Movie Reviews

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

Published

7 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

‘Greenland 2: Migration’ Review: Gerard Butler in a Post-Apocalyptic Sequel That’s Exactly What You Expect

Published

2 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

‘Greenland 2: Migration’ Review: Gerard Butler in a Post-Apocalyptic Sequel That’s Exactly What You Expect

Desperate migrants are forced to leave Greenland after a malevolent force makes their island uninhabitable. No, it’s not tomorrow’s headline about Donald Trump, but rather the sequel to Ric Roman Waugh’s 2020 post-apocalyptic survival thriller. That film starring Gerard Butler and Morena Baccarin had the misfortune of opening during the pandemic and going straight to VOD. Greenland 2: Migration (now there’s a catchy title) has the benefit of opening in theaters, but it truly feels like an unnecessary follow-up. After all, how many travails can one poor family take?

That family consists of John Garrity (Butler), whose structural engineering skills designated him a governmental candidate for survival in the wake of an interstellar comet dubbed “Clarke” wreaking worldwide destruction; his wife Allison (Baccarin); and their son Nathan (now played by Roman Griffin Davis). At the end of the first film, the clan had endured numerous life-threatening crises as they made their way to the underground bunker in Greenland where survivors will attempt to make a new life.

Greenland 2: Migration

The Bottom Line

It’s the end of the world as we know it…again.

Release date: Friday, January 9
Cast: Gerard Butler, Morena Baccarin, Roman Griffin Davis, Amber Rose Revah, Sophie Thompson, Trond Fausa Aurvag, William Abadie
Director: Ric Roman Waugh
Screenwriters: Mitchell LaFortune, Chris Sparling

Rated PG-13,
1 hour 38 minutes

Five years later, things aren’t going so well. Fragments of the comet continue to rain down on the planet, causing catastrophic destruction. The contaminated air prevents people from going outside, and resources are becoming increasingly scarce. But there are some plus sides, such as the bunker’s inhabitants still being able to dance to yacht rock.

When their safe haven in Greenland is destroyed, the Garritys, along with a few other survivors, are forced to flee. Their destination is France, where there are rumors of an oasis at the comet’s original crash site. And at the very least, the food is bound to be better.

It’s a perilous journey, but anyone who saw the first film knows what to expect. The Garritys, along with the bunker’s Dr. Casey (Amber Rose Revah), run into some very bad people, undergoing a series of life-threatening trials and tribulations.

Unfortunately, while the thriller mechanics are reasonably well orchestrated by director Waugh (Angel Has Fallen, Kandahar) in his fourth collaboration with Butler, Greenland 2: Migration feels as redundant as its title. While the first film featured a relatively original premise and some genuine emotional dynamics in its suspenseful situations, this one just feels rote. And while it’s made clear that the crisis has resulted in people resorting to cutthroat, deadly means to ensure their survival, the Garritys have it relatively easy. All John has to do is adopt a puppy-dog look, put a pleading tone in his voice, beg for his family’s help, and people inevitably comply.

To be fair, the film contains some genuinely arresting scenes, including one set in a practically submerged Liverpool and another in a dried-up English Channel. The latter provides the opportunity for a harrowing sequence in which the family is forced to cross a giant ravine on a treacherously fragile rope ladder.

Butler remains a sturdy screen presence, his Everyman quality lending gravitas to his character. Baccarin, whose character serves as the story’s moral conscience (early in the proceedings she spearheads a fight to open the shelter to more refugees despite the lack of resources, delivering a not-so-subtle message), more than matches his impact. William Abadie (of Emily in Paris) also makes a strong impression as a Frenchman who briefly takes the family in and begs them to take his daughter Camille (Nelia Valery de Costa) along with them.

Resembling the sort of B-movie fantasy adventure, with serviceable but unremarkable special effects, that used to populate multiplexes in the early ‘70s, Greenland 2: Migration is adequate January filler programming. The only thing it’s missing is dinosaurs.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: A real-life ’70s hostage drama crackles in Gus Van Sant’s ‘Dead Man’s Wire’

Published

14 hours ago

January 8, 2026

Press Room

Movie Review: A real-life ’70s hostage drama crackles in Gus Van Sant’s ‘Dead Man’s Wire’

It plays a little loose with facts but the righteous rage of “Dog Day Afternoon” is present enough in Gus Van Sant’s “Dead Man’s Wire,” a based-on-a-true-tale hostage thriller that’s as deeply 1970s as it is contemporary.

