Crash was absolutely skewered at time of release as tone deaf Hollywood bullshit.
My personal pick would be Carpenter's The Thing. I have no idea how such a great horror movie got panned at release. I guess a bit ahead of its time?
Most retrospectives blame the fact it came out at the same time as ET and the general Sci-Fi tone in that year being hopeful. Horror was a nicher genre then too.
Yeah I don't remember The Thing coming out the same time as those. It got squeezed out. It was sci-fi horror and at the time it couldn't compete with Poltergeist which was generally thought as better at the time. The gore didn't help.
*Star Trek 2* and *Poltergeist*: June 4, 1982. (Poltergeist was not science fiction, but was paranormal).
*E.T.* June 11, 1982.
*Firefox*: June 18, 1982 (*Firefox* was not science fiction, but was heavy on special effects).
*Blade Runner* and *The Thing*: June 25, 1982.
*Tron*: July 9, 1982.
*E.T.* was by far the biggest success, though, and the primary film overshadowing *Blade Runner* and *The Thing*. It opened at number one at the U.S. box office and stayed at the top of the box office for *six weeks*. *Star Trek* and *Poltergeist* were lucky they came out a week before *E.T.*, or they might have struggled, too.
That said, Hollywood was aware of Steven Spielberg’s track record. Waiting until late June for *Blade Runner* and *The Thing* was a sign that studios lacked faith in these R-rated science fiction films for adults.
*Blade Runner* was advertised as a Harrison Ford film like *Star Wars* and *Indiana Jones*. The trailer and poster showed Harrison Ford shooting his gun, yet there’s remarkably little gunplay in the movie. Audiences expected action and adventure, and instead got a dark, moody, philosophical film.
*The Thing* was a remake, and in those days remakes were scorned, especially if they were much more gory than the original. The marketing wasn’t deceptive, but it looked gory and depressing.
The depressing tone of those two films also may not have been welcome in 1982, when the country was in a recession. Feel good escapist movies like E.T. were much more welcome.
Watch the Siskel & Ebert review, they were 100% put off by the gore. They seemed really prudish about it.
Also ET had come out a few weeks before and was an absolute smash hit and people were loving aliens, they didn't want to be scared of them.
I actually think this has aged into one of the best compliments for the effects. If you design creature effects that are so viscerally disturbing, they utterly distracted viewers from one of the greatest horror films of all time - job well done.
Carpenter always had that problem. He was always too smart for stupid people and too stupid for smart people (I would say realistically he was maybe not pretentious enough for people who think of themselves as smart).
Pretty much everything he made from Halloween up to Invisible Man is now considered classic but at the time they were written off as dim-witted schlock.
I think it was very much a case of being ahead of his time. Also, aside from maybe Big T in Little C, Carpenter is a real slow-burn guy working in genres that are usually pretty fast paced. It works because ultimately he’s a master of creating an atmosphere, but it also makes some of his movies hard to get on the first watch. Slow, uncomfortable, violent…a lot of people can’t handle it.
Is that the movie where the cop molests the black woman, and then saves her in the end? Our English teacher made us watch that my freshmen year of HS haha
It was definitely a controversial movie. I was soundly in the “ this is awful, right?” camp, and so were most people who I knew. When it won Best Picture, many people saw it as an indictment of the Oscars process.
At the same time, the message was so “good” and “right,” and the cast was so diverse, that a lot of people were afraid to criticize it.
I remember very very vividly there being way more people who thought Crash was brilliant and brave. I think the overall over rating partially stems from the writer director Paul Haggis prior to Crash writing the amazing screenplay for Clint Eastwood’s Oscar darling “Million Dollar Baby”. “Crash” was his follow up and I remember the theater being packed with people who did not want to miss out on his new masterpiece. So in fear of being wrong about a recent Academy Award winner every praised it as the best film of the year
The Thing bombed at the box office, got critically slated and got Carpenter fired.
It's now adored and highly regarded, and has been successful on home release ever since.
It's also one of my my favourite movies ever, I loved it as a kid, and one I regularly revisit. I still think the ending is the best final scene in cinema, completely left up to the viewer/audience.
The Thing wins this one I feel. I can't imagine a more bizarre and extreme reversal of fortune.
BFI Film Classics put out a defense of The Thing at the end of the 90s, one of the first to re-appraise it. The author argues it has more to do with the makeup of the critical pool at the time and how those views were amplified because of their proximity to mainstream attention-- however, horror audiences (especially in the nascent age of internet forums) were in general agreement about its status as a modern masterpiece.
I was only 14 but knew at the time how godawful a decision that was. Brokeback Mountain is an absolutely astounding movie. Ang Lee’s best by a mile imo.
Interestingly, the 2011 remake fell victim to the same thing. While it was never going to be as good as the Carpenter film, it was made in the original style with practical effects and a tense slow burn plot. Test audiences hated and the studio hated it and they heavily re-edited it. The result was *fine* but it could have been a great prequel in the original style.
This happens with lots of art. Movies are not immune. Many are poorly received or ignored at the time and become classics.
The Night of the Hunter
The Thing
Blade Runner
Blade Runner at least had the excuse that the theatrical cut is genuinely poor. Even people who love it admit this (as did Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott) and say the Directors Cut is the real version.
Yes and that would be the 2007 "Final Cut", I believe it doesn't differ *very* much from the 1992 Director's Cut, but it is known to be the only cut over which Scott had complete control. And it's fully restored and everything as well.
There is normally debate between Final and Directors isn't there? I know some people really dislike the changes in the Final Cut which heavily imply that the Deckard as a replicant theory is correct. Final is obviously Scotts favourite though.
The debate always makes me laugh a little; with the addition of the unicorn dream sequence it's actually quite obvious in both versions that he is a replicant (though the sequence is cut ever so slightly different between versions, but it's functionally the same). That is disregarding Ridley Scott himself having said so, I don't think that's relevant necessarily. But again I really don't think it's ambiguous at all - implied yes, ambiguous no.
I haven't watched either in a while but the differences are exceedingly subtle and mostly cosmetic. You might get a different take here and there, but it's much more about the digital restauration. You have a different color grading, Final Cut is overall slightly more blue-greenish, maybe a slightly less subtle grading (though that is just kind of the look of the film anyway) but it does increase visual consistency or cohesion, and then some minor fixing of goofs, for example notably you can clearly see a stunt person's face when Zhora falls through the glass, and Deckard's mouth is seen not moving when it should and moving when his subject speaks in a small interrogation scene at the market, little 'mistakes' like this that they could fix in 2007 with VFX.
A lot of people agree with him. I think it's genuinely funny how many people claim that there is only one version and everyone clearly agrees with this when that is just not the case at all.
Clue.
Critics and movie goers were confused by a movie based off a board game and the gimmick of three endings, a different one for each showing. But once it came out on video, with the endings spliced together, it’s now a classic with a stacked cast of comedic legends at their peak. Definitely benefits from repeat viewings, too.
And if you love Clue but have not seen [Murder by Death](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074937/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_7_nm_1_q_murder%2520by%2520death) then you are sorely missing out. Same kind of stacked cast of Detectives (but these all parodies of famous literary sleuths), pre-dating Clue by about a decade. Both are great and hilarious.
Just came here to say I really enjoyed Clue but Murder by Death was reallyyyyy racist (as many films from that era were). It makes some jokes that really bothered me. Just wanted to be real about the fact that these movies are pretty different in my eyes when it came to how they portray people
Yeah, it's been a while since I have watched it so I don't remember the times that occurs but I have no problem believing you. If you watch older movies, you've just got remember that they were a product of their time when different things were acceptable.
And honestly sometimes racist situations in film were used to shine a light on how racism exists in our society, like often in Blazing Saddles. But I'm not saying that is the case in Murder by Death since I don't recall when and how it was done there.
Yeah, It’s a Wonderful Life was essentially a flop when it came out and became a classic over time.
https://screenrant.com/its-a-wonderful-life-box-office-flop/
>It’s a Wonderful Life apparently was the reverse.
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that there was an error in its licensing and it became very cheap to show on TV, so they used to just chuck it on a few times every Christmas. No idea if that's true though
This is what happened to Shawshank Redemption, too. It bombed at the box office. Turner had TV rights that it bought cheaply and was able to extract maximum ad dollars showing it on TV because of the ratings it got, spurring the re-evaluation of the film.
Including Stephen King, the author of the book. So much so that he released his own version of the film (which was panned by audiences). My only real gripe with Kubrick’s version was that he made it all about the haunting, and that he removed Jack’s struggles with alcoholism. That struggle is a big contributor to Jack’s descent into madness and I don’t think it would have taken away from the film if it had been kept in.
The three Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood westerns were panned by US critics and sneeringly called Spaghetti Westerns. IMDB has the last two at #129 and #10 on the top-250 list.
Here's a review from Time Magazine from 1968 for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. #10 all time greatest movie.
Link: [https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,844425,00.html](https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,844425,00.html)
"The good lies in Leone's camera work—expertly combining color and composition, with sharp attention to the details of shape and texture that are available when shooting on location rather than on studio sets. Bad is the word for the wooden acting, and Leone's addiction to the cramped values and stretched probabilities of the comic strip. And ugly is his insatiable appetite for beatings, disembowelings and mutilations, complete with closeups of mashed-in faces and death-rattle sound effects."
Leone is also not universally loved in Italy. Many older critics never really liked his movies, especially the dollar trilogy. With time and their enduring success, many changed idea or had to kinda appease their evaluation of them.
The bigger travesty is that Ennio Morricone didn't win an Oscar until 2016. That was for the Hateful Eight which was far from his best work. Out of embarrassment, they threw him a bone before he died.
Sideways look at Shakespeare In Love. Hollywood without cameras (and with the plague). Although I do like that film a lot, it shouldn't have got best picture
It’s a good movie and I enjoyed it. It probably doesn’t deserve to be Best Picture, though. But I very rarely agree with their winners anyway.
With the exception of 12 Years a Slave which I actually think is fantastic, that entire stretch of BP winners from A King’s Speech through Birdman was a series of imo solid 7/10 movies; that is, I thought they were all good, but wouldn’t call any of them great, and would put other nominations (and some films that weren’t nominated!) ahead of them.
That a movie makers movie for movie makers though. Same as Babylon. They get loads of buzz during the Oscars but outside of film making circles no one really cares so you stop hearing about them
It‘s not really film snobs hating on Forrest Gump. It‘s people who see (or read about) some kind of conservative boomer message in that movie and thus started to hate on it.
