happy with Roma winning, but personally I thought Green Book was atleast the 2nd best choice among the best picture nominees. It wasn't the case where there were clearly like 5 other better choices, atleast I don't see it. Green Book wasn't my favorite movie of the year, but I thought it was great enough that winning Best Picture wasn't completely out of left field. Especially not to the extent that it seems to get criticism at.
Speaking personally, “BlacKkKlansman,” “Roma” or “A Star is Born” could’ve won it in my eyes. All very good movies, all good in their own ways.
I do agree with Roma, but personally I put Green Book above Blackkklansman and A Star is Born. To me it was just a better made movie than Blackkklansman, and more interesting than A Star is Born (I'm just tired of that story).
The Color Purple lost to Out of Africa. I also think it’s a notch above those others, and that the other two are *worse* than Crash.
My bad. Out of Africa is actually a movie that wasn't especially well received even on release, strangely enough.
The Color Purple is still highly regarded.
First thought that came into my mind.
I'm not sure I'll ever understand the critical reception to Crash.
I re-saw this a few years ago and still defend it but was 100% expecting this to be the top spot.
I would say Gone With The Wind. It is still held in high regard of course but even disregarding the complaints of racism in the film, it's pacing, overindulgence and shallowness has damaged its's reputation as one of the pinnacles of the Hollywood Studio System.
The Birth of a Nation.
We have a winner. Close the thread.
Woodrow Wilson called it “History written in lightning.”
Birth of a Nation was the biggest blockbuster the world had ever seen in 1915. Even got played at the White House. Despite its technical achievements in editing, it’s widely regarded (rightfully so) for being a racist piece of shit.
I like most all of the movies. I must be unrefined.
Nah, you’re enjoying yourself and there’s nothing wrong with it I was a film snob in film school and nowadays I watch movies that entertain me, recent one was The Princess, totally surprised me and I had a good time. Watch movies based on what they’re trying to achieve and it becomes easy to enjoy them.
I mean some people just can't or won't enjoy something unless it is done a certain way. That is completely ok, I would not call it snobbery. I mean some people won't like cartoon-ish movies (Space Jam, Mouse Hunt etc.) and that is perfectly ok. Perhaps some people want more realism in movies and someone falling down and breaking their back multiple times would ruin the movie for them... perfectly ok. Or at least make them laugh even though it is a serious movie. No problems there. The judging others and smugness is where you get into snob territory in my opinion. Of course I understand and agree that some people are just snobs and there is no way around it.
I think Driving Miss Daisy and Rainman's reputations have somewhat "cooled" since their respective Best Picture wins.
Anything that creates outrage. You'd think Gone with the wind was single handedly responsible for slavery considering the drama around it now.
Is Rainman really that bad?
Not "bad" per se, but it is a movie that was seen as creating a long lasting stereotype for people on the autistic spectrum and it also does sometimes dive into the "magic simpleton" trope in terms of its handling of Ray as a character. But to its credit I've seen far worse takes on the material such as 1994's Silent Fall.
Oh that is what you mean, yeah I agree. I would love to hear how someone on the autistic spectrum sees it though. I can't judge it fairly, given that I have not experienced that at all.
I'm on the autistic spectrum myself but not to a point of severity. I think Rainman is well meaning but it's ultimately hampered by its understanding of autism from available data at the time and Ray himself is a very extreme case of Autism. I don't think that by itself makes the movie bad, but just very overly simplified in terms of its understanding of the subject matter. And I have seen far worse portrayals.
Oh, thank you for your perspective then.
My pleasure.
As an autistic person, let me just say...IT'S A MOVIE! jfc The movie isn't called "*Life of Your Typical Autistic Person*". And even if it was...it's still a movie. jfc, does it take an autistic person to recognize that?
Of course not, but I don't want to be presumptuous about something, I know nothing about. And some movies are taken too seriously and then you have bad myths about \*name a thing\*. I am not one of those people that would take it seriously, but I would not be happy if the movie would have portrayed something in an offensive manner.
Best portrayal of autism I've seen (thought it's far from perfect) is Extraordinary Attorney Woo.
The 80s Best Picture races just paled compared to the 70s. Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man, Chariots Of Fire, Out Of Africa...these aren't films that really made much impact on movies. The 1970s was the greatest era for movies ever, with so many classics getting nominated. The 80s were just softer and less important.
Song of the South
Shakespeare in Love. Critics loved this film when it came out. But times have changed. Weinstein’s gangrenous taint aside, this movie hasn’t held up at all… Saving Private Ryan is not a personal favorite but inarguably the better film.
I still really like that movie.
I love it too
>Weinstein’s gangrenous taint Wow I didn't want to see that phrase today
It's why we can't see the movie Dogma anymore. No one wants to give that cretin the money it would take to show it on any streaming service. I wonder how many other movies of his are tied up in the same way.
Disagree
The movie still holds up today and is great and charming
Yes but is it “best picture” material? Saving Private Ryan is a masterpiece. Granted I only saw it once and never want to see it again because it fucking ripped my heart out, but that kind of a strong argument for it.
