Good Movies That Are Bad (According to Critics)

[Teal]

Don't get me wrong; there's a reason why critics are critics. It's because they're very able of breaking down a movie to the smallest of pieces and pointing out it's flaws. Some of them are almost widely considered to have had a supernatural power of movie criticism. However, there are times where they just...don't do well. This thread is for you guys to name some good movie that you think deserved a higher score by the critics.

According to me, those movies are;

The Amazing Spider-Man 2
The Score: 56 out of 100 in RottenTomatoes. 53 out of 100 in Metacritic.

I was skeptic on how Marc Webb, a guy whose only movie besides the first TASM was a romantic comedy, would handle an ensemble cast of villains. Spider-Man 3 very well taught us that too much villains in one movie is a recipe for disaster. I watched the movie and I'm gonna tell you; it's hands down the BEST Spider-Man movie ever made. It's funny, it's heartwarming, it's dramatic, it brims with action when it's needed and it's got good character development. I've seen people argue that the supporting characters (mainly Max and Harry) didn't get enough screen time, but to those people I say 'f-ck you'. The two main villains were so horribly likeable I wish I would get to see them more in the follow-ups.

I do admit, there were some pointless mini sub-plots like the threat of two airplanes crashing when the electricity went off, but you know who also had similar sub-plots that didn't contribute to the movie? The Dark Knight Rises. Half-way into the movie, The Dark Knight Rises introduces a spec-ops team that make you think they're gonna at least cause a dent, until they're killed 5 minutes later. Just like that. No relevance to the main plot. That didn't stop the critics from awarding it a 78 out of 100 in Metacritic and an 88 out of 100 in Rotten Tomatoes.

G.I Joe Retaliation
The Score: 28 out of 100 in RottenTomatoes. 41 out of 100 in Metacritic.

G.I Joe isn't the Citizen Kane of movies. It doesn't try to be. That's why critics should start getting used to the fact not every action movie is supposed to have a 2 hour running-time and to be mostly focused on the struggles of the protagonists. Taking a clean break from the Nolan-esque philosophical CGI-less movies, Retaliation was quite a refreshement. It was non-stop action, with the characters developing their 'personalities' not through dialogue but through fights. The mountain ninja fight was the highlight of the movie, and that's saying something considering the movie is clogged with non-stop action. I'm not arguing that the movie deserves universal acclaim from critics; just a big enough score to be considered fresh, like 61-65. I think it very well deserved it. You were very much pleased to give RED a high score, and that movie was no different than this one. Actually, they both featured Bruce Willis.

 

[Lord Nero]

Maybe X-Men: The Last Stand. I remember it being a pretty decent movie, with some excellent CGI for the time. Phoenix didn't get much screen time, and she hardly did anything. But to be honest, I rather liked that it was used as a plot device for more drama. I wasn't really interested in seeing Phoenix burn everything or some sh*t anyway. She made somebody explode into tiny pieces... which was quite enough.

I think Vanilla Sky was nice, but it only got a 6.9 on IMDb, and apparently 41% on rottentomatoes. Drama doesn't seem to be appreciated enough.

X-Men: First Class was pretty good. Real emotional stuff with nice action and good CGI. The metascore (critics again) is only 6.5.

There have also been overrated movies, IMO. X-Men: DoFP certainly wasn't great. Pretty boring, actually. But it still got an 8.6/10... I think. Technically a good movie, but bland as hell. The Sentinels weren't very scary or intimidating, there was hardly any action, and some of the acting wasn't great. CGI was mediocre, plot could be seen coming a mile away. The drama was kinda ham-fisted. The Dark Knight was just a typical action movie, even with the great acting.

 

[Innsmouth]

Event Horizon. Honestly this movie was great. It did pretty awesome mix of horror and sci-fi elements, while doing much better job than Prometheus with it pseudo philosophical stuff. It was decently creepy and supernatural vibe in it was awesome. Yet it was panned by critics for some stupid reasons :/

 

[xMobilemux]

I watched The Amazing Spider Man 2 today and I expected it to be completely crap as I didn't like the first one, but I was amazed at how well done it was, especially that ending I did not see coming, which supports that thread I made about crossing the line, granted it wasn't extreme but I did not see that moment coming and I liked that.

