10 Misplaced Movie Reviews

Siskel (left) & Ebert (right). Two of the most famous film critics of our time, but not even they escaped a spot on this list. 

One of my guilty pleasures as of late has been to pour through the critics’ review archives on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s very well preserved; just type in any movie you can think of and they’ll likely link you to a number of critics – some notable, some not – who reviewed the movie, including many reviews from the film’s original release. 

And as some other blogs and websites have pointed out, there is a seemingly endless supply of critics who screwed the pooch on some incredible films. Below are 10 of my favorite misfires, collected from various places around the web, and five I found on my own while browsing Rotten Tomatoes. Below each film you’ll find the TOMATOMETER, which is an average score of a film compiled from a group of 40 (or more) critics. A movie is “certified fresh” if it has a score above 70% and listed as “rotten” if below that threshold.

From the Net:

Empire Strikes Back (1980)

TOMATOMETER: 97%

Widely regarded as the best of the original Star Wars trilogy, famed New York Times film critic Vincent Canby didn’t agree, and io9 took note:

“Confession: When I went to see The Empire Strikes Back I found myself glancing at my watch. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about The Empire Strikes Back that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. The Empire Strikes Back is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.”

But Canby wasn’t done skewering Empire, continuing with:

“The Empire Strikes Back is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly.”

His overall review, but primarily these two quotes, leaves me scratching my head in confusion. How does Canby rationalize that Empire, especially compared with the lighthearted nature of the first film, is a “silly” entry in the Star Wars series? If anything, as Roger Ebert noted, it’s the most mature in the franchise.

Shawshank Redemption (1994)

TOMATOMETER: 90%

Director Frank Darabont might consider Shawshank his magnum opus, but in 1994, Desson Howe of the Washington Post found it a rather perfunctory, rambling mess. TruTV took note of Howe’s peculiar review, in which he said:

“...the movie seems to last about half a life sentence...becomes incarcerated in its own labyrinthine sentimentality...And leave it to pandering, first-time director Frank Darabont to ensure no audience member leaves this film unsure of the ending. Heaven forbid a movie should end with a smidgen of mystery!"

Psycho (1960)

TOMATOMETER: 99%

In 1960, director Alfred Hitchcock was well-established as a mastermind of the horror genre, with a plethora of terrifying films to his name, including classics like Dial M For Murder (1954), Rear Window (1954), and Vertigo (1958). It’s a surprise, really, to read what Time Magazine had to say about the movie in its review, as noted by BuzzFeed: 

“…the experienced Hitchcock fan might reasonably expect the unreasonable… What is offered instead is merely gruesome. Little should be said of the plot…Director Hitchcock bears down too heavily in this one, and the delicate illusion of reality… becomes, instead, a spectacle of stomach-churning horror.”

I’m pretty sure that “stomach-churning horror” was exactly what Hitchcock was going for.

The Godfather, Part II (1974)

TOMATOMETER: 98%

Well look who it is again – Vincent Canby! Similar to how Empire was acknowledged as a great movie, both in its own time and in retrospect, Francis Ford Coppola’s sequel to his hit film, The Godfather (1971), was not well received (surprise!) by Mr. Canby. This one comes from BuzzFeed also, with Canby saying:

“The only remarkable thing about Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part II is the insistent manner in which it recalls how much better his original film was. Even if Part II were a lot more cohesive, revealing and exciting than it is, it probably would have run the risk of appearing to be the self-parody it now seems…Its insights are fairly lame at this point.”

If you’re interested in reading more of Canby’s reviews, which seemingly involve a theme of knocking great movies, you can read his criticisms of classics like Rocky, Jaws, The Return of the Jedi, Chinatown, The Natural, The Exorcist, and even A Christmas Story.

Ghostbusters (1984)

TOMATOMETER: 94%

Yes, even Ghostbusters got a bad review. How can a movie that gave us such iconic characters as the stay puft marshmallow man and a great song to boot, get a bad review? Well, as TruTV found, not everyone in New York found Bill Murray all that funny:

"Mr. Murray would be even more welcome if his talents were used in the service of something genuinely witty and coherent, rather than as an end in themselves."

That’s from film critic Janet Maslin, who also wrote for the New York Times. Which begs the question, why is everyone so uptight at the NYT?

Now, for my five, which I picked from the archives at Rotten Tomatoes. 

Chasing Amy (1997)

TOMATOMETER: 90%

If I were a film critic, two sure-fire things I'd consider in my review would be whether the movie is appropriate for its audience and how to keep its message in the proper perspective. Meaning, I’m not going to Rush Hour 2 expecting to see No Country For Old Men. It’s all about context, which is something that Common Sense Media seemed to completely whiff on when reviewing Kevin Smith’s classic about love, friendship, and heartbreak.

