For me the first thing that comes to mind is Tales from Earthsea. I don't think it's excellent or anything and has plenty of problems but people act like it killed their dog. While it has its problems that have been covered extensively, I think it has a beautiful atmosphere and art.
IMO it would have been better received if it wasn't advertised as an Earthsea adaptation and was just its own thing.
Absolutely awful, atrocious, lazy cinema. It had a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes. When they do the whole under the sea scene, none of the sounds align with anything happening on screen. The plot was garbo. They've got a whole song dedicated to the cruelty of eating fish as if fish never eat any fish, and then that's still not as bad as the fucking "scuttlebutt" song.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills regarding The Fifth Element for this exact same phenomena. I watched it for the first time a few years back and it...just isn't good? But people absolutely rave about it. I don't know if I'm missing something or if people are just too blinded by nostalgia glasses. But the CGI doesn't hold up, I found all the characters annoying, and the plot felt really basic and random. Someone's probably mailing me anthrax now just for saying this.
Counterpoint, nobody watched it for the CGI. The characters only seem annoying now because they were over the top then and moved the goal posts for that over the course of a generation of being repeatedly aired on broadcast television and cable. The plot seems basic now because so many sci-fi movies afterwards we're influenced in some way by it. The 5th Element is a fun bombastic sci-fi romp and you're taking it way to seriously to enjoy it the way everyone that does enjoy it will do. But, you do you. I'm not telling you you're wrong. Sometimes entertainment endeavors fail us, sometimes we fail to enjoy entertainment on its terms because of our predispositions.
Ah, that's one of my favorites. It's just so sincere and fun. It's definitely unrefined, like a student film that somehow got a massive budget, but that is part of its charm.
That's how I feel about 2001 a space Odyssey. I'm sure it was amazing for it's time, but it's so dry and boring. I wouldn't recommend anyone to torture themselves watching it. I know tons of people love it, I just don't get it.
Yup I watched this for the first time recently as well, it's in the top 50 films ever made yet I don't know a single person that actually thinks it's a good film.
It's unusual in that it requires a bit of extra work to really appreciate how absurdly rich and deep that one is. It's honestly fascinating. And it looks like it was made 30 years ago, which is an absolutely monumental achievement considering it was made over 50 years ago.
Though I can of course completely understand it when people don't want to have to read books and listen to Ted talks about a movie to figure it out.
2001 is definitely what I call a watch once film. It's worth watching based on it's artistic merits, and appreciating the groundbreaking for it's time practical cinematography. But the film is definitely super dry, and not quite entertaining. When the intermission comes on, actually take a break and talk with someone or refresh yourself. The ending is also kind of nonsense taken at face value, it's a film to be discussed, not really enjoyed.
For those reasons I say it's worth a watch, only really once.
Yeah, I can see how watching The Fifth Element now compared to 1997 would be a pretty bad experience. At the time a lot of the concepts in the film were new and edgy to the wider audience, but now that we've got the internet we see way more obscene stuff on the daily.
It's kind of like how the Rocky Horror Picture Show was a musical about being deathly afraid of satanist transvestites in 1973, but nowadays it plays off as more of a parody.
It was pretty uniformly popular in France, but elsewhere it did rather split opinion. Critics were not kind to it then either, but considering it was originally a teenage pet project of Besson's but later got concept art from Mézières and Moebius explains a lot.
Wait, really? I thought it was pretty universally hated. I wonder if critics gave it good scores for fear of being lumped in with the idiots who were pissed with Ariel being played by a black woman.
The 94% is an "audience score". The only way I can rationalize it is they used a bot network, but I've got no proof. Maybe just a bunch of parents who took their kids rated it highly? 10,000 of them.
Yeah, of course not lol. It was actually 20,000 children ages 5-11, because each review was written by two kids in a big coat to get past the bot filters.