-Heavy Metal 2000
Fans and critics didn't like this movie because based on common opinion; unlike the first one and the comic books it focuses on one story and one art style instead of multiple stories and art styles.
But I found this movie to be a lot of fun and the kind of thing I always used to fantasize about when I was younger, pfft.. I still do.
The gratuitous boobs, violence, metal music and all made this a fun adult animated movie for me to watch and Micheal Ironside as the voice of the villain can not be criticized I don't care what anyone thinks.
Plus this movie got a kick ass video game made by the undeniably f**king awesome Ritual Entertainment.
ALL HAIL The Levelord!!!

-Waterworld
This movie is often hated for it's plot holes and the like, but I found it to be an amazingly fun movie to watch as the movie's production value is literally legendary, the music is awesome and the action moments are a lot of fun.
But story hounds are often tearing this movie apart due to the characters and plot holes such as "how do people find jet skis, planes, guns and fuel when there's no land etc", but just turn your mind off and you have an incredibly fun movie here.

I guess for those 2 movies critics were expecting artistic flicks rather than just having fun.

 

[LordOfDarkness]

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was the best Spider-Man movie so far. Having just realised how low it scored has my faith in humanity slightly decrease.

 

[Teal]

Micheal Ironside as the voice of the villain can not be criticized.

We can totally agree on this. Michael Ironside is my favorite voice actor. I banged my head to the floor when I heard he was being replaced by some bloke twice his age as the trademark voice of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell: Blacklist. I'm telling you; this decision Ubisoft made MUST have cost it a lot of sales.

On to the next entry of the list.

Die Hard: With a Vengeance
The Score: 52 out of 100 in RottenTomatoes. 58 out of 100 in Metacritic.
Die Hard 3 was everything Die Hard 1 and 2 were, except on a bigger scale. The quips were there, yipee-ki-yay was there, the comedy chemistry between Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson was spot-on and Jeremy Irons made a formidable villain. So what went wrong? The ending. I do admit, the ending did feel rushed, like the writers just hit a dead end and made a deus ex machina out of a seemingly unimportant aspirin bottle. It was kind of unrealistic too; the villain planned years ahead, only to slip-up with an aspirin bottle. But the critics put so much focus on the ending they totally ignored the rest of the movie.

Iron Man 2
The Score: 73 out of 100 in RottenTomatoes. 57 out of 100 in Metacritic.
Okay, maybe the guys over at RottenTomatoes did give it a fair score. After all, Iron Man 2 wasn't the strongest link in the franchise (and neither was Iron Man 3, if you ask me), but Metacritic? Really? 57? Iron Man 2 wasn't a work of art, but it did handle pacing very well. I thought critics loved slow-paced movies because they gave way for the characters to develop, or some ****. They shift the blame on the multiple villains. What multiple villains? There was only one villain while the other was more of an awkward comic relief than a villain. Spider-Man 2 had a lot in common with Iron Man 2. They both focused more on drama than action, both had the hero struggle with his power and both had kickass final battles. Can somebody please tell me why Spider-Man 2 remains the most critically acclaimed superhero movie to this day, while Iron Man 2 is regarded as the black sheep of the franchise?

 

[LordOfDarkness]

@Teal
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was bad ????? I haven't seen it yet & the trailers looked good.

Again The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is on the not so good list.
Was it really bad?

There is really only one answer. That answer is 'no'.

And you should watch it. To me it was the best Spider-Man film they've made.

 

[xMobilemux]

We can totally agree on this. Michael Ironside is my favorite voice actor. I banged my head to the floor when I heard he was being replaced by some bloke twice his age as the trademark voice of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell: Blacklist. I'm telling you; this decision Ubisoft made MUST have cost it a lot of sales.

I think it did, Blacklist was a massive disappointment to Ubisoft as they wanted 5 million and I think it only sold around 2 million.

Plus I don't know the sales figures of the Splinter Cell series, but I heard that Blacklist and Conviction are worst selling in the series, if that's true then Ubisoft fully deserves that.

 

[The Final Offer]

Let me just say this....any superhero movie that has ever came out scored low. I'm talking Marvel and DC...no one is safe from these critics who I'm convinced are old men who love skinny flat booty women that look like they can be folded and used as a credit card.

 

[KRSkull]

You know i always wonder how do these critics base their scores. What makes a movie good? Is it the money that the movie makes, The story, the characters, the dialogue, the visual effects, the music or the actors/actress?