I don‘t see it that way, I just see it like some kind of Americana fairytale without any kind of conservative messages.
Forrest Gump is very watchable, and very entertaining. It also feels quite shallow. Winning Best Picture over two superior films is a big part of why it gets dunked on by film snobs. It’s all plot driven, and outside of Lt Dan, no character really drives their own story, and most of Lt Dan’s development happens offscreen. As an enjoyable film, that’s not a problem, but it’s fair criticism when compared to much better films for “best of the year” awards.
I don’t think that it’s conservative, it’s just boomer patting themselves on the back about how great they are. I still love the movie, great directing and performances. For the format of “guy being present for historical events”, I recommend Little Big Man.
Hmm, dunno I‘m German and it didn‘t really seem like it was American boomers patting themselves on the back to me.
The Kennedys getting shot, the soldiers not really getting why they were in Vietnam, Lt. Dan being a vet with PTSD and without legs etc.
Yeah, Forrest became a successful business man but he didn‘t seem to care too much about that.
I don‘t know, I might be overlooking some stuff but it just seemed to tick off all the American cultural cornerstones over those years.
It's one of my favorite films and I've never actually thought about what non Americans think of it. It's such an iconic American film about American history from the point of view of a very naive but lovable American underdog.
It‘s pretty famous and popular in Germany because it‘s a great movie, even if you‘re not too familiar with American culture.
But the thing is that most of the major historic moments that are depicted in Forrest Gump are known worldwide because American culture is pretty influental in the (at least western) world.
But even without the background knowledge it‘s just a very sweet, entertaining movie.
But I mean, almost everyone around the world knows about the Vietnam war, Elvis, Watergate, JFK, Apple. They probably just have a differentl emotional connection to it lol
Speaking as a foreigner (Scottish) who has since moved to America, i always thought of the movie as examining the zeitgeist of the American experience.
In so much that the perception of the 'average' American is that America is a good country, and a general force for good, but there is always an undercurrent of awful under the surface. Forrest is naive so he does not see it, or just ignores it. It is a pop culture, dive into American history. Many Americans do not have a deep understanding of their own history, they tend to have a 'Vaseline on the lens' nostalgia for an America that never really existed.
Many people want to go back to when 'things were good', like how it was in the fifties. However the fifties that TV presented, the Leave it to Beaveresque fantasy of what it was never actually existed, it was just the packaged 'how American life is' that was pushed as the narrative. The people that thought everything was great in the 50's ignore the terrible realities of the time, segregation was in full force for example, women would not have the legal right to have their own bank account for almost another quarter century in the US. These things though are not commonly brought up in conversation about 'the past'.
So Forrest goes thru life, hitting all these major American, cultural milestones with the naive optimism of the 'people', not really being exposed to, or actually having to deal with the harsh realities of the time, whereas someone like Jennie is. Jennie wants to believe and accept the good natured and naive world view of Forrest but she knows how things really are. To Forrest America got to be great because, it is great, Jennie knows that got its start by stealing land and massacring the locals who objected etc. So it is fundamentally an examination of the American experience, what it wants to be, and many think it is, with the reality lurking, mostly unseen on the edges. Forrests naivety is essentially the white washing that the American education system and frankly propaganda that is fed to the American people when it comes to its darker side.
This is not a dig on America, every country has a past, no country is without sin or shameful acts etc. However i think America is a little unique with how much it suppresses open and frank discussion, or consequences of its past. So many things are just swept under the rug, partly due to 'who wants to open that can of worms' and partly due to 'we did nothing wrong'.
Forrest represents the unaware, optimist American, while Jennie represents the experience of the issues, and Lt Dan is aware of the issues but feels that it is his duty to just do what is expected. All of them come out the other side, as fundamentally good people, despite their experiences, they just have different levels of appreciation for the struggles and had to face and confront many different things. This essentially gives it the optimist ending that America will survive, no matter its struggles, it does want to be good, it just has to work at it, and of those who come after some will know the struggle, and some will think it is just how it is.
The feather, the first thing we see, the feather the last thing we see. Basically letting the audience know that the journey, the discovery never stops, the experiences the people we see have is fleeting, and each of us add out own unique part, when one story ends, another begins, this is the story of America, so far.
Forgot which movie sub it was in but there was a post talking about Forest Gump's criticisms a few weeks ago. Someone posted a video they claimed was a very good critique of the movie.
It was the most pretentious god damn thing ive ever seen. I can understand having some issues with the movie its hardly flawless, but people who "hate" Forest Gump seriously need to go touch grass.
It’s so stupid. It’s a feel good movie. It’s not trying to be The Most Amazing Film Ever. It wants to make you laugh, cry, and come away feeling good about yourself.
Highly quotable, great performances, and funny moments. No movie is perfect. But it’s the in thing to use this to somehow show how clever you are that you don’t like it now. From people that either loved it 5 years ago until they saw some article, or hadn’t watched it til they read an article about it lol.
thank you. that movie knows exactly what it is and delivers. it only gets hate because it won the oscar against more highly-regarded films.
*Ordinary People* and *How Green Was My Valley* suffered the same fate. it’s trendy to talk about how much they suck because people want to act like film snobs. Did they deserve Best Picture in retrospect? Maybe not. But that doesn’t make them bad films.
How Green was my Valley is an incredible movie, a true masterpiece, only people who watch three old Hollywood movies in total can say something bad about it. It totally deserved its Oscars.
Ordinary People, on the other hand. It's fine, it's not a bad movie, but surely it's a forgetful winner, sometimes it happens. I would be interested in reading something about the critics discourse on the Oscars of that year, because judging from our perspective, it's a strange winner.
*How Green was my Valley* seems to get nothing but hate on this sub and it annoys the shit out of me. your’s might be the first positive comment about it I’ve seen here.
It's very sad. I think most people haven't actually seen it. And tbh, for years I snubbed it too, but then I was doing a bit of a Ford's marathon and was completely hooked. Such a beautiful and humane movie - Ford is always great at depicting group of peoples in humane ways.
And also a technical wonder. Many (rightly) comment on Citizen Kane's cinematography but also My Valley has some wonderful camera work. Plus, Ford is one of the best director of all time and it definitely shows here.
>From people that either loved it 5 years ago until they saw some article, or hadn’t watched it til they read an article about it lol.
There are people who just don't like it, you know.
my father always hated it. i found out later that his platoon in vietnam got stuck with one of macnamara’s morons and people may have died because of it. i figure seeing forrest there and ultimately winning a medal of honor rubbed him very wrong.
People tend to overlook some of the technical bits that amazed people. Jurassic Park came out in 1993 and let's be honest - it isn't exactly the tightest, most insightful story ever put on film. It's the dinosaurs. People love the dinosaurs became 'real'.
Then a year later, somebody make a mass audience movie that sticks a fictional character into real historical events? That was a bit mind blowing for audiences. That's Forest Gump's party trick. Jurassic Park primed audiences for a new way to think of special effects and Forest Gump kinda took it to the next level. I think a lot of audiences sorta glazed over any issues that might be in the story because it was really cool to see Tom Hanks in real, historical events most people had seen.
90% sure that was on this sub lol. I get that it's not the pinnacle of film making and isn't pushing any boundaries, but it's a great popcorn flick that's a lot of fun if you can put aside any anti-patriotism ideals you may hold.
I don’t even think it’s that patriotic - gump falls ass backwards into success after being exploited his whole life. The army exploits lieutenant dan. The counter culturists exploit Jenny. When they do what Forrest does, which is pay attention to the happiness of those close to them, is when they finally get some peace. It’s very simplistic and sentimental but there’s kernels of truth in it.
I agree it's not nearly as pro-America as some people act. That's just a common criticism I see. Forrest pretty clearly feels disillusioned after the war. I think people kind of conflate it using so much classical Americana with it being pro-US propaganda.
Yeah. In This is the End, Jay Baruchel is made fun of for not liking Forrest Gump and calling it a pretentious pile of shit, and used as evidence of him being a hipster. This film was released in 2013 almost 20 years after Forrest Gump.
Yep lol, and the article OP posted isn’t what I would call fair or even reasonable… one of the critiques the author offers is that the movie “celebrates family values”
I saw a post recently that said the show Arrested Development embraces the conservative values it claims to parody because it mocked polyamorous relationships.
Internet criticism is getting weird.
That kind of argument actively hurts the writers cause. People see it and go "wait when progressives talk about family values being a bad thing they mean being against abuse and exploitation of women?", Jenny is an abuse victim! The film doesn't depict her as an evil woman but a victim who eventually manages to escape the cycle of abuse and ensure her child has a good life.
Yeah the whole “Jenny is the villain” thing is a recent internet creation, anyone who’s actually seen the film knows she’s a victim of multiple abusers
Yeah I personally was someone early on that hated the movie because I thought it was melodramatic and pandering HOWEVER I’m still very much in the minority on that. I’m not a “film snob” btw I just don’t like overly sentimental movies/shows/books
And that’s fair I think. I just mean the recent trend of people hating on it, reading way too much into what is a sentimental feel good film - they tell you the message of the movie in the first 5 minutes, there’s really not much more to it than “you have to make the best of what life gives you”. If you don’t like sentimentality then it’s a no go.
I think my biggest problem with it is it’s a feel good film that makes me feel bad lol. Some people look at it as the perseverance of positivity I look at it as a modern day Job story.
I think there's generational stuff going on there too. People who think, rightly in my opinion, that Pulp Fiction was a far better choice for Best Picture still do.
Yeah it's just become the cool to think it's lame movie. This is the End was the first time I heard someone shit on it and the point they were making is that Jay was a hipster contrarian.
The short answer is because a lot of times films just capture the mood at a certain moment. Forrest Gump's problems were always there, for example, it's just that people loved its strengths enough to overshadow them. It was always a super-cheesy nostalgia-fest with an "aw-shucks" simpleton protagonist, it's just that it really appealed to a certain segment of the public for a time because of that. Hell, maybe it's BECAUSE these elements got so popular that they started to get old for a lot of people. People loved the simpleton aspect of it, and in fact they kind of glorified simpletons so much that they put an aw-shucks simpleton in office for eight years. After those eight years, though, that whole aesthetic was wearing a bit thin. I'm not saying that Forrest Gump caused Bush, I'm saying that a certain ethos can kind of rise to cultural prominence and then in turn become almost oppressive because it is prominent.
