I dunno it’s RT score, but I genuinely enjoy Spaceballs.
the best I could do was The Men Who Stare at Goats (51%). I genuinely love that movie. Most of the stuff I thought would quality only landed in the 60s-70s
Huh, there’s some surprising movies that fall below the 50% threshold despite being incredibly popular, and many being beloved films - Miami Vice, Three Amigos!, Bad Boys, Space Jam, Hook, Showgirls, Kung Pow:Enter the fist, Fear and Loathing, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Last Action Hero, Super Troopers, Ace Ventura, Equilibrium, Predator 2, Law Abiding Citizen, boondock saints, Cruel Intentions.
Yea a lot of those are pre-2000.
Are we thinking of the same movie? I remember this being comically turn-it-off bad. On top of that it looked really ugly. Like they just walked into a parking lot at night with their cameras and went, “yeah this is good.”
I mean, probably. Michael Mann’s second big dive(after Collateral) into the digital filmmaking process, and the real start of his love for filming in a hyperreal style, without night filters on daytime shoots or big studio lights with gels to try and replicate nighttime?
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but it was definitely a well-made one, trying out something that was - in 2006, at least - almost entirely new and fresh, along with doing something that was(again for the time) pretty interesting, a neo-noirish take on what was originally just a pastel, TV-safe buddy cop show. It was something that looked and felt like no other movie that came out that year, or either of the years bracketing it. It was fresh, immediate, tense, a genuinely well-made movie, even though it was far from flawless.
OK if we’re going by the official RT score, then Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day would qualify for me. I enjoyed the shit out of that movie but it’s a damn 23%
I thought Collateral looked bad too! Maybe I just don’t like non-Heat Mann.
If he was actively making some choices, I guess that’s some context I didn’t know. I thought it just looked terribly made. What is the camera doing in this scene? It’s like they’re actively shaking the cameras around. For egregious examples go to 0:46 and 1:55-2:06. What is that?
Spoilers, I guess. It’s the climax of the movie.
It’s intentional - from what I recall, he was filming on digital handheld(albeit, very expensive and high-quality digital handhelds) to try and make it feel more real, like it was recorded on the scene rather than just for a film, in an attempt to bring the audience into the action. Trying to make you more of a silent partner, or a fly on the wall, more than someone looking through a window. It was pretty shaky, because it was a cameraman walking(without looking) on uneven ground, with an unsupported handheld camera. The second bit you point out, that’s literally the cameraman laying down for the shot, then getting up one-handed and running over to film over the other chap’s shoulder.
If I remember right, he was trying to crib from Sonnefield and Rami, for that close, in-the-action feel, while also taking some notes from Lars Von Treir, who has long been known to use handheld cameras to produce films with a unique sort of…for lack of a better word, texture, I suppose, that changes as needed or wanted from scene to scene.
Pacific Rim Uprising, Cloverfield Paradox, Pain & Gain, Death Note 2017, Kung Pow: Enter The Fist, Eight Crazy Nights, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, Joe Dirt, The Angry Birds Movie.
This tends to be me as well. I’ll watch a few bad films to see what everyone’s talking about for a lark but that’s about it. I tend to have faith in most critics Rotten Tomatoes for the most part. It’s also easier to hate a movie everyone else likes too.
I watched that last week as part of “Juliane’s 80/90’s Gary Busey Movie Education” series. I had fond-ish memories of the movie from when I was 14, but it’s really not good at all.
Point Break holds up. Lethal Weapon holds up (as a movie, if not in terms of avoiding child rape jokes). Under Siege holds up surprisingly well.
I expected Predator 2 to be a decent addition to the list, but not even Gary Busey could save it. It lacked the energy and power of Predator, and lacked Mel Gibson’s charisma to go alongside Danny Glover’s aging cop schtick.
Hell, even Adrien Brody was a more convincing Predator opponent than Danny Glover.
I’m not particularly surprised, though I haven’t watched it for a while, I’m mostly just surprised it was at 26%. I expected at least a low 50%, maybe mid-40s considering how fondly many people remember that movie.
The Happy Time Murders is not a comedy, it’s Brian Henson’s attempt to show his father’s belief that Muppets can be serious and dramatic. The jokes are all in setting to define this nervous humour that these sad characters use to mask their pain.
Ya know, a 50% on RT, generally means that < 50% of RT reviewers rated it favorably. That’s like, only moderately unpopular. Even my solid entry on this list came out in like '08 and has like a 47%, a really unpopular positive opinion would be liking something under say 25%. I haven’t looked but I’m guessing there’s little that low that I’ve even heard of, and the few I have, I either haven’t seen or don’t like.
1 Like
Kung Pow: Enter The Fist is still one of my favorite movies of all time. I still quote it often and it still makes me laugh every time I watch it. “That’ll four bucks baby! You want fries with that!?” is one of the funniest lines ever.
Nah, ratings are like star systems. Because they’re averages, anything that’s below even ~70% is usually a bad sign.
Look at Amazon.
5 star - fake reviews
4-5 star - good product
3 star - bad product
2 star - terrible product
1 star - amazingly terrible product
5 stars is too many. Best rating systems have only two or three choices.
You either force people to thumb up/down or you do good/meh/bad. Anything greater ends up being identical to good/meh/bad with grade inflation.
I think this goes all the way back to school when tests would be graded on 100 points and anything 60 or less was an F. 60-70 was D, 70-80 was C, 80-90 was B and 90-100 was A. I felt that was bullshit. 0-20 should be F, 20-40 D and so on.
I have found that often the 4 stars are actually really good but idiots give bad reviews for stupid reasons, usually either '“I’m too stupid to use this product properly” or “the delivery entity broke it so I’ll say the product is bad.”
Thats actually somewhat how it works everywhere except the US and its part of why our education system is fucked. Its only relatively recently that the attitude that anything under a 80% is bad.
This is why it’s important that the actual text of reviews is provided so I can read them. When I see a restaurant with bad reviews, but they’re all about the service instead of the food, I know the place is amazing. When I see a product and all the bad reviews are about the delivery service, I know the product is legit.