Poorly-Received Movies That Are Actually Good!

[Master O]

8 hours ago, mhmh said:

Waterworld. 

 

 

Kevin Costner was due a backlash, the hubris was certainly there, and the critics took immense pleasure in watching the disastrous production unfold. 

 

Meanwhile, despite a plot that's a little hokey and derivative, the movie itself is not too bad at all. 

 

It's basically Mad Max on water.

[mhmh]

39 minutes ago, Master O said:

 

It's basically Mad Max on water.

 

Yup, Mad Max 2 for the Atoll siege and Mad Max 3 for the search for Dryland.

[ChaseC7527]

Butterfly Effect (2004) i feel like its a really good movie but seriously underappreciated.

[Rudolph]

9 minutes ago, ChaseC7527 said:

Butterfly Effect (2004) i feel like its a really good movie but seriously underappreciated.

I do not remember the movie being badly received (Wikipedia states that it was), but I reckon it is easily Ashton Kutcher's finest work.

[Rudolph]

You know, I recently got to watch Ed Wood's infamous Plan 9 From Outer Space and it really was not all that bad.

 

Sure, it is cheaply-made and there are some very unintentionally funny bits, but the acting is decent for the most part (minus of course Thor Johnson's) and the writing - and the message it seeks to convey - is not bad when you think about it. That does not make the movie actually good, but it is an interesting watch nonetheless, especially if you approach it as a weird, almost-experimental low-budget project.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Rudolph

[Herr Dethnout]

People say "One Piece is the first live action adaptation of an anime that is good."

That's because they didn't know about Speed Racer... Really a underrated masterpiece.

[Spooner5020]

55 minutes ago, Herr Dethnout said:

People say "One Piece is the first live action adaptation of an anime that is good."

That's because they didn't know about Speed Racer... Really an underrated masterpiece.

I NEVER understood the hate behind this movie. I think truthfully it came out too early!! If it had waited just a few years later people would have eaten this up I think!!

[DankMetal]

I don't care what anyone says, ruby gillman is actually good, and it deserved better

[Xcalibur]

Hudson Hawk: This was excoriated as unfunny, lame, stilted, etc... but it's not bad at all. I could see where you might be put off by the slapstick comedy if you're expecting more serious action, but if you get used to the lighthearted tone, it delivers. The "swingin on a star" segment really stands out with its charm imo.

 

Wild Wild West: Another crucifixion victim that's not bad either. Granted, it's a mindless summer popcorn kinda film, but if you accept that premise, it's fine for what it is. Will Smith puts in a charismatic performance, plenty of cool stuff goin down, and downright decent comedy segments (eg the back & forth of black/cripple jokes).

 

5 hours ago, Rudolph said:

You know, I recently got to watch Ed Wood's infamous Plan 9 From Outer Space and it really was not all that bad.

 

Sure, it is cheaply-made and there are some very unintentionally funny bits, but the acting is decent for the most part (minus of course Thor Johnson's) and the writing - and the message it seeks to convey - is not bad when you think about it. That does not make the movie actually good, but it is an interesting watch nonetheless, especially if you approach it as a weird, almost-experimental low-budget project.

 

Ed Wood's predicament is that he wasn't able to pull it together to make his films fun to watch, he lacked that special something that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. His work, from what I've seen, is competent enough, it's just kinda cheesy and flat, which is a far worse sin than being hilariously bad (eg The Room, Birdemic, Troll 2, et al). Maybe he needed someone to instruct him, or maybe he was born into the wrong generation -- after all, he's better than Rian Johnson, and the cross-dressing is far more accepted nowadays.

[Rudolph]

1 hour ago, Xcalibur said:

after all, he's better than Rian Johnson

Hum, no? XD

 

1 hour ago, Xcalibur said:

the cross-dressing is far more accepted nowadays

Unfortunately, scaremongering about cross-dressing is very much in fashion again, at least in the United States.

[Spooner5020]

56 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

Hudson Hawk: This was excoriated as unfunny, lame, stilted, etc... but it's not bad at all. I could see where you might be put off by the slapstick comedy if you're expecting more serious action, but if you get used to the lighthearted tone, it delivers. The "swingin on a star" segment really stands out with its charm imo.

