Movie Reviews

10 Great Movies Panned Upon Release, From ‘The Thing’ to ‘Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me’

Published

6 months ago

June 15, 2025

10 Great Movies Panned Upon Release, From ‘The Thing’ to ‘Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me’

Nowadays, it seems almost any movie released to positive reviews gets some buzz as an “instant classic.” But a lot of classics aren’t dubbed as such upon release — quite the opposite, actually. Sometimes, the movies that go on to endure the longest and find the most devoted of followings are the ones completely dismissed upon their premiere.

Hindsight is a fickle, fickle beast, and nowhere is it more powerful than in the world of film criticism, where the instant reactions of a movie don’t always measure up to what the movie’s legacy will be years and decades down the line. There are plenty of well-reviewed, commercially successful, and even Oscar-winning films that have, from the passage of time, lost their luster in some way or another — whether it’s just because of taste changing (see: “Out of Africa”) or some broader backlash and controversy (see: “American Beauty.”)

Then, there are times where the exact opposite has happened. If a film is ahead of its time, sometimes it’s difficult for those looking at it then to see its virtues. Across film history there have been movies that have bombed at the box office, gone ignored by the Oscars, and — most dispiriting of all — gotten savaged by film critics, that have since received major reappraisals in their legacies. Sometimes, those reevaluations are led by filmmakers, others by future critics digging up an underrated gem. Regardless, it’s a phenomenon that happens often enough to remind one that a film’s reputation isn’t set in stone, but a living thing that can undergo a metamorphosis, degrading or growing with the years.

Oftentimes, these films are on the stranger or less conventional side, with singular aesthetics or styles that audiences can’t really appreciate because they’re so new — pioneering works like “The Night of the Hunter” and “Metropolis” fit into this category. Others are panned by critics who find their actual content objectionable; it’s no surprise a decent amount of these films are in the horror genre, which often stirs controversy and criticism for its violence, sex, and explicit content. Whatever the reason, these 10 films got, at best, mixed reactions from professional critics in their day — but today? They’ve secured reputations as some of the most acclaimed movies ever. Read on for 10 great films that were panned by critics upon release.

“Metropolis” (1927)

Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection

Today, Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” is regarded as one of the greatest achievements of the silent film period, and a pioneering science fiction work with themes of class warfare and human nature that would influence many works to come. But, while German expressionist work received some positive reviews, reception was mixed at best upon release. Variety wrote that “so much really artistic work was wasted on this manufactured story” in their dispatch at the time. Mordaunt Hall of The New York Times called it a “Technical marvel with feet of clay.” The most damning pan came from English science fiction writer H.G. Wells, who accused the film of “foolishness, cliché, platitude, and muddlement about mechanical progress and progress in general,” and compared it unfavorably to other science fiction works, most notably Mary Shelley’s original “Frankenstein” novel.
“The Night of the Hunter” (1955)

Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection

Based on a novel of the same name, Charles Laughton’s “The Night of the Hunter” is a stark black and white fairy tale starring Robert Mitchum in his most iconic role as a serial killer who poses as a preacher to manipulate and torment a widowed woman and her two children. At the time of its release in 1955, reviews had some nice things to say, but largely considered the film a failure. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times called the movie a “weird and intriguing endeavor,” but criticized Laughton’s direction and the allegorical elements of the film. Gene Arneel of Variety said the film was “bewitching at times,” but “loses sustained drive via too many offbeat touches that have a misty effect.”
Laughton took the failure of the film hard, and never made a movie again. However, by the ’70s — as a result of TV screenings, art house showings, and reappraisals from critics like Roger Ebert — it had been reevaluated as a masterpiece, and one of the greatest thrillers ever made.
Advertisement
“Vertigo” (1958)

