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

It was very slow, although kind of sincere, until the last half hour which I really enjoyed. I was very moved by the sequence where the park ranger felt sorry for the blind girl and stole the medicine for her. A lot of people may not have known that's Ron Howard's daughter. Also, Joaquin Phoenix is incapable of turning in a bad performance.

I'm looking forward to seeing his portrayal of Johnny Cash.

I haven't experienced a bad performance by Joaquin either -- he was at least as good as Crowe in "Gladiator" as the perverse and cruel emperor Comodus. Another of his standout performances was in "The Yard."

I'm still stumped on what movie received a huge majority of terrible reviews that I liked. Actually, "Summer Lovers" received nearly as many good reviews as bad because those critics who considered its genre as light comedy decided it was worth watching at least once. Certainly better than some of the lame stuff offered up these days as comedy.

It is easier to find a film that was lauded by critics and perhaps even did good box office that one doesn't like. We've been through that territory several times in the past.

That's also not what eoe said in her original post, though, wiz.

"Titanic" was one I expected not to like from reviews and word-of-mouth, was embarrassed I liked it, but goldurnit I liked it.

Huson Haawk,Waterworld,Highlander, all brilliant.
Hated A.I., big pile of poo.

Swept Away is not as bad as people make out.See below.

See below? "Swept Away" was swept away by the junk police and was as bad as the critics made out and the audiences (which it barely had any). Remembering the original, I couldn't get past the second reel. It was pathetic in every respect. I'm not sure I'd follow recommendations from anyone who identifies a film as "a big pile of poo."

I was trying to put it nicely.Id prefer to watch swept away than AI.
Havnt seen original so Im sure your right.

See below-my quote is from the film.

Of course, it's a matter of opinion and whether someone even likes sci-fi as to "Swept Away" being better than "AI." "AI" didn't get trounced by the critics but many had reservations about recommending it even to sci-fi fans. It did fairly well at the box office but naturally it couldn't beat Spielberg's biggies likes "Jaws" and "ET." I just regret that Kubrick didn't make that film instead of "Eyes Wide Shut," which, while also not terrible, left a lot to be desired considering the source material. Then, even Kubrick isn't to everyone's taste. His cerebral approach which is even apparant in early films like "The Killing" requires people to pay atteniton and think.

Okay, I'm not scared to say it I've seen "Showgirls" three times.

I'm more fascinated by the phenomenon of movies that get deservedly terrible reviews, movies that truly suck like Hoover vacuums, and still make a huge hit at the box office. Or did LW already comment on that?

Yep, Merry, I did mention that that would have been a more revealing topic. This has grown towards a guilty pleasures vein and undestandably so. Not that that is necessarily bad.

Movies I like that have gotten poor reviews are usually stupid comedies, like Billy Madison. Movie reviews and comedy that lowers your IQ from watching it just don't mix.

I haven't researched what all of the critics had to say about it, but locally "Radio" got bad reviews.

I thought it was good. Not great, but also not deserving of what was said about it. I did catch a couple of times when Cuba Gooding was just slightly not convincing / out of character, but overall that's a hard role to play, IMO.

I saw Notebook last summer with my Dad and family in Oklahoma. Not a dry eye in the place at the end. (including older men) No one moved to leave for several minutes into the rolling of the credits. Again, not sure what the critics had to say but I thought it should have received some kind of award.

I think "Radio" deserved the lukewarm response -- it only received about 30% favorable reviews, those coming mostly from the less important newspaper critics. It also bombed at the box office.
Hard to counter that record and I don't think it was bad reviews that kept audiences away. It was poor word-of-mouth.

"The Notebook" received mixed reviews and I would tell someone to read the book rather than see the movie. I would guess they will be sorely dissapointed in the movie which moves way to close to maudlin sentiment. It didn't get as many negative reviews as "Radio" however, and doesn't have the stretches of boring, reduntive scenes. Cuba is having difficulty finding great parts and this isn't one of them.

As far as stupid comedies, if they don't descend into mediocre sit-com jokes that misfire, I can enjoy them. Too many of them do and don't just get poor reviews but also bomb at the box office. Again, it's hard to justify bolstering a film that garners both bad reviews and a laughably poor attendance at the local cineplex. That's the last laugh.

Of course, like all guilty pleasures, we are all free to like and dislike any particular movie.

Okay, I'm going to destroy any credibility I might have by nominating a movie that I would not presume to defend on any grounds other than the foul, consarned thing makes me laugh:

Saving Silverman

Rotten tomatoes gives it a 16%, 16 pro and 83 con.

Some review "highlights":

"Egregiously wastes the talents of three of today's most promising young comedic actors."

 "So idiotic, contrived and inept that there's almost no chance a worse movie will be released all year."

 "It is frantically, bizarrely unfunny."

"After watching this ridiculous film, I've come to the conclusion that some things are simply not deserving of salvation."

"Aspires to be another There's Something About Mary or Me, Myself and Irene but it can't even reach that low."

"If you stock a comedy with nothing but stupid, unsympathetic losers, how can the movie ever be a winner?"

Well, I liked AI and Waterworld too. But not as much as Saving Silverman.

(I am pretty certain few will rush to applaud this choice.)

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


You don't understand why this piece of crap got bad reviews? Oh I get it it's american humour, sorry eoe, I thought you were being serious, god I feel silly now

I was waterlogged after seeing "Waterworld."

I am serious, Don1. I didn't think 'Waterworld' was such a bad movie. We owned it on video, bought the dvd and to this day, when there's nothing on cable and we're in the mood for lightweight entertainment, it's is on the short list of movies that both my hubby and I can watch (at this point tho, I'm usually flipping through magazines or online when it's on) and enjoy.
Go figure.

You're not bad for using the movie as backwash.

We all have different tastes in films and music eoe, I'm just joshing