| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| redPen |
Posted - 06/23/2007 : 06:52:27
I have to admit, there are two notorious Hollywood "flops" that I really enjoy watching.
Heaven's Gate is one of the most legendary financial flops in film history. Michael Cimino, hot off his huge success with The Deer Hunter, proceeded to make a 6-hour (later cut to 3.5 hours, then re-released in a butchered 2-hour version) panoramic western/romance, during which he spent every dime that United Artists studios had! (This one film alone almost bankrupted the company, and forced its sale!)
Seven Years in Tibet is a little-known film starring an against-type Brad Pitt in a true story about a German mountain climber during the early years of WWII who is imprisoned when he crosses the country line in the Himalayas, and upon his escape, ends up in neutral Tibet, where he is introduced to the then-prepubescent Dalai Lama, and they strike up a friendship.
For me, what makes or breaks a movie regardless of genre is the characters. If I care for them, get into the story so far that I don't remember I'm watching a movie, etc., that's a movie I love. These two are great examples of that. I list them among my favorites despite the fact that hardly anyone has seen them.
What's in your collection that raises eyebrows???? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 11:32:40
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
If you're talking about offline, one of the most egregious examples was Time magazine over 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 1968-69. Originally hated it, warned readers away, the worst possible review. Then, their "film capsule" column gradually began to warm to the picture until less than a year later it was calling 2001 a masterpiece.
I've noticed that happening to almost all of Stanley Kubrick's films.
Psycho had a similar history. As it was first released, critics couldnt look past the gore, the bra, and the Oedipus complex stuff.
Anyway, Psycho was panned by critics because it was grotesque and exploitative even though Hitchcock himself would probably agree with these adjectives. They aren't criticisms, but objective descriptions of the film. Audiences, on the other hand, generally liked Psycho and within a month or so, critics started reappraising it.
Not only liked it -- it was an immediate smash hit! [Which could account for some of the critical backlash: critics like to be ahead of the audience and tend to resent it when it's the other way around.]
PSYCHO was the first release where the distributor stipulated that no one was to be admitted after the picture began. [In those days, you just wandered in whenever you liked, then stayed until you reached that point in the flick again: "This is where I came in."] A spot of bravado, yes, but the real reason is that a key character does not survive PSYCHO's halfway point, and Hitchcock felt late-arriving audience members would be confused. Ever the showman, he turned shit into Shinola -- and exhibitors balked at first, but relented when would-be latecomers were greeted with lines stretching around the block, waiting for the next performance. It turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. |
| Shiv |
Posted - 06/27/2007 : 01:05:12
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
That really hits the nail, Joe. I think the only Coen brothers film that "made it" was Fargo, and while I think it is a great film, I can't say it is my favourite Coen brothers film.
Yes, it's funny how Fargo seemed to reach a broader audience, even though it is no more 'mainstream' (if I can use that word) than their other films. I do love it though.
I liked every Coen Brothers film on first viewing, right back to Blood Simple. I have several in my collection, and can watch them again and again. But not many of my friends are that keen. Perhaps if you don't get into the characters and the off-beat plot directions - and the dialogue as Joe B mentioned - then after first viewing and seeing how the film 'ends' repeated viewings are not satisfactory for some.
In regard to films pre-video and how they were accepted - I suppose that the films had a one-off chance of capturing the imagination - i.e. in the cinema. A few films, like Citizen Kane, did gain new public popularity prior to vhs though. Of course, the politics surrounding that film hampered its release at first.
Another 'flop' was the Blues Brothers, which is now one of the biggest cult films of all time. Why o why did they want to make a second film - it was doomed from the start, imho. |
| Sean |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 01:46:13
I've always liked any Coen flick the first time I saw it. I enjoy (and expect) the oddball characters, in fact it's the Coens' very signature. |
| Tori |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 19:24:59
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I really liked 'THe Majestic' with Jim Carrey
So do I but I can see why others didn't. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 18:26:19
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
Here is a question for knowledgeable fwiffers, can critics change their reviews/ratings for a film after having given it their original rating?
I don't think there are hard and fast rules, and editorial policies often change when there are personnel changes. However, I do know that Roger Ebert has been known to re-evaluate films, and has even been known to admit he was wrong first time around.
Many films now considered classics were trashed on first release, including most of Hitchcock's output.
Hope this helps 
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 18:20:25
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
Here is a question for knowledgeable fwiffers, can critics change their reviews/ratings for a film after having given it their original rating?
If you're talking about offline, one of the most egregious examples was Time magazine over 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 1968-69. Originally hated it, warned readers away, the worst possible review. Then, their "film capsule" column gradually began to warm to the picture until less than a year later it was calling 2001 a masterpiece.
I've noticed that happening to almost all of Stanley Kubrick's films.
Psycho had a similar history. As it was first released, critics couldnt look past the gore, the bra, and the Oedipus complex stuff. Lay people often make the mistake of judging a film by its characters' personality traits. If the characters are disgusting people that do disgusting things and you personally wouldn't want to spend an afternoon with that character, then the movie is disgusting and you wouldn't want to spend an afternoon watching that movie. This is the falacy people make when they say they don't like horror movies or gangster/mafia movies. This falacy is tolerable in the general moviegoing public, but serious film critics should not fall into this trap.