Image Credit: Everett Collection / Everett Collection

Alfred Hitchcock was a director who enjoyed plenty of critical acclaim during his career as a filmmaker. But upon its release, “Vertigo” — his 1958 film starring James Stewart as a private detective with acrophobia who becomes obsessed with the woman (Kim Novak) he’s assigned to trail — wasn’t one of them. The film received some positive reviews, but most were tepid at best. Variety called the movie “only a psychological murder mystery” and criticized its length and pacing. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times gave the movie some qualified praise, but called the twist “devilishly far-fetched,” while John McCarten of The New Yorker was extremely critical, writing that Hitchcock had “never before indulged in such farfetched nonsense.” In the years following its initial release, “Vertigo” quickly rose in reputation, and now it’s commonly considered Hitchcock’s masterwork, and even topped the Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time poll.
“Bonnie and Clyde” (1967)

Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection

Arthur Penn’s “Bonnie and Clyde,” a romantic account of the notorious 1930s outlaws, was very controversial at its time for its graphic violence and perceived glorification of its subjects, and the reviews of the day were appropriately divided. Roger Ebert was highly positive, giving the film one of its major raves. Other critics were less kind. Dave Kaufman of Variety criticized Penn’s direction as uneven, while Joe Morgenstern of Newsweek called the film a “squalid shoot-’em-up,” but later reevaluated it upon a second watch. The most notorious pan, however, came from Bosley Crowther of The New York Times, who wrote in his review that the film was “a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in ‘Thoroughly Modern Millie.’” Even as the film became a financial success and eventually attracted more positive criticism, Crowther remained vehemently opposed to it, and was replaced as the Times’ chief critic a year later at least partially because of the controversy. The film would ultimately receive 10 Oscar nominations, and is nowadays credited with ushering in the New Hollywood revolution of the late ’60s and ’70s.
“The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (1975)

Image Credit: ©20thCentFox/Courtesy Everett Collection

Early reviews of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” a film version of Richard O’Brien and Jim Sharman’s cult classic British musical, were largely negative. Reviewers from Variety called it “labored,” the San Francisco Chronicle said it lacked “charm and dramatic impact,” while Newsweek wrote that it was “tasteless, plotless, and pointless.” The movie also flopped upon its initial release, but slowly picked up an audience through midnight movie screenings. That audience only grew through the years, and the film is now a beloved queer cult film, one that continues to be screened year round to this day.
“Sorcerer” (1977)

Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection

A remake of the 1953 French film “The Wages of Fear,” William Friedkin’s “Sorcerer” stars Roy Scheider, Bruno Cremer, Francisco Rabal, and Amidou as four men living in Central America who get hired to transport two trucks loaded with dynamite 200 miles to an oil well. Made under grueling conditions that escalated its budget, the film was a massive box office bomb upon release, and reviews weren’t much better. Although a few critics like Roger Ebert and Vincent Canby gave the movie decent notices, many other reviewers unfavorably compared it to “The Wages of Fear” and criticized Friedkin for perceived poor craftsmanship. In a review for The Village Voice, Andrew Sarris went as far as to call it “a visual and aural textbook on everything that is wrong with current movies.” In the years since, however, the film has largely been reevaluated, and is regularly seen as one of Friedkin’s best projects and one of the best movies of the ’70s.
“The Shining” (1980)

Image Credit: ©Warner Bros/Courtesy Everett Collection

At the time of its release, Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” was largely received very negatively by both audiences (earning a “C+” Cinemascore) and critics. Many reviewers criticized the film’s slow pacing, its deviations from the original Stephen King novel it was based upon, and its perceived lack of emotional impact. Janet Maslin of the New York Times said “even the film’s most startling horrific images seem overbearing and perhaps even irrelevant,” while Pauline Kael wrote “Again and again, the movie leads us to expect something – almost promises it – and then disappoints us.” Both Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were negative in their reviews of the film, with Siskel calling it a “a crashing disappointment” that “contains effectively no thrills” while Ebert wrote in his review that it was impossible to connect with the film’s characters. At the first Golden Raspberry Awards, Kubrick was nominated for Worst Director. In the long run, though, “The Shining” was criticially appraised as one of the best horror films ever — and, in contrast to what critics said at the time, one of the absolute scariest.
“Possession” (1981)

Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection

Another horror film that critics didn’t know what to make of upon its release, “Possession” — Andrzej Żuławski’s oblique film about the deteriorating marriage between a spy (Sam Neill) and his unraveling wife (Isabelle Adjani) — was received with lukewarm response upon its U.S. release, in part due to edits made from the original cut. Harry Haun of the New York Daily News wrote that the film was “outlandishly unhinged” and a “mess,” while Leonard Maltin called it a “confusing drama of murder, horror, intrigue.” In his review, New York Times critic Vincent Canby wrote that “New York audiences might be reduced to helpless laughter” by the film. Thanks to the original cut coming to America, and some critical appraisal, the fiendish marital drama is now largely regarded today as one of the best horror movies ever made.
“The Thing” (1982)

Image Credit: ©Universal/Courtesy Everett Collection

A commercial failure upon release, John Carpenter’s “The Thing” was also widely negatively received by critics, with many responding poorly to the film’s cynical, anti-authoritarian themes. In a brutal pan, Vincent Canby referred to the film as a “foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other,” calling it a “moron movie” and “instant junk.” Other critics such as Linda Gross wrote that the film was “bereft, despairing, and nihilistic,” claiming that the tone prevented the deaths of the characters from having any impact. The visual effects were largely praised, but many critics also had a problem with their gore and excess. Home video helped the movie pick up a cult audience, and by the ’90s, the film had been reevaluated as a classic.
“Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me” (1992)

Image Credit: ©New Line Cinema/Courtesy Everett Collection

Premiering a year after the original TV run of “Twin Peaks” endedthe story of Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) on a massive cliffhanger, “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me” was greeted with revulsion from both fans and critics, at least partially because it was instead a prequel about the final days of haunted prom queen Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee). At its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, Lynch recalled the film getting booed by audiences, while critics referred to the film as “shockingly bad” (Roger Ebert) and “pathologically unpleasant” (Janet Maslin). Reviews upon its American release were just as negative: Vincent Canby wrote “It’s not the worst movie ever made; it just seems to be” while Owen Gleiberman called it “a true folly” in which “almost nothing adds up.”
Through the ’90s and 2000s, as Lynch repaired his reputation through masterpieces like “Mulholland Drive” and “Twin Peaks” was evaluated as a canonical, defining TV show, more defenders of “Fire Walk With Me” have emerged, with critics praising Lee’s performance as Laura Palmer and the film’s unvarnished depiction of abuse. By 2017, when the sequel series to “Twin Peaks” “The Return” premiered to massive critical acclaim, the film’s reputation had been restored completely, and it’s now viewed as a classic.

Click to comment

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025)

Published

8 hours ago

December 16, 2025

Press Room

Avatar: Fire and Ash, 2025.

Directed by James Cameron.
Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Oona Chaplin, Kate Winslet, Cliff Curtis, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Edie Falco, Brendan Cowell, Jemaine Clement, Giovanni Ribisi, David Thewlis, Britain Dalton, Jack Champion, Trinity Jo-Li Bliss, Jamie Flatters, Bailey Bass, Filip Geljo, Duane Evans Jr., Matt Gerald, Dileep Rao, Daniel Lough, Kevin Dorman, Keston John, Alicia Vela-Bailey, and Johnny Alexander.

SYNOPSIS:

Jake and Neytiri’s family grapples with grief after Neteyam’s death, encountering a new, aggressive Na’vi tribe, the Ash People, who are led by the fiery Varang, as the conflict on Pandora escalates and a new moral focus emerges.

At one point during one of the seemingly endless circular encounters in Avatar: Fire and Ash, (especially if director James Cameron sticks to his plans of making five films in this franchise) former soldier turned blue family man (or family Na’vi?) and protector Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) tells his still-in-pursuit-commander-nemesis-transferred-to-a-Na’vi-body Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) that the world of Pandora runs deeper than he or anyone imagines, and to open his eyes. It’s part of a plot point in which Jake encourages the villainous Quaritch to change his ways.