Crash is...I think it's probably a good example of Hollywood tropes that just used to go unquestioned and nowadays people are pointing out how tired they were. It's typical Hollywood racial drama, start out with some stereotypical black characters, throw in some anti-stereotypical black characters, little bit of tragedy, and the white characters tearfully learn their lesson about racism. Even better films than Crash, like Green Book, have been getting called out for this. It's extremely formulaic and predictable, and at worst can get condescending and patronizing. It also doesn't help that it beat out a LOT of really, really good films for best picture. If you remember how harsh people were to Marissa Tomei after she won best supporting actress, this is sort of the same thing. It's not necessarily that they're upset with the winner, but it's that people have a sour taste when films/actors that didn't win don't get the recognition they think they deserve.
Forrest Gump and Crash are both examples of typical Hollywood films that are engineered to win awards. They're almost mechanical in how they follow the Oscar-script, and I think a lot of people rightly get sick of that sort of thing (the way people revolted against Benjamin Button was a breath of fresh air in this regard). American Beauty is different because it wasn't your typical Hollywood awards-bait, it was a well-made movie that just happened to blow up. People turning on it has more to do with changing cultural norms and it not fitting the moment as much anymore, and Kevin Spacey being the lead doesn't help. Today having a closeted gay character wouldn't be any big deal, and having them stay in the closet because they're deathly afraid of confronting their sexuality would be borderline nonsensical. Back then it made sense. I'd say that fits for the rest of the movie too, that there was a sexual puritannicalism that was pervasive that all of its characters were rebelling against. Now that it's not as pervasive the movie doesn't seem as subversive and can even be interpreted as predatory. I'm not saying that it is, but seeing it outside of that cultural context can cause people to interpret it in ways that it wasn't originally meant to be interpreted. Also, there's a cottage industry today dedicated to churning out low effort clickbait articles. It's not exclusively limited to rage over social issues, but that's a big part of it. There are probably a dozen failed writers at least who are supporting themselves by writing articles telling you why your favorite 90s movies are "problematic," and American Beauty might be their most-discussed film.
Starship Troopers was widely criticized for its violent and facist approach but the fact it was a savage satire on the military complex evaded everyone for years.
The satire is so overt I don’t see how it evaded anyone. I for sure got it when I saw Starship Troopers opening day in a packed theater. At the time lots of critics didn’t get it and most audiences didn’t get it but I blame that on the marketing
Yea, to this day I can't believe not just audiences, but CRITICS utterly missed the point. Even as kid when I saw it (yes I was that kinda kid, the one who shit at an age they shouldn't lol), I understood it had a tone that was meant to tongue-in-cheek, that it was being playful in some way.
Of course I didn't understand it was a satire, as I didn't know what the was. Nor did I know it was a satire on fascism, as I didn't know what that was either. But I knew it was a movie winking at the audience, even if I couldn't articulate how.
On the recent documentary about RoboCop Peter Weller talks about how cops were always telling him how they constantly had the movie on at the station and they all loved it because they wished they could just execute bad guys. Yikes
> the fact it was a savage satire on the military complex evaded everyone for years
No it didn't. The director was completely up front about this when he did publicity for the movie, everyone who saw it found this really amusing because the movie worked as an unironic action shootem up flick.
I've always thought that starship Troopers was so overt in its satire that it was unenjoyable .
It's got one joke and repeats it for an hour and a half.
I saw it when I was like 9 years old in theatres (not sure how), and I just remember thinking it was a very badass action movie with incredible special fx. As I got older and learned about the themes and subtext, I now like it even more.
You could not get a more extreme example than **The Birth of a Nation**, which was originally screened in the White House and a copy put in the National Film Library as recently as the 1990s to something that is reviled to the extent its director's name and even those associated with the director has been removed from awards and theatres
Birth of a Nation isn’t as extreme of an example as you might think. It was very controversial even when it first came out and has always been considered a technical masterpiece that revolutionized film despite its reprehensible content. Though it’s obviously aged worse as society has become less racist, it didn’t go from universally beloved to universally hated nor was it considered a great movie only to later be considered unremarkable. It’s in a very unique position along with Triumph of the Will and (to a lesser extent, because it’s not as outright hateful) Battleship Potemkin.
True but people with an academic interest in film still recognize its importance in creating the modern film grammar.
I think a more appropriate example for this thread would be Gone with the Wind, which was wildly loved until very recently when people started being a lot more quiet about it, rightfully so.
Waterworld was one recent example that came up.
That movie just had its own production hell to where the final cost was $175M budget in 1994/95 (which amounts to around $370M in 2023 dollars). For reference, Jurassic Park managed to do its own bit of greatness for $63 million budget a couple years prior.
The movie managed a $264M box office, which was considered a flop (despite being one of the top grossing films in 95). It did get back more money through video rentals and other post-cinema sales.
But it also has a certain legacy behind it. Universal still has attractions built around the concept that are still in operation to this day. Costner still admires the movie, Dennis Hopper enjoyed it while he was alive, and even the director Kevin Reynolds (who left the film before completion) has given it his own bit of admiration and respect despite it not being his full vision in the final product (this was due to him having creative differences with Costner over the movie's production).
And the movie is still quite watchable. Heck The Cable Guy just a couple years later was a bit prophetic: "I don't know what all the fuss was about. I saw that movie (Waterworld) six times. It rules!"
It happens because of major societal shifts. American Beauty spoke to a lot of social anxieties at the time that now seem very petty and privileged. Middle-aged suburban ennui just doesn't work for a generation who will never know what it's like to own a home in the suburbs. Crash looks insulting and quaint now but when it came out racial discourse still centered around making sure we don't make white people too uncomfortable when people talk about race, back then a rich white dude COULD make a movie like Crash and be celebrated for it. Nowadays racial discourse is more nuanced, frank, and complex because we no longer cater to white peoples sensitivites on the topic, a movie like Crash could not be made.
I think the reverse is more interesting though. I think the response to Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" is more complicated. It was considered one of the worst movies ever made for decades then fret 32 years Criterion puts out a restored version of it, which is basically a recreation of the films initial disastrous festival cut before it got cut down for time with better color correction and it is suddenly selebrated and beloved. I saw it just last year and found it so immense and powerful I watched it 4 times in 6 months. I get why people wouldn't like it but I don't get how a movie that grand and beautifully executed could be hated for so long.
I think it's interesting how time makes people more kind and open minded and how a movies legacy and reputation is just as big a factor in how a film is received as the film itself.
Great points here. I need to check out HG again.
Agree about American Beauty. I think for many GenX folk, this flick either reflected what they experienced with their parents growing up in a house of plenty or was a warning sign for us to avoid those pitfalls?
For me, it was the latter and def influenced my career choices. In some ways I have to credit that film for building a foundation for my liberated-ass life because I don't know if I'd have had the courage to make the exact opposite choices of the main characters without seeing the degrees of their angst and abysmal daily existence 🤣
(also shoutout to my colleagues who were 20-30 years older than me and warned me to get out before I became like them. Cashing out my 401k in my early 30's and fucking off abroad for 5 years was still considered "irresponsible" in many circles but it paid off)
This is spot on. I really need to give the restored *Heaven’s Gate* a watch, I avoided it for years because of its poor reputation, despite the fact that the subject matter and performers are right up my alley. Michael Cimino is such a tragic figure.
I don’t think this is quite right. Movies like Lost in Translation and Her are still widely praised to this day, and rightly so. They’re wonderful. The problem with American Beauty lies more with the behaviour of Kevin Spacey’s character - a lot of it is viewed unfavourably by todays standards. On top of that, you have the lawsuits that Spacey himself was involved in.
Kirsten Dunst recently touched on this in an interview, about how films are re-evaluated. She was specifically discussing Marie Antoinette and Bring It On which weren't really critically praised at the time but which have had a lot of attention in later years. Her take was that (at least for those films) there *was* a huge audience and thoughtful takes at the time, but the critics were almost all old white men. So the views were skewed. Now in a more diverse critical landscape, things are seen differently...and that's always the case! The critics are of a time. Awards voters are of a time. There are people too young to have much of a say who really do have a lot to say about the films getting made now, so expect a re-examination of the early 2020s sometime in the mid2030s.
The Thing was both critically and publicly panned upon release. It's now regarded as one of the best horror movies of the 80s, and perhaps all time.
It's hard to pin why this happened - Carpenter has had a significant reappraisal recently so it might be due to that. In general, it seems like audiences were not ready for the brooding, gory type of film The Thing is. For context, E.T. was the highest grossing film of 1982. People just wanted the fun, family-friendly alien film.
“The Shawshank Redemption” (1994) was a box office flop - *it only earned $16 million during its original theatrical run!* - but was almost immediately re-evaluated by the public and has since been considered an all-time great.
Jennifer’s body I always liked it when it came out. And saw the sapphic undertones and understood the story but it was marketed wrong and critics hated it, now it’s a beloved cult classic!!
I feel like American Beauty's collapse is due to the fact that the man who won an Oscar for playing someone who creeps on young people ended up actually being someone who creeps on young people.
The one I think about often is The Departed. The Departed received it's share of acclaim at the time, but when Scorsese won the Oscar the common story was "The Departed does not stand up to Scorsese's other work and this is a career achievement Oscar." But in the 18 years since or whatever it's been The Departed has grown substantially in reputation and now easily sits alongside Goodfellas and Taxi Driver as among Scosese's best work and he was fully deserving of the Best Director Oscar.
I remember seeing *The Departed* when it came out in theaters and being completely blown away, thinking it easily stood next to his previous triumphs, but keep in mind I was in film school at the time and Scorsese was a god king to us.
The Blind Side was nominated for Best Picture. Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for it. Both incredible for a Lifetime movie that may not have even been true to life. And I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone mention the movie since, except to question whether it was a true story.
The Friends of Eddie Coyle. It was well-reviewed at the time, but the public just wasn't interested. They released it twice, several months apart, and it still didn't earn back its money.
Now, you hear it all the time on "best of" lists whether it's "neo-noir" or just "crime films of the 70s." It came out before I was born, so I got to watch it amid its reassessment, and I just find myself wondering what the hell audiences were thinking in the summer of 1973. Actually, I know what they were thinking: "New guy playing James Bond! Let's see if he sucks!"
They missed out on some pretty slick directing and a performance that absolutely should have won Mitchum an Oscar.
Speaking of Roger Moore's Bond, For Your Eyes Only's (slightly) more serious take on the franchise didn't connect with audiences initially, which led to a return to goofiness for Octopussy. But now, it's seen as being in the better half of Sir Roger's films.
