Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
The movie Citizen Cain was originally HATED by critics,

---

Quote:

---

you also should take the movie in its context. It was attacked by one of the Original Giant Media Corporations and film media was still growing as a baby art form. Film evolved each year with each movie release in cinema, way back in old silent American, French, German film, 1910s film was still in development, some were slapstick Charlie Chaplin comedy filmography, Birth of a Nation was KKK White racist propaganda but it had good editing technique and is still studied for its skill of film making, some films were taboo and about to get banned Battleship Potemkin because of a social message. There was a Queue around the Block for Gone with the Wind and movies were expected to be 'Blockbuster' financial success. There was no Kubrick, Christoper Nolan, Steven Spielberg, no George Lucas, Ridley Scott, Coen Brothers, Guillermo del Toro, no Tim Burton, Ang Lee, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. The movies grew slowly as an entertainment medium and became genres, KingKong monster movie had come out. Lots of films just did a Dracula story or Sherlock Holmes story, then in a 1941 American drama film directed by, produced by, and starring Orson Welles.

Orson Welles, he also co-wrote the screenplay. Part of Citizen Kane you might have missed is a story about a big rich elite connected guy, we hear stories story of guys linking to Queen of England, George Soros, CNN, Fox, Rupert Murdoch, the film mirrored the real life antics of media baron 'William Randolph Hearst'. It was the first film of its kind and movie star and director as then unprecedented work of art. The Heart corporation did not have globalist reach but in many parts of America he ordered his journalists to begin slandering Welles, many degenerate critics from the roaring 20s seemed to have shilled out they hated any message and bashed the moralist ending. Citizen Kane might have some basis on reality but switches its names to fiction, but maybe they did in a ways mirror reality? it is like criticism of Bill Gates or Epstein or Prince Andrew of the time but changing the names. A giant in real-life media suddenly was criticized and parody on the screen and he paid critics to bash the film.

Hearst Tower is still there 57th Street New York, USA, it was the almost untouchable too big to fail Blackrock and Vanguard of its time. A movie hated and attacked by William Randolph Hearst an American businessman, newspaper publisher, and politician known for developing the nation's largest newspaper chain. I believe after their fall they still own big brands like Cosmopolitan, A&E Networks, some NBC Universal Product and 'Esquire Network'.

The movie makes more sense when you put its time period in context, and fake NPC bot Critics working as Stealth Marketeers for the Hearst Tower way back in 1941.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
This thread is in honor of great films that flopped at the box office or were hated by critics

I'm not sure about current films. I will probably see Oppenheimer, it has good buzz but I will watch it and know how good it is.


-Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049
-Citizen Kane
-The Iron Giant
-Dredd
-The Shining
-Barry Lyndon
-Troy
-1954 Godzillia Japan
-Metropolis Germany
-Children of Men
-Predator
-The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
-The King of Comedy
-Psycho
-Big Lebowski
-Idiocracy
-The Shawshank Redemption

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
This thread is in honor of great films that flopped at the box office or were hated by critics

I'm not sure about current films. I will probably see Oppenheimer, it has good buzz but I will watch it and know how good it is.


-Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049
-Citizen Kane
-The Iron Giant
-Dredd
-The Shining
-Barry Lyndon
-Troy
-1954 Godzillia Japan
-Metropolis Germany
-Children of Men
-Predator
-The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
-The King of Comedy
-Psycho
-Big Lebowski
-Idiocracy
-The Shawshank Redemption

---

Original Bladerunner was hated by critics? Really?
Psycho was hated by critics? By Hitchcock?
Dredd was a great film?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
This thread is in honor of great films that flopped at the box office or were hated by critics

I'm not sure about current films. I will probably see Oppenheimer, it has good buzz but I will watch it and know how good it is.

-Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049
-Citizen Kane
-The Iron Giant
-Dredd
-The Shining
-Barry Lyndon
-Troy
-1954 Godzillia Japan
-Metropolis Germany
-Children of Men
-Predator
-The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
-The King of Comedy
-Psycho
-Big Lebowski
-Idiocracy
-The Shawshank Redemption

---

Original Bladerunner was hated by critics? Really?
Psycho was hated by critics? By Hitchcock?
Dredd was a great film?

---

He's not saying that they were hated by critics. He's saying that they were hated by critics OR flopped in the box office. A notation of which falls into either or both categories would probably be helpful.

I'm a little curious about the Dredd addition myself. I haven't seen it, but it IS another remake and they usually don't have a great track record if you exclude The Thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
This thread is in honor of great films that flopped at the box office or were hated by critics

I'm not sure about current films. I will probably see Oppenheimer, it has good buzz but I will watch it and know how good it is.

-Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049
-Citizen Kane
-The Iron Giant
-Dredd
-The Shining
-Barry Lyndon
-Troy
-1954 Godzillia Japan
-Metropolis Germany
-Children of Men
-Predator
-The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
-The King of Comedy
-Psycho
-Big Lebowski
-Idiocracy
-The Shawshank Redemption

---

Original Bladerunner was hated by critics? Really?
Psycho was hated by critics? By Hitchcock?
Dredd was a great film?