More fascinatingly, it comes across as a plea of trust from James Cameron (once again writing the screenplay alongside Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) that there is still much untapped lore and stories to tell in this world. If this repetitive The Way of Water retread is anything to go by, more isn’t justified. Even taken as a spectacle, the unmatched and undeniably stunning visuals (not to mention the most expressive motion capture ever put to screen, movie or video game), that aspect is less impactful, being only two years removed from the last installment rather than a decade, which is not to be confused with less impressive. Fortunately for the film and its gargantuan 3+ hour running time, James Cameron still has enough razzle-dazzle to scoot by here on unparalleled marvel alone, even if the narrative and character expansions are bare-bones.

That’s also what makes it disappointing that this third entry, while introducing a new group dubbed the Ash People led by the strikingly conceptualized Varang (Oona Chaplin) – no one creates scenery-chewing, magnetic, and badass-looking villains quite like James Cameron – and their plight with feeling left behind, rebelling against Pandora religion, Avatar: Fire and Ash is stuck in a cycle of Jake endangering his family (and, by extension, everyone around them) with Quaritch hunting him down for vengeance but this time more fixated on his human son living among them, Spider (Jack Champion) who undergoes a physical transformation that makes him a valuable experiment and, for better or worse, the most important living being in this world. Even the corrupt and greedy marine biologists are back hunting the same godlike sea creatures, leading to what essentially feels like a restaging, if slightly different, riff on the climactic action beat that culminated in last time around.

Worse, whereas The Way of Water had a tighter, more graceful flow from storytelling to spectacle, with sequences extended and drawn out in rapturously entertaining ways, the pacing here is clunkier and frustrating, as every time these characters collide and fight, the story resets and doesn’t necessarily progress. For as much exciting action as there is here, the film also frustratingly starts and stops too much. The last thing I ever expected to type about Avatar: Fire and Ash is that, for all the entrancing technical wizardry on display, fantastical world immersion, and imaginative character designs (complete with occasional macho and corny dialogue that fits, namely since the presentation is in a high frame rate consistently playing like the world’s most expensive gaming cut scene), is often dull.

Yes, everything here, from a special-effects standpoint, is painstakingly crafted, with compelling characters that James Cameron clearly loves (something that shows and allows us to take the story seriously). Staggeringly epic action sequences are worth singling out as in a tier of its own (it’s also a modern movie free from the generally garish and washed-out look of others in this generation), but it’s all in service of a film that is not aware of its strengths, but instead committed to not going anywhere. There are a couple of important details here that one could tell someone before they watch the inevitable Avatar 4, and they will be caught up without needing to watch this. If Avatar: The Way of Water was filler (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), then Avatar: Fire and Ash is nothing. And that’s something that hurts to say.

Without spoiling too much, the single best scene in the entire film has nothing to do with epic-scale warring, but a smoldering courting from Quaritch for Varang and her army of Ash People to join forces with his group. In a film that’s over three hours, it would also have been welcome to focus more on the Ash People, their past, and their current inner workings alongside their perception of Pandora. It’s not a shock that James Cameron can invest viewers into a villain without doing so, but the alternative of watching Jake grapple with militarizing the Na’vi and insisting everyone learn how to use “sky people” firearms while coming to terms with whether or not he can actually protect his family isn’t as engaging; the latter half comes across as déjà vu.

The presence of Spider amplifies the target on everyone’s backs, with Jake convinced the boy needs to return to his world. His significant other Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), with rage building inside her stemming from the family losing a child in the climax of the previous film, encourages a more aggressive approach and is ready to kill Spider if him being a part of the family threatens their remaining children (with one of them once again a 14-year-old motion captured by Sigourney Weaver, which is not as effective a voice performance this time as there are scenes of loud agony and pain where she sounds her age). The children also get to continue their plot arcs, with similarly slim narrative progression.