 

Wild Wild West: Another crucifixion victim that's not bad either. Granted, it's a mindless summer popcorn kinda film, but if you accept that premise, it's fine for what it is. Will Smith puts in a charismatic performance, plenty of cool stuff goin down, and downright decent comedy segments (eg the back & forth of black/cripple jokes).

 

 

Ed Wood's predicament is that he wasn't able to pull it together to make his films fun to watch, he lacked that special something that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. His work, from what I've seen, is competent enough, it's just kinda cheesy and flat, which is a far worse sin than being hilariously bad (eg The Room, Birdemic, Troll 2, et al). Maybe he needed someone to instruct him, or maybe he was born into the wrong generation -- after all, he's better than Rian Johnson, and the cross-dressing is far more accepted nowadays.

Wild Wild West was a fun movie, BUT not a good remake of the fantastic tv show with Robert Conrad!!

[Sena]

J. Edgar, to my knowledge it's the only DiCaprio film following his Titanic stardom that didn't make a profit, but I thought it was pretty good

maybe an interesting case, people can abide by a purely murderous antihero like Walter White, but someone like Hoover who uses creeping legalism and bureaucracy as a weapon instead makes it harder for people to tell whose side the movie's on, which I suspect was the reason for its critical failure

[LadyMistDragon]

The Last Action Hero.

 

It gets attacked for being all over the place tonally and largely stupid, but it's easy imo to appreciate its lampooning of action-flick tropes. It might be one of the best examples of the concept that Arnold can shockingly do comedy quite well (a few moments in the immortal Terminator 2 aside). To say nothing of Charler Dance once again putting on a great villain performance

[Rudolph]

18 minutes ago, LadyMistDragon said:

It gets attacked for being all over the place tonally and largely stupid

It does?

 

I heard it did not do well because it was released around the same time as Jurassic Park, but I thought it was a fun parody of the genre.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Rudolph

[Xcalibur]

6 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Hum, no? XD

 

Unfortunately, scaremongering about cross-dressing is very much in fashion again, at least in the United States.

On the latter: you're conflating things a bit, but I'll avoid that rabbit-hole, since I'd rather stay on topic.

The former: yes, Rian Johnson is worse. For all of Ed Wood's faults, he did not lack sincerity & integrity. He made an honest effort, but had the tragic flaw of not being able to pull it off. The Last Jedi, on the other hand, was a plagiarized hackjob that actively insults the viewer's intelligence, mocking you with its lazy moronicity. At least Plan 9 doesn't do that, and it's original.

6 hours ago, Spooner5020 said:

Wild Wild West was a fun movie, BUT not a good remake of the fantastic tv show with Robert Conrad!!

Point taken.

3 hours ago, LadyMistDragon said:

The Last Action Hero.

 

It gets attacked for being all over the place tonally and largely stupid, but it's easy imo to appreciate its lampooning of action-flick tropes. It might be one of the best examples of the concept that Arnold can shockingly do comedy quite well (a few moments in the immortal Terminator 2 aside). To say nothing of Charler Dance once again putting on a great villain performance

Can't speak on that, but The Last Boy Scout is one of my favorite action flicks. I don't think it was hated on, but it got an iffy reception, only to rightfully become a cult classic later on.

[Rudolph]

9 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

The Last Jedi

Right, and Manos: The Hands of Fate is better than Revenge of the Sith... Come on, now! XD

 

If you are going to negatively compare a Star Wars movie to an Ed Wood production, go with The Star Wars Holiday Special.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Rudolph

[Li'l devil]

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace is actually really good, because Jar-Jar Binx is the best!

[Rudolph]

6 minutes ago, Li'l devil said:

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace is actually really good, because Jar-Jar Binx is the best!

I am detecting sarcasm there, but truth be told, I actually never could bring myself to dislike Episode I. I agree with most of the criticisms levied against it and I would not call it a good movie overall, but of all the Prequels, it is easily the most rewatchable one for me.

 

Incidentally, I did not mind Jar-Jar Binks either, even more so in light of the absurd amount of hatred Ahmed Best got as a result.

