Movies regarded as classics that bombed or received initially bad reviews

[Doctor Cringelord]

What are some films now widely regarded as classics that initially bombed or were panned almost universally by critics upon their release?

A couple I can think of are Blade Runner, Brazil and John Carpenter's The Thing. Big Trouble in Little China is another one that bombed, was dismissed by critics, but is now ranked as one of Carpenter's best films. The 80s and 90s in particular seemed to produce a lot of box office duds that were allowed second lives via the burgeoning home video industry.

I think Shawshank Redemption is another good example. No one went to see it, yet now it's ranked right up there with it's contemporaries Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump as a modern classic.


I was going to say Empire Strikes Back, but that one did still make a tanker load of money, and I'd say the reviews from 1980 are mixed rather than universally bad.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

For a flip, it would be interesting to do a thread about films that initially did well and were acclaimed but have since either fallen into obscurity or seen their reputations tarnished. Gone With The Wind jumps to mind.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Anyway, I think a recurring trend with these types of films is that they tend to be films that reward an eye for detail and multiple viewings. The Thing in particular probably came across as schlocky gore to reviewers who weren't paying the closest attention at the time. And yet Carpenter paid a lot of attention to minor details when he made it. It's a film that's been analyzed to death and is still widely discussed and debated today. It really is a film best watched at home more than once, rather than in a large theater with a lot of distractions.

 

[Totenkindly]

17 Movie Bombs That Became Cult Classics | Best Life

Still not sure about Showgirls. I'm fascinated by the thought of Cats (2019) becoming a "Rocky Horror" style cult hit, I heard various reports of audiences hurling retorts at the screen in crowded theaters during opening weekend and that seemed to be more fun than the film.

This list, some of the films are actually good films that needed more viewings and thoughts (like Donnie Darko or Heathers). Others might just have become popular because they're just bad to the degree of becoming a fun watch.

For a flip, it would be interesting to do a thread about films that initially did well and were acclaimed but have since either fallen into obscurity or seen their reputations tarnished. Gone With The Wind jumps to mind.

I'm actually still fond of "American Beauty" by Sam Mendes, but I have grown to prefer "Road to Perdition" by him instead. I think AV Club just did a "best films of 1999" (for which American Beauty actually won the BP Oscar) and left AB off the list (!) purposefully. The general gist is that it's not as profound/mature a film as it appeared at the time and isn't saying a lot that hadn't been said elsewhere.

I mean, part of me will always appreciate that film (I love some of the performances, and there are so few characters I really identify with in film culture, and Ricky was one of them), but it's held less interest for me over time. Spacey's fall from grace does not help either; that can sometimes impact a film's ongoing resonance, if the stars end up besmirching their own body of work. Another case like would probably be Breakfast at Tiffany's -- I don't know if it has fallen a ton in the rankings, but the yellowface Mickey Rooney is really bothersome nowadays to many even with Holly Golightly so much a part of pop culture.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

17 Movie Bombs That Became Cult Classics | Best Life

Still not sure about Showgirls. I'm fascinated by the thought of Cats (2019) becoming a "Rocky Horror" style cult hit, I heard various reports of audiences hurling retorts at the screen in crowded theaters during opening weekend and that seemed to be more fun than the film.

This list, some of the films are actually good films that needed more viewings and thoughts (like Donnie Darko or Heathers). Others might just have become popular because they're just bad to the degree of becoming a fun watch.



I'm actually still fond of "American Beauty" by Sam Mendes, but I have grown to prefer "Road to Perdition" by him instead. I think AV Club just did a "best films of 1999" (for which American Beauty actually won the BP Oscar) and left AB off the list (!) purposefully. The general gist is that it's not as profound/mature a film as it appeared at the time and isn't saying a lot that hadn't been said elsewhere.