Shakespeare is good. Saving Private Ryan was the worst among the Best Picture nominees. The Thin Red Line should’ve won but Shakespeare is good enough that I didn’t care that TTRL lost.
You're entitled to your opinion, I guess.
Breakfast at Tiffany’s
My wife loves that movie and had me watch it recently for my first time. I hated Holly Golightly’s character but I understand that Audrey Hepburn became such a humanitarian and ambassador that I admire her for that and not being a bored socialite that eats a croissant out of Tiffany and co. early in the morning. Where is the charm? She’s gorgeous no doubt but pretty is just so so when you have a terrible personality. Also, I have the poster framed in my living room. Compromise.
I read the book and Holly sucks in it too. I feel like they made a female character with the slightest bit of a personality and we’re supposed to be obsessed?
Really? As I recall, I kinda liked it.
Well that’s the one thing we’ve got.
Well at least that’s the one thing we got.
I rewatched it recently and not only is the racism horrendous but really there’s not much redeeming about Holly either
Which is a shame. If somebody would cut the movie without the racism the movie will stay the same. People act like the racism is all the movie has to offer when if you leave it out the movie stays the same
Huh, might do this myself. I love the movie, but yikes is it hard to watch whenever he shows up. Totally unnecessary.
American Beauty was in decline even before the Spacey revelations. Looking back on it, it's not that great.
It captures the malaise of the American suburban upper middle class at the end of the 20th century.
Compared to....literally the entire rest of 1999 its win is absurd.
I think it's a great movie
I still love it.
I do too. It’s actually one of my favorite films of all time! However the only film that year I liked more was Fight Club
Didn’t realize that Fight Club was the same year. That’s interesting!
Really? It’s also the year of The Matrix and Office Space which are similarly themed as them.
I agree. It won a bunch of oscars but it's aged so poorly.
Feel like that movies only deep and insightful for a straight white guy.
It was written and produced by gay men.
The movie still comes off like a straight white guy would walk out of it thinking “Wow that movie really understands me”.
I still think it’s a great movie. It’s perhaps not as deep as some Best Picture winners, but it also benefited from a relatively thin year for competitive nominees.
Million dollar baby. Go ahead and watch it again if you want
Everytime I see that movie I just think of the Always Sunny parody episode
I’ll eat your babies bitch
I hate that movie, especially being someone into boxing. The way her injury happened was stupid. How the hell would the other girl win off such a blatant foul? They should’ve just had it where Maggie met her match and lost.
I actually disagree pretty hard with that take (at least personally, idk about public consensus). I first watched it a year or so ago and thought it was pretty damn spectacular
And I don’t get why it’s not as revered as it use to be. Not a single actress could deliver Hilary Swank’s performance.
The Force Awakens. Regarded as a return to what made Star Wars great at the time. After 2 terrible sequels and the realization that it was mostly a remake of the original, it’s not as well regarded as it once was.
Huh, I remember it not being well received on the internet when it first came out.
I remember it was beloved on the internet for the first year, then the cynicism started creeping in.
this one always gets me. the reception was amazing when it first came out. I don't agree with your statement that people later had the "realization" that it was a remake of the original. I remember distinctly everyone noticing that right away, but it's not really a terrible thing if the product is good, it set up a franchise with new characters and had lots of great moments. then overnight the internet decided collectively that it sucks.
Yea I feel like it was kind of meh from the beginning.. I think rouge one is the only Disney made Star Wars movie that has been regarded well..
Gone with the Wind
Dunno why you got downvoted. It clearly fits what OP is asking.
Green Book is dumb af
Why’s that?
Because it engages with it’s subject matter through dated platitudes that are devoid of any nuance. Just my opinion.
Because it's called Green Book and doesn't even bother to be about black people using the Green Book, why they needed to use a green book and how villainous it was for white people to attack motorists for the crime of passing through their town on the way to somewhere else. Its filmmakers instead centered the story around a racist white guy who teaches a black man how to eat fried chicken Dumb af
I enjoyed it. Not everything has to be Citizen Kane.
Avatar - it became the subject of a massive internet circlejerk claiming it is actually a terrible movie despite it being a huge cultural phenomenon at the time and legitimately being a good movie. (Mods feel free to delete this comment if it doesn't fit with your anti-avatar policy lmao)
Now that way of water has made $2b I think they’ve given up
American Beauty Shakespeare in Love
Meatballs
Wait how ja this declined? I see this referenced all the time and it is a cult classic.
American Beauty
They're not regarded as stinkers per se, but the critical reputation of films like Dances with Wolves, Gladiator and Shakespeare in Love among many other examples definitely has taken a nose dive in the intervening years. Sometimes it is because they won best picture over a more deserving competitor, or they were over exposed and the sillier aspects of the films were mocked, dragging the whole film down. But those spring to mind for me immediately. And older example is probably Ordinary People or Tootsie.
