If there is any concept that I truly dislike, it is that of “conventional wisdom,” specifically when it is applied to moviegoing.
When it comes to the public opinion of the quality of a film, often the public’s view, in my opinion, can be as influenced by what they hear about a movie as much as what is actually in the movie itself. Example: “Gigli” is a horrible movie, right? That’s what conventional wisdom says, anyway. How many people have actually seen it to make that conclusion, do you think? I haven’t. And I bet most folks haven’t, either.
The problem with this is that conventional wisdom can often be influenced by exterior factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the work. Inflated expectations, a desire to spurn those involved, lack of success or resentment when a film is successful - I have seen these unfairly color the public’s reaction to a film, whether the movie deserved it or not.
I always try to give movies a chance, regardless of what conventional wisdom says. Leave your baggage at the door and let the film rise and fall on its own, IMO. As such, I got to thinking about movies that maybe didn’t get a fair break. Movies which “conventional wisdom” has long since turned against, and it seems to be treated as a given in many segments of pop culture that they are, indeed, bad films.
Well, I am here to defend the little (and in a few cases) not-so-little guys. Here are 10 films I like that many others have long since written off. I hope that by doing this, you’ll be encouraged to give these films a second look, yourself. Not all of ’em great (or even necessarily very good), but I believe there’s more good stuff here than people give credit for - for whatever reason.
BTW, I'm not going into this alone - click on the name of each flick for some backup!
Adventures of Rocky and BullwinkleIt lasted like two weeks in the theatre and didn’t do anything, so this was ascribed to its quality instead of a summer movie fan base who were busy seeing other children’s fare. Thus, few have seen it, and yet I keep hearing how bad it is. But it has tons of visual and verbal comic invention, very funny performances from all involved (especially Robert De Niro - yes, Robert De Niro), and a joyous tone that is lacking from so many of the cookie cutter TV remakes Hollywood churns out nowadays.
Beauty and the Beast
I can’t believe I even have to write this one, but I recently got into a heated discussion with someone who took great glee in chiding this as “massively overrated” and that Disney’s later movies were oh-so much better. Um, excardon me, but this was the one that opened the door for all those later films to even get MADE, let alone find massive public acceptance. “Beauty” was the first Disney cartoon feature in years to find both massive public acceptance and great artistic acclaim (“Little Mermaid” came out earlier, but “Beauty” was a bigger success artistically and financially) and it resonates with the timeless feel of both the classic fairy tale which inspired it and the raucous fun of the great musicals of the golden age of Hollywood. “Aladdin” and “Lion King,” both wonderful movies, may have more popular appeal, but in the long run, “Beauty” will be the one which stands the test of time.
The Blair Witch ProjectA big reason why this latest crop of pre-teen-aimed horror schlock is so underwhelming to me is that to me, horror is not creepy little girls climbing out of wells or over-designed haunted houses. Horror is something that taps into an essential dread - something we’re all afraid of, something that buries into the root of your psyche. The best horror is about more than just the events of its story, it’s an exploration of the human condition. “Blair Witch” is one just like that - it could just be about a few kids who get lost in the forest, or it could be about the horror we all feel when confronted with the uncertainty of nature, the lack of confidence in ourselves, and the sheer terror of the possibility of what could be making that damn noise. It doesn’t have fancy special effects or gore - or even a shot of its monster, if there even is one - so horror fans have divorced themselves from it. The ad campaign toyed with the possibility that the events were true (they weren’t, of course, as anyone who did any research could have easily found out), so others felt betrayed. And it was a commercial success, so film buffs obviously can’t love it either. So there it stands, an unappreciated masterpiece of tone and innovation - and of guts. Three guys with little more than a couple of cameras, a few willing actors, and a clever idea, made this movie for less than the cost of a new car. The movie’s a testament to the fact that no matter what anyone says, if you try hard enough, you can make it, too.
