



Everyone has at least one movie (usually more) that is a guilty pleasure. We watch these atrocities (which in my case are



Some films, however, get completely panned by the film critic community despite that fact that they are actually pretty good. One well known example is



A few other movies that have received similar treatment and critical revisionist history were The Thing,









While you will have trouble finding a critic today that will say something negative about any of those films, they were out in full force at the time the movies were initially released. Unfortunately, many of those negative reviews don't exist anymore. Maybe it was due to a lack of archiving, unavailable bandwidth/storage, or embarrassment by a group of people that really hates to be wrong.



But lo and behold, the magic of the internet machine has completely changed the game. Sites like



Listed below is RamblingBeachCat.com's Top 10 great movies that got terrible reviews. Before you dive into this treasure chest of unappreciated cinematic greatness, here is some of the criteria that went into it.



--To be considered a movie that received generally "bad reviews," we will be using the RottenTomatoes.com 'Tomatometer.' The film must have at least 25 total reviews and a score under 50%.



--Most of these films are from the last 15 years (with only one of them being made before the year 2000). This is due to the fact that those reviews are still archived and the general critical response can still be analyzed/mercilessly mocked.



Interestingly, many of the bad reviews listed were still not saved in their entirety...which was surely done just to save bandwidth space on the reviewer's website and not out of embarrassment. Fortunately in these cases, Rottentomatoes.com still archived their reactions and a blurb from the original articles



--There will surely be some movies that you see on this list and think "No, that movie really does, in fact, completely suck." There will also probably be some that I missed. Please feel free to tell me why in the comments below. Even though I'm always right, you may have a good point worth debating (or a great movie for me to check out).



And now, onto the list. Let's get things started with some 90's basketball action...





Everyone has at least one movie (usually more) that is a guilty pleasure. We watch these atrocities (which in my case are Broken Arrow and A Night at the Roxbury ) while fully aware of how badly both the majority of film critics and the general audience considers them to be. But for some reason, we still love these movies in spite of our better cinematic judgement.Some films, however, get completely panned by the film critic community despite that fact that they are actually pretty good. One well known example is The Night of the Hunter (1955), which is now considered a classic and receives rave reviews . When it was released, however, the film received an incredibly negative response A few other movies that have received similar treatment and critical revisionist history were Blade Runner Scrooged , and even the original Godzilla While you will have trouble finding a critic today that will say something negative about any of those films, they were out in full force at the time the movies were initially released. Unfortunately, many of those negative reviews don't exist anymore. Maybe it was due to a lack of archiving, unavailable bandwidth/storage, or embarrassment by a group of people that really hates to be wrong.But lo and behold, the magic of the internet machine has completely changed the game. Sites like RottenTomateos and MetaCritic help us to not only to get an idea of what the overall critical reaction to a movie is, but also keep a historical record of poor critical reviews that may not hold up over time. (They even get the really good ones, like this glowing review that Roger Ebert gave to 'Speed 2: Cruise Control' because he was in a good mood that evening).Listed below is RamblingBeachCat.com's Top 10 great movies that got terrible reviews. Before you dive into this treasure chest of unappreciated cinematic greatness, here is some of the criteria that went into it.--To be considered a movie that received generally "bad reviews," we will be using the RottenTomatoes.com 'Tomatometer.' The film must have at least 25 total reviews and a score under 50%.--Most of these films are from the last 15 years (with only one of them being made before the year 2000). This is due to the fact that those reviews are still archived and the general critical response can still be analyzed/mercilessly mocked.Interestingly, many of the bad reviews listed were still not saved in their entirety...which was surely done just to save bandwidth space on the reviewer's website and not out of embarrassment. Fortunately in these cases, Rottentomatoes.com still archived their reactions and a blurb from the original articles--There will surely be some movies that you see on this list and think "No, that movie really does, in fact, completely suck." There will also probably be some that I missed. Please feel free to tell me why in the comments below. Even though I'm always right, you may have a good point worth debating (or a great movie for me to check out).And now, onto the list. Let's get things started with some 90's basketball action...

10. Blue Chips (1994)













Plot





Nick Nolte plays a Bobby Knight-esque coach named Pete Bell. His (fictional) Western University basketball team was at one time an elite program, but has fallen on hard times due to his insistence on doing things the right way (i.e. running a clean program and not cheating to get recruits). Bell must eventually make a choice between maintaining his standard of ethics or his career...and deal with the fallout.



Tomato Meter Rating





37% (17 rotten reviews out of 27) (17 rotten reviews out of 27)





Why it's great





Aside from the excellently choreographed basketball scenes, Nolte delivers a powerful performance as an old school coach who feels that the game is passing him by. It's clear that he truly loves and cares about his players, but his desire to win and still do things the right way has him questioning everything about his job (on which his sense of self worth hinges to an unhealthy degree).



His interaction with each character feels incredibly true, even when his own personal reactions swing wildly from compassion to desperation and pure contempt.





Other great performances include J.T. Walsh in his type casted "sleaze bag" role of a dirty, overbearing booster, which he plays to perfection. Mary McDonnell (as Belle's estranged wife) occasionally comes across a bit too strong as his moral compass, but still does a great job, as well.





Shaquille O'Neal's is in there too, but don't worry; he doesn't say much.





Why the critics hated it





"Much of the movie's problem, I suspect, comes from the vast use of non-professionals in dramatic roles, whose charismatic abilities should be restricted to the basketball court and not the dramatic arena."





...except that the athletes really didn't do much acting, and when they did, it kind of worked. They seemed bewildered and out of their element compared to the excellent cast surrounding them.





"If it wasn't for some exciting roundball action, Shaquille O'Neal's hulking-dunking presence, and a wonderfully guttural performance from coach Nick Nolte, you'd slither off the bench asleep."





You mean that if you took out three of the main components that made the movie great (especially Nick Nolte's performance), it wouldn't be great anymore? Nice analysis, numbnuts.





"The filmmakers don't get the ball into the Shaq-man's hands enough -- both literally and figuratively -- to make this personable giant's screen debut memorable."





Seriously? You're disappointed because Shaq didn't act more? Then let me recommend his starring role in the movie Steel for your viewing pleasure, Mr. Hinson. It's terrible, but it also has exactly what you're asking for.





Movie Trailer