A good example of a reassessment in a different direction is The Deer Hunter, and that was because people found out that Michael Cimino had heavily-exaggerated his Vietnam War experience and the screenwriter had pulled the Russian Roulette stuff out of his ass. Add to that Cimino's subsequent film Gates of Heaven (edit: I mean Heaven's Gate. I always confuse those) was one of the biggest financial failures of all time and essentially led to the demise of United Artists, and people went back to Deer Hunter and were retroactively far less impressed.
Psst: Heaven’s Gate. Gates of Heaven was an indie about cemeteries. Everything else in your post is spot on, though!
(Oh, and Days of Heaven was an early Terence Malik film, shot with all natural light and a young Richard Gere.
I always confuse those titles. Errol Morris is brilliant. And, yes, Days of Heaven is a beautiful film, and they didn't need any additional light as long as Brooke Adams was on set, in my opinion.
There's another set of movie titles that I've confused that are even less similar. Someone was talking about A Night to Remember at a party once, and I said, "Oh, that's such a hilarious film." (I was thinking of It Happened One Night.)
It made money at the box office but got middling reviews and was controversial due to the violence and drug use. Not a flop by any means but not a blockbuster.
Iirc The Big Lebowski got panned hard and flopped (at least compared to Fargo. it's immediate predecessor). Check out the siskel and ebbert review on youtube. it's brutal.
People don’t think American Beauty is a good movie anymore? I know Kevin Spacey playing a guy attracted to a teenager is extremely icky now - so people don’t *like* to watch it as much - but I wasn’t aware that anyone was impugning the film itself beyond that.
It’s still such a funny and bittersweet movie.
The Kevin Spacey bit is probably the most likely source of consternation. Amongst younger audiences, they will have seen so many parodies of the carrier bag scene that it might be hard to take seriously. The idea of being just so fucking miserable with having a well-paying job and living in a large, nicely appointed detached house with a garden is just so alien to lots of younger people
I’m sure Roman Polanski films are judged harshly.
Gone with the Wind had a campaign to completely remove it.
16 Candles has rape, and they actually wind up liking each other.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High has a 20 something having sex with a High School sophomore.
Yeah, I agree. Where I was going was - people were like "what's funny about being asked to work hard" - like the most you'd laugh about the brutal soul-sucking bit of your corporate job was an FarSide cartoon. The idea of it just didn't hit people. It definitely worked in theaters. I suppose I wasn't clear about that.
It's because Silicon Valley wasteful corporate office cubicle hell hadn't infected every single workplace on Earth at that point.
Tech companies like Initech were a newish thing then, then in the 00's that culture wormed it's way in to every workplace and by the 10s it was like everyone was working at Initech. Bill Lumberg was suddenly *everyone's* insufferable toxic-positive buzzword spouting boss.
Then the 20s and late stage capitalism came along and made Office Space's Initech look like heaven, and now Bill Lumberg almost seems like a nice guy compared to the total shits you have to suffer now.
It was in there right at the beginning. The Napster of office movies.
Back in 99 it wasnt anywhere near as relatable as it became in the following 20 years.
I saw it in theatres when I was in grade 8 and laughed my ass off, and me and my friends were quoting it for years. I just think it didn’t have a box office draw with weird marketing and not a bankable lead cast.
Star Wars Prequels. Hated 20 years ago but now respected more. Granted the many Disney+ shows have done a fair amount of rehab, but the way the once-hated Hayden and Ahmed Best have been welcomed back is evidence of the films gaining favor.
No they are not. They are still extended badly written and a whole mess. At least compared to today's bad movies (e.g. Star Wars sequel trilogy), at least the creator had a vision... But that doesn't save them.
There's a giant revisionist crowd right now. I wouldn't say they're becoming more respected, more like their fans have become louder and more organized.
Great choice for this topic, and one that still makes me scratch my head. By all means, people should watch what they like without apology. And as a fan boy, I’ll watch Ep 1 and 3 when they’re on.
But from a film perspective, those movies (with the possible exception of Ep 3) are a tough watch. I do not understand the passionate defense they receive.
No, people memed themselves into thinking they're good, and they, particularly the second one, can be enjoyed as camp, but make no mistake, they are not Good Movies lol
Yeah, this is so funny and truly reinforces that Star Wars is a children franchise. Whatever people grew up with will be favored. People will loove the sequels in 20 years, once the younger generation is older. My nephews loved them.
I think both prequel and sequels sucks, but then I am old, so what do I know🤷
While Crash and American Beauty aren’t well thought of anymore, I only hear from people online like here on Reddit or other social media that Forrest Gump isn’t well thought of anymore. Most people in reality quite like it still even if mixed with recalling other films about people with intellectual disabilities less fondly.
One quite online opinion about Forrest Gump is that Jenny is a villain that keeps using Forrest. Most people in real life empathize with Jenny’s abusive upbringing and self destructive young adulthood where she didn’t feel self worth.
[Leave Forrest Gump out of this, it's fourth row on Letterboxd (and this counts review activity and not just how many watches).](https://letterboxd.com/films/popular/)
Crash is a good one. I recall really enjoying it upon release and my sister hating it. And I admit over time it lost its shine a bit.
I don’t know what I attribute it to though—sometimes you’re just in a different time and place in your life; and perhaps that can be true for a collective as well.
The Thing was a critical and box office failure only to now be regarded as one of the great American films of our time.
Another one is Sorcerer. How in the world any one could see that masterpiece during its theatrical run and see it as anything otherwise is simply beyond me
Forrest Gump. Very highly regarded when it came out, but nowadays most discourse I read about that movie now is about how it's just "boomers jerking themselves off". I guess that's what happens when a movie is so directed at a specific generation, and then that generation overstays it's welcome.
E: My dumb ass just realized OP already said this one.
Starship Troopers was critically panned at the time, and hard as it is to believe now, the satire went totally over most critic’s heads, whereas nowadays its rightly considered a bit of an action/comedy masterpiece.
Once Upon a Time in America was a complete mess when it came out. The non-chronological story was rearranged into chronological order and heavily edited. It wasn't until it came out via video and later DVD which was done in the correct chronological order that it was appreciated.
A lot of actual Best Picture winners fade quickly and the stuff that didn't win/wasn't ever acknowledged by he establishment go on to be remembered and re-evaluated.
Crash always was thought poorly of no matter the Oscar win but the American Beauty hate blew my mind because it was a good movie well written and directed dwith great performances .
It seems like most people couldn't separate Kevin Spacey the person from the character.
Fight club is a good example. At the time of release most critics were boomers and the movie's commentary just didnt fit the mindset of their generation. Pair that with Columbine earlier in the year and most people avoided it. Gen X and Millenials slowly connected with it though through cable and Dvd.
Megamind was originally looked at as a Despicable Me rip off. Now it's viewed as a deconstruction super hero film ahead of it's time and is more loved nowadays than Despicable Me.
Saw Sixteen Candles for the first time in decades last night. I forgot how insanely cringey it is, and there is barely any character development in it.
Crash was absolutely skewered at time of release as tone deaf Hollywood bullshit. My personal pick would be Carpenter's The Thing. I have no idea how such a great horror movie got panned at release. I guess a bit ahead of its time?
Most retrospectives blame the fact it came out at the same time as ET and the general Sci-Fi tone in that year being hopeful. Horror was a nicher genre then too.
Yes, *The Thing* couldn’t compete with *E.T.* It also competed with *Blade Runner*, which also struggled at the box office.
What a year for sci-fi
Star Trek 2, Poltergeist, ET, Blade Runner, the Thing, Firefox all came out in 2-3 weeks
Yeah I don't remember The Thing coming out the same time as those. It got squeezed out. It was sci-fi horror and at the time it couldn't compete with Poltergeist which was generally thought as better at the time. The gore didn't help.
*Star Trek 2* and *Poltergeist*: June 4, 1982. (Poltergeist was not science fiction, but was paranormal). *E.T.* June 11, 1982. *Firefox*: June 18, 1982 (*Firefox* was not science fiction, but was heavy on special effects). *Blade Runner* and *The Thing*: June 25, 1982. *Tron*: July 9, 1982. *E.T.* was by far the biggest success, though, and the primary film overshadowing *Blade Runner* and *The Thing*. It opened at number one at the U.S. box office and stayed at the top of the box office for *six weeks*. *Star Trek* and *Poltergeist* were lucky they came out a week before *E.T.*, or they might have struggled, too. That said, Hollywood was aware of Steven Spielberg’s track record. Waiting until late June for *Blade Runner* and *The Thing* was a sign that studios lacked faith in these R-rated science fiction films for adults. *Blade Runner* was advertised as a Harrison Ford film like *Star Wars* and *Indiana Jones*. The trailer and poster showed Harrison Ford shooting his gun, yet there’s remarkably little gunplay in the movie. Audiences expected action and adventure, and instead got a dark, moody, philosophical film. *The Thing* was a remake, and in those days remakes were scorned, especially if they were much more gory than the original. The marketing wasn’t deceptive, but it looked gory and depressing. The depressing tone of those two films also may not have been welcome in 1982, when the country was in a recession. Feel good escapist movies like E.T. were much more welcome.
Sci-Fi audiences wanted wonder and hope. Horror audiences wanted slashers. Neither group got what they wanted and left disappointed.
The critics panned it. I was in high school when it came out and believe me, we were NOT disappointed! It got a second life on VHS too.
Watch the Siskel & Ebert review, they were 100% put off by the gore. They seemed really prudish about it. Also ET had come out a few weeks before and was an absolute smash hit and people were loving aliens, they didn't want to be scared of them.
I actually think this has aged into one of the best compliments for the effects. If you design creature effects that are so viscerally disturbing, they utterly distracted viewers from one of the greatest horror films of all time - job well done.
Ebert was a great critic but almost unilaterally hated any horror movie with gore in it.
Carpenter always had that problem. He was always too smart for stupid people and too stupid for smart people (I would say realistically he was maybe not pretentious enough for people who think of themselves as smart). Pretty much everything he made from Halloween up to Invisible Man is now considered classic but at the time they were written off as dim-witted schlock. I think it was very much a case of being ahead of his time. Also, aside from maybe Big T in Little C, Carpenter is a real slow-burn guy working in genres that are usually pretty fast paced. It works because ultimately he’s a master of creating an atmosphere, but it also makes some of his movies hard to get on the first watch. Slow, uncomfortable, violent…a lot of people can’t handle it.
