3 ms·

> You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever

> You can see this most clearly in the Metacritic for Tideland which is pretty positive as far as user submitted reviews go, but is one of the worst movies ever if you were to go off the critics reviews. The problem is, critics are usually right, and the audience usually isn't. This is because critics have studied film, often went to film school, and can point out just exactly how a film fails. That being said, Gilliam is the rare exception, and I do believe it is because of that ineffable quality about him and his directorial style. Maybe it's because I grew up with it, but "Time Bandits" is still one of my favorite films of all time. "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" was not really very well made, but it's still distinctly Gilliamesque, and it actually works around the death of Heath Ledger very adroitly. "Zero Theroem" was also a bit disappointing, but it's still at least different, not your usual Hollywood schlock. "Brazil" was Gilliam par excellence; I am hopeful his take on Quixote is good, but even if it isn't, it will almost definitely be interesting.

monocasa 8y ago
It was only the domestic critics who shat on it so hard. It did well both critically and financially in the international markets.
pmoriarty 8y ago
I enjoyed the beginning of Zero Theorem, but the movie tanked after the love interest and super annoying whiz kid showed up.
WorldMaker 8y ago
Also, Tideland is a weird example to use because it is so intentionally awful. It's on the list of films such as Requiem for a Dream that I'm glad I watched but somehow doubt I will ever watch a second time. A lot of the critics are right about Tideland that it is an awful, miserable experience to watch but many of those low "number" reviews also suggest seeing it or experiencing it for yourself, because that's also the art to it, the subjective experience. (Which is why review scores are useless metrics because art is subjective and averaging a bunch of subjective numbers together doesn't do anything but give you a random number. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are interesting random numbers, but they can't actually tell you if the art was good or not.)

monocasa 8y ago

It was only the domestic critics who shat on it so hard. It did well both critically and financially in the international markets.

pmoriarty 8y ago

I enjoyed the beginning of Zero Theorem, but the movie tanked after the love interest and super annoying whiz kid showed up.

WorldMaker 8y ago

Also, Tideland is a weird example to use because it is so intentionally awful. It's on the list of films such as Requiem for a Dream that I'm glad I watched but somehow doubt I will ever watch a second time. A lot of the critics are right about Tideland that it is an awful, miserable experience to watch but many of those low "number" reviews also suggest seeing it or experiencing it for yourself, because that's also the art to it, the subjective experience. (Which is why review scores are useless metrics because art is subjective and averaging a bunch of subjective numbers together doesn't do anything but give you a random number. Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are interesting random numbers, but they can't actually tell you if the art was good or not.)