Make Your Picks
The deadlines for the Noir and Neo Noir lists are TODAY! You can submit your neo noir ballot here and your noir ballot here

Hated today, Loved tomorrow?


I find that many of today's greats were yesturday's most hated films. Here's some I think will follow that trend. Or at least the ones I hope will follow it.

The beach
Cast Away
Fight Club (not hated just mis understood)
An american werewolf in Paris.
Fear and loathing in Las Vegas
Eyes wide shut
Resevoir dogs and Pulp Fiction
Episode 1
The Princess Bride
The devil's advocate.
The Matrix

I know these aren't the most hated but I just think they will reach higher recognition.

Pulp Fiction was one of the most universally praised and obviously influential films of the decade, and a financial megahit when released in 1994. How could it possibly be regarded any more highly?

The Matrix is one of the most surprisingly successful films in recent years.

But Hell will freeze over before The Beach or An American Werewolf in Paris are considered even OK - they were both irredeemably awful.

If you love all these movies, what possible difference could it make to you what their perceived reputations are (even though I think you've underestimated a few of those titles already)?

I think Eyes Wide Shut was brilliant, my favorite film of '99, but I could give a crap what percentage of people who saw it liked it. The Roger Eberts and Rosie O'Donnell's who didn't get Fight Club, fu*k 'em, who cares? All the people who found Memento too hard to unwravel, their loss, no big deal to me.

Do you feel somehow validated when the prevailing opinion meshes with yours? I don't. If anything, I become more suspicious. Because if the mainstream embraces something, it's usually not going to be very interesting or layered, about 8 times out of 10. That ratio holds true for me anyway.
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Yeah...several of those films (at least), do not qualify. "The Princess Bride" was never "hated" as far as I can tell...and even if it was (I doubt it), it is certainly loved today. I can't recall hearing from anyone who didn't like that movie. Commerically, the videos and DVDs have been selling pretty well on places like

"Eyes Wide Shut" is a much better example, IMO, of what you're talking about: not particularly commercially successful, far from highly praised critically...but it does have loyal fans. I don't know if it will be regarded as a classic, say, 10 or 20 years from now. I do agree that "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" will be hailed more over time, though. When they can the movie in place with all of the others, and without the unrealistic hype it had to live up to when it was released, I don't think it'll be seen as a dissapointment the way it was to so many back in 1999.

Now, to answer a question not addressed to me: personally I don't feel "validated" when the mainstream public embraces a film that I love. I am glad, though. I'm glad because I feel as if a wonderful movie is getting the recognition it deserves, and if it does well, someone's more likely to make more movies similar to that one.

I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Episode 1 will become more understandable when 2 & 3 are released, IMO.

The Beach, a good movie? Hardly, I rented this movie to see if it was any good when it was first released. One of the most difficult movies to sit through awake.

Devil's Advocate, while very twisted and plays with the mind, I doubt it will win crowds this late in the game. It's been around for a few years now, I somehow doubt it still has redeeming capabilities.

That goes the same for some of the other movies listed. If you ask me, if they can't prove themselves within a year or two or three of their release, they're not getting very far.

For those that don't like Princess Bride, Memento, Fight Club, they simply just need to find something else they DO like. I found the three of these movies to be very well done. Any that can't appreciate them for good movies, well, sorry you feel that way.
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Now With Moveable Parts
I would say the only one I can think of is Titanic. I think everybody liked it, now people have 0 tolerance for it. I think everybody kinda got burned out on hearing about it.*and that video.

I think you all have brought up some very good points. First off in answer to Holden's question I couldn't give a damn if movies that I like are critically and commercially praised by the masses. It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the film one way or another and so while it would certainly be nice if every single one of my favorite films had their loyal followings and was appreciated by all who saw them it doesn't really make any difference to me. There have been a lot of films that have been commercially and critically praised and I've HATED them with a passion. And there have been a lot of films that the public were unreceptive to that I loved. Film is really a very subjective type of medium and so you can't expect that all of the films that are great in your eyes are going to be recognized as such by the majority of other people.

Titanic is a perfect example. I never liked Titanic and I don't think it was deserving of half of the Awards that it received. It wasn't a horrible film but I really don't think it was one of the year's best films either. Im my mind it was certainly not Best Picture material. I think pretty much every other nominee I would have picked as a Best Picture before it and certainly in my mind LA Confidential, As Good As It Gets, and Good Will Hunting were superior films just to name a few. Another film that I hated immediately upon seeing it was American Beauty and that was just lauded upon by the masses as a wonderful film. I didn't see it that way.

A lot of people still consider one of my favorite actors and directors marginal at best. A lot of people still think of Clint Eastwood as just that actor who did shoot 'em ups and violent cop pictures in the 1960's and 1970's. Hell many of my favorites that he's done probably haven't even been heard of by most people. White Hunter, Black Heart ?? Who the hell has heard of that? Did Clint Eastwood do that? What was that even about? Ask most people on the street what films they associate Clint Eastwood with and I bet that 9 out of 10 will say something like " ohh yeah wasn't he Dirty Harry?" Ask them if there's anything else they can remember about him whether he was a producer, a director or composed many of the themes from his films and they'll have absolutely no idea. To me that's their loss. It's not mine and I don't really give a damn. He's never won an Oscar for Acting so I guess that means he isn't a good actor then because he hasn't been "recognized" by the Academy as a brilliant actor and it was 21 years before the Academy began to recognize him as a director when he won the Best Director Award for his masterpiece Unforgiven . Even his latest effort Space Cowboys in my mind was quite good and made quite a bit of money but I wouldn't consider it superior to a lot of his films that made next to nothing. True Crime , a quite good thriller by Mr. Eastwood made next to nothing at the box office but it's still a quite good film just the same.