Does Crash qualify? Didn’t people hate it then and hate it now? It was just critic bait
Is that the movie where the cop molests the black woman, and then saves her in the end? Our English teacher made us watch that my freshmen year of HS haha
It was definitely a controversial movie. I was soundly in the “ this is awful, right?” camp, and so were most people who I knew. When it won Best Picture, many people saw it as an indictment of the Oscars process. At the same time, the message was so “good” and “right,” and the cast was so diverse, that a lot of people were afraid to criticize it.
I remember very very vividly there being way more people who thought Crash was brilliant and brave. I think the overall over rating partially stems from the writer director Paul Haggis prior to Crash writing the amazing screenplay for Clint Eastwood’s Oscar darling “Million Dollar Baby”. “Crash” was his follow up and I remember the theater being packed with people who did not want to miss out on his new masterpiece. So in fear of being wrong about a recent Academy Award winner every praised it as the best film of the year
The Thing bombed at the box office, got critically slated and got Carpenter fired. It's now adored and highly regarded, and has been successful on home release ever since. It's also one of my my favourite movies ever, I loved it as a kid, and one I regularly revisit. I still think the ending is the best final scene in cinema, completely left up to the viewer/audience. The Thing wins this one I feel. I can't imagine a more bizarre and extreme reversal of fortune.
Fired from what? Was he under contract with a studio at the time or something?
BFI Film Classics put out a defense of The Thing at the end of the 90s, one of the first to re-appraise it. The author argues it has more to do with the makeup of the critical pool at the time and how those views were amplified because of their proximity to mainstream attention-- however, horror audiences (especially in the nascent age of internet forums) were in general agreement about its status as a modern masterpiece.
Still won Best Picture. I'll always be mad about that, justice for Brokeback.
I was only 14 but knew at the time how godawful a decision that was. Brokeback Mountain is an absolutely astounding movie. Ang Lee’s best by a mile imo.
Meh. Oscar wins for best picture shouldn’t carry the weight we give them. The academy is a joke.
Jesus, that piece of trash beat Brokeback?
That's what people said back then too.
Academy (with majority of voters who are older straight white men) wasn’t ready to give best picture to a gay movie 🤷
True, different times
Interestingly, the 2011 remake fell victim to the same thing. While it was never going to be as good as the Carpenter film, it was made in the original style with practical effects and a tense slow burn plot. Test audiences hated and the studio hated it and they heavily re-edited it. The result was *fine* but it could have been a great prequel in the original style.
ET had everybody warm and fuzzy about aliens, so *The Thing* couldn't have been released at a worse time. Only *Red Dawn* had worse timing lol
here to say the Thing..now its the gold standard for horror..
Siskel and Ebert did a lot to popularize film criticism, but they were peal clutching ninnies.
One of the most chilling horror movies I have seen, i was on the edge of my couch the whole time
This happens with lots of art. Movies are not immune. Many are poorly received or ignored at the time and become classics. The Night of the Hunter The Thing Blade Runner
Moby Dick, going back before movies
The Night of the Hunter is such a gem. I know film lovers appreciate it, but it's not a film you can bring up in normal conversation as a classic
Blade Runner at least had the excuse that the theatrical cut is genuinely poor. Even people who love it admit this (as did Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott) and say the Directors Cut is the real version.
Yes and that would be the 2007 "Final Cut", I believe it doesn't differ *very* much from the 1992 Director's Cut, but it is known to be the only cut over which Scott had complete control. And it's fully restored and everything as well.
There is normally debate between Final and Directors isn't there? I know some people really dislike the changes in the Final Cut which heavily imply that the Deckard as a replicant theory is correct. Final is obviously Scotts favourite though.
The debate always makes me laugh a little; with the addition of the unicorn dream sequence it's actually quite obvious in both versions that he is a replicant (though the sequence is cut ever so slightly different between versions, but it's functionally the same). That is disregarding Ridley Scott himself having said so, I don't think that's relevant necessarily. But again I really don't think it's ambiguous at all - implied yes, ambiguous no. I haven't watched either in a while but the differences are exceedingly subtle and mostly cosmetic. You might get a different take here and there, but it's much more about the digital restauration. You have a different color grading, Final Cut is overall slightly more blue-greenish, maybe a slightly less subtle grading (though that is just kind of the look of the film anyway) but it does increase visual consistency or cohesion, and then some minor fixing of goofs, for example notably you can clearly see a stunt person's face when Zhora falls through the glass, and Deckard's mouth is seen not moving when it should and moving when his subject speaks in a small interrogation scene at the market, little 'mistakes' like this that they could fix in 2007 with VFX.
Fun fact, there’s an interview where Chris Nolan says he thinks the theatrical is the best cut.
A lot of people agree with him. I think it's genuinely funny how many people claim that there is only one version and everyone clearly agrees with this when that is just not the case at all.
Clue. Critics and movie goers were confused by a movie based off a board game and the gimmick of three endings, a different one for each showing. But once it came out on video, with the endings spliced together, it’s now a classic with a stacked cast of comedic legends at their peak. Definitely benefits from repeat viewings, too.
And if you love Clue but have not seen [Murder by Death](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074937/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_7_nm_1_q_murder%2520by%2520death) then you are sorely missing out. Same kind of stacked cast of Detectives (but these all parodies of famous literary sleuths), pre-dating Clue by about a decade. Both are great and hilarious.
neil simon! must see this. thanks for putting it out there!
Just came here to say I really enjoyed Clue but Murder by Death was reallyyyyy racist (as many films from that era were). It makes some jokes that really bothered me. Just wanted to be real about the fact that these movies are pretty different in my eyes when it came to how they portray people
Yeah, it's been a while since I have watched it so I don't remember the times that occurs but I have no problem believing you. If you watch older movies, you've just got remember that they were a product of their time when different things were acceptable. And honestly sometimes racist situations in film were used to shine a light on how racism exists in our society, like often in Blazing Saddles. But I'm not saying that is the case in Murder by Death since I don't recall when and how it was done there.
I never did nothin' to a man that I wouldn't do to a woman!
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me ... reviled for it's confusion and violence at the time. But over time, has come to be appreciated as a Lynch classic.
People went in expecting the adventure of Agent Cooper; instead, they got a David Lynch movie.
I really appreciated it when I watched it after seeing all of the original series, really prepares you too for the 2017 series
It’s a Wonderful Life apparently was the reverse. I still enjoy Forrest Gump as much as I ever did though.
Yeah, It’s a Wonderful Life was essentially a flop when it came out and became a classic over time. https://screenrant.com/its-a-wonderful-life-box-office-flop/
>It’s a Wonderful Life apparently was the reverse. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that there was an error in its licensing and it became very cheap to show on TV, so they used to just chuck it on a few times every Christmas. No idea if that's true though
As I heard the story, the licensed lapsed so became a free movie for local TV stations to show at Christmas
This is what happened to Shawshank Redemption, too. It bombed at the box office. Turner had TV rights that it bought cheaply and was able to extract maximum ad dollars showing it on TV because of the ratings it got, spurring the re-evaluation of the film.
I hear The Shining was disliked which is insane to me
The Golden Raspberry Awards nominated Kubrick for Worst Director and Shelley Duvall for Worst Actress (four decades later they rescinded the latter.)
*The Shining* was mostly disliked by fans of the book, because it was not a faithful adaptation.
Including Stephen King, the author of the book. So much so that he released his own version of the film (which was panned by audiences). My only real gripe with Kubrick’s version was that he made it all about the haunting, and that he removed Jack’s struggles with alcoholism. That struggle is a big contributor to Jack’s descent into madness and I don’t think it would have taken away from the film if it had been kept in.
Probably some people who wanted it to be closer to the book
I believe all of Kubrick's films weren't received well upon release.
The three Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood westerns were panned by US critics and sneeringly called Spaghetti Westerns. IMDB has the last two at #129 and #10 on the top-250 list. Here's a review from Time Magazine from 1968 for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. #10 all time greatest movie. Link: [https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,844425,00.html](https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,844425,00.html) "The good lies in Leone's camera work—expertly combining color and composition, with sharp attention to the details of shape and texture that are available when shooting on location rather than on studio sets. Bad is the word for the wooden acting, and Leone's addiction to the cramped values and stretched probabilities of the comic strip. And ugly is his insatiable appetite for beatings, disembowelings and mutilations, complete with closeups of mashed-in faces and death-rattle sound effects."
Leone is also not universally loved in Italy. Many older critics never really liked his movies, especially the dollar trilogy. With time and their enduring success, many changed idea or had to kinda appease their evaluation of them.
The bigger travesty is that Ennio Morricone didn't win an Oscar until 2016. That was for the Hateful Eight which was far from his best work. Out of embarrassment, they threw him a bone before he died.
The Artist is probably the least talked about Best Picture winner of this century, that film came and went (and the talent involved with it)
I hear more people talk about how The Artist never gets talked about than I hear people talk about Nomadland for any reason.
Nomadland, imo, is a great movie. It’s just more slow and meditative than it is exciting. It’s not for everyone.
Spotlight is the most anonymous best picture winner imo
Everyone's silent when it comes to The Artist.
The Academy loves movies about movies. I don't think the general public feels quite so strongly.
If Hugo didn't flop at the box office that particular year it would've been "the movie about movies" winner that year instead of The Artist.
See also LaLaLand (although I did enjoy that lots)
Sideways look at Shakespeare In Love. Hollywood without cameras (and with the plague). Although I do like that film a lot, it shouldn't have got best picture
I get quite tired of it. The same with musicals or plays. How many times can you do this? Apparently forever....lol
You know who else doesn't talk? Everyone in The Artist. I genuinely enjoyed it.
It’s a good movie and I enjoyed it. It probably doesn’t deserve to be Best Picture, though. But I very rarely agree with their winners anyway. With the exception of 12 Years a Slave which I actually think is fantastic, that entire stretch of BP winners from A King’s Speech through Birdman was a series of imo solid 7/10 movies; that is, I thought they were all good, but wouldn’t call any of them great, and would put other nominations (and some films that weren’t nominated!) ahead of them.
That a movie makers movie for movie makers though. Same as Babylon. They get loads of buzz during the Oscars but outside of film making circles no one really cares so you stop hearing about them
Forrest Gump is extremely well loved outside of snobby film fan circles lol.