Not without glimpses of movie-magic charm and emotional moments would one dare say James Cameron is losing his touch. However, Avatar: Fire and Ash is all the proof anyone needs to question whether five of these are required, as it’s beginning to look more and more as if the world and characters aren’t as rich as the filmmaker believes they are. It’s another action-packed technical marvel with sincere, endearing characters, but the cycling nature of those elements is starting to wear thin and yield diminishing returns.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★

Robert Kojder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

Movie Reviews

Movie Review | Sentimental Value

Published

20 hours ago

December 15, 2025

Press Room

Sentimental Value (Photo – Neon)

Full of clear northern light and personal crisis, Sentimental Value felt almost like a throwback film for me. It explores emotions not as an adjunct to the main, action-driven plot but as the very subject of the movie itself.

Sentimental Value
Directed by Joachim Trier – 2025
Reviewed by Garrett Rowlan

The film stars Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav Borg, a 70-year-old director who returns to Oslo to stir up interest in a film he wants to make, while health and financing in an era dominated by bean counters still allow it. He hopes to film at the family house and cast his daughter Nora, a renowned stage actress in her own right, as the lead. However, Nora struggles with intense stage fright and other personal issues. She rejects the role, disdaining the father who abandoned the family when he left her and her sister Agnes as children. In response, Gustav lures a “name” American actress, Rachel Keys (Elle Fanning), to play the part.

Sentimental Value, written by director Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt, delves into sibling dynamics, the healing power of art, and how family trauma can be passed down through generations. Yet the film also has moments of sly humor, such as when the often oblivious Gustav gives his nine-year-old grandson a birthday DVD copy of Gaspar Noé’s dreaded Irreversible, something intense and highly inappropriate.

For me, the film harkens back to the works of Ingmar Bergman. The three sisters (with Elle Fanning playing a kind of surrogate sister) reminded me of the three siblings in Bergman’s 1972 Cries and Whispers. In another sequence, the shot composition of Gustav and his two daughters, their faces blending, recalls the iconic fusion of Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson’s faces in Persona.

It’s the acting that truly carries the film. Special mention goes to Renate Reinsve, who portrays the troubled yet talented Nora, and Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav, an actor unafraid to take on unlikable characters (I still remember him shooting a dog in the original Insomnia). In both cases, the subtle play of emotions—especially when those emotions are constrained—across the actors’ faces is a joy to watch. Elle Fanning and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (who plays Agnes, the other sister with her own set of issues) are both excellent.

It’s hardly a Christmas movie, but more deeply, it’s a winter film, full of emotions set in a cold climate.

> Playing at Landmark Pasadena Playhouse, Laemmle Glendale, and AMC The Americana at Brand 18.

Movie Reviews

No More Time – Review | Pandemic Indie Thriller | Heaven of Horror

Published

1 day ago

December 15, 2025

Press Room

No More Time – Review | Pandemic Indie Thriller | Heaven of Horror

Where is the dog?

You can call me one-track-minded or say that I focus on the wrong things, but do not include an element that I am then expected to forget. Especially if that “element” is an animal – and a dog, even.

In No More Time, we meet a couple, and it takes quite some time before we suddenly see that they have a dog with them. It appears in a scene suddenly, because their sweet little dog has a purpose: A “meet-cute” with a girl who wants to pet their dog.

After that, the dog is rarely in the movie or mentioned. Sure, we see it in the background once or twice, but when something strange (or noisy) happens, it’s never around. This completely ruins the illusion for me. Part of the brilliance of having an animal with you during an apocalyptic event is that it can help you.

And yet, in No More Time, this is never truly utilized. It feels like a strange afterthought for that one scene with the girl to work, but as a dog lover, I am now invested in the dog. Not unlike in I Am Legend or Darryl’s dog in The Walking Dead. As such, this completely ruined the overall experience for me.

If it were just me, I could (sort of) live with it. But there’s a reason why an entire website is named after people demanding to know whether the dog dies, before they’ll decide if they’ll watch a movie.