Reviews that didn't age well.

[Ruin Explorer]

So I found this truly remarkable review of Good Omens, the novel by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, from 1990, in the New York Times.

It is worth reading for the sheer level of "Oh my god".

The Four Bikers of the Apocalypse (Published 1990)

www.nytimes.com

I particularly enjoyed the bit where he casually trashed the band Queen, and implied nobody had thought of them for years, nor should they. I also enjoyed him name-checking three films as if we'd all seen them, two of which are completely forgotten by film history. They NYT has always had a rich vein of utterly demented and very badly wrong reviews of fantasy and SF (c.f. their initial reviews of the GoT TV show), across various media, but this is a real triumph of "getting it wrong" whilst simultaneously sounding truly incredibly pleased with yourself. I do appreciate the vaguely gonzo style at least.

If you know of other reviews that have aged poorly, and I know there are many out there, please add them to this thread.

 

[MarkB]

I can't view the page without subscribing or logging in, so I'll have to take your word for it.

I do remember an early example that illustrated why you have to take reviews with a large pinch of salt, from SFX magazine back in the 90s. They posted reviews of current TV show episodes that had aired in the past month, including in this case Star Trek Deep Space Nine, and one issue also had a pull-out booklet collecting information on the entire current season's episodes, with review ratings.

There was some crossover between the booklet and the magazine, and at least a couple of the episodes that had received 4 and 5 star ratings in the magazine had been rated only 1 or 2 stars in the booklet. Closer reading revealed the booklet's writer to have a bit of a pet peeve when it came to Vic Fontaine. An excellent illustration of the subjectivity of criticism.

 

[ninjayeti]

They NYT has always had a rich vein of utterly demented and very badly wrong reviews of fantasy and SF (c.f. their initial reviews of the GoT TV show),

You could argue their poor review of GoT has aged pretty well. I just took fans seven seasons to realize that the NYT critics had been right all along....

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I can't view the page without subscribing or logging in, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Oh that's annoying! It worked straight off for me and normally I'm perpetually blocked by them for having read too many articles - indeed it's doing that for me now!

However I see I am not the only one who was blown away by it - the Guardian actually reviewed the review many years later:

Good Omens isn't funny? That's hilarious

Some early critics of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s novel said it was short of good lines. But we could spend all day citing prize zingers …

www.theguardian.com

And Gaiman commented on it:

Closer reading revealed the booklet's writer to have a bit of a pet peeve when it came to Vic Fontaine.

Relatable, honestly. I certainly was like "Ugh not this guy again!" re: Vic back in the 1990s. He was weirdly a lot more tolerable when I rewatched DS9 in like 2020 - I think more cultural distance helped. It's very different when a show is weirdly obsessed with pop culture from like 30-40 years before than when it's more like 60-70 years.

You could argue their poor review of GoT has aged pretty well. I just took fans seven seasons to realize that the NYT critics had been right all along....

Sadly not - their initial review was more like "This is a show that only dumb teenage boys will like".

 

[MGibster]

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

"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost.

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Even if you don't like the gross-out elements (which, honestly, fit in the story pretty substantially), on many other grounds it really does have to be classed as one of the greats of SF-horror.

 

[MGibster]

I particularly enjoyed the bit where he casually trashed the band Queen, and implied nobody had thought of them for years, nor should they.

It's kind of funny (perhaps it's a kind of magic), but it's like trying to remember the period between 1985 and the 1990s when Star Wars wasn't everywhere. For a lot of people, Queen was all but dead until Wayne's World came along in 1992 and introduced them to a whole new audience. It's too bad Mercury didn't live to see people appreciate Queen once more.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's kind of funny (perhaps it's a kind of magic), but it's like trying to remember the period between 1985 and the 1990s when Star Wars wasn't everywhere. For a lot of people, Queen was all but dead until Wayne's World came along in 1992 and introduced them to a whole new audience. It's too bad Mercury didn't live to see people appreciate Queen once more.

In the US, it seems so. In the UK their albums were continuing to go to #1 repeatedly through that period. In the US they often weren't even breaking the top 20.

I don't know what Ebert was smoking in 1982

Ebert and Siskel do have some interesting hot takes through the years. Pauline Kael is a very interesting and fun critic but managed to come out with some spectacularly snobbish and ridiculous opinions re: movies that are still widely regarded as classics.

Talking of film critics, I will never forget Barry White, a British film critic, being appalled by Hong Kong movie featuring a lot of kung fu, and saying "The fights seem almost like dances!", and it's like, buddy, you're a pro critic with your own TV show on one of the main channels, do you know not what a fight choreographer is?

 

[Zardnaar]

It's kind of funny (perhaps it's a kind of magic), but it's like trying to remember the period between 1985 and the 1990s when Star Wars wasn't everywhere. For a lot of people, Queen was all but dead until Wayne's World came along in 1992 and introduced them to a whole new audience. It's too bad Mercury didn't live to see people appreciate Queen once more.

It's a kind of magic was their last hurrah sorta and then Freddie died.

Wayne's World was part of that but also
1992 Freddy Tribute at wembley. Greatest Hits , I, II, III introduced Queen to younger Gen X.

I was to young to get into Queen early to mid 80s late 80s was hair metal and European techno dance type music.

U2 and Guns N Rose's kinda displaced Queen late 80s. They were still going still had their fans but weren't the it band anymore.

And that whole grunge thing in 91.

 

[Zardnaar]

DP