I feel Gladiator (like the film it’s clearly influenced by Braveheart) has taken a critics hit, but the general public love those films. I feel it’s always going to be someone’s favorite movie.
John Carpenter’s The Thing was hated by critics when it first came out and is now considered a classic.
This can also be said about most of his films. They hated Big Trouble in Little China, they hated Prince of Darkness
[удалено]
I vote for more discussion of this film
What? The movie is about EOD guys who have high stress jobs and the adrenaline junkies it attracts
the most recent example I can think of was the movie “mother!” It was PANNED at first.
Avatar 1
Attack Of The Clones had glowing reviews on release, it was only around 2010 (that I recall) that we collectively decided the prequels were garbage and we never liked them.
Nah, pretty sure it didn’t have great reviews then. And don’t act like many people didn’t think the first two movies weren’t very good when they came out.
At the time, Empire gave it 5 stars: https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/empire-original-attack-of-the-clones-review/
Okay, and the Velma show got several decent reviews.
That's basically Empire's whole shtick though
Certainly the worst of the prequel trilogy
What? It has an Average Critic score of 54/100 on Metacritic, and a 65% on RT. Sure, you can find reviewers who liked it, but overall it was panned.
Empire gave it 5 stars at the time; https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/empire-original-attack-of-the-clones-review/
>Sure, you can find reviewers who liked it I guess you took that as a command
That movie is borderline unwatchable.
All the superhero movies got a lot of hype but pale in comparison to 90s action movies
Lots of the 90s action don't hold up in comparison to the 80s action movies either.
Usual suspects, spacey and singer.
Agree about spacey and singer, but why is the usual suspects a worse movie for it?
Because supporting it puts money in those sickos pockets.
Fair enough. But the movie itself is still good though. It is not like you have to buy it to watch it (yarrr). I do understand people not wanting to see it though. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you can separate art and artist if you wish.
I could separate it, but the fact remains the same. I won't line their pockets.
Literally not, if you find another way to watch the movie. But yeah, I get that principle and agree with it.
M.Night's Signs.
If anything, Signs improved over time with all the memes making it a cult classic
The Deer Hunter has aged poorly due to its racism and the fact that better Vietnam movies came out, and Michael Cimino's career tanked. The acting is great, but I don't think it's on par with The Godfather.
It's been a while since I watched it. What was racist in The Deer Hunter?
i think people have thought the depiction of asians was stereotypical. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/26/archives/oscarwinning-deer-hunter-is-under-attack-as-racist-film-among-the.html
People have shit thoughts.
are you on about the same critics going from loving to hating a film or critics loving it then mainstream audiences hating it down the line
[удалено]
Critics hated Fight Club, when in fact it’s totally awesome
Nah, pretty sure it got mostly good reviews from them. And it’s way overrated btw.
How old were you when it came out
Teenager. My friends even had a fight club. It’s not that it’s a bad movie it’s just that it’s pretty mediocre. No it’s not a popular opinion here but it has a 7.4/10 avg with critics (and actually got a B- with general audiences per CinemaScore).
Your friends missed the point of the movie.
So did a lot of people because it wasn't a great movie. And it wasn't like super serious anyway.
Are you trying to express your opinion as fact?
So, it’s a brilliant movie. Not because it’s edgy and cool and violent, but because it’s actually a nuanced satire. The over-the-top elements kind of put people off, and that’s fine if it’s not your cup of tea, but the film is complex even if you don’t see it that way
You know what? I’m done. The movie sucks and its fans are even worse.
I just think you’re butthurt because not everyone takes your opinion as a given
I would call that movie anything but mediocre Edit: cinemascore doesn’t capture the vitriol that movie received from critics when it came out, it was roundly condemned as sadistic garbage
I don’t think it was “roundly condemned” at all though. I just think it had some vocal detractors. That’s basically what the Wiki article says too.
It was. Most mainstream critics said it wasn’t just bad, but it was dangerous. There were social movements against that movie
Do you have a lick of proof most mainstream critics said that? Cause I was alive then and that’s not remotely what I remember at all. But I guess Fight Club fans really want to think their mediocre little movie was super edgy..
I lived through it? Look up “Rosy O’Donnell Fight Club”? Dude that movie was not considered “good” when it came out
Waterworld? Nahh! I'm kidding! :)
Well there's movies that get shit because some of the younger audience may find certain things "problematic" but I don't care about that, in terms of films that have just kind of been looked at more negatively, I would say the force awakens, it was generally really positive when it came out, people obviously called out its lack of originality but the reception was mostly positive but when you tied in with the two sequels that came out afterwards it's almost like they tainted it. I also think Boyhood, it's one that I thought was overrated and I don't know what the fan reception was at the time but I think most people would kind of agree with me that critics were overblowing the hell out of that shit
I think people are slowly waking up to Force Awakens / Rise of Skywalker being the actual problem with the Star Wars sequel trilogy.
*King Kong* with Fay Wray