[Li'l devil]

I watched the prequel trilogy first and I don't mind it, it does feel weeker than the original trilogy though. I'm not a Star Wars fan tbh. The only SW movie I really liked and rewatched many times is A New Hope, because I really like how simple and "peaceful" it is compared to other SW movies, which are much more actiony. A New Hope has this special feeling to it other movies don't have.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Li'l devil

[Rudolph]

It is also probably the most standalone of them all, probably because nobody was expecting it to be the smashing hit that it became.

[Xcalibur]

13 hours ago, Rudolph said:

Right, and Manos: The Hands of Fate is better than Revenge of the Sith... Come on, now! XD

 

If you are going to negatively compare a Star Wars movie to an Ed Wood production, go with The Star Wars Holiday Special.

The prequels were flawed, but they weren't that bad. At least they made an effort to contribute to the universe & story, and Episode 3 was easily the best of them. I consider Disney Wars to be worse because they're just rehashes and not sequels, on top of their other issues.

 

Obviously the Original Trilogy is absolutely classic cinema, a modern epic. Empire Strikes Back is best, but the story is such that it had to be a sequel, and A New Hope had to be first. I can understand preferring ANH, it really is an amazing film, and not just for nerds. This is especially true of the original cut, which is superior to the specialized version. There are fan edits which restore the original style, I'd recommend Harmy's Despecialized. But yea, it has tight pacing, a narrative thread tying it together, the dramatis personae are introduced and utilized properly, and it builds up to an orgasmic climax.

 

Lol @ the Star Wars Holiday Special. It's rather fascinating in its badness, the way it drags on, the trippy cartoon in the middle, the bizarre gimmicks, and going insane at the end. As I said, Ed Wood's work wasn't hilariously bad (which the Holiday Special veers into), it was just cheesy & flat.

[Li'l devil]

Yeah, I prefer the original cuts much more. Can't watch the remakes after seeing them. No idea which ones I watched though, I guess they were the fan restorations because all original details seemed restored, like the plain Star Wars title in A New Hope, original Emperor Palpatine, etc. Although I wish it was possible to go further and fully restore the pre-release moments like Luke's blue light saber in Revenge of the Jedi and the original human Jabba Hutt. I know too much for a not really a fan, heh.

[Rudolph]

10 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

The prequels were flawed, but they weren't that bad. At least they made an effort to contribute to the universe & story, and Episode 3 was easily the best of them.

I was just teasing you for comparing a Z movie to a random Hollywood blockbuster that you did not like. ;)

 

As far as I am concerned, the Prequels are nothing but good ideas executed poorly and Revenge of the Sith is the worst offender, as it feels like George Lucas took everything that was disappointing or cringe-inducing about the previous films (e.g. the flat acting, the fanservice, the awkward romance, the abundance of walking-and-talking/sitting-on-a-couch scenes, the obvious greenscreened environments, the convoluted action scenes that go on for way too long for what they really amount to, etc.) and cranked it up to eleven. I have rewatched Episode I probably a dozen of times and Episode II maybe half of that amount, but I do not plan on rewatching Revenge of the Sith ever again - at least not from beginning to end - because it is just so boring and exhausting to watch.

 

That being said, I would never genuinely compare it to Manos: The Hands of Fate, because at the end of the day, I reckon that Revenge of the Sith involved a lot more effort, craft and thought than some vanity project by a Texas fertilizer salesman with little to no filmmaking experience. If anything, the only legendary bad film I feel sort of comfortable comparing Revenge of the Sith to would be Tommy Wiseau's The Room, but only for the awkward dialogue scenes, usually set inside an apartment, that feel like they are taken straight out of a sitcom.

 

And even then, a badly-directed Hayden Christensen is still a better actor than Tommy Wiseau... XD

Edited December 30, 2023 by Rudolph

[Xcalibur]

11 hours ago, Rudolph said:

I was just teasing you for comparing a Z movie to a random Hollywood blockbuster that you did not like. ;)

 

As far as I am concerned, the Prequels are nothing but good ideas executed poorly and Revenge of the Sith is the worst offender, as it feels like George Lucas took everything that was disappointing or cringe-inducing about the previous films (e.g. the flat acting, the fanservice, the awkward romance, the abundance of walking-and-talking/sitting-on-a-couch scenes, the obvious greenscreened environments, the convoluted action scenes that go on for way too long for what they really amount to, etc.) and cranked it up to eleven. I have rewatched Episode I probably a dozen of times and Episode II maybe half of that amount, but I do not plan on rewatching Revenge of the Sith ever again - at least not from beginning to end - because it is just so boring and exhausting to watch.