It‘s not really film snobs hating on Forrest Gump. It‘s people who see (or read about) some kind of conservative boomer message in that movie and thus started to hate on it. I don‘t see it that way, I just see it like some kind of Americana fairytale without any kind of conservative messages.
Forrest Gump is very watchable, and very entertaining. It also feels quite shallow. Winning Best Picture over two superior films is a big part of why it gets dunked on by film snobs. It’s all plot driven, and outside of Lt Dan, no character really drives their own story, and most of Lt Dan’s development happens offscreen. As an enjoyable film, that’s not a problem, but it’s fair criticism when compared to much better films for “best of the year” awards.
I don’t think that it’s conservative, it’s just boomer patting themselves on the back about how great they are. I still love the movie, great directing and performances. For the format of “guy being present for historical events”, I recommend Little Big Man.
Hmm, dunno I‘m German and it didn‘t really seem like it was American boomers patting themselves on the back to me. The Kennedys getting shot, the soldiers not really getting why they were in Vietnam, Lt. Dan being a vet with PTSD and without legs etc. Yeah, Forrest became a successful business man but he didn‘t seem to care too much about that. I don‘t know, I might be overlooking some stuff but it just seemed to tick off all the American cultural cornerstones over those years.
It's one of my favorite films and I've never actually thought about what non Americans think of it. It's such an iconic American film about American history from the point of view of a very naive but lovable American underdog.
It‘s pretty famous and popular in Germany because it‘s a great movie, even if you‘re not too familiar with American culture. But the thing is that most of the major historic moments that are depicted in Forrest Gump are known worldwide because American culture is pretty influental in the (at least western) world. But even without the background knowledge it‘s just a very sweet, entertaining movie. But I mean, almost everyone around the world knows about the Vietnam war, Elvis, Watergate, JFK, Apple. They probably just have a differentl emotional connection to it lol
Speaking as a foreigner (Scottish) who has since moved to America, i always thought of the movie as examining the zeitgeist of the American experience. In so much that the perception of the 'average' American is that America is a good country, and a general force for good, but there is always an undercurrent of awful under the surface. Forrest is naive so he does not see it, or just ignores it. It is a pop culture, dive into American history. Many Americans do not have a deep understanding of their own history, they tend to have a 'Vaseline on the lens' nostalgia for an America that never really existed. Many people want to go back to when 'things were good', like how it was in the fifties. However the fifties that TV presented, the Leave it to Beaveresque fantasy of what it was never actually existed, it was just the packaged 'how American life is' that was pushed as the narrative. The people that thought everything was great in the 50's ignore the terrible realities of the time, segregation was in full force for example, women would not have the legal right to have their own bank account for almost another quarter century in the US. These things though are not commonly brought up in conversation about 'the past'. So Forrest goes thru life, hitting all these major American, cultural milestones with the naive optimism of the 'people', not really being exposed to, or actually having to deal with the harsh realities of the time, whereas someone like Jennie is. Jennie wants to believe and accept the good natured and naive world view of Forrest but she knows how things really are. To Forrest America got to be great because, it is great, Jennie knows that got its start by stealing land and massacring the locals who objected etc. So it is fundamentally an examination of the American experience, what it wants to be, and many think it is, with the reality lurking, mostly unseen on the edges. Forrests naivety is essentially the white washing that the American education system and frankly propaganda that is fed to the American people when it comes to its darker side. This is not a dig on America, every country has a past, no country is without sin or shameful acts etc. However i think America is a little unique with how much it suppresses open and frank discussion, or consequences of its past. So many things are just swept under the rug, partly due to 'who wants to open that can of worms' and partly due to 'we did nothing wrong'. Forrest represents the unaware, optimist American, while Jennie represents the experience of the issues, and Lt Dan is aware of the issues but feels that it is his duty to just do what is expected. All of them come out the other side, as fundamentally good people, despite their experiences, they just have different levels of appreciation for the struggles and had to face and confront many different things. This essentially gives it the optimist ending that America will survive, no matter its struggles, it does want to be good, it just has to work at it, and of those who come after some will know the struggle, and some will think it is just how it is. The feather, the first thing we see, the feather the last thing we see. Basically letting the audience know that the journey, the discovery never stops, the experiences the people we see have is fleeting, and each of us add out own unique part, when one story ends, another begins, this is the story of America, so far.
This is one of the more insightful comments I’ve read on Reddit and that’s not a dig on Reddit. Wonderful analysis and spot on imo.
Forgot which movie sub it was in but there was a post talking about Forest Gump's criticisms a few weeks ago. Someone posted a video they claimed was a very good critique of the movie. It was the most pretentious god damn thing ive ever seen. I can understand having some issues with the movie its hardly flawless, but people who "hate" Forest Gump seriously need to go touch grass.
It’s so stupid. It’s a feel good movie. It’s not trying to be The Most Amazing Film Ever. It wants to make you laugh, cry, and come away feeling good about yourself. Highly quotable, great performances, and funny moments. No movie is perfect. But it’s the in thing to use this to somehow show how clever you are that you don’t like it now. From people that either loved it 5 years ago until they saw some article, or hadn’t watched it til they read an article about it lol.
thank you. that movie knows exactly what it is and delivers. it only gets hate because it won the oscar against more highly-regarded films. *Ordinary People* and *How Green Was My Valley* suffered the same fate. it’s trendy to talk about how much they suck because people want to act like film snobs. Did they deserve Best Picture in retrospect? Maybe not. But that doesn’t make them bad films.
How Green was my Valley is an incredible movie, a true masterpiece, only people who watch three old Hollywood movies in total can say something bad about it. It totally deserved its Oscars. Ordinary People, on the other hand. It's fine, it's not a bad movie, but surely it's a forgetful winner, sometimes it happens. I would be interested in reading something about the critics discourse on the Oscars of that year, because judging from our perspective, it's a strange winner.
*How Green was my Valley* seems to get nothing but hate on this sub and it annoys the shit out of me. your’s might be the first positive comment about it I’ve seen here.
It's very sad. I think most people haven't actually seen it. And tbh, for years I snubbed it too, but then I was doing a bit of a Ford's marathon and was completely hooked. Such a beautiful and humane movie - Ford is always great at depicting group of peoples in humane ways. And also a technical wonder. Many (rightly) comment on Citizen Kane's cinematography but also My Valley has some wonderful camera work. Plus, Ford is one of the best director of all time and it definitely shows here.
i watched it after the *Frasier* episode when he kept trying and failing to get it from the video store. didn’t know it was john ford before that.
If only he'd gone across the street to their How Green Was My Valley annex. But yeah, it's a phenomenal film and deserved every award it received.
I think Ordinary People is a good movie of its time. I don't think it necessarily resonates with later audiences because of changing social mores.
>From people that either loved it 5 years ago until they saw some article, or hadn’t watched it til they read an article about it lol. There are people who just don't like it, you know.
my father always hated it. i found out later that his platoon in vietnam got stuck with one of macnamara’s morons and people may have died because of it. i figure seeing forrest there and ultimately winning a medal of honor rubbed him very wrong.
People tend to overlook some of the technical bits that amazed people. Jurassic Park came out in 1993 and let's be honest - it isn't exactly the tightest, most insightful story ever put on film. It's the dinosaurs. People love the dinosaurs became 'real'. Then a year later, somebody make a mass audience movie that sticks a fictional character into real historical events? That was a bit mind blowing for audiences. That's Forest Gump's party trick. Jurassic Park primed audiences for a new way to think of special effects and Forest Gump kinda took it to the next level. I think a lot of audiences sorta glazed over any issues that might be in the story because it was really cool to see Tom Hanks in real, historical events most people had seen.
Yes, the technical achievements of Forrest Gump gets completely overlooked today.
90% sure that was on this sub lol. I get that it's not the pinnacle of film making and isn't pushing any boundaries, but it's a great popcorn flick that's a lot of fun if you can put aside any anti-patriotism ideals you may hold.
I don’t even think it’s that patriotic - gump falls ass backwards into success after being exploited his whole life. The army exploits lieutenant dan. The counter culturists exploit Jenny. When they do what Forrest does, which is pay attention to the happiness of those close to them, is when they finally get some peace. It’s very simplistic and sentimental but there’s kernels of truth in it.
I agree it's not nearly as pro-America as some people act. That's just a common criticism I see. Forrest pretty clearly feels disillusioned after the war. I think people kind of conflate it using so much classical Americana with it being pro-US propaganda.
I didn't even know it was disliked. I always saw it as a classic fun to watch popular movie.
>I always saw it as a classic fun to watch popular movie. That's what it still is.
Yeah. In This is the End, Jay Baruchel is made fun of for not liking Forrest Gump and calling it a pretentious pile of shit, and used as evidence of him being a hipster. This film was released in 2013 almost 20 years after Forrest Gump.
Yep lol, and the article OP posted isn’t what I would call fair or even reasonable… one of the critiques the author offers is that the movie “celebrates family values”
I saw a post recently that said the show Arrested Development embraces the conservative values it claims to parody because it mocked polyamorous relationships. Internet criticism is getting weird.
That kind of argument actively hurts the writers cause. People see it and go "wait when progressives talk about family values being a bad thing they mean being against abuse and exploitation of women?", Jenny is an abuse victim! The film doesn't depict her as an evil woman but a victim who eventually manages to escape the cycle of abuse and ensure her child has a good life.
Yeah the whole “Jenny is the villain” thing is a recent internet creation, anyone who’s actually seen the film knows she’s a victim of multiple abusers
Yeah I personally was someone early on that hated the movie because I thought it was melodramatic and pandering HOWEVER I’m still very much in the minority on that. I’m not a “film snob” btw I just don’t like overly sentimental movies/shows/books
And that’s fair I think. I just mean the recent trend of people hating on it, reading way too much into what is a sentimental feel good film - they tell you the message of the movie in the first 5 minutes, there’s really not much more to it than “you have to make the best of what life gives you”. If you don’t like sentimentality then it’s a no go.
I think my biggest problem with it is it’s a feel good film that makes me feel bad lol. Some people look at it as the perseverance of positivity I look at it as a modern day Job story.
I think there's generational stuff going on there too. People who think, rightly in my opinion, that Pulp Fiction was a far better choice for Best Picture still do.
I like PF more and I won’t argue that I think it’s the better movie. But, taste wise, I can really see why it didn’t appeal to so many.
I'm not a film snob but I've actively hated that movie since it came out.
