Reviews that didn't age well.

[ichabod]

On the original topic, Falling Down is a movie that had a handful of critics who reeeeeealy missed the point of the movie. I've been hunting for a couple of the ones that screwed up an actually thought Michael Douglas was the "hero", and I'm finding that a lot of them have been scrubbed from the internet.

When I saw the movie in the theater I sat in font of a loud, talkative guy who thought Douglas was the hero. I asked him to be quiet so I could enjoy the movie and he almost started a fight with me.

 

[payn]

When I saw the movie in the theater I sat in font of a loud, talkative guy who thought Douglas was the hero. I asked him to be quiet so I could enjoy the movie and he almost started a fight with me.

 

[Ryujin]

I think that's a bit unfair. After being successful at it once, the plot twist became Shyamalan's irrationally treasured writing tool. Whereas SoIaF/GoT isn't really based on the plot twist tactic after that first investigation of Ned's and the vindictive beheading he suffers at Joffrey's insistence. Rather, that particular twist sets the tone and raises the stakes for every other betrayal to follow. At least, that's how I see it.

Perhaps. Perhaps I'm not of a mind to be generous to a show that kept killing off my favourite characters. That's why I opted out reasonably quickly, by comparison to many.

EDIT - It could be argued that killing off major characters was just their comparable schtick.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Barry Norman? Barry White would have been fine with dancers.

Yes, that Barry, god, what a mistake to make lol.

 

[Mannahnin]

The first two sentences from Roger Ebert's review of The Thing (1982):

I don't know what Ebert was smoking in 1982, but The Thing is widely considered to be one of the better science fiction movies from the decade. I didn't find the characters' behavior implausible nor did I find their characterizations superficial. It's just a great movie. I watched it a few years ago, and it's still a great movie.

Yep. This was going to be my example. Ye gods he must have eaten or slept wrong or been otherwise badly distracted. The Thing is one of cinema's perfect movies, IMO. At least insofar as such exist. Outstanding tension, suspense, tight plotting, excellent effects and cinematography... The acting is perhaps merely serviceable but what a movie!

 

[billd91]

Perhaps. Perhaps I'm not of a mind to be generous to a show that kept killing off my favourite characters. That's why I opted out reasonably quickly, by comparison to many.

EDIT - It could be argued that killing off major characters was just their comparable schtick.

The comparative lack of plot armor is a bit of a distinction compared to other fantasy tales. Though I do kind of like the idea that a smaller subset of characters is safe (for now) and we're never sure when/if that safety will go away.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Guardian article highlighted how boring as shell Good Omens is to randos, none of those quotes were the least bit arousing. I’m with Joe’s review. I know that’s not popular but the books pretend at profundity, and are overrated by genre fans. I allow that others love, but, fine hate me, boring, not new, affected pedestrian stuff.

You should probably read all of Queenan's review before signing up to it. Do you, for example, think that Queen are a terrible band who should have been left forgotten in the 1970s?

On the original topic, Falling Down is a movie that had a handful of critics who reeeeeealy missed the point of the movie. I've been hunting for a couple of the ones that screwed up an actually thought Michael Douglas was the "hero", and I'm finding that a lot of them have been scrubbed from the internet. Specifically, Wikipedia notes that Kenneth Turan wrote a review where he though DFENS was the hero, but if you search the LA Times website for it, all you'll find on the free side of the site are a couple of follow up commentaries arguing with his original critique.

Social media and the way films are advertised and marketed more aggressively for longer periods I think has really cut down on the profound point missing that was common in the early '90s and earlier, sadly, because I always enjoyed reviews that clearly didn't get it. Also yeah I'm seeing how hard it is to dig up reviews from that period!

 

[billd91]

While not technically a review, I do think this reaction to the release of Star Wars: Attack of Clones has aged poorly.

Archived Comic #305 – Dork Tower

www.dorktower.com

 

[billd91]

Dragon magazine's 1981 review of Conan the Barbarian. The review tore the movie apart.

For those of you with a copy of the archive, it's in Dragon #63, written by Gary Gygax himself. And, perhaps most egregious of all, he compares The Sword and the Sorcerer favorably to Conan.
So, yeah, THAT didn't age well.

 

[Yora]

For some reason I came out of Episode 3 saying that it was a lot worse than the previous two.
It really is the only one of the three that is in some way good and also watchable in its entirety.
Much of the hate against Episode 1 is justified, but it does have it's great moment. Episode 2 does not.