A film that both Holden and I enjoyed quite a bit was Sean Penn's The Pledge and that made next to nothing at the box office. Many people didn't like it or didn't understand it or realistically never even saw it. Does that make it any less of a film? That it will probably garner absolutely zero nominations by the Academy or otherwise make it any less of a film? Not in my mind. Wild Wild West I recall made a TON of money at the box office and I consider it one of the worst films that I've ever seen in my life.

My point in making this post is not to sound condescending or suggest that to some people critical and commercial reception make all the difference. I'm sure that's not the case at all and that many of the people on this board recognize that critical and commercial reception have absolutely nothing to do with a person's opinion of whether or not a film is good or not and that the perception of film is pretty much a completely individualistic subjective type of analysis. Just because a lot of people consider Clint Eastwood just another action stars and just because films starring Wesley Snipes and Sylvester Stallone and Steven Seagal made a hell of a lot more money that doesn't make their films any better or lessen my enjoyment of other people's films any more. It really does piss me off though when one of my friend's continuously says that Eastwood is a good actor but Arnold Schwarzenegger is far superior. What do they use to support that? Oh because Arnold has cool lines and can blow **** up and makes a ton of more money than Eastwood's films do. That's NOT a valid argument in my mind. Not at all. Not to mention that Clint Eastwood is probably throughout his career more of an overall box office star than Arnold anyways but just to suggest that the amount of money a film makes determines it's quality is an argument that I've never understood.

Now if y'all want to say that Titanic is one of the best films ever made and that it deserved every one of its 11 Academy Awards than go right ahead I'm not going to stand in your way. I won't disagree with you either. That is your opinion and I respect it I just don't happen to agree. You can also say that American Beauty is a powerful social commentary on the disintegration of the American family and that's fine with me I just won't agree with that either. See none of us are really Right or Wrong it's all about an opinion and it's all about the individual. There's nothing wrong with you liking a film that I hate or me hating a film that the majority loves. It doesn't make any difference. People have to learn to be individuals and like things because they like them and not like things because they don't like them. It doesn't make one damn bit of difference what everybody else says if YOU like something! That's all I have to say.

I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I think Blow really didn't get too many people interested when it was in theaters. I've seen both it and Traffic, and like Blow more than Traffic.

[i]Originally posted by Holden Pike

Do you feel somehow validated when the prevailing opinion meshes with yours? I don't. If anything, I become more suspicious. Because if the mainstream embraces something, it's usually not going to be very interesting or layered, about 8 times out of 10. That ratio holds true for me anyway. [/b]
i agree Holden.......i've always been more leery of the movies praised by the masses--i don't rush on in a join them - i decide for myself. if anything, i have had a problem "rejecting" the hugely praised mainstream movies because i think people just eat up the hype and join the snowball. i never did see "titanic".........hated the hype, hated the song and just heard everyone praising it and talking about how many times they'd seen it. i feel like "elaine" from seinfeld in the show about The English Patient.
i don't want to miss a great movie just because it happens to be recognized by the's snobby of me to assume the LCD taste is always going to simple or shallow. say it well......i agree.
on dance seul, on dance seul.....

Personally, I take notice when a movie is enjoyed by the masses. Are you all honestly saying you don't think "Whoa, a lot of people seem interested. I wonder what I'm missing"? If so, I'd have to say I don't believe you. I get curious. If it's a film I was planning to see anyway, well, then I usually see it. If I wasn't planning to, then I start to think that I should take a closer look.

And yes, you're right to put those "clauses" of sorts in your post, AKA, because no one here is moronic enough to link commercial success and quality directly, or consider one actor superior based on money alone...unless of course the person judges superiorirty in acting from a purely commercial standpoint.

My philoshopy: I like it regardless of all that, but I give popular movies a closer look ("9 out of 10 dentists can't be wrong!"), and I certainly hold a certain respect for people who succeed commercially (usually), because they know what it takes to get by...that's a respect based on business, though...not the movies themselves. In general, though, I admire someone who knows how to give people what they want.

TWT of course I agree with you. I mean it doesn't bolster my opinion of a film one way or the other once I've made up my mind about it and have seen it and I enjoy it and other people call it a piece of crap I don't really give a damn. But, as you said, if you hastily decided you didn't want to see a film and a buch of people are telling you it's really good and you have to see it I may take a closer look at it. Especially if a close circle of people you trust say something is good I might go see it just based on faith alone if I trust that group of people but as I said before if I've decided I like a film or don't like a film critical and commercial reception make no difference to me.

Of course as I said I wasn't suggesting that anyone on here directly links quality with commercial receptions of films so please if I offended anyone by my comments in that other post that was not my intention. I think everybody here is smart enough to get the post in the way I intended so I don't think there's much need for any clarification.

i think rushmore is a good example, i dont remember talking to many people that liked it and then everyone (including me) loves it after we saw it on comedy central

i think the matrix was a bad example, but you were right about episode one
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me