---

He's not saying that they were hated by critics. He's saying that they were hated by critics OR flopped in the box office. A notation of which falls into either or both categories would probably be helpful.

I'm a little curious about the Dredd addition myself. I haven't seen it, but it IS another remake and they usually don't have a great track record if you exclude The Thing.

---

Original Bladerunner was a flop?
Psycho was a flop?

---

Quote:

---

Initial reviews of the film were mixed.[151] Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote: "There is not an abundance of subtlety or the lately familiar Hitchcock bent toward significant and colorful scenery in this obviously low-budget job". Crowther called the "slow buildups to sudden shocks" reliably melodramatic but contested Hitchcock's psychological points, reminiscent of Krafft-Ebing's studies, as less effective. While the film did not conclude satisfactorily for the critic, he commended the cast's performances as "fair".[129] British critic C. A. Lejeune was so offended that she not only walked out before the end but permanently resigned her post as film critic for The Observer.[152] Other negative reviews stated, "a blot on an honorable career", "plainly a gimmick movie", and "merely one of those television shows padded out to two hours".[151][153] The Catholic Legion of Decency gave the film a B rating, meaning "morally objectionable in part".[154]

---

Quote:

---

Remakes....
Heaven Can Wait

---

Quote:

---

Star Trek (2009)

---

Quote:

---

The Jumanji reboot seemed pretty good. Some call it Jumanji 3, after Zathura was Jumanji 2.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
This thread is in honor of great films that flopped at the box office or were hated by critics

I'm not sure about current films. I will probably see Oppenheimer, it has good buzz but I will watch it and know how good it is.

-Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049
-Citizen Kane
-The Iron Giant
-Dredd
-The Shining
-Barry Lyndon
-Troy
-1954 Godzillia Japan
-Metropolis Germany
-Children of Men
-Predator
-The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
-Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
-The King of Comedy
-Psycho
-Big Lebowski
-Idiocracy
-The Shawshank Redemption

---

Original Bladerunner was hated by critics? Really?
Psycho was hated by critics? By Hitchcock?
Dredd was a great film?

---

He's not saying that they were hated by critics. He's saying that they were hated by critics OR flopped in the box office. A notation of which falls into either or both categories would probably be helpful.

I'm a little curious about the Dredd addition myself. I haven't seen it, but it IS another remake and they usually don't have a great track record if you exclude The Thing.

---

Original Bladerunner was a flop?
Psycho was a flop?

---

Maybe? Or maybe critics AT THE TIME hated them? Or maybe Jaynez isn't correct? I don't know? I wasn't alive when half of those movies were made, and most of the rest of them I wasn't old enough to have any awareness about their box office situation and/or we didn't have box office information online to track like we do today.

EDITED TO ADD:

Yes. Blade Runner (1982) was a box office flop. https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Blade-Runner#tab=summary

$39,581,774 Worldwide on a $28 Million budget. This film lost money in the theaters.


No. Psycho (1960) was not a flop. It made $32,002,117 off of a $807,000 production budget.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Psycho-(1960)#tab=summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho_(1960_film)

However, critical reception AT THE TIME wasn't exactly high praise:

Quote:

---

Initial reviews of the film were mixed.[151] Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote: "There is not an abundance of subtlety or the lately familiar Hitchcock bent toward significant and colorful scenery in this obviously low-budget job". Crowther called the "slow buildups to sudden shocks" reliably melodramatic but contested Hitchcock's psychological points, reminiscent of Krafft-Ebing's studies, as less effective. While the film did not conclude satisfactorily for the critic, he commended the cast's performances as "fair".[129] British critic C. A. Lejeune was so offended that she not only walked out before the end but permanently resigned her post as film critic for The Observer.[152] Other negative reviews stated, "a blot on an honorable career", "plainly a gimmick movie", and "merely one of those television shows padded out to two hours".[151][153] The Catholic Legion of Decency gave the film a B rating, meaning "morally objectionable in part".[154]

---

Is your internet broke? Why am I doing your research for you?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Remakes....
Heaven Can Wait

---

Never heard of it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Star Trek (2009)

---

Entertaining. Much better than the awful first Star Trek movie. Not a remake of the original though. Same name, different story. I guess you could call it a reboot. I enjoyed it, but sadly it set a precedent for the awful Star Trek TV shows that they've churned out over the last 5 years making The Orville the best Star Trek show since Enterprise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I have forgotten. In those decades, the only good films were the ones with bad critics scores. Nobody listened to some namelsee dweeb from New York or L.A. for film advice.

---

Quote:

---

It rebooted the franchise, the story line. Star Trek Into Darkness was the remake of STII: The Wrath of Khan (which had to change name from "Revenge of Khan" when "Revenge of The Jedi" was announced - later changed to "Return of The Jedi").

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some "critics" wrote books, which were compilations of their most horrible writings.
In the mid-90s, Leonard Maltin wrote a bad review for one of the best films of the year, A Little Princess (one of the best remakes in history). It was obvious that he had never seen the film.
When he published his book, he wrote a completely opposite "review" - and made some mention that after audiences LOVED the movie, he "went back and watched it again" and changed his summary/review, to a glowing one.
But this was commonplace among "critics"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
it has some good buzz so I do not believe it will flop

---