Top Ten Movies I liked that the critics didn’t
The critics know their stuff, but they
aren’t always right. Sometimes, films get reassessed and given much higher
praise than in their initial run (Vertigo,
for example, originally received a mixed reaction, and is now considered by
some as the greatest film ever). I am going to offer concrete reasoning for why
I think the critics were wrong about these ten films.
Criteria: Movie that has a score below 5/10 which I gave a rating
much higher than 5/10. Example: If movie has 4/10 rating and I gave it 6/10,
it’s not overwhelmingly more positive so doesn’t count. If a movie has 3/10 and
I gave it 7/10, it qualifies.
“RT” refers to the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes,
in particular their critics’ consensus, on each film.
RT score: 22 %
My score: 6.5/10.
First up is the third installment in the long running Resident Evil franchise, very loosely
based on the video games of the same name. With the first film the filmmakers
were experimenting and establishing the characters as well as the main plot: an
underground lab experiences a zombie outbreak, and the characters must survive
the zombies, other gruesome creatures, and pitfalls in the subterranean
facility, called “The Hive”. For the sequel, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, main character Alice (MIlla Jovovich)
escapes The Hive and enters Raccoon City above, only to find the virus has
spread to it as well and turned the populous into mindless flesh eaters. The
sequel failed to improve on the original, and even as someone who enjoys the
franchise, I found it to be bad. The third film, however, is my favourite of
them all. The fourth and fifth really re-tread old ground and didn’t take the
series anywhere new and exciting, but the third film sees Alice and another
group of survivors travel to Las Vegas, which has become entirely desert, and
scientists in a secret, mini underground facility are trying to tame the
zombies. It’s as preposterous as anything else in the series, but the action is
swift, there are a couple twists that are actually effective, and the
characters aren’t terribly annoying. The main reason for me loving this
film—and the franchise at all, for that matter—is Milla Jovovich. I think she’s
one of the best actresses in action films today—she’s sexy, tough, and
maintains a serious/intense yet relatable aura in all her films—and she’s the
principle reason I don’t condemn the Resident
Evil franchise like most people do.
RT score: 45 %
My score: 8/10.
The first Pirates of
the Caribbean film was a huge success, which meant a sequel was inevitable.
What audiences got was a second chapter with even grander visual effects, but
not quite the same compelling story. It was appropriately darker than the
first, but it was also longer, more drawn out, and ended on a cliff hanger
ending. For varying reasons including some of the ones I just mentioned,
critics were less enthused by the second chapter of the Pirates trilogy. It didn’t stop the movie from being one of the
highest grossing films of all time, and the third film ended up doing
comparatively big business. Most critics were unsatisfied with the closing
chapter of the Pirates trilogy, but I
felt completely the opposite. Despite being nearly three hours long, I was on
the edge of my seat for most of the run time, anxiously awaiting the fate of
all the characters I had become invested in over the past two films. The final
action sequence was breathtakingly epic, but I enjoyed some of the smaller,
quieter, and lighter moments as well, such as when they meet with Davey Jones
on land and he’s standing in a bucket of water, due to being unable to set foot
on land. It’s an exhaustive ending to the trilogy, but does bring things to a
satisfying conclusion while leaving it open for future films.
RT score: 32 %
My score: 8/10.
In the nineties, Adam Sandler was one of the most reliable
sources for laugh-out-loud comedy, with great films such as The Wedding Singer and Happy Gilmore. As his career pushed
ahead, his films started to go south, and now his movies are seen as
unqualified box office successes, although this is becoming less true as fewer
and fewer people are tricked into thinking his next project will be better than
the last. For most, Click is just
another one of Sandler’s crappy comedies, but for me, it’s his last good one.
The concept is simple enough: a workaholic just wants more control over his
life, and he gets it, when Christopher Walken’s character gives him a universal
remote control that controls his own life. It kind of rips off other movies
like A Christmas Carol and several
time travel plots, but Sandler plays a funny, likeable, and earnest
father/husband here, and the supporting characters are solid enough. It doesn’t
make the most of its concept, but with such limitless possibilities, it does
get a few things right. The scenes where Sandler uses the remote’s settings are
the funniest, such as when he changes the contrast of his skin colour or uses
the subtitles feature. I can understand why critics turned their noses up at
this family comedy, but I must have seen it at the right time in the right
place, because it made me laugh, cry, and was wholly entertaining.
RT score: 33 %
My score: 8/10.
This movie was set to disappoint critics from the start.