Anyway, Psycho was panned by critics because it was grotesque and exploitative even though Hitchcock himself would probably agree with these adjectives. They aren't criticisms, but objective descriptions of the film. Audiences, on the other hand, generally liked Psycho and within a month or so, critics started reappraising it. Even after it was reappraised, it took a little longer to become a "classic" than Vertigo or North by Northwest did.
The Wizard of Oz and Its a Wonderful Life were generally well liked in its time, but they didn't become the classics we think of them today until they they started airing on television. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 06:24:26
That really hits the nail, Joe. I think the only Coen brothers film that "made it" was Fargo, and while I think it is a great film, I can't say it is my favourite Coen brothers film. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 02:58:16
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
O Brother, Where Art Thou? There are some very good discussions in the IMDB forum, at the OBWAT? link, about why some people try to like this film as much as others do but can't seem to 'get' it or like it as much as the other Coen Brothers' films, e.g. The Big Lebowski.
People seem to forget that Lebowski itself was a commercial flop and a critical disappointment at first. Polygram dumped it into theaters in the winter of 1998, critics were blase, box-office was mediocre, and it disappeared quietly. It took nearly five years before it began to become a cult hit, largely thanks to video and DVD. I seem to remember O Brother doing terribly with critics but not-half-bad at the box office at the time, largely thanks to interest in the OBWAT soundtrack.
I've noticed something about the Coen films which might account for a lot of the bad reviews they get. At first, many of their films seem so odd and stylized that they take a while to get used to. I can remember only sort of liking Lebowski when I saw it during its initial theatrical run and not liking O Brother at all when I first saw it on video. But now I'm a fan of both those films, and they're both in my DVD collection. One criticism frequently levied at the Coens is that they throw in a lot of gratuitous weird stuff -- oddball characters, stylized dialogue -- just to amuse themselves. But once I've seen the movies a few times through, this stuff doesn't seem odd at all and in fact seems quite natural. An example is George Clooney's dialogue all throughout O Brother, his purposely stilted and flowery speech. Once I got past the oddness of it, I found it to be one of the funniest things in the movie. And on first viewing, Lebowski seemed like a hodge-podge of disparate elements (1940s noir meets early 1990s California), but now it feels like all this stuff somehow belongs together in one movie.
That's why I said that the distinction between success and flop is often unfair. It seems like a movie's fate is decided in one week. The initial reviews come in (largely from newspaper critics in a few major cities) and the opening weekend box office is tallied, and based on that, we call a movie a hit or a miss. |
| randall |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 02:44:18
quote:
Originally posted by Stalean
Here is a question for knowledgeable fwiffers, can critics change their reviews/ratings for a film after having given it their original rating?
If you're talking about offline, one of the most egregious examples was Time magazine over 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY in 1968-69. Originally hated it, warned readers away, the worst possible review. Then, their "film capsule" column gradually began to warm to the picture until less than a year later it was calling 2001 a masterpiece.
I've noticed that happening to almost all of Stanley Kubrick's films. |
| Stalean |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 01:01:00
O Brother, Where Art Thou? There are some very good discussions in the IMDB forum, at the OBWAT? link, about why some people try to like this film as much as others do but can't seem to 'get' it or like it as much as the other Coen Brothers' films, e.g. The Big Lebowski.
What I find most interesting about OBWAT? is when it was released the critics hated it. It even had a 'rotten' on Rotten Tomatoes. But, as time has passed, the ratings have grown, without any added reviews or reviewers, to a 'fresh' of 79%. Here is a question for knowledgeable fwiffers, can critics change their reviews/ratings for a film after having given it their original rating? |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 18:57:13
quote:
Originally posted by M0rkeleb
I have a whole accolade devoted to films I really like but were (so far as I know) never successful in any way - financially, critically, or retrospectively.
I enjoyed American Dreamz and Breakdown, and really like The Mosquito Coast - those are the only ones I have seen. |
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 18:26:05
I have a whole accolade devoted to films I really like but were (so far as I know) never successful in any way - financially, critically, or retrospectively. 'Course, it's hard to tell, especially for the older ones, since I don't know how they were received when they first came out. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 06:50:14
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I really liked 'THe Majestic' with Jim Carrey
And Man in the Moon wasn't good? It was excellent. So was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That Hollywood and the boxoffices seem to be trying to keep a good dramatic actor from taking dramatic parts because he's also a comic genius, is a real shame.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 06:46:56
Last night they had North Country on television which must have been a critical success since both Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand were nominated for Oscars for their performances. However, I'd never heard of the movie before and I'm sure it was never in the theatres here, since we saw quite a few movies that year, and we certainly would have noticed anything with both Theron and McDormand - two of our favourite actresses. Was it a boxoffice failure? I'm thinking it probably was. But if we take other movies of the same genre like Erin Brockovich or Silkwood, I'd have to say that North Country was better. I'd have to say that only Norma Rae was better.
|
| TitanPa |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 06:44:02
I really liked 'THe Majestic' with Jim Carrey |
|
|