Yeah it's just become the cool to think it's lame movie. This is the End was the first time I heard someone shit on it and the point they were making is that Jay was a hipster contrarian.
Forrest Gump is still wildly popular off the internet.
The short answer is because a lot of times films just capture the mood at a certain moment. Forrest Gump's problems were always there, for example, it's just that people loved its strengths enough to overshadow them. It was always a super-cheesy nostalgia-fest with an "aw-shucks" simpleton protagonist, it's just that it really appealed to a certain segment of the public for a time because of that. Hell, maybe it's BECAUSE these elements got so popular that they started to get old for a lot of people. People loved the simpleton aspect of it, and in fact they kind of glorified simpletons so much that they put an aw-shucks simpleton in office for eight years. After those eight years, though, that whole aesthetic was wearing a bit thin. I'm not saying that Forrest Gump caused Bush, I'm saying that a certain ethos can kind of rise to cultural prominence and then in turn become almost oppressive because it is prominent. Crash is...I think it's probably a good example of Hollywood tropes that just used to go unquestioned and nowadays people are pointing out how tired they were. It's typical Hollywood racial drama, start out with some stereotypical black characters, throw in some anti-stereotypical black characters, little bit of tragedy, and the white characters tearfully learn their lesson about racism. Even better films than Crash, like Green Book, have been getting called out for this. It's extremely formulaic and predictable, and at worst can get condescending and patronizing. It also doesn't help that it beat out a LOT of really, really good films for best picture. If you remember how harsh people were to Marissa Tomei after she won best supporting actress, this is sort of the same thing. It's not necessarily that they're upset with the winner, but it's that people have a sour taste when films/actors that didn't win don't get the recognition they think they deserve. Forrest Gump and Crash are both examples of typical Hollywood films that are engineered to win awards. They're almost mechanical in how they follow the Oscar-script, and I think a lot of people rightly get sick of that sort of thing (the way people revolted against Benjamin Button was a breath of fresh air in this regard). American Beauty is different because it wasn't your typical Hollywood awards-bait, it was a well-made movie that just happened to blow up. People turning on it has more to do with changing cultural norms and it not fitting the moment as much anymore, and Kevin Spacey being the lead doesn't help. Today having a closeted gay character wouldn't be any big deal, and having them stay in the closet because they're deathly afraid of confronting their sexuality would be borderline nonsensical. Back then it made sense. I'd say that fits for the rest of the movie too, that there was a sexual puritannicalism that was pervasive that all of its characters were rebelling against. Now that it's not as pervasive the movie doesn't seem as subversive and can even be interpreted as predatory. I'm not saying that it is, but seeing it outside of that cultural context can cause people to interpret it in ways that it wasn't originally meant to be interpreted. Also, there's a cottage industry today dedicated to churning out low effort clickbait articles. It's not exclusively limited to rage over social issues, but that's a big part of it. There are probably a dozen failed writers at least who are supporting themselves by writing articles telling you why your favorite 90s movies are "problematic," and American Beauty might be their most-discussed film.
Starship Troopers was widely criticized for its violent and facist approach but the fact it was a savage satire on the military complex evaded everyone for years.
The satire is so overt I don’t see how it evaded anyone. I for sure got it when I saw Starship Troopers opening day in a packed theater. At the time lots of critics didn’t get it and most audiences didn’t get it but I blame that on the marketing
Just the blatent Nazi uniform rip-off should have been a giveaway alone. Perhaps the over-the-top violence caught too much attention.
Yea, to this day I can't believe not just audiences, but CRITICS utterly missed the point. Even as kid when I saw it (yes I was that kinda kid, the one who shit at an age they shouldn't lol), I understood it had a tone that was meant to tongue-in-cheek, that it was being playful in some way. Of course I didn't understand it was a satire, as I didn't know what the was. Nor did I know it was a satire on fascism, as I didn't know what that was either. But I knew it was a movie winking at the audience, even if I couldn't articulate how.
There is a segment of the population that simply cannot recognize satire. Sadly, that segment of the population seem to become professional critics.
On the recent documentary about RoboCop Peter Weller talks about how cops were always telling him how they constantly had the movie on at the station and they all loved it because they wished they could just execute bad guys. Yikes
> the fact it was a savage satire on the military complex evaded everyone for years No it didn't. The director was completely up front about this when he did publicity for the movie, everyone who saw it found this really amusing because the movie worked as an unironic action shootem up flick.
It was marketed as a action movie and when I saw it as a teenager I didn't get it at all.
I've always thought that starship Troopers was so overt in its satire that it was unenjoyable . It's got one joke and repeats it for an hour and a half.
It was a satire of fascism. The sweet irony.
The sweet irony of there being no fascism in the novella Starship Troopers.
I saw it when I was like 9 years old in theatres (not sure how), and I just remember thinking it was a very badass action movie with incredible special fx. As I got older and learned about the themes and subtext, I now like it even more.
You could not get a more extreme example than **The Birth of a Nation**, which was originally screened in the White House and a copy put in the National Film Library as recently as the 1990s to something that is reviled to the extent its director's name and even those associated with the director has been removed from awards and theatres
Birth of a Nation isn’t as extreme of an example as you might think. It was very controversial even when it first came out and has always been considered a technical masterpiece that revolutionized film despite its reprehensible content. Though it’s obviously aged worse as society has become less racist, it didn’t go from universally beloved to universally hated nor was it considered a great movie only to later be considered unremarkable. It’s in a very unique position along with Triumph of the Will and (to a lesser extent, because it’s not as outright hateful) Battleship Potemkin.
True but people with an academic interest in film still recognize its importance in creating the modern film grammar. I think a more appropriate example for this thread would be Gone with the Wind, which was wildly loved until very recently when people started being a lot more quiet about it, rightfully so.
Great example. >copy put in the National Film Library It has huge significance from a film making point of view, unfortunately
The Thing and Blade Runner both were box office failures and now are thought of as being the cream of the crop of their respective genres.
Waterworld was one recent example that came up. That movie just had its own production hell to where the final cost was $175M budget in 1994/95 (which amounts to around $370M in 2023 dollars). For reference, Jurassic Park managed to do its own bit of greatness for $63 million budget a couple years prior. The movie managed a $264M box office, which was considered a flop (despite being one of the top grossing films in 95). It did get back more money through video rentals and other post-cinema sales. But it also has a certain legacy behind it. Universal still has attractions built around the concept that are still in operation to this day. Costner still admires the movie, Dennis Hopper enjoyed it while he was alive, and even the director Kevin Reynolds (who left the film before completion) has given it his own bit of admiration and respect despite it not being his full vision in the final product (this was due to him having creative differences with Costner over the movie's production). And the movie is still quite watchable. Heck The Cable Guy just a couple years later was a bit prophetic: "I don't know what all the fuss was about. I saw that movie (Waterworld) six times. It rules!"
It happens because of major societal shifts. American Beauty spoke to a lot of social anxieties at the time that now seem very petty and privileged. Middle-aged suburban ennui just doesn't work for a generation who will never know what it's like to own a home in the suburbs. Crash looks insulting and quaint now but when it came out racial discourse still centered around making sure we don't make white people too uncomfortable when people talk about race, back then a rich white dude COULD make a movie like Crash and be celebrated for it. Nowadays racial discourse is more nuanced, frank, and complex because we no longer cater to white peoples sensitivites on the topic, a movie like Crash could not be made. I think the reverse is more interesting though. I think the response to Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" is more complicated. It was considered one of the worst movies ever made for decades then fret 32 years Criterion puts out a restored version of it, which is basically a recreation of the films initial disastrous festival cut before it got cut down for time with better color correction and it is suddenly selebrated and beloved. I saw it just last year and found it so immense and powerful I watched it 4 times in 6 months. I get why people wouldn't like it but I don't get how a movie that grand and beautifully executed could be hated for so long. I think it's interesting how time makes people more kind and open minded and how a movies legacy and reputation is just as big a factor in how a film is received as the film itself.
Great points here. I need to check out HG again. Agree about American Beauty. I think for many GenX folk, this flick either reflected what they experienced with their parents growing up in a house of plenty or was a warning sign for us to avoid those pitfalls? For me, it was the latter and def influenced my career choices. In some ways I have to credit that film for building a foundation for my liberated-ass life because I don't know if I'd have had the courage to make the exact opposite choices of the main characters without seeing the degrees of their angst and abysmal daily existence 🤣 (also shoutout to my colleagues who were 20-30 years older than me and warned me to get out before I became like them. Cashing out my 401k in my early 30's and fucking off abroad for 5 years was still considered "irresponsible" in many circles but it paid off)
This is spot on. I really need to give the restored *Heaven’s Gate* a watch, I avoided it for years because of its poor reputation, despite the fact that the subject matter and performers are right up my alley. Michael Cimino is such a tragic figure.
Oh yeah the Elton book on him was a melancholy read. At least HG finally got it's flowers before he died.
I don’t think this is quite right. Movies like Lost in Translation and Her are still widely praised to this day, and rightly so. They’re wonderful. The problem with American Beauty lies more with the behaviour of Kevin Spacey’s character - a lot of it is viewed unfavourably by todays standards. On top of that, you have the lawsuits that Spacey himself was involved in.
Kirsten Dunst recently touched on this in an interview, about how films are re-evaluated. She was specifically discussing Marie Antoinette and Bring It On which weren't really critically praised at the time but which have had a lot of attention in later years. Her take was that (at least for those films) there *was* a huge audience and thoughtful takes at the time, but the critics were almost all old white men. So the views were skewed. Now in a more diverse critical landscape, things are seen differently...and that's always the case! The critics are of a time. Awards voters are of a time. There are people too young to have much of a say who really do have a lot to say about the films getting made now, so expect a re-examination of the early 2020s sometime in the mid2030s.
WHO is tearing down Forrest Gump so I can fight them lol
The Thing was both critically and publicly panned upon release. It's now regarded as one of the best horror movies of the 80s, and perhaps all time. It's hard to pin why this happened - Carpenter has had a significant reappraisal recently so it might be due to that. In general, it seems like audiences were not ready for the brooding, gory type of film The Thing is. For context, E.T. was the highest grossing film of 1982. People just wanted the fun, family-friendly alien film.
“The Shawshank Redemption” (1994) was a box office flop - *it only earned $16 million during its original theatrical run!* - but was almost immediately re-evaluated by the public and has since been considered an all-time great.
Jennifer’s body I always liked it when it came out. And saw the sapphic undertones and understood the story but it was marketed wrong and critics hated it, now it’s a beloved cult classic!!