For some inexplicable reason, the reviewers at Common Sense Media really stuck it to Chasing Amy in the fact that it was nearly 10 years old when they reviewed it in 2005, saying that it’s a:

“Dated romantic comedy wrong for all kids. Although smart for its time, the movie has not aged particularly well, and subsequent films from other directors have dealt more intelligently with the often blurry boundaries of sexual identity. This film deals with adult themes that should definitely be taken into consideration before allowing kids to view it.”

Along with missing the glaring fact that the movie is rated R, or in other words, not approved for children under 17, why are they so concerned with ensuring that an adult drama is appropriate for children? Secondly, for a movie that was made in the mid-1990s, excluding the clothing, hairstyles, and technology that’s obviously dated, there's no expiration date on the human condition. 

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

TOMATOMETER: 94%

Continuing with the theme of examining a movie in its proper context, I really was caught off guard by the Northwest-Herald’s review of Raiders. From critic Jeffrey Westhoff:

“My big complaint: Take Indiana Jones out of the story, and nothing changes. The Nazis still find the Ark, still open it, still die.”

First off, as many pointed out in the comments, did Westhoff miss one of the biggest plot turns in the film? Because without Indiana Jones, they would’ve never found the Ark. And secondly, the movie isn’t about that story, but rather what happened when the Nazis finally got the Ark, but the adventure Jones has when searching for it. That’s the equivalent of me saying that in Saving Private Ryan, although Tom Hank's character led a surge against the Nazis in World War II, they still ultimately lost the war - that's not what the movie's about.

Die Hard (1988)

TOMATOMETER: 94%

This one hurts, because it comes from one the most beloved and respected film critics of our time, Roger Ebert. And despite my own admiration for Ebert, who I usually see eye-to-eye with on movies, he lost me with his review of the first Die Hard film:

“On a technical level, there's a lot to be said for Die Hard. It's when we get to some of the unnecessary adornments of the script that the movie shoots itself in the foot…the filmmakers introduce a gratuitous and unnecessary additional character: the deputy police chief who doubts that the guy on the other end of the radio is really a New York cop at all…Inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot and prevent it from working.”

Strangely, this was one of the rare times I agreed with his longtime partner, Gene Siskel, who gave the film a very positive review. Ironically, Ebert went on to give the next three installments in the series, Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990), Die Hard: With aVengeance (1995), and Live Free Or Die Hard (2007), rousing reviews.

Back to the Future (1985)

TOMATOMETER: 97%

Because I’m equally baffled by both of the two negative reviews for BTTF on Rotten Tomatoes, I’ll include each of them here. The first comes from John Hartl of Film.com:

“So busy being clever that it trips over its own ingenuity.”

And the second comes from Asheville, N. C.’s Mountain Xpress film critic, Ken Hanke:

“Too cute, too clever, too damn smug.”

It’s noteworthy that both of these reviews, like nearly all of the negative reviews listed here, came long after the movie’s initial release, with Hartl’s review being published in 2000 and Hanke’s in 2002. I can understand less-than-excited reviews for BTTF Part 2 and Part 3, but these reviews make me wonder if they were even watching the same movie that most people grew up loving. 

Pulp Fiction (1994)

TOMATOMETER: 95%

It was near impossible to find a negative review of this movie from 1994, when it was originally released. But just like the trend that this article has shown, there’s been no shortage of bad reviews for Pulp Fiction in recent years. In sifting through the handful or so of bad reviews of this modern classic, one really stuck out – The New Republic’s Stanley Kauffman. He pretty much butchered the movie, but not for reasons necessarily attributed to the film itself:

“…However, what's most bothersome about Pulp Fiction is its success. This is not to be mean-spirited about Tarantino himself; may he harvest all the available millions. But the way that this picture has been so widely ravened up and drooled over verges on the disgusting. Pulp Fiction nourishes, abets, cultural slumming.”

This review comes off like less of a critical look at the story, plot, and acting of Pulp Fiction, and instead reads like some sort of misplaced grudge against director Quentin Tarantino and the film's resounding success. After all, it’s been noted as having a major influence on many films in the 1990s, and it received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture (although ultimately losing to Forrest Gump). This review perfectly sums up my idea of the wrong way to review a movie – you don’t take into account outside influences and personal hang-ups – you review the movie based on its merits, which include its direction, acting, themes, and overall message – not its or the director’s popularity.

BONUS

Little Darlings (1980)

Astonishingly, there were no negative reviews of this film to be found. Not a one. Honest.