In February 1977, Tony Kiritsis walked into the Meridian Mortgage Company in downtown Indianapolis and took one of its executives, Dick Hall, hostage. Kiritsis held a sawed-off shotgun to the back of Hall’s head and draped a wire around his neck that connected to the gun. If he moved too much, he would die.

The subsequent standoff moved to Kiritsis’ apartment and eventually concluded in a live televised news conference. The whole ordeal received some renewed attention in a 2022 podcast dramatization starring Jon Hamm.

But in “Dead Man’s Wire,” starring Bill Skarsgård as Kiritsis, these events are vividly brought to life by Van Sant. It’s been seven years since Van Sant directed, following 2018’s “Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot,” and one of the prevailing takeaways of his new film is that that’s too long of a break for a filmmaker of Van Sant’s caliber.

Working from a script by Austin Kolodney, the filmmaker of “My Own Private Idaho” and “Good Will Hunting” turns “Dead Man’s Wire” into not a period-piece time capsule but a bracingly relevant drama of outrage and inequality. Tony feels aggrieved by his mortgage company over a land deal the bank, he claims, blocked. We’re never given many specifics, but at the same time, there’s little doubt in “Dead Man’s Wire” that Tony’s cause is just. His means might be desperate and abhorrent, but the movie is very definitely on his side.

That’s owed significantly to Skarsgård, who gives one of his finest and least adorned performances. While best known for films like “It,” “The Crow” and “Nosferatu,” here Skarsgård has little more than some green polyester and a very ’70s mustache to alter his looks. The straightforward, jittery intensity of his performance propels “Dead Man’s Wire.”

Yet Van Sant’s film aspires to be a larger ensemble drama, which it only partially succeeds at. Tony’s plight is far from a solitary one, as numerous threads suggest in Kolodney’s fast-paced script. First and foremost is Colman Domingo as a local DJ named Fred Temple. (If ever there were an actor suited, with a smooth baritone, to play a ’70s radio DJ, it’s Domingo.) Tony, a fan, calls Fred to air his demands. But it’s not just a media outlet for him. Fred touts himself as “the voice of the people.”

Something similar could be said of Tony, who rapidly emerges as a kind of folk hero. As much as he tortures his hostage (a very good Dacre Montgomery), he’s kind to the police officers surrounding him. And as he and Dick spend more time together, Dick emerges as a kind of victim, himself. It’s his father’s bank, and when Tony gets M.L. Hall (Al Pacino) on the phone, he sounds painfully insensitive, sooner ready to sacrifice his son than acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Pacino’s presence in “Dead Man’s Wire” is a nod to “Dog Day Afternoon,” a movie that may be far better — but, then again, that’s true of most films in comparison to Sidney Lumet’s unsurpassed 1975 classic. Still, Van Sant’s film bears some of the same rage and disillusionment with the meatgrinder of capitalism as “Dog Day.”

There’s also a telling, if not entirely successful subplot of a local TV news reporter (Myha’la) struggling against stereotypes. Even when she gets the goods on the unspooling news story, the way her producer says to “chop it up” and put it on air makes it clear: Whatever Tony is rebelling against, it’s him, not his plight, that will be served up on a prime-time plate.

It doesn’t take recent similar cases of national fascination, such as Luigi Mangione, charged with killing a healthcare executive, to see contemporary echoes of Kiritsis’ tale. The real story is more complicated and less metaphor-ready, of course, than the movie, which detracts some from the film’s gritty sense of verisimilitude. Staying closer to the truth might have produced a more dynamic movie.

But “Dead Man’s Wire” still works. In the film, Tony’s demands are $5 million and an apology. It’s clear the latter means more to him than the money. The tragedy in “Dead Man’s Wire” is just how elusive “I’m sorry” can be.

“Dead Man’s Wire,” a Row K Entertainment release, is rated R for language throughout. Running time: 105 minutes. Three stars out of four.

Movie Reviews

Film review: IS THIS THING ON? Plus January special screenings

Published

1 day ago

January 7, 2026

Press Room

Is This Thing On?