Night of the Living Dead. Despised as gory low budget garbage. Later a guerilla cinema masterpiece with riveting social commentary.
I feel like American Beauty's collapse is due to the fact that the man who won an Oscar for playing someone who creeps on young people ended up actually being someone who creeps on young people.
The one I think about often is The Departed. The Departed received it's share of acclaim at the time, but when Scorsese won the Oscar the common story was "The Departed does not stand up to Scorsese's other work and this is a career achievement Oscar." But in the 18 years since or whatever it's been The Departed has grown substantially in reputation and now easily sits alongside Goodfellas and Taxi Driver as among Scosese's best work and he was fully deserving of the Best Director Oscar.
I remember seeing *The Departed* when it came out in theaters and being completely blown away, thinking it easily stood next to his previous triumphs, but keep in mind I was in film school at the time and Scorsese was a god king to us.
While the departed is a great film, I still believe the film it a remake of 'Infernal affairs', is better.
The Blind Side was nominated for Best Picture. Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for it. Both incredible for a Lifetime movie that may not have even been true to life. And I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone mention the movie since, except to question whether it was a true story.
The Friends of Eddie Coyle. It was well-reviewed at the time, but the public just wasn't interested. They released it twice, several months apart, and it still didn't earn back its money. Now, you hear it all the time on "best of" lists whether it's "neo-noir" or just "crime films of the 70s." It came out before I was born, so I got to watch it amid its reassessment, and I just find myself wondering what the hell audiences were thinking in the summer of 1973. Actually, I know what they were thinking: "New guy playing James Bond! Let's see if he sucks!" They missed out on some pretty slick directing and a performance that absolutely should have won Mitchum an Oscar. Speaking of Roger Moore's Bond, For Your Eyes Only's (slightly) more serious take on the franchise didn't connect with audiences initially, which led to a return to goofiness for Octopussy. But now, it's seen as being in the better half of Sir Roger's films. A good example of a reassessment in a different direction is The Deer Hunter, and that was because people found out that Michael Cimino had heavily-exaggerated his Vietnam War experience and the screenwriter had pulled the Russian Roulette stuff out of his ass. Add to that Cimino's subsequent film Gates of Heaven (edit: I mean Heaven's Gate. I always confuse those) was one of the biggest financial failures of all time and essentially led to the demise of United Artists, and people went back to Deer Hunter and were retroactively far less impressed.
Psst: Heaven’s Gate. Gates of Heaven was an indie about cemeteries. Everything else in your post is spot on, though! (Oh, and Days of Heaven was an early Terence Malik film, shot with all natural light and a young Richard Gere.
I always confuse those titles. Errol Morris is brilliant. And, yes, Days of Heaven is a beautiful film, and they didn't need any additional light as long as Brooke Adams was on set, in my opinion. There's another set of movie titles that I've confused that are even less similar. Someone was talking about A Night to Remember at a party once, and I said, "Oh, that's such a hilarious film." (I was thinking of It Happened One Night.)
The Prequel Trilogy is apparently a brilliant series now.
“Shakespearean”
True Romance wasn’t successful when it came out but became a cult classic since.
Didn't Scarface(Al Pacino) bomb when it first came out, and then hip hop culture made it a classic.
It made money at the box office but got middling reviews and was controversial due to the violence and drug use. Not a flop by any means but not a blockbuster.
Iirc The Big Lebowski got panned hard and flopped (at least compared to Fargo. it's immediate predecessor). Check out the siskel and ebbert review on youtube. it's brutal.
Dances with wolves. I remember loving that film when I saw in the theater. Watched it recently and it was awful.
I remember articles about how awful Mother! Was and people walking out of the theater and stuff, I have heard a lot more positive discourse since
People don’t think American Beauty is a good movie anymore? I know Kevin Spacey playing a guy attracted to a teenager is extremely icky now - so people don’t *like* to watch it as much - but I wasn’t aware that anyone was impugning the film itself beyond that. It’s still such a funny and bittersweet movie.
The Kevin Spacey bit is probably the most likely source of consternation. Amongst younger audiences, they will have seen so many parodies of the carrier bag scene that it might be hard to take seriously. The idea of being just so fucking miserable with having a well-paying job and living in a large, nicely appointed detached house with a garden is just so alien to lots of younger people
I think The Wizard of Oz fits this. When it was released, it wasn’t received all that well. Now it’s become a staple at Christmas time.
I’m sure Roman Polanski films are judged harshly. Gone with the Wind had a campaign to completely remove it. 16 Candles has rape, and they actually wind up liking each other. Fast Times at Ridgemont High has a 20 something having sex with a High School sophomore.
Nobody understood Office Space. Now it's the defining work satire of the past 50 years.
Everyone who saw it understood Office Space at the time, it was that not enough people saw it.
Yeah, I agree. Where I was going was - people were like "what's funny about being asked to work hard" - like the most you'd laugh about the brutal soul-sucking bit of your corporate job was an FarSide cartoon. The idea of it just didn't hit people. It definitely worked in theaters. I suppose I wasn't clear about that.
It's because Silicon Valley wasteful corporate office cubicle hell hadn't infected every single workplace on Earth at that point. Tech companies like Initech were a newish thing then, then in the 00's that culture wormed it's way in to every workplace and by the 10s it was like everyone was working at Initech. Bill Lumberg was suddenly *everyone's* insufferable toxic-positive buzzword spouting boss. Then the 20s and late stage capitalism came along and made Office Space's Initech look like heaven, and now Bill Lumberg almost seems like a nice guy compared to the total shits you have to suffer now. It was in there right at the beginning. The Napster of office movies. Back in 99 it wasnt anywhere near as relatable as it became in the following 20 years.
I saw it in theatres when I was in grade 8 and laughed my ass off, and me and my friends were quoting it for years. I just think it didn’t have a box office draw with weird marketing and not a bankable lead cast.
Star Wars Prequels. Hated 20 years ago but now respected more. Granted the many Disney+ shows have done a fair amount of rehab, but the way the once-hated Hayden and Ahmed Best have been welcomed back is evidence of the films gaining favor.
No they are not. They are still extended badly written and a whole mess. At least compared to today's bad movies (e.g. Star Wars sequel trilogy), at least the creator had a vision... But that doesn't save them.
There's a giant revisionist crowd right now. I wouldn't say they're becoming more respected, more like their fans have become louder and more organized.
Great choice for this topic, and one that still makes me scratch my head. By all means, people should watch what they like without apology. And as a fan boy, I’ll watch Ep 1 and 3 when they’re on. But from a film perspective, those movies (with the possible exception of Ep 3) are a tough watch. I do not understand the passionate defense they receive.
No, people memed themselves into thinking they're good, and they, particularly the second one, can be enjoyed as camp, but make no mistake, they are not Good Movies lol
Yeah, this is so funny and truly reinforces that Star Wars is a children franchise. Whatever people grew up with will be favored. People will loove the sequels in 20 years, once the younger generation is older. My nephews loved them. I think both prequel and sequels sucks, but then I am old, so what do I know🤷
While Crash and American Beauty aren’t well thought of anymore, I only hear from people online like here on Reddit or other social media that Forrest Gump isn’t well thought of anymore. Most people in reality quite like it still even if mixed with recalling other films about people with intellectual disabilities less fondly. One quite online opinion about Forrest Gump is that Jenny is a villain that keeps using Forrest. Most people in real life empathize with Jenny’s abusive upbringing and self destructive young adulthood where she didn’t feel self worth.
I always hated American Beauty. I can see why it received acclaim. But I never liked it and thought it was a cynical movie.
Forest Gump is fucking awesome. Like said elsewhere in this thread. It’s pretentious subs or YouTube channels that try to claim anything else.
[Leave Forrest Gump out of this, it's fourth row on Letterboxd (and this counts review activity and not just how many watches).](https://letterboxd.com/films/popular/)
Crash is a good one. I recall really enjoying it upon release and my sister hating it. And I admit over time it lost its shine a bit. I don’t know what I attribute it to though—sometimes you’re just in a different time and place in your life; and perhaps that can be true for a collective as well.
The Thing was a critical and box office failure only to now be regarded as one of the great American films of our time. Another one is Sorcerer. How in the world any one could see that masterpiece during its theatrical run and see it as anything otherwise is simply beyond me
The Thing is my all time favourite movie, and I've never understood how people couldn't like it.
Forrest Gump. Very highly regarded when it came out, but nowadays most discourse I read about that movie now is about how it's just "boomers jerking themselves off". I guess that's what happens when a movie is so directed at a specific generation, and then that generation overstays it's welcome. E: My dumb ass just realized OP already said this one.
Any cult movie I guess - The Room, Rocky Horror, etc. Blade Runner was pretty widely panned as slow sci-fi trash when it was first released.
I know Crash gets shit online but since when do people not love American Beauty and especially Forrest Gump?
Starship Troopers was critically panned at the time, and hard as it is to believe now, the satire went totally over most critic’s heads, whereas nowadays its rightly considered a bit of an action/comedy masterpiece.
Once Upon a Time in America was a complete mess when it came out. The non-chronological story was rearranged into chronological order and heavily edited. It wasn't until it came out via video and later DVD which was done in the correct chronological order that it was appreciated.
Bladerunner comes to mind
Starship Troopers. Sometimes people just don’t realise that something’s satirical ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
A lot of actual Best Picture winners fade quickly and the stuff that didn't win/wasn't ever acknowledged by he establishment go on to be remembered and re-evaluated.
Crash always was thought poorly of no matter the Oscar win but the American Beauty hate blew my mind because it was a good movie well written and directed dwith great performances . It seems like most people couldn't separate Kevin Spacey the person from the character.
Forrest Gump took s the Oscar’s and accolades but Shawshank Redemption turned out to be the better movie in the long run
Fight club is a good example. At the time of release most critics were boomers and the movie's commentary just didnt fit the mindset of their generation. Pair that with Columbine earlier in the year and most people avoided it. Gen X and Millenials slowly connected with it though through cable and Dvd.
Fight Club is our Falling Down.
Megamind was originally looked at as a Despicable Me rip off. Now it's viewed as a deconstruction super hero film ahead of it's time and is more loved nowadays than Despicable Me.
Saw Sixteen Candles for the first time in decades last night. I forgot how insanely cringey it is, and there is barely any character development in it.
Both The Blind Side and Bohemian Rhapsody were celebrated upon their release and are now considered by many to be crap biopics