I don't understand why it got such bad reviews?

Really? That movie really sucked!!!













LOL!

DON'T JUDGE ME, MISS THING!

AI - Artificial Intelligence

I liked them both, although "AI" was really sad. The problem with "Waterworld" was that KC spent $200 million on it, and nothing could have lived up to the expectations. By normal standards it was a decent bit of post-apocalyptic sci-fi.

I thought so, too. It wasn't a bad movie, IMO. It just couldn't live up to the media hype.

Actually, "Waterworld" managed to get a 71% on Rotten Tomatoes guage with the major critics so it really doesn't qualify as "why it got bad reviews." Every movie gets its share of bad reviews and in its genre, "Waterworld" is better than average but maybe not a movie one wants to see over and over. It's like, "Been there, done that."

I'm sorry, but I can't think of a movie that was generally trounced by the major critics that was any good but the closest is a guilty pleasure -- "Summer Lovers."

I would have to research whether or not "Waterworld" has made back its $200M cost with the subsequent DVD release of the movie as it didn't rack up huge figures in its theatrical outing.

I think a better question is how could a movie that gets a majority of really bad reviews make it at the box office?

My question is, what movie was trounced by critics and everyone else but when you saw it, you liked it?

I have seen bad reviews of "Highlander," which I liked very much. I am referring only to the original movie. The sequels were dogs.

I did get that -- but "Waterworld" wasn't trounced by all the major critics but less than 30% of them who didn't recommend the movie. I'm going by the cream-of-the-crop critics most people respect, not the local newspaper critics. Who is "everyone else?" Your family, friends and co-workers? Many of my those told me they liked the movie also. "AI" is similar -- it didn't get that many bad reviews either -- LINK:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ai_artificial_intelligence/

I guess what I'm saying is that if one wants to give examples, they should perhaps do better research if the film actually qualifies. It's not proving anything about critics to claim one loves (or maybe just likes) a movie that was getting just mixed reviews. Find one where 90% of the critics hated and tell me you loved the movie. Then I might begin to wonder.

I like Hudson Hawk when I saw it, but that was many years ago, and I was busy pubertizing. Mebbe I should watch it again...

hm, i guess i was too affected by roger ebert's negative review of AI, which got 74% approval in rotten tomatoes. so, i'll take another shot with "Man on the Moon". i loved Andy Kauffman, and i loved this bio, but it has a 60% rotten tomatoes score.

i thought carrey was amazing, as was paul giamatti as bob zmuda.

Sorry I didn't do my research.

When Waterworld first came out, everyone panned it, every review that I saw, and it was the beginning of the end almost for Kevin Costner.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, of 40 reviews, 14 were good and 26 were bad.

Roger isn't always on target although I did agree with some of his points about "AI," I enjoyed the film, only regretting that it seemed to sink into maudlin sentimentality at the end. Kubrick would have made an entirely different film and I could never understand why he entrusted Spielberg to put it on the screen satisfactorily. Spielberg redeemed himself with "Minority Report" and I'm looking forward to whether he can top George Pal's "War of the Worlds."

"...and then two thousand years went by..."



What?! This damn movie isn't over yet??!?

Such was my reaction...

14 out of 26 isn't horrible but look at the "Cream-of-the-Crop" critics and it's a much higher favorable rating. I remember at that the time that the film had built up a "Heaven's Gate" reputation for big money spent on a potential box office flop. I did remember some bad reviews but many of the reviews said it wasn't as bad as expected, just not a great movie even in the sci-fi genre.

What this thread head towards is, again, those guilty pleasures -- films one knows probably aren't that good but there's something in them that appeals to one's mind set. With "Summer Lovers," it's the wishful thinking that, "Why haven't I had a vacation like that! WOW!" Otherwise, the film could be called emotionally superficial. I don't think the filmmaker was trying for anything else. It's like a pleasant afternoon trip on a boat in a lake.

"Summer Lovers" is the reason that I must visit Greece someday. It was a beautiful movie.

It was kind of a travelogue with the voyueristic manage-a-trois thrown in and I loved the wild boat trip! That was also very funny and it wasn't the usual scenerio at the time to have a group of drag queens punctuate the end of a film!

As far as a movie that recently got a large majority of terrible reviews and went on to clobber the box office, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." The whitewashed version which was just released in theaters barely did any business.

okay first of all Ai sucked. and i've never heard of waterworld. the movie i was suprised that didnt get good reviews was "the village". sure it wasnt M. Night Shymalans best work but it still beat alot of other crappy movies that were out last year.

It was M. Night's worst movie and has been done before ad nauseum. It borrows from Ray Bradbury and very badly. Not sure if that's a recommendation to have beat out other crappy movies. Does this make it one point above crap?