Cinematic stories of disintegrating marriages are fairly commonplace—and often depressing emotional endurance tests, besides—so it’s interesting to see co-writer/director Bradley Cooper take this variation on the theme in a fresher direction. The unhappy couple in this place is Alex and Tess Novak (Will Arnett and Laura Dern), who decide matter-of-factly to separate. Then Alex impulsively decides to get up on stage at an open-mic comedy night, and starts turning their relationship issues into material. The premise would seem to suggest an uneven balance towards Alex’s perspective, but the script is just as interested in Tess—a former Olympic-level volleyball player who retired to focus on motherhood—searching for her own purpose. And the narrative takes a provocative twist when their individual sparks of renewed happiness lead them towards something resembling an affair with their own spouse. The screenplay faces a challenge common to movies about comedians in that Alex’s material, even once he’s supposed to be actively working on it, isn’t particularly good, and Cooper isn’t particularly restrained in his own supporting performance as the comic-relief buddy character (who is called “Balls,” if that provides any hints). Yet the two lead performances are terrific—particularly Dern, who nails complex facial expressions upon her first encounter with Alex’s act—as Cooper and company turn this narrative into an exploration of how it can seem that you’ve fallen out of love with your partner, when what you’ve really fallen out of love with is the rest of your life. Available Jan. 9 in theaters. (R)

JANUARY SPECIAL SCREENINGS

KRCL’s Music Meets Movies: Dig! XX @ Brewvies: As part of a farewell to Sundance, Brewvies/KRCL’s regular Music Meets Movies series presents the extended 20th anniversary edition of the 2004 Sundance documentary about the rivalry between the Dandy Warhols and Brian Jonestown Massacre as they chart different music-biz paths. The screening takes place at Brewvies (677 S. 200 West) on Jan. 8 @ 7:30 p.m., $10 at the door or 2-for-1 with KRCL shirt. brewvies.com

Trent Harris weekend @ SLFS: Utah’s own Trent Harris has charted a singular course as an independent filmmaker, and you can catch two of his most (in)famous works at Salt Lake Film Society. In 1991’s Rubin & Ed, two mismatched souls—one an eccentric, isolated young man (Crispin Glover), the other a middle-aged financial scammer—wind up on a comedic road trip through the Utah desert; 1995’s Plan 10 from Outer Space turns Mormon theology into a crazy science-fiction parody. Get a double dose of uncut Trent Harris weirdness on Friday, Jan. 9, with Rubin & Ed at 7 p.m. and Plan 10 from Outer Space at 9 p.m. Tickets are $13.75 for each screening. slfs.org

Rob Reiner retrospective @ Brewvies Sunday Brunch: Last month’s tragic passing of actor/director Rob Reiner reminded people of his extraordinary work, particularly his first handful of features. Brewvies’ regular “Sunday Brunch” series showcases three of these films this month with This Is Spinal Tap (Jan. 11), The Princess Bride (Jan. 18) and Stand By Me (Jan. 25). All screenings are free with no reservations, on a first-come first-served basis, at noon each day. brewvies.com

David Lynch retrospective @ SLFS: It’s been a year since the passing of groundbreaking artist David Lynch, and Salt Lake Film Society’s Broadway Centre Cinemas marks the occasion with some of his greatest filmed work. In addition to theatrical features Eraserhead (Jan. 11), Inland Empire (Jan. 11), Mulholland Dr. (Jan. 12), Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (Jan. 14), Blue Velvet (Jan. 19) and Lost Highway (Jan. 19), you can experience the entirety of 2017’s Twin Peaks: The Return on the big screen in two-episode blocs Jan. 16 – 18. The programming also includes the 2016 documentary David Lynch: The Art Life. slfs.org

Death by Numbers @ Utah Film Center: Directed by Kim A. Snyder (the 2025 Sundance feature documentary The Librarians), this 2024 Oscar-nominated documentary short focuses on Sam Fuentes, survivor of a school shooting who attempts to process her experience through poetry. This special screening features a live Q&A with Terri Gilfillan and Nancy Farrar-Halden of Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, with Zoom participation by Sam Fuentes. The screening on Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 7 p.m. at Utah Film Center (375 W. 400 North) is free with registration at the website.