HulkAng Lee’s problem was that he tried to do more than just make a superhero movie. Summer audiences wanted schlock and plenty of it - Hulk beating the heck outta things, period. How dare Lee try to actually give it a story! And thematic undertones! And innovative stylistic touches, like picture-in-picture and so forth! If Ang had simply turned in a traditional, cookie-cutter action flick he’d be cruising, and have no doubt, he could have. But instead, he took a few chances, and now gets shredded on “Robot Chicken.” Unfair. I bet Tim Story won’t get this kind of treatment, and “Hulk” and “FF” will probably end up with comparable box office takes. Sure, the Hulk is a relatively disappointing FX creation, but all the stuff around it works very well, IMO. And to those who complain we don’t see Hulk for 40 minutes or whatever - you don’t see Superman for nearly an hour in “Superman,” and it takes about the same time for Batman to begin in “Batman Begins.” They’re both great movies. Why does the Hulk get chided for simply following suit?
JuniorThe main problem here, IMO, is that some people misunderstood the movie’s theme, and others got it and were appalled. Women may have felt that the film trivialized the birth process by depicting Arnold getting pregnant - when, in fact, the movie’s theme is how incredibly hard it is to go through. And men, upon getting this, may have simply rejected the flick for its maternal subject matter, ’cuz Arnold is supposed to simply beat the cr*p outta things. But this is a charming, warm, funny and insightful comedy, every bit the equal of the much-more-beloved “Twins,” and with none of the forced action subplots.
The Matrix Reloaded and
The Matrix Revolutions
Yes, I am going there. Retroactively re-remembering experiences is natural for a lot of moviegoers, I understand, but what I remember of the reaction to Reloaded is vastly different to what is going on right now. Most folks I talked to seemed to really have liked Reloaded at the time - and after Revolutions turned out to be a disappointment, revisionist history tells us that both Matrix sequels sucked. Not the case, in my opinion. Reloaded is a fabulous action picture with some utterly unforgettable effects sequences - the fight with the hundreds of Smiths for one, the epic freeway chase for another. And thematically, the film is an entertaining and successful set-up for the third film. Yes, part 3 was a disappointment, with a major change in tone toward the end that wasn’t set-up properly earlier in the film. But I contend that with two small changes, people’s memories of Revolutions would be much more positive. (E-mail me if you wanna know what they are.) And Revolutions also contains the same remarkable effects, spectacular action sequences (that last battle gets me slacked-jawed whenever I see it), and overall, the sheer audacity of its undertaking makes it worthwhile, in my opinion. They may not have hit the ball outta the park, but they swung for the fences, dammit, and in my view, that can count for a lot.
SpawnAnother film where the disappointment on one side of its making blinds a lot of people to great successes on the other side. Yeah, the story isn’t faithful, really, to the original sources, and is not great. But it’s not horrible, either, the effects and design of everything is top-notch (until Spidey came out, Spawn was the most successful translation of the actual LOOK of a comic universe and characters since “Superman”), there are some excellent action sequences, and John Leguizamo pulls off an amazing Clown, lending credence to the theory that John can play ANYTHING.
Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom MenaceYes, oh yes, I am going there, too. From the day it first came out, I liked Episode I more than most everybody else seemed to. I won’t go so far as to say it is even close in quality to any of the original trilogy (or Episode III for that matter), but at least this one felt more like a Star Wars movie than the bland and uninteresting Episode II. Yes, it has Jar-Jar Binks. But it also has Qui-Gon Jinn, the typically superb visuals, some great action, the Podrace, etc. For my money, it’s more of a wash than most fans seem to want to call it.
TitanicAnd finally, the biggest one of them all. Biggest movie of all time is one of the most hated films ever. I can’t help but think that these two facts are related somehow. If the film hadn’t made all those millions, surpassing such favorites as Star Wars and Jurassic Park, would the reaction to it be as universally negative as it seems to be right now? I don’t think so. In the end, I can only evaluate the film based upon my reaction to it the first day I saw it - which was the first day it opened, November 1997. Before the hype, before the success, before the awards, before anything, I saw the film - and judging it on its own merits, I thought it was a masterpiece. One of those rare movies based on real life that actually captured for me a feeling of what the actual event consisted of - and that feeling was only made possible through its focus on the love story, making its characters into sympathetic conduits through which the audience was able to experience the event firsthand. You can make all the arguments for how sappy the romance was, I can only say that for me, it worked, and that I felt it was crucial to the success of the film. Without that, you’re left with an incredibly accurate film historically - and a completely unsuccessful film, artistically, and probably financially.
Disagree with me? Have some more titles you feel are unjustly hated? Leave a comment, by gum!
