Underrated gems: Great movies that critics hated

I'm curious to know which movies you all think were unfairly panned by critics despite actually being absolute gems?

Is there anything more satisfying than watching the critics absolutely trash a film, only to see it spark a massive backlash and eventually settle into the status of a total classic? 👍

Right now, I can only think of: Top Gun, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Fight Club, and The Intouchables.

Predator (1987), The Thing.

Yeah, they actually got trashed by the critics, can you believe it?

I’ve gotta say, I'm actually on the same page as the critics when it comes to Fight Club. It's total garbage...

dustycanyon5 said:I’m with the critics on Fight Club. It’s garbage.

This really hits hard for anyone who actually appreciates David Fincher. 😁

What exactly is it about his work that makes you feel comfortable tossing it all into the trash like that?

Heaven's Gate

Last Action Hero, for real this time.
A movie like that would absolutely kill today, but back then, people just weren't ready for those kinds of meta jokes.

Critics over the last few decades have buried so many gems that you could basically call them the new Red Guards... IMDb ratings aren't even reliable because the admins setting the final scores still lean on critic reviews, which leads to some truly absurd situations.

The other day I was looking at the numbers and couldn't believe that Red Heat, easily one of the best and most fun movies from the 80s, is sitting at a 6.0. 🙂

Same goes for the first two Predator (1987) films.

It seems to be a recurring theme in my viewing habits that the films I actually enjoy tend to be the ones critics absolutely despise. Take movies like Deep Rising, Alien Resurrection, or Mindhunters, for instance; they were largely panned by the pundits, yet I found them to be nothing short of excellent. Is there not something inherently flawed about a consensus that consistently overlooks genuine entertainment?👍

Casey Cox2 said:Heaven's Gate

If it wasn't for that mindless dance sequence that felt like it lasted forever 😁, this movie would be right up there with The Deer Hunter...

There's just a massive list of movies that got unfairly trashed by sites like IMDb or even big players like Rotten Tomatoes...
I'd pick out two flicks from the eighties—a decade that honestly gets a bad rap more often than it deserves...

Bright Lights, Big City (1988)
Light of Day (1987)

Both were helmed by great directors like James Bridges and Paul Schrader, and if you ask me, they feature the absolute peak performances from a young, rising Michael J. Fox...
The first one was based on a bestseller by American novelist Jay McInerney, so he basically walked into a buzzsaw with American audiences before it even hit theaters. People claimed Fox didn't nail the role, which is such a nonsense critique considering it’s probably his most mature work—especially since his career eventually slowed down due to his health issues in the early nineties...
The truth is, Fox was exhausted; he was mostly filming at night because he was busy shooting the hit sitcom Family Ties during the day. But honestly, that chaos actually helped him play the part perfectly—that sleep-deprived, struggling writer losing his grip on his dreams in the big city...

As for the second one, I have no clue why the reviews were so bad. I haven't checked, but I think it might be the lowest-rated film by the great Paul Schrader. It's totally unfair. It shows the slow collapse of a rock band led by a brother (Michael J. Fox) and sister (rock legend Joan Jett). Their complicated bond, shaped by their different personalities, gets torn apart by the choice between fame and family... I don't think I've ever seen a story about rock 'n' roll written or acted with that much perfection...

The Room (2003)

American Ninja

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088708/

Alexander Jones5 said:This is a total stab in the back for any David Fincher fan! 😁

What exactly is bothering you enough to just ruthlessly toss him into the 'trash' category?

Probably because it doesn't follow the book. 🥱

Laura Palmer25 said:I was looking at this the other day and I still can't wrap my head around how Red Heat, which is easily one of the most fun movies from the 80s, only holds a 6.0 on the site. 🙂

At the end of the day, those are just crowdsourced ratings, and there isn't much anyone can do to sway the collective mood of the internet. Then you have critics, who are essentially just individuals masquerading as experts, aren't they? 🙂

Alexander Jones5 said:At the end of the day, those are just people's opinions. You can't really sway the global consensus. Then again, critics are just individuals—supposedly "experts," if you believe that. 🙂

IMDb doesn't just cook up that score based on how many times we random viewers click a button. They factor in other metrics, like what the critics are saying, and then they run everything through... something 🤔... I read about it in a dedicated thread once, but I didn't quite wrap my head around the specifics. Anyway, the rating is basically a blend of audience input, critic reviews, and whatever else the IMDb staff decides to throw in.

Alexander Jones5 said:I'm curious—which movies do you all think were unfairly panned by critics but actually turned out to be absolute gems?

There’s honestly nothing more satisfying than watching critics absolutely trample a film, only for it to trigger a massive counter-reaction where the movie eventually becomes an all-time classic. 👍

Right now, a few come to mind: >, >, >, and >.

There are plenty to choose from, but my mind goes straight to >.

In my opinion, the so-called "experts" who gave that film such low ratings should honestly just collectively retire from their profession—it’s pretty clear they weren't built for this kind of work.

Nothing can excuse those ridiculous reviews for >; I've heard every excuse in the book—people claiming they'd had enough of > by then, or whatever other nonsense... blah, blah, blah... there's just no making excuses for it.

I have no idea if the idiots who trashed the original > are still involved in film criticism today, but if they are... well, it's a dark thought.

If you want to see what those "professionals" actually gave >, you can check >, and the score is a measly: 30/100—basically a 3/10. 🤣...

No comment; any defense of those morons would just be a waste of breath.

Fantastic Fear of Everything

Here is a solid little chart showing how much critics and audiences have disagreed on movies over the last two decades.

Ethan Martin said:If you’re actually curious about what the "experts" think of Predator 1987, just head over to Metacritic—the score sitting there is a measly 30/100, which is basically a 3/10 🤣...

Honestly, I have zero words; talking to people who defend those kinds of ratings is just a total waste of breath.

No way! 😲🙂🤣 I usually just stick to rating stuff on IMDb, but it looks like that Met-a-crank hired a bunch of Meta addicts because that score is absolutely insane.

Look, I get that someone might not be a fan of Predator '87, but you’ve gotta give it a fair shake, right? A score that low just can't be real.
For me, even with Terminator Genisys, I only gave it a 5/10 because that feels like an honest rating—it was just your typical, run-of-the-mill movie. It would’ve been totally dishonest if I’d dragged it down to a 3/10 or anything lower than that.

cosmiclynx57 said:No way! 😲🙂🤣 I usually just stick to IMDb for my ratings, but it looks like Rotten Tomatoes hired a bunch of Meta addicts because that score is totally wild.

Look, maybe someone doesn't dig Predator '87, but you have to be fair. A score that low is definitely not realistic.
Personally, I wasn't a huge fan of Terminator Genisys. I gave it a 5/10, which is a fair assessment—it's an average movie, so an average score makes sense. Giving it a 3/10 or lower would just be unrealistic.

I know some folks on this forum who would give Genisys a negative score if they could. For them, it’s a pretty subpar flick. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.