 

That being said, I would never genuinely compare it to Manos: The Hands of Fate, because at the end of the day, I reckon that Revenge of the Sith involved a lot more effort, craft and thought than some vanity project by a Texas fertilizer salesman with little to no filmmaking experience. If anything, the only legendary bad film I feel sort of comfortable comparing Revenge of the Sith to would be Tommy Wiseau's The Room, but only for the awkward dialogue scenes, usually set inside an apartment, that feel like they are taken straight out of a sitcom.

 

And even then, a badly-directed Hayden Christensen is still a better actor than Tommy Wiseau... XD

 

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the Revenge of the Sith, which imo nearly redeemed the prequels, which were otherwise lacking in execution as you said.

 

As for TLJ, it had good special effects, but that's all I can say. Much of it is plagiarized from Episode V and some of VI, alongside an episode of Battlestar Galactica and some sci-fi film from 2009, et al. To call it 90% plagiarized is not unreasonable. That, and its disregard for storytelling and disrespect for the lore, is why I hate on it and consider it one of the worst films ever made; at least Z films usually had a sincere, original effort behind them. However, I'd rather not delve further into that controversy from 2017, so I'll leave it at that.

[Rudolph]

12 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

To call it 90% plagiarized is not unreasonable.

First of all, rehashing material from your own IP is not plagiarism and secondly, you do realize you are talking about Star Wars, a franchise that does nothing but rehash itself. That is why a show like Andor took everyone by surprise because of how different it was.

 

12 hours ago, Xcalibur said:

at least Z films usually had a sincere, original effort behind them

Not really.

 

Usually, they were slapped-together hack jobs, oftentimes made to capitalize on a trend, so the movie theaters back in the days had always something to show to its paying customers. They eventually found a new life as straight-to-video/DVD movies for video rental stores, pay television and streaming services. It is not so different from the clickbait/AI-generated content that plagues YouTube nowadays.

 

Movies like Who Killed Captain Alex? are sadly the exceptions, not the norm, and Michel Gondry's Be Kind, Rewind is not a documentary.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Rudolph

[Xcalibur]

Star Wars: Plagiarism is debatable, especially since Disney took over the IP, so legally it isn't, but spiritually is another matter. My concern is that the sequel trilogy did nothing to advance the story, so that they're not really sequels at all -- they're reboots, and their lack of respect for the source material is something I object to.

 

Z movies: You're more familiar with this topic than myself, so I'll take your word on it. My knowledge of the genre is mainly from MST3k.

[hybridial]

29 minutes ago, Xcalibur said:

Star Wars: Plagiarism is debatable, especially since Disney took over the IP, so legally it isn't, but spiritually is another matter. My concern is that the sequel trilogy did nothing to advance the story, so that they're not really sequels at all -- they're reboots, and their lack of respect for the source material is something I object to.

 

That closely matches my position. I was completely done with them watching The Force Awakens at the cinema because I knew as I watched it, not right from the beginning but around where Rey and Finn end up on the Millennium Falcon that it was turning into a bad version of the original Star Wars. Like a really bad one, because when you regurgitate a story without the logic that that story even had you get utter slop. 

 

I would say after that the other two movies had no chance, because what they should have done was something new, with a strong foundation set up in the first movie, and we did not get that. 

 

Otherwise Disney are just desperate to justify the money they spent on releasing constant TV shows, which bad or good, have just turned Star Wars into just another IP. I mean Lucas tarnished it pretty badly with the sequels, but now it is just another money driven shitshow. 

 

[Rudolph]

Since we are on a Star Wars tangent, I have taken the liberty to post a response in a different thread.

[lafoxxx]

Soylent Green.

Low-budget dystopian movie from 1973 with somewhat boring story, but interesting setting (possibly because based on book). Also that crowd control bulldozer scene.

 

Edited January 12 by lafoxxx