I mean, part of me will always appreciate that film (I love some of the performances, and there are so few characters I really identify with in film culture, and Ricky was one of them), but it's held less interest for me over time. Spacey's fall from grace does not help either; that can sometimes impact a film's ongoing resonance, if the stars end up besmirching their own body of work.

I think American Beauty is a very dated film, so it doesn't hold up. Dated in the sense that it captures the jadedness of affluent American suburban consumer culture of the 90s. If treated as a period piece it still works, even if that might not be how Mendes intended it to be interpreted. I remember it being talked about and hyped to hell by people I knew, and by reviewers. It's a difficult story to relate to viewed through the lens of someone living in 2020, or even in the years directly following 9/11, much as The Great Gatsby might be difficult to relate to for someone living in the thick of the Great Depression or WWII America. It is interesting to see how AB has failed to hold the same lasting cultural currency as some of its contemporary films like The Matrix or even American Pie, when I imagine that no one in 1999 would have predicted those two to outlive AB in terms of influence and/or relevance.

Then part of it I think is just a tendency for the biggest and most talked about Oscar pick type of films to often fall into a state of semi-obscurity after the hype has worn off. Not to say they're forgettable films, but this seems to happen a lot with movies that receive heaps of acclaim and awards directly after release. I always see multiple copies of American Beauty floating about in the DVD areas of thrift stores. I think people get sick of a film quicker the more hyped it was. I don't really hear as many people talking about Forrest Gump as they do about Pulp Fiction, despite the former winning more awards and pretty much being the most talked about film of 1994.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh, I'll mention "Jennifer's Body" by director Karyn Kusama (Destroyer, The Invitation) off a Diablo Cody script. It got panned / hit middling reviews when released, but it's actually kind of enjoyable and was about subtext -- something people seemed to miss, in this dark comedy (I don't really consider it horror per se, despite the succubus element). With Kusama's later works I mentioned, it's getting more attention in the #meToo age.

Basically, it's about women's bodies. And good looking women often will learn to use that at their advantage, but the film is saying it doesn't really advantage them in the long run, because she's still just a commodity to men -- in this case, Jennifer's playing up to a crappy indie band just gets her sacrificed in a ritual that botches and ends up making her a succubus that wreaks vengeance on men who weren't the ones who wronged her [corrected!], it's all a big toxic circle. It also leads to a huge rift between her and her best friend (even if technically she's dead), and best friend in part was always homely looking and had very little, that her succubus bestie now tries to take as well simply because she can. Sister power kind of wins out in the end, though, ultimately, and vengeance is had on the actual culprits ...

Here's my review from Nov 2018:
‘Jennifer's Body’ review by Totenkindly • Letterboxd

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Children of Men I see frequently on these sorts of lists. It had a pretty limited audience yet I frequently see it acclaimed as one of the best sci-fi films of the last 20 years.

 

[Totenkindly]

Children of Men I see frequently on these sorts of lists. It had a pretty limited audience yet I frequently see it acclaimed as one of the best sci-fi films of the last 20 years.

It's a damn good film storywise, and it's also beautifully done from a technical perspective (and a powerful tracking shot near the end). And it throws a loop or two along the way, I remember being shocked over a plot point or two that breaks convention.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's a damn good film storywise, and it's also beautifully done from a technical perspective (and a powerful tracking shot near the end). And it throws a loop or two along the way, I remember being shocked over a plot point or two that breaks convention.

Also that whole scene with the car, ping pong, and motorcycle. I seem to remember reading that was all one continuous take.

I remember this being a pretty suspenseful film, and it feels abrupt and sudden the way real life does. Like when they just pull the midwife from the bus just like that to be lined up in a firing squad. It actually feels like what shit would be like going down in real life. Bad shit happens to supposedly main characters just like that, and no one gets a brave exit or one-liner to toss out before they die. No one gets a grand escape and the main protagonist fumbles his way to safety rather than miraculously turning into some badass, which is what most films would do with a lead. It's easy to identify with the Clive Owen character, because he just seems so out of his element through the whole thing. I like how it's shot like a documentary too. Adds to the realism. It's still a bleak, frightening film. I also like the use of the King Crimson song. It doesn't feel out of place at all, though I wonder if the filmmakers had wanted to use something from Pink Floyd's Animals, since that one location exterior appears to be the Battersea Power Station used on the cover of that album.