Reviewers criticized the laughable plot, bad dialogue, and questionable acting,
but what else could you expect from a film based on one of the most popular
fighting video games of all time? Mortal
Kombat is a hot blooded nineties arcade fighting game and the film
adaptation is actually faithful to the source material. Was Mortal Kombat ever going to be about
incredibly intelligent dialogue delivered by exceptional actors? Of course not,
it’s about one liners and cheesiness and not taking things too seriously. The
action was great, the characters were all pretty close to the way they were
depicted in the game, and it has several recognizable trademarks from the
games, including the beloved theme song, which plays multiple times throughout
the movie, unaltered. Mortal Kombat
is, in my opinion, among the few best video game movie adaptations, and delivers
just about everything fans of the game would want to see. The sequel, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation is another
story...
6. 10,000
BC (2008)
RT score: 8 %
My score: 6.5/10.
Director Roland Emmerich is infamous for delivering big
scale action/disaster films with no brains but lots of cgi. His first major
success was Independence Day,
debatably his best (using that word lightly here) film to date. What followed were disappointing, similarly
themed action fests, such as the overwhelmingly disappointing 1998 Godzilla, and other bland catastrophes
like The Day After Tomorrow and 2012. 10,000 BC was a little different for Emmerich, in that it meshed
historic, prehistoric, and alternate history elements with his typical
disaster-type action, but still maintained that brainlessness and epic visual
grandeur common throughout all his films. Critics crapped on this movie hard,
but I was able to enjoy it for what it was worth. 10,000 BC wasn’t trying to be historically accurate—obviously the
pyramids were not around 10,000 years ago and Mammoths didn’t help build it by
towing big stone blocks—but it made for some pretty exhilarating action scenes
and impressive visuals. It even pays some tribute to similarly themed films
like One Million Years BC and Quest for Fire. The plot is unarguably
poor, but it keeps the story moving and showcases the fearsome creatures of the
past. 10,000 BC is pure popcorn
entertainment, nothing more and nothing less.
RT score: 14 %
My score: 8.5/10.
Dane Cook’s brand of humour is definitely not for
everyone—in fact, I think more people dislike him nowadays than like him. When
I was younger, I thought he was the best comedian around, and so eagerly sought
out his comedy films. I no longer feel that way, though I still find him funny
and he can make me laugh quite consistently. I don’t understand why everyone
hated My Best Friend’s Girl so much.
To me, it’s more than just a raunchy romantic comedy. It’s a raunchy romantic
comedy that goes against conventions. Dane Cook’s character takes girls out on
bad dates to make them realize their ex boyfriends aren’t so bad, thus sending
the girls crawling back and giving their former relationship a second chance.
His character is not immediately likeable, and what he does seems to be low and
conniving, but as the film goes on, you see he’s not such a bad guy and he even
has a heart (though buried deep beneath a lot of filth). The supporting
characters are all great, and the plot doesn’t feel run of the mill or too
similar to other rom-coms. The humour does tend toward the vulgar side, but it
has several laugh out loud moments that are genuinely clever and funny. Another
factor to note is the enjoyable and compatible collection of music, from
artists including The Cars and Tom Petty. If you haven’t seen this flick and
are a fan of comedies like Hitch or The 40 Year Old Virgin, then you should
give it a chance.
RT score: 14 %
My score: 9/10.
The main reason I love this movie is easy to explain. I
love camping and being outdoors, and I have a love/hate relationship with
outdoor adventures that go wrong. It sucks that the planned activities get
ruined, but the unpredictability of nature is one the things I love about it,
and not knowing what’s in store on an adventure can end up being even more fun.
Without A Paddle is the
quintessential comedic quest through the wilds that goes awry. Besides being
about subject matter I can connect with and relate to, the plot is actually
entertaining and really funny. Three guys go looking for a lost treasure in the
woods, and come across vicious hillbilly pot farmers, gorgeous, free-spirited
hippies living in a tree, and treacherous terrain. The characters move from
memorable scene to memorable scene, all the while delivering witty dialogue and
playing off one another with ease. It’s interesting to point out while the
critics gave Without A Paddle a low
score, the audience approval rating is significantly higher, at 69 %. Having
seen this movie at a young age might also play a part in why I still love it.
The nostalgia coupled with the adventure elements make this a comedy I can
watch every once in awhile and still have a hearty laugh.
RT score for AVP: 21
%
RT score for AVP: R:
12 %
My score for AVP:
7/10
My score for AVP: R:
7.5/10.