 

[Teal]

@KRSkull Basically all of the above, except the money part. That's called a commercial success. The story must be compelling, the characters must be diverse and interesting, the dialogue should fit the theme of the movie and so should the music.
What the critics usually do is exaggerate. They find a flaw in one movie, and they start squeezing it until it bleeds **** and until the potential viewers run away in disgust. Then they call it a day and go back to doing whatever the hell they were doing.

 

[Blue_Rose]

Everything you guys have said, I agree with you.

There's also movies like Kick Ass 2 and basically anything with comedy in it that critics just don't like. And there's movies like Bay's Transformers that are pretty good but critics don't like.

But as long as you're a mega franchise, you'll succeed because of the fans.

 

[Vergil'sBitch]

Event Horizon. Honestly this movie was great. It did pretty awesome mix of horror and sci-fi elements, while doing much better job than Prometheus with it pseudo philosophical stuff. It was decently creepy and supernatural vibe in it was awesome. Yet it was panned by critics for some stupid reasons :/

I was going to say exactly the same film. It has to be my all-time favorite movie.
T.J.'s 'death scenes' were the (for me) greatest thing in that film, especially for gore.

 

[Innsmouth]

I was going to say exactly the same film. It has to be my all-time favorite movie.
T.J.'s 'death scenes' were the (for me) greatest thing in that film, especially for gore.

I seriously don't get how stupid somebody must be to give this movie 3/10. I was completely impressed by it, while I actually rarely enjoy sci-fi setting.

 

[Vergil'sBitch]

I seriously don't get how stupid somebody must be to give this movie 3/10. I was completely impressed by it, while I actually rarely enjoy sci-fi setting.

I've just been reading Rotten Tomatoes (I'd love to know what those people are on that commented on the film, they so full of oop.
I think the biggest problem with the critics is that they had to use their imagination :laugh:
(especially with that thing you don't see that scares the heck out of Peters and tries to break into the ship's 'bridge').
Or perhaps too many people survived. You don't normally see three people get out of a horror movie in one piece (I say three... more like two and what's left of Justin).

 

[Innsmouth]

I've just been reading Rotten Tomatoes (I'd love to know what those people are on that commented on the film, they so full of oop.
I think the biggest problem with the critics is that they had to use their imagination :laugh:
(especially with that thing you don't see that scares the heck out of Peters and tries to break into the ship's 'bridge').
Or perhaps too many people survived. You don't normally see three people get out of a horror movie in one piece (I say three... more like two and what's left of Justin).

People are hypocrites. They praise poor mess like Prometeus, because of bombastic CGs while bashing Event Horizon calling it poor slasher. Well 1. it's not even slasher film 2. it has awesome suspense curve. 3. Honestly idea of possessed ship is one of the most cool ideas I saw in last time. And possessed by supernatural forces not only another mad AI

 

[berto]

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

Critics really hated this one. Saw again recently and I thought it was just as great as I remember.

 

[Teal]

Critics didn't hate Scott Pilgrim. It's got a fresh rating.

 

[DreadnoughtDT]

I remember Titan A.E. being lambasted by critics, but I thought it was a great movie.

 

[Teal]

I'm sorry guys but I feel like I should revive this. I have a couple of other entries that I have failed to share.

The A-Team
The Score: 47 out of 100 in both sites (Metacritic and RottenTomatoes)
The A-Team should be the poster boy of faithful adaptations. It got a lot of stuff from the source material and it got all of 'em right. The movie was noisy, so what? It's exactly what the 80s TV series represented; trashy fun. But apparently, the critics (probably the same people who rooted for Mr. T back in their ****ty condos while wearing pajamas and eating stale porridge) didn't think the movie was good enough to be given a fresh rating.

Equilibrium
The Score: 37 out of 100 in RottenTomatoes. 33 out of 100 in Metacritic.
Let's make something clear; I am against directors who stand up for their work. Why? Because you know it's always gonna be one-sided. It's their work, it's something they've done and it's very understandable they might undermine it's flaws. I imagine movie directors never really have a clear vision on how their movie will appear in the silver screen. Kurt Wimmer stood up for his work, and guess what? He had the right to do it.
Sure, Equilibrium may seem like a mindless action flick in which a guy deals with emotion Nazis, but there's more to it than that. It shows the viewer an emotionless future and leaves them to decide whether that's good or bad. Sure, we have advances in technology and there are no wars, but at the same time the rules are more strict and the world is very bleak (as depicted by the black and white neo-noir background scenery).
It deserved a score higher than a 30. Way higher.