I used to be butthurt Owen wasn't Bond when they hired Craig, but now I'm glad and think he was too good an actor for Bond.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't think people knew what to do with it.

it came on Christmas 2006. Not much of a Christmas movie in feel, though -- not for mainstream audience.
Pretty serious film/tone, very dark and demands a lot of thought. Very heady for the holidays.
Hard to market. Kind of a dystopian scifi.
No clearly telegraphed plot map.
Also kind of European in feel, American mainstream audiences don't get it.

I think it fits pretty much in the category you described, as a film that needs personal repeated viewings to really grasp it.

 

[anticlimatic]

For a flip, it would be interesting to do a thread about films that initially did well and were acclaimed but have since either fallen into obscurity or seen their reputations tarnished. Gone With The Wind jumps to mind.

Every movie praised by critics in the last four years comes to mind.

 

[Jaguar]

Scarface. That film got beat over the head by every critic on earth. Even calling it an uproar is an understatement. I thought Pacino was brilliant then, and still think so now. Years later, the film took on a whole new following. It was amazing to watch, actually. Its status became so elevated you'd have to ask yourself, what happened to all those crazy critics that called it horse shit?

 

[Totenkindly]

Scarface. That film got beat over the head by every critic on earth. Even calling it an uproar is an understatement. I thought Pacino was brilliant then, and still think so now. Years later, the film took on a whole new following. It was amazing to watch, actually. Its status became so elevated you'd have to ask yourself, what happened to all those crazy critics that called it horse shit?

Revisiting The Controversy Surrounding Scarface

Found this lengthy article about it, the journey of the film is pretty fascinating. Some of the big issues were the censor board that originally slapped on an X rating, and the fear that the film would accentuate prejudice against Cubans living in FL.

Rex Reed is a crappy reviewer, IMO -- he just imposes his own moral values on film content, not evaluate films for themselves and their own quality. I usually hate the guy's reviews.

Ebert actually gave it a 4-star. Pauline Kael was surprisingly harsh.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Scarface got a second life largely because of the gangsta rap community. They LOVE that movie and it's a frequent reference in rap music, or at least it was back when gangsta rap was really big.

It always fascinates me how such a cynical film that is arguably a cautionary tale was re-interpreted as a fairy tale about a character people were never intended to want to emulate. I mean, Montana had a few redeeming qualities, like not wanting to kill children, but overall, I don't think he was ever intended as a role model.

Agree it's a great film though. Unless you count the courtroom outburst scene from And Justice for All, Scarface marks the exact point where Pacino transitioned from the soft-spoken, stonefaced Michael Corleone type to the crazy ranting man we all know and love today.

 

[Jaguar]

Characters like Tony have to have some kind of redeemable quality within, a line they won't cross, otherwise the audience wouldn't accept them. Even something as simple as the scene between Pacino and Pfeiffer helps, where he puts on her hat in the car and she cracks up laughing. It's one the rare instances where you see Pacino smile in the entire film, becoming even playful. It humanizes him, if only for a few moments.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm curious to see if this Avatar production pans out.

The original film was not critically acclaimed for story or its lead actor, but mostly for the technical aspects and because it put viable 3D back in the theater (a renaissance that lasted about 4-5 years before now dwindling as inferior 3D films released + TV manufacturers decided to focus on 4K sets instead, so there's not much lingering demand for 3D film).

Now Cameron has been planning this four-film release running through 2027 or something, but I am not sure if there is a lot of fan interest in it. I suppose if it is a technological breakthrough, people will still go, just not sure if it will be a high-crest event. With him shooting multiple films simultaneously, it would be ironic and devastating if the audience base just isn't there.