I’m a diehard fan of the Alien and Predator
franchises. For most fans of either or both franchises, the two crossover films
were pure abominations, but I hold some reverence for both. When I was just a
kid and knew nothing about movies, I heard about this new movie coming out that
had these two alien species fighting each other, called AVP: Alien vs. Predator. It intrigued me, but I was too young to
see it, so had to wait. Finally, in grade 5, I was allowed to rent AVP from the video store and watch it
with my friends. It was exhilarating seeing two extremely cool looking aliens
fighting each other to the death and using their unusual, frightening, and
creative arsenals. It was after this that I discovered each creature had
starred in their own films long before, so I viewed both the Alien and Predator franchises in their entirety, and eventually went to the
theater to see the second AVP film.
For a long time I loved all of the movies, but as I re-watched them, got to
know more about cinema, appreciate quality storytelling from generic
storytelling, and learn about how the other fans felt, the AVP films fell away as my favourites. Still, I look back on them
and recognize what was captivating in the first place. The story and human characters
suck in both films, but the visual effects—particularly the practical and
animatronics—are top notch, and the action is great. Neither film holds up to
any of the originals, but I still think they aren’t as sinfully bad as the critics claimed.
RT score: 33 %
My score: 9/10.
I have watched this film many times, and I still think it’s
as great now as when I first saw it. Critics blatantly said the plot is
interesting, but wasted in too dark, depressing, and silly of a film. I
strongly disagree. Yes, the film is dark, but so is Looper, a more recent sci-fi flick using similar time travel plot
elements which received massive critical praise. It’s unfair to compare the two
films, but I’m trying to put it in perspective. The Butterfly Effect is about a kid named Evan who has a tough
childhood. His dad’s crazy, he gets involved in child pornography with his
friends’ abusive father, he has strained relationships with everyone he knows,
and worst of all, he keeps having blackouts, after which he remembers nothing.
As it eventually becomes clear, Evan can time travel, in a sense, as an adult
by reading entries from the journals he kept near the time of the blackouts,
and go back into his younger body during said black outs. Each time he does
this, it changes the future and he returns to a different reality. It’s a relentlessly
engaging story made even easier to become involved in thanks to the great
acting, in particular the child acting. I’ve never seen Aston Kutcher in a
serious role other than this film, but I think he does a decent enough job and
is a sympathetic main character. The main issue with the movie is the
theatrical version has a radically different ending. The alternate ending on
the DVD is much more somber, but also more effective. If you can get past the
darker elements, then give The Butterfly
Effect a shot. It’s an engrossing, original, and highly misunderstood film.
RT score: 9 %
My score: 9.5/10.
Remember how I said I was a Milla Jovovich fan? Also notice
how nostalgia can be a factor in why I like some of these movies? Ultraviolet is the ultimate example of a
film I really liked, that the critics really, really, didn’t. I could go on and on about this movie, but I’ll
keep it brief. This is the critics’ consensus on Rotten Tomatoes: “An
incomprehensible and forgettable sci-fi thriller, Ultraviolet is inept in every regard.” Harsh. More than a little
too harsh, if you ask me. First of all, after I saw Ultraviolet for the first time, I couldn’t forget about it (I was only 13 at the time, mind you).
Second of all, the plot is not incomprehensible. In fact, dare I say it; it’s original
and even kind of clever. A sort-of-vampiric disease turns people into
“hemophages” in a dystopian, technologically advanced future, and the
hemophages are sentenced to death by uninfected humans, so the angry hemophages
are rebelling. One in particular, Violet (Milla Jovovich), is a skilled martial
arts warrior with swords and guns and chameleonic leather clothing—a force to
be reckoned with. I won’t say much more on the plot, but what I like best are
two things. One: the creative technology of the future, including flat space
technology which compresses objects and allows a person to carry dozens of weapons
on a bracelet-sized device, and two: the strong female lead, reminiscent of
other great action films like Aliens.
Ultraviolet is visually incredible,
action packed, sexy, and is almost like a comic book or superhero movie, which
is what it was intended to feel like.
At the end of it all, what the critics thought really
doesn’t matter. As long as you enjoyed the movie, then that’s what counts. The
critics can only offer their opinions and try to offer some kind of guide as to
whether a movie is worth your time or not. I have no problem with liking movies
that the critics didn’t, or vice versa, but it can be interesting to see where
the difference of opinion lies in regards to cinema.
No comments:
Post a Comment