---

What do people think of Titanic now that 20 years has passed?

Also, Braveheart -- I liked this film a LOT the first time I saw, then with repeated viewings liked it less. It didn't help that historically speaking a lot of it is a wash, it's pretty much just woven together by Randall Wallace (Wallace's descendant). I mean, it's filmed beautifully and shot well, and hits a lot of dramatic beats -- but those beats also often are so accentuated as to feel contrived now. I found myself preferring the grittier, more realistic (and understated/nuanced) Rob Roy that came out around the same time.

---

I guess "It's a Wonderful Life" is an obvious example. I didn't actually enjoy the latter half of it when I finally saw it last year, the first half was actually kind of interesting with the actual life and times of George Bailey. But it was a film that mainly became a cultural icon because the rights were sold so cheaply compared to other Christmas classics, so it was aired repeatedly and extensively and got embedded in the public mind.

Despite performing poorly at the box office due to stiff competition at the time of its release, the film has become a classic and is a staple of Christmas television around the world.[5]

Theatrically, the film's break-even point was $6.3 million, about twice the production cost, a figure it did not come close to achieving on its initial release. An appraisal in 2006 reported: "Although it was not the complete box-office failure that today everyone believes ... it was initially a major disappointment and confirmed, at least to the studios, that Capra was no longer capable of turning out the populist features that made his films the must-see, money-making events they once were."[6]

Bosley Crowther, writing for The New York Times, complimented some of the actors, including Stewart and Reed, but concluded, "the weakness of this picture, from this reviewer's point of view, is the sentimentality of it—its illusory concept of life. Mr. Capra's nice people are charming, his small town is a quite beguiling place and his pattern for solving problems is most optimistic and facile. But somehow, they all resemble theatrical attitudes, rather than average realities."[55]

And it goes on. But critical and public attitudes seemed to have changed starting in the 80-90's and it is now critically and publicly favored.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That's probably why Michael Corleone is less relatable than Vito. I need to rewatch Godfather II but I can't really remember Pacino smiling once in that film. Of course I understand that's key to his character development and it characterizes how he drives a wedge between himself and his loved ones in that film. But compare to Vito in the first film, or even better, compare it to young Vito in the flashbacks from part II. It's a great juxtaposition. No matter how ruthless Vito is, it's hard to not love him because he's relatable and human--a scene of him ruthlessly murdering Don Fanucci is directly followed by him tenderly posing for a photo with his wife and children. Whereas with Michael as Godfather, we might as well be dealing with the terminator.

 

[Jaguar]

"That's not me Kay, that's my family." What a crock that turned out to be. I don't think Michael knew who the hell he really was.

 

[anticlimatic]

"That's not me Kay, that's my family." What a crock that turned out to be. I don't think Michael knew who the hell he really was.

He knew he was independent minded. I'm sure he knew he was cold, calculating, and vicious too. I think when he said that to Kay he was just referencing his independence, honestly, while dishonestly allowing her to believe he was referencing his more fundamental nature.

 

[anticlimatic]

Scarface got a second life largely because of the gangsta rap community. They LOVE that movie and it's a frequent reference in rap music, or at least it was back when gangsta rap was really big. It always fascinates me how such a cynical film that is arguably a cautionary tale was re-interpreted as a fairy tale about a character people were never intended to want to emulate. I mean, Montana had a few redeeming qualities, like not wanting to kill children, but overall, I don't think he was ever intended as a role model. Agree it's a great film though. Unless you count the courtroom outburst scene from And Justice for All, Scarface marks the exact point where Pacino transitioned from the soft-spoken, stonefaced Michael Corleone type to the crazy ranting man we all know and love today.

He has more redeeming qualities than just not wanting to kill women and children. They're easy to forget in our neutered age, but once upon a time bravely taking risks and masterminding a plan for financial success from the ghetto was something to be looked up to as well.